{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49114/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49114","id":"gutenberg_49114","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49114","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church and college -- England -- History -- 19th century","Church of England -- Doctrines -- History -- 19th century","Church of England -- Liturgy -- History -- 19th century","Church of England. Book of common prayer","Church of England. Thirty-nine Articles","Dissenters, Religious -- England -- History -- 19th century","Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, 1815-1881. Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on the state of subscription in the Church of England and in the University of Oxford","University of Oxford -- Religion -- History -- 19th century"],"text":"credit\n\n\n\nTranscribed from the 1863 Rivingtons edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE PRAYER-BOOK AND\n                    ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\n\n                                 A LETTER\n                                  TO THE\n                          LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,\n                                    ON\n                        PROFESSOR STANLEY'S VIEWS\n                                    OF\n                 CLERICAL AND UNIVERSITY \"SUBSCRIPTION.\"\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                          WILLIAM J. IRONS, D.D.\n     PREBENDARY OF ST.  PAUL'S, AND INCUMBENT OF BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                      THEODORE WRIGHT, 188, STRAND;\n    RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; AND PARKERS, 377, STRAND, AND OXFORD.\n                                  1863.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n              SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,\n                              COVENT GARDEN.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nA LETTER,\nETC.\n\n\n                                            BROMPTON, _Whitsuntide_, 1863.\n\nMY DEAR LORD,\n\nIF twenty years ago, soon after a few of the clergy had asserted their\n\"claim to hold all Roman doctrine,\" {3} a proposal had been made to\nabolish Subscription to the English Formularies, it would surely have\nbeen thought to indicate very grave disloyalty to our Church.  And now,\nwhen others have asserted the right to unfettered \"free-thinking\" within\nher pale, and endeavoured to vindicate that right in our Courts of Law,\ncan we help being struck at the intrepidity of the demand to sweep away\nat once the sober restraints of orthodoxy to which Churchmen have been so\nlong accustomed?\n\nYour Lordship has been openly addressed, as we are all aware, in behalf\nof this \"Relaxation of Subscription;\" but as our Bishop--so deeply\ninterested in the welfare of the whole Church--I venture to believe that\nyou will do justice to opposite views, and in offering them to your\nattention, I rely on that broad-minded charity to various schools among\nus, which has marked your Lordship's administration of this diocese.\n\n\n\nDr. Stanley's position. {4a}\n\n\nThe eloquent advocacy of Dr. STANLEY on the other side is, indeed, no\nslight advantage to the cause of those who would now supersede the\nPrayer-book by \"modern thought.\"  In urging the surrender of all\nSubscription to our Formularies, he can speak, in his position, with a\n_prestige_ and power to which I can have no claim.  His testimony as to\nthe tone of mind now prevailing in Oxford, or among the younger clergy of\nthe last few years, it is not for me to impeach,--I must leave that to\nthe Bishop of Oxford; {4b} but certain of his deductions from very\nlimited facts, I may be permitted, I think, to call in question at once.\nAs one who, without belonging to any party, has had the happiness of much\nfriendship with all--as a Churchman, I may add, who has kept steadily to\nthe old Prayer-book from very early childhood till now--I have had large\nopportunities for many years of knowing the heart and mind of my brethren\nthe clergy, ten thousand of whom not long since responded to an appeal\nwhich I and others had been invited to make to them; and I confess that I\nam amazed at Dr. STANLEY'S supposition that Subscription is regarded as a\n\"grievance\" (p. 23), a \"perjury\" (p. 24), an \"absurdity\" (p. 20), or an\n\"imposition\" (p. 7) by any considerable number among us.  Allowing for\nsome irritable minds here and there, the generality have seemed to me to\nhave the deepest appreciation of the \"quietness and confidence\" which\nhave been, in the main, secured for our Church by the present laws, which\nsimply bind the clergy to say that they _believe_ the Prayers which they\nuse, and the Articles which they adopt as their \"standard.\"\n\nThus much I have felt compelled to say at the outset, because the\nopposers of Subscription assume that their clients are so numerous that\nto refuse their demands may be to endanger the Church herself.  True,\nthey generously disclaim all designs \"to revolutionize the Church of\nEngland\" (p. 6 of _The Letter_).  This is well; but I am far more assured\nby the belief that their power, as yet, is not so formidable as their\nintentions.  And with this preface, I would pass to the subject-matter of\nDr. STANLEY'S _Letter_.\n\n\n\n\nScheme of Comprehension.\n\n\nThe point of departure taken for the discussion is the REVOLUTION of\n1688, and the attempt then made at what was called \"Comprehension.\"  It\nis even suggested that the \"High Churchmen\" of those days agreed that the\n\"very being of our Church was concerned\" in abolishing \"Subscription,\"\nand substituting for it a general declaration of conformity.  The several\nattempts at \"Comprehension\" almost seem to be referred to as\nsubstantially one, and are recommended to us as if originated by enlarged\nand exemplary views of the Church's calling.  But, equivocations apart,\n(which would be wholly unworthy here), will this be gravely maintained?\nDid the \"Comprehension Scheme\" of 1674 receive no opposition from the\nChurch? or will not every one own that it was frustrated by the\nresistance of the Bishops?  Would Dr. STANLEY really say that the Scheme\n(not \"Act\") of 1689 was founded on a philosophy which would now command\nassent?  I suppose that he must say it, or how could he refer to it as\nour rebuke and pattern?  Yet it was, as he will not deny, a political\neffort directed against the Roman Catholics; and the reluctance of the\nclergy (even under all the pressure of the occasion) to fraternize with\nNonconformists, defeated the measure,--some of the principal\nCommissioners who had to manage it, such as the Vice-Chancellor of\nOxford, the Prolocutor of Convocation, and the Bishop of Rochester,\nopenly withdrawing from it.  I really can hardly conceive of a more\nunfortunate appeal to history.  To represent the clergy of all parties,\nand especially \"High Churchmen\" (p. 33), as approving, on liberal\nprinciples, of the proposed \"Comprehension,\" and covertly to suggest that\n\"Subscription\" was alien from the spirit of those enlightened days, is,\nto speak gently of it, quite \"unhistorical\"--(if I may so apply a now\nfamiliar term); nor can I forbear to point to the fact that even\nDissenters were required, by the Act of 1 William and Mary, cap. 18, to\n\"subscribe\" a declaration that \"the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New\nTestament were given by Divine Inspiration.\"  The parallel breaks down at\nevery point.  Of course, if any one really thinks that England is now in\ngreat danger (as in Sancroft's days) from the Popish encroachments of the\nCROWN, such an one is free to argue as Dr. STANLEY does.  If any suppose\nthat a Papal reaction among the populace is the present peril (as it was\nthought to be in Burnet's days), let them by all means fly to the\n\"remedial\" measures of that era.  But for a philosophical historian to\nquote, with admiration, Halifax or Nottingham, or refer to certain \"High\nChurchmen\" with approval, can but cause a smile. {7}\n\nIt was a popular beginning of this subject, doubtless, to invoke the\nmemories of 1688 and the \"Toleration Act,\" in order to recommend to\nEnglish people this proposal to destroy \"Subscription;\" yet it was\ndangerous.  For to have pursued the subject fairly from this point would\nhardly have assisted the views of the abolitionists.  The course of\nhistory would very soon have brought them to the great _Arian_ conspiracy\nof 1772, the next noticeable effort to set aside the Articles of the\nChurch.  This, however, is altogether avoided, as if it were unknown to\nDr. STANLEY; and he quickly goes back to the Reformation, and even to the\ntimes of the Primitive Church, to find arguments against \"Subscription\"\nin the abstract, (as well as against our special Anglican form of\nit,)--and, must I not say, to get out of the way of WHISTON, and the\n\"Feathers' Tavern\"?  Let us, then, be generous, and forgive the allusions\nto 1688, and forget all that followed, and endeavour to examine on its\nmerits the substance of the \"_Letter_.\"\n\n\n\n\"Relaxation\" a preliminary movement.\n\n\nThe object, my Lord, of the rising movement against \"Subscription,\" here\nappears to be of a purely _preliminary_ character.  It is expressly\ncleared of all connexion with special grievances.  \"Revisions\" are to\nstand over.  These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p.\n4).  Meanwhile, it is not against the \"Articles\" only that the feeling is\nto be stirred, but \"Subscription\" to the whole Prayer-book, and even to\nthe Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated.  Indeed, it seems to be\nmaintained that our present \"Subscription\" to the Articles does not\ninclude, as we had supposed, Subscription to the Bible at all.  The\nobjection, however, is scarcely raised in that form.  It is to\n\"Subscribing\" _per se_ that the repugnance is felt, as though there were\na morbid dread of \"putting the hand to paper,\"--such as we sometimes find\nin the uneducated classes.  And now it is not so much \"do not sign\n_these_ forms,\" as \"do not sign _any_ thing;\" and Dr. Whately, and\nArchdeacon Denison, and the friends of Mr. Gorham, Dr. Rowland Williams,\nand Mr. Bristowe Wilson, and Mr. Heath are, as I understand, urged for\nonce to agree to \"relax all subscriptions,\" that they may so be set at\nmore liberty to fight their mutual battles without hindrance.  Thus it\nis, wonderfully, to be claimed for members of a Christian Church, that\nthey should be positively pledged to nothing!\n\n\n\n\nRevision of Prayer-book.\n\n\nLord EBURY'S measure in the House of Lords did not go this length,\nbecause he had \"Revision\" more definitely in view; but his arguments\nagainst one form of Subscription are equally valid against all, so that\nits entire abrogation is, on his principles, only a question of time.\nThere is, however, substantial agreement.\n\nIt is most important that this should be understood, and that no false\nissue be raised: and this is why I speak of the present proposal as one\nfor the Surrender of the Prayer-book.  Dr. STANLEY would ask nothing so\nsmall as _altering_ Articles or Liturgy; a far simpler way he would show\nus.  Revision would be mere 'nibbling' while Subscription remained.  An\nAct of the Legislature might just \"prohibit,\" he says, (p. 32) all\n\"Subscription.\"--Are men, then, so eager for it, that prohibition must be\nresorted to?  He would not even leave it open to any one to sign; for\nthus he triumphantly proceeds:--\"_Not a word_ of the Articles need be\ntouched.  They would still be left as the exposition of the Faith of the\n_Church of England in the eighteenth century_!--as the _standard_ of its\nfaith at the present day.  _Not a word_ of the Liturgy need be touched.\nThere are, no doubt, changes which would be acceptable to many, but THEY\nMUST BE EFFECTED BY OTHER MEANS,\" (p. 33.)--Surely, said the wise man,\n\"in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.\"  To tell us\nbeforehand that we are to be coaxed into a general movement to get rid of\nSubscription, and, that being done, we must reckon on the subsequent\nchange of the Prayer-book \"by OTHER MEANS,\" seems so very like an insult\nto the understanding of men of all parties who believe anything, that I\ncan only explain it by calling to mind the proverbial blindness of genius\nwhen hotly hastening to its own object, and forgetting how it looks to\nall around.\n\nBut it may be said that I am overlooking that the Articles and\nPrayer-book, though not \"signed\" or \"subscribed,\" might still remain--at\nleast, for a time--as what is called the \"standard\" of our doctrine.  Let\nus inquire, then, what this means; for, unless we look it steadily in the\nface, we shall be deluding ourselves again by an ambiguous word.  It is\nsuggested by the passage quoted from Burnet (p. 7), and in the argument\nof Dr. STANLEY, that we English are generally governed in other matters\nby Acts of Parliament,--and why not in religion?  We are not expected to\n\"subscribe\" the law of the land, but simply to acquiesce, and submit to\nit.  It is not binding on the conscience, but only on external obedience.\nA man may stand up and read a Statute to others--and then argue against\nit.  While it exists as law, he must be judged and ruled by it; but he is\nfree to dislike it, and may labour to change it.  This is the parallel\nsuggested, or if it be not, I have no idea of what is intended; and I\nmust say, that when thus nakedly looked at, it is the most unveiled\nErastianism avowed in our times, if we except Mr. BRISTOWE WILSON'S in\nhis Essay.  It is what we might expect of Burnet, but scarcely of Dr.\nSTANLEY, to make the Prayer-book \"a legal standard,\" but not a matter of\nbelief: it simply astonishes us.  When a great statesman of the last age\ntold us that our religion was but a \"schedule of an Act of Parliament,\"\nwe could at least reply that \"ex animo\" Subscription makes it _our own_;\nbut to ask us now to take away even this, seems almost to sever all\nconnexion between the Church of England and the moral agency of her\nMinisters.  The Act of 1662, and its \"schedule,\" the Prayer-book, might\nbe our \"standard\" till the next session, and might claim as much\nreverence as any other old Act of Parliament,--but no more.  Put the\nwhole proposal, then, of Dr. STANLEY, and of Mr. WILSON, and others into\nplain English, and it is this--(and I ask to be corrected if I\nmisinterpret it)--\"_Let the clergy in future sign_ NOTHING, _but let them\nconsent to adopt and use what the_ PARLIAMENT _may from time to time\nauthorise_.\"\n\nThe object, then, being thus simplified, we need not here pause to\nestimate the excellences or defects of any of the formularies which we\nall alike have thought to be good enough to _sign_.  With more than\njudicial fairness, Dr. STANLEY admits that the whole Thirty-nine Articles\nare \"incomparably superior\" to the \"Nine Articles of the Evangelical\nAlliance\" (p. 11), or any that would be drawn up by \"the dominant\nfactions\" of our Church, _or Commonwealth_.  But this kind of criticism\nmay well be postponed till the prior question is disposed of--whether we\nshould \"sign\" _any_ thing?  When the Articles and Prayer-book come to be\nhereafter discussed, these details may have interest with some, as parts\nof the literature of the \"_Eighteenth Century_;\" but at present might it\nnot be disrespectful merely to glance at them in a sketchy way, to give\npungency and interest to a somewhat barren subject?  I do not say that\nthe highly rhetorical sentences in which praise and blame are judiciously\nadministered by Dr. STANLEY to Article 1, 5, 9, or 34, contribute nothing\nto the effectiveness of the pamphlet with the \"general reader;\" but it is\nobvious that with the argument, strictly speaking, they have nothing to\ndo.\n\n\n\nDr. Stanley's Three Arguments.\n\n\nThe Relaxation of Subscription appears, as far as I can gather, to be\nurged by three arguments,--the first founded the _origin_ of the\n\"Subscriptions\" among us after the Reformation; the second, on the\nalleged absence of \"Subscription\" in the Primitive Church; and the third\non the practical evils of the present state of \"Subscription\" in the\nChurch and in the Universities.  If I examine each of these, I shall not,\nI think, have omitted any point hitherto prominently alleged in this\ncontroversy.\n\nI.  \"The Church of England, as such, recognises absolutely no\nSubscriptions.\"  Such is Dr. STANLEY'S proposition (p. 38).  The tests of\nmembership are \"incorporated in the Services to the exclusion, as it\nwould seem, of all besides.\"  It is added (p. 39)--\"These other\nobligations were, in fact, _not contemplated_ at the time of the first\ncompilation of the Prayer-book and Articles, and have grown up as a mere\nexcrescence through the pressure of political and ecclesiastical parties.\nThe Articles were not subscribed (by anything like general usage) till\nthe 12th year of Elizabeth; they were then, after much hesitation and\nopposition, ordered to be subscribed for a special purpose,\" &c.\n\n\nThe Reformation.\n\n\nIs it possible to suppose that Dr. STANLEY means this for a fair\nrepresentation of the spirit and design of the Church of England, from\nthe beginning of the Reformation to the 12th year of Elizabeth?  He\nwrites as though the Articles were all really to be signed, and the\nPrayer-book all settled, and that the Church during all that time\ndeliberately intended to leave her members such freedom of opinion as he\nand others would now restore.  If he does not mean this, his argument\nfalls to the ground.  But what are the facts of the case?\n\nElizabeth ascended the throne at the close of the year 1558.  Every\nposition of trust throughout the country was then held by Roman\nCatholics.  The bishops and the clergy were generally devoted to Rome.\nThe Convocation met, in two months, and drew up Articles presented to\nParliament, which are described as \"flat against Reformation, and\n_subscribed_ by most of the University.\"  Even Cambridge is said to have\ngiven her approval.  At such a crisis, it was evident that some years\nmust elapse before any such Revision of Edward VI.'s Articles could be\nhoped for, as would obtain general consent.  But to represent this pause\nas a kind of freedom from \"Subscription\" enjoyed in earlier and more\nliberal times, to say that \"the Church,\" at least, was ignorant of this\ndevice, when \"Subscription\" to certain \"Articles\" was the first step\nwhich the Convocation and the Universities naturally took, immediately\nElizabeth came to the throne, surprises me beyond what I like to express.\nThe \"general reader\" is entirely at the mercy of so eloquent a writer as\nDr. STANLEY, and it is not too much to ask that he use his power with a\nlittle generosity; or if he will not, it becomes imperative that his\nrepresentations be translated into a humbler style, that the world may\njudge how they look.  The facts of the case are, in truth, opposed to all\nthat Dr. STANLEY'S argument requires.  Instead of the twenty years and\nmore, which preceded Elizabeth's 12th year, being years in which the\nChurch of the Reformation adopted laxity as its principle, the whole of\nthe period, from the beginning of the reign of Edward to the year 1571\n(with the exception of the brief interval of Mary's government), was\noccupied in a careful effort on the part of the Reformers to tie down\nboth clergy and laity by the strictest body of ecclesiastical law,\nperhaps, ever attempted to be enacted in the Christian world.\n\n\nThe Reformatio Legum.\n\n\nI refer, of course, to the \"Reformatio Legum.\"  The Archbishop of\nCanterbury, the subsequently-elect Archbishop of York, and certain\nsuffragans; great Reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Rowland Taylour;\nknown scholars, such as Sir John Cheke and Dr. Haddon, were engaged in\nthis business, which was looked to as the crowning act of the Reformation\nof Religion.  Archbishop Parker took up the work which Cranmer had begun,\nand even pressed it on the reluctant Queen as far as he dared.\n\n\nSubscription demanded in 1553.\n\n\nThe connexion of the _Reformatio Legum_ with the Articles of our Church,\nand the light which they throw on each other, I need not point out to any\nwho are acquainted with the history of our Church at that time.  The\nForty-two Articles, from which our Thirty-nine were, ten years\nafterwards, derived, were first published in 1553.  In the November of\nthe preceding year, Cranmer proposed that the bishops should have them at\nonce _subscribed_ throughout their dioceses.  The death of King Edward\nprevented this from being accomplished.  They were revised and subscribed\nby Convocation in 1563, in the name of the whole clergy of England.  The\nearly chapters of the _Reformatio Legum_ contain the doctrine of the\nArticles, and were, no doubt, intended to be an authorized exposition of\nthem.  How strict a system was meant to be inaugurated by the Reformers\nmay be judged by even a superficial perusal of that Book.  Heresy and\nblasphemy were to be punishable by death.  Adultery was to be visited\nwith imprisonment and even banishment.  Impenitent persons were to be\n\"handed over to the civil power.\"  All this was the sort of Discipline\nwhich was waiting to be put in force as soon as the Reformers could\npersuade the nation to bear it;--and yet this is the supposed time when\nSubscription was alien from the mind of the Reformed Church!\n\n\nTemporary restriction of the Clergy.\nSubscription in 1564.\n\n\nBut during this interval of twelve years, while the bishops were doing\ntheir best to bring the clergy and people to Uniformity, and preparing\nthem for the \"Discipline\" which was openly clamoured for, we find that\nimmediately after the Articles were published, \"advertisements\" came out\nby authority further to restrain the liberty of the preachers.  In 1564,\nthe clergy, who had by their proctors subscribed the Articles in\nConvocation, were required \"to protest and _subscribe_\" that they would\nnot preach at all without special license from the bishop, but \"only read\nthat which is appointed by public authority:\" and further, that they\nwould \"observe, keep, and maintain, all the rites, ceremonies, good\nusages and order\" set forth by the Act of Uniformity.  Here then was\n\"Subscription\" to the whole Prayer-book as it then stood.  And, indeed,\neven three years before, the \"readers\" in Churches were obliged, by\n\"Subscriptions\" to certain injunctions, to execute their office within\nprescribed and narrow limits.  The state of things doubtless was still\nfelt on all hands to be but provisional.  The great Roman Catholic party\nwaited, without separating formally.  The Puritans were stirring\nthemselves in the cause of \"Discipline:\" it was hoped by both parties\nthat some change might, from the lapse of a few years, better their\nposition.  The latter reckoned on the more aged of the old Popish Clergy\ndying out; the former were encouraged by a fanatical prophecy to expect\nthe death of the Queen herself in the twelfth year of her reign; but\nafter that time the Puritan and Popish parties became openly defined,\nwhile the Church had as yet no such \"Discipline\" as could hold her\nmembers together at all, except by the Court of Commissioners.  It was to\nrestrain both parties, then, that recourse was once more had to\n\"Subscription.\"\n\nCan there be need, my Lord, to pursue any further an inquiry into so well\nknown a piece of history as this?  I should not have said so much, had\nnot the Ecclesiastical History Professor declared that Subscriptions and\nDeclarations of Faith were \"not in fact _contemplated_ at the time of the\nfirst compilation of the Prayer Book and Articles;\" that Subscription is\n\"superfluous,\" \"needless,\" \"capricious,\" \"extrinsic,\" and \"accidental,\"\n(pp. 38, 39), \"and that the Church of England, as such, recognises\nabsolutely no Subscriptions!\"  I submit to your Lordship, that the Church\nof England \"at the time of the first compilation of the Articles and\nPrayer Book,\" encouraged no freedom whatever to diverge from the one or\nthe other--demanded Subscription (by Cranmer) in 1553--_obtained_ it from\nall the bishops and representatives of the clergy in Convocation in\n1563--and laboured to restrain both Papists and Puritans within more and\nmore rigid limits year by year, till by the thirteenth of Elizabeth\n\"Subscription\" was universally enforced, as the only practical substitute\nfor that Ecclesiastical Discipline which was refused.\n\nI have purposely abstained from here noticing minor inaccuracies which\nsingularly abound in the learned Professor's letter, and have kept to the\nmain point.  His position is that since the twelfth year of Elizabeth, a\nstern and gradual growth of Subscription has superseded the liberal\nsystem of the earlier years in which the tolerant Church \"knew\n_absolutely nothing_ of Subscription!\"  Without this, again I say, his\nargument comes utterly to an end.  It will be useless to weigh syllables,\nand retreat upon the _ipsissima verba_ of the Letter.  The broad\nrepresentation means this, or it is _nihil ad rem_.  And the whole\nhistory of the period is again, directly the reverse of the\nrepresentation given by Dr. STANLEY. {18}\n\n\n\nThe Primitive Church.\n\n\nII.  I pass, then, to the next point--the alleged absence of Subscription\nin the primitive age.  Not content with the reference to the history of\nour own Church, Dr. STANLEY says:--\"I will not confine myself to these\nisolated instances, but examine the history of Subscription from the\nfirst.  For the first three centuries the Church was _entirely without\nit_.\" \"The first Subscription to a series of dogmatical propositions as\nsuch was that enforced by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea.  It was\nthe natural, but rude, expedient of a half-educated soldier to enforce\nunanimity in the Church as he had by the sword enforced it in the\nempire.\" (p. 35).  Again, I am painfully compelled to meet the statements\nof Dr. STANLEY with a direct negative.  The case is _not_ as he states\nit.  A \"rude soldier,\" in those days--(when comparatively few people\n_wrote_ at all)--would not, I think, have been likely to invent this\n\"expedient:\" but, in fact, he _did not_ invent it.\n\n\nCouncil against Paulus Samosatemus.","title":"Proposed Surrender of the Prayer-Book and Articles of the Church of England: A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on Professor Stanley's Views of Clerical and University \"Subscription\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":4161}