Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this principle of concession in consideration to tender consciences be once admitted, where are the probable demands upon it likely to find a limit?
The question would seem then to resolve itself into a choice of evils, and e malis minimum, we must ask therefore, which would be most conducive to the welfare and respectability of the Church, to require Subscription to be made unreservedly and according to the literal meaning of the words and sense in which they were imposed, or to allow such a latitude as may enable every one to subscribe in what sense he please?—“Quicunque vult, is an ill preface to a law.”
A proposition similar to the last has been stated and canvassed by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and he says of it—“This is the last remedy, but it is the worst, it hath in it something of craft, but very little of ingenuity, and if it serve the ends of peace or external charity, or a fantastic concord, yet it cannot serve the ends of truth and holiness, and christian simplicity.” [32]
How far the Bishop of Norwich may be disposed to go in carrying out his benevolent object (and I speak it in perfect sincerity, for I believe his Lordship to be actuated by the very best intentions), of giving relief to tender consciences and promoting peace and unity amongst Christians, I pretend not to say—for his Lordship’s pamphlet leaves the matter more doubtful than his speech, inasmuch as amongst those whose sentiments his Lordship quotes as being most in accordance with his own, and with reference to whom “compared with many of their modern opponents,” he says—
Mallem magis cum Platone errare quam cum istis rectè sentire.
His Lordship quotes the opinion of Bishop Warburton, namely, that “schism which all must admit to be an evil, is one which nothing but the Church widening her communion, can prevent or cure.” [33]
I confess I could never clearly see how the Church can conscientiously widen her communion. What are the pleas for separation? They hinge not on letters and iotas, nor on this or that particular passage in our Liturgy, they resolve themselves into two—our Doctrines and our Church Government. One or other of these is the plea alleged by every denomination of separatists, from the frigid Socinian, to the fanatical Jumper. Giving these separatists therefore credit for seceding or keeping aloof of us on these grounds, and, that for conscience sake—we can only expect to “prevent schism,” by leaving the divinity of our Saviour “an open question,” and abolishing Episcopacy altogether.
But may we not ask, if tenderness of conscience is to be respected when it takes offence at non-essentials, why is it to be disregarded when it stumbles at the far more important matters, the essentials of Christianity, the “distinguishing features of the Christian Church?” and is not Episcopacy a distinguishing feature? But with the exception of the Roman Catholic, there is not a separatist in the three kingdoms who is agreed with us on that point. Are the divinity of Christ and the atonement essential doctrines? But the so called Unitarian, in the exercise of his private judgment, pronounces them to be falsehoods. Is Infant Baptism a distinguishing feature? But the Baptist, as he styles himself, condemns it as a senseless and unscriptural rite, nor will the liberty in which he indulges his conscience permit him to hold communion with any Church that practises it. Is the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper a distinguishing feature? But the tender conscience of the Quaker rioting in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, will not deign to return to these “beggarly elements,”—“the policy of Satan busying people with outward signs.” [34a]
Since then we must give up the pleasing hope of bringing schismatics back to the fold, we may narrow the question, and limit the proposed revision of our Articles and Liturgy, to the removal of every “cause of uneasiness” to the tender consciences of our brethren within the pale. “This,” as you justly observe, “would probably occasion some trouble and difficulty,” [34b] not that this ought to be objected if the charitable object could be effected by any reasonable sacrifice. You admit that already “more is proposed that is either necessary or desirable.” [34c] The Bishop of London [34d] “would not be disposed to go as far as you,” whilst some perhaps with the modesty of old Richard Baxter, might propose to put the unclean thing away altogether, and to substitute a new and much improved Liturgy of their own. Let us once open the commission, institute this Court of Relief for tender consciences, and we shall have no lack of appellants.
Utor permisso—caudœque pilos ut equinæ,
Paulatim vello—demo unum, demo etiam unum,
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi. [36a]