Itis with reluctance that I add to the above remarks any that relate merely to myself. Some circumstances, however, appear to require a few brief observations.
In a former publication on the Meaning of Subscription,[41]occasioned by the extreme uncertainty and perplexity in which this subject is involved, I stated my readiness to resign my preferment, if called upon to do so within a certain time by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. That call has not been made. It may, however, be supposed that the remarks now offered on the same subject are published, not so much with a view to any general improvement as from a desire to obtain relief for my own difficulties. I wish therefore distinctly to state that this is not the case, and that those difficulties are removed, for the present, on the following grounds.
Within the last three years a departure from the plain and obvious meaning of the Articles has been displayed, to an unparalleled extent, amongst the ministers of our Church; yet no call has been authoritatively made upon any of them to resign, and they retain their situations, with the exception of two or three who have voluntarily seceded. In this state of things, I can hardly imagine any diversity of opinion with respect to the Thirty-nine Articles which calls for the resignation of a clergyman; indeed, it appears to me that it would be simply absurd in any one to resort to such a step, unless under adecided wish for communion with some other church or body of Christians.
It can hardly be necessary to say, after what has been already offered, how far I am from desiring that such a state of things should continue, however unfavourably a change might affect myself: for I still maintain,—
That the condemnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, in their literal sense, are an un-Christian appendage to a document of extraordinary merit, yet such that a true Christian may innocently differ from some propositions set forth in it.
That a Bishop is not authorized by the Gospel to address a candidate for Ordination in the literal sense of the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.”
That a Christian minister is not authorized by the Gospel to address any one in the literal sense of the words, “I absolve thee from all thy sins.”
Entertaining these views, I yet venture to conclude that I could subscribe the Articles and Liturgy with as near an approach to a literal assent as most of the clergy, and certainly with a far more cordial approbation of them than many who might be named. It has been said that the objections just mentioned are trifling. Whoever has marked the course of the controversy now existing in our Church will see how great a stress has been sometimes laid on two of the above points, as materially supporting the views of tractarian writers.
May31, 1843.
Inthe first edition I briefly alluded to the Rev. C. Green, of this Diocese, as having made some comments on a former publication of my own. I am sorry to find that this reference was a mistake, Mr. Green not having mentioned my name, as I erroneously supposed he had, writing from an imperfect recollection. Having explained to him how the mistake arose, I have now publicly to offer my apology for it, which I tendered in private as soon as it became known to me.
Since the first editionof this publication, many of the views here offered have been confirmed by no mean authorities.
On July 4th, His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, on presenting a Petition to the House of Lords relating to Church Government, will be found, on a reference to his speech, to have used several arguments exactly similar to some of those here advanced.
In the very able Dedication prefixed to a Sermon on “The Unity of the Church,” by Archdeacon Hare, recently published, will be found again a similar coincidence on other points.
In the Charge of the Bishop of Calcutta, also very recently published in this country, the following passages so strongly confirmthe main argument and titleof this publication that I am tempted to transcribe them:—
Page 60. “But it is useless to speak of their manner of defending themselves, after the incredible attempt of the Ninetieth Tract, which brought down upon them that merited disapprobation of their respected Diocesan, the disavowal of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford, and the contempt or pity of every Protestant Divine. Nothing so dishonourable to a clergyman—the word is strong, but in my judgment not too strong—has occurred in our Church since the time when the blessed Reformation exempted us for ever, as we hoped, from these Popish errors.”Page 100. “I must confess for myself that, after reading with all the attention in my power Mr. Newman’sLectures on Justification, I consider them the greatest insult—not intentionally, of course, but in fact, the greatest insult ever offered to our Church and the whole body of our Reformers, by any divine of talent and reputation for orthodoxy since the 16th Century.”Page 108. “The substantial disagreement of these divines with Holy Scripture, and their substantial agreement with the Romanists, are as clear as the day. To speak of their disagreement with our Articles and Homilies after the incredible sophistry of Tract No. 90, would be useless.”“Give me the principles of interpretation by which justification is thus, as by a magic wand, enchanted away, and I will prove or disprove anything. Let me apply such a process to the word sanctification or glorification, or faith or law, and I will disprove all the doctrines of the Gospel.”“Nay, give me these principles—I speak it with awe—and I will defend the Arian, the Socinian, the Antinomian, the Neological, the Rationalist heresies.”
Page 60. “But it is useless to speak of their manner of defending themselves, after the incredible attempt of the Ninetieth Tract, which brought down upon them that merited disapprobation of their respected Diocesan, the disavowal of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford, and the contempt or pity of every Protestant Divine. Nothing so dishonourable to a clergyman—the word is strong, but in my judgment not too strong—has occurred in our Church since the time when the blessed Reformation exempted us for ever, as we hoped, from these Popish errors.”
Page 100. “I must confess for myself that, after reading with all the attention in my power Mr. Newman’sLectures on Justification, I consider them the greatest insult—not intentionally, of course, but in fact, the greatest insult ever offered to our Church and the whole body of our Reformers, by any divine of talent and reputation for orthodoxy since the 16th Century.”
Page 108. “The substantial disagreement of these divines with Holy Scripture, and their substantial agreement with the Romanists, are as clear as the day. To speak of their disagreement with our Articles and Homilies after the incredible sophistry of Tract No. 90, would be useless.”
“Give me the principles of interpretation by which justification is thus, as by a magic wand, enchanted away, and I will prove or disprove anything. Let me apply such a process to the word sanctification or glorification, or faith or law, and I will disprove all the doctrines of the Gospel.”
“Nay, give me these principles—I speak it with awe—and I will defend the Arian, the Socinian, the Antinomian, the Neological, the Rationalist heresies.”
In any other profession such opinions as these could not be published without compelling the individuals thus censured to take some steps to vindicate their character. Laudable endeavours are on foot to prevent duelling. The only profession clear of that practice ought to be foremost in showing that means can be provided for guarding the reputation of its members. At this time no clergyman knows how to meet such a reproach as that conveyed in the above Charge. There is no individual or body of men to whom he can appeal as possessing, in public estimation, authority to clear him from the reproach, or to direct his conduct. Thus, language is continually used amongst clergymen which, if it became common in all professions, would lower the standard of English manners, and, thus far, degrade the national character.
If onlyfor the credit of the clergy, and to check the injury of a bad example in a quarter where it should be especially guarded against, some authoritative decision ought to be pronounced on the meaning of Subscription.
August23, 1843.
NORWICH:PRINTED BY CHARLES MUSKETT,OLD HAYMARKET.
[33]In proposing this test, it is assumed that the view of the late Professor of Divinity, Bishop Marsh, with regard to the condemnatory clauses attached to the Athanasian Creed, would be thenceforward considered as established in our Church. His words are, “I do not mean to defend those anathemas. They are no part of the Creed itself.”
[34]The establishment of such a test in our own Church might materially assist, as an example, in securing a great collateral benefit. They who are interested in missionary exertions know how great an impediment to their success arises from the differences and divisions amongst the ministers sent forth from various churches and societies. One mischievous effect of these is, that the general consentwhich really existsas to catholic truths isobscured. The differences on other points are always on the surface. Thus they command an undue degree of attention and importance; and, not to mention other evils, the conclusion must occur to unbelievers, that no one certain system of truth can be collected from that which is proposed to them as a Divine Revelation.
To separate the points of difference from the common bond of union, by affixing somedecidedmark of preference and distinction on the latter, would be something gained in attempts to evangelize the world. It might be better still, if one Creed, the Nicene, were chosen as the test. A very large portion of Christian missionaries, it is presumed, would cordially bear testimony to its truth. Thus it would present some common bond of union amongst them in “preaching the Gospel to all nations”—an imperfect one, it may be said, yet apparently the best which can be secured. For almost every doctrinal point beyond that Creed is controverted; and, at the end of eighteen centuries, every church must be content to see its distinctive claims to reception rest on argument rather than authority.
[35]Private opinion, or judgment, it is very clear, cannot be controlled by Subscription, or by any other means; yet peace might be preserved, to a great extent, if the Church had the power to enjoin silence on any particular point amongst its ministers. In some respects it would be dangerous to grant such a power; but the wisest human arrangements are frequently onlychoosing the least of two evils.
The recent sentence on Dr. Pusey may be very proper as regards the religious instruction offered to students at an university, but will of course decide nothing as to the general controversy. Only the voice of the Church can effect this, and it is time that the Church should at leastbe ableto speak, though its first decision might endanger the existence of theEstablishment. Faith, however, is a better counsellor than Fear.
[41]“What is the Meaning of Subscription?” Longmans. 1841.