Your Lordship has been openly addressed, as we are all aware, in behalf of this “Relaxation of Subscription;” but as our Bishop—so deeply interested in the welfare of the whole Church—I venture to believe that you will do justice to opposite views, and in offering them to your attention, I rely on that broad-minded charity to various schools among us, which has marked your Lordship’s administration of this diocese.
Dr. Stanley’s position. [4a]
The eloquent advocacy of Dr. Stanley on the other side is, indeed, no slight advantage to the cause of those who would now supersede the Prayer-book by “modern thought.” In urging the surrender of all Subscription to our Formularies, he can speak, in his position, with a prestige and power to which I can have no claim. His testimony as to the tone of mind now prevailing in Oxford, or among the younger clergy of the last few years, it is not for me to impeach,—I must leave that to the Bishop of Oxford; [4b] but certain of his deductions from very limited facts, I may be permitted, I think, to call in question at once. As one who, without belonging to any party, has had the happiness of much friendship with all—as a Churchman, I may add, who has kept steadily to the old Prayer-book from very early childhood till now—I have had large opportunities for many years of knowing the heart and mind of my brethren the clergy, ten thousand of whom not long since responded to an appeal which I and others had been invited to make to them; and I confess that I am amazed at Dr. Stanley’s supposition that Subscription is regarded as a “grievance” (p. 23), a “perjury” (p. 24), an “absurdity” (p. 20), or an “imposition” (p. 7) by any considerable number among us. Allowing for some irritable minds here and there, the generality have seemed to me to have the deepest appreciation of the “quietness and confidence” which have been, in the main, secured for our Church by the present laws, which simply bind the clergy to say that they believe the Prayers which they use, and the Articles which they adopt as their “standard.”
Thus much I have felt compelled to say at the outset, because the opposers of Subscription assume that their clients are so numerous that to refuse their demands may be to endanger the Church herself. True, they generously disclaim all designs “to revolutionize the Church of England” (p. 6 of The Letter). This is well; but I am far more assured by the belief that their power, as yet, is not so formidable as their intentions. And with this preface, I would pass to the subject-matter of Dr. Stanley’s Letter.
Scheme of Comprehension.
The point of departure taken for the discussion is the Revolution of 1688, and the attempt then made at what was called “Comprehension.” It is even suggested that the “High Churchmen” of those days agreed that the “very being of our Church was concerned” in abolishing “Subscription,” and substituting for it a general declaration of conformity. The several attempts at “Comprehension” almost seem to be referred to as substantially one, and are recommended to us as if originated by enlarged and exemplary views of the Church’s calling. But, equivocations apart, (which would be wholly unworthy here), will this be gravely maintained? Did the “Comprehension Scheme” of 1674 receive no opposition from the Church? or will not every one own that it was frustrated by the resistance of the Bishops? Would Dr. Stanley really say that the Scheme (not “Act”) of 1689 was founded on a philosophy which would now command assent? I suppose that he must say it, or how could he refer to it as our rebuke and pattern? Yet it was, as he will not deny, a political effort directed against the Roman Catholics; and the reluctance of the clergy (even under all the pressure of the occasion) to fraternize with Nonconformists, defeated the measure,—some of the principal Commissioners who had to manage it, such as the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, the Prolocutor of Convocation, and the Bishop of Rochester, openly withdrawing from it. I really can hardly conceive of a more unfortunate appeal to history. To represent the clergy of all parties, and especially “High Churchmen” (p. 33), as approving, on liberal principles, of the proposed “Comprehension,” and covertly to suggest that “Subscription” was alien from the spirit of those enlightened days, is, to speak gently of it, quite “unhistorical”—(if I may so apply a now familiar term); nor can I forbear to point to the fact that even Dissenters were required, by the Act of 1 William and Mary, cap. 18, to “subscribe” a declaration that “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by Divine Inspiration.” The parallel breaks down at every point. Of course, if any one really thinks that England is now in great danger (as in Sancroft’s days) from the Popish encroachments of the Crown, such an one is free to argue as Dr. Stanley does. If any suppose that a Papal reaction among the populace is the present peril (as it was thought to be in Burnet’s days), let them by all means fly to the “remedial” measures of that era. But for a philosophical historian to quote, with admiration, Halifax or Nottingham, or refer to certain “High Churchmen” with approval, can but cause a smile. [7]
It was a popular beginning of this subject, doubtless, to invoke the memories of 1688 and the “Toleration Act,” in order to recommend to English people this proposal to destroy “Subscription;” yet it was dangerous. For to have pursued the subject fairly from this point would hardly have assisted the views of the abolitionists. The course of history would very soon have brought them to the great Arian conspiracy of 1772, the next noticeable effort to set aside the Articles of the Church. This, however, is altogether avoided, as if it were unknown to Dr. Stanley; and he quickly goes back to the Reformation, and even to the times of the Primitive Church, to find arguments against “Subscription” in the abstract, (as well as against our special Anglican form of it,)—and, must I not say, to get out of the way of Whiston, and the “Feathers’ Tavern”? Let us, then, be generous, and forgive the allusions to 1688, and forget all that followed, and endeavour to examine on its merits the substance of the “Letter.”
“Relaxation” a preliminary movement.
The object, my Lord, of the rising movement against “Subscription,” here appears to be of a purely preliminary character. It is expressly cleared of all connexion with special grievances. “Revisions” are to stand over. These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p. 4). Meanwhile, it is not against the “Articles” only that the feeling is to be stirred, but “Subscription” to the whole Prayer-book, and even to the Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated. Indeed, it seems to be maintained that our present “Subscription” to the Articles does not include, as we had supposed, Subscription to the Bible at all. The objection, however, is scarcely raised in that form. It is to “Subscribing” per se that the repugnance is felt, as though there were a morbid dread of “putting the hand to paper,”—such as we sometimes find in the uneducated classes. And now it is not so much “do not sign these forms,” as “do not sign any thing;” and Dr. Whately, and Archdeacon Denison, and the friends of Mr. Gorham, Dr. Rowland Williams, and Mr. Bristowe Wilson, and Mr. Heath are, as I understand, urged for once to agree to “relax all subscriptions,” that they may so be set at more liberty to fight their mutual battles without hindrance. Thus it is, wonderfully, to be claimed for members of a Christian Church, that they should be positively pledged to nothing!