The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-31 00:00:00

THE BISIPOP OF NORWICH AND
MR. WODEHOUSE.

The correspondence between the Bishop of Nor-
wich and Mr. Wodehouse appears to us particularly
worthy of attention, as calculated to remind the mem-
bers of the Oxford Convocation that a measure, almost
the very reverse of that preposed to them, is at this
moment required. A clergyman of the diocese of
Norwich, entertaining some scruples as to sub-
scription, and being unable, after the endeavour of
many years, to ascertain what is the received inter-
pretation of the Church with respect to it, at
length tenders the resignation of his preferment
to the bishop of the diocese. The bishop refuses to
accept the resignation, and plainly states
h's reasoes, as will be seen in his letter. Unless
we are to believe the statement of a Contem-
porary, that the proposed new test is abandoned, the
members of the Oxford Convocation are invited
to decree, first, that subscription to the Thirty-nine
Articles and thirty-sixth canon is hereafter to be
made " according to the sense of those who origi-
nally promulgated them." Let them refer to the
points which have occasioned Mr. Wodehouse's
difficulties, and say whether they do not, many of
them, require and exercise such a latitude as Mr.
Wodehouse requires, and the Bishop of Norwich
declares to be fully justifiable. Let them next con-
sider whether they alre prepared to assert that
our Reformers and he clergy of 1603 held
the seine views, and would have assented
to the like latitude. And are there not other
points of which clergymen of every shade of opinion
feel that they must exercise some latitude in sub-
scribing ; and has not the course of ecclesiastical
discussion since 1562 secured to them this liberty by
gradually proving its necessity? The members of
the Oxford Convocation are invited also to a de-
cree, secondly, that subscription shall hereafter he
made " according to that sense which that sub-
scriber believes is now proposed by the Uni-
versity." Is it possible that a body of well edu-
cated churchmen can thus identify 1562 and 1845,
can forget the history of three centuries, and
concede to, they know not whom, the power of abso-
lutely interpreting our national religious tests ?
Without stopping to consider how far such a con-
cession would be illegal, we would rather invite their
attention to the extreme imprudence of such a
step, the exclusive purpose of which cannot be
mistaken. Let them review the last few years at
Oxford, and ask—whose turn will come next? He
who places arbitrary power in the hands of another,
at best can only look upon himself as the last to feel
its severity. Never was there a time when it was
more needful to bear in mind one great object of a
nati final Church, namely, to provide for the people
such a form of doctrine and worship as shall conciliate
to itself the largest possible number of Christians
without sacrifice of truth. What we want is com-
prehension, and not exclusion. Too long has the
policy of the clerical body been prompt to exclude,
instead of skilful to reclaim energy and talent from
error, and to guide them to profitable exertion
for the good of the people. The leading fact of
the Reformation is, that it invited all men to seek
the truth, each for himself; that it sought
to place the Bible in the hands of all; and to
induce them to appeal to it as a confirmation of
the voice of their pastors. The necessary conse-
quence of such principles is free religious discussion.
Nearly three centuries of differences amongst Eng-
lish Churchmen prove that even articles of faith
cannot prevent diversity of opinion. The obvious
duty of the national Church is to sanction what it
cannot prevent ; to render such differences no longer
disreputable ; to relax religious tests, instead of
rendering them more stringent; to aim at an agree-
ment in essentials, and an acceptable uniformity of
worship; to range differences on other points under
the harmless title of free discussions ; to leave men
at liberty to argue, for argue they will, secure that
truth thus treated will ultimately prevail ; to seek, in
short, for union in great truths, and in public wor-
ship, on which the peace and improvement of society
depend. In contending for the necessity of allowing
a latitude of interpretation we shall not be under-
stood as waintaining that Roman Catholics and Pro-
testa.nts can be comprehended within the same reli-
gious organisation. Nothing but discord and weak.
ness could come of an attempt to treat fundamental
differences as if they were of secondary moment.
Men cannot, with any sort of profit or propriety,
associate together for religious worship, if they
deem each other to be in fatal error upon almost
every important tenet. The latitude of interpreta-
tion, therefore, which honest churchmen exercise,
and have always exercised, in respect to
creeds and formularies, is such a latitude as
consists, in the words of the Bishop of Norwich,
with a "sincere attachment to the general doctrines
of the Church." It being impossible that a real
agreement should exist upon the numerous and com-
plex propositions to which assent is formally given
by subscription, there is no other principle upon
which honest men, having the least shadow of
doubt, can remain in the Church, except this one
of agreement with its main doctrines and system.
Some men of nice consciences, like Mr. Wodehouse,
do not feel that this view of the case removes their
scruples ; whilst others, assuredly not less conscien-
tious, like Dr. Arnold, have rested on it with entire
assurance and satisfa stion. Dr. Arnold was as far
from agreeing with the damnatory clauses of the
Athanasian Creed as Mr. Wodehouse ; but his
dissent from the established formularies on that and
some other points did not prevent a sincere, or we
should rather say a passionate, attachment to the
Church as a whole. That such diversities were ne-

cessary was maintained by Dr. Arnold on the
strongest grounds. Otherwise, said he, the Church
could receive into its ministry " only men of dull
minds or dull consciences; of dull, nay almost of
dishonest minds, if they can persuade themselves
that they actually agree in any great number of
human propositions ; of dull consciences, if exer-
cising their minds freely, and yet believing that
the Church requires the total adhesion of the un-

derstanding, they still, for considerations of their
own convenience, enter into the ministry in her de-
spite." (" Life of Arnold," vol. 2, p. 173). The
obvious objection that the latitude here contended
for made the degree of adhesion required indefinite,
he met by the distinction to which we have re-
ferred. He said that things thus left seemingly so
indefinite, " are not really so to an honest and sen-
sible mind; for such a mind knows whether it is really
in sympathy with the Church in its main faith and
feeling ; and if it be not, then subscription would
indeed be deceitful."

But diversities justifiable on this principle have
evidently nothing in common with those which should
be permitted in order to include men holding Roman
Catholic opinions. If a man considers the general
course of the Protestant Reformation to have been
criminal, the separation from the communion of Rome
to he a grievous national sin, and looks to the Church
of Rome with undisguised admiration as the perfect
model of what a Church should be both in doctrine

and in discipline, he surely cannot be supposed, by
any stretch of imagination, to be in sympathy with
the English Church in " its main faith awl feelings."
We do not say that a man of this sort is dishonest for
remaining an officer of the Church of England, but
assuredly his conduct is calculated to excite most
vehement suspicion. The connexion of Mr. Ward's
case with a proposition for seriously restricting the
liberty of thought and discussion hitherto enjoyed in
the English Church, makes it necessary to insist on
the difference between the principles of interpreta-
tion for which that gentleman and his party con-
tend, and those which meet the case of men like Dr.

Arnold and Mr. Wodehouse. But if we feel obliged
to condemn Mr. Ward, it does not follow that we

should look with approval upon the mode in which it
is proposed to punish him. We cannot think that the
Oxford Convocation is a proper body to deal with
such a case. Mr. Ward's offence is evidently one
for the cognisance of an ecclesiastical tribunal. The
University can only punish him as the holder of an

academical degree; but in receiving ordination he
has been invested with a much higher responsibility
thin any that can attach to him merely as a master
of arts. It is the clerical far more than the aca-
. .

demical
character which gives gravitii;hl;-fauli;
and it is in the highest degree absurd and ano-
malous that a lay body should step in before any ec-
clesiastical authority to punish heresy in one of the
clergy. Those who remember the case of Dr. Hamp-
den will not require much argument to prove the un-
fitness of a heterogeneous assemblage like the Convo-
cation for deciding on theological questions. It
would, no doubt, be a signal instance of retribution
if Convocation should now degrade a member of the
party which some years ago worked up a prejudiced
and passionate majority of the same body against Dr.
Hampden ; but we do not like to see a power so
liable to abuse exercised under any circumstances
whatever. If Mr. Ward cannot be punished other-
wise than by what has been not untruly called mob-
law, it is better that he should go free. A single vio-
lation of the principles of justice and fair-play, if
countenanced and supported, is certain to be the pa-
rent of many more.—Chronicle.