(2) In the next paragraph, which embraces that “section of the clergy most opposed to the views of the Tractarians, you speak from personal knowledge;” and you say, “in their views as to Baptismal Regeneration, certainly opposed to the strict language of our Formularies; in their dislike of other parts of our services, and sometimes in their disuse of certain terms, is to be found a proof that to them Subscription is not altogether satisfactory.” I do not deny that there may be among that body of the clergy some who do not admit Baptismal Regeneration, according to the strict language of our Formularies: but I believe they are by no means so numerous as you would have it inferred. I can affirm, from personal knowledge, that some of that party do hold that doctrine strictly in accordance with the church, and that I scarcely know one who does not admit it, at least in a modified sense. You are aware that the word “regeneration,” instead of being restricted to Baptism, as it is in our Articles and Liturgy, and, as I believe, also in the New Testament, has, by many divines as well as others, long been used in a looser signification, to denote “conversion,” “renovation,” &c., which may be necessary after Baptism. Hence there is reason to think that frequently the difference is more in name than in reality. I can also state positively that, upon this point, within very few years, the views of many amongst this party have undergone considerable change, and closely approximated to those of the church. If, however, upon one of the most difficult and abstruse doctrines of Christianity there should be shades of opinion, it is only to be expected; considering that all have not equally faith to receive, or the capacity to comprehend the “things hard to be understood.” Neither do I think it quite charitable to set down this circumstance to their “disgrace,” or to that of the church of which they are ministers. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.” [14] Moreover, in this neighborhood, I am acquainted with several of the clergy, who would probably rank themselves under this “section,” who are not behind any of their neighbors in the exact observance of the Liturgy.
With regard to those “Subscribers who embrace Calvinistic doctrines,” any comment of mine would be superfluous, as it is clear, from the tenor of your observations, that you are ready to defend their view of the Articles.
We now come to a section of the clergy whom you denominate “old-fashioned high-churchmen.” Your main charge against these is, that whilst “they insist often on an exact compliance with Rubrics,” few amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice. The supposition of error attaching to them in their “Arminian views of doctrine,” being matter of private opinion, may be dismissed as irrelevant. The charge, then, may be regarded as a default in Rubrical practice. This accusation, however, is of the less importance, as it is not contended, neither indeed can be, that there exists in the clergy a conscientious objection to a compliance with any of the Rubrical directions—only that “few amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice.” And thus much is fully conceded.
If it were material to the point, it would be no difficult task, in extenuation of those who deviate from the strict letter of the Rubric, to prove that the Rubrics are not always definite, and frequently admit of a variety of construction—that to a certain extent the church accords to its ministers a discretionary judgment in this as in all other things—that at the present time there exists a prevailing disposition to revive much which has fallen into desuetude, and an earnest desire to carry out the Rubrics in all their practical utility—and consequently, that there is notwithstanding a great deal of honest and upright practice. But your charge affects not the clergy, but Subscription. It will therefore be a sufficient answer, to refer you to Article 34, in which it is stated—that “every particular or national church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the church, ordained only by man’s authority,” in order to remind you that, without having recourse to that measure, which in the sequel you propound, the church does possess a provision to abrogate or enact, whenever it may be deemed by the legislature expedient to direct the Convocation to proceed with that business.
(5) In the last “section” of the clergy, whose views you notice, I see nothing in the slightest degree inconsistent with their Subscription. Surely, according to Article 20, which states that “the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,” it is quite competent for any clergyman to state strongly his conviction, that a church, without even the power of entering upon the means of deliberation as to one general improvement in its spiritual concerns, is in a false and unscriptural position. The summoning of convocation rests with the legislature, and not with the church, and is a matter of expediency upon which every individual clergyman may entertain his own opinion.
I have now carefully, and for my readers I fear too tediously, gone through your allegations; but as I conceived that your proposition depended solely upon their being supported and established by facts, I trust I shall be excused if I have made a point of examining them with that patience and candor, which I thought their importance demanded.
I find then, that, because an indefinitely small number of the clergy in every diocese may agree with the author of Tract No. 90,—because a portion of a certain “section” of the clergy possibly do not hold Baptismal Regeneration in strict accordance with the Articles and Liturgy—because some incline to Calvinistic, some to Arminian views of doctrine—because, in practice, an exact conformity to the Rubrics does not obtain, notwithstanding that in the 34th article express provision is made to meet this case in all its bearings, and because, in accordance with the 20th article, certain persons avow that a church, without the means of deliberation, is in a false and unscriptural position—Therefore “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church.”
Such is the conclusion at which you arrive from your premises—a conclusion, in my humble opinion, so slightly supported by fact, that I can hardly bring myself to think, but that, if there had not existed a strong propension, a predetermination to come at this result, your judgment would have rejected the evidence as totally insufficient to support it.
I now proceed to adduce evidence of a counter-tendency, arising from a personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of individual clergy.
In 1838 I preached at Yarmouth before the Lord Bishop of Norwich, yourself, and a numerous body of the Clergy residing in the two adjoining Deaneries, a Sermon, in which I delivered the following sentences, viz.—