The eloquent advocacy of Dr. STANLEY on the other side is, indeed, no slight advantage to the cause of those who would now supersede the Prayer-book by "modern thought." In urging the surrender of all Subscription to our Formularies, he can speak, in his position, with a prestige and power to which I can have no claim. His testimony as to the tone of mind now prevailing in Oxford, or among the younger clergy of the last few years, it is not for me to impeach,--I must leave that to the Bishop of Oxford; {4b} but certain of his deductions from very limited facts, I may be permitted, I think, to call in question at once. As one who, without belonging to any party, has had the happiness of much friendship with all--as a Churchman, I may add, who has kept steadily to the old Prayer-book from very early childhood till now--I have had large opportunities for many years of knowing the heart and mind of my brethren the clergy, ten thousand of whom not long since responded to an appeal which I and others had been invited to make to them; and I confess that I am amazed at Dr. STANLEY'S supposition that Subscription is regarded as a "grievance" (p. 23), a "perjury" (p. 24), an "absurdity" (p. 20), or an "imposition" (p. 7) by any considerable number among us. Allowing for some irritable minds here and there, the generality have seemed to me to have the deepest appreciation of the "quietness and confidence" which have been, in the main, secured for our Church by the present laws, which simply bind the clergy to say that they believe the Prayers which they use, and the Articles which they adopt as their "standard."
Thus much I have felt compelled to say at the outset, because the opposers of Subscription assume that their clients are so numerous that to refuse their demands may be to endanger the Church herself. True, they generously disclaim all designs "to revolutionize the Church of England" (p. 6 of The Letter). This is well; but I am far more assured by the belief that their power, as yet, is not so formidable as their intentions. And with this preface, I would pass to the subject-matter of Dr. STANLEY'S Letter.
Scheme of Comprehension.
The point of departure taken for the discussion is the REVOLUTION of 1688, and the attempt then made at what was called "Comprehension." It is even suggested that the "High Churchmen" of those days agreed that the "very being of our Church was concerned" in abolishing "Subscription," and substituting for it a general declaration of conformity. The several attempts at "Comprehension" almost seem to be referred to as substantially one, and are recommended to us as if originated by enlarged and exemplary views of the Church's calling. But, equivocations apart, (which would be wholly unworthy here), will this be gravely maintained? Did the "Comprehension Scheme" of 1674 receive no opposition from the Church? or will not every one own that it was frustrated by the resistance of the Bishops? Would Dr. STANLEY really say that the Scheme (not "Act") of 1689 was founded on a philosophy which would now command assent? I suppose that he must say it, or how could he refer to it as our rebuke and pattern? Yet it was, as he will not deny, a political effort directed against the Roman Catholics; and the reluctance of the clergy (even under all the pressure of the occasion) to fraternize with Nonconformists, defeated the measure,--some of the principal Commissioners who had to manage it, such as the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, the Prolocutor of Convocation, and the Bishop of Rochester, openly withdrawing from it. I really can hardly conceive of a more unfortunate appeal to history. To represent the clergy of all parties, and especially "High Churchmen" (p. 33), as approving, on liberal principles, of the proposed "Comprehension," and covertly to suggest that "Subscription" was alien from the spirit of those enlightened days, is, to speak gently of it, quite "unhistorical"--(if I may so apply a now familiar term); nor can I forbear to point to the fact that even Dissenters were required, by the Act of 1 William and Mary, cap. 18, to "subscribe" a declaration that "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by Divine Inspiration." The parallel breaks down at every point. Of course, if any one really thinks that England is now in great danger (as in Sancroft's days) from the Popish encroachments of the CROWN, such an one is free to argue as Dr. STANLEY does. If any suppose that a Papal reaction among the populace is the present peril (as it was thought to be in Burnet's days), let them by all means fly to the "remedial" measures of that era. But for a philosophical historian to quote, with admiration, Halifax or Nottingham, or refer to certain "High Churchmen" with approval, can but cause a smile. {7}
It was a popular beginning of this subject, doubtless, to invoke the memories of 1688 and the "Toleration Act," in order to recommend to English people this proposal to destroy "Subscription;" yet it was dangerous. For to have pursued the subject fairly from this point would hardly have assisted the views of the abolitionists. The course of history would very soon have brought them to the great Arian conspiracy of 1772, the next noticeable effort to set aside the Articles of the Church. This, however, is altogether avoided, as if it were unknown to Dr. STANLEY; and he quickly goes back to the Reformation, and even to the times of the Primitive Church, to find arguments against "Subscription" in the abstract, (as well as against our special Anglican form of it,)--and, must I not say, to get out of the way of WHISTON, and the "Feathers' Tavern"? Let us, then, be generous, and forgive the allusions to 1688, and forget all that followed, and endeavour to examine on its merits the substance of the "_Letter_."
"Relaxation" a preliminary movement.
The object, my Lord, of the rising movement against "Subscription," here appears to be of a purely preliminary character. It is expressly cleared of all connexion with special grievances. "Revisions" are to stand over. These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p. 4). Meanwhile, it is not against the "Articles" only that the feeling is to be stirred, but "Subscription" to the whole Prayer-book, and even to the Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated. Indeed, it seems to be maintained that our present "Subscription" to the Articles does not include, as we had supposed, Subscription to the Bible at all. The objection, however, is scarcely raised in that form. It is to "Subscribing" per se that the repugnance is felt, as though there were a morbid dread of "putting the hand to paper,"--such as we sometimes find in the uneducated classes. And now it is not so much "do not sign these forms," as "do not sign any thing;" and Dr. Whately, and Archdeacon Denison, and the friends of Mr. Gorham, Dr. Rowland Williams, and Mr. Bristowe Wilson, and Mr. Heath are, as I understand, urged for once to agree to "relax all subscriptions," that they may so be set at more liberty to fight their mutual battles without hindrance. Thus it is, wonderfully, to be claimed for members of a Christian Church, that they should be positively pledged to nothing!
Revision of Prayer-book.
Lord EBURY'S measure in the House of Lords did not go this length, because he had "Revision" more definitely in view; but his arguments against one form of Subscription are equally valid against all, so that its entire abrogation is, on his principles, only a question of time. There is, however, substantial agreement.
It is most important that this should be understood, and that no false issue be raised: and this is why I speak of the present proposal as one for the Surrender of the Prayer-book. Dr. STANLEY would ask nothing so small as altering Articles or Liturgy; a far simpler way he would show us. Revision would be mere 'nibbling' while Subscription remained. An Act of the Legislature might just "prohibit," he says, (p. 32) all "Subscription."--Are men, then, so eager for it, that prohibition must be resorted to? He would not even leave it open to any one to sign; for thus he triumphantly proceeds:--"_Not a word_ of the Articles need be touched. They would still be left as the exposition of the Faith of the Church of England in the eighteenth century!--as the standard of its faith at the present day. Not a word of the Liturgy need be touched. There are, no doubt, changes which would be acceptable to many, but THEY MUST BE EFFECTED BY OTHER MEANS," (p. 33.)--Surely, said the wise man, "in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." To tell us beforehand that we are to be coaxed into a general movement to get rid of Subscription, and, that being done, we must reckon on the subsequent change of the Prayer-book "by OTHER MEANS," seems so very like an insult to the understanding of men of all parties who believe anything, that I can only explain it by calling to mind the proverbial blindness of genius when hotly hastening to its own object, and forgetting how it looks to all around.
But it may be said that I am overlooking that the Articles and Prayer-book, though not "signed" or "subscribed," might still remain--at least, for a time--as what is called the "standard" of our doctrine. Let us inquire, then, what this means; for, unless we look it steadily in the face, we shall be deluding ourselves again by an ambiguous word. It is suggested by the passage quoted from Burnet (p. 7), and in the argument of Dr. STANLEY, that we English are generally governed in other matters by Acts of Parliament,--and why not in religion? We are not expected to "subscribe" the law of the land, but simply to acquiesce, and submit to it. It is not binding on the conscience, but only on external obedience. A man may stand up and read a Statute to others--and then argue against it. While it exists as law, he must be judged and ruled by it; but he is free to dislike it, and may labour to change it. This is the parallel suggested, or if it be not, I have no idea of what is intended; and I must say, that when thus nakedly looked at, it is the most unveiled Erastianism avowed in our times, if we except Mr. BRISTOWE WILSON'S in his Essay. It is what we might expect of Burnet, but scarcely of Dr. STANLEY, to make the Prayer-book "a legal standard," but not a matter of belief: it simply astonishes us. When a great statesman of the last age told us that our religion was but a "schedule of an Act of Parliament," we could at least reply that "ex animo" Subscription makes it our own; but to ask us now to take away even this, seems almost to sever all connexion between the Church of England and the moral agency of her Ministers. The Act of 1662, and its "schedule," the Prayer-book, might be our "standard" till the next session, and might claim as much reverence as any other old Act of Parliament,--but no more. Put the whole proposal, then, of Dr. STANLEY, and of Mr. WILSON, and others into plain English, and it is this--(and I ask to be corrected if I misinterpret it)--"_Let the clergy in future sign_ NOTHING, but let them consent to adopt and use what the PARLIAMENT may from time to time authorise."
