When it is remembered how long the Christian Church has been divided and rent, and how the Protestant part of it is again subdivided into numerous sections, sometimes in the same nation, any approach towards the establishment of a sound and primitive catholic test, which may enable a larger number of Christians to enjoy communion with one another, ought to be viewed with thankfulness. More especially ought it to be so viewed by ourselves, if there be a hope that the example can be adopted as the means of promoting peace amongst the ministers and members of the same Church—namely, our own—now so unhappily disunited; and if the great Truths in which they agree could be thus prominently exhibited to the world. And, if the rule laid down with reference to our Christian brethren of the Prussian Church be sound and judicious; if it has been wisely and charitably selected as calculated to unite many who have hitherto been separated in communion, though not materially in doctrine; why should it not be applied to secure similar advantages amongst Englishmen, and to heal some of the wounds which are daily inflicted on the peace of the Church by its own ministers and members?
Let not such a proposal be hastily rejected from an unexamined apprehension that the doctrines of the Reformation are to be surrendered. Let it at least be calmly and candidly considered. The remarks hitherto offered may be disputed as incorrect; but no one can possibly deny that the state of the English Church is unsatisfactory, perhaps unsafe. The writer can in all sincerity declare himself, in the fullest sense of the word, a Protestant: yet he may, very consistently, with such a declaration, desire to see Protestants Catholics, and, in fulfilment of the pledge given at ordination, “to maintain and set forwards, as much as in him lieth, quietness, and peace, and love, among all Christian people.” These are what the Universal Church now requires for her prosperity and success.
While the above-named catholic test was adopted to meet the peculiar situation and duties of the new Bishop in Jerusalem, we see that it was at the same time provided that candidates for ordination, subjects of the King of Prussia, should be examined generally as to their qualifications for the ministry; and also as to their being thoroughly grounded in the Augsburg Confession, the foundation of our Articles; and further, that a certificate of their having satisfactorily passed such an examination should be laid before the Bishop of Jerusalem, who will also take care to convince himself of their fitness to receive ordination at his hands.
If we were to transfer this whole precedent, as the writer understands it, to our own Church, the change it would make would be simply this, namely, that it would be left to the Bishops, each exercising the discretionary power now vested in him, to judge, upon examination, of the doctrinal views of a candidate, instead of requiring him to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. And if we draw this out into practice, the loss as to security for any particular doctrines would be none. Each Bishop would of course exercise the discretionary power as he now does, and the same candidates would be admitted; but the evils now attending upon Subscription would be remedied, or immeasurably diminished.
A candidate would be examined as to his general qualifications, and also by questions on the Thirty-nine Articles, according to the judgment of each Bishop, and might be received or rejected, as is now the case. Whatever point in the Articles might appear to each Bishop to require particular attention, would be made a subject of examination, as is now the case. Any question relative to doctrinal views, deemed necessary, might be put, and the Bishop would have the actual view of the candidate in his own words; and, if his word will not bind a man, will his signature? If a candidate, for instance, professed that he considered the Reformation injurious or imperfect, the Bishop might reject him, or not; and if he did not profess this, but afterwards came to that opinion, the case would only be as it is sometimes now. Possibly Bishops might differ as to their mode of conducting such examination; and in one diocese a candidate might be received who might fear being rejected in another; for so it has been, and may be again; and thus persons of various shades of opinion are admitted to the ministry, probably to the benefit of the Church.
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.