Clerical Subscription and the Act of Uniformity

by Edward Hoare

In a long devotional book it is next to impossible that all and everything should be exactly to the mind of any one, and of all the thousands of clergymen who regard the Liturgy as amongst the most sacred possessions ever given to a Church I believe there are very few who would not rejoice over a slight change here and there, if only they could be sure that no changes which they disapproved would be introduced with those they would approve. Looking at the book in its comprehensive character, as containing a Calendar of Lessons, a vast number of rubrics, the Psalms pointed for chanting, and several occasional services, it is vain to expect that every point of detail shall be exactly to the mind of any man. However decided the general approval, there must of necessity be points of detail which grate, to say the least, on the feelings, if they are not opposed to the judgment. Thus there are many persons who believe that there is nothing contrary to God’s Word in the Prayer-book, and that it may be lawfully used, who still consider that “assent and consent to all and every thing” is too strong a term to express their state of mind respecting it. The result is that some are deterred from entering the ministry, others decline or resign preferment; while many others would consider it a great relief if the form in the Canon were substituted for that in the Act of Parliament.

(4.) But there is another objection of a much graver character, and one which, in these days of loose opinion, is, I believe, far more important than any already mentioned. By the confusion of the Articles and the ritual in one form of Subscription the door is opened for great laxity as to doctrine.

To meet the difficulty which conscientious persons may feel with reference to the ritual, our Church, in the preface, claims for the book that it shall “be allowed such just and favourable construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority.” It is supposed, therefore, by the Church, that each clergyman will put his own favourable construction on the details of the book, which, as a whole, he greatly values; and, provided that he does not consider any portion contrary to God’s Word, she is prepared to entrust him with the use of it in the public ministry. Now, such a principle as this is all very well with reference to forms, but becomes inexpressibly dangerous when applied to doctrines. It is only right that men should be allowed to entertain their own opinion respecting the selection of lessons in the calendar; but the very life of the Church is imperilled if we admit a similar latitude respecting the essential truths of Christianity. Thus, the Act of Uniformity, by confusing the two in one form of Subscription, practically opens the way for laxity of religious belief. It puts those who do not believe in the Thirty-nine Articles in the same position as those who think that mistakes have been made in the calendar, or that the mind of the Church would be better expressed if two or three sentences amongst the occasional services were omitted or slightly modified. The favourable construction which is necessary for a comprehensive ritual is claimed equally for the confession of faith, and the denial of revealed truth is placed on the same level as a scruple about a rubric. To the mind of Charles and his advisers I am inclined to think that the two were of equal importance, or possibly the forms were more important than the doctrines. But men of all classes are now, thank God, waking up to the conviction that all matters of ritual are as nothing when compared with the truth as revealed in Scripture; and it is lamentable to think that those who deny such a doctrine as the Atonement should be no more condemned by their Subscription than are those conscientious men who are made uncomfortable by a few trifling matters in the ritual.

The conclusion, therefore, is that, just in proportion as we value Divine truth, we should endeavour to fall back on the wisdom of our forefathers, who kept the two things quite distinct; and that there ought to be two forms of Subscription, as directed by the Canon, instead of one, as required by the Act of Uniformity; that so our adhesion to the great scriptural and essential truths of the Gospel may stand out, as the Church has placed it, quite distinct from our approbation of the various details of the ritual.

But it is frequently argued that, if we touch any portion of the Act of Uniformity, the whole would be endangered; and it is regarded as so sacred a bulwark around the truth that no risk must be incurred respecting it.

Now, I believe that this respect for the Act of Uniformity arises simply from the fact that no one reads it. The greater part has long since become a dead-letter, and if the whole were swept away our position would be very slightly changed. The following is a short summary:—

1. That the Book of Common Prayer as revised in 1660 should be used instead of that of Edward VI.

2. That all parsons, vicars, or other ministers should subscribe, according to the form above given, before the Feast of St. Bartholomew, 1662; or within one month be deprived, ipso facto, of their spiritual promotions.

3. That every person who may hereafter be presented to any living make the same Subscription.

4. That every resident incumbent, where a curate is kept, read the common prayers and service at least once a month, or forfeit 5l. to the poor of the parish, on conviction before two justices of the peace.