After examination, and previous to ordination, each candidate would subscribe to the Three Creeds, [33] and engage to conform to the Liturgy. At his ordination, as a priest, he would promise before the congregation to study the Word of God, to teach nothing contrary to it, and to fulfil the duties of the ministry according to the solemn and comprehensive pledges of our Ordination Service, to which the writer requests a particular attention in connection with this subject. There is here no want of security so far as pledges can give it; and every advantage really secured on the present plan would be retained. The present Subscription does not produce consent touching true religion, whereas an assent to the doctrine of the Creeds would be almost catholic. The present Subscription does not secure attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation. What advantage then does it realize which would be lost on the plan proposed? They who love the Reformation and revere our Articles, would love and revere them still. It is not Subscription which draws forth their attachment, but conviction—the conviction that they are founded on the Word of God, coupled with a thankful recollection of the men and the times which gave them to us.
Let it not be forgotten that, whatever power the laws now give for restraining or punishing those who impugn the Articles or Liturgy, would remain untouched. And in all cases where the law does speak, it ought to be the test of wrong doing. So long as it was not called forth, the just presumption would be that no such offence had been committed; and controversy, which must always exist while truth is loved, would be carried on without the discreditable concomitants detailed above.
The precedent adopted then, on the appointment of a Bishop for Jerusalem, suggests an unobjectionable improvement; [34] and it carries with it this further recommendation that it would bring the law and the practice together, which is always considered sound legislation when the practice has become so established that the law is virtually repealed. Instances of this kind are well known. The repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts was little more than a formal abrogation of a law no longer in force; and the repeal of the present form of Subscription would, in like manner, only legally confirm that latitude of interpretation with respect to it which already prevails. [35]
11. If, however, the above-named precedent be rejected, there are yet unquestionable grounds for desiring that something should be done in the present state of things. It is asked, not in a hostile or unreasonable spirit, but seriously, soberly, and earnestly—for the peace of the Church; for the credit of its ministers and members; and for the sake of truth itself—that we may be told in what sense Subscription may be, or ought to be, made. It has been of late advanced as an argument against those who would set up various human authorities as arbiters of truth; that the Church has already declared the truth by her interpretation of Scripture, that she has given us that interpretation in our Thirty-nine Articles, and bound it upon us by Subscription. We answer simply, that the interpretation itself is disputed, that the sense of it cannot be fixed. We want, therefore, a new decision.
It has been argued again that Subscription preserves truth within the Church. We simply ask, what truth? and affirm that the constant use of our Liturgy preserves pure doctrine more effectually, and always will. It has been advanced also, somewhat inconsiderately, but by high authority, as an argument against alteration, that any change might make matters worse, by making Subscription more strict. We answer that, if it requires an assent to that which is scripturally true, it cannot be too strict. Let it then be strictly and literally enforced: but, if this be deemed unadvisable or impossible, let it be interpreted anew, or repealed. In its present state it cannot be too plainly or repeatedly affirmed, that it is a disgrace to the Church.
12. It may be pronounced absurd or presumptuous in an individual to propose a change in such a matter as Subscription to Articles of Faith, but in truth a great change has already taken place. There have been in past ages considerable variations as to doctrinal views prevailing at different times: of late a new character has been given to Subscription; new certainly to this generation, and new altogether, as proceeding from persons remaining in the ministry; for the principal abettors of similar views in past times are found amongst the non-jurors, and were seceders from the establishment. A few years ago it was pronounced by a Bishop to be little less than a libel on the Church, to say that the clergy did not subscribe literally to the Articles. Since that time another Bishop has designated a system of interpretation put forth and defended by clergymen, as “so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made to mean any thing or nothing.” Several episcopal charges have spoken to the same effect, and almost innumerable publications from other authors. Yet the principles on which that system is founded, are disseminated with unabated zeal and increased influence. The Tracts for the Times, silenced only by name, are issued in reviews, magazines, pamphlets, poems, and novels; and the same views as to the Reformation and the Articles are maintained, though the application of them, in the manner proposed by Tract No. 90, may be partially disowned. A great change then has taken place; and the result is, that Subscription has received a blow from which it can never recover without some decided measure. It must become an object of general ridicule or contempt, of which, indeed, some indications have already appeared.
To this the writer desires to invite attention. If he has ventured to propose a remedy, it is principally on this ground, that whoever points out a defect in existing institutions is commonly asked, what improvement can you offer? Although, then, convinced that the remedy he has named is calculated to meet the evil, it is rather his wish that others should be induced to come forward, and so to deal with the change which has taken place that it may cease to be a reproach to the Church. With this object before him, he believes himself engaged in the cause of truth, and will continue to devote to it the limited powers he possesses while life is spared. And let it not be deemed presumptuous if, under an humiliating sense of his own insufficiency, he yet perseveres in recommending what is so far beyond his power to accomplish. No one can reasonably expect visible success in any undertaking. It is enough to enjoy the assurance that we are persevering in a right path. The result may well be left to the Supreme Disposer of all things. Nor are instruments in His hands weak, as man estimates power; but the weakest may be permitted to sow the seed destined to bring forth much fruit. It is the progress of conviction wrought in the minds of men which prepares the way for improvements. It is the open statement of these convictions, here and there, which leads to action.
Few improvements, if any, in the moral world can be novelties. They are only a return to some good old principle which the great innovator, time, or rather the great deteriorator, human corruption, hath thrown into the shade. An age there was, perhaps a better than this, when human Articles were unknown to the Church; an age also when the shortest of our Creeds sufficiently expressed the faith of a believer. It does not require learning or talent to state all this, and to beg others to recollect that, if heresies call for Articles, a folio would scarcely suffice. Simple minds may state such simple truths, and God may cause their voice to be heard.
Nor can it be justly affirmed that, to expose even in strong terms prevailing defects, is any proof of disaffection to the Church in which they exist. The writers of Scripture, although Divinely inspired, are yet a pattern to their less favoured followers. And who can peruse the writings of the Prophets and Apostles without being struck by their bold and uncompromising denunciations of the sins and errors prevailing amongst high and low, learned and ignorant, teachers and people? If it be disaffection to the Church, to describe faithfully and plainly an evil which requires a remedy, then is Isaiah to be condemned in his first chapter, and St. Paul in his most celebrated Epistles, instead of being our examples and instructors in the path of ministerial duty.
If the remarks above offered be well founded, they cannot be a matter of indifference, for they affect all to whom truth, and religion, and the credit of its ministers, and the national honour are dear: and all such might, without compromise of any principle or opinion, as the writer believes, join in an address to the following effect:—