diff options
Diffstat (limited to '49114-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 49114-0.txt | 1462 |
1 files changed, 1462 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/49114-0.txt b/49114-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a26dd79 --- /dev/null +++ b/49114-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1462 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and +Articles of the Church of England, by William J. Irons + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and Articles of the Church of England + A letter to the Lord Bishop of London + + +Author: William J. Irons + + + +Release Date: June 5, 2015 [eBook #49114] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE +PRAYER-BOOK AND ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND*** + + +Transcribed from the 1863 Rivingtons edition by David Price, email +ccx074@pglaf.org + + + + + + PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE PRAYER-BOOK AND + ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. + + + A LETTER + TO THE + LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, + ON + PROFESSOR STANLEY’S VIEWS + OF + CLERICAL AND UNIVERSITY “SUBSCRIPTION.” + + * * * * * + + BY + WILLIAM J. IRONS, D.D. + PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S, AND INCUMBENT OF BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX. + + * * * * * + + LONDON: + THEODORE WRIGHT, 188, STRAND; + RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; AND PARKERS, 377, STRAND, AND OXFORD. + 1863. + + * * * * * + + LONDON: + SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET, + COVENT GARDEN. + + * * * * * + + + + +A LETTER, +ETC. + + + BROMPTON, _Whitsuntide_, 1863. + +MY DEAR LORD, + +IF twenty years ago, soon after a few of the clergy had asserted their +“claim to hold all Roman doctrine,” {3} a proposal had been made to +abolish Subscription to the English Formularies, it would surely have +been thought to indicate very grave disloyalty to our Church. And now, +when others have asserted the right to unfettered “free-thinking” within +her pale, and endeavoured to vindicate that right in our Courts of Law, +can we help being struck at the intrepidity of the demand to sweep away +at once the sober restraints of orthodoxy to which Churchmen have been so +long accustomed? + +Your Lordship has been openly addressed, as we are all aware, in behalf +of this “Relaxation of Subscription;” but as our Bishop—so deeply +interested in the welfare of the whole Church—I venture to believe that +you will do justice to opposite views, and in offering them to your +attention, I rely on that broad-minded charity to various schools among +us, which has marked your Lordship’s administration of this diocese. + + + +Dr. Stanley’s position. {4a} + + +The eloquent advocacy of Dr. STANLEY on the other side is, indeed, no +slight advantage to the cause of those who would now supersede the +Prayer-book by “modern thought.” In urging the surrender of all +Subscription to our Formularies, he can speak, in his position, with a +_prestige_ and power to which I can have no claim. His testimony as to +the tone of mind now prevailing in Oxford, or among the younger clergy of +the last few years, it is not for me to impeach,—I must leave that to the +Bishop of Oxford; {4b} but certain of his deductions from very limited +facts, I may be permitted, I think, to call in question at once. As one +who, without belonging to any party, has had the happiness of much +friendship with all—as a Churchman, I may add, who has kept steadily to +the old Prayer-book from very early childhood till now—I have had large +opportunities for many years of knowing the heart and mind of my brethren +the clergy, ten thousand of whom not long since responded to an appeal +which I and others had been invited to make to them; and I confess that I +am amazed at Dr. STANLEY’S supposition that Subscription is regarded as a +“grievance” (p. 23), a “perjury” (p. 24), an “absurdity” (p. 20), or an +“imposition” (p. 7) by any considerable number among us. Allowing for +some irritable minds here and there, the generality have seemed to me to +have the deepest appreciation of the “quietness and confidence” which +have been, in the main, secured for our Church by the present laws, which +simply bind the clergy to say that they _believe_ the Prayers which they +use, and the Articles which they adopt as their “standard.” + +Thus much I have felt compelled to say at the outset, because the +opposers of Subscription assume that their clients are so numerous that +to refuse their demands may be to endanger the Church herself. True, +they generously disclaim all designs “to revolutionize the Church of +England” (p. 6 of _The Letter_). This is well; but I am far more assured +by the belief that their power, as yet, is not so formidable as their +intentions. And with this preface, I would pass to the subject-matter of +Dr. STANLEY’S _Letter_. + + + + +Scheme of Comprehension. + + +The point of departure taken for the discussion is the REVOLUTION of +1688, and the attempt then made at what was called “Comprehension.” It +is even suggested that the “High Churchmen” of those days agreed that the +“very being of our Church was concerned” in abolishing “Subscription,” +and substituting for it a general declaration of conformity. The several +attempts at “Comprehension” almost seem to be referred to as +substantially one, and are recommended to us as if originated by enlarged +and exemplary views of the Church’s calling. But, equivocations apart, +(which would be wholly unworthy here), will this be gravely maintained? +Did the “Comprehension Scheme” of 1674 receive no opposition from the +Church? or will not every one own that it was frustrated by the +resistance of the Bishops? Would Dr. STANLEY really say that the Scheme +(not “Act”) of 1689 was founded on a philosophy which would now command +assent? I suppose that he must say it, or how could he refer to it as +our rebuke and pattern? Yet it was, as he will not deny, a political +effort directed against the Roman Catholics; and the reluctance of the +clergy (even under all the pressure of the occasion) to fraternize with +Nonconformists, defeated the measure,—some of the principal Commissioners +who had to manage it, such as the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, the +Prolocutor of Convocation, and the Bishop of Rochester, openly +withdrawing from it. I really can hardly conceive of a more unfortunate +appeal to history. To represent the clergy of all parties, and +especially “High Churchmen” (p. 33), as approving, on liberal principles, +of the proposed “Comprehension,” and covertly to suggest that +“Subscription” was alien from the spirit of those enlightened days, is, +to speak gently of it, quite “unhistorical”—(if I may so apply a now +familiar term); nor can I forbear to point to the fact that even +Dissenters were required, by the Act of 1 William and Mary, cap. 18, to +“subscribe” a declaration that “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New +Testament were given by Divine Inspiration.” The parallel breaks down at +every point. Of course, if any one really thinks that England is now in +great danger (as in Sancroft’s days) from the Popish encroachments of the +CROWN, such an one is free to argue as Dr. STANLEY does. If any suppose +that a Papal reaction among the populace is the present peril (as it was +thought to be in Burnet’s days), let them by all means fly to the +“remedial” measures of that era. But for a philosophical historian to +quote, with admiration, Halifax or Nottingham, or refer to certain “High +Churchmen” with approval, can but cause a smile. {7} + +It was a popular beginning of this subject, doubtless, to invoke the +memories of 1688 and the “Toleration Act,” in order to recommend to +English people this proposal to destroy “Subscription;” yet it was +dangerous. For to have pursued the subject fairly from this point would +hardly have assisted the views of the abolitionists. The course of +history would very soon have brought them to the great _Arian_ conspiracy +of 1772, the next noticeable effort to set aside the Articles of the +Church. This, however, is altogether avoided, as if it were unknown to +Dr. STANLEY; and he quickly goes back to the Reformation, and even to the +times of the Primitive Church, to find arguments against “Subscription” +in the abstract, (as well as against our special Anglican form of +it,)—and, must I not say, to get out of the way of WHISTON, and the +“Feathers’ Tavern”? Let us, then, be generous, and forgive the allusions +to 1688, and forget all that followed, and endeavour to examine on its +merits the substance of the “_Letter_.” + + + +“Relaxation” a preliminary movement. + + +The object, my Lord, of the rising movement against “Subscription,” here +appears to be of a purely _preliminary_ character. It is expressly +cleared of all connexion with special grievances. “Revisions” are to +stand over. These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p. +4). Meanwhile, it is not against the “Articles” only that the feeling is +to be stirred, but “Subscription” to the whole Prayer-book, and even to +the Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated. Indeed, it seems to be +maintained that our present “Subscription” to the Articles does not +include, as we had supposed, Subscription to the Bible at all. The +objection, however, is scarcely raised in that form. It is to +“Subscribing” _per se_ that the repugnance is felt, as though there were +a morbid dread of “putting the hand to paper,”—such as we sometimes find +in the uneducated classes. And now it is not so much “do not sign +_these_ forms,” as “do not sign _any_ thing;” and Dr. Whately, and +Archdeacon Denison, and the friends of Mr. Gorham, Dr. Rowland Williams, +and Mr. Bristowe Wilson, and Mr. Heath are, as I understand, urged for +once to agree to “relax all subscriptions,” that they may so be set at +more liberty to fight their mutual battles without hindrance. Thus it +is, wonderfully, to be claimed for members of a Christian Church, that +they should be positively pledged to nothing! + + + + +Revision of Prayer-book. + + +Lord EBURY’S measure in the House of Lords did not go this length, +because he had “Revision” more definitely in view; but his arguments +against one form of Subscription are equally valid against all, so that +its entire abrogation is, on his principles, only a question of time. +There is, however, substantial agreement. + +It is most important that this should be understood, and that no false +issue be raised: and this is why I speak of the present proposal as one +for the Surrender of the Prayer-book. Dr. STANLEY would ask nothing so +small as _altering_ Articles or Liturgy; a far simpler way he would show +us. Revision would be mere ‘nibbling’ while Subscription remained. An +Act of the Legislature might just “prohibit,” he says, (p. 32) all +“Subscription.”—Are men, then, so eager for it, that prohibition must be +resorted to? He would not even leave it open to any one to sign; for +thus he triumphantly proceeds:—“_Not a word_ of the Articles need be +touched. They would still be left as the exposition of the Faith of the +_Church of England in the eighteenth century_!—as the _standard_ of its +faith at the present day. _Not a word_ of the Liturgy need be touched. +There are, no doubt, changes which would be acceptable to many, but THEY +MUST BE EFFECTED BY OTHER MEANS,” (p. 33.)—Surely, said the wise man, “in +vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.” To tell us beforehand +that we are to be coaxed into a general movement to get rid of +Subscription, and, that being done, we must reckon on the subsequent +change of the Prayer-book “by OTHER MEANS,” seems so very like an insult +to the understanding of men of all parties who believe anything, that I +can only explain it by calling to mind the proverbial blindness of genius +when hotly hastening to its own object, and forgetting how it looks to +all around. + +But it may be said that I am overlooking that the Articles and +Prayer-book, though not “signed” or “subscribed,” might still remain—at +least, for a time—as what is called the “standard” of our doctrine. Let +us inquire, then, what this means; for, unless we look it steadily in the +face, we shall be deluding ourselves again by an ambiguous word. It is +suggested by the passage quoted from Burnet (p. 7), and in the argument +of Dr. STANLEY, that we English are generally governed in other matters +by Acts of Parliament,—and why not in religion? We are not expected to +“subscribe” the law of the land, but simply to acquiesce, and submit to +it. It is not binding on the conscience, but only on external obedience. +A man may stand up and read a Statute to others—and then argue against +it. While it exists as law, he must be judged and ruled by it; but he is +free to dislike it, and may labour to change it. This is the parallel +suggested, or if it be not, I have no idea of what is intended; and I +must say, that when thus nakedly looked at, it is the most unveiled +Erastianism avowed in our times, if we except Mr. BRISTOWE WILSON’S in +his Essay. It is what we might expect of Burnet, but scarcely of Dr. +STANLEY, to make the Prayer-book “a legal standard,” but not a matter of +belief: it simply astonishes us. When a great statesman of the last age +told us that our religion was but a “schedule of an Act of Parliament,” +we could at least reply that “ex animo” Subscription makes it _our own_; +but to ask us now to take away even this, seems almost to sever all +connexion between the Church of England and the moral agency of her +Ministers. The Act of 1662, and its “schedule,” the Prayer-book, might +be our “standard” till the next session, and might claim as much +reverence as any other old Act of Parliament,—but no more. Put the whole +proposal, then, of Dr. STANLEY, and of Mr. WILSON, and others into plain +English, and it is this—(and I ask to be corrected if I misinterpret +it)—“_Let the clergy in future sign_ NOTHING, _but let them consent to +adopt and use what the_ PARLIAMENT _may from time to time authorise_.” + +The object, then, being thus simplified, we need not here pause to +estimate the excellences or defects of any of the formularies which we +all alike have thought to be good enough to _sign_. With more than +judicial fairness, Dr. STANLEY admits that the whole Thirty-nine Articles +are “incomparably superior” to the “Nine Articles of the Evangelical +Alliance” (p. 11), or any that would be drawn up by “the dominant +factions” of our Church, _or Commonwealth_. But this kind of criticism +may well be postponed till the prior question is disposed of—whether we +should “sign” _any_ thing? When the Articles and Prayer-book come to be +hereafter discussed, these details may have interest with some, as parts +of the literature of the “_Eighteenth Century_;” but at present might it +not be disrespectful merely to glance at them in a sketchy way, to give +pungency and interest to a somewhat barren subject? I do not say that +the highly rhetorical sentences in which praise and blame are judiciously +administered by Dr. STANLEY to Article 1, 5, 9, or 34, contribute nothing +to the effectiveness of the pamphlet with the “general reader;” but it is +obvious that with the argument, strictly speaking, they have nothing to +do. + + + +Dr. Stanley’s Three Arguments. + + +The Relaxation of Subscription appears, as far as I can gather, to be +urged by three arguments,—the first founded the _origin_ of the +“Subscriptions” among us after the Reformation; the second, on the +alleged absence of “Subscription” in the Primitive Church; and the third +on the practical evils of the present state of “Subscription” in the +Church and in the Universities. If I examine each of these, I shall not, +I think, have omitted any point hitherto prominently alleged in this +controversy. + +I. “The Church of England, as such, recognises absolutely no +Subscriptions.” Such is Dr. STANLEY’S proposition (p. 38). The tests of +membership are “incorporated in the Services to the exclusion, as it +would seem, of all besides.” It is added (p. 39)—“These other +obligations were, in fact, _not contemplated_ at the time of the first +compilation of the Prayer-book and Articles, and have grown up as a mere +excrescence through the pressure of political and ecclesiastical parties. +The Articles were not subscribed (by anything like general usage) till +the 12th year of Elizabeth; they were then, after much hesitation and +opposition, ordered to be subscribed for a special purpose,” &c. + + +The Reformation. + + +Is it possible to suppose that Dr. STANLEY means this for a fair +representation of the spirit and design of the Church of England, from +the beginning of the Reformation to the 12th year of Elizabeth? He +writes as though the Articles were all really to be signed, and the +Prayer-book all settled, and that the Church during all that time +deliberately intended to leave her members such freedom of opinion as he +and others would now restore. If he does not mean this, his argument +falls to the ground. But what are the facts of the case? + +Elizabeth ascended the throne at the close of the year 1558. Every +position of trust throughout the country was then held by Roman +Catholics. The bishops and the clergy were generally devoted to Rome. +The Convocation met, in two months, and drew up Articles presented to +Parliament, which are described as “flat against Reformation, and +_subscribed_ by most of the University.” Even Cambridge is said to have +given her approval. At such a crisis, it was evident that some years +must elapse before any such Revision of Edward VI.’s Articles could be +hoped for, as would obtain general consent. But to represent this pause +as a kind of freedom from “Subscription” enjoyed in earlier and more +liberal times, to say that “the Church,” at least, was ignorant of this +device, when “Subscription” to certain “Articles” was the first step +which the Convocation and the Universities naturally took, immediately +Elizabeth came to the throne, surprises me beyond what I like to express. +The “general reader” is entirely at the mercy of so eloquent a writer as +Dr. STANLEY, and it is not too much to ask that he use his power with a +little generosity; or if he will not, it becomes imperative that his +representations be translated into a humbler style, that the world may +judge how they look. The facts of the case are, in truth, opposed to all +that Dr. STANLEY’S argument requires. Instead of the twenty years and +more, which preceded Elizabeth’s 12th year, being years in which the +Church of the Reformation adopted laxity as its principle, the whole of +the period, from the beginning of the reign of Edward to the year 1571 +(with the exception of the brief interval of Mary’s government), was +occupied in a careful effort on the part of the Reformers to tie down +both clergy and laity by the strictest body of ecclesiastical law, +perhaps, ever attempted to be enacted in the Christian world. + + +The Reformatio Legum. + + +I refer, of course, to the “Reformatio Legum.” The Archbishop of +Canterbury, the subsequently-elect Archbishop of York, and certain +suffragans; great Reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Rowland Taylour; +known scholars, such as Sir John Cheke and Dr. Haddon, were engaged in +this business, which was looked to as the crowning act of the Reformation +of Religion. Archbishop Parker took up the work which Cranmer had begun, +and even pressed it on the reluctant Queen as far as he dared. + + +Subscription demanded in 1553. + + +The connexion of the _Reformatio Legum_ with the Articles of our Church, +and the light which they throw on each other, I need not point out to any +who are acquainted with the history of our Church at that time. The +Forty-two Articles, from which our Thirty-nine were, ten years +afterwards, derived, were first published in 1553. In the November of +the preceding year, Cranmer proposed that the bishops should have them at +once _subscribed_ throughout their dioceses. The death of King Edward +prevented this from being accomplished. They were revised and subscribed +by Convocation in 1563, in the name of the whole clergy of England. The +early chapters of the _Reformatio Legum_ contain the doctrine of the +Articles, and were, no doubt, intended to be an authorized exposition of +them. How strict a system was meant to be inaugurated by the Reformers +may be judged by even a superficial perusal of that Book. Heresy and +blasphemy were to be punishable by death. Adultery was to be visited +with imprisonment and even banishment. Impenitent persons were to be +“handed over to the civil power.” All this was the sort of Discipline +which was waiting to be put in force as soon as the Reformers could +persuade the nation to bear it;—and yet this is the supposed time when +Subscription was alien from the mind of the Reformed Church! + + +Temporary restriction of the Clergy. +Subscription in 1564. + + +But during this interval of twelve years, while the bishops were doing +their best to bring the clergy and people to Uniformity, and preparing +them for the “Discipline” which was openly clamoured for, we find that +immediately after the Articles were published, “advertisements” came out +by authority further to restrain the liberty of the preachers. In 1564, +the clergy, who had by their proctors subscribed the Articles in +Convocation, were required “to protest and _subscribe_” that they would +not preach at all without special license from the bishop, but “only read +that which is appointed by public authority:” and further, that they +would “observe, keep, and maintain, all the rites, ceremonies, good +usages and order” set forth by the Act of Uniformity. Here then was +“Subscription” to the whole Prayer-book as it then stood. And, indeed, +even three years before, the “readers” in Churches were obliged, by +“Subscriptions” to certain injunctions, to execute their office within +prescribed and narrow limits. The state of things doubtless was still +felt on all hands to be but provisional. The great Roman Catholic party +waited, without separating formally. The Puritans were stirring +themselves in the cause of “Discipline:” it was hoped by both parties +that some change might, from the lapse of a few years, better their +position. The latter reckoned on the more aged of the old Popish Clergy +dying out; the former were encouraged by a fanatical prophecy to expect +the death of the Queen herself in the twelfth year of her reign; but +after that time the Puritan and Popish parties became openly defined, +while the Church had as yet no such “Discipline” as could hold her +members together at all, except by the Court of Commissioners. It was to +restrain both parties, then, that recourse was once more had to +“Subscription.” + +Can there be need, my Lord, to pursue any further an inquiry into so well +known a piece of history as this? I should not have said so much, had +not the Ecclesiastical History Professor declared that Subscriptions and +Declarations of Faith were “not in fact _contemplated_ at the time of the +first compilation of the Prayer Book and Articles;” that Subscription is +“superfluous,” “needless,” “capricious,” “extrinsic,” and “accidental,” +(pp. 38, 39), “and that the Church of England, as such, recognises +absolutely no Subscriptions!” I submit to your Lordship, that the Church +of England “at the time of the first compilation of the Articles and +Prayer Book,” encouraged no freedom whatever to diverge from the one or +the other—demanded Subscription (by Cranmer) in 1553—_obtained_ it from +all the bishops and representatives of the clergy in Convocation in +1563—and laboured to restrain both Papists and Puritans within more and +more rigid limits year by year, till by the thirteenth of Elizabeth +“Subscription” was universally enforced, as the only practical substitute +for that Ecclesiastical Discipline which was refused. + +I have purposely abstained from here noticing minor inaccuracies which +singularly abound in the learned Professor’s letter, and have kept to the +main point. His position is that since the twelfth year of Elizabeth, a +stern and gradual growth of Subscription has superseded the liberal +system of the earlier years in which the tolerant Church “knew +_absolutely nothing_ of Subscription!” Without this, again I say, his +argument comes utterly to an end. It will be useless to weigh syllables, +and retreat upon the _ipsissima verba_ of the Letter. The broad +representation means this, or it is _nihil ad rem_. And the whole +history of the period is again, directly the reverse of the +representation given by Dr. STANLEY. {18} + + + +The Primitive Church. + + +II. I pass, then, to the next point—the alleged absence of Subscription +in the primitive age. Not content with the reference to the history of +our own Church, Dr. STANLEY says:—“I will not confine myself to these +isolated instances, but examine the history of Subscription from the +first. For the first three centuries the Church was _entirely without +it_.” “The first Subscription to a series of dogmatical propositions as +such was that enforced by Constantine at the Council of Nicæa. It was +the natural, but rude, expedient of a half-educated soldier to enforce +unanimity in the Church as he had by the sword enforced it in the +empire.” (p. 35). Again, I am painfully compelled to meet the statements +of Dr. STANLEY with a direct negative. The case is _not_ as he states +it. A “rude soldier,” in those days—(when comparatively few people +_wrote_ at all)—would not, I think, have been likely to invent this +“expedient:” but, in fact, he _did not_ invent it. + + +Council against Paulus Samosatemus. + + +I do not suppose for a moment that Dr. STANLEY could care to make a +merely _technical_ statement as to the mode in which adhesion was +signified to a dogmatic series of propositions. No merely formal +position of that kind could serve the argument. The position which he +lays down must be that, before the time of Constantine, there was that +_freedom_ allowed which is demanded by those who object to Subscription +now,—that people were not, in those days, called on to profess their +belief in any set of “dogmatical” statements as tests of orthodoxy. If, +then, he will look back sixty-six years before the Council of Nicæa, to +the Council of Antioch (of which Constantine was quite innocent), against +Paul of Samosata, there he will find the copy of a letter from certain +orthodox bishops, Hymenæus, Theophilus, Theoctenus, Maximus, Proclus, and +Bolanus, setting forth a series of dogmatical propositions, more minute +and lengthened than those of Nicæa, and concluding with these words—Ταῦτα +ἀπὸ πλείστων ὀλίγα σημειωσάμενοι, Βουλόμεθα μαθεῖν, εἰ τὰ αὐτὰ φρονεῖς +ἡμῖν καὶ διδάσκεις, καὶ ὑποσημειώσασθαι σε, εἰ ἀρέσκη, τοῖς +προγεγραμμένοις, ῆ οὐ. If he would not write, he must make his mark—give +some sign, at all events—whether he “held and taught” as there set forth +in writing (προγεγραμμένοις)—yes or no; or submit to lose his office in +the Church—(καθαιρεθῆναι.)—_Routh’s Rel._ ii. p. 465, &c. + + +Council against Noetus. + + +A few years earlier, the case of Noetus was treated in a similar way. +The assembled Presbyters, after confessing the orthodox faith, cast out +the heretic for _not submitting to it_. The Council of Eliberis, in +Spain (before the Nicene Council), put out eighty-one canons, or +chapters, of a mixed kind, dogmatical and disciplinary, “et Post +_Subscriptiones_ Episcoporum in vetusto codice Urgelensi leguntur +sequentes presbyterorum,” &c.—_Routh_, iv. 44. Doctrine of Novatian +severity is there put forth: I refer to it not for any other purpose than +to adduce the _fact_ of Subscription—(and Subscription, too, in the +presence of the laity),—or at least the fact, that there was no +authorized laxity in those days, such as Dr. STANLEY’S argument requires. + + +Discipline in the Church. + + +And here I would remark, my Lord, on the obvious difference between a +state of the Church in which there was a system of DISCIPLINE holding +together the whole body, and a condition like our own, when Discipline is +acknowledged to be extinct among us. When bishops met together +periodically, as they then did, to regulate the affairs of the +Church,—and stood in mutual awe of each other’s spiritual powers;—when +dismissal from Communion was a chastisement shrunk from, by laity and +clergy, with terror,—it might have been easy to do without such +Subscriptions as now attempt to guard the orthodoxy of our people. So +again in the Pre-Reformation Church; the organization of the hierarchy, +and the necessary submission of the people, might often render +Subscriptions more than superfluous—unintelligible. Let those who would +take away the present Subscription to our Prayer-book, restore to us, in +a fair measure, the active Discipline of the Apostolic and post Apostolic +times, and I for one will thankfully hail the change. But to ask to +return to the “first three centuries,”—bristling as they do with canons, +synodical and episcopal letters, and declarations,—because a volume was +not then presented for the signature of every candidate for Orders,—is as +reasonable as it would be to propose now to abolish printing, and go back +to the simplicity and “freedom” of oral instruction and the scantiest of +manuscript literature. There is no fallacy more glittering, but none +more unworthy, illogical, and self-condemning than that of false +historical parallel. And I again must ask your Lordship, whether Dr. +STANLEY’S appeal to the Primitive History has not wholly failed?—I have +briefly shown that Constantine was not the originator of Subscriptions to +creeds or canons, but that subscribing or professing dogmatic assent was +a Christian custom of the earlier ages. It is plain to every one who +knows the history, _e.g._, of a great bishop like St. Cyprian or St. +Irenæus, or of a great writer like Tertullian or Origen, that to guard +dogmatically against heresy, by every means in their power, was the +predominating idea of their whole course, however imperfectly attained; +and they would have been utterly astounded if any one had foretold that +in a future age of the Church, when all Discipline had been destroyed +among CHRIST’S people, a Professor of History would appeal to _their_ +example as a justification of the proposal to excuse all ministers of +Christ from signing any Articles of Faith! + + +Roman Catholic Subscription. + + +But when we are even told by Dr. STANLEY (p. 36, n.) that, “from the +clergy of the Roman Catholic Church no _declaration of belief_ is +required at their Ordination,” we almost cease to be surprised at his +allegations respecting the ante-Nicene age. One would have thought it +very little trouble to look into the present Roman Pontifical, and see +the service for Ordination of Priests, before making any such statement. +Unless Dr. STANLEY’S copy is very different from mine—(Antverpiæ +_Ex-officina Plantiniana_ Balthasaris Moreti, 1663)—he will read thus:— + + “Pontifex, accepta mitra, vertit se ad presbyteros ordinatos qui ante + altare coram ipso stantes _profitentur Fidem_ quam prædicaturi sunt, + dicentes CREDO, &c., &c.” + + + +Protestant Subscriptions. + + +I think that I need add no more on this head: but I will refer to the +Subscriptions of Protestant Churches, before I pass on. It is very +commonly said at present that “Subscription” does not secure the +Uniformity of opinion which it aims at, and thus shows itself to be as +useless as it is vexatious,—(as if, forsooth, any one supposed that +absolute uniformity of thought could be attained by any means in the +world). Dr. STANLEY has not omitted this; but once more I must hold him +to facts. + +“It was one of the misfortunes,” (he says, p. 36) “incident to the +Reformation, that every Protestant Church by way of defending itself +against the enemies that hemmed it in, or that _were supposed to_ hem it +in on every side, was induced to compile each for itself a _new_ +Confession of Faith.”—This is scarcely doing justice to our Protestant +friends, _in limine_. They had to do something more than defend +themselves against enemies; they had to form some bond of union among +themselves. If they were not to be merely scattered units, to be +attracted in time to the largest bodies near them, they were obliged to +find some principle of cohesion among themselves; and they who refuse to +allow them to make “articles” or “confessions” ought in charity to +suggest some other plan. To have separated from a compact body like the +Roman Church and profess _nothing_ positive, was surely an impossible +course.—But Dr. STANLEY further says, “The excess of Subscription on the +continent over-leaped itself and has led to its gradual extinction, or +modification.” (p. 37.) + +It seems to me a very narrow philosophy which thus disposes of so great a +fact as this, that “_every_ Protestant Church” had this sort of instinct +of life and self-preservation. Is it not as legitimate at least to infer +that there may have been something in the very nature of things to prompt +this unanimity of action? And is there no lesson to be learned from the +undoubted fact that none of the Protestant communities have preserved +their original standard, but have descended towards neology everywhere in +proportion as “Subscription” has been set aside? and that the Church of +England has for three hundred years exhibited a singular uniformity of +belief, while maintaining her Subscriptions? Practically, I see nothing, +then, in the example of Foreign Protestantism to encourage the proposed +relaxation; but everything the reverse. Even the small and diminishing +bodies of Nonconformists in England have failed, (notwithstanding their +gaining in orthodoxy by their proximity to us), to keep up their +reputation,—as their ablest men allow. But what would have been their +condition, if, like ourselves, they had had no Discipline? {24} Surely +in their efforts at holy Discipline they all bear a witness for CHRIST +which puts us to shame. + +Let Dr. STANLEY, if he can, find any Christian body without +Discipline—without Confessions, without Articles, without Subscriptions, +which has been able to preserve itself at all; for until he does so, we +must tell him that _all_ the facts are against him. + + + +Alleged practical evils of Subscription. + + +III. I now, my Lord, must pass to the third topic, in the consideration +of which I thought to include all that remains in Dr. STANLEY’S pamphlet +which could be supposed by any to be of argumentative value—viz., the +alleged practical evils of “Subscription” in the Church and the +University. Here I feel that our English people will take a deeper +interest in the matter, than in any antiquarian or historical +disquisitions; and here Dr. STANLEY and his friends speak with a +confidence which with many will pass at once for demonstration. And if +there were grounds to suppose that a method of Subscription, like ours, +worked such mischief as they say who call for this change, no traditions +of the Revolution, or of the Reformation, or of the Primitive Church, +ought to tempt us to retain it. But let us not put the matter in an +unreal light, while pretending to go back to former and better days. +Freedom to think as you please in Religion, while retaining your place in +the Church, was never conceded at any of the times to which Dr. STANLEY +has appealed; but was foreign to the principles of every class of +Christians. Yet if the evils of Subscriptions are such as we are now +assured, things cannot be suffered to remain as they are. + +But broad assertions can frequently be only met by like broad assertions; +and I hope that I shall not be thought disrespectful if I thus treat some +now before me. + + +“Contradictoriness” of the Articles and Prayer-book. + + +(1.) It is said that the Subscriptions are made to documents +“contradictory to each other in spirit;” (p. 22) and that this is felt by +those who are called on to sign the Prayer-book, and the Articles;—the +former being devotional and sublime, the latter scholastic, and less +impressive;—the former emanating from ancient sources, the latter being +the product “of the Calvinistic, and in some measure even the Scholastic +period.” (pp. 16, 17.) This is popularly but scarcely correctly put; but +I would ask, whether the difference between the “two documents” is +greater than between Aquinas’ _Summa_, and his _Pange Lingua_?—or between +any man’s didactic statements and his devotional offices? And if not, +then how cannot the same man honestly sign both—each in its plain and +obvious sense? Personally, I do not feel the least difficulty in the +case; and I cannot recollect meeting with any clergyman who could sign +the one, and yet had difficulty about the other, except as to a few +phrases here and there. The general “contradictoriness,” which is +affirmed by Dr. STANLEY, I believe then is not commonly perceived by the +Clergy, and I do not myself perceive any other difference than the nature +of the case demands. The purely Theological language of the earlier +Articles—then the mixed statements of the “anthropology,” as it is +called—and the terms of the Sacramental Articles,—may almost in every +instance be traced in Catholic fathers, from St. Augustine to St. +Bernard. And yet they are not recondite, but so intelligible to educated +English people, that some years ago as a matter of edification I went +through them, with a class of fifty of the laity in my parish, and a few +clergy, who for several weeks were glad to devote attention to the +subject; and I venture to think that the idea never occurred to one of +us, that there was the least want of harmony between the two documents. +We really did not see the “calm image of Cranmer” reflected on the +surface of the “Liturgy,” as Lord Macaulay fancied he did (p. 18); and as +to the “foul weeds in which the roots were buried,” we did not discover +them there;—(nor did Lord Macaulay, I suppose, as it was not his custom +to go to these “roots.”) I think I am entitled, then, to meet the charge +of the “contradictoriness” of the Articles and the Prayer-book, with an +assertion that there is a thorough inward harmony, which not a few of us +feel; and we cannot be talked out of this conviction by the contrary +assertions of microscopic thinkers. I should grant, of course, that it +would be a “practical evil” of no small kind, demanding immediate +redress, if I could admit any real opposition between the Formularies +which we have to sign. But I unreservedly deny it. I know indeed what +objectors would mean when they say this: but I know also that the same +objectors would find “contradictoriness” in different parts of Holy +Scripture; and I am thankful that I do not find it, after many years’ +steady work at both Old Testament and New. + + +The early age of those who “subscribe.” + + +(2.) Another alleged grievance, or “practical evil,” is said to be the +age {28} at which young men are called on to make these important +professions of their belief. I had, many years since, to encounter the +same objection in another form. I met with some among the Baptists, who +objected to teaching children to “say their prayers,” on the ground that +they could not understand the mysterious subjects implied; and others who +would not ask them to believe any thing in Religion, until they had +proved it. The “practical evil” is—and I am sure that your Lordship will +agree with me—altogether on the side of those who leave the young thus to +make their own opinions, and find their faith how they can. The Bible +is, in many respects, a more complex book than the Prayer-book; and yet I +can ask my child to put entire faith in it, as God’s Word. Nor can the +faithful Churchman, I believe, feel any difficulty in giving into the +hands of young and old, the Formularies which have been his own comfort +and help hitherto, and asking their “assent and consent” to all that +which he knows to be true. + + +Men of ability will not take Holy Orders. + + +(3.) There is a “practical evil,” which has of late been greatly pressed +on public notice, which Dr. STANLEY thus refers to (p. 30)—“Intelligent, +thoughtful, highly educated young men, who twenty or thirty years ago +were to be found in every Ordination, are gradually withheld from the +service of the Church, and from the profession to which their tastes, +their characters, and their gifts, best fit them.” + +This is an evil, the existence of which I shall not question—it is indeed +too plain, and too alarming to admit of any doubt. But I deny that it +has any foundation in the practice of Subscription; which has not been +changed, or made more rigid, in our days. I have never known one +conscientious, thoughtful young churchman kept from Holy Orders by a +shrinking from Subscription. They who have shrunk have been persons who +_differ_ from the Church, and _acknowledge_ the fact. They have been +men, like my upright friend Mr. Fisher,—the author of “Liturgical +Revision,”—who would not, for all the temptations that might be offered, +use the entire Offices of our Church, even if ordained immediately +without Subscription. Subscription keeps them out, of course. It is +meant to do so, if it has any meaning at all. But if we look around us +at the state of things in the Church, during the twenty or thirty years +to which Dr. STANLEY alludes, we shall not find it difficult to ascertain +causes which have kept, and will keep, so many intelligent and +conscientious minds of the higher order, from entering the ministry of +the Church. Young men of ability in the last generation, if designed for +Holy Orders, gave themselves to Theological study. But we all remember +the panic which arose in consequence of the secessions to the Roman +Church. Public patronage and popular feeling were then so successfully +worked on, by the fanatical portion of the press, that the bare rumour of +“Theological learning” was enough to mark any Churchman for suspicion. +Parents who did not wish their more gifted sons to be victims, chose for +them other callings, and found a thousand new and attractive openings in +the Civil service. Youths of greatest promise saw encouragement in other +professions, and rewards in the distance for successful merit; but if +they began to read Theology, they soon found themselves obliged to pause. +To read St. Augustine, till you began to believe the ancient doctrine of +Baptism, was fatal: to study Church history, or the Liturgies, was still +worse,—if men did it honestly. Hundreds, I believe, were thus beaten +off. Parents and guardians and friends could not desire social and +professional neglect—if not worse—for those in whom they were interested. +They saw and said, that “there was but little chance for a clever man,” +if he had the stigma of high ability or learning. If such a man as Dr. +MILL—to whose writings men readily seek, now that the infidel is at our +doors—if he died in comparative obscurity and neglect, what could others +look for? The evil is done, and none now living will see it completely +undone.— + +To crush the principles of old Churchmanship was not, however, a task to +which the rising intellect of Oxford would lend itself; it retired and +left that work to others; or it strayed into German literature, whither +the popular hatred had not yet learned to track it: and now the wail goes +forth from “Charge” after “Charge,” that men of higher minds have fled, +or turned “neologians!” Is there no Nemesis here?—A few years since, the +Church’s rapid descent from her position of ancient learning was regarded +with a quiet despair by some even of our most thoughtful men. A late +dignitary even expressed “thankfulness” on one occasion at some +moderate-looking promotion that had been made in high places, and he was +remonstrated with by one who knew the entire ignorance of theology of the +clergyman who had just been honoured. “Why, he is wholly ignorant of +Christianity!” was, I believe, the exclamation. “Yes,” was the answer, +“but he is not _hostile_ to it.” + +But will any relaxation of “Subscription”—will the destruction of the +Articles, or the Revision of the Liturgy by “the Association” set up of +late, bring back Theological learning, or tempt the “higher minds” into +the Church’s ranks? No one can imagine it. A great misfortune has +happened to us, and the way to repair it is not easily seen; but it is +something to see the evil itself. The Romanizing movement was a great +misfortune: we all deplore it, even those who know that it was provoked +by the narrow-minded treatment which it received. But the loss of +Theology and high intellect is a greater misfortune by far; and this will +be yet found, when the dulness of a coming generation has to defend the +Bible apart from the Church. + + + +The Athanasian Creed. + + +(4.) In discussing the “practical evils” of Subscription, I observe that +Dr. STANLEY occasionally singles out parts of our “Formularies,” as +involving special difficulty, and embarrassing “subscribers” in a more +painful way than others. More than once he mentions the Creed of St. +Athanasius as a peculiar hardship. In the first place, he somewhat +roughly and unfairly charges _falsehood_ on the Article for calling it +St. Athanasius’s (p. 13); but surely he would not mean to charge +falsehood on the Prayer-book, for speaking of the “_Apostles_ Creed”—and +yet the Apostles did not write it,—or of the “_Nicene_ Creed,” although +the latter part of it be not Nicene? The meaning is so plain and easy, +that I own that I wonder at the tone of Dr. STANLEY here. {32} The Creed +“commonly _called_ Athanasian” is surely a good description of a document +which expresses well the truth which Athanasius defended, and the Church, +by saying “commonly called,” expressly refrains from certifying his +authorship. But the admission of the Creed itself is the evident +grievance, and so there is anger at the very name. To this, then, I will +address myself. + +“As a doctrine most explicitly asserted by the Liturgy,” Dr. STANLEY +mentions “the condemnation of _all members_ of the Eastern Church, as +maintained by the clauses of the Athanasian Creed, which appear to +declare that those who refuse to acknowledge the HOLY GHOST to proceed +from the FATHER and the SON, without doubt perish everlastingly.” An +“eminent prelate” twenty years ago, we are told, expressed a devout hope +that, “for the honour of human nature, no one now would deliberately +aver” this! I hope I shall not seem to be harsh if I say I would here +put in one word “for the honour” of common sense, which seems shocked by +such treatment of such subjects. We might as fairly say, that the words, +“Whosoever will be saved must thus _think_ of the Trinity,” consign all +infants, and persons of little understanding, to everlasting perdition, +because they cannot “think” of it at all. It is trifling to confound the +_intellectual_ reception of a doctrine with its _saving_ reception, and +it is saying that none but very clever people will be saved. Such +confusion is equivalent to a rejection of even the simplest form of +Creed. Take for example the Ethiopian’s confession, “I believe that +JESUS CHRIST is the SON of GOD,” on which he was baptized (Acts viii. +37). For the intellectual conception here demands explanation at once. +In what sense is He the SON of GOD? Are we not all “HIS offspring?” IS +JESUS the SON of GOD as man? or as GOD?—or both? If HIS SON, is He +Eternal?—and soon. Such questions are _inevitable_, if we would really +_know_ our meaning in saying, “JESUS CHRIST is the SON of GOD.” But +important as a right understanding of truth assuredly is, no Church ever +thus taught that intellectual reception of truth could be attained by the +multitude, for whose salvation we labour. If, indeed, we could look into +the mind of the majority of good Christians, and see the shape which +doctrines there take, we should often find the greatest amount of heresy +of the intellect co-existing with orthodoxy of heart. A statement thus +drawn out at length in a Creed is the Church’s intellectual exposition, +as far as it goes, of the Doctrine professed. The million may not know +this; but the Church tells them—“If you hold the true doctrine, _this_ is +_what_, consciously or not, you are holding.” The Athanasian Creed is a +_statement_ of that truth which dwells in every Christian heart. We know +that God’s grace in the soul is always “orthodox;” but “with the heart +man believeth unto righteousness;” but the Creed forbids the intellect to +misinterpret what the heart has savingly known.—The agreement with the +Eastern Church attempted at the Council of Florence illustrates this; for +it was evidently on this basis. The Greeks were not told that their +forefathers had all perished, but that their _expression_ of the truth +which they held was less perfect than the Latin. + +It may be very easy to misrepresent what is thus said; but few, on +reflection, will venture to say the opposite. Dr. STANLEY would not say +that _no_ truth in Scripture is “necessary to salvation?” He would not +say that _no_ doctrine of any Creed is “necessary to salvation?” But yet +he would not say that right intellectual conceptions of any truth, or of +any doctrine, are “necessary to salvation?” And as he _would_ own that +_some_ faith is necessary, or a “grace of faith” (the “Habitus Fidei” of +the Schools), he must own, therefore, that saving faith, however +unintellectual, is, as I said, orthodox. To “hold the Faith” is one +thing; to apprehend its intellectual expression is another. And if all +this be undeniable, what sad unreality it is, to write and speak, as so +many do of the Athanasian Creed, as if it required a comprehension of all +the terms which it uses!—instead of a pure “holding” of the TRUTH, which +it would explain to all capable of the explanation. + +I have dwelt at this length on a single point because, even in our +journals and periodicals, so much obstinate nonsense—pardon me, my Lord, +for such plainness—is frequently uttered against a Creed to which, under +GOD, England now probably owes her undeniably deep faith in the +TRINITY.—To sign the Athanasian Creed being thus beyond dispute to sign +the DOCTRINE, and not to say that each expression of it is infallible, or +_down to the level of all men_, there can be no more objection to +Subscription of that Creed, than of the Apostles’ or the Nicene. + + +Equivocal subscribing. + + +(5.) Yet one more “evil” alleged to flow from the present practice of +“Subscription” must be noticed,—the necessity which it throws on _all_ of +us to sign in a qualified, and therefore not straightforward sense. +“From the Archbishop in his palace at Lambeth to the humblest curate in +the wilds of Cumberland,” says Dr. STANLEY, “all must go out,” if only +the “obvious” and “natural” meaning of the whole Prayer-book be insisted +on.—I really feel, my Lord, on reading these words, very much as I should +on hearing from a foreigner anything very ultra and impossible about +England—_e.g._, that “we have no religion at all in England;” (we are +told, indeed, that in Spain we are thought to be an infidel people). The +only answer, in such case, is to inform the foreigner as to the facts; +point to our churches, our schools, our parishes, our homes. In truth, +Dr. STANLEY here seems to me to write like one who does not know us at +all. I say for myself (and I believe that thousands would do the same), +that I subscribe both Articles and Prayer-book in their obvious, easy, +and most congruous sense, and believe them to express, if not always in +the words which I should have chosen, yet always in suitable words, my +inward convictions of Christian truth. Indeed, my Lord, I can understand +nothing else. I have moved very freely for many years among my brethren, +and I can but say that my experience of them as a body does not in any +degree correspond with the representation which Dr. STANLEY makes, which +I think will surprise both our friends and our enemies. I can do no +more, of course, than simply protest {36} against it with all my heart; +believing fully that when the Articles and the Prayer-book are +interpreted, not with “Chinese” perverseness, but honestly and humanly, +they are ordinarily found accordant with reason, with Scripture, and with +themselves. + +The possible haste with which Dr. STANLEY seems to have written, may +account, perhaps, for statements so unqualified as these, and some others +that he has made. Indeed, there are things put out in _the Letter_ which +can only be thus explained. I refer, for instance, to such assertions as +that, (p. 4) which,—forgetting the whole calendar of Lessons, (and also +the Article vi.), says,—“The Articles and Liturgy express _no opinion_ as +to the authorship of _the disputed_ {37} or anonymous books of +Scripture,”—and then in a note mentions the “Visitation of the Sick” as +the only portion of the “Liturgy” (_sic_)—which refers a disputed book +(the “Hebrews”) to its author; though the service for Holy Matrimony +equally refers that Epistle to St. Paul. Or, as another instance, I may +name Dr. STANLEY’S conceiving the indiscriminate use of our Burial +Service to imply some theory about the happiness of all hereafter. (So I +understand him, at least, p. 19.)—Or, yet another; his supposing (p. 45) +that the description of our “Canonical Books” as those of whose authority +there was _no doubt_ “_in the Church_,” could possibly mean “no doubt in +the minds of any _individuals_!” But, my Lord, my object is not to find +fault with any one; I had to show, as I hope I have shown, the fallacy of +the grounds on which the surrender of Subscription to the Prayer-book has +been urged. + + + +Summary. + + +It has been seen that the “Comprehension” scheme of the Revolution,—the +design of the English Reformation,—and the custom of the Early Church, +which had all been appealed to, _all_ fail to give the least support to +the theory of license now put forward. It has been seen, that no real +argument against Subscription has been deduced from the practice of it +among ourselves, or from the character of our Formularies. I might have +gone farther. I might have marked the Providential nature of the events +which held our vessel by the anchor of Subscription, at a time when it +must have otherwise drifted on rocks. I might have pointed to the +unhappy results which thus far have attended relaxations of Subscription, +in a change of _tone_ among a large number of the younger members of the +Church and the University, and an acknowledged failure at length of the +supply of candidates for Holy Orders. But there is no need that I should +enlarge on details which are patent to all observation. It is becoming +that I should bring these remarks to a conclusion. + +I should be sorry, indeed, my Lord, if it could be thought from my +deprecating the proposed abolition of Subscription, that I regard the +condition of the Church among us as a normal or satisfactory one. But I +feel, as thousands do, that whatever changes may lie before us, they +should be towards increased _organization of_ our Body; while the present +proposal would disorganize us at once, and break away the traditions by +which, in an undisciplined age, Providence protected us. This proposal, +I am aware, unhappily falls in with the spirit of our times—a spirit of +independence and freedom, rather than of holiness and faith, and +therefore I fear that it will find a wide advocacy among those who desire +not the maintenance of our Church’s distinctive position among the +Churches of Europe. Your Lordship’s eloquent hope—admirable and +strong—that we may yet “maintain that Eternal Truth of which the Church +is the depository, and that Form of sound words in which that Eternal +Truth has been handed down,” I fain would share. But I stand in doubt. +I feel very much like one who is asked to take leave of a peaceful +abode—a haven of long Providential refuge; and I take, perhaps, a +partial, because parting look at the solid advantages hitherto +secured—the homely, perhaps, but very real blessings of a Fixed Faith for +our people in general, with Means of Grace, capable of enlargement +everywhere according to our need, venerable Traditions protecting our +noble English Bibles, our glorious English Offices, our restored English +Churches. The thought of turning one’s back on all, and pushing out on +the boundless ocean of opinion, may well fill the heart with +foreboding—if not for oneself, yet for others! + + + +Prospects. + + +A solemn future, it may be, is before us as a Church. You have come, my +Lord, to the government of this great central Diocese at a crisis +unparalleled in our history. The eighteenth century was a great truce of +principles. The truce was probably broken in 1829; efforts were made to +re-establish the truce once more, but not with much success. The +Established Church, seemed hastening to become an established theory +only. But new life from God entered into her. She again delivered her +message to the growing masses of the people,—and with an energy before +but rarely known. True, our “Discipline” is not restored; but the voice +of Worship is heard rising anew on every hand.—True, there is no +startling growth of Sanctity—(the special token of a Church’s life!); but +there is a very real zeal to do a work for CHRIST on earth. With all the +experience of an eventful Past to warn us, and the vast range of Sacred +Ministrations still remaining, might it not be the glorious distinction +of your Lordship’s Episcopate, that it gathered together all the +remaining elements of our Spiritual System, so that “nothing was +lost,”—and saved for posterity the grandest fabric of Faith and Truth +among the nations of Christendom?— + +But a darker alternative is possible—may Providence guide and protect +your Lordship, that so it may be averted!—A nation finally unchurched;—a +Bible keenly “criticised,” and unauthorized;—a Clergy descending to “use” +a Prayer-book which they will not affirm that they BELIEVE; a People +mainly divided between illiterate fanaticism and cold infidelity. + + I am, my Lord, + + Your Lordship’s faithful servant, + WILLIAM J. IRONS. + + + + +FOOTNOTES. + + +{3} See Mr. Oakeley’s Pamphlet with that title. + +{4a} In the original printing these sub-headings are side-notes. They +have been turned to headings (and in a few cases paragraphs split) in +order to make the text more readable.—DP. + +{4b} See his Lordship’s Speech in the House of Lords, May 19. + +{7} The term “High Churchmen” is, of course, quite ambiguous:—“At the +_instance_ of High Churchmen,” p. 33.—Yet the learned Editor of Beveridge +records that prelate’s “staunch opposition to Comprehension.” + +{18} Dr. Cardwell, with his great carefulness (_Synod_, i. 7), even says +of the Forty-two Articles, “It was certainly enjoined that they should be +_subscribed_ generally by the clergy throughout the kingdom, and this +design, carried probably to some extent into execution, was only +prevented from being fully accomplished by the death of King Edward, July +6, 1553.” + +{24} An intelligent Wesleyan was recently urged by a friend of mine to +return to the Church, and solemnly replied, “_Never_, till you have +Discipline.” But the attracting of non-conformists to the Church is not +what Dr. STANLEY proposes to aim at by his plan to abolish Subscriptions. +Certainly they have not been attracted to Oxford during the last nine +years of non-subscription there. + +{28} In other places, it is not the “early” age at which (p. 52) we are +“trapped into it” which is complained of, but the maturer time of “Holy +Orders” and “Mastership” (pp. 29, 30)—which, then, is the grievance? + +{32} It is worse than his very exaggerated contradiction of the saying +in the Twenty-ninth Article, that certain words were St Augustine’s. See +the reference in _Beveridge_. + +{36} Since writing this, I have heard that a protest of this kind has +actually been mooted at a meeting of clergy in this diocese. + +{37} It is not said _by whom_ now “disputed.” The Sixth Article says +that _we_, without dispute, take the books of the New Testament as +_commonly_ received. Dr. STANLEY does not seem aware of the distinction +between the “Canonical” and “Sacred” Books. See the _Reformatio Legum_, +chap. vii. + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE +PRAYER-BOOK AND ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND*** + + +******* This file should be named 49114-0.txt or 49114-0.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/1/1/49114 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + |