PRAYER-BOOK AND ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND***


credit



Transcribed from the 1863 Rivingtons edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE PRAYER-BOOK AND
                    ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.


                                 A LETTER
                                  TO THE
                          LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,
                                    ON
                        PROFESSOR STANLEY'S VIEWS
                                    OF
                 CLERICAL AND UNIVERSITY "SUBSCRIPTION."

                                * * * * *

                                    BY
                          WILLIAM J. IRONS, D.D.
     PREBENDARY OF ST.  PAUL'S, AND INCUMBENT OF BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                      THEODORE WRIGHT, 188, STRAND;
    RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; AND PARKERS, 377, STRAND, AND OXFORD.
                                  1863.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
              SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,
                              COVENT GARDEN.

                                * * * * *




A LETTER,
ETC.


                                            BROMPTON, _Whitsuntide_, 1863.

MY DEAR LORD,

IF twenty years ago, soon after a few of the clergy had asserted their
"claim to hold all Roman doctrine," {3} a proposal had been made to
abolish Subscription to the English Formularies, it would surely have
been thought to indicate very grave disloyalty to our Church.  And now,
when others have asserted the right to unfettered "free-thinking" within
her pale, and endeavoured to vindicate that right in our Courts of Law,
can we help being struck at the intrepidity of the demand to sweep away
at once the sober restraints of orthodoxy to which Churchmen have been so
long accustomed?

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