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. Brompton , Whitsuntide , 1863. My dear Lord , If twenty years ago, soon after a few of the clergy had asserted their “c

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

The object, my Lord, of the rising movement against “Subscription,” here appears to be of a purely preliminary character.  It is expressly cleared of all connexion with special grievances.  “Revisions” are to stand over.  These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p. 4).  Meanwhile, it is not against the “Articles” only that the feeling is to be stirred, but “Subscription” to the whole Prayer-book, and even to the Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated.  Indeed, it seems to be mainta

The Relaxation of Subscription appears, as far as I can gather, to be urged by three arguments,—the first founded the origin of the “Subscriptions” among us after the Reformation; the second, on the alleged absence of “Subscription” in the Primitive Church; and the third on the practical evils of the present state of “Subscription” in the Church and in the Universities.  If I examine each of these, I shall not, I think, have omitted any point hitherto prominently alleged in this controversy. I. 

II.  I pass, then, to the next point—the alleged absence of Subscription in the primitive age.  Not content with the reference to the history of our own Church, Dr. Stanley says:—“I will not confine myself to these isolated instances, but examine the history of Subscription from the first.  For the first three centuries the Church was entirely without it .” “The first Subscription to a series of dogmatical propositions as such was that enforced by Constantine at the Council of Nicæa.  It was the

III.  I now, my Lord, must pass to the third topic, in the consideration of which I thought to include all that remains in Dr. Stanley’s pamphlet which could be supposed by any to be of argumentative value—viz., the alleged practical evils of “Subscription” in the Church and the University.  Here I feel that our English people will take a deeper interest in the matter, than in any antiquarian or historical disquisitions; and here Dr. Stanley and his friends speak with a confidence which with man

(4.)  In discussing the “practical evils” of Subscription, I observe that Dr. Stanley occasionally singles out parts of our “Formularies,” as involving special difficulty, and embarrassing “subscribers” in a more painful way than others.  More than once he mentions the Creed of St. Athanasius as a peculiar hardship.  In the first place, he somewhat roughly and unfairly charges falsehood on the Article for calling it St. Athanasius’s (p. 13); but surely he would not mean to charge falsehood on th

It has been seen that the “Comprehension” scheme of the Revolution,—the design of the English Reformation,—and the custom of the Early Church, which had all been appealed to, all fail to give the least support to the theory of license now put forward.  It has been seen, that no real argument against Subscription has been deduced from the practice of it among ourselves, or from the character of our Formularies.  I might have gone farther.  I might have marked the Providential nature of the events

A solemn future, it may be, is before us as a Church.  You have come, my Lord, to the government of this great central Diocese at a crisis unparalleled in our history.  The eighteenth century was a great truce of principles.  The truce was probably broken in 1829; efforts were made to re-establish the truce once more, but not with much success.  The Established Church, seemed hastening to become an established theory only.  But new life from God entered into her.  She again delivered her message