Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and Articles of the Church of England / A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on Professor Stanley's Views of Clerical and University "Subscription"

Transcribed from the 1863 Rivingtons edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org
A LETTER TO THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, ON PROFESSOR STANLEY’S VIEWS OF CLERICAL AND UNIVERSITY “SUBSCRIPTION.”
BY WILLIAM J. IRONS, D.D. PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S, AND INCUMBENT OF BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX.
LONDON: THEODORE WRIGHT, 188, STRAND; RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; AND PARKERS, 377, STRAND, AND OXFORD. 1863.
LONDON: SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
Brompton, Whitsuntide , 1863.
My dear Lord,
Your Lordship has been openly addressed, as we are all aware, in behalf of this “Relaxation of Subscription;” but as our Bishop—so deeply interested in the welfare of the whole Church—I venture to believe that you will do justice to opposite views, and in offering them to your attention, I rely on that broad-minded charity to various schools among us, which has marked your Lordship’s administration of this diocese.
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 .
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 .”