diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63727-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63727-0.txt | 2491 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2491 deletions
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. - |