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

by William J. Irons

Revision of Prayer-book.

Lord Ebury’s measure in the House of Lords did not go this length, because he had “Revision” more definitely in view; but his arguments against one form of Subscription are equally valid against all, so that its entire abrogation is, on his principles, only a question of time. There is, however, substantial agreement.

It is most important that this should be understood, and that no false issue be raised: and this is why I speak of the present proposal as one for the Surrender of the Prayer-book. Dr. Stanley would ask nothing so small as altering Articles or Liturgy; a far simpler way he would show us. Revision would be mere ‘nibbling’ while Subscription remained. An Act of the Legislature might just “prohibit,” he says, (p. 32) all “Subscription.”—Are men, then, so eager for it, that prohibition must be resorted to? He would not even leave it open to any one to sign; for thus he triumphantly proceeds:—“Not a word of the Articles need be touched. They would still be left as the exposition of the Faith of the Church of England in the eighteenth century!—as the standard of its faith at the present day. Not a word of the Liturgy need be touched. There are, no doubt, changes which would be acceptable to many, but THEY MUST BE EFFECTED BY OTHER MEANS,” (p. 33.)—Surely, said the wise man, “in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.” To tell us beforehand that we are to be coaxed into a general movement to get rid of Subscription, and, that being done, we must reckon on the subsequent change of the Prayer-book “by OTHER MEANS,” seems so very like an insult to the understanding of men of all parties who believe anything, that I can only explain it by calling to mind the proverbial blindness of genius when hotly hastening to its own object, and forgetting how it looks to all around.

But it may be said that I am overlooking that the Articles and Prayer-book, though not “signed” or “subscribed,” might still remain—at least, for a time—as what is called the “standard” of our doctrine. Let us inquire, then, what this means; for, unless we look it steadily in the face, we shall be deluding ourselves again by an ambiguous word. It is suggested by the passage quoted from Burnet (p. 7), and in the argument of Dr. Stanley, that we English are generally governed in other matters by Acts of Parliament,—and why not in religion? We are not expected to “subscribe” the law of the land, but simply to acquiesce, and submit to it. It is not binding on the conscience, but only on external obedience. A man may stand up and read a Statute to others—and then argue against it. While it exists as law, he must be judged and ruled by it; but he is free to dislike it, and may labour to change it. This is the parallel suggested, or if it be not, I have no idea of what is intended; and I must say, that when thus nakedly looked at, it is the most unveiled Erastianism avowed in our times, if we except Mr. Bristowe Wilson’s in his Essay. It is what we might expect of Burnet, but scarcely of Dr. Stanley, to make the Prayer-book “a legal standard,” but not a matter of belief: it simply astonishes us. When a great statesman of the last age told us that our religion was but a “schedule of an Act of Parliament,” we could at least reply that “ex animo” Subscription makes it our own; but to ask us now to take away even this, seems almost to sever all connexion between the Church of England and the moral agency of her Ministers. The Act of 1662, and its “schedule,” the Prayer-book, might be our “standard” till the next session, and might claim as much reverence as any other old Act of Parliament,—but no more. Put the whole proposal, then, of Dr. Stanley, and of Mr. Wilson, and others into plain English, and it is this—(and I ask to be corrected if I misinterpret it)—“Let the clergy in future sign NOTHING, but let them consent to adopt and use what the Parliament may from time to time authorise.”

The object, then, being thus simplified, we need not here pause to estimate the excellences or defects of any of the formularies which we all alike have thought to be good enough to sign. With more than judicial fairness, Dr. Stanley admits that the whole Thirty-nine Articles are “incomparably superior” to the “Nine Articles of the Evangelical Alliance” (p. 11), or any that would be drawn up by “the dominant factions” of our Church, or Commonwealth. But this kind of criticism may well be postponed till the prior question is disposed of—whether we should “sign” any thing? When the Articles and Prayer-book come to be hereafter discussed, these details may have interest with some, as parts of the literature of the “Eighteenth Century;” but at present might it not be disrespectful merely to glance at them in a sketchy way, to give pungency and interest to a somewhat barren subject? I do not say that the highly rhetorical sentences in which praise and blame are judiciously administered by Dr. Stanley to Article 1, 5, 9, or 34, contribute nothing to the effectiveness of the pamphlet with the “general reader;” but it is obvious that with the argument, strictly speaking, they have nothing to do.