and clergy, with terror,—it might have been easy to do without such Subscriptions as now attempt to guard the orthodoxy of our people.  So again in the Pre-Reformation Church; the organization of the hierarchy, and the necessary submission of the people, might often render Subscriptions more than superfluous—unintelligible.  Let those who would take away the present Subscription to our Prayer-book, restore to us, in a fair measure, the active Discipline of the Apostolic and post Apostolic times, and I for one will thankfully hail the change.  But to ask to return to the “first three centuries,”—bristling as they do with canons, synodical and episcopal letters, and declarations,—because a volume was not then presented for the signature of every candidate for Orders,—is as reasonable as it would be to propose now to abolish printing, and go back to the simplicity and “freedom” of oral instruction and the scantiest of manuscript literature.  There is no fallacy more glittering, but none more unworthy, illogical, and self-condemning than that of false historical parallel.  And I again must ask your Lordship, whether Dr. Stanley’s appeal to the Primitive History has not wholly failed?—I have briefly shown that Constantine was not the originator of Subscriptions to creeds or canons, but that subscribing or professing dogmatic assent was a Christian custom of the earlier ages.  It is plain to every one who knows the history, e.g., of a great bishop like St. Cyprian or St. Irenæus, or of a great writer like Tertullian or Origen, that to guard dogmatically against heresy, by every means in their power, was the predominating idea of their whole course, however imperfectly attained; and they would have been utterly astounded if any one had foretold that in a future age of the Church, when all Discipline had been destroyed among Christ’s people, a Professor of History would appeal to their example as a justification of the proposal to excuse all ministers of Christ from signing any Articles of Faith!

Roman Catholic Subscription.

But when we are even told by Dr. Stanley (p. 36, n.) that, “from the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church no declaration of belief is required at their Ordination,” we almost cease to be surprised at his allegations respecting the ante-Nicene age.  One would have thought it very little trouble to look into the present Roman Pontifical, and see the service for Ordination of Priests, before making any such statement.  Unless Dr. Stanley’s copy is very different from mine—(Antverpiæ Ex-officina Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti, 1663)—he will read thus:—

“Pontifex, accepta mitra, vertit se ad presbyteros ordinatos qui ante altare coram ipso stantes profitentur Fidem quam prædicaturi sunt, dicentes Credo, &c., &c.”

Protestant Subscriptions.

I think that I need add no more on this head: but I will refer to the Subscriptions of Protestant Churches, before I pass on.  It is very commonly said at present that “Subscription” does not secure the Uniformity of opinion which it aims at, and thus shows itself to be as useless as it is vexatious,—(as if, forsooth, any one supposed that absolute uniformity of thought could be attained by any means in the world).  Dr. Stanley has not omitted this; but once more I must hold him to facts.

“It was one of the misfortunes,” (he says, p. 36) “incident to the Reformation, that every Protestant Church by way of defending itself against the enemies that hemmed it in, or that were supposed to hem it in on every side, was induced to compile each for itself a new Confession of Faith.”—This is scarcely doing justice to our Protestant friends, in limine.  They had to do something more than defend themselves against enemies; they had to form some bond of union among themselves.  If they were not to be merely scattered units, to be attracted in time to the largest bodies near them, they were obliged to find some principle of cohesion among themselves; and they who refuse to allow them to make “articles” or “confessions” ought in charity to suggest some other plan.  To have separated from a compact body like the Roman Church and profess nothing positive, was surely an impossible course.—But Dr. Stanley further says, “The excess of Subscription on the continent over-leaped itself and has led to its gradual extinction, or modification.” (p. 37.)

It seems to me a very narrow philosophy which thus disposes of so great a fact as this, that “every Protestant Church” had this sort of instinct of life and self-preservation.  Is it not as legitimate at least to infer that there may have been something in the very nature of things to prompt this unanimity of action?  And is there no lesson to be learned from the undoubted fact that none of the Protestant communities have preserved their original standard, but have descended towards neology everywhere in proportion as “Subscription” has been set aside? and that the Church of England has for three hundred years exhibited a singular uniformity of belief, while maintaining her Subscriptions?  Practically, I see nothing, then, in the example of Foreign Protestantism to encourage the proposed relaxation; but everything the reverse.  Even the small and diminishing bodies of Nonconformists in England have failed, (notwithstanding their gaining in orthodoxy by their proximity to us), to keep up their reputation,—as their ablest men allow.  But what would have been their condition, if, like ourselves, they had had no Discipline? [24]  Surely in their efforts at holy Discipline they all bear a witness for Christ which puts us to shame.

Let Dr. Stanley, if he can, find any Christian body without Discipline—without Confessions, without Articles, without Subscriptions, which has been able to preserve itself at all; for until he does so, we must tell him that all the facts are against him.

Alleged practical evils of Subscription.

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 many will pass at once for demonstration.  And if there were grounds to suppose that a method of Subscription, like ours, worked such mischief as they say who call for this change, no traditions of the Revolution, or of the Reformation, or of the Primitive Church, ought to tempt us to retain it.  But let us not put the matter in an unreal light, while pretending to go back to former and better days.  Freedom to think as you please in Religion, while retaining your place in the Church, was never conceded at any of the times to which Dr.