faith” (the “Habitus Fidei” of the Schools), he must own, therefore, that saving faith, however unintellectual, is, as I said, orthodox.  To “hold the Faith” is one thing; to apprehend its intellectual expression is another.  And if all this be undeniable, what sad unreality it is, to write and speak, as so many do of the Athanasian Creed, as if it required a comprehension of all the terms which it uses!—instead of a pure “holding” of the Truth, which it would explain to all capable of the explanation.

I have dwelt at this length on a single point because, even in our journals and periodicals, so much obstinate nonsense—pardon me, my Lord, for such plainness—is frequently uttered against a Creed to which, under God, England now probably owes her undeniably deep faith in the Trinity.—To sign the Athanasian Creed being thus beyond dispute to sign the Doctrine, and not to say that each expression of it is infallible, or down to the level of all men, there can be no more objection to Subscription of that Creed, than of the Apostles’ or the Nicene.

Equivocal subscribing.

(5.)  Yet one more “evil” alleged to flow from the present practice of “Subscription” must be noticed,—the necessity which it throws on all of us to sign in a qualified, and therefore not straightforward sense.  “From the Archbishop in his palace at Lambeth to the humblest curate in the wilds of Cumberland,” says Dr. Stanley, “all must go out,” if only the “obvious” and “natural” meaning of the whole Prayer-book be insisted on.—I really feel, my Lord, on reading these words, very much as I should on hearing from a foreigner anything very ultra and impossible about England—e.g., that “we have no religion at all in England;” (we are told, indeed, that in Spain we are thought to be an infidel people).  The only answer, in such case, is to inform the foreigner as to the facts; point to our churches, our schools, our parishes, our homes.  In truth, Dr. Stanley here seems to me to write like one who does not know us at all.  I say for myself (and I believe that thousands would do the same), that I subscribe both Articles and Prayer-book in their obvious, easy, and most congruous sense, and believe them to express, if not always in the words which I should have chosen, yet always in suitable words, my inward convictions of Christian truth.  Indeed, my Lord, I can understand nothing else.  I have moved very freely for many years among my brethren, and I can but say that my experience of them as a body does not in any degree correspond with the representation which Dr. Stanley makes, which I think will surprise both our friends and our enemies.  I can do no more, of course, than simply protest [36] against it with all my heart; believing fully that when the Articles and the Prayer-book are interpreted, not with “Chinese” perverseness, but honestly and humanly, they are ordinarily found accordant with reason, with Scripture, and with themselves.

The possible haste with which Dr. Stanley seems to have written, may account, perhaps, for statements so unqualified as these, and some others that he has made.  Indeed, there are things put out in the Letter which can only be thus explained.  I refer, for instance, to such assertions as that, (p. 4) which,—forgetting the whole calendar of Lessons, (and also the Article vi.), says,—“The Articles and Liturgy express no opinion as to the authorship of the disputed [37] or anonymous books of Scripture,”—and then in a note mentions the “Visitation of the Sick” as the only portion of the “Liturgy” (sic)—which refers a disputed book (the “Hebrews”) to its author; though the service for Holy Matrimony equally refers that Epistle to St. Paul.  Or, as another instance, I may name Dr. Stanley’s conceiving the indiscriminate use of our Burial Service to imply some theory about the happiness of all hereafter.  (So I understand him, at least, p. 19.)—Or, yet another; his supposing (p. 45) that the description of our “Canonical Books” as those of whose authority there was no doubt “in the Church,” could possibly mean “no doubt in the minds of any individuals!”  But, my Lord, my object is not to find fault with any one; I had to show, as I hope I have shown, the fallacy of the grounds on which the surrender of Subscription to the Prayer-book has been urged.

Summary.

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 which held our vessel by the anchor of Subscription, at a time when it must have otherwise drifted on rocks.  I might have pointed to the unhappy results which thus far have attended relaxations of Subscription, in a change of tone among a large number of the younger members of the Church and the University, and an acknowledged failure at length of the supply of candidates for Holy Orders.  But there is no need that I should enlarge on details which are patent to all observation.  It is becoming that I should bring these remarks to a conclusion.

I should be sorry, indeed, my Lord, if it could be thought from my deprecating the proposed abolition of Subscription, that I regard the condition of the Church among us as a normal or satisfactory one.  But I feel, as thousands do, that whatever changes may lie before us, they should be towards increased organization of our Body; while the present proposal would disorganize us at once, and break away the traditions by which, in an undisciplined age, Providence protected us.  This proposal, I am aware, unhappily falls in with the spirit of our times—a spirit of independence and freedom, rather than of holiness and faith, and therefore I fear that it will find a wide advocacy among those who desire not the maintenance of our Church’s distinctive position among the Churches of Europe.  Your Lordship’s eloquent hope—admirable and strong—that we may yet “maintain that Eternal Truth of which the Church is the depository, and that Form of sound words in which that Eternal Truth has been handed down,” I fain would share.  But I stand in doubt.  I feel very much like one who is asked to take leave of a peaceful abode—a haven of long Providential refuge; and I take, perhaps, a partial, because parting look at the solid advantages hitherto secured—the homely, perhaps, but very real blessings of a Fixed Faith for our people in general, with Means of Grace, capable of enlargement everywhere according to our need, venerable Traditions protecting our noble