The Right Rev. Joseph Allen, D.D., Lord Bishop of Ely-Rev. F. P. Baker, Rector of Little Cressingham-Rev. R. G. Mooney-Rev. Algernon Grenfell, one of the Masters of Rugby School-At Torquay, Rev. John Sawer. M.A., late Curate of Christ Chapel, St. John's Wood, aged 34-In Charterhouse-square, Rev. Edmond Dawson Legh, Perpetual Curate of St. Botolph, Aldersgate-street, aged 44-At Kellyville, in the Queen's County, aged 44, Rev. Thomas Webber, Rector of Castle Macadam, in the county of WicklowAt Kimbolton, aged 80, Rev. James Pye, Rector of Nether Dean-Rev. Francis Swan, M.A., late Prebendary of Lincoln, Rector of Wintringham, and Vicar of Kirton, aged 92-Rev. Thomas Grylls, Rector of Cardynham, Cornwall, and Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral, aged 55-At Lamport Rectory, Northamptonshire, Rev. V. Isham, aged 70— At Mansfield, aged 46, Rev. W. M. Maltby-Rev. Sydney Smith, Canon of St. Paul's, aged 74-At Chobham, Surrey, Rev.John Hener, Rector of Tunworth, near Basingstoke, aged 74-Rev. Joseph Aldrich Cotton, Vicar of Ellesmere, aged 82-At Lakelands, near Dublin, aged 54, Rev. Clement Wolseley, of Sandbrook Park, county of Carlow-Rev. George Walker, Rector of Scole, Norfolk-Rev. Paul Leir, M.A., Rector of Charlton Musgrove, aged 75-At Badworth Rectory, Rev. Henry William Champneys, aged 77— At Lark-hill, near Worcester, William Holden, M.A., Clerk, Assistant Chaplain of St. Oswald's Hospital, aged 33-At Petersfield, Hants, Rev. Fasham Nairn, Vicar of Walton cum Felixstow, and Rector of Little Bealings, Suffolk, aged 98. THE CHURCH ADVOCATE & MAGAZINE. No. 5. New Series.] MAY, 1845. [Vol. VII. No. 77. ON THE MEANING OF OUR SUB- | 200-204), proves that our Liturgy SCRIPTIONS. is framed FOR believers (pp. 205— 207), and gives some excellent remarks on the practical nature of the The Reviewer well remarks:-"The creed as used in our services. (p.208.) other ground [i. e. an argumentum ad hominem], and that with which the body of his address is occupied, is men of all opinions subscribe the 39 simply this,-He maintains that as Articles, and as the natural sense of these can be but one, it follows that all parties must, in some particular or sense," (p. 204); he therefore urges other, subscribe in a non-natural that he has an equal right to subscribe the Church; a right which no one unfairly, with other classes of men in surely denies him, if he is willing to bear the responsibility of exercising it; for the dishonesty of such a course is proved in the Review of January, p. 62, &c. The March No. well remarks, "Before we take notice of the particular argument of Mr. Ward, we must remark generally, that although the sense of the Articles all together and each by itself is but one, it does not by any means follow that men who subscribe them in different senses are subscribing non-naturally, i. e. dishonestly. A man may read them wrongly, and understand them wrongly, yet if to the best of his knowledge orjudgment, he subscribes them in their natural sense, he cannot be found fault with. But this, by Mr. | Ward's confession, is not his case," (p. 205). This exactly agrees with my remarks at pp. 66, 67. A passage from Mrs. H. More's Practical Piety is a sufficient answer to Mr. W.'s excuse: "Faults are not less personally ours because others commit them. Is it any diminution of our error that others are guilty of the same?" (c. xii. p. 292.) It has been well remarked, "Hitherto it has been the just boast of our Church, that it has an impregnable bulwark against Popery in the 39 Articles of religion, and they have been considered a test of such purity of doctrine, and of such validity for conservation of the truth, that all who subscribed them, notwithstanding such shades and varieties of view as within their scope is quite conceivable and allowable, might safely be regarded as brethren, having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. But a new and horrible thing is come to pass. The very test by which sincerity and honesty were to be tried and proved, has itself been tampered with." (Churchman's Monthly Review for Feb. p. 102). "" Who are the parties who have of late years most severely attacked the Evangelical'' clergy on the score of subscription? Are they not a certain class of "High-Churchmen," viz., Tractarians of the school of Dr. W. F. Hook, Rev. William Palmer (of Worcester College), and Archdeacon Manning? And has not this become a rather extensive school? Now, Mr. Ward, in his "Address," fairly chal lenges these "High-Churchmen" to declare how they can subscribe many of our Articles (which, be it remembered, are set forth as containing" the true doctrine of" our Church) in a more natural sense than he himself does, who holds "the whole cycle of Roman doctrine!" (p. 36). This challenge is distinctly given at pp. 40, 42, 43, 47, 50, 51; and he asks if any of" them can devise a more natural sense in which" they "can" themselves "subscribe," and " If not, for honesty's and consistency's sake" not to vote for" his condemnation." (p. 50). It will be remembered that a large body of these "High-Churchmen" did not vote for his condemnation; and no one has yet ventured a reply in their defence-at least to my knowledge. And yet these are the slanderers of the Evangelical clergy! It may not be amiss if I here give a list of all that I have met with in the writings of Evangelical clergy, which can, even by an adversary, be urged against them in this respect: when I say that I set about the list in former times, thinking to make out an excellent case against the subscriptions of the "Evangelical" clergy; that from curiosity I have since added a few more items as I met with them from time to time; and that after deep personal interest in, and study of the subject, this is all I can collect; it will, I think, be evident that even if these represented the views of the whole body, instead of those of a few individuals only, their subscriptions would be more consistent than those of their accusers. 1. Rev. J. T. Holloway, D.D., in "The Reply" to the Bishop of London's Charge of 1842, says that the thanksgiving in the Baptismal Service is "unsound" and "at variance with Scripture," &c. (pp. 82, 83, 69, and 72), and that the " phraseology in the beginning of the Catechism," is "ob 66 jectionable," (p. 69), and that in its plain language,' ""this office holds out the doctrine of universal salvation;" though a little further on, the office corrects itself, and proves, whatever those words may seem to express, that such was not the meaning of the Church." (p. 70). At pp. 78-80, the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick, is spoken of in similar language. Yet, be it remembered, the spirit of the entire pamphlet shows that the writer really approves of, and assents to, and values both the Articles and Liturgy generally, and he singles out these as "the little spots and defects in the offices," comparing them "with the exquisite beauty of the picture as a whole, exhibited in the Articles and Liturgy." (p. 72.) 2. The only other attack on our Baptismal Service, &c., by an Evangelical minister of the Church, which I have seen, is by Rev. O. Piers, in Baptismal Regeneration; Satan's Second Lie." p. 8. (E. Palmer, 1844.) 66 3. Rev. C. I. Yorke, in his Respectful Address to the Bishop of London, thinks that the observance of saints' days is of a superstitious and man-exalting character," (p. 32) and that the Reformers would have been glad to witness the "silent fall into popular neglect" (p. 25) of the Apocryphal* Books, some of which * Mr. Yorke says, "As to the Apocryphal lessons, they are in fact never mentioned in the services themselves," (p. 24); on this "Modern Puritanism" remarks, "What this phrase may mean we are wholly unable to conjecture; if it is intended that the lessons from the deuterocanonical books only occur in the calendar, and are not alluded to in the body of the Prayer-Book, how do they in this respect fare worse than the other lessons? Where are any lessons mentioned in the services themselves?" " (p. 37, note). This is only another specimen of the gross misrepre contain "historical as well as doctrinal faults" (p. 32); and that it is unwise to revive the use of these things, which were retained because "the Reformers desired to make a gradual, rather than an abrupt descent from Popery," (p. 25). Mr. Yorke's piety and attachment to our Church generally,'are well known, and though he here seems to object to the observance of saints' days on principle, yet, I do not believe he would really object to them when properly observed, according to the spirit of the Liturgy. 4. The Bishop of Worcester, in his Charge of 1842, says that, "certain phrases occur in the Service for the Solemnization of Matrimony, dictated by the grossness of a former age, but offensive to the refinement of the present time," (p. 13,) which should, therefore, be omitted. 5. Rev. C. N. Woodhouse objected "only to certain parts of our ritual in their literal acceptation," viz., 'the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, the form of absolution in the sentation of this infamous pamphlet. The writer pretends to admire our Prayer Book, (p. 31) though he evidently longs for a more Catholic" Liturgy (p. 23); the passage which I have just quoted, however, tempts one to view his remark on the Dean of York as not inapplicable to himself, "His 'admiration, perhaps, has not yet gone up to the reading point," (p. 21) since the Rubric in " the Order for Morning Prayer" speaks of "the first lesson taken out of the Old Testament,” and that "for Evening Prayer" speaks of "a Lesson of the Old Testament," Rev. J. Shepherd, in his " Elucidation of the Service" (which is usually considered an authority) observes that it is remarkable that the Apocryphal lessons are not here mentioned: Also Dr. Bennett, quoted in Bp. Mant's Prayer Book (another authority) p. 23, speaks of them as expressly mentioned !" The pamphlet also insinuates against Mr. Yorke what he is very far from saying, or intending by what he does say. "not imprudence in the manner of drawing up the first doctrinal answer in our catechism, is rendered undeniable by the fact, that both teachers and scholars, ministers and people, are continually found to misunderstand both the one and the other." 9. The late Rev. T. Scott wrote thus in a letter dated 5th April, 1818: office for the Visitation of the Sick, and the following part of the form of ordaining priests: Receive the Holy Ghost, &c.,' ,'" but heartily conformed "in all other respects to the doctrine and worship of our Church;" but, in consequence, he tendered the resignation of all his preferment to his bishop.* 6. Rev. C. Benson, in his Sermon on the Power of Absolution, (p. 54—“I have little objection to the doctrine, 57,) thinks that he cannot make out "a full explanation and defence" of the words used in our ordination service, though he has both justified the Reformers for retaining them (p. 53, 54), and shown the true sense in which they are used; he therefore thinks they might be altered with advantage. 7. Rev. H. McNeile, in his Lectures on the Church of England, No.ii. p. 96, thinks that "the expression, I absolve thee," in the Visitation of the Sick, "although thus defensible by a friendly interpreter, is an unwise oversight in the purifiers of the Book of Prayer," which is "needlessly prejudicial in wounding the consciences of weak brethren, and multiplying disaffection in various degrees against our Church." 8. Rev. H. Walter, in his Letter on Baptismal Regeneration (Seeley, 1844) p. 31, says that the passage "containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God'' in the 36th canon "does Lot require us to think any part of it unimprovable; nor does it pledge us to defend the prudence of composing the catechism in language so exclusively adapted to the use of godly children. And that there has been some * An excellent and able minister at one of our large towns, once withdrew on the morning of the Ordination from scruples on the Athanasian Creed, which he did not get over for more than a year. + At p. 29, Mr. Walter proves that the Catechism is compiled FOR truly Christian or the spirit of the Athanasian Creed. Properly understood, it only pronounces the damnatory sentence on those whom the Scripture condemns; and this only in a declarative way, not denouncing them or imprecating evil upon them. But as it endeavours too particularly to explain what, after all, is incomprehensible; as many have objections to it, and as it is appointed only in the morning service, which is otherwise sufficiently long; I do not very frequently use it." (Life, by Rev. J. Scott, c. xv. p. 502.) In his Commentary on John xx. 22, 23, he remarks that the question "how far" the use of these words at our ordinations is "either scriptural or warrantable may be worthy of the serious consideration of all persons more immediately concerned in the important transactions referred to." 10. Rev. R. Simpson, in his Clergyman's Manual, recommends the entire disuse of the Apocrypha, on the ground that the declaration prefixed to the 2nd Book of Homilies allows a change of lessons, and that the Rubric directs the 1st lesson to be taken from children. He also observes that "there is one of the occasional services, as they are styled, and but one, which might seem at and that is the Commination." He shows; first sight, to be prepared for the ungodly; however, that even this is questionable. Mr. Walter's Letter contains a mass of valuable matter from the works of our Reformers, and other eminent divines, on the subject of Baptismal Regeneration. |