M.-Do not you think that our.new church will help to bring about such a happy union again? G.-It ought to do so, and will, I trust, with God's favour, contribute something towards so blessed a state of things; though, indeed, when once unity and peace are lost, it is hard to recover them. 'The beginning of strife,' says Solomon, is 'as when one letteth out waters,' which finding an outlet make the breach wider and wider at every instant till all the bank comes down, and devastation and ruin overspread the whole land. It is good therefore never to meddle with strife and divisions. But, as I was saying, the new Church may contribute something towards repairing the breaches and healing up our divisions. It will at least show our opponents that we have some zeal for what we hold to be the truth, and it will give them better opportunities of seeing that ours is indeed a reasonable and holy service, promoting edification in its widest and fullest sense, and encouraging that spirit of humility and singleness of heart in looking to Christ, to which God promises his grace, and which prepares us to become 'blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.' M.-May the good Lord hasten so good an effect! May he prosper this our handy work in which we are now engaged, and make it to redound to his own glory, and our everlasting good! G.-I give my most hearty Amen to that prayer, and will not cease to pray for such a blessing. And indeed I have good hope we shall enjoy it. We cannot, I know, expect that all this people, so long scattered abroad for want of a shepherd nigh at hand, should be gathered again into the fold of the Church at a moment. Many bad habits, and prejudices, and mistakes, and attachments, must be overcome.-But some, I have no doubt, will immediately frequent the church; and others, when they have more time to reconsider their duty, will return one by one. "There's Stephen Faithful for one," said Meanwell, "will be sure to come. I could never get him to go with me to the meeting houses, when I used to visit those places. He never would forsake the Church on any account. Rain or snow could not keep him away, even when he had so far to go. We may be sure he'll attend, and with a gład heart.' G.-And there's Thomas Child, and Henry Goodheart, and Samuel Upwards, and Joseph Hopeful, and several others, have declared they will come back to Church as soon as the new building is finished. They never could bear that anything disrespectful should be said of the Church; and always refused to join the Dissenters, otherwise than as attendants at their meeting-houses, chiefly for convenience sake. M.-And what think you of Peter Vane? G.-Oh! yes, he'll come, were it only for the novelty of the thing. And what is more, I have good hope he'll stay with us; for he told me the other day, that he had tried all the kinds of dissenters in the neighbourhood, and had found that they had their faults quite as much as church people; and he added, that he had never found any form of worship so full of excellencies, and so richly ministering to edification, | God we may all receive this precious as that of the church. He had been benefit most thankfully, and conscienconsidering the church services a good tiously study to grow thereby in grace. deal of late, he said, and now won- And let us exhort one another daily, dered how he could ever have slighted while it is called to-day, lest any of us so safe, so instructive, so devout, so be hardened through the deceitfulness holy and faithful a guide in the wor- of sin." ship of the Most High God. M.-So then we shall be able to gather a tolerable company, you think? M.-It is, indeed, as you say, a serions consideration, an awful thing to think of, that if any of us refuse to take advantage of these better means of edification now to be placed so easily within our reach, our guilt will be much greater than ever. I will try, with God's help, to make a right use of them myself; and not only that, but to persuade my neighbours also, as well as I can, to do the same; lest we should fall under this condemnation. G.-Indeed I do. But if it be only a small number-a little flock, it is a blessed thing to be one of that flock which abides in the right fold, however little it may be. To keep with the church which is a true branch of that which was founded by Christ and his Apostles, is no small benefit. In that case we are sure that our sacrifices of prayer and praise will be accepted before God, if only we will endeavour to present them in faith, and with a true heart. We have this in our favour, we do not forget that the Scripture teaches us, that there is one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, and that we should endeavour to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of hearts, by desiring to know and do peace. M.-This has been too much overlooked even by good people. It is clearly our duty to strive to be united as one brotherhood, one household, one flock and fold, one city compact together. "There's another point to be borne in mind," added Goodman, "and it is a serious consideration.The more opportunities and means of grace we have, the more God will expect us to profit by them. This new church will prove not only to some a great help to their advancement in the way of godliness and salvation; but to others, to those who neglect it, a cause of much sorer judgment. I pray "That's a good resolution," replied Goodman, " and I desire to make the same myself. And let us remember too, that God is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. All mere formal worship, the drawing nigh to God with the lips while the heart is far from Him, is vain. We must be mindful of his presence, and sanctify Him in our his will, and to show ourselves thankful for his unspeakable mercies in Christ Jesus. But it is now grown late, and I must be hastening home to assemble my young family for a little reading and familiar instruction, and for prayer, before they retire to rest. So farewell, God bless you. ON PRIDE. Though various foes against the truth com- Pride above all opposes her design; Would hiss the cherub Mercy from the CORRESPONDENCE. ON THE ORIGIN AND MANNER OF SUBSCRIP TION TO THE ARTICLES. In Rev. T. Lathbury's History of Convocation, c. vi., I find that in A. D. 1552, the forty-two Articles of Religion, "to root out the discord of opinions, and establish the agreement of true religion," which had been drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley, with the assistance of some other divines," and prepared by the Archbishop, though not debated in convocation," yet sanctioned and subscribed by both houses." (pp. 144, 145.). It does not appear that any other persons were required to subscribe them. 66 were both houses of convocation, as the forty-. two had been in the time of King Edward. The Articles were accordingly published by authority, after thy had been subscribed by both houses of convocation." (Lathbury, p. 165.) DEAR SIR,-As you have kindly inIn A. D. 1571, the next important serted some papers of mine on the sub- meeting of convocation took place. ject of clerical subscriptions, perhaps Mr. Lathbury observes, "In this asyou will also allow me to set before sembly, the Thirty-nine Articles were your readers the following remarks on read, and again solemnly confirmed and the various changes made in forms of subscribed by both houses. . . . Further subscription, from time to time, as far it was ordered, that the Articles should as I have been able to trace them. Ibe read four times every year in every do so through the medium of a letter, parish, and that in future no one should as my information is rather scanty, and be admitted to holy orders until he had perhaps some of your readers may be solemnly subscribed them, It was able to add a little more. ordered, also, that all the members of the lower house, who had not subscribed formerly should subscribe now. The Articles were now published in Latin, and English, as they had been in 1562. It seems, however, that the clergy were not enjoined subscription until this time. By the Canons passed in this convocation. . . the Bishops were ordered to demand,the licences of the clergy, and not to restore them until subscription to the Articles had been enforced. This measure was offensive to some of the clergy, whose views were opposed to full conformity, and the year 1571, is by some writers termed the woful year of subscription. From that period the Articles have been subscribed by all clergymen at ordination, or being licensed to a cure, and at institution to a benefice." (c. vii., pp. 173, 174.) In Bishop Mant's Prayer Book, at the conclusion of the Articles, is a valuable passage from Bishop Burnet, which ends as follows: "The statute of the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, [i. e. 1571,] which gives the legal authority to our requiring subscriptions, in order to a man's being capable of a benefice, requires that every clergyman should read the Articles in the Church, with a declaration of his unfeigned assent to them. These things make it appear very plain, that the subscriptions of the clergy must be considered as a declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to silence." (pp. 920, 921.) In 1571, subscription to the Articles was thus enforced; and though subscription to the Liturgy was not as yet required, Between Queen Elizabeth's accession and the first convocation in her reign, more than two years elapsed: "and as nothing could be set forth by due authority till it was settled by the synod, the Archbishop and Bishops of both provinces agreed upon eleven Articles*, as a public profession of faith, which were to be subscribed by all the clergy, and read in their respective churches." (Lathbury, c. vii., p. 164.) Mr. Lathbury then gives a summary of their contents. Of course these Articles remained in force only until the 39 Articles were established by authority, viz., in the next convocation, A. D. 1562. It was in this assembly that the Articles of 1552 were revised and reduced into their present form and number. "When completed, the Articles were solemnly subscribed by The 7th declared, that the Book of Common Prayer was 66 agreeable to the Scriptures," &c. yet the Queen was determined to enforce conformity to the use of certain habits such as capes, &c. (See Rev. C. Benson's excellent pamphlet, "The Rubrics and Canons Considered," J. W. Parker; pp. 21-27.) This caused the first visible schism among the Protestants of England. "The entire se paration of the Puritans from the Church, was the direct issue of this controvery. Questions of Church government were very soon associated with the habits. The first formal se paration seems to have taken place about the year 1572, in the establishment of a Presbytery at Wandsworth." (The Churchman's Monthly Review, for May, 1844; p. 345, note.) Possibly the objections to subscription to which Mr. Lathbury alludes, may also have had some influence in bringing matters to this crisis. As to the convocation of 1585, Mr. Lathbury remarks, "The complaints and petitions exhibited in this convocation, prove that some of the clergy were very negligent in conducting Divine service. In short, Puritanism was advancing among the clergy to a considerable extent." After specifying some of these irregularities, he continues, "These complaints are clear evidence of the irregularities which prevailed; and they further prove that the charge of undue severity in pressing conformity is not correct." (c. vii., p. 187.) This refers to Archbishop Whitgift, who in 1583 succeeded Archbishop Grindall, under whom, another writer observes," entire conformity was more distant than ever," but that under Whitgift, things took another turn. He pressed the subscription of the Article, afterwards incorporated in our 36th Canon, which was quoted in the beginning of this essay, [i. e. the 2nd Article of it]; he enacted conformity with a strictness before unknown-unknown, i. e. while the framers of the service-book themselves lived to govern the Church." (Rev. J. C. Robertson's, How shall we conform to the Liturgy? Introduction, p. 17.) Mr. Lathbury, in another place, when speaking of the three Articles of the 36th Canon, says, "Whitgift had previously introduced them at a period 66 when Puritanism was making considerable progress among the clergy, and they are now embodied among the Canons." (c. viii., pp. 197, 198.) I cannot ascertain from these statements, whether the 2nd Article only, or all three of this Canon, had been adopted by Archbishop Whitgift; nor whether the use of this form was sanctioned by convocation, or not, prior to 1604. Since, however, I see in Mr. Lathbury's work, that in 1572 (p. 182), and in 1584 (p. 185); and in 1597, (p. 190), certain Canons were agreed upon in convocation, which Canons were especially regarded in the compilation" of those of 1604, though "some new ones were added," (p. 194) it seems likely that it had this sanction, and, with many of the rest, was incorporated into the code of Canons of 1604, where it stands as the 36th, "The canons, in the reign of Elizabeth, were confirmed for her life only." (Ibid. p. 194, note.) Mr. Robertson remarks that in enforcing confcrmity, Whitgift "was followed by his successor, Bancroft, (1604.) to whom is ascribed the chief share in drawing up the Canons of 1604." (p. 17.) The declaration on institution to a benefice, of "unfeigned assent and consent" to the Liturgy, was first enjoined by the Act of Uniformity in 1662.* The 36th Canon directs the following form of subscription to be used; “I, A. B. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these thrce Articles above mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them." The present form is as follows, "I, A. B. do willingly, and from my heart, subscribe to the 39 Articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, and, to the three Articles in the 36th Canon and to all things therein contained." This is the form given in "Instructions to be observed by candidates for Holy orders in the Diocese of London," and in Rev. J. L. Sisson's Questions and Instructions for Candidates, p. xvi. The substitution of "from my heart," for "ex animo," I noticed in my second paper at p. 66, cọl. conform "to the Liturgy of the Church In the Act of Uniformity, it is to of En-land;" but now to that "of the United Churches of England and Ireland. should also observe, that the Royal Declaration prefixed to the 39 Articles was made by Charles I., and was first prefixed to them in the edition published in 1628, under the superintend ence of Archbishop Laud. See Lathbury's History of Convocation, c. vii. p. 178, and Bishop Mant's Prayer Book, p. 866. 2; but when the addition was made to | Book at the last review in 1661. I the form I cannot ascertain; nor do I know when the oath of canonical obedience was enjoined. The declaration of conformity to the Liturgy, as now by law established, was first enjoined in one of the declarations in the Act of Uniformity of 1662; but I cannot ascertain when it was abridged* to its present form. I may remark that both the 36th and the 14th Canons, as they stand in the code of 1604, refer to the Liturgy in its state at that time; and consequently they must be now used by accommodation, (so to speak,) or rather be explained by the Act of Uniformity of 1662. to refer to our present Liturgy. (See Sharp's Charges, No. V. pp. 87, 88; and No. vi. pp. 99, 100.) On the same principle the passage in the Preface, which I quoted in my first paper, (pp. 35, 36,) as a paraphrase of the 36th Canon, though it is used primarily as referring to the Liturgy of 1604, ("the Book, as it stood before established by law,") yet is just as applicable to our present Liturgy, since it requires for the former Liturgy "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;" hence our present Liturgy is also included. This Preface was, as I before remarked, added to the Prayer * Since this form stood originally as part of a declaration against "the solemn league and covenant, (See p. xix. of Bishop Mant's Prayer Book) there seems to be some ground for the Bishop of Worcester's remarks, that this declaration implies a promise "to use in general that form [i. e. in the Prayer Book] in the administration of the Church Services, rather than the missal of the Roman Catholics, on the one hand, or the Directory of the Puritans, on the other hand." (Charge of 1842, p. 9.) "What is required by such a declaration is, an honest and conscientious conformity to the Liturgy of our Church, in opposition to other forms of worship." (p. 11.) Though I think this prelate gives the true explanation of this declaration, yet I think his view of the others seems too lax, as it might be taken unfair advantage of. From these remarks it will, I think, appear, that the primary authority of the 39 Articles which has been contended for in my papers, appears from history as well as internal evidence, since subscription to the Liturgy would not have been required but for the unwarrantable deviations from it on the part of certain Puritans. It must be remembered, that when the declaration in the eleven Articles that it was " agreeable to the Scriptures," was to be made, the 39 Articles had not been agreed upon; these were intended to supersede the 11 Articles; or rather the twelve, since there appears to have been a twelfth which, however, was only a general acknowledgment of the preceding Articles. Consequently the remark in "Modern Puritanism,' ""that the Thirty-nine Articles are not articles of faith,”* (!) and are quite subordinate to the Liturgy, since they do not appeal to it, because they pre-suppose it," (p. 30) is (to use the writer's own remark on Mr. Yorke), " a gratuitous assumption," (p. 37). Irish Canons, I am unable to furnish As I do not possess a copy of the the forms of subscription used in that Church. In Bishop Jebb's Pastoral Instructions, p. 227, I see a portion of the 32nd Irish Canon is quoted, declaring that no person can be received into the ministry, &c., "unless he shall first, by subscription, declare his consent to the first four Canons ;" and that 39 Articles, declares, "If any shall the first of these referring to the hereafter affirm that any of those articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated," (p. 227, *What says the first Irish Canon ?" |