Thus while we perceive the variety of opinion prevailing amongst these several sections—a variety which, were it not impeded by subscription, would find a harmless or beneficial vent in a free inquiry after Scriptural truth—we see also that from some amongst them all, more or less, Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary affairs of life, high-minded men would abstain from; namely, the necessity for qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of language. Is this a condition favourable to the reputation of teachers of truth; and is it too strong a conclusion, at least from some parts of the above account, to affirm, that Subscription is the disgrace of the English Church?
5. It may be well to look at the result of such a state of things under another view. The differences above mentioned are now rendered notorious by innumerable publications. The laxity as to truth, that is with respect to the Articles, which they display, will be learnt and adopted. It will be justified by the example of clergymen who are indeed at one time censured by persons high in ecclesiastical station, yet by others in the same station applauded or defended, and never authoritatively censured or restrained. In another age a new set of opinions may arise equally differing from the literal sense of our Articles and Formularies. And who, with the precedent of these days before him, could proceed with confidence against the authors and abettors? The errors of a Socinian or an Arian may be of a more deadly character; but neither the one nor the other, in affixing his own interpretation to the Articles, or in subscribing with such doctrinal views, would depart a jot further from the true meaning of words than the author and the defenders of Tract No. 90. If that tract has driven one reader to such a conclusion, a conclusion which he states with pain and sorrow, it may encourage hundreds to the same; and, ere long, an Arian or Socinian subscription may be as common as in times past perhaps they were, with this lamentable aggravation, that in an age of better religious feeling, “men of piety and talent,” so publicly designated by Bishops of the Church, have taught the way to justify the deed.
6. The manner in which the present controversy is conducted greatly aggravates its evils. It is not only that differences exist and are eagerly discussed before the public as the judge of clerical orthodoxy, but that, owing to its character, the discussion assumes a peculiarly offensive form. It is not merely an inquiry after truth in which some warmth and zeal might be excused, but clergymen are imputing to clergymen dishonourable conduct: dishonourable on this ground, that a person holding the opinions impugned cannot be an honest subscriber, ought not to remain a minister of our Church. On all sides this discreditable course has been pursued, and it would be easy to furnish the proofs. The writer is bound frankly to own that what he condemns in others may be now charged upon himself; but never would he have entered upon these remarks except in the humble yet anxious hope that he may induce others to attempt a remedy for the evil.
Imagine such a state of things in any other profession. Imagine the Officers of the Army and Navy for years together accusing one another of dishonourably retaining their commissions. It is no answer to say that the remedy with them would be bloodshed, and that this alone restrains their pens; for this is not the fact. The accused would demand inquiry and trial, and the scandal would cease. The Clergy enjoy the unenviable singularity of continuing to accuse one another, of dishonourable conduct; of acting upon mercenary motives; of a desire to make their convictions somehow square with their Subscription, that thus they may retain their position or emoluments as ministers of the Church. The controversy is disgraced throughout by an irritating reproach against character, which is neither becoming to the station of clergymen, or the manners of gentlemen; and degrades a profession which ought to be the last to exhibit such an example. It seems to be perpetually saying, such is the sense of our Confession of Faith; I have proved it, but you are subscribing in a different, in a false sense. Thus it is that Subscription, in its present state, has rendered what ought to be an inquiry after Scriptural truth, a perpetual and disgraceful taunt upon the honesty of the parties engaged. Character is damaged, or at least assailed, and no satisfactory result, no remedy ensues.
7. The circumstance last mentioned deserves consideration as another cause which, under present circumstances, helps to render our Subscription a disgrace to the English Church. Differences as to its meaning abound on all sides. Even they who uphold and would enforce a strictly literal subscription are obliged to allow of some latitude. Yet what is to be the extent of this no one can say; and in the midst of all this confusion, no one attempts a remedy.
Let us turn again to the Army and Navy, and suppose their Officers discussing publicly for several years the meaning of some of the Articles of War; deluging the country with printed statements of their differences; banded into parties, each following the notions of some favoured leaders; attacking not only the sense but the honour of their opponents; professing unbounded respect for their generals, and at one moment pronouncing them almost infallible; yet the next, if they should offer an adverse opinion, combating it in no measured terms. Suppose all this, if possible, going on for years without a remedy, without a decided attempt to devise one. Once, perhaps, it was the case; and it was at last remedied, so far as he might, by the strong arm of Cromwell: but no remedy of any kind is now attempted amongst the clergy.
The Articles of War for the Army are susceptible of an annual revision, which is to be sanctioned by the Crown, and embodied in the annual Mutiny Act, and confirmed by Parliament. Those for the Navy have existed since the time of George II., but they are modified so as to meet existing views and circumstances, by “The Instructions and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Service at Sea,” which are altered whenever deemed advisable; and by other expedients well known to the profession. In every other profession, trade, or calling, and in every legal document relating to them, from a Royal Charter to a poor boy’s indentures, we have a judge or authority competent to interpret and decide when a doubt arises. But Christians in England are either too timid or too indifferent, for wisdom it cannot be termed, to attempt an authoritative settlement of the discreditable differences and difficulties arising out of the various interpretations of their own Confession of Faith.
In assuming that this is not the path of wisdom, we have high authority. In May 1840, thirty-six clergymen, who saw the evil in its true light, and it is now immeasurably increased, signed a Petition to the House of Lords requesting attention to the subject. It was presented by His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin to a full house. Twenty-two Bishops were present. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury concurred in the propriety and necessity of some interpreting power. So also did the Bishops of London, and Lincoln, and Norwich, and upon this point there was no dissenting voice.
8. The present state of Subscription is also discreditable to the English Church when we consider the position in which it leaves the Bishops. Whoever wishes well to the institutions of his country, and desires to promote the peaceful happiness of the people, will watchfully cherish respect for all who are in authority. The Christian is taught to consider them as ministers of God to us for good; and the clergy are bound, not only by this universal sanction but also by their Ordination vows, to reverence the Bishops of the Church: and any circumstance which occasions a breach in this duty ought to be to them a cause for regret.
There is a popular error that a clergyman, when in doubt upon any question of Christian faith or practice, has only to apply to his Bishop, and that he has authority to settle the question. Some recent writers have helped perhaps to foster this notion by their ill-considered professions of entire deference to episcopal authority. No circumstance has contributed so largely to expose the very limited extent of it as the controversies of the present day. A Bishop, in fact, has scarcely any discretionary power amongst the greater part of the clergy as to questions of doctrine. He can refuse ordination to a candidate, or a license to a curate, subject, however, to an appeal. If he should refuse institution to a benefice, the civil courts would demand the reason. He may institute a suit for heresy; and this must be proved by a reference to the Scriptures and four general councils, not to the Articles or Book of Prayer. Yet of late great deference to episcopal authority has been expressed, and the Charges of Bishops have been anxiously looked for. The manner in which they have been received by some exposes the hollowness of the deference professed, the absence of the power supposed, and the true reason for the anxiety to receive them. They are estimated as the works of partizans in a controversy, not of judges in a cause. They are extolled by those to whose opinions they lean; they are criticized without reserve, and sometimes with very little respect, by any who are dissatisfied with them. The truth is shown in all its nakedness, that Bishops have no more power on such questions than other men, and less influence perhaps than some other writers.