diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-04 10:57:12 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-04 10:57:12 -0800 |
| commit | da54e68750293d0cd1b3027f3c8e88f178d0f7d7 (patch) | |
| tree | abe77b47547538b26398de4b944c9ccf80fcaa62 | |
| parent | f2f39f93c99883721dcc881deaac8f1202312a94 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-0.txt | 2491 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-0.zip | bin | 51237 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-h.zip | bin | 136775 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-h/63727-h.htm | 3047 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 84706 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 5538 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..614d974 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #63727 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63727) diff --git a/old/63727-0.txt b/old/63727-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c9ae68a..0000000 --- a/old/63727-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2491 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, A letter to the Rev. Charles N. Wodehouse, -Canon of Norwich, occasioned by his recent publication, entitled, "What is -the meaning of Subscription?", by Charles Campbell - - -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: A letter to the Rev. Charles N. Wodehouse, Canon of Norwich, occasioned - by his recent publication, entitled, "What is the meaning of - Subscription?" - with a few observations on the speech &c. of the Lord Bishop of - Norwich, on Subscription - - -Author: Charles Campbell - - - -Release Date: November 12, 2020 [eBook #63727] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LETTER TO THE REV. CHARLES N. -WODEHOUSE, CANON OF NORWICH, OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT PUBLICATION, -ENTITLED, "WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?"*** - - -Transcribed from the 1841 J. S. Gowing edition by David Price. - - - - - - A LETTER - TO THE - REV. CHARLES N. WODEHOUSE, - CANON OF NORWICH, - OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT PUBLICATION, - ENTITLED, - “WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?” - WITH A FEW - OBSERVATIONS ON THE SPEECH - &c. - OF THE - LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH, - ON - SUBSCRIPTION. - - - BY THE REV. CHARLES CAMPBELL, - VICAR OF WEASENHAM. - - * * * * * - - LONDON: - J. G. AND F. RIVINGTON. - MATCHETT, STEVENSON, AND MATCHETT, NORWICH; - AND - J. S. GOWING, SWAFFHAM. - 1841. - _Price Two Shillings_. - - * * * * * - - “The Liturgy of the Church of England hath advantages, so many and so - considerable, as not only to raise itself above the devotions of - other Churches, but to endear the affections of all good people to be - in love with Liturgies in general . . . The Rubrics of it were wrote - in the blood of some of the compilers, men famous in their - generation, whose reputation and glory of martyrdom, hath made it - immodest for the best of men now to compare themselves with them. - And its composure is so admirable, that the most industrious arts of - its enemies can scarce find out an objection of value enough to make - a doubt, or scarce a scruple in a serious spirit . . . There are also - in the Offices forms of solemn Absolution and Benediction, and if - they be not highly considerable, there is nothing sacred in the - Evangelical Ministry, but the Altars themselves are made of - unhallowed turf.” - - _Bishop Jeremy Taylor_. - - - - -A LETTER, -ETC. - - -DEAR SIR, - -It was hoped that the little excitement occasioned by the debate of last -Session on a petition to the House of Lords for some alteration of our -Articles and Liturgy, had been suffered to subside; and it was with -regret we received the announcement of your recent publication, entitled -“What is the meaning of Subscription?” - -I am not aware that any of the clergy of this Diocese, during the last -nine years, that is from the date of your first publication on this -subject, namely, “_A Petition to the House of Lords for Ecclesiastical -Improvements with Explanations_,” have shewn any disposition to -intermeddle with your proceedings, or to “condemn you for doing the best -you could in your own cause,” singular as they may have thought, and -_singular_ as you admit to have been “the mode adopted by you to obtain -your object.” {1} - -Whatever they may have thought, they have hitherto been silent, -influenced I am persuaded more by feelings of respect for your personal -character, than from conviction of the strength of your position and the -consequent weakness of their own. I can answer for myself, and I am -satisfied that I am speaking the general sense of the clergy of the -Diocese, in saying that they not only could, but had it been from any -circumstances necessary, would have borne their ready and willing -testimony to the truth and faithfulness of the eulogy pronounced by your -Diocesan on your “character and conduct as a clergyman and a gentleman.” - -They must naturally therefore be the more inclined to wish that it had -consisted with your views to stop short of a public avowal that you could -not with any regard for “_truth and honesty_,” make the declaration to -which they hesitate not _ex animo_ to subscribe. - -_Richard Baxter_ has said, “that many are apt to think that _this is -right_, because the best and strictest people are of this mind.” {2a} -With “many” therefore, your opinions will have their weight; and if the -Subscription of the clergy is to be judged by your views of it, their -situation would seem to be any thing but an enviable one. - -And as these your views must seem to be strongly corroborated by the -congenial sentiments of our Diocesan; should I in the course of the -following observations, which I take the liberty of addressing to you, -hazard also a few remarks upon his Lordship’s reasons for deeming an -Expansion of Subscription desirable; I trust I shall find that I have not -been misled by your example, but that to me also, “it may be allowed to -differ from my superiors without disrespect or offence.” {2b} - -Allow me then, to express my regret, that “res dura et regni _novitas_,” -as you may apply the royal excuse to your own _novel_ position, should -have compelled you to resort in your own case to a course you so -decidedly object to in others; more especially as you appear to have had -your misgivings, to have foreseen the possibility of “harm accruing from -it,” and very justly to have anticipated that the perusal of a -publication written with the object you appear to have had in view, would -“call forth a painful feeling in the minds of Christians and Churchmen.” -{3a} - -“No one,” you say, “can object more decidedly than yourself to the common -practice of publishing correspondence between individuals on matters -relating merely to themselves.” {3b} - -But the practice is usually resorted to by others, as it seems to have -been by yourself, under an impression that the publication is in some way -or other “important to their own defence.” {3c} - -You would however, and naturally enough, persuade yourself that yours is -“a very different case,” a case “relating strictly to a _public -question_, one affecting the whole Church, and indeed all Christians in -the nation.” {3d} - -I will not stay to enquire whether viewing it in this light, the voice of -the Church ought not to have been heard above your own. But I must think -that something more than you have advanced is requisite to constitute a -public question, and enable us to see the difference between your own -case and that of others, “who publish correspondence on matters _relating -merely to themselves_.” - -It is true that your case has been publicly discussed in parliament, and -so has the case of many another individual; but I must think a -distinction is to be drawn between a person dragging his own affairs -before the public and a public affair; and any weight that you would -attach to the discussion you allude to, as giving to your case the -character and importance of a public question, may perhaps be lessened by -a consideration of the manner in which that discussion was brought about. -The Bishop of Lincoln rose, not to the question, but “at the particular -desire of the Rev. Mr. Wodehouse,” wishing to have his case brought into -notice; the Bishop of Norwich said that he “should not have risen, had -not the name of the Rev. Mr. Wodehouse been introduced;” and the Bishop -of London “would not have entered into the discussion, had it not been -for some observations which had escaped from the Bishop of Norwich.” _No -temporal Peer rose_. Strictly relating then as you would consider your -case to be a public question, there appeared but little indication of its -being so considered by the House of Lords, and as to the opinion of the -clergy, the Bishop of Lincoln observed, “I am not aware that any general -desire for such alterations exists, on the contrary, I believe, that -never did the great body of the clergy deprecate more strongly any change -in the Articles and Liturgy than at the present moment.” - -The discussion however seems not a little to have disquieted you—but -having raised the whirlwind, though you have failed to guide it—ought you -not to have been less impatient of the storm? - - Leniter ex merito quicquid patiare ferendum est. - -It is difficult to believe that on calmer reflection, a mind like yours -will experience no uneasiness at the recollection of having endeavoured -to turn an _intended_ kindness to the prejudice of those who had -conferred it, and in that light all must view the evident wish on the -parts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, to -resolve your doubts, and as far as their private opinions could -avail—restore peace to your mind. I allude to the use you have made of -private conversations, I say _private_, for up to a certain time you -appear to have so considered the opinions that were then given you. “I -have been favoured,” you say in a letter to one of the Bishops, “with the -_private_ opinions of many persons I am _bound_ to respect.” {5a} I -admit that for your further satisfaction you received permission to -_mention_, or as you say “make known what passed at these -interviews.”—Still, although it would have made no difference as to the -permission granted, had they even contemplated such a circumstance; I -suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, must -have felt a little surprised to find that their every word had straitly -been observed— - - Set in a note book, conn’d and got by rote, - To cast into their teeth—_eleven years_ afterwards! - -Yet, by the aid alone of these communications, you have endeavoured to -fix upon the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London the -following charge, namely, “that in the debate of the 26th of May, 1840, -his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London more -decidedly endeavoured to crush the very idea of the _same latitude_, -which they had on other occasions most unequivocally allowed and -approved.” {5b} - -I hesitate not for a moment to say that it is a charge unsupported even -by the shadow of a proof. And let us first examine your evidence as it -bears upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. - -The points to which you direct our attention in substantiation of your -charge are these:—His Grace’s conversation in May, 1829—his letters of -May 12, 1830—and March 18, 1840—and his speech in the debate on the -Petition. - -In his letter of March 18, 1840, his Grace says, “I shall be much -surprised if expressions are found in any letter of mine, which can be -_considered as an intended justification of your opinions_,” an -observation at variance, as you have persuaded yourself with his letter -of 1830, and his conversation with you in 1829. - -In the first place I would submit that a distinction obtains between not -_condemning_ an opinion and _intending to justify_ it. It is possible -that his Grace may take higher views of the power committed to the -stewards of the mysteries of God than you do. But agreeing perhaps with -you that “the power of the keys” cannot as you have elsewhere observed, -be “_beyond a doubt_ defined.” {6a} His Grace might be unwilling to -condemn your lower views, but you could scarcely have construed this into -an _intended justification_ of them. He had besides told you “that the -absence of censure did not imply a tacit _acquiescence_ in your -opinions.” {6b} - -But what was the latitude which his Grace thought fairly allowable, and -how far will it justify you in saying that in his speech he endeavoured -to crush the very idea of that _same_ latitude being allowed? - -Your conversation with his Grace seems to have turned on the _three -points_ mentioned in your petition,—the Athanasian Creed, the Absolution, -and the words used in a part of the Ordination Service. Upon your -mentioning the different opinions given by various eminent writers of our -church as to the Athanasian Creed and its condemnatory clauses, his Grace -observed, “_Well_—_none of these opinions has been condemned_, _take -whichever suits your own views_, _and be satisfied_.” {7a} But you -cannot be satisfied, and although repeatedly told by his Grace, and also -by the Bishop of Lincoln, that you could not, so long as Convocation -remained in abeyance, obtain the _authoritative sense of the Church_ on -these points, you persist in pressing for it. To a request to this -effect conveyed in a letter to his Grace, you again refer to the subject -of your conversation. To this his Grace replies, “With respect to the -subject of your letter, I have only to refer you to our former -conversation, in which I expressed _an opinion_ that, on points where -writers of eminence have differed without slur on their orthodoxy, a -certain latitude of interpretation is fairly allowable. But with respect -to the _authoritative sense of the Church_ on the points mentioned in -your petition, no individual has a right to declare it, if it is a matter -of doubt: and if, during a long succession of years, some difference of -opinion is found among writers eminent for learning and piety, the -silence of the Church, under such circumstances, may be taken as an -indication of her unwillingness to abridge the liberty of her members on -_these points_.” {7b} - -I can see nothing here like an _intended justification_ of your opinions. -His Grace would give you it appears _no decision_ in private, he nowhere -led you to infer that he even _approved_ of your opinions, and could -hardly have intended you to conclude that he meant to _justify_ them. He -tells you “he could not see how your position would be mended by an open -declaration of his opinion, _even if favourable_ to that exposition which -would suit your views,” {8} which seems at least to imply a doubt, and -where there is a doubt, the judge usually directs the jury to give the -prisoner the benefit of it, but this does not involve the judge’s -_approval_ or _intended justification_ of the prisoner’s case. - -Yet this is all that his Grace admitted,—and to what had this admission a -reference? To a certain latitude of _interpretation_ allowable under -certain circumstances. And I think I can safely defy you to point out a -_solitary expression_ in his Grace’s speech on the 26th of May, 1840, in -which he attempts to evade this admission, or, in the language of your -accusation, “endeavours to crush the very idea of the _same_ latitude -which on other occasions he had unequivocally allowed and _approved_.” -His Grace’s _approval_ however is nowhere apparent. - -His Grace addresses himself in his speech to the prayer of the petition, -“which he apprehends their Lordships will not countenance in the least -degree.” And what is the prayer? “It prays, amongst other things, your -Lordships to consider what measures ought to be adopted to make the -Prayer Book and the Subscription of the Liturgy consonant with the -_practice_ of the clergy, and the acknowledged meaning of the Articles of -the church.” And what is the imputed _practice_ of the clergy? -According to the statement of the petitioners it is their “general -practice to _deviate_ from the authorised _forms_ and _positive -obligations_ of the Church,”—when with reference to your own case, the -three points on which you consulted his Grace, you can prove that to -_deviate_ from or _omit_ the Athanasian Creed—the Absolution—and the -words used at the Imposition of Hands—is the _same_ latitude, which with -reference to their _interpretation_, he had thought fairly allowable.—You -may then boast that you have convicted the Spiritual Head of the Church -of inconsistency and duplicity, and no one will attempt to controvert -your insinuation that his Grace “has one opinion at Lambeth, and another -in the House of Lords.” {9a} - -Your charge as it affects the Bishop of London, rests on similar -evidence. His Lordship’s conversation in 1829—a letter of 1830—and his -speech in 1840. You consulted his Lordship in 1829 on the same subjects, -and received in substance the same reply as had been given to you by the -Archbishop. And I can as confidently defy you to point out in his -Lordship’s speech in 1840, a passage that can give any colouring of -justice to your charge; unless you can shew that to deprecate an -_alteration_ of our Articles and Liturgy is the same thing as to admit -that certain parts of them may bear a difference of _interpretation_, or -show that there is no difference between an _existing_ “elasticity” and a -_further_ “expansion.” - -Your evidence then, if anywhere, must be found in his Lordship’s letter -of 1830. The letter of which you complain to the Archbishop as “_unkind -and inconsistent with former advice_.” {9b} - -But as you seem to me to have conversed with his Lordship on one subject, -and to have written to him, the following year, upon another, I do not -see how you make it appear that his Lordship’s letter was inconsistent -with his former advice. - -It does not appear that you had asked his Lordship “in what sense you -would be expected to subscribe” _in future_, but whether _having -subscribed_, certain opinions which you had taken up, were consistent -with your Subscription. His Lordship thought that they were. - -But nine months afterwards, on being called upon to _renew_ your -Subscription, you inform his Lordship that you had determined not to make -it again but with a sort of _protest_.—By Subscription, you are called -upon to declare that “the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering Bishops, -Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing _contrary_ to the word of -God, and that the Articles are _agreeable_ to it:” but to this you will -not assent, unless you may at the same time be permitted to declare that -you do not believe it. You must explain, you tell his Lordship, the -sense in which you shall have no objection to subscribe, and that through -the medium of a petition to parliament. Now there appears nothing in -your report of the conversation to lead to the inference, nor can I -easily bring myself to think that his Lordship could have led you to -infer that a _qualified_ Subscription was admissible either from -candidates for orders, or other clergymen. A different exposition of the -general doctrine laid down in several of our Articles, may be fairly -allowable; the _letter_ of our Liturgy may in several parts admit of a -different interpretation, and if taking our own views of these points, -believing them not inconsistent with an allowable interpretation of the -words, we can _unreservedly_ subscribe, well and good—but for my own -part, I should scarcely expect it of a Bishop to receive a qualified -Subscription from me, the precedent I must think would be a bad one, and -the practice subversive of the very object of Subscription, independent -of the awkward acknowledgement it involves, that our Church exacts from -her members a form of Subscription, which cannot be made without a -_salvo_. - -You scarcely could have inferred from his Lordship’s _advice_, that he -“unequivocally allowed and approved of _this_ latitude.” But as he had -told you that he thought your interpretation of certain points -admissible, and that you might openly hold your opinions, you _might_ -have inferred that he also considered them consistent with an -“_unreserved_ Subscription, and that according to the literal sense of -the words”—for the question is, will not the literal sense of the words -bear a different _application_? You subscribe _unreservedly_, at least -you have given us no reason to suppose otherwise, to the Apostles’ Creed, -in which we are told that Christ sitteth at the _right hand_ of God, but -the _literal_ meaning of the words is at variance with the truth, that -“God is without body, parts, or passions.” {11} I must think that you -have conjured up a greater difficulty on the score of Subscription than -in reality obtains. At all events you must detail some further -particulars of his Lordship’s conversation, before you will enable us to -detect its discrepancy with the subject of his subsequent letter. - -But if his Lordship’s private opinion on the allowable interpretation of -the points on which you consulted him, failed to remove your doubts and -scruples, and you were after all fully persuaded in your own mind that -the words in question could by no possibility bear the only -interpretation with which you could _conscientiously_ subscribe to them; -I cannot see how the _open sanction_ of the Church could affect you to -the “easing of your conscience.” For surely if the words will _not_ bear -a certain sense, the Church cannot make them—the sanction of all the -Bishops in Christendom could never make _black_ mean _white_. If you are -of opinion that it could, for a Protestant you must entertain rather high -views of the power of the Church—and yet such would seem to be your -opinion, for in the “Circular” which you sent a day or two before the -presentation of the petition last year, to “all the Peers whose London -residences could be ascertained;” after alluding to _these opinions_ -which you had received from the Archbishop and the Bishop of London, you -say, “my answer was, if such be the case, let these statements be _openly -sanctioned_, and I am content. But I cannot with _truth and honesty_ -subscribe, not according to the _literal_ meaning of the words, _unless_ -such latitude _be authorised by the Church_.” - -Now if the Subscription is still to be made to the same form of words, it -is very difficult to see how the _authority of the Church_ can impart to -them a meaning, to which without that authority _truth and honesty_ would -forbid you to subscribe. If you do not take care, the Editors of the -Oxford Tracts will mark you for their own, in spite of yourself. - -But in what position do you now stand? You have _done_ what you informed -the Bishop of London, you could “not be comfortable without doing.” You -have made known to the world, and that by the means you proposed to -yourself, namely, a petition to parliament, what your opinions are, and -the world interferes not with them, nor does the Church condemn them; you -have only therefore to arrange the matter with your own conscience—if -that condemns you, your course is a clear one. But why should it condemn -you more for the next fourteen years, than it would seem to have done for -the last fourteen? During that time you have held your preferment with -your opinions, and why should you not continue to hold your opinions with -your preferment? - -You tell us that your object was eleven years ago to “ascertain _with -certainty_ whether you held any opinion which the Church condemned.” {13} -You were informed that the _authoritative sense_ of the Church on the -points you wished for information _could not_ in the abeyance of -Convocation be obtained; but you were at the same time told, and that, by -many whose opinions probably would have had great weight in Convocation -had it been immediately convened for your satisfaction, that they -considered your opinions allowable, that the Church did not condemn them; -and I think it would have been a reasonable inference with which to have -quieted your conscience, that had the Convocation been assembled, the -authoritative sense of the Church would not have been against you. - -And certain passages in your ministerial career had led us to hope and to -infer that you had come to that conclusion, that having unburthened your -mind, you were at rest. For in 1836, you presented a second petition to -the House of Lords, but from that time, as far at least as we could judge -from your proceedings, you seemed to have given up your pursuit, at all -events, it appears that you rested upon your oars till 1840. And in the -interim, in the year 1837, after having abstained for some years, and in -consequence as it was supposed of your scruples, we saw you again -_voluntarily_ coming forward, and in your character of a Presbyter, -officiating at the ceremony of the _Imposition of Hands_, co-operating -with the Bishop during the recital of the very words at which your -conscience had taken such alarm, and with respect to which in your former -petition, “you had humbly and earnestly prayed that such steps might be -taken as should seem good to their Lordships, in order to effect those -alterations in the Liturgy which would relieve the conscience of their -petitioner.” {14a} And we had also subsequently read the resolution you -had come to, and _deliberately_ published in 1838. In a note to a sermon -which you published in that year, you say, “In the absence of all -authoritative censure, I conclude as many others do, that a silent change -has taken place, ‘from the diversity of times and men’s manners.’ In -that conclusion I abide, repeating what I have often said, that -_whenever_ I am pronounced wrong on _authority_, I am ready to meet the -consequences.” {14b} - -I can myself say, and I am sure that all who have had any opportunity of -knowing you, will say it with the same sincerity, in that conclusion we -most heartily wish that you _would_ abide—that you would continue to -discharge your pastoral duties, your deliberate and solemnly accepted -engagements to the “Chief Shepherd” in the same exemplary manner that has -marked your hitherto career, _until_ you are pronounced wrong _on -authority_—or called from your stewardship to render up your account with -joy. In what estimation you may hold the opinions of your brother -petitioners, the _Messrs. Hull_, I know not, but they say, “Our clergy -_cannot_ leave the Church—their _ordination vows are upon them_.” And -besides, my dear sir, to rush upon martyrdom in the absence of all -persecution, or, as far as the public can see, any apparent necessity, -will at best obtain for you but an Empedoclean sort of fame. And as -nothing has occurred since you published your resolution in 1838, to -affect your situation differently from what it had been for nine or ten -years before, save the failure of another petition; should you resign in -consequence of that circumstance, it would look almost as if you resigned -merely to spite the Archbishop. - -But under the little difficulty that exists of ascertaining with any -certainty what your intentions have been, or even now are, we earnestly -trust they may not result in the alternative of a resignation, to which -in the course of your correspondence you have made such frequent -allusions. “An alternative,” which as Bishop Heber says, “it is easy to -suggest in the case of a brother, but which every man in his own case -receives with difficulty.” {15a} - -A few days before the presentation of the last petition you wrote to his -Grace thus, “If I fail on this occasion . . . I consider myself pledged -to resign my preferment.” {15b} The result of that petition was -unfavourable. But ten months afterwards, that is, in your last -publication, you call upon his Grace to pronounce that judgment which he -had told you he “was _unwilling_ to pronounce on scruples which he hoped -time might remove,” {15c}—“and _should_ that judgment require such a -step, you will with God’s permission resign next December, _unless_ a -clear expression of public opinion should intervene appealing against the -judgment pronounced.” {15d} - -Let us hope then that you will abide in this your _latest_ resolution, -for I think from the evidence with which you have furnished us, we may -venture to conclude that no such judgment will be pronounced as shall -call for any expression of public opinion. - -I shall now proceed to hazard a few observations on the reasons assigned -by the Bishop of Norwich in favour of an _Expansion_ of Subscription, -seeing that they are considered by many so strongly to confirm the -correctness of your own views, and as you have told us that you cannot -consistently with _truth and honesty_ make the required Subscription, we -cannot but apprehend that in the proportion that those views are believed -to be substantial and correct, the character of the clergy must be -prejudiced, at all events in the eyes of those, who unwilling or unable -to investigate the matter for themselves, take up the opinions of others, -and arriving through them at a corollary of their own, hesitate not to go -as far as to declare that “_all_ the clergy are _perjured_.” - -As I can devise no better, I shall pursue the plan you have adopted with -respect to the speech of the Bishop of London, that is, giving such -extracts from his Lordship’s speech as bear upon the subject of -Subscription, with a running comment of my own. I will not however, -introduce my remarks with the preface you have affixed to your “plain -story,”—giving us to understand that it is intended to be “a refutation -of almost every statement in the Bishop of London’s speech.” {16} Lest -having led my readers to exclaim - - Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu. - -I should leave them to conclude that I had been labouring under what the -faculty, I believe, term “a false conception.” - -His Lordship’s first reason for wishing for a more expanded Subscription, -is that— - - “IF _it be true that there is anything approaching to the appearance - of insincerity on the part of those making the Subscription_, _if we - seem to confess with our lips that we do not confess and believe in - our hearts we give our opponents a vantage ground of which they will - not be slow to avail themselves_.” - -There is said to be much virtue in an IF, and _eâ virtute nos -involvissemus_, had not his Lordship torn the covering away, and “left us -naked to our enemies,”—self-convicted of “confessing with our lips that -we do not confess and believe in our hearts.” For says his Lordship— - - “IN FACT, _with respect to Subscription_, _I have never yet met with - a single clergyman_ (_and I have spoken with almost numberless - individuals on the subject_), _who ever allowed that he agreed in - every point_, _in every iota to the Subscription which he took at - ordination_.” - -It would not be treating his Lordship with candour to give to his -observation an offensive meaning, which it was not intended to convey. -It is more with reference to the mal-construction and malicious use of it -by our opponents, that we are led to wish that it had not been made. -Since his Lordship’s subsequent pamphlet, from which we collect the sense -in which he was viewing Subscription, when he made the observation, a -sense in which, for instance with reference to those clauses of the -Athanasian Creed, which are commonly, and unjustly, called _damnatory_, -few I suspect do subscribe, being, in my opinion, in no wise bound to an -application of the clauses, so manifestly at variance with the spirit in -which the formulary was imposed on us by our Reformers;—since I say, this -pamphlet can obtain but a very small part of the circulation of the -speech itself, where the observation stands _unqualified_; the general -impression of his Lordship’s meaning must be that the clergy subscribe -_ex animo_, to that which _ex animo_ they do not believe. - -At the same time I have never seen the necessity of responding to those -appeals through which the clergy of this Diocese have been called upon to -take some public step, to repel the observation as an implied libel upon -them. I would rather it should be remembered that his Lordship, -comparatively speaking, has been but a short time amongst us, and that -for anything we can tell, the enquiries of which he speaks may have been -chiefly made amongst the clergy of another Diocese, (indeed, considering -that it is not a likely question for a Bishop to put to candidates for -Orders, or his clergy generally, the inference must be that they were), -and if their “withers should be galled,” let them respond to these -appeals, “ours are unwrung.” - -It must, however, be admitted that any _insincerity_ in the matter of -Subscription, would deservedly expose us to the contempt of our -opponents.—But a generous mind would shrink instinctively from inferring -insincerity from any thing _approaching only to its appearance_. -_Decipimur specie_ ought to hold with respect to _evil_ not less than -_good_. Still, alas! to the jaundiced eye every object presents itself -in colours not its own. And I fear that the opinion which his Lordship -would seem to entertain of the actuating spirit of our opponents, is but -too well founded, and amply justifies his apprehension that _they_ would -not be slow to avail themselves of the _appearance_, caring little to -dissipate the “mentis gratissimus error,” by ascertaining themselves of -the non-existence of the _reality_. That accomplished, but embittered -infidel, the historian Gibbon, did not scruple to declare that the -clergy, one and all of them, made their Subscription either “with a sigh -or a smile;” but I trust that the clergy, as a body, can afford to leave -such opponents in the unmolested possession of their imaginary vantage -ground. Until _Mordecai_ was removed from his seat at the gate, the soul -of _Haman_ could not be quieted within him—nor will the souls of our -opponents, until the Church is brought down to a level with their own -sects. - - “_If it_ (_Subscription_) _is to be understood in the literal_, _most - strict_, _and most stringent sense_, _it would create difficulties_, - _which must weigh heavily upon scrupulous and tender consciences_.” - -But even supposing this—where there is no compulsion, there no violence -can be done to the conscience, and no one is compelled to “enter the -church,” and in using the expression, I confess I cannot perceive with -the _Messrs. Hull_, that it is redolent “of a very popish error,” it -certainly means, as they observe, “taking orders;” and I should think -that the last persons likely to present themselves to a Bishop for that -purpose, would be those whose consciences were already overborne by the -pressure of their scruples. - -“Tenderness of conscience,” says _Bishop Jeremy Taylor_, “is an equivocal -term, and does not always signify in a good sense.” {19} I am far from -meaning to impeach the sincerity of the petitioners, but if his Lordship -applied the term in any other than a _good sense_, he might seem to have -paid them but an equivocal compliment, and if he used it in a good sense -with respect to _them_, the great body of the clergy who have subscribed, -and felt no pang, might suspect his Lordship of meaning to imply that -they were gifted with consciences of a somewhat tougher texture than is -altogether to be envied. Some have chosen to draw this inference; I will -not however believe that they have done his Lordship’s deliberate -sentiments justice in so doing. - - “_And by continuing these difficulties_ (_of Subscription_) _we - should leave the way open only to those whose consciences have no - scruples_, _and who would enter the Church only with a view to the - profits and secular advantages_.” - -I would submit that a man may enter the Church with _a_ view to its -_secular_ advantages, without being justly involved in the suspicion of -_insincerity_, or of necessity, laying himself open to the imputation of -entering it _only_ with a view to its profits. For instance, should a -gentleman have in his gift what is commonly called a _family living_, he -may design it as a provision for a younger son, who enters upon a course -of study and trains himself for the ministry, and that without -necessarily discarding all view to the _secular_ advantages of his -profession, knowing that “they which preach the gospel should live of the -gospel:” but so far from its following that he enters the Church with _no -other_ or higher motive; how frequently do we find it the case with those -whose lot has thus been cast, as it were, for them, that they prove not -merely exemplary parish priests, but eventually rise to adorn the -_Episcopal Bench_. His Lordship will not object to my adducing his own -successful career as a case in point. - -But if such characters as his Lordship speaks of, can even _now_ in the -teeth of all the imputed difficulties, enter the church, if they be so -disposed, I do not clearly see how removing these difficulties will -mitigate the evil—how widening the portal will tend to obstruct the -entrance. Nor, although it stands so recorded in his Lordship’s speech, -will I believe it to be, his deliberate opinion, that by leaving the -matter of Subscription as it _now_ stands, we leave the way open _only_ -to those whose consciences can feel _no scruples_. If these expressions -of his Lordship are to be taken only in a good sense, I trust for the -credit of the Church that his Lordship is not the only exception to the -general rule. The _Messrs. Hull_, in their animadversions on the Bishop -of London’s speech, draw a nice distinction between “opening the door,” -and “leaving it open.” In cases of burglary I believe the distinction -involves a difference; we may venture therefore to hazard a guess to -which of the brothers, the lawyer or the divine, we may attribute that -contribution to the joint stock pamphlet. {21} - - “_But there is an answer commonly given_, _and a weighty one_, _to - this objection_. _The Church has a sort of elasticity which allows - and graduates the differences that exist_.” - -Yet on the use of the word “elasticity” by the Bishop of London, you say, -“I confess myself entirely unable to distinguish between the ‘expansion’ -of the one prelate or the ‘elasticity’ of the other.” {22a} If there is -no difference between the existing elasticity and the expansion pleaded -for, for what boon did the petitioners pray? I anticipate your answer, -and will reply to it presently. - - “_It does not become the Church of England_, _a Church founded on - liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment_, _to say - that there shall not be a certain latitude of opinion_.” - -This observation has been the theme for much discussion. It has been -pretty roundly insinuated that his Lordship’s meaning had been wilfully -misapprehended by the Bishop of London. I see myself but little ground -for the insinuation. It will at all events be admitted that his Lordship -did not qualify or define the sense in which he used the observation. He -has however explained his meaning and the extent to which he applied it -in his pamphlet, or as you term it “brief defence” of his speech. - -After quoting the “passing remarks of a country newspaper,” as -elucidatory of his Lordship’s meaning, you say, “I cannot believe the -Bishop of London could be blind to a distinction so obvious.” {22b} For -the present, be it so. In the same page in which this expression of your -incredulity as to his Lordship’s blindness occurs, you quote another -passage from his speech, that in which he observes of Subscription,—“it -is not required from all members of the Church, but only from the -ministers of the Church, as a security against a greater evil, &c.” Upon -which you exclaim, “can we forget that _all_ graduates at the -universities are required to subscribe, that these are all _laymen_?” -Not very easily, I admit. And which would you wish us to suppose? That -his Lordship had forgotten it, or that he was ignorant of it, or that he -intended to palm upon the audience before which he spake such an -assertion as a _literal_ fact? As I am inclined to think that _you_ -suppose neither one nor the other, I must say, “I cannot believe that you -could be blind to his Lordship’s meaning,” and could not help exclaiming -on reading your ready imputation against the Bishop of London—“Physician! -heal thyself.” - -But whilst so many explanations have since been given of the meaning in -which this observation was made by the Bishop of Norwich, and so many -insinuations levelled at the Bishop of London for not choosing to see it, -I am disposed to think that his Lordship did not feel himself called upon -to dive into the thoughts of the Bishop of Norwich, but intending to give -a direct negative to an unqualified affirmative, meant to re-repudiate -the notion that “the church of England, _was_ founded on liberty of -conscience, and the right of private judgment,” and to assert with -reference to the well-known _fruits_ of such a principle, that the Church -was founded on “truth.” But the Bishop of Norwich contends that the -expression is an “incorrect” one, and that had he been speaking of “the -only true foundation of the true Catholic Church itself,” he should have -said that it was “founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ -himself being the chief corner stone.” {24a} The Bishop of London could -scarcely have thought the _periphrasis_ necessary, considering before -whom he was speaking, he would probably reply to the imputed -incorrectness of the expression, that he always considered the foundation -of which the Bishop of Norwich here speaks, to be “truth,” and that the -Church was the interpreter of the _Apostles_, and _Prophets_, and _Jesus -Christ_, or in other words of the _Gospel of Christ_. He meant also I -should suppose, to repudiate the notion, that _the Reformation of the -Church_ proceeded on such a principle, and in effect to affirm that from -the days of Archbishop Cranmer to these of Archbishop Howley, no such -principle had ever been recognized by the _Church_, as that of admitting -“liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment,” to have any -_directive_ influence in Church affairs; a fact, which if not -sufficiently proved by the mandate of Edward the Sixth, enforcing under -the penalties of “sequestration, suspension, excommunication, and such -_other coercion_, as to ordinaries or others having ecclesiastical -jurisdiction, shall seem convenient, straitly charging and commanding his -loving subjects to observe the injunctions of 1547,” {24b}—would be amply -established by your own observations respecting _Bishop Hooper_, for the -sending of the good old man to prison in the matter of the vestments, and -that by the _Reformers_ themselves, would seem but little to favour the -notion that our reformed Church was founded on “liberty of conscience and -the right of private judgment.” - -But that I may not also be accused of misapprehending his Lordship’s -meaning, I will here quote his explanation of the sense in which the -observation was made— - - “_It is of course plain that I was neither speaking of the Catholic - Church at all_, _nor even of the Church of England_, _except in its - character of a Reformed Church_, _founded as such on the principles - of the Reformation_, _which I again deliberately assert to be liberty - of conscience and the right of private judgment_, _in opposition to - that Church from whence it separated_, _in which the authority of - Popes_, _Councils_, _and Priests_, _superseded all appeal to the - scriptures themselves_, _and by which of course freedom of judgment - was strictly prohibited_.” {25a} - -Not that it bears upon his Lordship’s argument, still I would -respectfully submit whether our alleged _separation_ here from the Church -of Rome be strictly correct; we threw off our allegiance to the _usurped_ -authority, temporal and spiritual, of the Pope; we reformed the abuses of -_our own Church_, but we _separated_ from no mother Church. The -episcopal Church in England existed long before the Pope cast his eye -upon it.—“In the acts of the Council of Arles, which was held A.D. 314, -we find the Subscriptions of three British Bishops.” {25b} - -But I would further question whether in his Lordship’s _qualified_ sense -of the observation it can with any strictness be said, that our -_reformed_ Church was founded on the principle he contends for. - -It will, I think, be admitted that whatever was done with reference to -the Church by that “Postilion of the Reformation,” as Burnet calls him, -the _Papist_ Henry, was done by him more with a view “to cudgel the Pope -into a compliance with what he desired,” {26a} than from any desire to -reform our religion. At all events, we must give up any attempt to -reconcile his “six acts” with “liberty of conscience.” - -The reformation of our _religion_ had its commencement in the reign of -his successor. Here, if any where, we must look for the principle in -question. But can it be said that our religion was reformed “in -_opposition_ to the authority of Popes and Councils,” when it is so well -known, that “the Bishop of Rome’s usurped power and jurisdiction was of -most just causes taken away and _abolished_,” {26b} in the preceding -reign? Neither can it, I think, in strictness be said, _of that time_, -that the _Priests_ superseded all appeal to the scriptures, seeing that -it was by the Bishops themselves that the scriptures were chiefly caused -to be circulated. I am speaking not of the German Protestant Church, but -that of which his Lordship speaks, “the Church of England, in its -character of a reformed Church.” And I have before shewn on your own -authority in the matter of _Hooper_, that she recognised nothing so -little as the principle of “liberty of conscience.” That sectarism or -separation _from_ the Church is founded on this principle, will be -admitted. - -It has always appeared to me, that the hacknied phrase, “liberty of -conscience and the right of private judgment,” applied to an associated -body, is a pure fallacy, I had almost said, a cobweb to catch the fly -popularity, quite as valuable as an appeal, “_ad captandum vulgus_,” as -the cry—“_Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari_,” to which “catch-word,” his -Lordship attributes the defeat of the attempt to revise the Liturgy in -1689. You also attribute this defeat to “the violence of party;” but -there are those, and the late pious and excellent _Bishop Jebb_ amongst -the number, who ascribe it to the “_special interference of Providence_.” -“But the special interference of Providence did not terminate with the -first establishment of our Liturgy . . . Even within the Church itself, -some were found whose integrity cannot be impeached, who were on the -point of introducing alterations which could not have failed to prove -equally injurious to the cause of truth and piety.” {27a} Even Bishop -Burnet, one of the Commissioners, with reference to the probable result -of those contemplated alterations of 1689, imputes the failure of the -attempt to a “very happy direction of the providence of God observed in -the matter.” {27b} - -The Church, however, coerces the conscience of no man, every one is at -liberty to take his own religious course, and I confess I cannot see why -that which is conceded to all other societies should be denied to the -Church—the right of being governed by her own constitutions, and the -right also of judging what constitutions are most conducive to the -welfare and good order of her community. - -If I could not conscientiously conform to the doctrines and discipline of -the _Baptist_ or the _Independent_, I question if they would allow me to -give my conscience the liberty to act amongst them according to its -dictates. They would no more deny than we do ourselves, the abstract -principle, neither would they “fine,” nor put me in “the pillory,” but I -suspect they would “exclude” me, and with very good reason, from their -ministry. To talk of conceding the abstract right of private judgment, -has always appeared to me a good deal like talking of conceding to a -person with sound lungs the privilege of breathing. But to contend for -the _principle_ and talk of certain latitudes and limits, seems to me to -involve a contradiction—once assign any _limits_ to the “right,” and you -destroy the principle. But although his Lordship pleads for the -principle being, as he contends, that on which our Church is founded, and -ought to be acted upon, he would circumscribe it within “a certain -latitude of opinion.” He would not have it trench upon “the -distinguishing features and essential doctrines of the Christian Church.” -But who is to be the judge of these doctrines? Two of the petitioners, -the _Messrs. Hull_, repudiate the very idea of the Church being the -authorized interpreter of the truth. “If,” say these brothers, in -allusion to a remark by the Bishop of London, “the word ‘authorised’ bear -its usual signification, such a remark would indeed be inconsistent with -liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment.” {28a} - -Again, arguing from _the abuse_ of Subscription by “unconscientious and -unscrupulous men,” they say, “it is on that account that the simplest -Creed, and the truth to which the term ‘necessary’ is directly applied in -our bible, are enough to justify a call into the ministry.” {28b} - -But let any one compare the following passage, from _Mr. Belsham’s_ first -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} - -But we cannot bring ourselves to think that it can consist with the -goodness of Him “whose tender mercies are over all His works,” to doom to -“irretrievable perdition,” _millions_ of His creatures for the -non-performance of an _impossibility_. We consequently limit this awful -sentence against those who “love unrighteousness,” and wilfully reject -the _offer_ of salvation. The context forces us to this application of -the anathema. But I am not asking in what sense we are to _understand_ -the threat of scripture, but applying to it the same reasoning through -which the Athanasian Creed is attacked; and I assert that _literally_ -understood, the texts which I have quoted, as undistinguishingly doom to -perdition _all_ who do not believe the gospel, as does the Athanasian -Creed all who do not hold the Catholic Faith. - -But if we are to ascertain the sense of scripture by comparing it with -scripture, the text with the context, why are we to be debarred from -ascertaining the sense and meaning of our Church formularies, by the -application of the same canon of interpretation? Why are so invidious -objections to be conjured up and bruited abroad against our Church, by -tying us down to the _letter_ of her forms, to the utter disregard of -their meaning, and the spirit in which they have been imposed? I cannot -express my own view of these monitory clauses, better than in the -language of a contemporary divine, “their connection and relative force -is this: whosoever desires to be saved it is necessary that he hold the -Catholic Faith, and if he who has this faith keep it not, for he cannot -keep it except he has first had it or held it, he cannot be saved, but -without doubt shall perish everlastingly. The warning, therefore, is -directed to him only who keeps not the faith which he has been taught, -which has been put into his hands, which he has had hold of.” {45} - -But my Diocesan affirms, and although it is your own opinion also, I take -the liberty of canvassing it in his Lordship’s statement, feeling that -the sentiments of the Spiritual Head of the Church in this Diocese, must -carry with them even greater weight than your own. His Lordship says, -“granting (though the Creed makes no such concession) that five hundred -millions and upwards of Pagans and Heathens, out of eight hundred -millions inhabitants of our globe, are not meant to be included in this -sweeping anathema, it should be remembered that the whole Greek Church, -professed Christians as they are, must of necessity be included, as its -members after mature consideration are at variance with other Churches -respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost.” {46a} As a point of -_doctrine_ I am much disposed to question the “mature consideration,” I -should rather impute the schism to the imperious and unbending -dispositions of the respective parties, the _Patriarch_ versus the -_Pontiff_. But be that as it may,—I would exonerate our Church from the -odium of gratuitously condemning to irretrievable perdition, those who in -_her own opinion_ substantially differ nothing from her in this respect, -but do keep undefiled the Catholic Faith. - -“They do not,” says _Archbishop Bramhall_, “add the word _filioque_ to -the Creed, and yet they acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of -the Son, which is the very same thing in sense.” {46b} And again—“_Peter -Lombard_, _Thomas à Jesu_, _Cardinal Tolet_, and many others, do make the -question about the procession of the Holy Ghost to be verbal only, -without reality, and that the Grecian expressions of _Spiritus Filii_ and -_per __Filium_, do signify as much as our _Filioque_.” {47a} _Bishop -Pearson_, _Bishop Beveridge_, _Dr. Waterland_, and many others of our own -divines are of the same opinion. - -In explication of the doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Ghost, the -Athanasian Creed says—“the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,” -the Greek Church holds that which as _Bishop Pearson_ says, plainly -contains this truth, that the Spirit is _of_ God the Father, and _of_ God -the Son. The Creed says, “neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but -proceeding,” and beyond a _procession_, distinguishing Him from the -Father and the Son, but whether this procession be_ temporal_, _eternal_, -or both—whether from the Father _and_ the Son, or from the Father only, -the Creed _determines_ nothing—and the distinguishing property ascribed -by the Greek Church to the Holy Ghost, is a _procession_, _Εκπορενσις_. -{47b} “The Greek Church,” says _Dr. Bennet_, “does unanimously maintain -the _temporal_ procession of the Holy Ghost, from _both_ the Father and -the Son. And since this Creed may be understood in that sense, therefore -in the use of it we do _necessarily_ declare no more than what the Greek -Church does as cordially profess and contend for as ourselves.” - -“Though the distinction,” says the same writer, “was so well known to all -our Reformers in this nation, yet their prudence and moderation would not -suffer them to take notice of it in any public and authentic manner. -They would not recede from _Rome_ any further than was necessary, upon -the account of the _Roman_ corruptions, and therefore they did not reject -the _filioque_ from the _Nicene_ Creed or the Creed of _St. Athanasius_, -nor did they declare themselves against the _Greek_ Church by adding any -such term, as must necessarily determine in what sense they understood -the _procession_.” {48a} _Literally_ taken, therefore, the Greek Church -is _not of necessity_ included in this sweeping anathema, and as his -Lordship states it, “excluded from the merits of the Redeemer’s death -hereafter,” any more than five hundred millions of Heathens are condemned -to irretrievable perdition by the _literal_ acceptation of Mark xvi. 16. - -To affirm the necessity of the Catholic Faith to salvation, is simply to -say what our Lord himself says, in the above text. To affirm that he who -_having had_ the Catholic Faith _rejects_ it, is to say no more than is -said, Heb. vi. 4, Luke ix. 62, Matt x. 13, and 2 Peter ii. 21, with many -other like places. - -It would appear then from page 51 of your pamphlet, that we differ -nothing in our application of these clauses; the only difference between -us is, that taking this view of it, I can _unreservedly_ make my -Subscription, and conscientiously hold with our eighth Article, that this -Creed “_ought thoroughly to be received and believed_.” But if in my -conscience I believed that such an application of them was untenable, I -confess I could not so easily lay aside my scruples, as it would appear -you were ready to do, provided you could obtain the “sanction of the -opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury,” an opinion which being not _ex -cathedra_, but private and personal, his Grace would not permit you to -consider as “of greater value than that of any other _individual_, who -may possess in an equal degree the qualifications of a competent judge in -such a matter.” {48b} - -But you ask “whether when we read Mark xvi. 16, we can find in that awful -threat against those who do not receive the GOSPEL, a sanction for the -even more appalling threat contained in the Creed.” {49a} In what sense -it is more appalling you have left us to discover. But by this -observation, you would seem to aim at some distinction between not -receiving the _Gospel_ and rejecting the “very essentials of -Christianity.” - -“The Creed,” you say, “consists of a series of propositions deduced by -fallible man.” This of necessity would be the case, since _the truth_ -was by the wisdom of God committed to the keeping of fallible man, and -with it, the command to “take heed to THE doctrine.” But the question is -are they correct deductions from the _infallible_ word of God? You admit -that they are, all “must admire,” you say, “the extraordinary subtlety -and acuteness with which _erroneous theories_ are rejected, and _the -correct deductions from scripture_ are maintained,” {49b} and again “the -matters treated of in this Creed are of such _fundamental_ importance and -so including the _very essentials of Christianity_.” {49c} If so, if the -deductions be _scriptural_, the spirit of the clauses cannot be -otherwise, for “_he_ that believeth not shall be damned,” and I presume -that by believing you would contend for the necessity of a _sound_ -faith—“the truth as it is in Jesus.” - -“You are not,” you say, “so feverishly sensitive as many good men of our -Church as to Trinitarian definitions, esteeming a lively ‘faith working -by love,’ the grand desideratum of the gospel,” {49d} and so no doubt in -a right sense it is. But _South_ draws a distinction between a lively -and a _living_ faith, “our faith must not only be _living_ but _lively_ -too.” Admitting this distinction, how far behind you does the Unitarian -(or rather _Humanitarian_, if sects would but assume their most -appropriate designation), fall in the profession of a like faith? He -holds after a fashion, St. Paul’s “word of faith,” Rom. x. 9, and in -works of kindness to his fellow creatures and _morality_, falls nothing -behind the most orthodox Trinitarian. In this sense his faith is lively, -and _artlessness_ and _simplicity_ are the boasted characteristics of his -Creed. He “confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus”—but then it is that -he “was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the -same infirmities, the same _ignorance_, _prejudices_, and _frailties_, -that he suffered death, not to appease the wrath of God, not as a -_satisfaction_ to divine justice, not to exhibit the evil of sin, nor in -_any sense whatever to make atonement to God_ for it; for this doctrine, -_in every sense_, and according to every explanation they explode as -_irrational_, _unscriptural_, and _derogatory from the divine -perfections_, but as a _martyr to the truth_, and _as a necessary -preliminary to his resurrection_.” {50} They confess Jesus with the -mouth, but they deny the _gospel of Jesus Christ our Redeemer_. And is -this believing to the saving of the soul? is this a “confession unto -salvation?” Is this THE doctrine? But the rulers of Christ’s Church are -to charge some that they teach _no other_ doctrine, than the doctrine -which is according to godliness, and great is the _mystery_ of godliness. -They are to rebuke sharply that men be _sound_ in the faith. We must in -short teach the truth _as it is in Jesus_,—THE faith and not A faith; and -woe to us if from any mistaken notions of Christian charity, of that -charity which “rejoiceth in the truth,” we hesitate to declare that to -reject “the very essentials of Christianity,” is a “drawing back unto -perdition.” At the same time when in the fulfilment of our bounden duty, -our positive obligations, we declare the threat of scripture, for we -declare no more, we might hope at all events from those whose every -sentiment would seem to breathe of Christian benevolence, to have credit -for declaring it in the spirit of that charity which “_hopeth all -things_.” - -Of the _form of absolution_ in the Service for Visiting the Sick, you -say, “no small harm is done to our reputation by sanctioning that which -in plain honest language cannot be defended.” {51a} - -The Roman Catholic will tell you that you cannot in plain honest language -defend any construction of the words “this _is my body_,” but their own. -You put, however, a different construction upon them, and with no harm -done to your reputation. - -The Bishop of Norwich says of this form, “I have heard many Clergymen -express the pain they felt in uttering it, shrinking, as conscientious -minds ever must, from the assumption of a power of so awful a character, -while others from equally conscientious motives, abstain altogether from -pronouncing it.” {51b} - -I hope I do not misapprehend his Lordship; but the impression of his -opinion left on my mind by this passage, is, that no _conscientious mind_ -can comply with our ordination vows but with _pain_ to itself. With what -pain and reluctance then must his Lordship cause these solemn vows to be -administered, and trusting that they are _conscientiously_ made, how from -_conscientious_ motives a man can abstain from the observance of them, I -confess I cannot clearly see. Nor, can I think it quite just to the -great body of his Clergy to take a _weak_ conscience as the standard by -which to measure the integrity of, perhaps, a better informed one. - -But if his Lordship _so_ construes our formularies, as implying an -assumption on the part of the _Minister_, of a power, the arrogating of -which can fall nothing short of blasphemy, namely, that “unless we as -Ministers of the Church, ‘do forgive’ and ‘absolve,’ the sins of a dying -man must descend with him to the grave, with all their fearful pressure; -and _that if we choose to retain them_, _he cannot escape their -consequences_,” {52a}—in other words, assuming a power like the false -Prophets of old, “to slay the souls that should not die, and save the -souls alive that should not live,” {52b}—if such be his Lordship’s view -of our forms, a man need not be gifted with an over-sensitive conscience -to shudder at the arrogance, the use of them must involve. - -Yet in such a sense, his Lordship would seem to say, that our Church’s -absolution was viewed and “believed by many of our earliest Reformers.” -Let us then try the Service in question, not by its _iotas_, but by its -obvious sense and meaning. Let it be made its own interpreter, and we -must at once be convinced that such was not the spirit in which it was -imposed by our Reformers, that they contemplated no such construction of -its words, as that of implying a power, of “loosing of the debt of -eternal death,”—or as _Bishop Burnet_ says, to “_pardon_ with relation to -God.” - -For if so, why remind the sick person, that “after this life there is an -account to be given to the righteous Judge, by whom all must be judged -without respect of persons.” {53a} Does the form objected to imply any -such arrogant assumption on the part of the Minister? On the contrary, -is not the commencement of it _precatory_? to the effect that _Christ_, -not the _Priest_, “would of his great mercy _forgive_ the penitent his -offences.” Does the Priest pronounce the absolution in his own name? On -the contrary, he pronounces it in the name of Him who sent him to declare -the forgiveness of sins. Does he declare it on any other than the -_gospel terms_? He declares it only to those who “truly repent and -believe in Christ.” But can he see the heart? How then can it be -supposed that he should himself believe, or what danger is incurred of -deceiving the dying person into the fond hope, that he shall, in virtue -of the Priest’s absolution, be clear when he is judged hereafter? Or if -for a moment, the dying person had so deceived himself, must not the -delusion be dissipated, on hearing the Minister _after_ he had pronounced -his _absolution_, put up to the throne of mercy that earnest and -affecting petition, in behalf of him “who most _earnestly desireth_ -pardon and forgiveness”—but to what purpose, if he believed that he had -but the moment before forgiven him? what can be more utterly at variance -than this prayer, with the imputed arrogance of the form of absolution? -“The truth is, that in the Priest’s absolution, there is the true power -and virtue of forgiveness which will most certainly take effect—_nisi -ponitur obex_—as in Baptism.” {53b} - -“But who,” you ask, “shall venture to put these words into the mouth of -fallible men, and authorize them _in any sense_ to apply them.” {54a} - -“You believe us,” you say, “to be in the fullest sense ambassadors of -Christ, charged with a message of reconciliation.” {54b} But say that -you were delivering this message at the bed of a dying person, and he -replied to it, yes sir, so I read in my bible. How would you lead him to -believe that your ambassadorial declaration of his forgiveness, was -likely to be of more avail to him, than his reading the message for -himself? “Sin,” says _Hooker_, “is not helped unless it be _assured_ of -pardon.” {54c} But what assurance can you give the penitent, beyond that -he can read for himself, unless you have _authority_ to declare his -pardon in virtue of your official character? If it be not so, the -distribution of the bible may be considered as having in a great measure -superseded the further necessity of a _Christian Ministry_, and rendered -our Saviour’s institutions of none effect. - -“But why,” you ask, “_assume_ to execute our commission in terms which -under any construction are presumptuous.” Under their _proper -construction_ I would submit that they argue no assumption or presumption -whatsoever. - -Let us say that you had recently been sent out as “an ambassador in the -fullest sense,” to Canada, in pardoning the rebels in accordance with -your instructions, and a compliance on their parts with the terms, should -you have deemed it a distinction involving any important difference, -implicating you in an act of presumption, or derogating any thing from -the prerogative of your sovereign,—had you said, _I_ remit you your -outlawry, and absolve you from all your offences. - -But I should much question, supposing the rebels had by some means -possessed themselves of your instructions, and having ascertained from -them the terms on which pardon was offered to them, whether they would -have considered reading this document to each other, the same thing as -having the gracious message of pardon delivered to them on _authority_. -The former is the principle of sectarism. But if you believe that there -is any virtue in your office, if you believe that you are empowered to -declare the message of reconciliation with more effect than a layman, -define your position with regard to your heavenly Master, assert your -delegated authority, that of being in the “fullest sense an ambassador of -Christ;” prove that it means something, or give up your claim to an empty -title. If there is nothing analogous in the office, why assume to be an -ambassador? or why should the Apostles have led us to infer a delegated -power, by declaring themselves to be ambassadors, ministers of the -gospel, and stewards of the mysteries of God? - -But for a weak and fallible man to assume a power in any sense, to remit -or retain the sins of another, how shall we divest such a notion of -presumption, or reconcile it with the enlightened and enquiring spirit of -the nineteenth century? - -We are baptized, as I have always understood, for _the remission of -sins_. Say then, that a person desired baptism at your hands, but that -on examination you thought you had found him wanting in the necessary -qualifications, that he had not faith. Would you baptize him? But if -part of the grace of Baptism be the _remission of sins past_, by -withholding from him the sacramental means whereby they are remitted, do -you not _retain_ them? And under such circumstances, would not the -virtue of your commission—the “power of the keys,” be brought home to -you? And considering the life-giving effect of Baptism, if you are -tempted to measure God’s ways by our ways, must it not strike you as the -very height of presumption, to say as you do—_I baptize thee_? But as -the remission of sins is a result of Baptism, and as we have not -according to the old puritanical objection, any “scripture warrant” for -the words with which we administer that mystery, would it argue greater -presumption to say in words that _mean no more_, “_I absolve_ thee of all -thy past offences?” The Greek Church seems to have viewed the matter in -this light, for as we learn from _Bingham_, they perform the rite in the -_optative form_. “_Baptizetur servus Christi in nomine Patris_, -_&c._—let the servant of Christ be baptized, &c.” {56} - -But say, that you had mistaken the thoughts of the heart of the would be -convert, would not “the tremendous responsibility” of which his Lordship -speaks be neutralized as it respected both the convert and yourself, by -the comforting consideration that there is an after appeal to One that -judgeth righteously, at whose tribunal the act or sentence of His -official on earth will be reversed, if pronounced in error, but -everlastingly confirmed if otherwise? Is absolution therefore a matter -of indifference? Why then was the Christian ministry ordained, and its -authority sealed by the assurance of its divine Founder,—“he that -despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that -sent me?” - -Your third objection lies against the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” -as they are used in our Ordination Service. - -The old cavil, as it is mentioned by _Hooker_, was “The Holy Ghost we -cannot give, and therefore we foolishly bid men receive it.” {57a} - -Your objection to the use of these words would seem to be, that in their -literal sense they imply a power of commanding his gifts. But surely -there is a wide distinction between the _dispenser_ of a spiritual gift, -and the _giver_ of it. “God,” says _Jeremy Taylor_, “is the fountain of -the power, man conveys it by an external rite . . . God is the -consecrator, man is the minister; the separation is _mysterious_ and -wonderful, the power great and secret.” {57b} - -Now, if a Bishop really believes that the _Imposition of Hands_ is a -divinely instituted rite, the means ordained by inspiration of Christ, -and used by his Apostles, whereby the gift of the Holy Ghost is conveyed -and received, for the ministration of the mysteries of the gospel -dispensation:—if he believe that he is a minister of the Spirit, an -apostolically appointed steward of these mysteries, I can see nothing -“foolish,” nothing presumptuous in his saying at the very moment that he -believes that he is _dispensing_ the gift—“Receive ye the Holy Ghost for -the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto -you by the Imposition of our Hands.” It would, at least, tend to show -that he had _faith_ in the efficacy of his ministration. But to imitate -the significant act of our Saviour and his Apostles, ever performed by -them with a specific object, and ever resulting in a _blessing_, in the -communication of some _spiritual gift_, to have recourse to the sign, -with _no faith_ in the thing signified, esteeming it but a barren -ceremony,—would seem to me to be but little short of an “indefensible” -mockery of an external rite, hallowed to spiritual purposes by the -authority of inspiration. - -If you can believe in the _mystery_ of the sacraments, if you can believe -that “the bread which we break, the cup of blessing which we bless,” do, -by the prayer and solemn invocation of the Priest, become, in some -inexplicable and mysterious manner, the “Communion of the body and blood -of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful -in the Lord’s Supper:” if, in _this faith_, you hesitate not to give the -consecrated elements to the communicants, manifesting the signification -of the rite, by the words, the “body and blood of Christ, take, -eat—drink:”—I can see but little reason why you should stumble, at the -not more mysterious communication of the spiritual gift for the office -ministerial, by the Imposition of Hands. They are mysteries; but the -whole gospel dispensation is a mystery:—we must become as “little -children” or we cannot receive them—for no sooner do we grow _wise_ -enough to ask “how these things can be,” than we are certain to reject -them as “foolishness.” Some boldly, like the Socinian, as requiring a -“prostration of intellect,” too humiliating to be submitted to—others -hiding from themselves their want of faith, under the garb of humility, -under which garb, I wish, that frequently something more of rationalism -may not lurk, than its wearer would either willingly suspect or -acknowledge. - -But you request the Archbishop of Canterbury, “that it may be allowed by -his Grace’s authority or sanctioned by his opinion, that in this form, -all that relates to the gift of the Spirit” (the _ministration_ of it -rather, since the Bishop is not the fountain of the power—not the -_giver_), “may be considered precatory.” {59a}—_Precatory_!—“the great -mysteries of our religion are _all_ by way of solemn prayer.” “The form -of words,” says _Jeremy Taylor_, “doth not alter the case, for _Ego -benedico_, and _Deus benedicat_ is the same, and was _no more_, when God -commanded the Priest in express terms to _bless the people_.” {59b} - -But what is there in the words, “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” to prevent -your taking them in the sense which would seem “to suit your own views?” - -You take, I doubt not the form, in which the bread and wine in the -sacrament are administered in a precatory sense.—“The body of our Lord -Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body,” &c.—but in the -absence of any auxiliary verb, you must imply the precatory sense—you -might mentally substitute _shall_ or _will_, for _may_, for anything that -there is in the form itself to prevent you. - -But you object also to the words as being an innovation, and contend that -the use of them was unknown in the purer ages of Christianity. This, -however, you must permit me to say, you have signally failed in your -attempt to prove. The authorities you adduce, are those of _Morinus_ and -_Bishop Burnet_. On these authorities “you hope to make it appear beyond -all doubt that no such form of ordination was ever thought of, nor any -resembling it for eleven centuries after the publication of -Christianity.” {59c} “Prayer and the Imposition of Hands, were the only -rites we find practised by the Apostles,” says the Bishop. But they were -two distinct rites: “when they _had_ prayed, they laid their hands on -them.” {60a} But they have left us no form of prayer used by them upon -the occasion—how then do we know what form they used? And are we to -suppose that the _Imposition of Hands_ was given in silence, -unaccompanied by any words to indicate its signification to the person -ordained, or to the faithful who were present? But nothing is left on -record. How then can you undertake to say that they used not, as they -most probably would, the very form of the primitive commission? Christ -was designated for his ministry by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost, -and by an efflux of the Spirit: He, having received the gift without -measure, in like manner designated his Apostles for theirs—“_As_ my -Father hath sent me, even _so_ send I you”—Receive ye the Holy Ghost. -And there can be no doubt, that the Apostles in ordaining others, would -declare both by word and deed: “_As_ Christ hath sent us, _so_ send we -you.” “Stir up the gift of God that is in you by the putting on of my -hands.” {60b} - -But _Morinus_ is to set this question at rest. “His authority must, you -suppose, be considered conclusive on this point.” {60c} But to what does -it amount? His collected MS. forms of Ordination take you back to about -the middle of the eighth century; and these you adduce as conclusive -evidence of the practice of the _primitive_ Church. Now admitting, as in -candour we must, that his earliest authority is a proof of still earlier -usage,—still, as to any evidence of the _practice_ of the _primitive_ -Church, he leaves you with a yawning and somewhat unmanageable _hiatus_ -upon your hands. - -Could no written summary of the Christian faith, or any traces of such -summary be discovered, anterior to the date of that of Nice; you would -hardly argue that for the three preceding centuries the Church had always -used the _Nicene Creed_:—the inference would be that no human explication -of the “word of faith,” had been found necessary:—and in like manner, the -absence of any proof to the contrary, affords a strong presumption, that -the _primitive_ Church had adhered to the use of the words of the -_primitive_ commission. At all events, before you undertake to inform us -what form was _not_ used in the ordinations of the primitive Church; it -is incumbent on you to show what form it _did_ use.—“But,” says -_Bingham_, whom you quote thus far,—“the solemnity in giving superior -orders, was always performed by the Imposition of Hands and prayer.” -This has never been disputed, but he also observes—“It is not to be -imagined that one and the same form was used in all Churches, for every -Bishop having liberty to frame his own Liturgy, as there were different -Liturgies in different Churches, so it is reasonable to suppose the -Primates or Metropolitans had different forms of consecration, though -there are now no remains of them in being, to give us any further -information.” {61a} - -Throwing you in two centuries and a half beyond your earliest authority, -I dare not attempt with _Bishop Burnet_ and yourself to jump the -remaining hiatus, with any hope of reaching your conclusion,—“that if we -ask of the antient time what is best, and of the latter time what is -fittest, some alteration of the form of ordination is both proper and -expedient.” {61b} - -Our compilers thought it both “best and fittest” to adhere to the words -of the primitive commission, nor attempt to define the mystery, or -enquire “how can these things be:”—and they would probably have replied -to the modern cavils in the spirit of _Hooker’s_ observation—“Seeing -therefore that the same power is now given, why should the same form of -words expressing it, be thought foolish?” {62a} - -To this form of words the Clergy do _literally_ and _ex animo_ subscribe, -and notwithstanding your objections, I trust without impeachment either -of their _truth_ or _honesty_. - -In a note to your Sermon published in 1838, speaking of “controversial -publications by Clergymen in defence of our Church,” you observe, “the -occupation is in most cases neither happy nor improving.” - -Ought not such a consideration to have withheld you from challenging your -brother to take so questionable a course as you consider its defence, by -publishing such opinions of the Subscription required and made by the -Clergy, as must, if correct, involve them in the suspicion of being -either ignorant of its meaning, indifferent to its obligations, or -insincere in their acceptance of them?—warning them at one time against -the unhappy occupation of self-defence, and leading your readers at -another, to draw an inference to their prejudice, from their silence; for -you say with reference to “your objections, no attempt at a refutation of -them has appeared, so far as you know, from any quarter,” {62b} and -further, that our Diocesan’s pamphlet, in “defence” of his speech on -Subscription, so strongly corroborative of your own objections “remains -unanswered.” {62c} - -I must, therefore, request of you to share any blame that may attach to -us, in consequence of the courses, _offensive_ and _defensive_, which we -have respectively taken in this matter. - -I am fully conscious of the very questionable position in which it places -me, as one of his subordinate Clergy, with respect to my Diocesan. And I -trust I feel it with as becoming a sense of the doubtfulness of its -propriety, as you must your own with its reference to our venerable and -universally respected Metropolitan. - -But when his Lordship is informed of the alacrity with which our -opponents have availed themselves of his published opinions, to cast them -“unbated and envenomed” against the bulwarks of our Zion, I feel assured -that the well known liberality of his Lordship’s sentiments, will dispose -him to make for me every allowance. - -I could have wished that the silence the Clergy have hitherto preserved, -and which has been construed to their disadvantage, had been broken by -some one better qualified than I am to do justice to the subjects I have -presumed to handle; by some one, whose name would have carried with it, -far more weight than I have the vanity to imagine can attach to my own. -Indeed, I have sometimes hesitated whether to affix it to this Letter, -but as you have shrunk from no responsibility by withholding your own, -from your published objections to our Subscription, I have felt it due to -you not to shelter myself under the irresponsibility of an anonymous -address. In penning which, if I do not deceive myself, I may hope to -stand acquitted of having been influenced by any unfriendly feeling. If -in any part of it my style may seem to border upon anything savouring of -discourtesy—let me hope it may be considered by you as _seeming_ only. -And should I have misapprehended your sentiments and done you thereby any -injustice— - - Let my disclaiming of a purposed evil - Free me so far in your most generous thoughts, - That I have shot mine arrow o’er the house - And hurt my brother.— - -In which light, as a Clergyman of the Church of England, I hope long to -have the opportunity to consider you, believing as I do, that your -scruples, though the creations of a _conscientious_ mind, are more -imaginary than substantial—and with this persuasion and in that hope, I -beg to subscribe myself, - - Very faithfully yours, - - CHAS. CAMPBELL. - - * * * * * - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - GOWING, PRINTER, SWAFFHAM. - - - - -FOOTNOTES. - - -{1} Mr. Wodehouse’s Letter to the Bp. of Llandaff, p. 69. - -{2a} Cure of Church Div. Direct. 48, Pt. 3. - -{2b} Mr. Wodehouse, p. 50. - -{3a} p. 4. - -{3b} p. 35. - -{3c} p. 4. - -{3d} p. 35. - -{5a} p. 67. - -{5b} p. 26. - -{6a} Petition with explanations, p. 31, published 1832. - -{6b} p. 81. - -{7a} p. 30. - -{7b} p. 43. - -{8} p. 54. - -{9a} Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 63. - -{9b} p. 45. - -{11} Article 1. - -{13} p. 41. - -{14a} Petition of 1833. - -{14b} Ordination Sermon, 1838. - -{15a} Heber’s Life of Jeremy Taylor, p. cv. - -{15b} p. 82. - -{15c} p. 81. - -{15d} p. 84. - -{16} p. 4. - -{19} Epist. Ded. to Sermon on the opening of Parliament. - -{21} My readers may wish to know who the ADELPHI are to whom I have more -than once alluded. They are the authors of a pamphlet, entitled -“Observations on a Petition, (the Petition of last Session), for the -Revision of the Liturgy, &c. written by two brothers, a Clergyman and a -Layman.” - -These brothers, by the impetuosity of their onslaught, are said to be -distinguished amongst the petitioners as the CASTOR and POLLUX of their -little phalanx. - -And as there are in their pamphlet some things which might render -questionable the logical acumen of the one, and tend to cast a shadow of -suspicion on the orthodoxy of the other—they have acquired credit for no -indifferent tact in putting forth this SIAMESE sort of production, -inasmuch as to any sentiment which might not be thought creditable to the -divine; the barrister is ready with fraternal consideration to assert his -claim,—“MEUS HIC sermo est,” and that which might not be highly esteemed -for its soundness in the learned and honourable society of Lincoln’s Inn; -the divine with reciprocal affection is at hand, to exclaim—“Adsum qui -feci”—in short, the Barrister will be responsible for the divinity, and -the Divine for the points of law. - - Diligat et semper socius te sanguinis illo - Quo pius affectu Castora frater amat. - -{22a} p. 113. - -{22b} p. 107. - -{24a} Bishop of Norwich Pamph. p. 18. - -{24b} Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 12. - -{25a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 18. - -{25b} Hart’s Eccl. Records, p. 2. - -{26a} Burnet Pref. vol. i. - -{26b} Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 1. - -{27a} Bishop Jebb’s Pastoral Instructions, Disc. iii. p. 61. - -{27b} History of his Own Times, vol. ii. p. 33. - -{28a} John and W. W. Hull’s observations on the petition, p. 23. - -{28b} p. 29. - -{29} p. 17. - -{31} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 14. - -{32} Rule of Conscience, b. iii. c. iv. r. 23. - -{33} Bp. of Norwich Pamph. p. 29. - -{34a} Barclay’s Apol. p. 27. - -{34b} p. 67. - -{34c} Petition with Expl. p. 47. - -{34d} I have introduced the name of the Bishop of London, as it gives me -an opportunity of doing fuller justice to his Lordship’s sentiments with -respect to a REVISION OF THE LITURGY than I have yet seen done them in -any of the publications in which his name has been introduced in -connection with the subject. - -His Lordship admits, that since the LITURGY is a human composition, it -falls short of perfection, and is consequently “susceptible of -improvement.” “I should be deficient in candour,” says his Lordship, “if -I did not acknowledge that I think the LITURGY susceptible of -improvement, it would be little short of a miracle were it otherwise, . . . -and I heartily pray that the time may come when the question can be -looked at with calmness and candour, and if the recent conduct of -dissenters forbids us to look forward with any sanguine hope to an -extensive comprehension of those who differ from us, that something may -be done for the satisfaction of many who are sincere and zealous members -of the Church.”—Such is the sum and substance of all that his Lordship -has admitted that may seem to favour the views of the revisers, and here -most of them have been satisfied to stop short in their quotations from -his Lordship’s charge. - -From a passage in the Bishop of Norwich’s pamphlet, I should be led to -think that his Lordship had been content to take his quotation from his -brother Bishop’s charge at second hand, for after quoting the above -passages, his Lordship says, “I have only to add, that had the Right Rev. -Prelate who expressed these his deliberate sentiments in 1834, manifested -in his speech of 1840, a disposition to follow them out in their true -spirit and legitimate results, the conscientious men who signed the -Petition, might have entertained a just hope that he would have lent his -powerful aid in supporting its prayer.” {35a} - -I will take up his Lordship’s charge where the Bishop of Norwich and you -have left it— - - “BUT,” says his Lordship, “when I consider the circumstances in which - we are now placed, and the advantage which would be taken from - different quarters, of any door which might be opened to change, I am - led to adopt the sentiment of a pious and sagacious man, {35b} - uttered nearly forty years ago:—‘As to our liturgy, I am far from - thinking it incapable of amendment; though when I consider the temper - and spirit of the present times, I dare not wish that the improvement - of it should be attempted, lest the remedy should be worse than the - disease.’” {35c} - -Had these his Lordship’s sentiments as “deliberately expressed” as any -other part of his charge been more generally made known, I must think -that the conscientious men who signed the Petition, could have expected -nothing so little as his Lordship’s powerful aid in support of its -prayer. - -To these sentiments his Lordship appended a note supporting his own views -by the authority of Archbishop Secker and of Dr. Balguy. From that note -you have quoted the well deserved terms of praise in which his Lordship -speaks of, “the candid and christian spirit which breathes throughout -your preface,” to your reprint of Dean Prideaux, in which praise all who -have read the work will readily join. But as it illustrates his -Lordship’s views, we may as well give the remainder of the note. The -quotation from Archbishop Secker is as follows:— - - “Et hæc eadem velim sibi in memoriam revocent, qui Liturgiam item - recenseri reformarique flagitant. Ornatior quidem, accuratior, - plenior, brevior, et POTEST EA FIERI ET DEBET; sed modesta - tractatione, sed tranquillis hominum animis; non temerariis, qualia - vidimus et videmus, ausis, non inter media dissidia mutuasque - suspiciones.” - -“Some of the faults imputed to our public service are,” as Dr. Balguy -says, “of such a nature as to admit of no alteration. In these instances -we must renounce our faith before we can consent to reform our worship; -to reform it, I mean, in the only way which can stop the complaints of -its adversaries.”—Discourses, vol. 1, p. 103. {36c} - -Not having arrived at your conclusion—“That the Bishop of London, who -came forward as the principal opponent of the Petition, is an unfit guide -for public opinion on such a subject.” {36d} I have thought it but just -that the public should know what his Lordship’s sentiments on the subject -of a Revision of the LITURGY really are. - -{35a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamp. p. 45. - -{35b} Rev. John Newton, Apologia, p. 9. - -{35c} Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834. - -{36a} Hor. Epist. II. i. 45. - -{36b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 5. - -{36c} Bishop of London’s Charge, Appendix N. - -{36d} p. 3. - -{37} Nares Bamp. Lect. p. 466, note 3. - -{38} Articles, &c. in the Primary Visitation of Edward, Bishop of -Norwich, 1838. - -{39a} p. 18. - -{39b} p. 92. - -{39c} Hull, 15. - -{40} p. 14. - -{42} Visitation Charge, 1771. - -{43a} Hull, p. 19. - -{43b} Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834, p. 40. - -{43c} South’s Serm. vol. ii. Epist. Ded. to Univ. of Oxford. - -{44a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 42. - -{44b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28. - -{44c} Mark xvi. 14. - -{44d} John iii. 15. - -{44e} John ix. 26. - -{44f} 2 Thess. xi. 12. - -{45} Vogan’s Bampton Lect. p. 375. - -{46a} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28. - -{46b} Just Vind. of the Church of England, Disc. iii. - -{47a} Schism Guarded, iv. Sect. x. - -{47b} See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, note. - -{48a} Paraphrase on Com. Prayer, Append. Numb. 3, p. 292, second -edition. - -{48b} p. 54. - -{49a} Pet. with Expl. 27. - -{49b} Petition, &c. p. 25. - -{49c} p. 24. - -{49d} p. 23. - -{50} Belsham’s Calm Inquiry, pp. 291, 292. - -{51a} Petition, &c. p. 31. - -{51b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamphlet, p. 34. - -{52a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 33. - -{52b} Ezek. xiii. 19. - -{53a} Service for Visiting the Sick. - -{53b} MS. Note by Bishop Overall. - -{54a} Petition, &c. p. 31. - -{54b} p. 33. - -{54c} Eccl. Pol. B. vi. - -{56} Antiquities, vol. viii. Append. p. 239. - -{57a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77. - -{57b} Div. Inst. of Off. Min. pp. 225, 226. - -{59a} p. 51. - -{59b} Div. Inst. of Off. Min. Sect. vii. - -{59c} Petition, &c. p. 37. - -{60a} Acts vi. 6. - -{60b} 1 Tim. i. 6. - -{60c} Petition, &c. p. 38. - -{61a} Antiquities, b. ii. c. xi. sec. 9. - -{61b} Petition, &c. p. 42 - -{62a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77. - -{62b} p. 58. - -{62c} p. 105. - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LETTER TO THE REV. CHARLES N. -WODEHOUSE, CANON OF NORWICH, OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT PUBLICATION, -ENTITLED, "WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?"*** - - -******* This file should be named 63727-0.txt or 63727-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/7/2/63727 - - -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. - diff --git a/old/63727-0.zip b/old/63727-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d50df73..0000000 --- a/old/63727-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/63727-h.zip b/old/63727-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7e063aa..0000000 --- a/old/63727-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/63727-h/63727-h.htm b/old/63727-h/63727-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 9b90d32..0000000 --- a/old/63727-h/63727-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3047 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html - PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> -<title>A letter to the Rev. Charles N. Wodehouse, Canon of Norwich, occasioned, by Charles Campbell</title> - <style type="text/css"> -/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ -<!-- - P { margin-top: .75em; - margin-bottom: .75em; - } - P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} - P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } - .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } - H1, H2 { - text-align: center; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - } - H3, H4, H5 { - text-align: center; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - BODY{margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - } - table { border-collapse: collapse; } -table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} - td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} - td p { margin: 0.2em; } - .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ - - .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - - .pagenum {position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: small; - text-align: right; - font-weight: normal; - color: gray; - } - img { border: none; } - img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } - p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } - p.gutlist { margin-top: 0.1em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -1em} - div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } - div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} - div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; - border-top: 1px solid; } - div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; - border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} - div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; - margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; - border-bottom: 1px solid; } - div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; - margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; - border-bottom: 1px solid;} - div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; - border-top: 1px solid; } - .citation {vertical-align: super; - font-size: .5em; - text-decoration: none;} - span.red { color: red; } - body {background-color: #ffffc0; } - img.floatleft { float: left; - margin-right: 1em; - margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - img.floatright { float: right; - margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - img.clearcenter {display: block; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 0.5em} - --> - /* XML end ]]>*/ - </style> -<link rel='coverpage' href='images/cover.jpg' /> -</head> -<body> -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg eBook, A letter to the Rev. Charles N. Wodehouse, -Canon of Norwich, occasioned by his recent publication, entitled, "What is -the meaning of Subscription?", by Charles Campbell - - -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: A letter to the Rev. Charles N. Wodehouse, Canon of Norwich, occasioned - by his recent publication, entitled, "What is the meaning of - Subscription?" - with a few observations on the speech &c. of the Lord Bishop of - Norwich, on Subscription - - -Author: Charles Campbell - - - -Release Date: November 12, 2020 [eBook #63727] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LETTER TO THE REV. CHARLES N. -WODEHOUSE, CANON OF NORWICH, OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT PUBLICATION, -ENTITLED, "WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?"*** -</pre> -<p>Transcribed from the 1841 J. S. Gowing edition by David -Price.</p> -<h1>A LETTER<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">TO THE</span><br /> -REV. CHARLES N. WODEHOUSE,<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">CANON OF NORWICH,</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT -PUBLICATION,</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">ENTITLED,</span><br /> -“WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?”<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">WITH A FEW</span><br /> -OBSERVATIONS ON THE SPEECH<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">&c.</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">OF THE</span><br /> -LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH,<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">ON</span><br /> -SUBSCRIPTION.</h1> -<p style="text-align: center">BY THE REV. CHARLES CAMPBELL,<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">VICAR OF WEASENHAM.</span></p> - -<div class="gapspace"> </div> -<p style="text-align: center"><span -class="GutSmall">LONDON:</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">J. G. AND F. RIVINGTON.</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">MATCHETT, STEVENSON, AND MATCHETT, -NORWICH;</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">AND</span><br /> -<span class="GutSmall">J. S. GOWING, SWAFFHAM.</span><br /> -1841.<br /> -<i>Price Two Shillings</i>.</p> - -<div class="gapspace"> </div> -<blockquote><p><a name="pageiii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -iii</span>“The Liturgy of the Church of England hath -advantages, so many and so considerable, as not only to raise -itself above the devotions of other Churches, but to endear the -affections of all good people to be in love with Liturgies in -general . . . The Rubrics of it were wrote in the blood of some -of the compilers, men famous in their generation, whose -reputation and glory of martyrdom, hath made it immodest for the -best of men now to compare themselves with them. And its -composure is so admirable, that the most industrious arts of its -enemies can scarce find out an objection of value enough to make -a doubt, or scarce a scruple in a serious spirit . . . There are -also in the Offices forms of solemn Absolution and Benediction, -and if they be not highly considerable, there is nothing sacred -in the Evangelical Ministry, but the Altars themselves are made -of unhallowed turf.”</p> -<p style="text-align: right"><i>Bishop Jeremy Taylor</i>.</p> -</blockquote> -<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>A -LETTER,<br /> -<span class="GutSmall">ETC.</span></h2> -<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,</p> -<p>It was hoped that the little excitement occasioned by the -debate of last Session on a petition to the House of Lords for -some alteration of our Articles and Liturgy, had been suffered to -subside; and it was with regret we received the announcement of -your recent publication, entitled “What is the meaning of -Subscription?”</p> -<p>I am not aware that any of the clergy of this Diocese, during -the last nine years, that is from the date of your first -publication on this subject, namely, “<i>A Petition to the -House of Lords for Ecclesiastical Improvements with -Explanations</i>,” have shewn any disposition to -intermeddle with your proceedings, or to “condemn you for -doing the best you could in your own cause,” singular as -they may have thought, and <i>singular</i> as you admit to have -been “the mode adopted by you to obtain your object.” -<a name="citation1"></a><a href="#footnote1" -class="citation">[1]</a></p> -<p>Whatever they may have thought, they have hitherto been -silent, influenced I am persuaded more by feelings <a -name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 2</span>of respect for -your personal character, than from conviction of the strength of -your position and the consequent weakness of their own. I -can answer for myself, and I am satisfied that I am speaking the -general sense of the clergy of the Diocese, in saying that they -not only could, but had it been from any circumstances necessary, -would have borne their ready and willing testimony to the truth -and faithfulness of the eulogy pronounced by your Diocesan on -your “character and conduct as a clergyman and a -gentleman.”</p> -<p>They must naturally therefore be the more inclined to wish -that it had consisted with your views to stop short of a public -avowal that you could not with any regard for “<i>truth and -honesty</i>,” make the declaration to which they hesitate -not <i>ex animo</i> to subscribe.</p> -<p><i>Richard Baxter</i> has said, “that many are apt to -think that <i>this is right</i>, because the best and strictest -people are of this mind.” <a name="citation2a"></a><a -href="#footnote2a" class="citation">[2a]</a> With -“many” therefore, your opinions will have their -weight; and if the Subscription of the clergy is to be judged by -your views of it, their situation would seem to be any thing but -an enviable one.</p> -<p>And as these your views must seem to be strongly corroborated -by the congenial sentiments of our Diocesan; should I in the -course of the following observations, which I take the liberty of -addressing to you, hazard also a few remarks upon his -Lordship’s reasons for deeming an Expansion of Subscription -desirable; I trust I shall find that I have not been misled by -your example, but that to me also, “it may be allowed to -differ from my superiors without disrespect or offence.” <a -name="citation2b"></a><a href="#footnote2b" -class="citation">[2b]</a></p> -<p><a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 3</span>Allow me -then, to express my regret, that “res dura et regni -<i>novitas</i>,” as you may apply the royal excuse to your -own <i>novel</i> position, should have compelled you to resort in -your own case to a course you so decidedly object to in others; -more especially as you appear to have had your misgivings, to -have foreseen the possibility of “harm accruing from -it,” and very justly to have anticipated that the perusal -of a publication written with the object you appear to have had -in view, would “call forth a painful feeling in the minds -of Christians and Churchmen.” <a name="citation3a"></a><a -href="#footnote3a" class="citation">[3a]</a></p> -<p>“No one,” you say, “can object more -decidedly than yourself to the common practice of publishing -correspondence between individuals on matters relating merely to -themselves.” <a name="citation3b"></a><a href="#footnote3b" -class="citation">[3b]</a></p> -<p>But the practice is usually resorted to by others, as it seems -to have been by yourself, under an impression that the -publication is in some way or other “important to their own -defence.” <a name="citation3c"></a><a href="#footnote3c" -class="citation">[3c]</a></p> -<p>You would however, and naturally enough, persuade yourself -that yours is “a very different case,” a case -“relating strictly to a <i>public question</i>, one -affecting the whole Church, and indeed all Christians in the -nation.” <a name="citation3d"></a><a href="#footnote3d" -class="citation">[3d]</a></p> -<p>I will not stay to enquire whether viewing it in this light, -the voice of the Church ought not to have been heard above your -own. But I must think that something more than you have -advanced is requisite to constitute a public question, and enable -us to see the difference between your own case and that of -others, “who publish correspondence on matters <i>relating -merely to themselves</i>.”</p> -<p>It is true that your case has been publicly discussed in -parliament, and so has the case of many another <a -name="page4"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 4</span>individual; but -I must think a distinction is to be drawn between a person -dragging his own affairs before the public and a public affair; -and any weight that you would attach to the discussion you allude -to, as giving to your case the character and importance of a -public question, may perhaps be lessened by a consideration of -the manner in which that discussion was brought about. The -Bishop of Lincoln rose, not to the question, but “at the -particular desire of the Rev. Mr. Wodehouse,” wishing to -have his case brought into notice; the Bishop of Norwich said -that he “should not have risen, had not the name of the -Rev. Mr. Wodehouse been introduced;” and the Bishop of -London “would not have entered into the discussion, had it -not been for some observations which had escaped from the Bishop -of Norwich.” <i>No temporal Peer rose</i>. -Strictly relating then as you would consider your case to be a -public question, there appeared but little indication of its -being so considered by the House of Lords, and as to the opinion -of the clergy, the Bishop of Lincoln observed, “I am not -aware that any general desire for such alterations exists, on the -contrary, I believe, that never did the great body of the clergy -deprecate more strongly any change in the Articles and Liturgy -than at the present moment.”</p> -<p>The discussion however seems not a little to have disquieted -you—but having raised the whirlwind, though you have failed -to guide it—ought you not to have been less impatient of -the storm?</p> -<blockquote><p>Leniter ex merito quicquid patiare ferendum -est.</p> -</blockquote> -<p>It is difficult to believe that on calmer reflection, a mind -like yours will experience no uneasiness at the recollection of -having endeavoured to turn an <i>intended</i> kindness <a -name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 5</span>to the -prejudice of those who had conferred it, and in that light all -must view the evident wish on the parts of the Archbishop of -Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, to resolve your doubts, and -as far as their private opinions could avail—restore peace -to your mind. I allude to the use you have made of private -conversations, I say <i>private</i>, for up to a certain time you -appear to have so considered the opinions that were then given -you. “I have been favoured,” you say in a -letter to one of the Bishops, “with the <i>private</i> -opinions of many persons I am <i>bound</i> to respect.” <a -name="citation5a"></a><a href="#footnote5a" -class="citation">[5a]</a> I admit that for your further -satisfaction you received permission to <i>mention</i>, or as you -say “make known what passed at these -interviews.”—Still, although it would have made no -difference as to the permission granted, had they even -contemplated such a circumstance; I suspect that the Archbishop -of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, must have felt a little -surprised to find that their every word had straitly been -observed—</p> -<blockquote><p>Set in a note book, conn’d and got by -rote,<br /> -To cast into their teeth—<i>eleven years</i> -afterwards!</p> -</blockquote> -<p>Yet, by the aid alone of these communications, you have -endeavoured to fix upon the Archbishop of Canterbury and the -Bishop of London the following charge, namely, “that in the -debate of the 26th of May, 1840, his Grace the Archbishop of -Canterbury and the Bishop of London more decidedly endeavoured to -crush the very idea of the <i>same latitude</i>, which they had -on other occasions most unequivocally allowed and -approved.” <a name="citation5b"></a><a href="#footnote5b" -class="citation">[5b]</a></p> -<p>I hesitate not for a moment to say that it is a charge -unsupported even by the shadow of a proof. And let us <a -name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 6</span>first examine -your evidence as it bears upon the Archbishop of Canterbury.</p> -<p>The points to which you direct our attention in substantiation -of your charge are these:—His Grace’s conversation in -May, 1829—his letters of May 12, 1830—and March 18, -1840—and his speech in the debate on the Petition.</p> -<p>In his letter of March 18, 1840, his Grace says, “I -shall be much surprised if expressions are found in any letter of -mine, which can be <i>considered as an intended justification of -your opinions</i>,” an observation at variance, as you have -persuaded yourself with his letter of 1830, and his conversation -with you in 1829.</p> -<p>In the first place I would submit that a distinction obtains -between not <i>condemning</i> an opinion and <i>intending to -justify</i> it. It is possible that his Grace may take -higher views of the power committed to the stewards of the -mysteries of God than you do. But agreeing perhaps with you -that “the power of the keys” cannot as you have -elsewhere observed, be “<i>beyond a doubt</i> -defined.” <a name="citation6a"></a><a href="#footnote6a" -class="citation">[6a]</a> His Grace might be unwilling to -condemn your lower views, but you could scarcely have construed -this into an <i>intended justification</i> of them. He had -besides told you “that the absence of censure did not imply -a tacit <i>acquiescence</i> in your opinions.” <a -name="citation6b"></a><a href="#footnote6b" -class="citation">[6b]</a></p> -<p>But what was the latitude which his Grace thought fairly -allowable, and how far will it justify you in saying that in his -speech he endeavoured to crush the very idea of that <i>same</i> -latitude being allowed?</p> -<p>Your conversation with his Grace seems to have turned on the -<i>three points</i> mentioned in your petition,—<a -name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 7</span>the Athanasian -Creed, the Absolution, and the words used in a part of the -Ordination Service. Upon your mentioning the different -opinions given by various eminent writers of our church as to the -Athanasian Creed and its condemnatory clauses, his Grace -observed, “<i>Well</i>—<i>none of these opinions has -been condemned</i>, <i>take whichever suits your own views</i>, -<i>and be satisfied</i>.” <a name="citation7a"></a><a -href="#footnote7a" class="citation">[7a]</a> But you cannot -be satisfied, and although repeatedly told by his Grace, and also -by the Bishop of Lincoln, that you could not, so long as -Convocation remained in abeyance, obtain the <i>authoritative -sense of the Church</i> on these points, you persist in pressing -for it. To a request to this effect conveyed in a letter to -his Grace, you again refer to the subject of your -conversation. To this his Grace replies, “With -respect to the subject of your letter, I have only to refer you -to our former conversation, in which I expressed <i>an -opinion</i> that, on points where writers of eminence have -differed without slur on their orthodoxy, a certain latitude of -interpretation is fairly allowable. But with respect to the -<i>authoritative sense of the Church</i> on the points mentioned -in your petition, no individual has a right to declare it, if it -is a matter of doubt: and if, during a long succession of years, -some difference of opinion is found among writers eminent for -learning and piety, the silence of the Church, under such -circumstances, may be taken as an indication of her unwillingness -to abridge the liberty of her members on <i>these -points</i>.” <a name="citation7b"></a><a href="#footnote7b" -class="citation">[7b]</a></p> -<p>I can see nothing here like an <i>intended justification</i> -of your opinions. His Grace would give you it appears <i>no -decision</i> in private, he nowhere led you to infer that he even -<i>approved</i> of your opinions, and could hardly have intended -you to conclude that he meant to <i>justify</i> <a -name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>them. He -tells you “he could not see how your position would be -mended by an open declaration of his opinion, <i>even if -favourable</i> to that exposition which would suit your -views,” <a name="citation8"></a><a href="#footnote8" -class="citation">[8]</a> which seems at least to imply a doubt, -and where there is a doubt, the judge usually directs the jury to -give the prisoner the benefit of it, but this does not involve -the judge’s <i>approval</i> or <i>intended -justification</i> of the prisoner’s case.</p> -<p>Yet this is all that his Grace admitted,—and to what had -this admission a reference? To a certain latitude of -<i>interpretation</i> allowable under certain -circumstances. And I think I can safely defy you to point -out a <i>solitary expression</i> in his Grace’s speech on -the 26th of May, 1840, in which he attempts to evade this -admission, or, in the language of your accusation, -“endeavours to crush the very idea of the <i>same</i> -latitude which on other occasions he had unequivocally allowed -and <i>approved</i>.” His Grace’s -<i>approval</i> however is nowhere apparent.</p> -<p>His Grace addresses himself in his speech to the prayer of the -petition, “which he apprehends their Lordships will not -countenance in the least degree.” And what is the -prayer? “It prays, amongst other things, your -Lordships to consider what measures ought to be adopted to make -the Prayer Book and the Subscription of the Liturgy consonant -with the <i>practice</i> of the clergy, and the acknowledged -meaning of the Articles of the church.” And what is -the imputed <i>practice</i> of the clergy? According to the -statement of the petitioners it is their “general practice -to <i>deviate</i> from the authorised <i>forms</i> and -<i>positive obligations</i> of the Church,”—when with -reference to your own case, the three points on which you -consulted his Grace, you can prove that to <i>deviate</i> <a -name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 9</span>from or -<i>omit</i> the Athanasian Creed—the Absolution—and -the words used at the Imposition of Hands—is the -<i>same</i> latitude, which with reference to their -<i>interpretation</i>, he had thought fairly allowable.—You -may then boast that you have convicted the Spiritual Head of the -Church of inconsistency and duplicity, and no one will attempt to -controvert your insinuation that his Grace “has one opinion -at Lambeth, and another in the House of Lords.” <a -name="citation9a"></a><a href="#footnote9a" -class="citation">[9a]</a></p> -<p>Your charge as it affects the Bishop of London, rests on -similar evidence. His Lordship’s conversation in -1829—a letter of 1830—and his speech in 1840. -You consulted his Lordship in 1829 on the same subjects, and -received in substance the same reply as had been given to you by -the Archbishop. And I can as confidently defy you to point -out in his Lordship’s speech in 1840, a passage that can -give any colouring of justice to your charge; unless you can shew -that to deprecate an <i>alteration</i> of our Articles and -Liturgy is the same thing as to admit that certain parts of them -may bear a difference of <i>interpretation</i>, or show that -there is no difference between an <i>existing</i> -“elasticity” and a <i>further</i> -“expansion.”</p> -<p>Your evidence then, if anywhere, must be found in his -Lordship’s letter of 1830. The letter of which you -complain to the Archbishop as “<i>unkind and inconsistent -with former advice</i>.” <a name="citation9b"></a><a -href="#footnote9b" class="citation">[9b]</a></p> -<p>But as you seem to me to have conversed with his Lordship on -one subject, and to have written to him, the following year, upon -another, I do not see how you make <a name="page10"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 10</span>it appear that his Lordship’s -letter was inconsistent with his former advice.</p> -<p>It does not appear that you had asked his Lordship “in -what sense you would be expected to subscribe” <i>in -future</i>, but whether <i>having subscribed</i>, certain -opinions which you had taken up, were consistent with your -Subscription. His Lordship thought that they were.</p> -<p>But nine months afterwards, on being called upon to -<i>renew</i> your Subscription, you inform his Lordship that you -had determined not to make it again but with a sort of -<i>protest</i>.—By Subscription, you are called upon to -declare that “the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering -Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing -<i>contrary</i> to the word of God, and that the Articles are -<i>agreeable</i> to it:” but to this you will not assent, -unless you may at the same time be permitted to declare that you -do not believe it. You must explain, you tell his Lordship, -the sense in which you shall have no objection to subscribe, and -that through the medium of a petition to parliament. Now -there appears nothing in your report of the conversation to lead -to the inference, nor can I easily bring myself to think that his -Lordship could have led you to infer that a <i>qualified</i> -Subscription was admissible either from candidates for orders, or -other clergymen. A different exposition of the general -doctrine laid down in several of our Articles, may be fairly -allowable; the <i>letter</i> of our Liturgy may in several parts -admit of a different interpretation, and if taking our own views -of these points, believing them not inconsistent with an -allowable interpretation of the words, we can <i>unreservedly</i> -subscribe, well and good—but for my own part, I should <a -name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 11</span>scarcely -expect it of a Bishop to receive a qualified Subscription from -me, the precedent I must think would be a bad one, and the -practice subversive of the very object of Subscription, -independent of the awkward acknowledgement it involves, that our -Church exacts from her members a form of Subscription, which -cannot be made without a <i>salvo</i>.</p> -<p>You scarcely could have inferred from his Lordship’s -<i>advice</i>, that he “unequivocally allowed and approved -of <i>this</i> latitude.” But as he had told you that -he thought your interpretation of certain points admissible, and -that you might openly hold your opinions, you <i>might</i> have -inferred that he also considered them consistent with an -“<i>unreserved</i> Subscription, and that according to the -literal sense of the words”—for the question is, will -not the literal sense of the words bear a different -<i>application</i>? You subscribe <i>unreservedly</i>, at -least you have given us no reason to suppose otherwise, to the -Apostles’ Creed, in which we are told that Christ sitteth -at the <i>right hand</i> of God, but the <i>literal</i> meaning -of the words is at variance with the truth, that “God is -without body, parts, or passions.” <a -name="citation11"></a><a href="#footnote11" -class="citation">[11]</a> I must think that you have -conjured up a greater difficulty on the score of Subscription -than in reality obtains. At all events you must detail some -further particulars of his Lordship’s conversation, before -you will enable us to detect its discrepancy with the subject of -his subsequent letter.</p> -<p>But if his Lordship’s private opinion on the allowable -interpretation of the points on which you consulted him, failed -to remove your doubts and scruples, and you were after all fully -persuaded in your own mind that the words in question could by no -possibility bear <a name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -12</span>the only interpretation with which you could -<i>conscientiously</i> subscribe to them; I cannot see how the -<i>open sanction</i> of the Church could affect you to the -“easing of your conscience.” For surely if the -words will <i>not</i> bear a certain sense, the Church cannot -make them—the sanction of all the Bishops in Christendom -could never make <i>black</i> mean <i>white</i>. If you are -of opinion that it could, for a Protestant you must entertain -rather high views of the power of the Church—and yet such -would seem to be your opinion, for in the “Circular” -which you sent a day or two before the presentation of the -petition last year, to “all the Peers whose London -residences could be ascertained;” after alluding to -<i>these opinions</i> which you had received from the Archbishop -and the Bishop of London, you say, “my answer was, if such -be the case, let these statements be <i>openly sanctioned</i>, -and I am content. But I cannot with <i>truth and -honesty</i> subscribe, not according to the <i>literal</i> -meaning of the words, <i>unless</i> such latitude <i>be -authorised by the Church</i>.”</p> -<p>Now if the Subscription is still to be made to the same form -of words, it is very difficult to see how the <i>authority of the -Church</i> can impart to them a meaning, to which without that -authority <i>truth and honesty</i> would forbid you to -subscribe. If you do not take care, the Editors of the -Oxford Tracts will mark you for their own, in spite of -yourself.</p> -<p>But in what position do you now stand? You have -<i>done</i> what you informed the Bishop of London, you could -“not be comfortable without doing.” You have -made known to the world, and that by the means you proposed to -yourself, namely, a petition to parliament, what your opinions -are, and the world interferes not with them, nor does the Church -condemn them; you <a name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -13</span>have only therefore to arrange the matter with your own -conscience—if that condemns you, your course is a clear -one. But why should it condemn you more for the next -fourteen years, than it would seem to have done for the last -fourteen? During that time you have held your preferment -with your opinions, and why should you not continue to hold your -opinions with your preferment?</p> -<p>You tell us that your object was eleven years ago to -“ascertain <i>with certainty</i> whether you held any -opinion which the Church condemned.” <a -name="citation13"></a><a href="#footnote13" -class="citation">[13]</a> You were informed that the -<i>authoritative sense</i> of the Church on the points you wished -for information <i>could not</i> in the abeyance of Convocation -be obtained; but you were at the same time told, and that, by -many whose opinions probably would have had great weight in -Convocation had it been immediately convened for your -satisfaction, that they considered your opinions allowable, that -the Church did not condemn them; and I think it would have been a -reasonable inference with which to have quieted your conscience, -that had the Convocation been assembled, the authoritative sense -of the Church would not have been against you.</p> -<p>And certain passages in your ministerial career had led us to -hope and to infer that you had come to that conclusion, that -having unburthened your mind, you were at rest. For in -1836, you presented a second petition to the House of Lords, but -from that time, as far at least as we could judge from your -proceedings, you seemed to have given up your pursuit, at all -events, it appears that you rested upon your oars till -1840. And in the interim, in the year 1837, after having -abstained for some years, and in consequence as it was supposed -<a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 14</span>of your -scruples, we saw you again <i>voluntarily</i> coming forward, and -in your character of a Presbyter, officiating at the ceremony of -the <i>Imposition of Hands</i>, co-operating with the Bishop -during the recital of the very words at which your conscience had -taken such alarm, and with respect to which in your former -petition, “you had humbly and earnestly prayed that such -steps might be taken as should seem good to their Lordships, in -order to effect those alterations in the Liturgy which would -relieve the conscience of their petitioner.” <a -name="citation14a"></a><a href="#footnote14a" -class="citation">[14a]</a> And we had also subsequently -read the resolution you had come to, and <i>deliberately</i> -published in 1838. In a note to a sermon which you -published in that year, you say, “In the absence of all -authoritative censure, I conclude as many others do, that a -silent change has taken place, ‘from the diversity of times -and men’s manners.’ In that conclusion I abide, -repeating what I have often said, that <i>whenever</i> I am -pronounced wrong on <i>authority</i>, I am ready to meet the -consequences.” <a name="citation14b"></a><a -href="#footnote14b" class="citation">[14b]</a></p> -<p>I can myself say, and I am sure that all who have had any -opportunity of knowing you, will say it with the same sincerity, -in that conclusion we most heartily wish that you <i>would</i> -abide—that you would continue to discharge your pastoral -duties, your deliberate and solemnly accepted engagements to the -“Chief Shepherd” in the same exemplary manner that -has marked your hitherto career, <i>until</i> you are pronounced -wrong <i>on authority</i>—or called from your stewardship -to render up your account with joy. In what estimation you -may hold the opinions of your brother petitioners, the <i>Messrs. -Hull</i>, I know not, but they say, “Our clergy -<i>cannot</i> leave the Church—<a name="page15"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 15</span>their <i>ordination vows are upon -them</i>.” And besides, my dear sir, to rush upon -martyrdom in the absence of all persecution, or, as far as the -public can see, any apparent necessity, will at best obtain for -you but an Empedoclean sort of fame. And as nothing has -occurred since you published your resolution in 1838, to affect -your situation differently from what it had been for nine or ten -years before, save the failure of another petition; should you -resign in consequence of that circumstance, it would look almost -as if you resigned merely to spite the Archbishop.</p> -<p>But under the little difficulty that exists of ascertaining -with any certainty what your intentions have been, or even now -are, we earnestly trust they may not result in the alternative of -a resignation, to which in the course of your correspondence you -have made such frequent allusions. “An -alternative,” which as Bishop Heber says, “it is easy -to suggest in the case of a brother, but which every man in his -own case receives with difficulty.” <a -name="citation15a"></a><a href="#footnote15a" -class="citation">[15a]</a></p> -<p>A few days before the presentation of the last petition you -wrote to his Grace thus, “If I fail on this occasion . . -. I consider myself pledged to resign my preferment.” -<a name="citation15b"></a><a href="#footnote15b" -class="citation">[15b]</a> The result of that petition was -unfavourable. But ten months afterwards, that is, in your -last publication, you call upon his Grace to pronounce that -judgment which he had told you he “was <i>unwilling</i> to -pronounce on scruples which he hoped time might remove,” <a -name="citation15c"></a><a href="#footnote15c" -class="citation">[15c]</a>—“and <i>should</i> that -judgment require such a step, you will with God’s -permission resign next December, <i>unless</i> a clear expression -of public opinion should intervene appealing against the judgment -pronounced.” <a name="citation15d"></a><a -href="#footnote15d" class="citation">[15d]</a></p> -<p><a name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>Let us -hope then that you will abide in this your <i>latest</i> -resolution, for I think from the evidence with which you have -furnished us, we may venture to conclude that no such judgment -will be pronounced as shall call for any expression of public -opinion.</p> -<p>I shall now proceed to hazard a few observations on the -reasons assigned by the Bishop of Norwich in favour of an -<i>Expansion</i> of Subscription, seeing that they are considered -by many so strongly to confirm the correctness of your own views, -and as you have told us that you cannot consistently with -<i>truth and honesty</i> make the required Subscription, we -cannot but apprehend that in the proportion that those views are -believed to be substantial and correct, the character of the -clergy must be prejudiced, at all events in the eyes of those, -who unwilling or unable to investigate the matter for themselves, -take up the opinions of others, and arriving through them at a -corollary of their own, hesitate not to go as far as to declare -that “<i>all</i> the clergy are <i>perjured</i>.”</p> -<p>As I can devise no better, I shall pursue the plan you have -adopted with respect to the speech of the Bishop of London, that -is, giving such extracts from his Lordship’s speech as bear -upon the subject of Subscription, with a running comment of my -own. I will not however, introduce my remarks with the -preface you have affixed to your “plain -story,”—giving us to understand that it is intended -to be “a refutation of almost every statement in the Bishop -of London’s speech.” <a name="citation16"></a><a -href="#footnote16" class="citation">[16]</a> Lest having -led my readers to exclaim</p> -<blockquote><p>Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu.</p> -</blockquote> -<p>I should leave them to conclude that I had been labouring <a -name="page17"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 17</span>under what -the faculty, I believe, term “a false -conception.”</p> -<p>His Lordship’s first reason for wishing for a more -expanded Subscription, is that—</p> -<blockquote><p>“<span class="smcap">If</span> <i>it be true -that there is anything approaching to the appearance of -insincerity on the part of those making the Subscription</i>, -<i>if we seem to confess with our lips that we do not confess and -believe in our hearts we give our opponents a vantage ground of -which they will not be slow to avail themselves</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>There is said to be much virtue in an <span -class="GutSmall">IF</span>, and <i>eâ virtute nos -involvissemus</i>, had not his Lordship torn the covering away, -and “left us naked to our -enemies,”—self-convicted of “confessing with -our lips that we do not confess and believe in our -hearts.” For says his Lordship—</p> -<blockquote><p>“<span class="smcap">In fact</span>, <i>with -respect to Subscription</i>, <i>I have never yet met with a -single clergyman</i> (<i>and I have spoken with almost numberless -individuals on the subject</i>), <i>who ever allowed that he -agreed in every point</i>, <i>in every iota to the Subscription -which he took at ordination</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>It would not be treating his Lordship with candour to give to -his observation an offensive meaning, which it was not intended -to convey. It is more with reference to the -mal-construction and malicious use of it by our opponents, that -we are led to wish that it had not been made. Since his -Lordship’s subsequent pamphlet, from which we collect the -sense in which he was viewing Subscription, when he made the -observation, a sense in which, for instance with reference to -those clauses of the Athanasian Creed, which are commonly, and -unjustly, called <i>damnatory</i>, few I suspect do subscribe, -being, in my opinion, in no wise bound to an application of <a -name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>the clauses, -so manifestly at variance with the spirit in which the formulary -was imposed on us by our Reformers;—since I say, this -pamphlet can obtain but a very small part of the circulation of -the speech itself, where the observation stands -<i>unqualified</i>; the general impression of his -Lordship’s meaning must be that the clergy subscribe <i>ex -animo</i>, to that which <i>ex animo</i> they do not believe.</p> -<p>At the same time I have never seen the necessity of responding -to those appeals through which the clergy of this Diocese have -been called upon to take some public step, to repel the -observation as an implied libel upon them. I would rather -it should be remembered that his Lordship, comparatively -speaking, has been but a short time amongst us, and that for -anything we can tell, the enquiries of which he speaks may have -been chiefly made amongst the clergy of another Diocese, (indeed, -considering that it is not a likely question for a Bishop to put -to candidates for Orders, or his clergy generally, the inference -must be that they were), and if their “withers should be -galled,” let them respond to these appeals, “ours are -unwrung.”</p> -<p>It must, however, be admitted that any <i>insincerity</i> in -the matter of Subscription, would deservedly expose us to the -contempt of our opponents.—But a generous mind would shrink -instinctively from inferring insincerity from any thing -<i>approaching only to its appearance</i>. <i>Decipimur -specie</i> ought to hold with respect to <i>evil</i> not less -than <i>good</i>. Still, alas! to the jaundiced eye every -object presents itself in colours not its own. And I fear -that the opinion which his Lordship would seem to entertain of -the actuating spirit of our opponents, is but too well founded, -and amply justifies his apprehension <a name="page19"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 19</span>that <i>they</i> would not be slow to -avail themselves of the <i>appearance</i>, caring little to -dissipate the “mentis gratissimus error,” by -ascertaining themselves of the non-existence of the -<i>reality</i>. That accomplished, but embittered infidel, -the historian Gibbon, did not scruple to declare that the clergy, -one and all of them, made their Subscription either “with a -sigh or a smile;” but I trust that the clergy, as a body, -can afford to leave such opponents in the unmolested possession -of their imaginary vantage ground. Until <i>Mordecai</i> -was removed from his seat at the gate, the soul of <i>Haman</i> -could not be quieted within him—nor will the souls of our -opponents, until the Church is brought down to a level with their -own sects.</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>If it</i> (<i>Subscription</i>) <i>is to -be understood in the literal</i>, <i>most strict</i>, <i>and most -stringent sense</i>, <i>it would create difficulties</i>, -<i>which must weigh heavily upon scrupulous and tender -consciences</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>But even supposing this—where there is no compulsion, -there no violence can be done to the conscience, and no one is -compelled to “enter the church,” and in using the -expression, I confess I cannot perceive with the <i>Messrs. -Hull</i>, that it is redolent “of a very popish -error,” it certainly means, as they observe, “taking -orders;” and I should think that the last persons likely to -present themselves to a Bishop for that purpose, would be those -whose consciences were already overborne by the pressure of their -scruples.</p> -<p>“Tenderness of conscience,” says <i>Bishop Jeremy -Taylor</i>, “is an equivocal term, and does not always -signify in a good sense.” <a name="citation19"></a><a -href="#footnote19" class="citation">[19]</a> I am far from -meaning to impeach the sincerity of the petitioners, but if his -Lordship applied the term in any other than a <i>good sense</i>, -he <a name="page20"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 20</span>might -seem to have paid them but an equivocal compliment, and if he -used it in a good sense with respect to <i>them</i>, the great -body of the clergy who have subscribed, and felt no pang, might -suspect his Lordship of meaning to imply that they were gifted -with consciences of a somewhat tougher texture than is altogether -to be envied. Some have chosen to draw this inference; I -will not however believe that they have done his Lordship’s -deliberate sentiments justice in so doing.</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>And by continuing these difficulties</i> -(<i>of Subscription</i>) <i>we should leave the way open only to -those whose consciences have no scruples</i>, <i>and who would -enter the Church only with a view to the profits and secular -advantages</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>I would submit that a man may enter the Church with <i>a</i> -view to its <i>secular</i> advantages, without being justly -involved in the suspicion of <i>insincerity</i>, or of necessity, -laying himself open to the imputation of entering it <i>only</i> -with a view to its profits. For instance, should a -gentleman have in his gift what is commonly called a <i>family -living</i>, he may design it as a provision for a younger son, -who enters upon a course of study and trains himself for the -ministry, and that without necessarily discarding all view to the -<i>secular</i> advantages of his profession, knowing that -“they which preach the gospel should live of the -gospel:” but so far from its following that he enters the -Church with <i>no other</i> or higher motive; how frequently do -we find it the case with those whose lot has thus been cast, as -it were, for them, that they prove not merely exemplary parish -priests, but eventually rise to adorn the <i>Episcopal -Bench</i>. His Lordship will not object to my adducing his -own successful career as a case in point.</p> -<p>But if such characters as his Lordship speaks of, can <a -name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 21</span>even -<i>now</i> in the teeth of all the imputed difficulties, enter -the church, if they be so disposed, I do not clearly see how -removing these difficulties will mitigate the evil—how -widening the portal will tend to obstruct the entrance. -Nor, although it stands so recorded in his Lordship’s -speech, will I believe it to be, his deliberate opinion, that by -leaving the matter of Subscription as it <i>now</i> stands, we -leave the way open <i>only</i> to those whose consciences can -feel <i>no scruples</i>. If these expressions of his -Lordship are to be taken only in a good sense, I trust for the -credit of the Church that his Lordship is not the only exception -to the general rule. The <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, in their -animadversions on the Bishop of London’s speech, draw a -nice distinction between “opening the door,” and -“leaving it open.” In cases of burglary I -believe the distinction involves a difference; we may venture -therefore to hazard a guess to which of the brothers, the lawyer -or the divine, we may attribute that contribution to the joint -stock pamphlet. <a name="citation21"></a><a href="#footnote21" -class="citation">[21]</a></p> -<blockquote><p><a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -22</span>“<i>But there is an answer commonly given</i>, -<i>and a weighty one</i>, <i>to this objection</i>. <i>The -Church has a sort of elasticity which allows and graduates the -differences that exist</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>Yet on the use of the word “elasticity” by the -Bishop of London, you say, “I confess myself entirely -unable to distinguish between the ‘expansion’ of the -one prelate or the ‘elasticity’ of the other.” -<a name="citation22a"></a><a href="#footnote22a" -class="citation">[22a]</a> If there is no difference -between the existing elasticity and the expansion pleaded for, -for what boon did the petitioners pray? I anticipate your -answer, and will reply to it presently.</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>It does not become the Church of -England</i>, <i>a Church founded on liberty of conscience and the -right of private judgment</i>, <i>to say that there shall not be -a certain latitude of opinion</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>This observation has been the theme for much discussion. -It has been pretty roundly insinuated that his Lordship’s -meaning had been wilfully misapprehended by the Bishop of -London. I see myself but little ground for the -insinuation. It will at all events be admitted that his -Lordship did not qualify or define the sense in which he used the -observation. He has however explained his meaning and the -extent to which he applied it in his pamphlet, or as you term it -“brief defence” of his speech.</p> -<p>After quoting the “passing remarks of a country -newspaper,” as elucidatory of his Lordship’s meaning, -you say, “I cannot believe the Bishop of London could be -blind to a distinction so obvious.” <a -name="citation22b"></a><a href="#footnote22b" -class="citation">[22b]</a> For the present, be it so. -In the same page in which this expression of your incredulity as -to his Lordship’s blindness occurs, <a -name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 23</span>you quote -another passage from his speech, that in which he observes of -Subscription,—“it is not required from all members of -the Church, but only from the ministers of the Church, as a -security against a greater evil, &c.” Upon which -you exclaim, “can we forget that <i>all</i> graduates at -the universities are required to subscribe, that these are all -<i>laymen</i>?” Not very easily, I admit. And -which would you wish us to suppose? That his Lordship had -forgotten it, or that he was ignorant of it, or that he intended -to palm upon the audience before which he spake such an assertion -as a <i>literal</i> fact? As I am inclined to think that -<i>you</i> suppose neither one nor the other, I must say, -“I cannot believe that you could be blind to his -Lordship’s meaning,” and could not help exclaiming on -reading your ready imputation against the Bishop of -London—“Physician! heal thyself.”</p> -<p>But whilst so many explanations have since been given of the -meaning in which this observation was made by the Bishop of -Norwich, and so many insinuations levelled at the Bishop of -London for not choosing to see it, I am disposed to think that -his Lordship did not feel himself called upon to dive into the -thoughts of the Bishop of Norwich, but intending to give a direct -negative to an unqualified affirmative, meant to re-repudiate the -notion that “the church of England, <i>was</i> founded on -liberty of conscience, and the right of private judgment,” -and to assert with reference to the well-known <i>fruits</i> of -such a principle, that the Church was founded on -“truth.” But the Bishop of Norwich contends -that the expression is an “incorrect” one, and that -had he been speaking of “the only true foundation of the -true Catholic Church itself,” he should <a -name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 24</span>have said -that it was “founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus -Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” <a -name="citation24a"></a><a href="#footnote24a" -class="citation">[24a]</a> The Bishop of London could -scarcely have thought the <i>periphrasis</i> necessary, -considering before whom he was speaking, he would probably reply -to the imputed incorrectness of the expression, that he always -considered the foundation of which the Bishop of Norwich here -speaks, to be “truth,” and that the Church was the -interpreter of the <i>Apostles</i>, and <i>Prophets</i>, and -<i>Jesus Christ</i>, or in other words of the <i>Gospel of -Christ</i>. He meant also I should suppose, to repudiate -the notion, that <i>the Reformation of the Church</i> proceeded -on such a principle, and in effect to affirm that from the days -of Archbishop Cranmer to these of Archbishop Howley, no such -principle had ever been recognized by the <i>Church</i>, as that -of admitting “liberty of conscience and the right of -private judgment,” to have any <i>directive</i> influence -in Church affairs; a fact, which if not sufficiently proved by -the mandate of Edward the Sixth, enforcing under the penalties of -“sequestration, suspension, excommunication, and such -<i>other coercion</i>, as to ordinaries or others having -ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall seem convenient, straitly -charging and commanding his loving subjects to observe the -injunctions of 1547,” <a name="citation24b"></a><a -href="#footnote24b" class="citation">[24b]</a>—would be -amply established by your own observations respecting <i>Bishop -Hooper</i>, for the sending of the good old man to prison in the -matter of the vestments, and that by the <i>Reformers</i> -themselves, would seem but little to favour the notion that our -reformed Church was founded on “liberty of conscience and -the right of private judgment.”</p> -<p><a name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 25</span>But -that I may not also be accused of misapprehending his -Lordship’s meaning, I will here quote his explanation of -the sense in which the observation was made—</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>It is of course plain that I was neither -speaking of the Catholic Church at all</i>, <i>nor even of the -Church of England</i>, <i>except in its character of a Reformed -Church</i>, <i>founded as such on the principles of the -Reformation</i>, <i>which I again deliberately assert to be -liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment</i>, -<i>in opposition to that Church from whence it separated</i>, -<i>in which the authority of Popes</i>, <i>Councils</i>, <i>and -Priests</i>, <i>superseded all appeal to the scriptures -themselves</i>, <i>and by which of course freedom of judgment was -strictly prohibited</i>.” <a name="citation25a"></a><a -href="#footnote25a" class="citation">[25a]</a></p> -</blockquote> -<p>Not that it bears upon his Lordship’s argument, still I -would respectfully submit whether our alleged <i>separation</i> -here from the Church of Rome be strictly correct; we threw off -our allegiance to the <i>usurped</i> authority, temporal and -spiritual, of the Pope; we reformed the abuses of <i>our own -Church</i>, but we <i>separated</i> from no mother Church. -The episcopal Church in England existed long before the Pope cast -his eye upon it.—“In the acts of the Council of -Arles, which was held A.D. 314, we find the Subscriptions of -three British Bishops.” <a name="citation25b"></a><a -href="#footnote25b" class="citation">[25b]</a></p> -<p>But I would further question whether in his Lordship’s -<i>qualified</i> sense of the observation it can with any -strictness be said, that our <i>reformed</i> Church was founded -on the principle he contends for.</p> -<p>It will, I think, be admitted that whatever was done with -reference to the Church by that “Postilion of the -Reformation,” as Burnet calls him, the <i>Papist</i> Henry, -was done by him more with a view “to cudgel the <a -name="page26"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 26</span>Pope into a -compliance with what he desired,” <a -name="citation26a"></a><a href="#footnote26a" -class="citation">[26a]</a> than from any desire to reform our -religion. At all events, we must give up any attempt to -reconcile his “six acts” with “liberty of -conscience.”</p> -<p>The reformation of our <i>religion</i> had its commencement in -the reign of his successor. Here, if any where, we must -look for the principle in question. But can it be said that -our religion was reformed “in <i>opposition</i> to the -authority of Popes and Councils,” when it is so well known, -that “the Bishop of Rome’s usurped power and -jurisdiction was of most just causes taken away and -<i>abolished</i>,” <a name="citation26b"></a><a -href="#footnote26b" class="citation">[26b]</a> in the preceding -reign? Neither can it, I think, in strictness be said, -<i>of that time</i>, that the <i>Priests</i> superseded all -appeal to the scriptures, seeing that it was by the Bishops -themselves that the scriptures were chiefly caused to be -circulated. I am speaking not of the German Protestant -Church, but that of which his Lordship speaks, “the Church -of England, in its character of a reformed Church.” -And I have before shewn on your own authority in the matter of -<i>Hooper</i>, that she recognised nothing so little as the -principle of “liberty of conscience.” That -sectarism or separation <i>from</i> the Church is founded on this -principle, will be admitted.</p> -<p>It has always appeared to me, that the hacknied phrase, -“liberty of conscience and the right of private -judgment,” applied to an associated body, is a pure -fallacy, I had almost said, a cobweb to catch the fly popularity, -quite as valuable as an appeal, “<i>ad captandum -vulgus</i>,” as the cry—“<i>Nolumus leges -Angliæ mutari</i>,” to which -“catch-word,” his Lordship attributes the defeat of -the attempt to revise the Liturgy in 1689. You also -attribute <a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -27</span>this defeat to “the violence of party;” but -there are those, and the late pious and excellent <i>Bishop -Jebb</i> amongst the number, who ascribe it to the -“<i>special interference of Providence</i>.” -“But the special interference of Providence did not -terminate with the first establishment of our Liturgy . . . -Even within the Church itself, some were found whose integrity -cannot be impeached, who were on the point of introducing -alterations which could not have failed to prove equally -injurious to the cause of truth and piety.” <a -name="citation27a"></a><a href="#footnote27a" -class="citation">[27a]</a> Even Bishop Burnet, one of the -Commissioners, with reference to the probable result of those -contemplated alterations of 1689, imputes the failure of the -attempt to a “very happy direction of the providence of God -observed in the matter.” <a name="citation27b"></a><a -href="#footnote27b" class="citation">[27b]</a></p> -<p>The Church, however, coerces the conscience of no man, every -one is at liberty to take his own religious course, and I confess -I cannot see why that which is conceded to all other societies -should be denied to the Church—the right of being governed -by her own constitutions, and the right also of judging what -constitutions are most conducive to the welfare and good order of -her community.</p> -<p>If I could not conscientiously conform to the doctrines and -discipline of the <i>Baptist</i> or the <i>Independent</i>, I -question if they would allow me to give my conscience the liberty -to act amongst them according to its dictates. They would -no more deny than we do ourselves, the abstract principle, -neither would they “fine,” nor put me in “the -pillory,” but I suspect they would “exclude” -me, and with very good reason, from their ministry. To talk -of conceding the abstract right of private <a -name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>judgment, has -always appeared to me a good deal like talking of conceding to a -person with sound lungs the privilege of breathing. But to -contend for the <i>principle</i> and talk of certain latitudes -and limits, seems to me to involve a contradiction—once -assign any <i>limits</i> to the “right,” and you -destroy the principle. But although his Lordship pleads for -the principle being, as he contends, that on which our Church is -founded, and ought to be acted upon, he would circumscribe it -within “a certain latitude of opinion.” He -would not have it trench upon “the distinguishing features -and essential doctrines of the Christian Church.” But -who is to be the judge of these doctrines? Two of the -petitioners, the <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, repudiate the very idea of -the Church being the authorized interpreter of the truth. -“If,” say these brothers, in allusion to a remark by -the Bishop of London, “the word ‘authorised’ -bear its usual signification, such a remark would indeed be -inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private -judgment.” <a name="citation28a"></a><a href="#footnote28a" -class="citation">[28a]</a></p> -<p>Again, arguing from <i>the abuse</i> of Subscription by -“unconscientious and unscrupulous men,” they say, -“it is on that account that the simplest Creed, and the -truth to which the term ‘necessary’ is directly -applied in our bible, are enough to justify a call into the -ministry.” <a name="citation28b"></a><a href="#footnote28b" -class="citation">[28b]</a></p> -<p>But let any one compare the following passage, from <i>Mr. -Belsham’s</i> first letter to a former Bishop of London, -with his exposition of the Unitarians’ Creed, as it is -given at the end of that <i>lucus a non lucendo</i>—his -“Calm Inquiry.” “That the Unitarians -believe <i>everything that </i><a name="page29"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 29</span><i>is essential</i> to salvation is -<i>evident</i> 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 <i>simplest creed</i>—but will it -“justify his call into the ministry?” Take -again the case of the <i>Baptist</i>, agreeing with us I believe -on all the essential doctrines of Christianity, admitting the -<i>necessity</i> of <i>Baptism</i>, but differing from us only on -a question of <i>time</i>. 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; <i>exclusion</i> remains (to them) in -the same unabated force.” <a name="citation29"></a><a -href="#footnote29" class="citation">[29]</a> 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?”</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>I consider that by in any way expanding -the sense and meaning of Subscription</i>, <i>a boon would be -granted</i>, <i>and a great benefit conferred upon the scrupulous -and tender consciences of those who are among</i>”—it -might be asked how they came there—“<i>or may become -the brightest ornaments of the establishment</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>But if these ornaments can only be secured at the <a -name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 30</span>risk, I do -not say with the “<i>intention</i>” of letting into -the ministry together with them, men who hold things <i>contrary -to sound doctrine</i>, 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?</p> -<p>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 <i>tenderest</i> conscience, -seem to breathe a <i>crede nobis</i>,—the Church in the -holy communion of which <span class="GutSmall">WE</span> lived -and died, proffers nothing to be received as an article of faith, -that is “not <i>agreeable</i> to the word of -<i>God</i>,” nothing as a point of discipline “that -is <i>contrary</i> to it.”</p> -<blockquote><p>“<i>I would remove every obstacle in the way -of Subscription</i>, <i>by which tender consciences of -unquestionable orthodoxy</i>, <i>agreeing on every point -essential to Christianity</i>, <i>might be relieved from -difficulties</i>, <i>which I know weigh much with men of -honourable and high feeling</i>.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>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 <i>unscriptural -character</i> of the Athanasian Creed,” as it is viewed by -the <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, 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 <i>contrary to scripture</i>, or to sacrifice -“<i>truth and honesty</i>,”—surely the -expression of <a name="page31"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -31</span>a <i>tender</i> conscience is incorrectly applied to men -like these. For what must be the <i>toughness</i> of theirs -who could submit to the alternative?</p> -<p>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 “<i>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</i>.” His Lordship contends in the -“brief defence” of his speech, “that it only -<i>requires the full carrying out of this principle into -practice</i>, to meet the difficulties of the present -case.” <a name="citation31"></a><a href="#footnote31" -class="citation">[31]</a></p> -<p>The radical reformer of the State contends that it only -requires the <i>full carrying out</i> 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.</p> -<p>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 <i>no latitude</i> 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 -<i>petitio principii</i>, it is assuming that there is no -existing “elasticity,” no departure from an -<i>iota</i> admissible, <i>no latitude</i> in any point, -subordinate or otherwise already recognized, and if so, seeing -that <a name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>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.</p> -<p>Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this -principle of concession in consideration to <i>tender -consciences</i> be once admitted, where are the probable demands -upon it likely to find a limit?</p> -<p>The question would seem then to resolve itself into a choice -of evils, and <i>e malis minimum</i>, we must ask therefore, -which would be most conducive to the welfare and -<i>respectability</i> 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?—“<i>Quicunque vult</i>, is an ill preface to -a law.”</p> -<p>A proposition similar to the last has been stated and -canvassed by <i>Bishop Jeremy Taylor</i>, 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.” <a name="citation32"></a><a -href="#footnote32" class="citation">[32]</a></p> -<p>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 <a name="page33"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 33</span>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—</p> -<blockquote><p>Mallem magis cum Platone errare quam cum istis -rectè sentire.</p> -</blockquote> -<p>His Lordship quotes the opinion of Bishop Warburton, namely, -that “<i>schism</i> which all must admit to be an evil, is -one which nothing but the Church <i>widening her communion</i>, -can prevent or cure.” <a name="citation33"></a><a -href="#footnote33" class="citation">[33]</a></p> -<p>I confess I could never clearly see how the Church <i>can</i> -conscientiously <i>widen</i> her communion. What are the -pleas for separation? They hinge not on <i>letters</i> and -<i>iotas</i>, nor on this or that particular <i>passage</i> in -our Liturgy, they resolve themselves into <i>two</i>—our -Doctrines and our Church Government. One or other of these -is the plea alleged by <i>every denomination</i> of separatists, -from the frigid <i>Socinian</i>, to the fanatical -<i>Jumper</i>. Giving these separatists therefore credit -for seceding or keeping aloof of us on these grounds, and, that -<i>for conscience sake</i>—we can only expect to -“prevent schism,” by leaving the divinity of our -Saviour “an open question,” and abolishing Episcopacy -altogether.</p> -<p>But may we not ask, if tenderness of conscience is to be -respected when it takes offence at <i>non-essentials</i>, why is -it to be disregarded when it stumbles at the far more important -matters, <i>the essentials</i> 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 <a -name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>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 <i>policy of -Satan</i> busying people with outward signs.” <a -name="citation34a"></a><a href="#footnote34a" -class="citation">[34a]</a></p> -<p>Since then we must give up the pleasing hope of bringing -schismatics <i>back</i> 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,” <a -name="citation34b"></a><a href="#footnote34b" -class="citation">[34b]</a> not that this ought to be objected if -the charitable object could be effected by any <i>reasonable</i> -sacrifice. You admit that already “more is proposed -that is either necessary or desirable.” <a -name="citation34c"></a><a href="#footnote34c" -class="citation">[34c]</a> The Bishop of London <a -name="citation34d"></a><a href="#footnote34d" -class="citation">[34d]</a> “would not be <a -name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span>disposed to -go as far as you,” whilst some perhaps with the modesty of -old <i>Richard Baxter</i>, might propose to put the unclean thing -away altogether, and to substitute <a name="page36"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 36</span>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.</p> -<blockquote><p>Utor permisso—caudœque pilos ut -equinæ,<br /> -Paulatim vello—demo unum, demo etiam unum,<br /> -Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi. <a -name="citation36a"></a><a href="#footnote36a" -class="citation">[36a]</a></p> -</blockquote> -<p>The difficulties of the subject seem to be confessed by all, -except it may be by the <i>Brothers Hull</i>, who seem to see -none or very few. But the Bishop of Norwich observes, -“<i>I agree that there are what to some may be deemed -almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any change in the -Liturgy</i>, <i>and perhaps in the Articles</i>.” 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.” <a name="citation36b"></a><a -href="#footnote36b" class="citation">[36b]</a> “There -is a lion in the way”—and for my own part I am craven -enough to say there let him lie—<i>couchant</i> he is -likely to be less troublesome than <i>rampant</i>. And the -better part of valour is discretion.</p> -<p><a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 37</span>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 -<i>Subscription</i>, and that there would seem but little -necessity, for the sake of <i>peace</i>, to embark upon the -dangerous experiment of a revision.</p> -<p>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 <i>unreservedly</i> 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 -<i>Expansion</i> 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 <i>such -latitude</i> of <i>opinion</i> as would admit of an habitual -<i>deviation</i> 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. -<i>Mr. Maty</i>, 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 -<i>Mr. Lindsey</i>, 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.” <a -name="citation37"></a><a href="#footnote37" -class="citation">[37]</a></p> -<p><a name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -38</span>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 <i>Mr. -Maty</i> 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 -<i>they</i> had in view, the <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, enumerate -amongst these deviations from the authorized forms and positive -obligations of <i>the Church</i>, <i>sanctioned</i> as they -assert <i>by general practice</i>; 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 -<i>habitually</i> and advisedly deviating thus from his -<i>positive obligations</i>, the complainants would scarcely be -told that such things were <i>consented to and allowed privately -by the Church</i>. 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?” <a -name="citation38"></a><a href="#footnote38" -class="citation">[38]</a></p> -<p><i>You</i> represent the petitioners “as having -presented to parliament the sound and reasonable prayer, <i>that -the law and the practice should be assimilated</i>.” -You mean, I presume, that some regard should be had to the nature -of the thing <i>practised</i>, otherwise I must think your -principle <a name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -39</span>a very <i>unsound</i> 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 <i>law</i> 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 <i>practice</i> to the <i>law</i>, was the sounder -one of the two.</p> -<p>But the <i>Messrs. Hull</i> in <i>their</i> 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.”</p> -<p>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 <i>Homilies</i>, is <i>agreeable</i> to the -word of God,” the laity, you say “<i>feel</i> not -what it is to subscribe <i>literally</i> to <i>every word</i> of -the <i>Homilies</i>, Rites, and Ceremonies,” <a -name="citation39a"></a><a href="#footnote39a" -class="citation">[39a]</a> and again, “if a Subscription to -<i>the Liturgy</i> as <i>agreeable</i> to the word of God is -still maintained to be indispensable,” <a -name="citation39b"></a><a href="#footnote39b" -class="citation">[39b]</a> and further, the petition states, that -the Clergy are “commonly understood to be <i>bound</i> to -the observance of <i>all the Canons</i>.” <a -name="citation39c"></a><a href="#footnote39c" -class="citation">[39c]</a> Now, I cannot think that you -give quite a correct view of Subscription. Amongst your -illustrations, you say, “our Subscription <i>literally</i> -taken <a name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -40</span>calls upon a person to declare that the delivery of a -marriage ring and the Apostles’ Creed are equally -<i>agreeable</i> to scripture!” <a name="citation40"></a><a -href="#footnote40" class="citation">[40]</a> But the very -<i>letter</i> 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 <i>direct</i> warrant -baptizing infants, in short, <i>literally</i> we do <i>not</i> -subscribe to <i>the Liturgy</i> as being <i>agreeable</i> to the -word of God, but containing nothing <i>contrary</i> to it.</p> -<p>Neither do we “subscribe <i>literally</i> 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.</p> -<p>And as to the Canons, so far from feeling ourselves -<i>bound</i> to a <i>voluntary</i> 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 <i>Archdeacon Sharpe</i>, “to which -we are <i>not bound by any formal promise</i>, 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 -<a name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -41</span>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</p> -<blockquote><p>“ . . . bear the ills we have<br /> -Than fly to others, that we know not of.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>But to the observance of the Rubric, we are unquestionably -pledged. And it is preferred by the <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, -“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,” <i>ergo valet consequentia</i>. But, after -mentioning in the strongest terms our obligations to a strict -observance of the Rubric, <i>Archdeacon Sharpe</i> says, -“this indeed we must always take along with us, that our -obligations to observe the Rubric, how indispensable soever, are -subject to this <i>proviso</i>—namely, that the thing -prescribed <i>be a thing practicable</i>.” And as the -<i>Messrs. Hull</i> admit that “the Bishops from the -multitudes of candidates, <i>could not</i> 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.</p> -<p>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 <a name="page42"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 42</span>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 <i>be</i> -one, which I do not admit, is a sound argument for the bringing -in of many more. “If,” says <i>Dr. -Randolph</i>, “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.” <a name="citation42"></a><a -href="#footnote42" class="citation">[42]</a> It appears, -however, that <i>you</i> 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 <span -class="GutSmall">BILL</span> 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.”</p> -<p>I perceive, however, that you would still have a -“declaration of conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of -England, as it is <i>now</i> by law established.”—By -<i>now</i>, I presume you are speaking of the Liturgy, as it -shall be set forth <i>hereafter</i>, when every pebble of offence -shall be taken away, and “every cause of uneasiness -removed.” But <i>hic labor</i>, <i>hoc opus -est</i>—take for instance the Athanasian Creed, you might -be contented with the proposition of 1689 respecting it; but your -brother petitioners the <a name="page43"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 43</span><i>Messrs. Hull</i> exclaim, -“let Subscription henceforward apply to a Prayer Book which -<i>does not contain</i> the Athanasian Creed.” <a -name="citation43a"></a><a href="#footnote43a" -class="citation">[43a]</a> Now, if this “<i>erroris -expulsio</i>,” as it has been termed, was considered -indispensable to the exclusion of the Arian “wolves,” -even <i>after</i> 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 <i>Messrs. Hull</i>, fences are -of no use, for a wolf once upon a time got through one, meaning -<i>Bishop Hoadley</i>. 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.</p> -<p>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,” <a name="citation43b"></a><a -href="#footnote43b" class="citation">[43b]</a> 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.” <a -name="citation43c"></a><a href="#footnote43c" -class="citation">[43c]</a></p> -<p>But as the subsidence of the <i>dissidia mutuasque -suspiciones</i>, is a consummation more devoutly to be wished, <a -name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 44</span>than, I fear, -<i>in these times</i>, to be looked for; I will in conclusion -make a few observations in defence of the Subscription of the -Clergy generally, to those <i>three points</i> 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 -<i>Athanasian Creed</i>.</p> -<p>“Full of information,” as <i>Hooker</i> observes, -“concerning that faith which <i>Arianism</i> did so -mightily impugn, and which was both in the <i>east</i> and -<i>west</i> Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, -by as many as had not given up even the very ghost of -belief.” <a name="citation44a"></a><a href="#footnote44a" -class="citation">[44a]</a></p> -<p>But my Diocesan tells me, that “<i>literally</i> -understood this Creed makes no distinctions, no contingencies, -but unconditionally and unequivocally asserts that all who -receive it not, are doomed to irretrievable perdition.” <a -name="citation44b"></a><a href="#footnote44b" -class="citation">[44b]</a> God forbid! But if it be -so, <i>literally</i> the Saviour of mankind has pronounced the -same uncontingent, undistinguishing, unequivocal doom, upon all -who believe not the <i>gospel</i>. “<i>He</i> that -believeth not shall be damned, <a name="citation44c"></a><a -href="#footnote44c" class="citation">[44c]</a> <i>whosoever</i> -believeth on him shall not <i>perish</i>, but have everlasting -life,” <a name="citation44d"></a><a href="#footnote44d" -class="citation">[44d]</a> the converse is, <i>whosoever</i> -believeth <i>not</i> shall perish everlastingly; for “he -that believeth not shall not see <i>life</i>, but the <i>wrath of -God abideth on him</i>, <a name="citation44e"></a><a -href="#footnote44e" class="citation">[44e]</a> they <i>all</i> -shall be damned, who believe not <span -class="GutSmall">THE</span> truth.” <a -name="citation44f"></a><a href="#footnote44f" -class="citation">[44f]</a></p> -<p>But we cannot bring ourselves to think that it can consist -with the goodness of Him “whose tender mercies <a -name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 45</span>are over all -His works,” to doom to “irretrievable -perdition,” <i>millions</i> of His creatures for the -non-performance of an <i>impossibility</i>. We consequently -limit this awful sentence against those who “love -unrighteousness,” and wilfully reject the <i>offer</i> of -salvation. The context forces us to this application of the -anathema. But I am not asking in what sense we are to -<i>understand</i> the threat of scripture, but applying to it the -same reasoning through which the Athanasian Creed is attacked; -and I assert that <i>literally</i> understood, the texts which I -have quoted, as undistinguishingly doom to perdition <i>all</i> -who do not believe the gospel, as does the Athanasian Creed all -who do not hold the Catholic Faith.</p> -<p>But if we are to ascertain the sense of scripture by comparing -it with scripture, the text with the context, why are we to be -debarred from ascertaining the sense and meaning of our Church -formularies, by the application of the same canon of -interpretation? Why are so invidious objections to be -conjured up and bruited abroad against our Church, by tying us -down to the <i>letter</i> of her forms, to the utter disregard of -their meaning, and the spirit in which they have been -imposed? I cannot express my own view of these monitory -clauses, better than in the language of a contemporary divine, -“their connection and relative force is this: whosoever -desires to be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholic -Faith, and if he who has this faith keep it not, for he cannot -keep it except he has first had it or held it, he cannot be -saved, but without doubt shall perish everlastingly. The -warning, therefore, is directed to him only who keeps not the -faith which he has been taught, which has been put into his -hands, which he has had hold of.” <a -name="citation45"></a><a href="#footnote45" -class="citation">[45]</a></p> -<p><a name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 46</span>But my -Diocesan affirms, and although it is your own opinion also, I -take the liberty of canvassing it in his Lordship’s -statement, feeling that the sentiments of the Spiritual Head of -the Church in this Diocese, must carry with them even greater -weight than your own. His Lordship says, “granting -(though the Creed makes no such concession) that five hundred -millions and upwards of Pagans and Heathens, out of eight hundred -millions inhabitants of our globe, are not meant to be included -in this sweeping anathema, it should be remembered that the whole -Greek Church, professed Christians as they are, must of necessity -be included, as its members after mature consideration are at -variance with other Churches respecting the procession of the -Holy Ghost.” <a name="citation46a"></a><a -href="#footnote46a" class="citation">[46a]</a> As a point -of <i>doctrine</i> I am much disposed to question the -“mature consideration,” I should rather impute the -schism to the imperious and unbending dispositions of the -respective parties, the <i>Patriarch</i> versus the -<i>Pontiff</i>. But be that as it may,—I would -exonerate our Church from the odium of gratuitously condemning to -irretrievable perdition, those who in <i>her own opinion</i> -substantially differ nothing from her in this respect, but do -keep undefiled the Catholic Faith.</p> -<p>“They do not,” says <i>Archbishop Bramhall</i>, -“add the word <i>filioque</i> to the Creed, and yet they -acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, which -is the very same thing in sense.” <a -name="citation46b"></a><a href="#footnote46b" -class="citation">[46b]</a> And again—“<i>Peter -Lombard</i>, <i>Thomas à Jesu</i>, <i>Cardinal Tolet</i>, -and many others, do make the question about the procession of the -Holy Ghost to be verbal only, without reality, and that the -Grecian expressions of <i>Spiritus Filii</i> and <i>per </i><a -name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -47</span><i>Filium</i>, do signify as much as our -<i>Filioque</i>.” <a name="citation47a"></a><a -href="#footnote47a" class="citation">[47a]</a> <i>Bishop -Pearson</i>, <i>Bishop Beveridge</i>, <i>Dr. Waterland</i>, and -many others of our own divines are of the same opinion.</p> -<p>In explication of the doctrine of the Personality of the Holy -Ghost, the Athanasian Creed says—“the Holy Ghost is -of the Father and of the Son,” the Greek Church holds that -which as <i>Bishop Pearson</i> says, plainly contains this truth, -that the Spirit is <i>of</i> God the Father, and <i>of</i> God -the Son. The Creed says, “neither made, nor created, -nor begotten, but proceeding,” and beyond a -<i>procession</i>, distinguishing Him from the Father and the -Son, but whether this procession be<i> temporal</i>, -<i>eternal</i>, or both—whether from the Father <i>and</i> -the Son, or from the Father only, the Creed <i>determines</i> -nothing—and the distinguishing property ascribed by the -Greek Church to the Holy Ghost, is a <i>procession</i>, -<i>Εκπορενσις</i>. -<a name="citation47b"></a><a href="#footnote47b" -class="citation">[47b]</a> “The Greek Church,” -says <i>Dr. Bennet</i>, “does unanimously maintain the -<i>temporal</i> procession of the Holy Ghost, from <i>both</i> -the Father and the Son. And since this Creed may be -understood in that sense, therefore in the use of it we do -<i>necessarily</i> declare no more than what the Greek Church -does as cordially profess and contend for as -ourselves.”</p> -<p>“Though the distinction,” says the same writer, -“was so well known to all our Reformers in this nation, yet -their prudence and moderation would not suffer them to take -notice of it in any public and authentic manner. They would -not recede from <i>Rome</i> any further than was necessary, upon -the account of the <i>Roman</i> corruptions, and therefore they -did not reject the <i>filioque</i> from the <i>Nicene</i> Creed -or the Creed of <i>St. Athanasius</i>, nor <a -name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 48</span>did they -declare themselves against the <i>Greek</i> Church by adding any -such term, as must necessarily determine in what sense they -understood the <i>procession</i>.” <a -name="citation48a"></a><a href="#footnote48a" -class="citation">[48a]</a> <i>Literally</i> taken, -therefore, the Greek Church is <i>not of necessity</i> included -in this sweeping anathema, and as his Lordship states it, -“excluded from the merits of the Redeemer’s death -hereafter,” any more than five hundred millions of Heathens -are condemned to irretrievable perdition by the <i>literal</i> -acceptation of Mark xvi. 16.</p> -<p>To affirm the necessity of the Catholic Faith to salvation, is -simply to say what our Lord himself says, in the above -text. To affirm that he who <i>having had</i> the Catholic -Faith <i>rejects</i> it, is to say no more than is said, Heb. vi. -4, Luke ix. 62, Matt x. 13, and 2 Peter ii. 21, with many other -like places.</p> -<p>It would appear then from page 51 of your pamphlet, that we -differ nothing in our application of these clauses; the only -difference between us is, that taking this view of it, I can -<i>unreservedly</i> make my Subscription, and conscientiously -hold with our eighth Article, that this Creed “<i>ought -thoroughly to be received and believed</i>.” But if -in my conscience I believed that such an application of them was -untenable, I confess I could not so easily lay aside my scruples, -as it would appear you were ready to do, provided you could -obtain the “sanction of the opinion of the Archbishop of -Canterbury,” an opinion which being not <i>ex cathedra</i>, -but private and personal, his Grace would not permit you to -consider as “of greater value than that of any other -<i>individual</i>, who may possess in an equal degree the -qualifications of a competent judge in such a matter.” <a -name="citation48b"></a><a href="#footnote48b" -class="citation">[48b]</a></p> -<p><a name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 49</span>But you -ask “whether when we read Mark xvi. 16, we can find in that -awful threat against those who do not receive the <span -class="smcap">Gospel</span>, a sanction for the even more -appalling threat contained in the Creed.” <a -name="citation49a"></a><a href="#footnote49a" -class="citation">[49a]</a> In what sense it is more -appalling you have left us to discover. But by this -observation, you would seem to aim at some distinction between -not receiving the <i>Gospel</i> and rejecting the “very -essentials of Christianity.”</p> -<p>“The Creed,” you say, “consists of a series -of propositions deduced by fallible man.” This of -necessity would be the case, since <i>the truth</i> was by the -wisdom of God committed to the keeping of fallible man, and with -it, the command to “take heed to <span -class="GutSmall">THE</span> doctrine.” But the -question is are they correct deductions from the -<i>infallible</i> word of God? You admit that they are, all -“must admire,” you say, “the extraordinary -subtlety and acuteness with which <i>erroneous theories</i> are -rejected, and <i>the correct deductions from scripture</i> are -maintained,” <a name="citation49b"></a><a -href="#footnote49b" class="citation">[49b]</a> and again -“the matters treated of in this Creed are of such -<i>fundamental</i> importance and so including the <i>very -essentials of Christianity</i>.” <a -name="citation49c"></a><a href="#footnote49c" -class="citation">[49c]</a> If so, if the deductions be -<i>scriptural</i>, the spirit of the clauses cannot be otherwise, -for “<i>he</i> that believeth not shall be damned,” -and I presume that by believing you would contend for the -necessity of a <i>sound</i> faith—“the truth as it is -in Jesus.”</p> -<p>“You are not,” you say, “so feverishly -sensitive as many good men of our Church as to Trinitarian -definitions, esteeming a lively ‘faith working by -love,’ the grand desideratum of the gospel,” <a -name="citation49d"></a><a href="#footnote49d" -class="citation">[49d]</a> and so no doubt in a right sense it -is. But <i>South</i> draws a distinction between <a -name="page50"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 50</span>a lively and -a <i>living</i> faith, “our faith must not only be -<i>living</i> but <i>lively</i> too.” Admitting this -distinction, how far behind you does the Unitarian (or rather -<i>Humanitarian</i>, if sects would but assume their most -appropriate designation), fall in the profession of a like -faith? He holds after a fashion, St. Paul’s -“word of faith,” Rom. x. 9, and in works of kindness -to his fellow creatures and <i>morality</i>, falls nothing behind -the most orthodox Trinitarian. In this sense his faith is -lively, and <i>artlessness</i> and <i>simplicity</i> are the -boasted characteristics of his Creed. He “confesses -with his mouth the Lord Jesus”—but then it is that he -“was a man constituted in all respects like other men, -subject to the same infirmities, the same <i>ignorance</i>, -<i>prejudices</i>, and <i>frailties</i>, that he suffered death, -not to appease the wrath of God, not as a <i>satisfaction</i> to -divine justice, not to exhibit the evil of sin, nor in <i>any -sense whatever to make atonement to God</i> for it; for this -doctrine, <i>in every sense</i>, and according to every -explanation they explode as <i>irrational</i>, -<i>unscriptural</i>, and <i>derogatory from the divine -perfections</i>, but as a <i>martyr to the truth</i>, and <i>as a -necessary preliminary to his resurrection</i>.” <a -name="citation50"></a><a href="#footnote50" -class="citation">[50]</a> They confess Jesus with the -mouth, but they deny the <i>gospel of Jesus Christ our -Redeemer</i>. And is this believing to the saving of the -soul? is this a “confession unto salvation?” Is -this <span class="GutSmall">THE</span> doctrine? But the -rulers of Christ’s Church are to charge some that they -teach <i>no other</i> doctrine, than the doctrine which is -according to godliness, and great is the <i>mystery</i> of -godliness. They are to rebuke sharply that men be -<i>sound</i> in the faith. We must in short teach the truth -<i>as it is in Jesus</i>,—<span class="GutSmall">THE</span> -faith and not <span class="GutSmall">A</span> faith; and woe to -us if from any mistaken <a name="page51"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 51</span>notions of Christian charity, of that -charity which “rejoiceth in the truth,” we hesitate -to declare that to reject “the very essentials of -Christianity,” is a “drawing back unto -perdition.” At the same time when in the fulfilment -of our bounden duty, our positive obligations, we declare the -threat of scripture, for we declare no more, we might hope at all -events from those whose every sentiment would seem to breathe of -Christian benevolence, to have credit for declaring it in the -spirit of that charity which “<i>hopeth all -things</i>.”</p> -<p>Of the <i>form of absolution</i> in the Service for Visiting -the Sick, you say, “no small harm is done to our reputation -by sanctioning that which in plain honest language cannot be -defended.” <a name="citation51a"></a><a href="#footnote51a" -class="citation">[51a]</a></p> -<p>The Roman Catholic will tell you that you cannot in plain -honest language defend any construction of the words “this -<i>is my body</i>,” but their own. You put, however, -a different construction upon them, and with no harm done to your -reputation.</p> -<p>The Bishop of Norwich says of this form, “I have heard -many Clergymen express the pain they felt in uttering it, -shrinking, as conscientious minds ever must, from the assumption -of a power of so awful a character, while others from equally -conscientious motives, abstain altogether from pronouncing -it.” <a name="citation51b"></a><a href="#footnote51b" -class="citation">[51b]</a></p> -<p>I hope I do not misapprehend his Lordship; but the impression -of his opinion left on my mind by this passage, is, that no -<i>conscientious mind</i> can comply with our ordination vows but -with <i>pain</i> to itself. With what pain and reluctance -then must his Lordship cause these solemn vows to be -administered, and trusting <a name="page52"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 52</span>that they are <i>conscientiously</i> -made, how from <i>conscientious</i> motives a man can abstain -from the observance of them, I confess I cannot clearly -see. Nor, can I think it quite just to the great body of -his Clergy to take a <i>weak</i> conscience as the standard by -which to measure the integrity of, perhaps, a better informed -one.</p> -<p>But if his Lordship <i>so</i> construes our formularies, as -implying an assumption on the part of the <i>Minister</i>, of a -power, the arrogating of which can fall nothing short of -blasphemy, namely, that “unless we as Ministers of the -Church, ‘do forgive’ and ‘absolve,’ the -sins of a dying man must descend with him to the grave, with all -their fearful pressure; and <i>that if we choose to retain -them</i>, <i>he cannot escape their consequences</i>,” <a -name="citation52a"></a><a href="#footnote52a" -class="citation">[52a]</a>—in other words, assuming a power -like the false Prophets of old, “to slay the souls that -should not die, and save the souls alive that should not -live,” <a name="citation52b"></a><a href="#footnote52b" -class="citation">[52b]</a>—if such be his Lordship’s -view of our forms, a man need not be gifted with an -over-sensitive conscience to shudder at the arrogance, the use of -them must involve.</p> -<p>Yet in such a sense, his Lordship would seem to say, that our -Church’s absolution was viewed and “believed by many -of our earliest Reformers.” Let us then try the -Service in question, not by its <i>iotas</i>, but by its obvious -sense and meaning. Let it be made its own interpreter, and -we must at once be convinced that such was not the spirit in -which it was imposed by our Reformers, that they contemplated no -such construction of its words, as that of implying a power, of -“loosing of the debt of eternal death,”—or as -<i>Bishop Burnet</i> says, to “<i>pardon</i> with relation -to God.”</p> -<p><a name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 53</span>For if -so, why remind the sick person, that “after this life there -is an account to be given to the righteous Judge, by whom all -must be judged without respect of persons.” <a -name="citation53a"></a><a href="#footnote53a" -class="citation">[53a]</a> Does the form objected to imply -any such arrogant assumption on the part of the Minister? -On the contrary, is not the commencement of it <i>precatory</i>? -to the effect that <i>Christ</i>, not the <i>Priest</i>, -“would of his great mercy <i>forgive</i> the penitent his -offences.” Does the Priest pronounce the absolution -in his own name? On the contrary, he pronounces it in the -name of Him who sent him to declare the forgiveness of -sins. Does he declare it on any other than the <i>gospel -terms</i>? He declares it only to those who “truly -repent and believe in Christ.” But can he see the -heart? How then can it be supposed that he should himself -believe, or what danger is incurred of deceiving the dying person -into the fond hope, that he shall, in virtue of the -Priest’s absolution, be clear when he is judged -hereafter? Or if for a moment, the dying person had so -deceived himself, must not the delusion be dissipated, on hearing -the Minister <i>after</i> he had pronounced his -<i>absolution</i>, put up to the throne of mercy that earnest and -affecting petition, in behalf of him “who most <i>earnestly -desireth</i> pardon and forgiveness”—but to what -purpose, if he believed that he had but the moment before -forgiven him? what can be more utterly at variance than this -prayer, with the imputed arrogance of the form of -absolution? “The truth is, that in the Priest’s -absolution, there is the true power and virtue of forgiveness -which will most certainly take effect—<i>nisi ponitur -obex</i>—as in Baptism.” <a name="citation53b"></a><a -href="#footnote53b" class="citation">[53b]</a></p> -<p><a name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -54</span>“But who,” you ask, “shall venture to -put these words into the mouth of fallible men, and authorize -them <i>in any sense</i> to apply them.” <a -name="citation54a"></a><a href="#footnote54a" -class="citation">[54a]</a></p> -<p>“You believe us,” you say, “to be in the -fullest sense ambassadors of Christ, charged with a message of -reconciliation.” <a name="citation54b"></a><a -href="#footnote54b" class="citation">[54b]</a> But say that -you were delivering this message at the bed of a dying person, -and he replied to it, yes sir, so I read in my bible. How -would you lead him to believe that your ambassadorial declaration -of his forgiveness, was likely to be of more avail to him, than -his reading the message for himself? “Sin,” -says <i>Hooker</i>, “is not helped unless it be -<i>assured</i> of pardon.” <a name="citation54c"></a><a -href="#footnote54c" class="citation">[54c]</a> But what -assurance can you give the penitent, beyond that he can read for -himself, unless you have <i>authority</i> to declare his pardon -in virtue of your official character? If it be not so, the -distribution of the bible may be considered as having in a great -measure superseded the further necessity of a <i>Christian -Ministry</i>, and rendered our Saviour’s institutions of -none effect.</p> -<p>“But why,” you ask, “<i>assume</i> to -execute our commission in terms which under any construction are -presumptuous.” Under their <i>proper construction</i> -I would submit that they argue no assumption or presumption -whatsoever.</p> -<p>Let us say that you had recently been sent out as “an -ambassador in the fullest sense,” to Canada, in pardoning -the rebels in accordance with your instructions, and a compliance -on their parts with the terms, should you have deemed it a -distinction involving any important difference, implicating you -in an act of presumption, or derogating any thing from the -prerogative of <a name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. -55</span>your sovereign,—had you said, <i>I</i> remit you -your outlawry, and absolve you from all your offences.</p> -<p>But I should much question, supposing the rebels had by some -means possessed themselves of your instructions, and having -ascertained from them the terms on which pardon was offered to -them, whether they would have considered reading this document to -each other, the same thing as having the gracious message of -pardon delivered to them on <i>authority</i>. The former is -the principle of sectarism. But if you believe that there -is any virtue in your office, if you believe that you are -empowered to declare the message of reconciliation with more -effect than a layman, define your position with regard to your -heavenly Master, assert your delegated authority, that of being -in the “fullest sense an ambassador of Christ;” prove -that it means something, or give up your claim to an empty -title. If there is nothing analogous in the office, why -assume to be an ambassador? or why should the Apostles have led -us to infer a delegated power, by declaring themselves to be -ambassadors, ministers of the gospel, and stewards of the -mysteries of God?</p> -<p>But for a weak and fallible man to assume a power in any -sense, to remit or retain the sins of another, how shall we -divest such a notion of presumption, or reconcile it with the -enlightened and enquiring spirit of the nineteenth century?</p> -<p>We are baptized, as I have always understood, for <i>the -remission of sins</i>. Say then, that a person desired -baptism at your hands, but that on examination you thought you -had found him wanting in the necessary qualifications, that he -had not faith. Would you baptize him? But if part of -the grace of Baptism be the <i>remission of sins past</i>, by -withholding from him the <a name="page56"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 56</span>sacramental means whereby they are -remitted, do you not <i>retain</i> them? And under such -circumstances, would not the virtue of your commission—the -“power of the keys,” be brought home to you? -And considering the life-giving effect of Baptism, if you are -tempted to measure God’s ways by our ways, must it not -strike you as the very height of presumption, to say as you -do—<i>I baptize thee</i>? But as the remission of -sins is a result of Baptism, and as we have not according to the -old puritanical objection, any “scripture warrant” -for the words with which we administer that mystery, would it -argue greater presumption to say in words that <i>mean no -more</i>, “<i>I absolve</i> thee of all thy past -offences?” The Greek Church seems to have viewed the -matter in this light, for as we learn from <i>Bingham</i>, they -perform the rite in the <i>optative form</i>. -“<i>Baptizetur servus Christi in nomine Patris</i>, -<i>&c.</i>—let the servant of Christ be baptized, -&c.” <a name="citation56"></a><a href="#footnote56" -class="citation">[56]</a></p> -<p>But say, that you had mistaken the thoughts of the heart of -the would be convert, would not “the tremendous -responsibility” of which his Lordship speaks be neutralized -as it respected both the convert and yourself, by the comforting -consideration that there is an after appeal to One that judgeth -righteously, at whose tribunal the act or sentence of His -official on earth will be reversed, if pronounced in error, but -everlastingly confirmed if otherwise? Is absolution -therefore a matter of indifference? Why then was the -Christian ministry ordained, and its authority sealed by the -assurance of its divine Founder,—“he that despiseth -you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that -sent me?”</p> -<p><a name="page57"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 57</span>Your -third objection lies against the words, “Receive ye the -Holy Ghost,” as they are used in our Ordination -Service.</p> -<p>The old cavil, as it is mentioned by <i>Hooker</i>, was -“The Holy Ghost we cannot give, and therefore we foolishly -bid men receive it.” <a name="citation57a"></a><a -href="#footnote57a" class="citation">[57a]</a></p> -<p>Your objection to the use of these words would seem to be, -that in their literal sense they imply a power of commanding his -gifts. But surely there is a wide distinction between the -<i>dispenser</i> of a spiritual gift, and the <i>giver</i> of -it. “God,” says <i>Jeremy Taylor</i>, “is -the fountain of the power, man conveys it by an external rite . . -. God is the consecrator, man is the minister; the -separation is <i>mysterious</i> and wonderful, the power great -and secret.” <a name="citation57b"></a><a -href="#footnote57b" class="citation">[57b]</a></p> -<p>Now, if a Bishop really believes that the <i>Imposition of -Hands</i> is a divinely instituted rite, the means ordained by -inspiration of Christ, and used by his Apostles, whereby the gift -of the Holy Ghost is conveyed and received, for the ministration -of the mysteries of the gospel dispensation:—if he believe -that he is a minister of the Spirit, an apostolically appointed -steward of these mysteries, I can see nothing -“foolish,” nothing presumptuous in his saying at the -very moment that he believes that he is <i>dispensing</i> the -gift—“Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and -work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto you by -the Imposition of our Hands.” It would, at least, -tend to show that he had <i>faith</i> in the efficacy of his -ministration. But to imitate the significant act of our -Saviour and his Apostles, ever performed by them with a specific -object, and ever resulting in a <a name="page58"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 58</span><i>blessing</i>, in the communication -of some <i>spiritual gift</i>, to have recourse to the sign, with -<i>no faith</i> in the thing signified, esteeming it but a barren -ceremony,—would seem to me to be but little short of an -“indefensible” mockery of an external rite, hallowed -to spiritual purposes by the authority of inspiration.</p> -<p>If you can believe in the <i>mystery</i> of the sacraments, if -you can believe that “the bread which we break, the cup of -blessing which we bless,” do, by the prayer and solemn -invocation of the Priest, become, in some inexplicable and -mysterious manner, the “Communion of the body and blood of -Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the -faithful in the Lord’s Supper:” if, in <i>this -faith</i>, you hesitate not to give the consecrated elements to -the communicants, manifesting the signification of the rite, by -the words, the “body and blood of Christ, take, -eat—drink:”—I can see but little reason why you -should stumble, at the not more mysterious communication of the -spiritual gift for the office ministerial, by the Imposition of -Hands. They are mysteries; but the whole gospel -dispensation is a mystery:—we must become as “little -children” or we cannot receive them—for no sooner do -we grow <i>wise</i> enough to ask “how these things can -be,” than we are certain to reject them as -“foolishness.” Some boldly, like the Socinian, -as requiring a “prostration of intellect,” too -humiliating to be submitted to—others hiding from -themselves their want of faith, under the garb of humility, under -which garb, I wish, that frequently something more of rationalism -may not lurk, than its wearer would either willingly suspect or -acknowledge.</p> -<p>But you request the Archbishop of Canterbury, “that it -may be allowed by his Grace’s authority or sanctioned <a -name="page59"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 59</span>by his -opinion, that in this form, all that relates to the gift of the -Spirit” (the <i>ministration</i> of it rather, since the -Bishop is not the fountain of the power—not the -<i>giver</i>), “may be considered precatory.” <a -name="citation59a"></a><a href="#footnote59a" -class="citation">[59a]</a>—<i>Precatory</i>!—“the -great mysteries of our religion are <i>all</i> by way of solemn -prayer.” “The form of words,” says -<i>Jeremy Taylor</i>, “doth not alter the case, for <i>Ego -benedico</i>, and <i>Deus benedicat</i> is the same, and was -<i>no more</i>, when God commanded the Priest in express terms to -<i>bless the people</i>.” <a name="citation59b"></a><a -href="#footnote59b" class="citation">[59b]</a></p> -<p>But what is there in the words, “receive ye the Holy -Ghost,” to prevent your taking them in the sense which -would seem “to suit your own views?”</p> -<p>You take, I doubt not the form, in which the bread and wine in -the sacrament are administered in a precatory -sense.—“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was -given for thee, preserve thy body,” &c.—but in -the absence of any auxiliary verb, you must imply the precatory -sense—you might mentally substitute <i>shall</i> or -<i>will</i>, for <i>may</i>, for anything that there is in the -form itself to prevent you.</p> -<p>But you object also to the words as being an innovation, and -contend that the use of them was unknown in the purer ages of -Christianity. This, however, you must permit me to say, you -have signally failed in your attempt to prove. The -authorities you adduce, are those of <i>Morinus</i> and <i>Bishop -Burnet</i>. On these authorities “you hope to make it -appear beyond all doubt that no such form of ordination was ever -thought of, nor any resembling it for eleven centuries after the -publication of Christianity.” <a name="citation59c"></a><a -href="#footnote59c" class="citation">[59c]</a> -“Prayer and the Imposition of Hands, were the only rites we -find practised by the <a name="page60"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 60</span>Apostles,” says the -Bishop. But they were two distinct rites: “when they -<i>had</i> prayed, they laid their hands on them.” <a -name="citation60a"></a><a href="#footnote60a" -class="citation">[60a]</a> But they have left us no form of -prayer used by them upon the occasion—how then do we know -what form they used? And are we to suppose that the -<i>Imposition of Hands</i> was given in silence, unaccompanied by -any words to indicate its signification to the person ordained, -or to the faithful who were present? But nothing is left on -record. How then can you undertake to say that they used -not, as they most probably would, the very form of the primitive -commission? Christ was designated for his ministry by the -visible descent of the Holy Ghost, and by an efflux of the -Spirit: He, having received the gift without measure, in like -manner designated his Apostles for theirs—“<i>As</i> -my Father hath sent me, even <i>so</i> send I -you”—Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And there can -be no doubt, that the Apostles in ordaining others, would declare -both by word and deed: “<i>As</i> Christ hath sent us, -<i>so</i> send we you.” “Stir up the gift of -God that is in you by the putting on of my hands.” <a -name="citation60b"></a><a href="#footnote60b" -class="citation">[60b]</a></p> -<p>But <i>Morinus</i> is to set this question at rest. -“His authority must, you suppose, be considered conclusive -on this point.” <a name="citation60c"></a><a -href="#footnote60c" class="citation">[60c]</a> But to what -does it amount? His collected MS. forms of Ordination take -you back to about the middle of the eighth century; and these you -adduce as conclusive evidence of the practice of the -<i>primitive</i> Church. Now admitting, as in candour we -must, that his earliest authority is a proof of still earlier -usage,—still, as to any evidence of the <i>practice</i> of -the <i>primitive</i> Church, he leaves you with a yawning and -somewhat unmanageable <i>hiatus</i> upon your hands.</p> -<p><a name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 61</span>Could -no written summary of the Christian faith, or any traces of such -summary be discovered, anterior to the date of that of Nice; you -would hardly argue that for the three preceding centuries the -Church had always used the <i>Nicene Creed</i>:—the -inference would be that no human explication of the “word -of faith,” had been found necessary:—and in like -manner, the absence of any proof to the contrary, affords a -strong presumption, that the <i>primitive</i> Church had adhered -to the use of the words of the <i>primitive</i> commission. -At all events, before you undertake to inform us what form was -<i>not</i> used in the ordinations of the primitive Church; it is -incumbent on you to show what form it <i>did</i> -use.—“But,” says <i>Bingham</i>, whom you quote -thus far,—“the solemnity in giving superior orders, -was always performed by the Imposition of Hands and -prayer.” This has never been disputed, but he also -observes—“It is not to be imagined that one and the -same form was used in all Churches, for every Bishop having -liberty to frame his own Liturgy, as there were different -Liturgies in different Churches, so it is reasonable to suppose -the Primates or Metropolitans had different forms of -consecration, though there are now no remains of them in being, -to give us any further information.” <a -name="citation61a"></a><a href="#footnote61a" -class="citation">[61a]</a></p> -<p>Throwing you in two centuries and a half beyond your earliest -authority, I dare not attempt with <i>Bishop Burnet</i> and -yourself to jump the remaining hiatus, with any hope of reaching -your conclusion,—“that if we ask of the antient time -what is best, and of the latter time what is fittest, some -alteration of the form of ordination is both proper and -expedient.” <a name="citation61b"></a><a -href="#footnote61b" class="citation">[61b]</a></p> -<p><a name="page62"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 62</span>Our -compilers thought it both “best and fittest” to -adhere to the words of the primitive commission, nor attempt to -define the mystery, or enquire “how can these things -be:”—and they would probably have replied to the -modern cavils in the spirit of <i>Hooker’s</i> -observation—“Seeing therefore that the same power is -now given, why should the same form of words expressing it, be -thought foolish?” <a name="citation62a"></a><a -href="#footnote62a" class="citation">[62a]</a></p> -<p>To this form of words the Clergy do <i>literally</i> and <i>ex -animo</i> subscribe, and notwithstanding your objections, I trust -without impeachment either of their <i>truth</i> or -<i>honesty</i>.</p> -<p>In a note to your Sermon published in 1838, speaking of -“controversial publications by Clergymen in defence of our -Church,” you observe, “the occupation is in most -cases neither happy nor improving.”</p> -<p>Ought not such a consideration to have withheld you from -challenging your brother to take so questionable a course as you -consider its defence, by publishing such opinions of the -Subscription required and made by the Clergy, as must, if -correct, involve them in the suspicion of being either ignorant -of its meaning, indifferent to its obligations, or insincere in -their acceptance of them?—warning them at one time against -the unhappy occupation of self-defence, and leading your readers -at another, to draw an inference to their prejudice, from their -silence; for you say with reference to “your objections, no -attempt at a refutation of them has appeared, so far as you know, -from any quarter,” <a name="citation62b"></a><a -href="#footnote62b" class="citation">[62b]</a> and further, that -our Diocesan’s pamphlet, in “defence” of his -speech on Subscription, so strongly corroborative of your own -objections “remains unanswered.” <a -name="citation62c"></a><a href="#footnote62c" -class="citation">[62c]</a></p> -<p><a name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 63</span>I must, -therefore, request of you to share any blame that may attach to -us, in consequence of the courses, <i>offensive</i> and -<i>defensive</i>, which we have respectively taken in this -matter.</p> -<p>I am fully conscious of the very questionable position in -which it places me, as one of his subordinate Clergy, with -respect to my Diocesan. And I trust I feel it with as -becoming a sense of the doubtfulness of its propriety, as you -must your own with its reference to our venerable and universally -respected Metropolitan.</p> -<p>But when his Lordship is informed of the alacrity with which -our opponents have availed themselves of his published opinions, -to cast them “unbated and envenomed” against the -bulwarks of our Zion, I feel assured that the well known -liberality of his Lordship’s sentiments, will dispose him -to make for me every allowance.</p> -<p>I could have wished that the silence the Clergy have hitherto -preserved, and which has been construed to their disadvantage, -had been broken by some one better qualified than I am to do -justice to the subjects I have presumed to handle; by some one, -whose name would have carried with it, far more weight than I -have the vanity to imagine can attach to my own. Indeed, I -have sometimes hesitated whether to affix it to this Letter, but -as you have shrunk from no responsibility by withholding your -own, from your published objections to our Subscription, I have -felt it due to you not to shelter myself under the -irresponsibility of an anonymous address. In penning which, -if I do not deceive myself, I may hope to stand acquitted of -having been influenced by any unfriendly feeling. If in any -part of it my style may seem to border upon anything savouring of -discourtesy—let me hope it may <a name="page64"></a><span -class="pagenum">p. 64</span>be considered by you as -<i>seeming</i> only. And should I have misapprehended your -sentiments and done you thereby any injustice—</p> -<blockquote><p>Let my disclaiming of a purposed evil<br /> -Free me so far in your most generous thoughts,<br /> -That I have shot mine arrow o’er the house<br /> -And hurt my brother.—</p> -</blockquote> -<p>In which light, as a Clergyman of the Church of England, I -hope long to have the opportunity to consider you, believing as I -do, that your scruples, though the creations of a -<i>conscientious</i> mind, are more imaginary than -substantial—and with this persuasion and in that hope, I -beg to subscribe myself,</p> -<p style="text-align: center">Very faithfully yours,</p> -<p style="text-align: right">CHAS. CAMPBELL.</p> - -<div class="gapspace"> </div> -<p style="text-align: center">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p> -<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">GOWING, -PRINTER, SWAFFHAM.</span></p> -<h2>FOOTNOTES.</h2> -<p><a name="footnote1"></a><a href="#citation1" -class="footnote">[1]</a> Mr. Wodehouse’s Letter to -the Bp. of Llandaff, p. 69.</p> -<p><a name="footnote2a"></a><a href="#citation2a" -class="footnote">[2a]</a> Cure of Church Div. Direct. 48, -Pt. 3.</p> -<p><a name="footnote2b"></a><a href="#citation2b" -class="footnote">[2b]</a> Mr. Wodehouse, p. 50.</p> -<p><a name="footnote3a"></a><a href="#citation3a" -class="footnote">[3a]</a> p. 4.</p> -<p><a name="footnote3b"></a><a href="#citation3b" -class="footnote">[3b]</a> p. 35.</p> -<p><a name="footnote3c"></a><a href="#citation3c" -class="footnote">[3c]</a> p. 4.</p> -<p><a name="footnote3d"></a><a href="#citation3d" -class="footnote">[3d]</a> p. 35.</p> -<p><a name="footnote5a"></a><a href="#citation5a" -class="footnote">[5a]</a> p. 67.</p> -<p><a name="footnote5b"></a><a href="#citation5b" -class="footnote">[5b]</a> p. 26.</p> -<p><a name="footnote6a"></a><a href="#citation6a" -class="footnote">[6a]</a> Petition with explanations, p. -31, published 1832.</p> -<p><a name="footnote6b"></a><a href="#citation6b" -class="footnote">[6b]</a> p. 81.</p> -<p><a name="footnote7a"></a><a href="#citation7a" -class="footnote">[7a]</a> p. 30.</p> -<p><a name="footnote7b"></a><a href="#citation7b" -class="footnote">[7b]</a> p. 43.</p> -<p><a name="footnote8"></a><a href="#citation8" -class="footnote">[8]</a> p. 54.</p> -<p><a name="footnote9a"></a><a href="#citation9a" -class="footnote">[9a]</a> Letter to the Archbishop of -Canterbury, p. 63.</p> -<p><a name="footnote9b"></a><a href="#citation9b" -class="footnote">[9b]</a> p. 45.</p> -<p><a name="footnote11"></a><a href="#citation11" -class="footnote">[11]</a> Article 1.</p> -<p><a name="footnote13"></a><a href="#citation13" -class="footnote">[13]</a> p. 41.</p> -<p><a name="footnote14a"></a><a href="#citation14a" -class="footnote">[14a]</a> Petition of 1833.</p> -<p><a name="footnote14b"></a><a href="#citation14b" -class="footnote">[14b]</a> Ordination Sermon, 1838.</p> -<p><a name="footnote15a"></a><a href="#citation15a" -class="footnote">[15a]</a> Heber’s Life of Jeremy -Taylor, p. cv.</p> -<p><a name="footnote15b"></a><a href="#citation15b" -class="footnote">[15b]</a> p. 82.</p> -<p><a name="footnote15c"></a><a href="#citation15c" -class="footnote">[15c]</a> p. 81.</p> -<p><a name="footnote15d"></a><a href="#citation15d" -class="footnote">[15d]</a> p. 84.</p> -<p><a name="footnote16"></a><a href="#citation16" -class="footnote">[16]</a> p. 4.</p> -<p><a name="footnote19"></a><a href="#citation19" -class="footnote">[19]</a> Epist. Ded. to Sermon on the -opening of Parliament.</p> -<p><a name="footnote21"></a><a href="#citation21" -class="footnote">[21]</a> My readers may wish to know who -the <span class="smcap">Adelphi</span> are to whom I have more -than once alluded. They are the authors of a pamphlet, -entitled “Observations on a Petition, (the Petition of last -Session), for the Revision of the Liturgy, &c. written by two -brothers, a Clergyman and a Layman.”</p> -<p>These brothers, by the impetuosity of their onslaught, are -said to be distinguished amongst the petitioners as the <span -class="smcap">Castor</span> and <span class="smcap">Pollux</span> -of their little phalanx.</p> -<p>And as there are in their pamphlet some things which might -render questionable the logical acumen of the one, and tend to -cast a shadow of suspicion on the orthodoxy of the -other—they have acquired credit for no indifferent tact in -putting forth this <span class="smcap">Siamese</span> sort of -production, inasmuch as to any sentiment which might not be -thought creditable to the divine; the barrister is ready with -fraternal consideration to assert his claim,—“<span -class="GutSmall">MEUS HIC</span> sermo est,” and that which -might not be highly esteemed for its soundness in the learned and -honourable society of Lincoln’s Inn; the divine with -reciprocal affection is at hand, to exclaim—“Adsum -qui feci”—in short, the Barrister will be responsible -for the divinity, and the Divine for the points of law.</p> -<blockquote><p>Diligat et semper socius te sanguinis illo<br /> - Quo pius affectu Castora frater -amat.</p> -</blockquote> -<p><a name="footnote22a"></a><a href="#citation22a" -class="footnote">[22a]</a> p. 113.</p> -<p><a name="footnote22b"></a><a href="#citation22b" -class="footnote">[22b]</a> p. 107.</p> -<p><a name="footnote24a"></a><a href="#citation24a" -class="footnote">[24a]</a> Bishop of Norwich Pamph. p. -18.</p> -<p><a name="footnote24b"></a><a href="#citation24b" -class="footnote">[24b]</a> Sparrow’s Collection, -&c. p. 12.</p> -<p><a name="footnote25a"></a><a href="#citation25a" -class="footnote">[25a]</a> Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. -18.</p> -<p><a name="footnote25b"></a><a href="#citation25b" -class="footnote">[25b]</a> Hart’s Eccl. Records, p. -2.</p> -<p><a name="footnote26a"></a><a href="#citation26a" -class="footnote">[26a]</a> Burnet Pref. vol. i.</p> -<p><a name="footnote26b"></a><a href="#citation26b" -class="footnote">[26b]</a> Sparrow’s Collection, -&c. p. 1.</p> -<p><a name="footnote27a"></a><a href="#citation27a" -class="footnote">[27a]</a> Bishop Jebb’s Pastoral -Instructions, Disc. iii. p. 61.</p> -<p><a name="footnote27b"></a><a href="#citation27b" -class="footnote">[27b]</a> History of his Own Times, vol. -ii. p. 33.</p> -<p><a name="footnote28a"></a><a href="#citation28a" -class="footnote">[28a]</a> John and W. W. Hull’s -observations on the petition, p. 23.</p> -<p><a name="footnote28b"></a><a href="#citation28b" -class="footnote">[28b]</a> p. 29.</p> -<p><a name="footnote29"></a><a href="#citation29" -class="footnote">[29]</a> p. 17.</p> -<p><a name="footnote31"></a><a href="#citation31" -class="footnote">[31]</a> Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. -14.</p> -<p><a name="footnote32"></a><a href="#citation32" -class="footnote">[32]</a> Rule of Conscience, b. iii. c. -iv. r. 23.</p> -<p><a name="footnote33"></a><a href="#citation33" -class="footnote">[33]</a> Bp. of Norwich Pamph. p. 29.</p> -<p><a name="footnote34a"></a><a href="#citation34a" -class="footnote">[34a]</a> Barclay’s Apol. p. 27.</p> -<p><a name="footnote34b"></a><a href="#citation34b" -class="footnote">[34b]</a> p. 67.</p> -<p><a name="footnote34c"></a><a href="#citation34c" -class="footnote">[34c]</a> Petition with Expl. p. 47.</p> -<p><a name="footnote34d"></a><a href="#citation34d" -class="footnote">[34d]</a> I have introduced the name of -the Bishop of London, as it gives me an opportunity of doing -fuller justice to his Lordship’s sentiments with respect to -a <span class="smcap">Revision of the Liturgy</span> than I have -yet seen done them in any of the publications in which his name -has been introduced in connection with the subject.</p> -<p>His Lordship admits, that since the <span -class="smcap">Liturgy</span> is a human composition, it falls -short of perfection, and is consequently “susceptible of -improvement.” “I should be deficient in -candour,” says his Lordship, “if I did not -acknowledge that I think the <span class="smcap">Liturgy</span> -susceptible of improvement, it would be little short of a miracle -were it otherwise, . . . and I heartily pray that the time may -come when the question can be looked at with calmness and -candour, and if the recent conduct of dissenters forbids us to -look forward with any sanguine hope to an extensive comprehension -of those who differ from us, that something may be done for the -satisfaction of many who are sincere and zealous members of the -Church.”—Such is the sum and substance of all that -his Lordship has admitted that may seem to favour the views of -the revisers, and here most of them have been satisfied to stop -short in their quotations from his Lordship’s charge.</p> -<p>From a passage in the Bishop of Norwich’s pamphlet, I -should be led to think that his Lordship had been content to take -his quotation from his brother Bishop’s charge at second -hand, for after quoting the above passages, his Lordship says, -“I have only to add, that had the Right Rev. Prelate who -expressed these his deliberate sentiments in 1834, manifested in -his speech of 1840, a disposition to follow them out in their -true spirit and legitimate results, the conscientious men who -signed the Petition, might have entertained a just hope that he -would have lent his powerful aid in supporting its prayer.” -<a name="citation35a"></a><a href="#footnote35a" -class="citation">[35a]</a></p> -<p>I will take up his Lordship’s charge where the Bishop of -Norwich and you have left it—</p> -<blockquote><p>“<span class="smcap">But</span>,” says -his Lordship, “when I consider the circumstances in which -we are now placed, and the advantage which would be taken from -different quarters, of any door which might be opened to change, -I am led to adopt the sentiment of a pious and sagacious man, <a -name="citation35b"></a><a href="#footnote35b" -class="citation">[35b]</a> uttered nearly forty years -ago:—‘As to our liturgy, I am far from thinking it -incapable of amendment; though when I consider the temper and -spirit of the present times, I dare not wish that the improvement -of it should be attempted, lest the remedy should be worse than -the disease.’” <a name="citation35c"></a><a -href="#footnote35c" class="citation">[35c]</a></p> -</blockquote> -<p>Had these his Lordship’s sentiments as -“deliberately expressed” as any other part of his -charge been more generally made known, I must think that the -conscientious men who signed the Petition, could have expected -nothing so little as his Lordship’s powerful aid in support -of its prayer.</p> -<p>To these sentiments his Lordship appended a note supporting -his own views by the authority of Archbishop Secker and of Dr. -Balguy. From that note you have quoted the well deserved -terms of praise in which his Lordship speaks of, “the -candid and christian spirit which breathes throughout your -preface,” to your reprint of Dean Prideaux, in which praise -all who have read the work will readily join. But as it -illustrates his Lordship’s views, we may as well give the -remainder of the note. The quotation from Archbishop Secker -is as follows:—</p> -<blockquote><p>“Et hæc eadem velim sibi in memoriam -revocent, qui Liturgiam item recenseri reformarique -flagitant. Ornatior quidem, accuratior, plenior, brevior, -et <span class="GutSmall">POTEST EA FIERI ET DEBET</span>; sed -modesta tractatione, sed tranquillis hominum animis; non -temerariis, qualia vidimus et videmus, ausis, non inter media -dissidia mutuasque suspiciones.”</p> -</blockquote> -<p>“Some of the faults imputed to our public service -are,” as Dr. Balguy says, “of such a nature as to -admit of no alteration. In these instances we must renounce -our faith before we can consent to reform our worship; to reform -it, I mean, in the only way which can stop the complaints of its -adversaries.”—Discourses, vol. 1, p. 103. <a -name="citation36c"></a><a href="#footnote36c" -class="citation">[36c]</a></p> -<p>Not having arrived at your conclusion—“That the -Bishop of London, who came forward as the principal opponent of -the Petition, is an unfit guide for public opinion on such a -subject.” <a name="citation36d"></a><a href="#footnote36d" -class="citation">[36d]</a> I have thought it but just that -the public should know what his Lordship’s sentiments on -the subject of a Revision of the <span -class="smcap">Liturgy</span> really are.</p> -<p><a name="footnote35a"></a><a href="#citation35a" -class="footnote">[35a]</a> Bp. of Norwich’s Pamp. p. -45.</p> -<p><a name="footnote35b"></a><a href="#citation35b" -class="footnote">[35b]</a> Rev. John Newton, Apologia, p. -9.</p> -<p><a name="footnote35c"></a><a href="#citation35c" -class="footnote">[35c]</a> Bishop of London’s Charge, -1834.</p> -<p><a name="footnote36a"></a><a href="#citation36a" -class="footnote">[36a]</a> Hor. Epist. II. i. 45.</p> -<p><a name="footnote36b"></a><a href="#citation36b" -class="footnote">[36b]</a> Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. -p. 5.</p> -<p><a name="footnote36c"></a><a href="#citation36c" -class="footnote">[36c]</a> Bishop of London’s Charge, -Appendix N.</p> -<p><a name="footnote36d"></a><a href="#citation36d" -class="footnote">[36d]</a> p. 3.</p> -<p><a name="footnote37"></a><a href="#citation37" -class="footnote">[37]</a> Nares Bamp. Lect. p. 466, note -3.</p> -<p><a name="footnote38"></a><a href="#citation38" -class="footnote">[38]</a> Articles, &c. in the Primary -Visitation of Edward, Bishop of Norwich, 1838.</p> -<p><a name="footnote39a"></a><a href="#citation39a" -class="footnote">[39a]</a> p. 18.</p> -<p><a name="footnote39b"></a><a href="#citation39b" -class="footnote">[39b]</a> p. 92.</p> -<p><a name="footnote39c"></a><a href="#citation39c" -class="footnote">[39c]</a> Hull, 15.</p> -<p><a name="footnote40"></a><a href="#citation40" -class="footnote">[40]</a> p. 14.</p> -<p><a name="footnote42"></a><a href="#citation42" -class="footnote">[42]</a> Visitation Charge, 1771.</p> -<p><a name="footnote43a"></a><a href="#citation43a" -class="footnote">[43a]</a> Hull, p. 19.</p> -<p><a name="footnote43b"></a><a href="#citation43b" -class="footnote">[43b]</a> Bishop of London’s Charge, -1834, p. 40.</p> -<p><a name="footnote43c"></a><a href="#citation43c" -class="footnote">[43c]</a> South’s Serm. vol. ii. -Epist. Ded. to Univ. of Oxford.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44a"></a><a href="#citation44a" -class="footnote">[44a]</a> Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 42.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44b"></a><a href="#citation44b" -class="footnote">[44b]</a> Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. -p. 28.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44c"></a><a href="#citation44c" -class="footnote">[44c]</a> Mark xvi. 14.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44d"></a><a href="#citation44d" -class="footnote">[44d]</a> John iii. 15.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44e"></a><a href="#citation44e" -class="footnote">[44e]</a> John ix. 26.</p> -<p><a name="footnote44f"></a><a href="#citation44f" -class="footnote">[44f]</a> 2 Thess. xi. 12.</p> -<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45" -class="footnote">[45]</a> Vogan’s Bampton Lect. p. -375.</p> -<p><a name="footnote46a"></a><a href="#citation46a" -class="footnote">[46a]</a> Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. -p. 28.</p> -<p><a name="footnote46b"></a><a href="#citation46b" -class="footnote">[46b]</a> Just Vind. of the Church of -England, Disc. iii.</p> -<p><a name="footnote47a"></a><a href="#citation47a" -class="footnote">[47a]</a> Schism Guarded, iv. Sect. x.</p> -<p><a name="footnote47b"></a><a href="#citation47b" -class="footnote">[47b]</a> See Pearson on the Creed, Art. -8, note.</p> -<p><a name="footnote48a"></a><a href="#citation48a" -class="footnote">[48a]</a> Paraphrase on Com. Prayer, -Append. Numb. 3, p. 292, second edition.</p> -<p><a name="footnote48b"></a><a href="#citation48b" -class="footnote">[48b]</a> p. 54.</p> -<p><a name="footnote49a"></a><a href="#citation49a" -class="footnote">[49a]</a> Pet. with Expl. 27.</p> -<p><a name="footnote49b"></a><a href="#citation49b" -class="footnote">[49b]</a> Petition, &c. p. 25.</p> -<p><a name="footnote49c"></a><a href="#citation49c" -class="footnote">[49c]</a> p. 24.</p> -<p><a name="footnote49d"></a><a href="#citation49d" -class="footnote">[49d]</a> p. 23.</p> -<p><a name="footnote50"></a><a href="#citation50" -class="footnote">[50]</a> Belsham’s Calm Inquiry, pp. -291, 292.</p> -<p><a name="footnote51a"></a><a href="#citation51a" -class="footnote">[51a]</a> Petition, &c. p. 31.</p> -<p><a name="footnote51b"></a><a href="#citation51b" -class="footnote">[51b]</a> Bishop of Norwich’s -Pamphlet, p. 34.</p> -<p><a name="footnote52a"></a><a href="#citation52a" -class="footnote">[52a]</a> Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. -33.</p> -<p><a name="footnote52b"></a><a href="#citation52b" -class="footnote">[52b]</a> Ezek. xiii. 19.</p> -<p><a name="footnote53a"></a><a href="#citation53a" -class="footnote">[53a]</a> Service for Visiting the -Sick.</p> -<p><a name="footnote53b"></a><a href="#citation53b" -class="footnote">[53b]</a> MS. Note by Bishop Overall.</p> -<p><a name="footnote54a"></a><a href="#citation54a" -class="footnote">[54a]</a> Petition, &c. p. 31.</p> -<p><a name="footnote54b"></a><a href="#citation54b" -class="footnote">[54b]</a> p. 33.</p> -<p><a name="footnote54c"></a><a href="#citation54c" -class="footnote">[54c]</a> Eccl. Pol. B. vi.</p> -<p><a name="footnote56"></a><a href="#citation56" -class="footnote">[56]</a> Antiquities, vol. viii. Append. -p. 239.</p> -<p><a name="footnote57a"></a><a href="#citation57a" -class="footnote">[57a]</a> Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.</p> -<p><a name="footnote57b"></a><a href="#citation57b" -class="footnote">[57b]</a> Div. Inst. of Off. Min. pp. 225, -226.</p> -<p><a name="footnote59a"></a><a href="#citation59a" -class="footnote">[59a]</a> p. 51.</p> -<p><a name="footnote59b"></a><a href="#citation59b" -class="footnote">[59b]</a> Div. Inst. of Off. Min. Sect. -vii.</p> -<p><a name="footnote59c"></a><a href="#citation59c" -class="footnote">[59c]</a> Petition, &c. p. 37.</p> -<p><a name="footnote60a"></a><a href="#citation60a" -class="footnote">[60a]</a> Acts vi. 6.</p> -<p><a name="footnote60b"></a><a href="#citation60b" -class="footnote">[60b]</a> 1 Tim. i. 6.</p> -<p><a name="footnote60c"></a><a href="#citation60c" -class="footnote">[60c]</a> Petition, &c. p. 38.</p> -<p><a name="footnote61a"></a><a href="#citation61a" -class="footnote">[61a]</a> Antiquities, b. ii. c. xi. sec. -9.</p> -<p><a name="footnote61b"></a><a href="#citation61b" -class="footnote">[61b]</a> Petition, &c. p. 42</p> -<p><a name="footnote62a"></a><a href="#citation62a" -class="footnote">[62a]</a> Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.</p> -<p><a name="footnote62b"></a><a href="#citation62b" -class="footnote">[62b]</a> p. 58.</p> -<p><a name="footnote62c"></a><a href="#citation62c" -class="footnote">[62c]</a> p. 105.</p> -<pre> - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A LETTER TO THE REV. CHARLES N. -WODEHOUSE, CANON OF NORWICH, OCCASIONED BY HIS RECENT PUBLICATION, -ENTITLED, "WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SUBSCRIPTION?"*** - - -***** This file should be named 63727-h.htm or 63727-h.zip****** - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/7/2/63727 - - -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. - -</pre></body> -</html> diff --git a/old/63727-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/63727-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1b44f0b..0000000 --- a/old/63727-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
