dents, whether educated within the university or beyond her precincts. It is a question, too, whether the books and subjects for examination should not be fixed by the university authorities in perpetuity, and that the object should be to secure a fixed minimum of attainment in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, and in the leading branches of Christian doctrine, and of the ritual, discipline, and doctrine of the Church of England. The suggestion appears to us to be wise and good. We see no sufficient reason why the subjects of the examination should be altered from year to year. If the scheme should succeed, it will become too important to be left to the judgment of two or three examiners, or even to the votes of a senate house or convocation. It will concern the whole Church of England; for it will guide the studies, and ultimately affect the doctrine, of the whole body of the clergy. It should not be discursive, on the one hand; it must not be either superficial or partial, on the other. It ought to embrace some standard work of sound Protestant Evangelical theology, however brief it may be; such, for instance, as Noel's Catechism. But we must not expose ourselves to the charge of attempting to do that which we deprecate in others. The subjects for examination, if settled by men of large and comprehensive minds and true piety, will determine the doctrinal character of the Church of England. Nothing can be more worthy of the deep attention of our more learned readers, and of our bishops, the appointed guardians of the Church's purity and soundness in the faith.

We have not said much on the subject of personal holiness in our candidates. In truth, it is a point difficult to deal with. To teach a shibboleth is easy; and to induce young men of an amiable yielding temper to conform to it, is by no means difficult; and if this be sustained by good moral conduct, a reputation for piety is readily acquired. We fear that, in too many an instance, this is all the religion that young men, candidates for the ministry, professing evangelical principles, possess. And yet, what more can be done? Theological professors, and tutors in the provincial colleges, have some advantages above those of their brethren in the universities. The students are few; the arrangements are domestic rather than collegiate; they can make each student a personal friend; and, by their example and that of their households, they can teach more lessons of practical piety than can be learned from books. But after all, God only can reach the heart. Self-sufficiency is the bane of self-taught and half-taught young divines; God only can bring down this proud spirit, and "lay it low even with the dust." So too it is He alone who can quench, in our undergraduates, the soarings of ambition, or the pride of birth, and teach them that all are too mean to be

worthy of Him whom all the angels of God worship. The Church of England may surely take up her parable, and say, in her Master's words, "And now what could I have done for my vineyard more than I have done for it?" She has built the tower, and planted the hedge round about it. She has provided testimonials, drawn up in the most solemn form, to be signed by the authorities of the colleges at which her candidates are educated. She demands from three beneficed clergymen, who have known them intimately, similar testimonials. She challenges the whole parish in which they and their parents or friends reside, to gainsay, if they can, the truth of what friendly clergymen and colleges may have affirmed on their behalf; and after all, she is not satisfied until they have themselves declared that they "verily believe that they are moved by the Holy Ghost." If men can break through barriers such as these, whether to gain a position in life, or from whatever worldly motive, the guilt, which is surely a heavy load, must rest upon their own heads. It is for the Church at large to pray, as Peter did for Simon Magus, "that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them." Earnestly too, and constantly, should the prayer ascend from every Christian family, "Lord, send forth labourers into thine harvest." And from the assembled Church, "that He who hath purchased to Himself an universal Church by the precious blood of His dear Son, would mercifully look upon the same, and so guide and govern the minds of the bishops and pastors of the flock, that they may lay hands suddenly on no man, but faithfully and wisely make choice of fit persons to serve in the sacred ministry of the Church."*

CORRESPONDENCE.

ON CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR, The article on "Clerical Subscription in the Church of England," contained in a late number of the North British Review, deserves some attention, not only on account of its reputed authorship, but also as representing the views of that new school of thought rising in our midst the latitudinarian and rationalistic school-on a most important question of the day. Matters of moral obligation, indeed, are generally considered of so delicate and personal a nature, that most standers-by, unless asked for their opinion, and especially unless they have had practical experience of the matter in hand,

Prayer for the Ember weeks.

shrink from interference. Here, however, we have been favoured with some gratuitous and rather defiant advice. But from whatever quarter counsel comes, we are bound, as Christ's ministers, to give it our best consideration. I propose, therefore, to offer a few remarks suggested to my mind in the perusal of this article.

We must begin by observing, that the writer's aim is against subscription altogether. He does not state this directly indeed; but it is implied throughout. The whole scope of his argument is to invalidate all the reasons for subscription, and to provide nothing in its place. He speaks commendingly of "finding it impossible really to accept literally the theological creed which is imposed by subscription now in force." This is the ground taken up by the writer, and the difficulty he points to, as lying in the way-the theological creed-shows the extent of his proposal. We must note this well; for this is a very different affair from making some relaxation in subscription, for which many have pleaded, from Bishop Burnet's time to our own. Here we are invited, not to modify or correct, but to destroy, that which has been hitherto considered a necessary defence of our Established Church against the inroads of false doctrine and loose practice.

This, and nothing less, being the object of the writer, let us see what are the arguments for such a summary proceeding.

I. First, it is contended that subscription in the Church of England is without precedent. Subscription to articles of faith has been the exception, not the rule, of the Christian Church." This may be true verbally, but it is not so virtually. Were there any real value in this argument one way or the other, we might contend that an implied or expressed assent to a theological system has ever been required by the Church of her ministers. Indeed, this writer himself suggests that in ancient times other yet more stringent "means were in use to secure ecclesiastical orthodoxy." The creeds, which rose out of controversies from time to time, were of the nature of tests, and publicly and effectually shut out the heretics against whom they were levelled. The Articles of our Church are but an expanded creed made to meet the subtleties of anti-Christian error at the time of the Reformation. So that, essentially and virtually, we only follow in the wake of the Church in all ages, by demanding subscription of some kind.

II. Another objection raised by this writer is, that subscription is futile. He contends that it does not answer its end. It lets in the unscrupulous, and shuts out the scrupulous; it admits a very considerable diversity of opinion within the pale of the Church; the Ecclesiastical Courts are the only real restraints upon freedom of thought. Hence subscription is worthless. Now, it is surprising that such nibblings as these could be put forward as arguments. The best things may be abused. Granted that, in days past and present, there have been many thoughtless and unprincipled men who have taken this obligation upon them from improper motives, or at any rate from no proper motives; this is no argument against the thing, if it be right in itself. The profession of religion, baptismal undertakings, confirmation vows, would be open to the same objection. Besides, we ask, who is to say that this simple and voluntary

test has been of no value? A variety of opinions no doubt find shelter within the pale of the Church of England, but still there is some sort of limit. Unless men generally are really as wanting in principle as this writer takes them to be, but which we can never believe, many an unfit person has been deterred, by this outward expression of moral obligation, from entering the Church. What might we not have been, even now, without this safeguard? It is one thing to have a gate often broken down, but it would be far worse for the whole hedge to be removed. Something, at least, has had the effect of preventing anything like a body of Romish priests, of Deists, Arians or Socinians, of Anabaptists or Antinomians, from ever seizing upon our pulpits and sanctuaries. We may still point to the Church of England, as retaining hitherto the identical form and doctrine bequeathed to her three centuries ago: surely some of this happy effect is due to conscientious subscription. Indeed, but for this solemn act, we could not have even the mild measure of discipline now exercised in our Church. Without subscription, there would be no obligation; and without obligation, there could be neither Jaw nor punishment. Most surprising, therefore, it is that this writer should have spoken of the Ecclesiastical Courts as really doing the work which subscription professes to do. How could an Ecclesiastical Court act at all, except upon the moral and legal obligation which subscription to the Articles and Liturgy entails.

III. Another objection brought against subscription is, that it is indefensible in itself. It demands too much, or too indefinitely. "Liberal interpretations" have to be invented. A fair and literal subscription is rare, if not impossible. Now, this opens out into a very wide and difficult question, that of the construction and interpretation of writings.

The writer of the article before us has taken a very one-sided view of the engagement which we, as clergy, enter into. It is a view admirably suited to his purpose, but not in accordance with the facts of the case. After quoting the well-known formula of subscription, he continually insists upon one rule of "rigid literality" as applicable to it all. Now, we are not going to defend any "mental reservations" whatsoever. Let us have genuine subscription; but then, let us take care that we understand what is really intended in our ecclesiastical tests. Here, just as we do not admit "liberal constructions" on the one hand, so we cannot admit "rigid literalness," or always "accept literally," on the other hand. David says "he held his tongue before the wicked," but we all know what he meant. All the principles of metaphorical and technical language have been approved ages ago, and "common sense" and common usage taken to be safer guides sometimes than naked literalism. These universal canons of language are not to be lost sight of in understanding the Prayer-book. First, the book we subscribe to is to be looked upon as a whole, one part throwing light upon another, the Articles explaining the Liturgy, and one part of the Liturgy throwing light upon another. Secondly, the nature of devotional and sacramental language is always to be taken into account. No sentence, or part of a sentence, is to be insisted upon absolutely, but in its connexion and technical use. Dogmatic statements are to be found in the Articles indeed, for this is their inten

tion; but in prayers and services and catechisms, the law of literality gives way to an equally important principle of interpretationthat of an intelligent comprehension of the real object of theological language. Thirdly, the Prayer-book is to be understood, as every book must be, according to its own theory, as expressed in the preface. It demands for itself "such just and favourable constructions as in common equity ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the very best translations of the Holy Scripture itself." Now, these provisoes may be thought by theorists to throw open the door absurdly wide, and to make subscription entirely a matter of personal conscience before God; but practically we contend it has the best effect. At any rate, it shows us what may and must be taken into account in the requirements of our Church, and that her true intention in subscription is as just as it is gentle, and as fairly defensible from the charges of a cruel exaction on the one side, or of a loose and valueless form on the other, as she herself is.

IV. Once more, it is contended by this writer, that subscription is positively immoral. The writer affirms with some vehemence, that it is a question affecting "the morality of the clergy;" and adds, that "the heaviest charge against subscription is, that it offers to men the strongest temptation to commit an act of dishonesty by professing doctrines they do not hold.”

But, in the first place, we should like to know how he himself could get rid of this supposed immoral tendency. He proposes that every candidate for Orders should be admitted without subscription; and that we should trust to the honour of men, and the repelling effect of the positive teaching of the Church, for deterring improper persons from her pale. We see not how this would mend matters, or get rid of the temptation to dishonesty. For there would be a tacit undertaking, which might be just as easily evaded or slurred over, as when an outward expression of it was demanded. Do we not all, and especially the young, want our attention drawn to every moral obligation we place ourselves under, rather than any encouragement given to thoughtless steps in life? In fact, the immorality, if there is indeed any, in either case, belongs not to the Church in any sense, nor to the tests she exacts, but always to the state of mind and motive of the candidate himself. We contend that there is far less appearance of immorality in fairly warning men as to what they are expected to teach, than by inviting them to incur the most terrible responsibilities before God and man, with scarce a thought

about it.

But further-and this brings us to the main point at issue-the question as to which system is best calculated to uphold God's truth really settles the question of morality. It strikes us that the standingpoint of this writer is essentially a low and partial one, and his own view of moral obligations, therefore, very limited and oblique. We will say nothing of his tossing over with a bold air the experience of the past, and the objections of older and more far-seeing men. pass over the self-complacency that can ridicule "the wisdom of our ancestors," and declare without qualification "that there is nothing so fatal as the example of other people, especially of good people.'

We