Certainly these requirements stand out in formidable array. We see that they were imposed at various times during a period of rather more than a hundred years. To take the most favourable view of them, they were created to meet some great error of the times, some heresy in doctrine, or some lawless practice. They are not to be condemned on that account; for the same heresies may still exist, and similar lawlessness and contempt of authorities may return. "Dogmatic tests," Professor Espin remarks in a sermon preached before the University of Oxford in January last,* "are always the work of restless times; they are the fruit, often the only durable fruit, of controversies. While men are peaceable, while they either do not differ, or, though differing, work and worship together in love, to invent such tests would be wicked." Yet no Church has ever known so peaceable a history as not to require articles of subscription, and these not merely articles of peace. In a national Church the terms should be few and well defined; otherwise, in a free country of fearless discussions, there will either be a criminal laxity within. the Church amongst those who subscribe, or else a widespreading dissent. The subscriptions demanded by the Church of England are certainly cumbrous, and are some of them unnecessary. Do not some of them injure the very cause they were intended to promote-that of uniformity in religion? We will endeavour calmly to review these questions. And in

Clerical Subscription and the Act of Uniformity. A Sermon preached before the University of Oxford by the Rev. T. E. Espin, B.D., &c. With notes. Rivingtons, London. 1864.

doing so, we shall set aside much that might be said, and said with truth, by way of apology, even for the most objectionable of these requirements. Enough has been done in this way, however, to answer, if not to silence, the most bitter of our opponents. But we are not satisfied with triumphs such as these. If we can, without injury to the Church, remove any. thing which defaces it in the estimation of its own members, or facilitates a return to it on the part of those who have forsaken its communion, our efforts will have been made in a higher and nobler work.

These

Let us first turn our attention to the oaths required. are four in number. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy, the oath against simony, and that of canonical obedience. It was admitted at the time by all mercantile men, that the greatest moral benefit Sir Robert Peel conferred upon his country was the abolition of custom-house oaths. They were felt to be not only pernicious but degrading, while their utility was more than questionable. Their removal was a concession not only to the conscience, but to the honour of the whole mercantile community. Many of the clergy now feel disgraced by these frequent demands for another oath, and many of the laity feel disgraced on their behalf. Is not the word of a clergyman sufficient? Would not a written declaration answer all the purpose in the majority of these instances? Why are the teachers of religion to be mistrusted, or treated like men suspected of thoughtless conduct or more culpable equivocation? And this at the moment of their ordination, or of their induction into the actual charge of a portion of Christ's flock? But supposing the oath of supremacy to be retained, why insist upon that of allegiance, now that there is no disputed succession to the throne? There was a time in our history when both of the oaths were necessary, but that is not likely to return. In the reign of Elizabeth there were multitudes who professed to have abandoned popery, but who still retained the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. And again, after the Restoration, it is asserted, though with less evidence, that many false-hearted men, papists in disguise, crowded into the ministry of the Church of England. Then no doubt the oath of supremacy was a necessary test. Nor are we disposed even now to do away with this solemn protest against the monstrous usurpation of the Church of Rome. The evil may re-appear in our own time; indeed it has re-appeared in the insolent claim of Cardinal Wiseman to "govern"-that is, to re-establish the canon law of Rome over-certain parts of England. But the oath of allegiance to the reigning sovereign seems quite unnecessary. Should such a calamity as a disputed succession arise, it can only be in some future generation, who may safely be left to provide for their own safety. The oath against

simony Paley long ago described as a trap for the consciences of the clergy. We sincerely hope that it will be entirely done away, and that the laws regarding simony will be amended or repealed. As they now stand, we believe that they are not called for by any injunctions of Holy Writ, and that the repeal of them would instantly be productive of great benefit to the whole Church. Morally, the distinction between the purchase of an advowson and of a presentation has but a weak foundation to rest upon. Why should the one be a crime, when the other is a legal transaction? And so of other distinctions, of which the laws against simony make so much, but of which we read nothing in the law of God. Indeed, our whole code of ecclesiastical law needs revision, and no part of it more than that which deals with what are called simoniacal contracts.

In

There remains the oath of canonical obedience, imposed by custom. We think a declaration ought to be sufficient. deed, without any declaration, the mere act of receiving ordination from a bishop, and taking orders in an episcopallyconstituted Church, involves the obligation to yield obedience to the superior. However, if it be thought necessary, let a solemn declaration of obedience in things lawful be made. We can see no reason why there should be added the solemnity of an oath. It is unnecessary. But there is another objection. What is the meaning of canonical obedience? and how far does it extend? Not to all that a bishop may command; for this would reduce the clergy to a state of military discipline. But we need not argue against a claim which has very seldom, if ever, been seriously maintained. Does it then oblige the clergy to implicit obedience to all the canons? This position, too, is now abandoned; for of the canons some are obsolete and some contrary to statute laws. Shall we say, then, that the oath binds the clergy to the observance of all the canon law? This would seem more probable. But again, neither the bishops nor the clergy, with every disposition to do so, can really ascertain, in many cases, what is canon law, and what is not. And our most learned civilians, as we have lately seen, are frequently at fault, even upon the most important points. In short, one of the most difficult subjects with which the Royal Commission will have to deal, is this of canonical obedience; and the difficulty will remain, whether the oath be retained or not, until the canon law, no less than the laws affecting simony, shall be revised, and adapted to the necessities of modern times.

But let us now turn to the subscriptions and declarations to be made.

Subscriptions are necessary for the protection both of the laity and clergy. The laity have a right to demand that their

spiritual guides shall teach no other doctrines than those which the Bible and the Church teach. The clergy have a right to know, that while their ministrations are confined within this boundary, they are safe from interference. But it is for the interest of both parties that the obligations which the Minister undertakes should be few in number, clearly expressed, and easily understood. They should not be such as to create a needless scruple in his own mind, or to be perplexing even to a simple-minded hearer. If an official be held by too many bonds, he is apt to be looked upon like the men in our dockyards who work in fetters. The suspicion arises, that if he could he would make his escape. His integrity is tacitly impeached. Yet, on the other hand, if he has entered into no compact with the Church he serves, the laity are at his mercy; he may exercise over them a spiritual despotism. Mr. Espin has stated this well in his sermon, which we have already noticed.

"The laity are awake to the fact, that the liberty of the clergy is their own slavery, if by liberty is meant the absence of any effective guarantee as to what the teaching of the clergy shall be. The church laity remark that they have not that control in this matter, which is in the hands of their Non-conformist brethren. The latter, if their pastor go astray, recall him promptly to the terms of his bargain with them; and do it by arguments as cogent as those of the mediæval or modern Papal Church. No such power is given to our congregations, nor is desired by them; but they will in lieu of it expect to retain that assurance which they have, as to the doctrine they shall listen to, and the ceremonies they shall observe."

We have admitted that the subscriptions and declarations now required are cumbrous, and in several cases redundant, and therefore evidently superfluous. Let us take one example. The thirty-sixth canon embraces three articles; the first is a declaration, almost in the words of the oath of supremacy, that the King's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, &c.; secondly, that the book of Common Prayer " contains nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that he himself will use it and no other;" and thirdly, that "he alloweth (or approves of-allaudat) the Thirty-nine Articles as agreeable to the Word of God." Subscription to these is made at ordination by every clergyman. But this, it seems, is not sufficient; it is to be repeated when he comes before the bishop, to be licensed to any spiritual preferment. Nor is this enough. On taking possession of his charge, he must read the whole of the Thirty-nine Articles publicly, and also make a declaration of his assent to them. Thus, in taking possession of a benefice, he promises conformity to the Prayerbook twice, to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion three times; and since the Act of Uniformity of 1662, he is called

upon besides to declare "his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer." Those who advocate a revision of the tests may fairly ask, why the securities which satisfied the reformers should not be sufficient now? Or again, what is gained by repeated asseverations of the same thing made in the most solemn manner? We know their bad effect in common life. They have a much stronger tendency to raise doubts as to the sincerity of the person who thus clamours for our confidence, than to impress us with any high sense of his integrity. It appears to us that a subscription to the thirty-sixth canon and its three articles is all that is really required. And even here it is to be considered whether the canon might not be amended. There are expressions in it which have never ceased to give offence to some, and which are not in themselves important. For instance, that the Book of Common Prayer "containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God." All that is necessary might safely be expressed in general terms. Is it not enough to say that the book "may lawfully be used, and that he himself will make use of it in public prayer, and of none other"? Strong assertions create doubts; they are the parents of scrupulosity. We believe this single expression has led vast numbers to mark the difference between the Prayerbook translation of the Psalms and that in the Old Testament, and to ask whether a book containing what is well known to be the more imperfect version can be said, in strict truth, to contain nothing contrary to the Word of God. Who has not heard the question raised by well-affected churchmen, as well as by dissenters still more frequently?

Nor are these new objections; they have long rankled in the minds of many. In 1849, in a very thoughtful tract upon the subject, the concessions we now suggest were urged in "Considerations respectfully addressed to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England." The tract was anonymous, but it has since been acknowledged by the Rev. C. H. Davis, of Nailsworth. In words almost prophetic he wrote thus :

"These suggestions are respectfully submitted to the consideration. of the rulers of our Church, not from any personal disaffection towards our Church on the part of the writer, but rather from a wish to do her good service. When he calls to mind the fact, that a little timely concession would once have stemmed the tide of public opinion which ultimately forced on the Reform Bill,' so now, as an observer of passing events, he cannot but think that a little timely relaxation of the present terms of subscription would act as a kind of safety-valve, and perhaps save us from far more serious changes at some futureand perhaps not distant-period. For if we exclude from our service those honest sons of the Church, who can do anything in her behalf