.^«tj

«

^i|^f- '.:• ^^- :, '^-^HC^f-^^-'-W?^!

^7 AMES dDAlR's % J BOOK. t

X

^

■V

f/:!7irm.

THE

CONFESSIONAL}

OR,

A Full and Free I n qjj i r y

INTO THE

RIGHT, UTILITY,

EDIFICATION, and SUCCESS,

Of Eftablilliing

SYSTEMATICAL CONFESSIONS

OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE

IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES.

Quam vos facillime agitis, quam eftis maxume Potentes, dites, fortunati, nobiles; Tam maxume vos aequo animo aequa nofcere Oportet, fi vos voltis perhiberi probes.

Terent.

LONDON,

Printed for S. B l a d o n, In Pater- NoJIck- Row. MDCCLXVI.

/

CONTENTS.

C HA P. I.

Afummary View of the Rife, Progrefsy and Succ'efs of ejlablifhed Confejfions of Faith and Doolrine in Proteftant Churches, Page i

CHAP. II.

I'he Claim of a Right to eUahliflo Confeffions as TeSfs of Orthodoxy^ in Proteftant Churches, confidered,

2.2

CHAP. III.

^e Apology of the RcmonflraHts for Confeffions^ in confideration of their Expedience and Uti- lity, examined, ^S

CHAP. IV.

J particular Examination of Bifhop Burnet's Intro- du^ion to the Expofition of the xxxix Articles of the Church of England, cj

CHAP. V.

A View of the emharaffed and flu£!uating Cafuijhy of thcfe Divines, who do not approz'e of, or differ from, BifJjop Burnet's Method of justifying Sub-

frtption

CONTENTS.

fcription to the xxxix Articles of the Church of England, Page 113

C H A P. VI.

ji particular Examination of the Sentiments and Reafonings of thofe Writers who have -pleaded for a Latitude in fubfcribing to the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England, upon the Suppofition that every Prote§iant Church mulf ad confidently with its prof effing to afjert and maintain Chriftian Liberty, 1 7 1

CHAP. Vlf.

An Attempt to difcover whence the Pr a Slice of fub- fcribing the xxxix Articles in different Senfes^ was derived j and by what fort of Cafuifls^ and what fort of Reafoning, it was Jirff propagated, and has been fince efpoufed, 2 1 3

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the Conclufions that arife from, the fore- going BifqtiifitionSy 281

PREFACE.

•• — - - ■ ■ ■ '^n^

PREFACE.

TH E author of the followihg perform- ance, freely confefle^ himfelf to be ond of thofe, who, in cortimon with an emi- nent prelate, " have been feized with that epi- " demical malady of idle and vifionarj men, the

•* PROJECTING TO REFORM THE PUBLIC */*

Nor would he have any reafon to be alliamed of claffing with fo confpicuous a charader, were it not that he hath unhappily taken an antipathy to that courfe of medicine, to which fo many others of the fraternity owe the recovery of their health and fenfes. He is ftill, alas ! labouring to bring his projed to bear, even when all the world about him^ is exclaiming at the folly of e- tery one who is engaged in fo defperate an en- tcrprizc.

The honeft truth is, he thinks the remedjr worfc than the difeafe ; having feldom* obferved any one of thefe patients perfeftly cured, but by

* See, The /r^ Dedication prefixed to the fecond volume <X Tht Divine Legation of Mo{%%f^<:. publilbcd 1758. p. 5,

ft th^

ii PREFACE.

the application of a charm, which ufually operates in the other extreme ; and, in the (hape of poli- tical ^e^acles, reprefents the pubhc as too good to need reformation ; a fort of vifion which, of courfe, ends in a perfect conformity to the principles and manners in fafliion, and not feldom puts the rejiored fanatic in a hopeful way of recovering with advantage, whatever he was in danger of lofing, by perfifting in his former reverie.

Our fage advifers will, no doubt, fuggeft that there is a middle way between the two ex- tremes V and that a man of prudence and probity, having tried his talent at reforming without fuc- cefs, may well fit down contented, enjoy his own opinion, and pradlife his own virtue in fome cor- ner out of the way of temptation, and, for the reft, leave others, who are willing to take the public as they find it, to make their beft of it.

To this fober counfel, I, for my own part, Ihould have the lefs objedion, could I be fatis- fied, that a neutral character in matters concern- ing public reformation, where talents are vouch- fafed, though ever fo fparingly, were to be juf- tified ; and particularly where, as in this coun.-i try, every man may, within decent reftridtions, pukl'Jhy as well as enjoy, his own opinion.

There are certain provinces and ftationsj where, if the public really wants to be reform- ed, they who occupy them, muft be at fome trouble in ftifling their own convi(^ions, before

they

PREFACE. m

they can lie down peaceably in the repofe of i neutrality. To many of thefe provinces belong Confiderable degrees of influence and authority, fufficient to give weight and fuccefs to feafon- able and fpirited remonftrances. And they who are in the loweft ftations of watchmen and la- bourers, may bear their teflimony, perhaps with more advantage than may be apprehended by thofe, who confider not, from whom we are to look for the increafe of what is planted or watered by any hand. And wherever the obligation ex- ifts, I fhould think \t can hardly be removed out of view, without opening the profped of fome difcomfort, at that awful period when every man's final account Ihall be called for.

But indeed, indolent neutrality is not a com- mon, and hardly a poffible efl^eft of the cure performed upon idle and vi/ionaryrtformers of the public. Idlenefs, in the proper fenfe of the term, is not their failing. They are commonly perfons of adive and lively fpirits, who are not eafy under want of employment. Their inex- perience leads them into fanguine hopes, that fame, honours, and rewards muft crown their labours. It is inconceiveable to them, that where the public is fo grofsly and notorioufly wrong, it fhould not acknowledge its obligations to thofe who intereft themfclves to fet it right, by the moll fubltancial inftances of its gratitude. And a 2 this

IV

P R E F A C E.

this.hxho, .idle part of the charader, in the figu- rative fcrffe. •

But when the aftonifhed vifionary finds his miftakc, and perceives that public error of the nioft palpable kind, has its champions ready armed at all points, and prepared to difpute e- very inch of ground with him, — that nothing \^ould be got by the unequal conflid but dif- grace, contempt, and poverty ; human nature, and an impatience to be liguring with eclat, com- monly bring him over, without much hefitation, to the furer fide j where he fets himfelf to a6t the part of a Irue profdyie, that is to fay, to re- form backwards^ with a violence and precipitation proportioned to the fufpicions his new allies might entertain of his hankering after hia old de- viations, fhould he not give the mpft fpif.i,ted proofs of his effedual converfion. ^ , .. , . .

Were not the fubjed of too ferious; a nature, (for the particulars above are to be underftood of reformation and reformers of religious mat- ters) and were not iht Dramaiis per/on^ of too folemn a caft to be exhibited in Comedy^ one might give very diverting indances of ihis kind of [railcy, in more than one of thofe who have not only affe61:ed, with a kind of philofophical grimace, to ridicule their own former condu6l as idle and v'l/Jonary^ but alfo, to fill up the meafure of their merit with their party, have been the tor- wardetl to esbofe^ reprobate, and to the utmolt of ^-' ^ - ■ their

V R E F A C t. v

theiY (^'o'o^^iW.perfecute thofe whoperfifl: in this epidemical folly.

The perfijlers indeed afe but few, and no wonder'. All their dilcouragementsconlidered, they may be faid, like Abraham, againji hope^ to believe in hope. In the firft ranks ot their advqr- ifaries appear thole who enjoy plentiful emolu- ments from the nature and conJiruSlion of tjie €jiahliJ}jmentyyNho are therefore concerned to de- fend every thing belonging to it, not becAufe it is trtiey or reafonahle^ or righteous in itfclf, or with refpeft to, the defign of the Go/pel, buf: becaufe it is eJiaMi/hnd. With litigants of, this complexion, arf^uments drawn from reafon, from fcriptiire, from the, moil notorious fads, are of no force. When particular anfwers fail them, they have o-eneral ones at hand, which do their bufmefs ef- fedually. Public authority, long pofieffion, the concurrence of the majority, the danger to pub- lic peace from attempts to innovate, &c. &c. &c. have fuch a formidable appearance, even in the eyes of fome of the warmeft friends of Reforma- tion, that they will often (hudder at the temerity of their own champions, \yhen they confider with whom, and with what they are to engage, and .(fuchjare.the efteds of this kind of intimidation) will fupprefs their own- ipeculations,to avoid fufpi- cions of bemg connected with a fetof men, whom the nature and tenor of fuch anfwers, go near to ■',■;«■* i-.WJb'i' iligmatize

VI P li E F A C E.

ftigmatize with fomething more heinous than fa6lion and fedition.

This whole cafe with its feveral appendages, it fet forth by Mr. Bayle in fo mafterly a manner, that I cannot refift the temptation of giving a pretty long extrad: from him, without any fear however of difgufting the fenfible reader with the prolixity of it, for which thejuftnefs of that great man's fentiments upon fo interefting a fub- jed, will make him ample amends, as well as fornifli me'with fome reflexions arifing from the cafe as dated by Bayle^ compared with the Con- dud of the anti-reformers in our own country.

John de.Ltiunoi, a Parijian do(5lor of the Sor- honr.e, having, in the courfe of his learned dif- quifitions, found out the falfehood of many le- gends and traditions concerning the faints who were honoured with places in the popilh calen- dars, made no fcruple to pubiifh his difcoveries, and in confequence of them, to propofe, that thefe imaginary beings might be expunged from thofe Calendars, Martyrologies, &c. as occafion- ing an highly criminal fuperllition in thofe who paid religious adoration to them. He even ven- tured to attack the angelic doXor Aquinas^ as chargeable with great ignorance, or great infin- cerity, in building his arguments againft hetero- doxy, upon fabulous traditions.

Qne Baron a Jacobine friar, undertook the de- fence oi Aquinas, maintaining, that " the tradj-

PREFACE. vii

" tlons he built upon had been derived from *' primitive times ; that Laujwi*s refesLVches and " conclufions, were the employment of a prag- ** matical genius, more concerned to obtain a '* great than a good name i that Launoi ought, *' like St. Thomas^ to have let things alone when *' they were well j and that, admitting fome of " thefe traditions were of doubtful authority, or " even fabulous, Launoi Ihould have paid a pro- " per regard to that maxim of the phyficians, ** Malum bene pofttum ne movetoJ'^ Which being transferred into Divinity, fignifies, that, falfe tra- ditions, which do not hurt faith, aiid promote piety, ought to he retained, and not didurhed. Upon which Mr. Bayle, thus reafons.

" If all the circumftances fet forth by tVisJaco- ** bine were true, there is no doubt but John de " Launoi was defervedly condemned, as one, who " to make himfelf talked of, and to fatisfy his " ill nature, would oppofe many general opini- ** ons, which had obtained time out of mind, to " the advancement of piety, without detriment " to the faith.

" But this is not the cafe of our Sor-

" bomte doftor. The traditions he oppofes, *' have no good title, and his arguments a- ** gainft them are unanfwerable. Now, in this ** cafe, it is plain there is all the right in the f> world to bring the moft general and ancient ' ' ' ' a 4 •' opinions.

ylii PREFACE.

" opinions, to a trial, efpecially when their falfity <*l{eeps up a criminal devotion. ," I defire it may be obferved, that the reafon- ** ings of this doftor were of fuch force, as to *' undeceive abundance of people j but yet the f abufes have not been removed. Things re- ** main upon the fame foot in Provence *, and •* elfe where. They tell you ftill the fame (lories f * they told your anceftprs, and you fee the fame •f'worfliip and the fame ceremonies. This proves f the difference there is, betwixt private perfons f* and the public. Particular people are mod of •* jthem, one time or other, undeceived, and yet ** the pra(5lice of the public remains the fame."

After which Mr. Bayle brings fomiC parallel in- flances from Cicero^ and Juvenal^ to Ihew that public inftitutions in the Roman (late, kept their ground againft theconvidlion even of a majority. And then goes on thus.

" There is no likelihood that they who follow '' the fteps of John de Launoi, can do any fervice, ** whilft things are only carried on by way of " literary difpute. The patrons of falfe devotion ** will never recede. They find their account ** too much in not bating an ace, and they are '* powerful enough to fecure themfelves from •* any vicitence. The court of Rome will fecond *^' and fuppdrt them. The Romilh chqrch feems

* Where a fiflitious Ma>y Magdalen is worfhiped as the con- mter of the country.

cc

to

PREFACE. «

5* to have adopteci the religion of the god Ter- " MINUS of the Roman republic. This god ne- ** ver yielded a tittle, no not to Jupiter himfelf ; *' which was a fign, faid they, that the Roman " people fhould never recede, nOr yield an inch ^* t)f ground to their enemies. If any Pope (hould ■*'be willing to facrifice fomething to the reuni- " on of the fchifmatics, fome infignificant devo- *' tions, fome fuperannuated traditions, he mio-ht ^' apprehend as great a murmur againft him, as " the heathens made againft the fcandalous ** peace of the emperor Jovian.'*

He then proceeds to give fome modern inftan^ ./ces of the bad fuccefs of Reformers, — . Of the Jefuit Papebroch, and his affiftants, " who at- " tempted to purge the A£Ia San^orum of many :*' fabulous and fcandalous particulars, for which nff fervic€ the Carmelites and other monks pro- " cured feveral volumes of the faid A^s fo purg- *' ed, to be burned by the Inquifition oi Toledo.^* .,~ Of Father Mabillon^ who " having laid down !' fome very good rules concerning the worfhip ♦* of fome faints, and the judgment to be made <' of relics ; — was anfwered, Phyjician healthy- *^ filf', — reform firft the worihip paid in fome ** houfes of your order of St. Bcnedi£I to faints *' as dubious as any. He was like wife told of ♦' the injury he did the church, and the advan-

" tage he gave to Proteftants.** Laftly of

Mr. Thiers, who ** fet up againft falfe relics, ex-

*' amincd

X PREFACE.

*' amined where the bodies of martyrs lay, ^^ *Vpubliflied fome diflertations upon the holy tear " of Vendomey and upon St. Firmin, All, fays " Mr. BayUy was loft labour. The King's ** council fupprefled his book about St. Firmin^ " as the bifhop of Amiens had condemned a " letter he had publiihed upon the fame quefti-

on.'*

Mr. Bayle^s concluding refleflion is as follows. *' The fruits of a difcreet zeal are deftroyed in ♦' the bud. They build upon this principle, " that it is dangerous to abrogate old cuftoms ; " that boundaries ought not to be removed ; *« and that, according to the old proverb, we '* fhould leave the minfler where we find it. The " profperity of the Chriftian Rome^ juft like that " of the Pagan Rome, is founded upon the pre- " fervation of ancient rites. Confecrations muft " be complied with ; religion will allow no alter- " ation in them, fed ilia mutari vetat religioy et '* confecratis utendum eff. In our days, faid a fub- " prior of St. Anthony, let us beware of innova* " tions."

We fee then how it is. How numerous, how well difciplined the forces that are brought into the field againft reformers -, how able the generals that head them, and how determin- ed the whole body not to yield an inch even to the united powers of piety, truth, and common fenfe.

Bur,

PREFACE. xi

3ut, methinks, I hear a zealous anti-reformer, (leady to his point, and not eafjly difconccrtcd, expoftulating with me to the following effeft.

'* We fee, indeed, from this reprefentation of *' Mr. Bayle, how it is ; but only, how it is in ^' popijh countries. Do not Proceftant churches ^' reprobate faint-worfliip of all forts ? Have we ^' any fuch inftances among us of grofs idolatry, ^* as that of worfhiping an imaginary faint ? And " can you pretend, there are any errors or cor- *' ruptions in the church of England, any thing ^' like to have fo ill an effefl upon the people, as " the fhameful fuperftitions attacked by the ^* French reformers above-mentioned ? On ano- ** ther hand, is it fair to put the reformed " churches, and particularly the church of Eng- " land, which pretend to no infallibility, and " which are founded upon principles of Chri- " ftian liberty, upon the fame footing of obfti- '• nacy with the church of Rome, the very genius *' and fpirit of which excludes all examination, " and all right of private judgment ? And is it ^' not upon record, that the church of England " hath made alterations in her public forms, ** and doth Ihe not declare that fhe is ready to ** make them again, upon juft and weighty oc- ^' cafions V*

To the firft part of this remonftrance I anfwer, ^hat neither Lannoi^ Papebroch, Mahillon, nor fhiers, made the leaft cjueftion about the lawful-

nefs

mi PREFACE.

nefs of worihiping thofe whom they efteenied to be real faints, or venerating what could be proved to be true relics. They faw not the lead idolatry or fuperftition in either pradtice. And it being prefuppofed by them, that faint-worlhip was both lawful and edifying, I apprehend, it would not be of much fignificance, with refpeft either to the piety or moral principles of the people, that they were under the delufion which thefe re^ formers endeavoured to remove. Mr. Bayle, in- deed, calls it a criminal devotion ; but, upon principles which he hath well explained elfewhere, it could not be criminal in the.party who intend- .^d his worfhip to a real faint. If a French papift was perfuaded that his prayers to St. Firmin or -St. Renatus were as properly directed as thofe he made to St. Peter or St. Paul^ his inward fpirit of devotion would be no lefs zealous and fincere in the one cafe than in the other ; nor would the merit of it fufFer any diminution on account of a miftake of which he was not, nor could be made fenfible. And this is the circumftance which gives all its worth to Father BarorCs maxim, Ma- lum bene pojitum ne nioveto.

The cafe, indeed, is different, when you afcend •from the common people to their governors and diredlors, who were confcious of the delufion, and ftill kept it up, or who were capable judges -of Launoi's reafonings, and refufed to examine 1 them.

P R E F A C E. xiii

them. But even here it would be difficult, per- haps, to ftate the comparative guilt of popifh and proteftant rulers in the like circum (lances, within their refpedive departments ; and the whole (as it feems to me at leaft) would turn upon the true anfwer to this fingle queftion, whether certain particulars which are equally proved to want re- formation among proteftants, have not as ill an efFedt upon a proteftant people, while they con- tinue unreformed, as the miftake of a falfe faint for a true one, has upon a papift, who believes faint- worfhip to be an indifpenfable duty ? I for- bear to give inftances, though there are more than one at hand.

With refped to the fecond member of the ex- poftulation above, I would beg leave to obferve, that Mr. Baylis fpeculations are founded upon the nature and genius of religious eftablifhments in general. Nor can the church of England take it amifs to be ranked with the church of Rome^ nor the church of Rome to be ranked with a Pa- gan eftablifhment, fo far as the parallel really and infa5i will hold. To me there does not appear one confideration which impeached the prudence, or obftruded the fuccefs oi'Lamoi, MabilloHy or Thiers^ that would not operate equally to thedifreputation and difappointment of an Englilh Proteftant Re- .former. In all exclufive eftablilhments, where tempo- ral emoluments are annexed to the profeflion of a

certain

xiv PREFACE.

certain fyftem of do6trines, and the ufage of a certain routine of forms, and appropriated to an order of men fo and fo qualified, that order of men will naturally think themfelves interejied that things fhould continue as they are. A reforma- tion might endanger their emoluments. For though it fhould only begin with fuch things as are moft notorioufly amifs, the alteration of which would no way affed their temporal interefts, yet, by opening a door to farther inquiry (which would be the natural effedl of it), their dignities and re- venues might poflibly be brought into queftion, and be thought to need fome regulations, which it can hardly be fuppofed they would approve. So that they who afk, IVho knows where a refor- mation may end? by way of giving a reafon why it fhould not be begun, are certainly not unwife in their generation. A man of fenfe, though he may love his money better than any thing elfe, may neverthelefs be capable of difcerning the particulars where a reformation is wanted.

For the reft, the clergy of proteftant eftablifh- ments have been prote<5ted in their oppofition to innovations by the higher powers, as well as monks and augurs. The commonalty in our own country, as far as ever I could fee, are kept in their prejudices and adherence to their prefent forms, by the fame confiderations and ways of ar- guing that attach the vulgar in other countries

to

PREFACE. xr

to things of a worfe complexion*. We have an example in the renowned Tillotfon, what murmurs the prefiding charader in our church experienced, upon giving way to a reformation of our public forms and fervices, though in the lead important particulars. The arguments againfl: a reform, taken from pojfeffion and antiquity^ and the expe- dience of adhering to ancient rites, have been as often and as warmly urged by fome proteftants in England^ as by the orthodox in foreign lands. How dextrous we are at recrimination^ the late Mr. White's Letters to a Diffenting Gentleman re- main a memorable and (landing evidence. Fa- ther Mabillon himfelf could not hear more of the advantage he gave to Proteftants, than the authors of the Free and Candid Difqui/itions have been told of the countenance they gave to the Englifli Proteftant DifTenters f . And I am not

* See Biftiop Be'verege's Latm Sermon before the Convo. cation, 1689: and moft of the Sermons at Hutchinss Ledlure.

t " This book of yours [The Free and Candid DiCjuifi- ** tions] will be a means to leffen very much the credit and ** eftimation of the church of England \n the eyes of many of its *' members, as well as to confirm and encourage the difTenters ** in their prefent ways, perhaps alfo to increafe the number of

** ,them. Your Difquifitions, doubtlefs, will be confidered

** as a grand Arfenal, ilored with ordnance of almoft all forts, " fit to attack the church of England, which our adverfaries, no " doubt, will thank you for, and have recourfe to, upon all ** Qccafions." Free and impartial Conjiderations on the Free arj Candid Difquifitions, by Mr. White, p. 59, 60.

certain

xvi PREFACE.

certain that he would be miflaken, who Ihould affirm of the church of England (what Luther did of the chui<ch of Rome ■^) that the remonllrances of thefe Difquifttors have rendered the church more firm and inflexible, even with refpe6t to fome particulars which feemed to be given up on all hands, till they were pointed out for reforma- tion by thefe idle and vijionary nien.

To what the alterations that have been made in our ecclefiadical fyftem amount, and confe- quently how far the church may be difpofed to a further reformation upon juft and weighty oc- cafions, will be feen by and by.

Here is more than fufficient, one would think, to deter a reformer, who is able and deliberate enough to count the co§i^ from ever meddling with public error, even with more than half the cou- rage of Ltiiber. A man muft be in a very un- common fiLuation, as well as of an uncommon fpirit, even in this land of liberty, who is bold enough to undertake the patronage of a caufc, to which fo many, at different periods, have fallen martyrs. Not always, indeed, by fire and fword,

* Verum Concordiam fidei, feu doftnna:, frufea quatrit Efu/mus, eo confilio ut mutaum cedamus et condonemus,"non tantum quod adverfarii prorfus nihil cedunt, nee cedere volunr. quin potius rigidius et obftinarius nunc omnia defendant quain unquam antea, etiam talia aufi nunc exigere, qua ante Lu- thermn ipfimet damnav€rant, et reprobaverant. Luther apud Sfchndorf, lib. iii. p. 53.

but

PREFACE.

xvu

but oftener, perhaps, by what kills as furely, though not fo quickly, hunger and nakedness.

For the misfortue is that the malady of reform- ing the public, is moft apt to feize upon thofe, vvhofe profefTion leads them to a more intimare ftudy of the holy fcriptures : whofe views in life, and, ordinarily, whole Icanty circumftances re- quire, that they fhould preferve fome credit with their ecclefiaftical fuperiors, in order to procure themfelves a decent maintenance. Nothing can be more fatal to fuch than a mutinous fpirit of reformation. They are marked of courfe as for- bidden and contraband men. A fprightly acade- mic was one day making fome free oblcrvations upon the Canons, before an eminent fage of the law : " Beware, young man, fays the prudent " counfellor, of the holy office^ and remember that " there are Jlarinng^ as well as burning Inquifi- " tions."

But after all, they who can get above thefe a- larming confiderations, or who are in a fituation not to be affcdled by them, will not be abfolutely deftitute of fome gleams of hope and comfort, over and befides what refults from the inward teflimony of having done their duty.

Mr. Bayle^ a3 the reader hath feen, obferved, that " the reafonings of Dr. Lnunoi^ had force e- ** nough to convince abundance of people," and thofe of courfe, people of the bell fenle, and the mod rational piety. So, no doubt, hath it hap- b pened

X/ill

PREFACE,

p.ened to the pleaders for a farther reformation in our own church, many of whom have been not a whit behind the Sorhnne-do^tor, either in the evidence of facfls, or in the force of their rea- foning. Nor is it unreafonable to prefume, that as farther devellopments are made, the number pf the convinced mud be increafed.

The weaknefs of the few anfwers that have been made to the important remonftrances of ferious and judicious men on the article of a far- ther reformation, and the fuperciljous contempt v^ith which the mod refpedful, as well as the mod reafonable of them have been pafled by, mud detrafl fomcthing from the edimation of thofe whom the thinking part of mankind will fuppofe to be chiefly concerned to take notice of them. It will look like a combination to adhere 10 the edabliflied fydem, for {omt political pur- pofes not fit to be owned ; while no follicitude is perceived to relieve the reafonable fcruples of confcientio'js diffenters, or to confult the real ne- cedities of our own people by fubdituting, in the room of hackneyed, and not always judify- able forms, more intelligible, as well as more animating methods of public wordiip, and pub- lic edification.

To be plainer dill, this temper and condu6t in a fet of men, many of whom make it appear, on other occafions, that they want neither learn- ing nor capacity to form an accurate judgment

on

PREFACE. xix

on fo interefling a cafe, will hardly allow us to think them in earneft in their weekly exhorta- tions to chriftian piety and virtue, or the zeal they occafionally exprefs for the proteltant reli- gion and government. Their doctrine, contraft- ed by their pra6lice, will look to the difcerning part of the public, as if nothing was meant by thefe terms, in their mouths, but mere confor- mity to an ecclefiaftical eftablifhrnent, and a re- folution to fupport and defend that at all events, with, or without reafon.

But if ever the mafic fhould fall off in fome future fkirmifh *, (the probable and frequent ef- fed of arivallliip for temporal honours and emo- luments) and one of the parties fhould be reduc- ed to the neceflity of leaning upon the friends of reformation, by way of balance to the other ;

* This was once very near being the cafe, when, in the me- morable year i~45, two of our leading churchmen could not agree, whether, upon the received fyltem of divinity, the Re- bAJion tl)en on foot, was to be conlidered as a judgment upon t\\c.J}ate, or only upon particulars. The difference, however, was happily compromifed in the following manner. — — " In " the mean lime, mofl polemic Sir, let us agree in this, however <• different we may go in other matters, to reverence and " SUPPORT OUR HAPPY CONSTITUTION. And that I may " bring the matter as near to yoa {/night he not ha^oe addedy " and to myfelf,] as I can, what other conltitution but this, let •' me a(k you, would have heaped Chancellorjhips, Archdeacon- ** r;>j, Prebends., &c. with fo liberal a hand, and on /b worthy

" a iubjeft ?" I'his was an argument ad uUumque, which

would admit of no demur, and fo, we may fuppoie, tl)ey (haked hands, and parted friends.

b 2 'tis

x« PREFACE.

*tis then that the laboLjrs of thefe idk and vi/ioU' ary men may come to have their weight, and fome pf thofe, ^x. leaft, who are now pining away in a defponding obfcurity, under the frowns of their difobliged fuperiors, may poffibly live to fee the way they have been preparing, gradually open- ing to the accomplifhment of what all well in- formed chriftians and confiftent Proteftants have been fo long and fo ardently williing for in vain.

But let this happen when it will, the church will not get half lb much credit by a reformation into which ihe is compelled by an unwelcome ne- ceffity, as would attend her undertaking it freely and of her own bounty ; and there is one confi- deration above all others, in which her honour is intimately concerned, that fhould difpofe her to think of it ferioufly.

It is an objedtion which, by turns, has been made to all the reformed eflablifhmentsin£«r<?/>^, that their rcfpedive plans are too narrow and circumfcribcd ; nor is it to be denied, that along with ail their prpfeffions of aflerting chriftian liberty, they have, niore or lefs, impofed upon their members, certain dodlrines and modes of worChip, for which they have no other than hu- ipan authority.

When this is obie<5led to any of them, as iq- coniiftcnt with their original foundation, the holy fcripture.s, they conftantly appeal to the pradtice of each other, as a common j unification of theni

,* ' ' all J

PREFACE. tJti

all J as if that were fufficient to preclude all ap- peals to any other authority.

The learned and excellent Dr. Mojkeim hath complimented the chui'rh of England^ with the title of, 'The chief and leading branch of that great community, which goes under the denomination of the REFORMED CHURCH*. What prefcriptiveo'r equi- table right the church of England has to this pre- ference, I fhall not ftay to inquire. It is fufficient for my purpofc that fhe accepts the compliment, having, indeed, paid it to herfclf an hundred times -f. And yet, when her own unfcriptural

* See his Compendious fieio ofEcchfiaJlicalUijioryi tranflated by Dr. Archibald Maclaine, lately publiflied for Millar, vol. ii. p. 575. — — a work for which the chrijfidn, as well as the li- terary commonwealth, is highly obliged both to the author and tranflator, as it is calculated to correft, with a very fingular im- partiality, though, at the fame time, with great candour and tendernefs, the falfe and delufive views in which the religious condud of our forefathers has been placed, both with refpedt to fadls and fyftems.

t " We think, fays a learned Bifhop, our own church the " bell ; every body thinks it far from the worft." — " The *' Lutherans, ^ys another (if another) prefer it to the Cal'vinijl ** communion, the Calvini/s to the Lutheran, and the Greeh to ** both." — Which is explained to mean, that every one thinks the church oi England, the next bell to his own. ** But this, *' fays Dr. Mayhezu, is faid without proof." Second Defence, p. 6. — And mark what a bitter pill the Dodor gives us in iKe room of this/weet/neat, with which we treat ourfelves. *' There; " is indeed, fays he, one church, a vciy ancient and extenfive *' one, which it may naturally be concluded, for a reafon that *' Ihall be namelefs, confidcrs the communion of the church of b 3 impofitions

xxii P R E F A C E.

impodtionscome to be objeded to her, (he hath the condefcenfion to aliedge in her defence, the ufages of proteftant churches abroad, nay hath fometimes been humble enough to take flicker under the diflenting churches at home, — thofe very affembHes, which, on other occafions, flie hath refufed to acknowledge as (ifter churches ; a degree of humiHty, in my poor opinion, much below the dignity of a leading church, which fure- ly fliould maintain her ground, and vindicate her pradice by <jn^/W/ authority, without accepting any fupplcmental aid from the exam.ples of thofe, whom in every other light, flie looks upon as fomething lefs than her inferiors.

But would the church of England^ indeed, per- fectly atchieve this honour of being the leader and chief of all reformed churches ? Ihe way is open. Let her be the fir/i to remove every ftumbling block out of the way of her weak (if fo {he will needs call them) but confcientious fellow-chriftians. Let her nobly and generoufly abolilli and difavow, all impofitions, all bonds, and yokes, all beggarly elements, difagreeable to the Ipirit and defign of chrillianity. Let her re- move all grounds of fufpicion of her hankering after R.otwJh fuperftition, by renouncing every

•' England the next belt to her 6\vn," Ohfer^u'. p. \z-j. For my part, I (hould think we are well ofF, if, for this nafnelej's reafon, all other Proteilants do not think our cliuich the worji but one.

rite.

PREFACE. xxlii

rite» ordinance, and ceremony, which may nou- rifli this jealoufy among the dilTenters, and for which (he is driven to make apologies that fo remarkably contrail her prctenfions to an autho- rity CO decree them. Let her do this, and let the glorious example to the other Proteftant churches of Europe ^d.nd then will fiie be juftly in- tituled to thofe encomiums, which, while fhe af- fumes them in her prefent fituation, will only pafs with the judicious for the meaneft of all mean things, f elf -adulation.

But to wave our fpeculatioris for the prefent, and to come to a few plain fa6ls. Let us take a curfory view of the fteps taken, by authority, to reform the church of England^ after the fettle- ment of it by Qiieen Elizabeth's Ad: of unifor- mity;

Elizabeth would enter into no treaty with the old puritans to alter or reform any thing. They were delivered over to Parker and Whitgift^ for correftion only j which the latter cxercifed with fo unfeeling an hand, and fo far beyond his legal powers, that, upon the Queen's demife, he be-^ gan to be terribly frighted at the approach of K, Jameses firft parliament -, and it is probable e- nough his apprehenfions haftened his death.

He lived, however, to be prefent at the Hamp- ton-Court conference, where all objections were happily filcnced by fhe commodious maxim, Qt\ No lipopj no king. The whole affair ended with b 4 extravagant

xxiv PREFACE.

extravagant compliments to the royal moderator, which fome people, who "were not puritans, thought chrifiian bifhops fliould not have carried fo far.

Barlcw^s accoiint of it, might well enough have been called, A Farce of three Acis^ as it was flayed by his majefiy*s Jervants ^Z Hampton-Court, &'C. But it proved to be no farce to the poor confcientious puritans, with whom Jarrtes faith- fully kept his promife, viz. that " if they would " not conform, he would harry them out of the " land^andcvendo worfe *.'* Accordingly many of thefe worthy confeflbrs found it more eligible to quit their country, and to feek their peace in an uncultivated defart, than abide the fury of the bifhops. And when they, who firft fled to New England, had made this a comfortable afylum, the authority of government was mod cruel- ly interpofed, to deprive thofe who would have followed their brethren, of this relief, that the bifhops might not lofe the fatisfadion of tor- menting them at home J. And afterwards, when, in the reign of Charles I, thtfe refugees began to be happy and profperous, the malicious Laudy that they might reap no advantages from their in-

* Fidler-''s Church Hift. B. X. p. 19. and Heylin's Hiftory of of the prefbyterians, B, XI. p. 376.

X See PiVrcf'j Vindication, Parti, p. J 70, 171. liiiidaVs Rapin, 8vo. 1 73 1 , vol. IX. p. 3 12.— 395. MaccaiJp^^, vol. I. p. 67. But above all, Wilfon,^.^\l ''"' '

duflry,

PREFACE. XXV

duftry, commercial genius, and chriftian liberty, contrived to cramp their trade by foolifli procla- mations *, and, to complete their mortification, was upon the point of fending them a bishop with a military force to back his authority, if the Scots had not found him other bufinefs -f .

Fuller tells us, humourouQy enough, that, after the Hampton-Court conference, " many cripples in " conformity were cured of their halting therein, '* and fuch who knew not their awn, till they *' knew the King^s mind in this matter, for the ** future quietly digefted the ceremonies of the " church §."

It is more than probable, that James himfelf was one of thefe crippleSy till he talked with his bifliops ; the time had been, when he could no more digeft thefe ceremonies, than his new puri- tan fubjedls, and when he talked againft thofe of the church of Englandy in particular, with fcorn and contempt ||.

No doubt, but, upon the event of this confer- ence there was a confiderable falling off. So it will always be in fuch cafes, even with thofe who know their own minds well enough. Bancroft pre- tended to Spotfwoody Archbifhop of St. Andrews^

* Rujhnvofth, fecond part, p. 718.

f Heylin s lS\h oi Laud, p. 369.

§ Fuller's Church HiHory, B. X. p. 21.

jl He called the Englilh Liturgy, " an evil (liid mafs in ** Englifh ; which wanted nothing of the mafs but the lift- ♦* kigs," Caldtrivooii, apud Harris, p. 25.

that

xxvi PREFACE.

that " when the rolls were called of thofe who *' flood out, and were depofed, which was fome '' years after, they were found to bt forty -nine in " all England, whereas the minifters in that '* kingdom are reckoned nine thoufand and a- « bove *."

Bancroft probably forgot to tell his brother Spotfwood, how many (hiploads he had terrified into the plantations. It might be too, that he found no more t\i2Ln forty -nine ^ whom he held it fafe to perfecute •, poor friendlefs and moneylefs men, who had nothing wherewithal to buy off their cenfures, nor any patrons to protect them. There are authentic accounts, that the Noncon- formift minifters were not fo thin fown even in Bancroft's reign.

But perhaps a little anecdote, preferved by a fenfible and candid conformift, may help us to account for this grofs mifreprefentation. " In " the year 1669, fays he, we had feveral articles *' fent down to the clergy, with private orders to *^ fome^ to make the conventiclers as few and in- *' confiderable as might be. The eighth and lad *' was this. Whether you do think^they might be eafi- *' ly fuppreft by the affifiance of the civil jnagi- ^'-Jirate f?"

* Spot/wooiPs H\{i. of the Church oi Sect land, p. 479. and Heylin's Hilh of the Prefbyt. p. 376. C/a/rferxvoc^ lays, that the nuniber of fiknced, and deprived minifters, on that occafion, svere 300. Altare Damafcenum Praefat.

+ (Jonforniifts plea for NonGonformifts, Part I. p. 40.

This

PREFACE. xxvii

This was acaft oi Sheldon'' s politics, the fyflem of which he took from thofe excellent originals, Bancroft and Land. It would not have looked w<;ll to the civil magijlrate to do the Hierarchical drudgery of the prelates, while the nonconformifts were efteemed confiderable for their numbers anci quality. Even Charles's minillers might have boggled at this.

But Spotfwood's refledion upon Bancroft's rC'- port, muft not be forgot. " Such a noife, fays " he, will a few di'lurbers make, in any fociety " where they are tolerated.** Experience hath fhewn, that the more fuch difturbers are tolerat- ed^ the lefs noife they make. But Spotfwood^ by the word tolerated^ mt^nt^ fuff ere d to live. No- thing like a halter to make a man ceafe his noife !

What the puritans aimed at, and hoped to ob- tain by this conference, may be feen in that ex- cellent refcript called the millenary petition^ pre- ferved by Fuller (no bad model for a reformation even in thefe days)-, what they did obtain, was im- prifonment, depofition, and exile.

The violence v^ith which the ruling bifhops drove on during this and the firft part of the fuc- ceeding reign, (over which a good natured man would throw a cloak, if he could find one lar^e enough to cover it) loft them firft their feats in parliament, and afterwards their whole epifcopal authority.

2 Of

xxviii PREFACE.

Of thofe great and wife men who compofed the parliament of 1641, (and greater, or wifer, or more of them at one time, England never faw) all were not of one mind, with refpeft to the bifhops.

Some thought that particular delinquents be- ing punifhed for examples, the order might re- main, with fuch limitations, as would prevent its being mifchievous for the time to come.

With this view, archbifhop Ujher drew up his plan oi theredu£fion of Epifcopacy, and would the bifhops have contented themfelves with the powers referved to them in that plan, fome have luppofed they might have faved themfelves, and very probably the king.

But they were wifer. They fuppofed the king was interefted in their prefervation, and that if ever the crown fhould recover the prerogative claimed by James I. and Charles I. epifcopacy muil rife again with that, in all its pomp and luftre, and in a condition to bring all thofe who had or fbould oppofe it, to effectual repentances and in this, fuch of the bifhops as lived to the year 1662, found they had not been miflakeni

This may be called the fecond attempt to reform the church of England. Whether it mif- carried for having in it too much, or too little epifcopacy, would be hard to fay.

The third was the Savoy conference 1661. Charles II, impatient to accomplifli his reftora-

lion.

PREFACE. xxix

tion, and having fome mifgivings, fuggefted probably by Lord Clarendon, that the anti-epif- copal party might ftill be ftrong enough to give him much uneafmefs, pubiifhed a declaration at Breda, giving the prefbyterians to underftand two things, which were never intended to be car- ried into execution, but upon the extremeft: com- pulfion. I. A quite new model of the church of England. 2. Where this Ihould fall Ihort of fatisfying tender confciences, all pofTible eafe and relief, by a large and comprehenfive tolera- tion.

Charles foon found that the diflenters were in no condition to moled him. Neverthelefs, as the royal word was given twice over, fome fhew muft be made of keeping it. And this produced the Savoy conference fo called ; a complication of fophiftry, hypocrify, and virulence on the part of the orthodox, hardly to be paralleled in popilh hiftory.

Clarendon, Sheldon, and Morley were the con- , dudors of the Drama, the two latter true fons of - Bancroft and Laud. Clarendon pafles with many for a man of integrity, feduced, in this inftance, partly by his own prejudices, partly by the ar- tifices of the bifhops.

Bifhop Burnet puts the inflexibility o^ Clarendon towards the nonconformifts, to the account of his gratitude to the bifliops, for the fervices they fiid him in the affair of his daughter's marriage

with

>fxx PREFACE.

with the duke of Tcrk ^. If this was the cafe, and if Clarendon was otherwife inch'ned to mode- rate and healing meafures, more fhame for the bifliops who required fuch a requital.

But upon the fuppofition, that Lord Clarendon had really the leaft inclination to relax the terms of conformity in favour of the difTenters, he muft have been the moft difingenuous man that ever lived. For in the pofthumous hiftory of his Life, publifhed 1759, he lays it down for a ma- xim, that, " nothing but the fevered execution " of the law, can ever prevail upon that claffis of " men, to conform to government." What could a vindictive prelate of thofe times have faid more ?

Be it here noted that Lord Clarendon wrote this account of his own Life at Montpelier^ when he could have no temptation to diflemble. Did he then, aliuays think fo highly of eftablifhed ec- clefiaftical forms, as this maxim imports ? Cer- tainly not, if we may judge from two of his effays, written likewifc at Montpelier, the one. On the regard due to antiquity^ the other. On fnuUiplying controverjies. However, if any one chufes to add his Lordihip to the examples in the laft chapter of this work, of great churchmen labouring un- der invincible prejudices^ I have no obje6tion.

Clarendon's removal from the helm made way for ■2i fourth attempt to reform the church of Eng-

* Hill. O. T. vol. I. p. 260.

land^

PREFACE. xxxi

land^ in the year 1668, in which the undertakers on the fide of the church were fincere and hearty. Thefe undertakers were, judge Hale, billiop JVil- kins. Dr. Tillotfon and a few more, with the coun- tenance of the lord keeper Bridgman. Names, one may venture to fay, fufEcient to recommend a plan of reformation, to any chriltian govern- ment.

" But, fays Burnet, what advantage foever the • *' men of comprehenfion might have in any other " refpeft, the majority of the houfe of commons " was fo poffelTed againft them, that when it was *' known in a fucceeding fefTion, that a bill was " ready to be offered to the houfe for that end, " [drawn by lord chief juftice Hale] a very ex- " traordinary vote pafled, that no bill to that *' purpofe, fhould be received -f."

How the houfe of commons came to be io pof- fejfed, or perhaps, how it came to be known, that fuch a bill was prepared, is fairly accounted for by the following anecdote.

" Bifliop PFtlkim, who was a candid, ingenu- " ous, and open hearted man, acquainting bilhop " fVai'd [Seth lord bifnop of Salijhury'] with " the whole matter, hoping to have met with " his concurrence in it, he [Ward] fo beftirred ** himfelf, and all his friends, and made fuch a " party that nothing could be done in it J.'*

t Hill. O. T. vol. r. p. z6o. X Ca; amy's Abridgment, p. 322,

This

xxxii - PREFACE,

This fame bifhop Ward^ " to get his former *' errors to be forgot (for he had comphed dur-^ " ing the late times, and held in, by taking the " covenant) went into the high notions of a fe- ** vere conformity, and became the mod con- " fiderable man upon the bench *.*'

To finifh his chara6ler. " He was fo far in- " cenfed with fome things contained in the firft *' part of [the learned and truly antipapifticalj " Dr. Daniel Whithfs Protejlant Reconciler, that *' he obliged him to make a retradation." Which, if I had room, I would add in the margin, juft as it yNasimpofedby this i^ta.dy , bolding-in bifhop, as it may ferve for a precedent, in cafe retra^la- tions fhould once more come into fafhion. I can- not forbear, however, putting down two of the obnoxious propofitions retracted f.

Some faint attempts towards an accommoda- tion with the proteftant difTenters, by abating in the terms of conformity, were afterwards made during the reign oiCharlesW, particularly in the years 1673 ^"'^ i^74' Popery was then making fo formidable a . progrefs, that even Morley and Ward were frightened into an appearance, at

* Burnet y u. f. I92.

•}• I. It is iiat la^wful for fuperiors to impofe anything in the •vjorflnp of God, that is not antecedently necejjary.

2. The duty of not offending a n.v:ak brother is inconjifient 'With all hutnan authority of making laivs concerning indifferent things. Qu. Are thefe propofitions orthodox, upon the principles of the ALLIANCE, ot 316 they not ? See, A fliort Account of Dr. Wbithy, p. 6.

leaft,

PREFACE. xxxiii

icafi:, of defiring to make room for the noncon- formifts in the church, as an acceffion of (Irength againfh the common enemy. Calariiy, in his a- bridgment of Bdiiters hiftory, hath given fome particulars, and a Iketch of abatements drawn up by Baxter^ at the defire of Lord Ornry^ in the year 1673 *.

Morley^s chara(5ler is highly painted. " The *' bifhop of Wtnchejier, tha.z it might not feem to " be for nothing that he ofc pretended to be of ** fo peaceable a difpofition, furthered an a^ on- " ly to take oflf the affeni and confent^ [to the *' book of common-prayer] and the renunciation " of the covenant. But when other bifliops were " againft even this JJoew of abatement, he told ** them openly in the houfe [of lords], that, had •' it been but to abate them a ceremony, he would not *' have fpoken in it. But he knetv they [the dif- '' fenters]] were bound to the fame things Jlill b^ " other claufes or obligations, if thefe were repeal" " ed t.'*

This is fo black and infamous, that I fhould hardly blame a zealous churchman who fhould de- mur to the competency of the evidence, as com- ing from a diflfenter. There it hath flood how- ever, for above fifty years, uncontradidcd, as far as I know, by any one.

* From p. 338. to 343. f Ibid, p. 340.

There

xxxiv PREFACE.

There is a letter of Dr. T^illotjon^ not far from this paflage, in Calamfs Abridgment, by which it appears that IVard had played him much the fame trick in 1675 that he had played JVilkins in 1668, only perhaps with a little more hypo- crify. Tillotfon there fays, that " the projeded *' bill cannot pafs in either houfe, without the *' concurrence of a confiderable part of the bi- *^ fiiops^ and the countenance of his majefty, " which at prefent I fee little reafon to ex- «* peft *."

The reafon why thefe two biOiops Morley and IVard pretended to be fo often for accommoda- tion, feems to have been, to prevent any meetings being held without their knowledge, and confe- quently a reformation from coming upon them by furprize. No doubt but IVard kept in mind, not without fome degree of horror, how narrow- ly Bel and the dragon, had efcaped an ambufcade by the feeedom and opennefs of honeit bilhop Wilkim.

The next attempt to reform the church of England, had not only the concurrence of fome worthy bifliops who did real honour to their or- der, and of a number of pious and learned di- vines in inferior flations; but was undertaken under the aufpicious authority of IFilllam III. in the year 1689.

* Ibid. p. 34^.

By

PREFACE.

XXXV

By a fatal miftake, it was agreed, that the matter (hould pafs through the forms of convo- cation, where it met with an effedual defeat from the zeal, and adlivity of a fadion in the lower houfe, led on indeed, as was furpe(5i:ed, by fome of the bench, particularly Mew and S-prat.

Dr. Birch brings fome authentic proofs of bifliop ComporCs intriguing to have Dr. Jane chokn prolocuior^ in preference to TV//<7//^;?, not out of a difaffe6lion to the caufe, but to the man *. But he who could put the caufe in fo fair a way of being ruined to gratify his own perfonal re- fen tment, could not be very cordial to it at the bottom.

One fingle circumftance will ferve to charac- terize the fpirit and piety of thefe convocation men.

" We, fay they, being the reprefentatives of ** a formed eftabliflied church, do not think fit to *' mention the word religion, any farther than "it is the religion of fome formed eftablilhed " church.**

The word for religion in the Greek teftament, is 9-f>i(rxaa, which is no where appropriated to a formed eftabliflied church. Paul fpeaks of fe^s in the Jewifli religion f, fome of which were juft as much ejiahlijloed, as the prefbyterians and quakers are in England. James defines pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father^ in terms

* Life of Tillotfoity p. 1 75. f Jds. xxvi. 5.

c 2 which

xxxvi PREFACE.

which fhew, that fuch religion may be praflifed and conformed to, where there neither is, nor ever was, an eftablidied church *. But this fort of religion the pious convocation-men did not think fit to mention.

Their notion of religion, indeed, hath rather a pagan caft. Religionem earn qu^e in metu et cyEREMONiA Dcorum ftt, appellant^ fays Cicero. -f But another pagan feems to have had a more evangelical idea of religion. Religiofus, eji non modo deorum fan^itatem magni ajiimans, fed etiam officiofus adverftis homines J.

One cannot well call the Free and Candid Dif- quifttions^ relating to the church of -£«^/^«(:/, or the excellent Appeals which followed them, by the name of attempts toreform the church. Thefe were rather attempts to feel the pulfes of the ruling ecclefiaftics of that time. So, however, matters were managed at that period, that neither the authors, nor the public were the wifer for thofe attempts. An ingenious fencer was em- ployed on this occafion, to parry the home thrufts of thefe reformers, who had the dexte- rity to handle his weapons fo, as to appear in the eyes of the fpedtators, to part at leaft on equal terms with his antagonifts.

* fames i. 27.

f De Inventione, ii. 22.

J Fejlus in verbo, Religiofus,

I Here

PREFACE. xxxvii Here then hath terminus fixed his pedeftal, and here hath he kept his ftation for two whole centuries. We are jufl: where the A(5ts of uni- formity left us, and where, for ought that ap- pears in the temper of the times, the laft trum- pet will find us, — if popery will pleafe to let us be quiet, and leave us to our repofe with the fame complaifance that we have left her to go about and perform all her fun^ions^ without offence and without obfervation.

Having now given a fliort feries of inflances of the church of England'' s difpofition to reform the exceptionable parts of her conftitution, 1 hope 1 may be indulged in a few remarks upon ix,

I. The profeffed motive of thole great church- men who gave way to any movements towards a reformation before the revolution^ was not, if you will believe them, any convicStion in theirown minds, that any circumftance of dodlrine, difci- phne, or worlhip in the eftablilhed church, was really wrong. It was always aflerted, that the church needed no' reformation, and only con- defcended to thefe mootings partly to oblige the nonconform ills with a hearing, and partly to convince them by argument, how little their diflent was to be juftified : but might not one fay with more truth, much oftner to enter- tain the church's friends with a triumph after a Y^ory preconcerted with the civil powers ?

c 3 The

xxxviii PREFACE.

The divines, indeed, who were employed un- der King IVHliam^s commiiTion, were free enough in acknowledging and chara^ierizing the blemifhes in the church of England, at leail, if the remain- ing, tho' imperfed, accounts of that tranfaftion may be depended upon. And this has been given as a reafon, why the original papers relat- ing to it have been fo carefully fecreted from the public, as hitherto to have efcaped the moft di- ligent inquiries after them.

And this fecurity is, no doubt, one circum- ftance which hath given frefh courage to the church of England^ once more to hold fall her integrity, and to return to her old pofture of defence, in memorials, fchifm-hills, alliances, and other expedients, fome of which fhew that even Bancroft and Laud would not have been difpa- raged by learning fome particulars of church- artifice from more modern mafters of confor- mity.

2. Another thing the foregoing detail will help us to judge of, is the value of an argument fuppofed to be of great weight towards difcul- pating our great churchmen in their backward- nefs to promote a reformation ; namely, that this matter is in the option of the civil powers, with- out whofe concurrence (which perhaps might not be obtained) our moft dignified clergy could not itir a flep.

But here I would afk, what reafon the clergy of the prefent times can have to doubt of the

concurrence

PREFACE. xxxix

concurrence of the civil powers in the work of reformation ? By looking back to former times, we fee the civil powers have always made it a point to oblige and ftand by the eftablifhed clergy in all their perils ; and, in one inftance, adtually fell with them for a feafon. But even then, their days of darknefs were but few, in comparifon with the profperity they have enjoyed in the couife of two centuries. Since when, we have feen them rife from their light afflictions with re- doubled vigor and advantage, fo remarkably as to be able to check a reformation again ft the united endeavours of fome of their own falfe brethren in the higheft flations, and the moft fan- guine difpofition in the fovereign himfeif to ef- feft it.

Nor have we the leaf! reafon to imagine that their intereft with the civil powers has declined to this hour. It is not much above ten years fince the public was told by a great churchman, that ** Things were then come to that pafs, that " the ftate feemed to be in more need of the fup- " port of the clergy, than they of the date's *." The realbns given for that prefumption ftill fub- fill in their full force : not to mention fome later appearances which feem to tend towards a far- ther needy in no long time. So that it is to be hoped we fball hear no more of this plea for the inadlivity of the ruling clergy, till full proof is given to the world by a fair and open trial, that

* View of Lord Bolingbrokis Philofophy, 8vo. 1 754. p. 5.

c 4 their

xi PREFACE.

their fjncere and zealous endeavours for a farther reformation, are adually controuled by the civil ppw/ers.

'•jitii ^y '^pi^g i^ft remark I (hall make upon the foregoing fa(5ts is, that the alterations made in the forms of the church of England^ inftead of relieving the fcruples of confcientious noncon- formifts, greatly increafed them. The Savo^- Conference has been compared to the council of ^rent. Both were the efFeds of an unwelcome neceffity. In both the obnoxious party prefided, and gave judgment :. and the event of both con- vinced the remonllrants rcfpedtively, how vain a thing it was to contend againft the plenitude of church power, and how much wifer they had been in their generation, in difpenfing with things as they flood before thefe two reforming bodies undertook to review, them.

.| doubt not but the intelligent reader, who is moderately converfant in Englifh hiftory from the commencement of the prefent century, will perceive what room is left for purfuing refleclions of the fame fort through the lafc fixty years. But, ,^s I may be thought by fome to have already exceeded the juft bounds of a preface, I fhall, for the prefent, content myfelf with a few remarks upon one iqterefting circumftance in our prefent eitabiifliinent, which has not a little employed the fpeculations qf men of the fi'trft abilities of all parties.

There

jp R E F A C E. ill

There js not, perhaps, an inftance of a law f nafled in a proteftant community, which is lefs defenfible in a religious view, than that of the facramental ie^, enjoined as a qualification for holding civil offices.

In Charles II/s reign, which gave birth to it, a man who fliould have propofed the repeal of this law, with refpe<5t toprotejtant dijfeniers, would have pafled for a Socinian at the befl, perhaps for an atheiif.

^. In the next reign, the inconveniences, and ppflibly the unrighteoufnefs, of it were feen and felt, even by fome of the great churchmen them- felves, among whom Sancrq/t is named for one; ^nd it was not imagined at that time, but that, upon any fuch deliverance from popery as the Revolution^ the proteftant intereft would be re- lieved from fuch an incumbrance for all future time.

Perhaps, at that particular jun6lure, little more .was confidered among churchmen, than the ill policy of excluding fo confiderable a body of proteftants, who were, to a man, zealous enemies to popery and arbitrary power, from provinces where they might have fupported the common . caufe of public liberty, with the befl effeft.

But, after Mr. Locke's letters for toleration had appeared, it was prefently perceived, the* the title of them ran only for toleration, that his ar- guments concluded againft the authority of any

Chriftian

xHi PREFACE.

Chriftian fociety to prefcribe religious tefts or modes of worfhip, vi^hich were not clearly, plain- ly, and indifputably agreeable to the fcriptures, whether with or without the fandion of the civil magiftrate *.

The firft effedl of Mr. Locke'' s reafoning ap- peared in a very fenfible ^r^'/^i?, in behalf of the reje6led bill for abrogating the facramental teft, in the year 1689. No more, however, could then be obtained but a bare toleration, or exem- ption of proteftant dilTenters, from the penalties before laid upon them for holding and frequent- ing conventicles.

In the reign of Qiieen Anne^ the friends of re- ligious liberty were kept under by church memo- rids, and other alarms of the church's danger, calculated to inflame the people, which had all the fuccefs the party could wifh. And no won- der, if it be true, what Swift tells us in his hiftory of the four laft years of the Queen, " that the " whole facred order was underftood to be con- *' cerned in the profecution of Sacheverelf.

* It is well and truly obferved, in the Preface to the laft beautiful edition of Mr. Loch's letters concerning To/eratioK, in quarto, 1765, *' that Mr. Lccie was not the iirft writer on " this fubjeijl ; for that the argument was well underftood ^* and publiftied during the civil war." All, therefore, that is meant by what is faid above, is, that the attention of the public as v\ell as the fubjecl was then revived, which may eafily be accounted for by the eminence and known abilities of the li'ving author.

t P. 6.

But

PREFACE. xliii

But nothing exhibits a more lively pidure of the fenfe and temper of thofe times, than the fe- veral attempts in favour of a Law again ft Occa- fional Conformity, related in Bifhop Burnet'' s and other Hiftories *, which, after three unfuccefsful efforts, was at length carried in the year 171 1. The game was then in high-church hands, who played it fo dextroufly, as in the end to win the Schifm-bill, and were within an ace of winning fomething eife of infinitely more confequence.

But, providentially for the public, the reio-n of thefe politicians was now at an end. They were totally eclipfed by the acceffion of George I, a pattern to good and righteous men, as well as to wife and upright fovereigns. Such, however, was the remaining leaven of the former reian, that all that could be effefted in favour of Chri- ftian liberty, and even that after many flrugcrles and violent oppofition, was the repeal of the two ads, that againft Occafional Conformity^ and the other io prevent the growth of fchifm.

Attempts, indeed, were made to relieve the Proteftant diffenters from the hardfliips of the Teft-a6l, both in this and the next reign, and perhaps fomething more ought to have been ven- tured on thofe occafions, than the politicians of thofe times were willing to put to the hazard. What we certainly know is, that thefe attempts did not mifcarry for want of the hearty concur- rence of the princes upon the throne.

In

%\[v PREFACE,

In the mean time, whatever the political rcafons might be for defifting from any farther moleftation of the Teft-a6l, it would have been flrange if, under the aufpicious patronage of a Sovereign of the illuftrioLis houfe of Brunfiuick, the fons of li- berty flipuld have been wanting to their caufe, by fitting down in profound filence. The right- eoufnefs cf Teft-iaws were now difculTed in form, by the accurate Bifhop Hoadley, and the princi- ples on which they were defended in a religious light, fo effedually expofed and difgraced, that even the abilities of the inimitable Sherlock were found unequal to the tafl<: of fupporting them. ' In this flate things remained for fome time. The eyes of the moft prejudiced began to open, and to fee the equity of relieving the prorelfanc diflenters from this ignominious diftinftion j and great hopes were conceived, that in no long time it would be removed ; the rather, as even the con- fcrmifts themfelves were occafwnally obliged to comply, not without forne reludance •, fome of them, I mean, who perhaps never had, nor would have o-iven the church of England that particular afTurance of their being in communion with her, if they had not been called upon by motives, in which their refpeft for her and her inftitutions had no (hare.

It may well be fuppofed, that this was a ftroke which the high-church party could not bear with tolerable temper. But what was to be done ?

The

preface:. tiv

The argument was at an end, and perfonal attacks upon the adverfary were to little purpofe, who was equally unexceptionable as a writer and as a man, and who was only vulnerable in point of his conformity to a church, whofe forms of dif- cipline and government he had fhewn, upon Gofpel-principles, to be liable to fo many impor- tant obj^flions.

In this diftrefsful hour of defpondency, and when things, on the part of the tejl-men, were going on faft towards a (late of defperation, arofe a champion for the church, who, changing the old fofture of defence, undertook to vindicate the teft- law upon the hypothefis of an Alliance between Church and State.,

Two circumftances, indeed, appeared upon the outfet of this undertaking, which bore an un- promifing afped: towards the learned author's fuccefs.

The firft was, that the queftion eoncerning re- ligious liberty had already pafTed thro' the hands of Milton, Locke, Hoadley, Sherlock, and other ma- fters of reafoning of the firft reputation, which could not but raife fome little prejudice againft an undertaker, who propofed to ftrike into a new road. The learned author, moreover, could prevail with himfelf to fay, even after the labours of thefe great men, that he found the fubject in an embroiled condition *. Which how-

• View of Lord Bolwgbroke'i Philofophy, Lett.iv. p. Sj.

ever

xlvi PREFACE.

ever did not tend to abate the prejudice, more efpecially when it appeared that, in order to dif- embroil it, he availed himfelf of the aid of fuch writers as De Marca and Boffuei.

The other circumftance which incumbered his enterprize, was his propofing to fupport a test on fuch reafoning as would not deftroy a TOLERATION * ; by which it appeared that he meant fuch a toleration only as prefuppofed

the ESTABLISHMENT of a NATIONAL CHURCH,

— a toleration confiding in an indulgence with refpe<5b to feparate places of worfhip or different modes of difcipline, or in allowances of partial and occafional conformity.

Whereas the toleration contended for by the advocates of religious freedom, was " abfolute " liberty^ jufi and true liberty, equal and impartial " liberty upon the principle that neither fingle " perfons, nor churches, nay nor even common- " wealths, have any juft title to invade the civil " rights and worldly goods of each other, upon " pretence of religion f." An attempt to make a T'e^-law confident with this only true fenfe of toleration, may be confidered in the fame light as an attempt to make a thing heavier than itfelf, the want of which fecret hath ruined m^ny a hopeful trial at a perpetual motion.

* View of Lord Bolinghrokis Philofoph/, Lett. iv. p.' 83.

t See the Preface to the Englilh tranflation of Locke's firft letter concerning Toleration, and the letter itfelf, p. 42. of the lall edition.

For

PREFACE.

For the reft, our learned author's principles ^re chiefly of t\it political kind, leading to expe- dients of civil utility. He was not, however, infenfible, that, fo far as the church was to con- tribute her q_uota to this kind of utility, fhe mull have the authority of the gospel.

Bifhop Hcadley, from the circumftance that'our Saviour had declared his kingdom not to be of this world, had inferred, that " ChriH is himfelf " the fole Lawgiver to his fubje^s, and himfelf " the fole Judge of their behaviour, in the affairs ** of confcience cind eternal falvation \ — that he ** hath, in thofe points, left behind him no vi- '* fible human authority \ no vicegerents, who can " be faid properly to fupply his place \ no inte-r- " -preters, upon whom his fubjeds are abfolutely *' to depend ; no judges over the confciences or *' religion of his people *.'*

Hence it followed, that nofubjeds of Child's kingdom, under the name or notion oithe church, could convene, as our author exprefles it, with the civil magiftrate, fo, as to give up any points of confcience to his direflion ; nor could the ma- giftrate accept of fuch overtures, or fuch con- vention, without ufurping upon the province which Chrift had referved to himfelf.

This was immediate death to the theory of al- liance -, nor would the Biftiop's interpretation of the text admit of any inference in favour of it.

• Sermon on the Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Chrift.

Our

xlviii PREFACE.

Our learned author, therefore, was under a heceflity of finding another interpretation, which would better bear what he had to build upon this text. And here it follows.

" Our Saviour faith. My kingdom is not of this •' worlds which bears this plain and obvious fenfe, •• that the kingdom of Chrift, to be extended •• oVet all mankind, was not, like the kingdom «• of God, confined to the Jewifh people, where •• religion was incorporated with the ftate, and <* therefore of this world, as well in the exercife *' of it, as in the rewards and punifliments by *' which it was adminiftred ; but [the kingdom " ofChrifi] v^diS independent of all civil communities, " and therefore neither of this world as to the " exercife of it, nor as to the rewards and punifh- " ments by which it was adminiftred ^."

That a kingdom to be extended over all man- kind, (hould not be like a kingdom confined to one particular people, is indeed plain and obvious cnouoh ; but is equally plain and obvious with refpefl to the Roman as the Jewifh kingdom : and why the former fhould not be pitched upon as the inftance put into comparifon with Chrift's kingdom, efpecially as the declaration was made to a Roman Governor, who might be apprehen- five of our Saviour's pretenfions to fupplant Ti- berius, is not quite fo obvious. The difference too was the very fame in the Roman as in the

• Alliance t p. 178.

ftwifh

PREFACE. xllx

Jewifi kingdom, both as to the'exercife of it, and the rewards and punifiiments by which it was adminiftred. Can any one fuppofe it to have beert our Saviour's intent, on this occafion, to give Pilate an idea of the peculiarities of the Jew- ifh government ?

Be that as it may \ our learned author's inter- pretation will even yet bear Bifliop Hoadlt^^s infer- ences. Whether it will bear any other, we may fee as we go alono:.

*' But, continues our author, whoever ima- " gines that from this independency by inftitu- *' tion, the church cannot convene and unite with " the ftate, concludes much too faft.'*

Here the kingdom cf Chrijl is turned into the CHURCH, which in this place mull mean fome particular formed fodety of Chrilt's fubjects, im- powered a priori to a6l for themfelvcs and all the reft, that is, for all mankind. But then, where is this church to be met with ? A neceffary que* ftion, which fliould have been anfwered before the learned author had ftirred a ftep farther. And now for the reafoning by which this hafty con-- clufion is obviated.

" Wehaveobferved, faith the learned author^ *' that this property in the kingdom of Chrift, *' [viz. of being not of this world'] was given as •* a mark to diftinguifli it from the kingdom of " God. That is, it was given to Ihew, that this d »* celigioa

1 PREFACE.

*' religion extended to all mankind, and was not, " like the Mofaic, confined to one only people.'* And why not as a mark to diftinguifh it frotn all the reji of the kingdoms of this world-, a di- ftinclion as certainly intended in our Lord's de- claration, as that mentioned by our learned au- thor ? The reafon is plain. In that cafe, the kingdom of Chrift could have allied with none of the kingdoms of this -world, fmce the moment fuch alliance fhould take place, the mark would be extinguifhed or courfe ; and for this I appeal to the learned author's own interpretation of the text, who makes the property of the kingdom of Chrift, of being not of this world, a confequence of its being independent of all civil communities. But fink this independency in an union or alliance with civil community, and the kingdom of Chrift be- comes, to all intents and purpofes, a kingdom of this world, both as to the exercife of it, and as to the rewards and punifliments by which it is adminiftred.

This mark of diflin^iion, therefore, was not to appear with refpeft to any kingdoms of this world, but the Jewifh only -, and with that there was no danger that the kingdom of Chrift ftiould enter into alliance, as it was now upon the point of being broken up.

But the dexterity of our learned author appears to the greateft advantage in the confequence he draws from the foregoing pofitions.

*' Con-

PREFACE. H

" Consequently, that very reafon which '* made it proper for the Mofaic religion to be "^ united by divine appointment to the ftate,

" made it fit the Chriftian fliould" what ?

The caft of the argument and the 7nark of dijiin-

,^/<?» prepare you to expsdl — " ihoiild vM

", be united to the flate." But, no ; this would have etnbroiled the theory o^ alliance with a witnefs ; and therefore happily and feafonably does our

learned author turn alide, and conclude

" made it fit that the ,Cliriftian [religion] fliould *' be left free and independent."

Agreed; free and independent of every legifla- tor, judge, vicegerent, or interpreter, but Chriil alone, to the end of time.

No, here we part ; for the learned author afl^s, . ^'^ But to what end, if not for this, to be at li- " berty to adapt itfclf to the many various civil " policies by a fuitable union and alliance f^

And thus we fee, not without fome degree of furprize, that this very independency of the king- dom of Chrifl, which diftinguifhed it from all civil communities, as a kingdom not of this world, is made an inftrument of turning it into as many kingdoms of this world as there are civil policies among the Tons of men.

But to the queftion, " To what end, if not for

*' this ?" — . And is our learned author really in

earneit ? Can he not perceive one other end for

which the Chriftian religion was X^itfree and in-

d 2 dependent ?

lii PREFACE.

dependent ? — An end proclaimed in every page

of our Chriftian oracles. In one word, the

great, the gracious, the generous end of commu- nicating its blefTings and benefits to every indi- vidual OF THE HUMAN RACE, cven though hc (hould be unconne6led with, or excluded from, the privileges of every human eftablifhment on the face of the earth.

Let the learned author now try to make his end confident with this^ to which tlie fcriptures bear fo ample and fo often- repeated a teftimony. We will be reafoable. One fingle pafTage of the New Teftament, proving that " the Chriftian re- *' ligion was left free and independent, that it " might be at liberty to adapt itfelf to the many *' various civil policies, by a fuitable union and " alliance," will fatisfy us. Nay, one fingle paflage from which it may be clearly inferred *.

* The learned author refers us, indeed, to a prophecy of I/aiahy xlix. 22, 23. which he cites tlius : 7hus faith the Lord God, Behold, I njcill lift up my hand to /Zv Gen TILES, and fet «/' mv Jiatidard to the people — <7W Kings shall be thy nur- sing fathers, AND THEIR QuEENS THY NURSING^ MO- THERS. This prophecy, he would have us believe, receives \t%'iilt'tmate completion, by the Chriftian religion's "adapting *' itfelf to the many various civil policies, by a fuitable union ** and alliance.''' Well then, let us fee how this completion will turn out. If the Kings and Queens here mentioned reprefent the fiatij the party to be nurfed by them reprefcnts the church in alliance with them. No^v let us go on with the prophecy, for the learned author hath left it (hort. 'Lhey [the Kings and i:^(eni^ i. e. THE state] fkall bow doiin to thee [the

And

P R E F A 'C E. liii

And thus much furely the learned author owes to his own argument ; as many a plain, fincere Chriftia^n, even after all the pains taken with him in the book of Alliance^ may, without fuch addi- ' tional evidence, be extremely at a lofs to con- :. ceive, what union or alliance between a kingdom which zj, and a kingdom which is not, of this world, can with any propriety be Cd.\hdL fuiiable.

Let us now attend to the upfhot. ** An alli- ** ance then we muft conclude the Chriftiaa ** church was at liberty to. make, notwithftand- " ing this declared nature of Chrift's kingdom, " So far is true indeed, that it is debarred from ** entering into any fuch alliance with the ftate, *^ as may admit of any legislator in Chrift's *' kingdom but himfelf [that is, a power in the " magiftrate to alter dodrines]. But no fuch

church] nuith their facs foixarj the earth, and lick up the duft of thy feet. If this is to be the ultimate completion of the pro- phecy, we have reafon to be thankful that it hath not yet taken place, and that we have no intimation in the Chriftian icripture* that it ever will, as the prophecy is here interpreted. The. learned author hath all along taken it for granted, that churcl-* tyranny muft be the confequence of the church's being inde- pendent on the ftate, and hath been at fome pains to load X\iG protejiatit allertors of tl)is independency with this invidicu? fapijlical confequence ; being I'Allingly ignorant, as it fliould feem, that the independency contended for by the advocates &r ^**''phriflian liberty, is not the independency of any njifibk fodety, ^° but of individuals only. But, to take the matter at the very "^ worft, what will the ftate gain b)' bringing the church inio its dependency, if the humiliation above defcribed \i to be the ei- feft of this laboured alliance ?

d 3 " power

liv* PREFACE.

** power is granted or ufurped by the fupremacy *' of the ftate, [which extends only to difci- " pline] *."

I muft confcfs my ignorance. Till now I have thouglit difcipU'ne as proper an objeft of iegifla- tion as do5frine. And, iinlefs Chrift hath left no rules of difcipline for the fubjefts of his king- dom, the civil magiftrate and the church too are excluded h-t^m altering difcipline by the fame con- fiderations which prohibit their dteri?^,^ dodinn^s. That Chrift hath left rules or laws of difcipline for his fubjefls, I think 1 may venture to affert on the teftimony of the learned author himfelf, who, when the merits cf this complex theory were not in agitation, could plainly fee the fu- perior authority of the Chrtjtian difcipline in com- parifon with that of the alliance.

The cafe was this : A certain Chancellor of a diocefe, an officer appointed to execute the code

* See the ^/Afiwrf, p. i8o. and View of Lord 5c/zV_g^T0/.Vj

Philoropby, Lett. iv. p. 146. There is not a word in the

whole controverfy concerning Church-authority ot a looier and more equivocal lignification than the word difdpUne. Rites and Ceremonies are reckoned by fome writers among the articles oi difcipline. And yet Rites and Ceremonies may be idolatrous. Tejis and fuhfcriptions are confidcred by others, under the no- tion of difcipline ; and thus the magiftrate, upon the principles of the Alliance, may have the power of altering doctrines. Bifhop Uoadleys ftate of the cafe prevents this confiifion. Wherever confcience is concerned, whether in matters of doc- trine or difcipline, there all lawgivers or judges, Chrirt alone excepted, are excluded.

of

PREFACE. Iv

of difcjpline by the powers in alliance, having unhappily incurred the learned author's difplea- fure, is fummoned by him before a foreign JUDICATORY (a judicatory foreign to that wherein the laid Chancellor prefided), that is to fay, HOLY SCRIPTURE. If this be really the cafe, what becomes of the alliance ?

To this foreign judicatory, however, let us all appeal •, and, when tht facramental te§i can ftand its ground before this tribunal, it will readily be given up as an objed of reformation.

It may now, perhaps, be expeifled that I fhould give fome account of a publication, which has in it fo very little of the complexion of the times, a,nd which appears at a feafon, when there is but little profpeft of engaging the attention of the public to fubjefts of this nature and tendency. . The reader will perceive, that fome part of thefe papers were written at times very diftant from others, and not in the fame order in which they now appear. Perfons and fads are men- tioned or alluded to, which, when they were noticed, were Hill upon the ftage, but have now many of them difappeared ; nor has the author perhaps been fufficiently careful to adjull his re- marks upon them to the prefent period, fo as to avoid the imputation of anachronifms

The Free and Candid Difquifitions, and after- wards the Effay on Spirit, gave occafion to Jeveral d 4 little

In PREFACE.

little pamphlets on the fiibjed of a review of our public fervice, and to the difcuffion of feveral particular points, which were fuppofed to be proper objeds of it. And at the fame time, when cards were not in the way, the fame topics were debated in private parties.

Into one of thefe the author was accidentally thrown, where it was his hap to mention a glar- ing inconfiftency in the cafe of fubfcription to our eftablifhed articles i)f religion. Some gentle- men of good fenfe and refpecftable ftations, then prefent, exprefled the utmoft furprize on the oc- cafion i nor did a dignified divine, who alfo made one of the company, feem to have been apprized of the impropriety before it was then mentioned, tho% for the honour of the church, he made an attempt at a folution by that fort of cafuiftry, of which feveral famples may be met with in the cnfuing difcourfes.

One of the lay-gentlemen defired to have the cafe dated upon paper, which, afcer feme time, was prefented to him, and makes a part of the following work, though placed at fome diftance from the beginning. In going through the par- ticulars then to be confidered, the author found new matter arifing upon him. ; which he pur- fued at leifure hours, without thinking of putting any thing into forni upon the fubjecl immedi- ately.

PREFACE. Ivii

In thofe days, the two principal fees were filled with two prelates, well known, while they were in fubordinate ftations, for their zealous at- tachment to civil liberty, and for their enlarged, generous, and chriftian fentiment in religion; in which one of them perfifted to the laft mo- ment of his life, and in the higheft eminence of ilation, and gave proof of it in a remarkable inftance, which, when the time comes to give his charader its full luftre, will do him honour with our lateft poflerity.

Here was then encouragement to venture fomething for the truth, and on that fair occa- fion, the author methodized and put the finifh- ing hand to his coUedions. But a fudden change in the face of affairs quickly convinced him, that a publication of fuch fentiments would be now quite out of feafon.

It will certainly now be demanded, if out of feafon then, what is it that hath brought to light a work of this fort at a period, when there is not only fo confiderable a change in the public tafte, but when other circumftances, unfavoura- ble to the caufe of reformation, feem to difTuade an cnterprize of this kind, for ftill more cogent reafons ?

It may look like a paradox to allege (in an- fwer to this expoQuIation) that there are others

who

mi' PREFACE.

who Can give a better account of this matter than the author himfelf -, which however is pret- ty much the cafe. Suffice it to fay on the part of the author, that his principal inducement to acquiefce in the publication was, his obferving the redoubled efforts of popery to enlarge her borders, without being at the pains, as hereto- fore, to cover her march, and the furprizing in- difference with which fome public and even cla- morous notices of her pogrefs were receivecj, where, one woulc^ have thought, both intereit and duty were coi|eerned to remark and obftrudt her palTage.- j C^

As this ife 4 mattpr of fome conTequence, 1 muft beg a littljC rpore of the reader's patience for a few reflexions upon it.

Dr. Mojheifii hath obferved, that, " in thefe *' latter days, * this great and extenfive commu- *' nity [ti)e vfformed church] comprehends in its '' bofom, Arminians, Calvinifts, Suprajapfarians, " Sublaf)f^rians, and Univerfalifls, who live to- " gethefjin charity and friendfhip, and unite " their efforts in healing the breach, and dimi- '' nifhing the weight and importance of thole " controverfies, which feparate them from the *' communion of the Romijh church *."

* Mojheim, Comp. View, p. 574. Vol. II,

There

PREFACE. lix:

There Teems to me to be a want of precifi- on in this paffage, as it ftands in Mr. Maclaine's tranflation ; and how it is in the original, I have not an opportunity of being informed. Dr. Mojheim certainly means upon the whole, that the reformed churches have, in thefe latter days, fhifted nearer to popery ; and I cannot but think we may fafely trull his knowledge and his integrity for the matter of fad, however he may be miftaken in accounting for it.

Mr. Maclaine indeed, in his note upon this paflTage, calls it, " a ftrange and groundlefs afper- ** fion, and finds it difficult to conceive how " it fhould efcape the pen of this excellent hi- " ftorian. He thinks the reformed churches *' were never at fuch a diftance from the fpirit *' and do(5trine of the church of Rome, as at this " day ; and that the progrefs and improvement " of fcience and phiiofophy feem to render a " relapfe into popifh fuperflition morally impoffi- " ble, in thofe who have been once delivered " from its baneful influence.'*

I muft freely own, I cannot fee the force of this reafoning. Has there been no progrefs, no improvement in fcience and phiiofophy, in popiQi countries? This cannot be faid. Are the im- provements in thefe articles in fome of thole countries lefs and /<?zvvr than in any reformed

country ?

Ix PREFACE.

country ? Neither will this be affirmed. What intelligence, then, have we from thofe popilh countries where thefe improvements are the moil confpicuous, of a proportionable progrefs of religious reformation in them ? Have we no reafon to fufped, that if an accurate account were to be taken, the balance in point of conver- fions^ in the moji improved of thofe countries, would be greatly againft the reformed reli- gion ?

On another hand, improvements in philofo- phy, are faid to have made many fceptics in re- Jigion, in all churches reformed and unreformed. And fcepticifm, when, in a melancholy or a dc' parting hour, it is mixed, as is frequently the cafe, with a certain degree of apprehenfion of what may be hereafto-^ is very apt to take its repofe in the bofom of that church, which offers the fpeedieft and mod effecflual fecurity every way^ without putting the perplexed patient to the trouble of examining and determining for himfelf. And of all the churches in Chriften- dom, that which offers this fort of fecurity with the greateft confidence, is, out of all queftion, the church of Rome,

But this is not all. There is one fcience where- in the reformed churches, perhaps in mod coun- tries, have made as remarkable improvements.

as

PREFACE. Ixi

as in any other. I mean the fcience of poli- tics, which, as fome think, has had noobfcure efFeds upon them all. And church politics, in reformed countries, chiefly aim at accommo- dating all the peculiarities in their refped:ive fyftems, as much as may be, to the religon of the magiftrate ; a condufl, which, out of all doubt, cannot be defended in every inftance^ upon any principles which are of proteftant ori- ginal. It is the fame fort of pclky which hath laid to Qeep fo many controverfies among the reformed, which fome perhaps may think a blefling. Controverfies, however, have had this good in them. They have kept the feveral parties among the reformed upon their f^uard not to incur the reproach of each other of ad- vancing too near to the quarters of the common enemy. We are told, with fome degree of ex- ultation, that this contentious fpirit is fubfided. It is a good hearing, if it hath not funk alono- with it, the fimplicity, gcdly fmceriiy, and truly apftolical zeal of our firft reformers againft po- pery : otherwife we may have no great occafion to rejoyce ; and fhould be fent to learn what that meaneth, iay peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you \ not A$ the world giveth, G.iv£ I unto you. •^'^'■i^""

But

Ixii PREFACE.

But not to lay too much ftrefs upon circum- ftances, fuppofitions, and inferences from mere appearances, let us attend to a remarkable fad, brought indeed on another occafion by Dr. Mo- Jloeim^ but which fully juftifies his obfervation above cited, and, which is more, has the fandtion of Mr. Madaine himfelf, and is the more in- terefting to us, as it immediately relates to our own eftablifhed church.

" As to the fpirit of the eftablifhed church of *' Eiigland^ fays Dr. Mojheim^ in relation to thofe " who diflent from its rule of doftrine and go- *' vernment, we fee it no where better than in the " condud of Dr. Wake^ archbifhop of Canterbury, " who formed a projed of peace and union between " the Englijh and Galilean churches, founded upon " this condition, that each of the two communis " tias fliould retain the greateft part of their re- " fpedive and peculiar do£trines *."

What a door is here opened for reflexion ! A Proteftant Archbifhop of Canterbury, a pretended champion too of the proteftant religion, fets on foot a pnojedt for union with a popiHi church, and that with conceflions in favour of the grofleft fuperftition and idolatry ; and this reprefented as the fpirit of the eftabhflied church of England,

* Comp. View, vol. II. p, 576.

4 , in

P, R E F A C E. Ixiii

in relation to thofe who diflent from its rule of dodrine and government !

'Tis true, there are /rd)W^»/ dlflenters from the rule of government of the eftablifhed church of Efiglandj who agree with her in her rule of dodrine •, and Dr. Mnjheim^s inflance being brought as ian indication of the fpirit of the church of England in general, it might be fup- pofed this eftablidied church would go as far to meet thefe diflenters, as to meet the papifls. —I %vi(h this Could be fald. But our hiftory affords no inflance of an archbifhop of Canterbury nego- tiating with proteflant diflenters upon any fuch condition as that mentioned by Mojhelm : and fuch of them as, fince the Reformation, might haye had an inclination that way, have been to'o wary to go fo far as Dr. Wake is faid to have done with Du Tin. And if the condu6t 'of the church Q>i England is to be judged of by that of Archbifhop Wake, the oppofition of that prelate to the repeal of the Schifm-bill Ihews, that an union with proteflant difTenters, upon the condi- tion offered to the papifls, is the lafl thing the eflablifned church of England would think of.

But, happily for us, Dr. Mojheim was miflaketi in taking his meafure of the fpirit of the eflra- bliilied church of England^ from the fpirit of an archbifhop of Canterbury. Bifhops are as apt to be intoxicated with power and pre-eminence as

other

Ixiv PREFACE.

other mortals, and have too often been tempted to extend their domination beyond its eftablijhed bounds, when, if they had been called to account, the church eftabliflied (even upon principles of the Jlliance) mud have difowned their authority, becaufe the law and the ma- giftrate would. I am not fufficiently informed of the circumftances of this tranfaflion of Archbifhop fVake, to know what progrefs he had made in it. But I take it for granted, that, before he could bring it to bear, it muft have pafled through other hands ; and I remember enough of the times when Dr. JVake figured at the head of the church, to be very certain that it would then have been loft labour to follicit the confent of a majority even of the members of the church of England to an union with the Gallican (that is, the French popifli) church, even tho' all the bifhops upon the bench had recommended it.

Is our hiftorian then to be condemned for his temerity in m-aking fuch a judgment of the church of England ? By no means. A treaty of this kind, openly avowed, efpoufed, and pro- moted by an ArQ\\h\^-\o^ oi Canterbury^ and with refpe^t to which there was no apparent oppofition, might appear to a foreigner a fufficient indica- tion of the fpirit of the whole community, and

no

PREFACE. Ixv

no improper inftance of cm reformed church, aC leaft, " ufing her efforts, in thefe latter days, to *' diminifh the weight and importance of thofe ** controverfies that feparate her from the com- ** munion'of the church oi Rome.^*

But what fliall we fay to Mr. Maclaine, who, in a note upon this paffage, not only acknow- ledges and confirms the fad by additional cir- cumftances, but feems to give it the fandtion of his approbation ?

" The interefls of the proteftant religion," fays he, " could not be in fafer hands than Archbilhop " Wake's. He, who had fo ably and fo fuccefs- " fully defended proteflantifm as a controverfial *' writer, could not furely form any projed of " peace and union with a Roman-catholic church, " the terms of which would have reflected on his " charafler as a negociator.'*.

Could Mr. Maclaine be ferious when he wrote thus ? Had he reflefted upon the condition upon which that prelate founded his treaty, namely, that " each of the two communities Jhould retain the

" GREATEST PART OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AND

" PECULIAR DOCTRINES.'"' And has he confi- dered to what thefe amount, even in the modified popery of the French^ or what would be the con- fequences of our uniting with the Gallican church in thefe circumftances ?

Dr. IVake^s merit, as a controverfial writer for ,*the proteftant religion, will be readily acknow-

e ledged,

Ixvi PREFACE.

kdged, nor is his conduft (friendly to reforma- lion) at the trial of Sacheverell forgotten. But he was not then Archbifhop of Canterbury. It is well known what alteration an elevated fitua- tion makes in the magnitude, arrangement, and effe(3: of •obje<5ts, in the fame profpedl taken from an inferior pofition. This had its influence upon Dr. IVake, and it has had the fame upon others. After all, this inftance of a reformed church growing more placable towards Romijb doctrines, is, on the behalf of T)x. Alofrjeim, an inftance ad homimm to Mr. Madame^ even with Mr. Maclaine's own fuffrage, who will therefore, it is hoped, abate of his refentment towards that excellent hiftorian, and confider his remark in a iefs invidious light than that of an afperfion.

Mr. Madaine, indeed, muft be much better in- formed concerning the ftate of religion abroad, than we in this ifland ; and he affures us, in this prefent year, 1765, that " the reformed churches •* were never at fuch a diftance from the fpirit " and dodrine of the church of Rome as at this «' day i" and if this is faid upon good grounds, we cannot but rejoice that our foreign proteftanc brethren are fo ftcdfaft and immoveable, and -have Icfs reafon to be alarmed at the contrary ap- pearances at home, where Mr. Madaine will al- low us to be competent judges in our turn.

PREFACE. Ixvii

It hath been lamented of late, that the zeal and vigilance both of paftors and people in the church of England^ againft popery and popifh emiffaries, is vifibly declined. The papifts, Ixrengthened and animated by an influx of Je- fuits^ expelled even from popifh countries for crimes and practices of the worft complexion, open public Mafs-houfes, and affront the laws of this proteflant kingdom in other refpeds, not without infulting fome of thofe who endeavour to check their infolence. It is not long ago, that we were told, with the utmofl coolnefs and compofure, in a pamphlet written exprefsly in defence of fome proceedings in a certain epifco- pal fociety, and, as is conjedured, by fomebody in no ordinary llation, that " PopiJIj Bijhops go *' about here, and exercife every part of their ** function" WITHOUT offence, and without " observation *." A circumftance thatcan no otherv/ife be accounted for, than upon the fup- ppfition that the two hierarchies are growing daily more and more into a refemblance of each other ; which fuppofition is indeed necefTary for the fupport of the point, in proof of which this notable fad is employed. Surely thefe phanomena were not common, even in Archbifhop Wake's time.

* Anfwer to Dr. Mayhenxx's Obfcrvatlons.

c 2 Our

Ixviii PREFACE.

Our proteftant diflenters in general have, I hope and believe, very different conceptions of the malignity of popifh principles, and of their fatal afpeft upon the civil and religious rights of Great Britain. I know fome of the \frorthieft and mofl judicious among them, who fee with concern and anxiety the little inter- ruption that is given to the unwearied endeavours of treacherous priefts to pervert his Majefty's proteftant fubjeds to their intolerant fuperftition, ^.nd confequently from their allegiance. —A late cafe, however, remarkable enough to have taken up no little foom in the public prints, hath^dif- covered, that all the leading characters among them are not of the fame ftamp, and that popery itfelf may be diverted of its terrors in the eyes of a 07ice zealous champion for religious liberty in its fuUeft extent, when taken into the protection of a man, who, for the time being, had the di- ftribution of the loaves and the fifties. .

But lee us now proceed to inquire what popery hath done to entitle herfelf to this complailance from the reformed churches ; what fteps fhe hath taken, or what difpofttion flie hath ftiewn, to meet all or any of thefe churches'haif-way ?

And here 1 will not aflc whether the papifts have endeavoured to diminifii the weight and importance of thofe controverfies they have with us, which are merely of the religious kind. I

will

PREFACE. Ixix

will not inquire whether and how far the church of Rome hath modified her abfurd and impofiible doctrine of TranftibUantiation. I will not examine her on the head o^ purgatory ^ faint -wor/hipy relics^ majfes for the dead, penances, and other articles, which have no immediate ill efFe(51: upon civil fo- ciety. I will only inquire whether popery hath reduced her ancient pretenfions fo far, as to be- come a friendly, benevolent, and charitable neighbour to perfons of the reformed religion.

In the firfl place, hath fhe acquitted the pro- teftants of herefy ? If not, is fhe convinced that heretics ought to be tolerated, and that fhe ought to keep her faith and perform her covenants with them, as well as with perfons of her own com- munion ? Or hath fhe receded from her claim to infallibility, on which thefe other do6lrines are built ?

Have the papifts of Great Britain, in particu- lar, given the King and his Government the fecurity of their allegiance, as proteftant fubjeds do ? Do they acknowledge no King of Great Britain but his majefty King George III ? Have not a majority of EngliiH papifts of rank and fortune Jefuits in their houfes, as direflors of their confciences ? Have not their youth been fcnt to be educated among Jefuits ? Are not the Roman- catholic priefts, flationed all over Eng- e 3 land.

Ixx PREFACE.

landi chiefly of the Jefuitical order ? Is it not the dodrine of the Jefuits that princes may be excommunicated by the Pope, and afterwards depofed or murdered ? Are not all Proteftant princes, and particularly the King of Great Bri- tain, confidered by this order of men, as alrea- dy excommunicated ? Are not all perfons whofe confciences are direfVed by Jefuits obliged to believe as the Jefuits themfelves believe ? And are not they who hold thefe opinions, fworn enemies to the proteftant government of thefe Kingdoms ?

If thefe queftions cannot be anfwered to the fatisfadion of a proteftant people, it behoveth every good fubje6l to our gracious Sovereign, and every friend to this country, to keep up a fpirit of vigilance and attention to every motion of thefe dangerous inmates, whom we daily fee ftrengthening their hands with new converts, of whom the leaders of this malignant party will not fail to avail themfelves, the moment they find their numbers fufficienc to give them an equal chance in a ftruggle to wreft out of our hands our ineftimable rights and hberties civil and religious.

But you will aflc, " what has all this to do ** with fubfcription to /Ir ticks of religion ^ and

" the

PREFACE. Ixxi

" the eftablifhment of Confejfions of faith and *' doftrine in proteftant churches ? "

Not fo little as you may imagine. All reli- gious impofitions in proteftant focieties, not warranted by fcripture, and which mufl: be fub- mitted to, on the pain of wanting bread, have a tendency to leflen the apprehenfions, that they who have fo much at ftake as Briti(h fubje6ls have, ought to entertain of the incroachments of Popery. Men of liberal education, finding they cannot be completely qualified for certain pub- lic ftations, without- complying with terms, of the re(5titude of which they are not fatisfied, and with which they muft comply, or lofe the ex- pence as well as the fruits of their education, will naturally be loath to forego the means of their fubfiftence for a fcruple which is not coun- tenanced by one example in a thoufand, and will therefore comply at all events. They will be apt to fufpe^t, that a free examination into the merits of the cafe might leave impreffions, which would either difappoint their profpefts in life, or, in cafe of compHance, bring upon them anxieties that would embitter every emolument arifing from their profefllon. What wonder that, in thefe circumftances, they fhould take up with the firft flimfy cafuiftry fuggefted to them by a fellow-feeling brother? or, which is the 4 ihorter

IxxH PREFACE.

fhorter cut, and by far the mofl current ano- dyne, repole themfelves in tlie authority of the church ?

In either cafe, they are in a train which would lead them with equal fecurity to acquiefce in the genuine impoCtior\^ of popery, The cafes only differ in the degrees of more and kfs : and they of courfe muft be tender in afferting the privileges of chrijtian liberty, on the peril of be- ing mortified with recriminations, which the re- proof of their own hearts would force them to apply, not without painful fenfations. Nor is there any alternative, but a ftate of profligate fecularity, difpofing men to feek afHuence, power, and dignity at any rate, and by any means that will give them the fpcedieft poilefiion-, and with fuch men, popery and proteftantifm, the evange- lifts^and the mafs-book, are upon a level.

This is the way that fome people have of ac-^ counting for the omiffion of the master ar- gument againft popery, in thofe few and fuper-^ ficial difcourfes on the fubjetl, which are now.- a-days heard from the pulpit.

It Can never be for the intereft of a free ftate to have men under this kind of diftrefs in any pub- lic office J much lefs thofe who are callous, and perfedly proof againft fuch feelings. It may be

for

PREFACE. Ixxiii

for the intereft of a church to have a hank of this kind upon' the clergy ; but it muft be the intereft of a church, with which it is not for the intereft of a free proteftant ftate to cultivate an alliance.

It is not ufual for Authors to apologize for their Title-pages. But I am told, that the word ConfeJJional is quaint and uncouth, liable to a perverfe interpretation. I wifti thofe Critics may find nothing more exceptionable in their Review of the work itfelf, and then I may hope to abide their c,enfures with tolerable patience. Perhaps, when the candid Reader obferves what kind of CcnfeJJlcns from the Defenders of Subfcription are exhibited in the courfe of this work, he will not be difgufted with an allufion to a fort of Penitential Exercife, which another kind of vo- taries would probably undergo with extreme re- luflance, were it not for their extraordinary ve- neration for the injunctions of the church.

THE

[ I ]

THE

CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. I.

A fummary View of the Rife, Progrefs^ and Succefs of ejiablijhed Confeffions of Faith and DoBrine in Proteftant Churches.

WHEN the Proteftants firfl: withdrew frorn the communion of the Church of Romey the principles they went up- on were fuch as thefe.

" JESUS CHRIST hath by his gofpel ** called all men unto liberty, the glorious liberty " of the fons of God, and reftored them to the *' privilege of working out their own falvation *' by their own underftandings and endeavours. *' For this work of falvation fufficient means are *' afforded in the holy fcrip^.ures, without having " recourfe to the doclrines and commandments " of men. In thefe fcriptures ail things needful '* for fpiritual living and man's foul's health are " mentioned and fhewed. Confequently, faith B " and

2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' and confcience, having no dependence upon *' man's laws, are not to be compelled by man's " authority ; and none other hath the Church of " Rome to Ihew for the fpiritiial dominion fhe *' claimeth. The church of Chrilt is congre- ** gated by the word of God, and not by man's '* law •, nor are the King's laws any farther to be " obeyed, than they agree with the law of God.'*

Private Chriftians being thus left at liberty, by the original principles of the Reformation, to fearch the fcriptures for the grounds of their re- ligion, and to build their faith on this foundation only, a very moderate fhare of fagacity would enable the leading Reformers to forefee, that di- verfity of opinions concerning many points of do6trine would be unavoidable ; and that from hence frequent occafions of offence would arife among themfelves, not without fome advantage to the common adverfary.

Whether they might not, in a good meafure, have prevented any very ill confequences of this liberty without departing from the fimplicfty of the Scripture-plan •, that is to fay, whether they might not have kept the terms of communion fufficiently open for pious and reafonable Chrifti- ans of very different opinions to have complied with them, without abridging their Chriftian li- berty, or doing violence to their confciences, can- not now be determined. Certain it is that fuch an experiment was never tried, nor perhaps ever thought of, till the diftemper was gone too far to be cured.

Inftead

THE CONFESSIONAL. 3

Inftead of making this experiment, the Reform- ers, having unhappily adopted certain maxims as felf evident, namely, that " there could be no edi- " fication in religious fociety without uniformity " of opinion," — that " the true fenfe of fcripture " could be but one,*' "^ and the like, prefently fell upon the expedient o^ preventmg diverfity of opi- nions, by contrading their original plan in agree- ment with thefe maxims. The one fenfe of fcri- pture was determined to be the fenfe of the pri- mitive church, that is to fay, the fenfe of the orthodox fathers for a certain number of centu- ries. From thefe they took their interpretations of fcripture, and upon thefe they formed their rule of faith and doctrine, and fo reduced their refpeftive churches within the bounds of a theo- logical fyftem. The confequence of which was, that every opinion deviating from this fyftem, whatever countenance or fupport it might have from a different fenfe of fcripture, became a de- clared here fy.

Hence it came to pafs that many Proteftants of very different characters and tempers, finding thefe incroachments on their Chriftian liberty, and themfelves not only excluded from commu- nion with their brethren, but ftigmatized v/ith an invidious name, were provoked to feparate from their leaders, and to fet up for themfelves ♦, which many of them did on grounds fufficiently

* See Mofhe'ims Compend. View of Ecclef. Hid. vol. IF, p. 159. and Madainis note [«],

B 2 juftifiable:

^ THE CONFESSIONAL.

juftifiable: whilfl: others, vvhofe pride, pafTion, and felf-conceit knew no bounds, and whom probably the moft reafonable terms of commu- nion would not have retrained, under the pre- tence of aiTerting their liberty againft thefe dog- matical chiefs, formed themfelves into feils, which afcerwards made the moft infamous ufe of it.

7"hat fome of thefe kdis were fcandals to all religion, and nuifances to all civil fociety, was but too vifible. That they were the offspring of the reformation, was not to be denied. The do(5lrines which afterwards diftingulfhed the fober and ferious Proteftant churches, were not yet made public, nor perhaps perfedly fettled. They were yet only to be found in the writings of iome private dodor, whom his brethren were at liberty to difown, or in catechifms for youth, or diredo- ries for minifters within their feveral depart- ments. — A concurrence of unhappy circum- ftances, which afforded the Papifts a moft favour- able opportunity of calumniating the whole Pro- teftant body as the maintainers of every herefy, and the abettors of every fedition, which Europe had heard of or feen in that generation.

It was to no purpofe that thele hot-headed ir- regulars were difowned, and their do(5brines re- probated, by fome of thofe eminent dodors on whom the credit and fuccefs of the Reformation feemed chiefly to depend. Thefe might fpeak their own fenfe ; but it did not appear by what

authority

THE CONFESSIONAL. 5

authority they undertook to anfwer for the whole body. The nature of the cafe called for fuch apologies as thefe, that their defection from Rome might not fall under a general odium ; and it might ftill be true that all Proteftants thought in their hearts, what thefe indifcreet fedlaries fpoke out. A fufpicion which was not a little conftrmed by the leading principle of the moft outrageous Anabaptifts, which was exprelfed in the very words oi Luther himfelf [yf].

Thefe circu:T>ftances laid the Proteftants under a neceflity of publilliing to the whole world ex- plicit confefTions of their faith and doflrine, au- thenticated by formal atteftations of the leading members of their refpedive churches. That of the Proteftant Princes of Germany led the way ; being folemnly tendered to the Emperor Charles V. in the diet held at Aushurgh in the year 15^0. This precedent other Proteftant ftates and churches thought fit to follow on different occa- fions ; and by this means acquitted themfelvcs, at leaft among all equitable judges, of the fcan- dal of abetting the fchifmatical and feditious en- thufiafts, who about that time infefted different countries under the pretence of promoting re- formation.

Thefe confeffions, being laid before the public with this formality, very foon became of more importance than juft to ferve a prefent turn.

\A'\ Viz. A Chrijlian man is majler of e-ven thing. See J?«j/W Didtionary, art. Jnabaptijfs, rem. [^].

B 3 The

6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

They were folemnly fubfcribed by the leading men of the feveral communions on whofe behalf they were exhibited, as doclriaes by which they would live and die •, and were confequently to be defended at all events. And therefore, to fecure the reputation of their uniformity to all fucceed- ing times, an unfeigned alTent to the public con- feffion, confirmed either by fubfcription or a fo- lemn oath, became, in moft of the Proteftant churches, an indifpenfable condition of qualify- ing their pallors for the miniftry, and in fome of admitting their lay- members to church-com- munion.

But this expedient, intended to prevent divi- fion in particular focieties., unhappily proved the means of imbroiling different churches, one with another, to a very unedifying degree. ,Some of thefe confeflions, in their zeal to ftigmatize the herefies of the moft obnoxious fedtaries, had made ufe of terms which no lefs reprobated the dodlrines of their orthodox brethren : the imme- diate confequence of which was, that feveral controverfies which had arifen among the refpe- ftive leaders of the Reformation at the beginning, and had been partly compofed, and partly fuf- pended, in regard to their common interell, were now revived, not without much heat and bitter- nefs.

On this incident, the Papiils changed their method of attack, and readily took this occafion not only to infult the Reformed on their want of unity, but to turn many dodrines to their own

account.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 7

account, which particular men had advanced in conformity to their own confeffions [5].

Againft thefe objedlions the Proteftants had a variety of defences, fome of which, it muft be owned, had more Itrength as they were applied

[B] " The Lutherans and Cal-vwijls," fays a very competent judge, ** by cherifhing fome errors of their refpeftive prlnci- " pals, were altogether hindered from rightly anfwering the " Papijls,'"' See Phcrnix. vol. II p, 315. At length arofe the immortal Chillifig-Morth, who difclaimcd the defence of the Proteftant religion, as it lay in fyftems- and confeffions, and appealed to the Bible only. By this means many cavils were cut off at once, and many confeillons of fyftematical dodtors rendered of no ufe to the Papiib at all ; who, beingjkvell aware of the advantages the popifh caufe would lole by this expedi- ent, were accordingly extremely provoked at it. They called it a nonjelfy which the Proteftants in general would not approve. And it appeared, in the event, that they were not totally mif- taken. For the application of this rule by a liberal-fpirited Englifh Prelate on a certain occafion, put another Englifh Pre- late [Bi(hop Hare'\ extremely out of humour : a Prelate wiio, when the force of epij'copal prejudice was out of the way, had ridiculed fyftematical attachments in a much- admired irony, which however owed all its beauty and all its force to this very principle o^ Cbillingnjjorth. Mr. Defmaizcaux {Cb!llirig-ivorth''s biographer) thought it neceflary to exculpate Chilling<vjoi-th from this popifh charge of no-velty, and, as it feems to me, \has fucceeded-very ill. He fays, •' All Proteftants had declared " in their confeffions, or articles of religion, that the fcripturcs *' are the only rule of faith by which thofe confeffions them- '* felves are to be tried." But the queftion was not, what all Proteftants had declared, but whether any Proteftant church had ailed conformably to that declaration, and ventured to defend the proteftant religion on fcripture-principles, even at the ex- pence (if fo it fliould fall out) of its own cftablillied confcffion.' His anfwer to Biftiop Hare's peeviftinefs is much better. Life of Mr. Chillingvjorthi p. 169, and 198.

B 4 to

% THE CONFESSIONAL.

to the Papifls, than merit in themfelves. They faid, that " a want of unity was no greater re- " proach to them from the Papifts, than it was " to the primitive church from the Jews and ** Heathens, and that the fame apologies would " ferve in both cafes," They might have added, that divifions in the Chriftian church had been tor the moil: part occafioned and fomented by the peremptory decifions and intolerant fpirit of thofe particular doctors, who happened to have the lead for the time being. But this, being too much the cafe of the Proteftants themfelves, was not to be infiiled on. Some advantage indeed they had in the way of recrimination : but here the Papifts found the means to parry the blow; alledging (what indeed was very true) that the moft confiderable of the points in difpute among them had never been decided e cathedra^ and fo were left open to amicable debate without breach of unity ; whereas the dodrines controverted among Proteftants were folemnly eftablilhed in their fe- veral confeffions, and the confeflions themfelves ratified by oaths, fubfcriptions, &c. and the be- lief of them thereby made an indifpenfable con- dition of communion [CJ.

[C] Thus, with refpeft to the famous five points concerning which the fynod of Dart was fo untradable, the difputes in the church of R.ome were bitter enough ; but then, " the council " of 'Tref?t had drawn up her decrees, on thefe heads, with a " neutrality, which pleafed all, and difobliged none." Hey- Ihis Qiiinquarticular Hilt. p. 26. Grotius made ufe of this circumftance in pleading with the magiftrates oi Amjlerdam for a toleration of theRemonftrants. " The doctrines difputed in

After

THE CONFESSIONAL. 9

After much mortifying litigation concerning this want of unity among Proteftants, it fo hap-r pened that the Belgic and Galilean churches, in the name of themfelves and their orthodox fifter- churches, thought fit to deny the fad j and, m ' the year 158 1, exhibited what they called yf» Harmony of the Confeffions of no iefs than eleven Proteftant churches, which they intended as an ample teftimony of the unanimity of Proteftants in their principal dodrines, and a full and fatif- fadory confutation of the Popifli calumnies on this head,.

This work, however, was not equally approved of by all the churches whofe confefiions it har- monized. It was even affronted by the church of England [D] ; For, being tranflated into Eng- Jijh in the year 1586, ArchbiQiop J'Fhitgift (who at that time had the controul of the prefs) would not allow it to be printed in London, and imployed his authority likewife to have it fupprelTed in other places [£].

*• Holland," faid he, " have not been decided by the church " of Rome, though fhe is extremely fond of decifions," jihriJ.gment of Brandt's Hijiory of the Reformation, ifjc. by La Roche, p. 344.

[D] The Englifh confefHon, exhibited in this Harmony, con- fifted of extrafts from Bifhop Je-ivcl''s Apology ; a book, i« thofe days, of equal authority with our 'J hirty-nine Articles. Strype''s Annals, vol. I. chap, xxv — xxvii. and Lft of Parker, p. 179.

[£] The Harmony was, however, printed at Cambridge tha; year, notwithllanding Whitgifs exprefs prohibition. Stiype,

u. f. vol.111, b. ii. ch. 8. Mr. Sfrype has not informed

us why the Archbifhop difallowed the Htirmeny : but the Eel- There

10 THE CONFESSIONAL.

There were indeed fome confiderations natu- rally fuggefted by the manner in which this work was executed, that would greatly obftrucl the good effects expeded froaii it, whether with re- fpe(5l to compofing differences among Proteftants, or obviating the reproaches of the common ad- verfary.

I. In the firfi: place, the compilers made no mention of the confeffions or do6lrines of any Proteftants, whodiffented from the public forms, in thofe countries where the reformed religion had gained an eflablifhment. They were indeed hardly charitable to fuch diffenters ; cenfuring with particular feverity the authors of the book of Concord^ which had appeared about this time [Fj.

gic and Galilean churches having exprefTed notions of church- government, ceremonies, &c. in fome fliort obfervations at the end of the b^ok, not very favourable to Whitgiffs principles, his Grace's diftafle for the work is not wholly unaccountable.

[F] And indeed not without reafon, if thefe cenfures could have been pafTed confiftently with their defign of exemplifying the Harmojiy fubfifting among Proteftants. By this book of Concord (the work of Ibme rigid Lutherans) all thofe churches were excluded from Chriftian communion, who would not fub- fcribe it. For which fchifmatical prefumption, the reformed divines of the Low-Countries expollulated fharply v/ith thefe authors, alleging the fcandal and mifchief of fuch peremptory decifions, feeing that the Lutherans and Calvinifts diiFered only about two articles, the Lord's fupper, and the two natures of Chrill. Blondel indeed obferves, " that they differed about . two articles more, nii%. " predeftination and grace ; yet, be- " lieving thefe to be of m importance, they [the Low-Country " divines] made no mention of them." LaRochey u. f. p. 197. Would thefe divines have believed a prophet who fhould have

4 2. All

THE CONFESSIONAL. ii

2. All the world knew very well, that not one of thefe eleven churches would allow any man to minifter in it, and hardly perhaps to communi- cate with it, who fhould refufe to fubfcribe the confeffion of that church, even though he fnould offer to fubfcribe or fwear to every other fyileni in the colledion.

3. Th^Jhort obfervations at the end of the Har- mony, the defign of which appears to have been to accommodate the atikzvard expreflions in fome of thefe confefTions to the orthodox fenfe of the Belgk and Gallican churches (a liberty which the Harmonizers feem to have taken without any fort of commiffion) plainly fhew, that fome of thefe churches were at too great a diilance from each other, to be reconciled by any fuch equivo- cal expedients.

If the reader would know what was the repu- tation of thefe public confefiions in other refpeds, he may be referred to a Lamentation which ap- peared about thirty years after the publication of this Harmony ; fetting forth, " That thefe " confefiions were read by it'H : that they were

foretold, that their fucceffors, in the fpace of forty years, would certainly treat all who differed from them in thefe two articles of no tmporfa/:ce, juft as the authors of the Concord had treated themfclves for differing with them on the other two ? Mr. La Roche has given a pretty long extraft of this Remonlirance of the Low-Country divines, and fays, /:>c inferts it ivith fleafurey hccaufc it is 'veiy glorious to thofe dimnes. But to have perfeftly atchieved this glory for them, he fhould have fupprelTed his account of their perfcCuting Hubert Duifhuis, becaufe he and his party refufed to fubfcribe their book of Concord. See p. 194. 203. 207.

, « hardly

12 THE CONFESSIONAL.

'* hardly to be found in bookfellers fhops ; that " men rather chofe to provide themfelves with " the writings of private dodlors, and to deter- *' mine religious matters by any other teflimo- *' nies, rather than thefe public forms."

This complaint is taken from the Preface to the Corpus Confejftonum^ printed 2it Geneva^ 1612 ; the defign of which work was to revive the cre- dit of thefe eftablifned formularies, and to re- commend them as " authentic tables and ftan- " dards of the old and primitive faith." For this purpofe the confeffions of fixteen different churches are here exhibited (not in detached and feledted portions, as in the Harmony^ but) whole and entire^ as they were publifhed and acknow- ledged by the churches to which they refpediively belonged [G].

But, though the profefTed defign of this Body of Confcjfions was to accommodate divines and ftudents in theology with a commodious and comprehenfive view of the whole dodrine of the reformed churches, yet was not the expedient of harmomzing their feveral confelTions quite over-

[G] This, however, the famous Pefer Heylin, difputing for his (io£lor's degree at Oxford 1633, denied to be true ; alleging Oil the part of the church of England, that the firft claufe of her xxth article, concerning Church Authority, was, in this col- leftion, felonionfly fecreted ; appealing to another edition of the Articles, which was on that occafion fetched from a neighbour- ing bookfdler's, and in which the aforefaid claufe flood fair and

legible. Vernon" s Life of Heyli7i, p. 58—61. See the

editors of the Corpui Confejfionu7n well vindicated, in an An ' Hljiorkal and Critical Eflhy on the Thirty-nine Articles, &C. ' priJited for francklin, 1724, Introduflion, p. 22.

2 looked.

THE CONFESSIONAI,. 13

looked. But finding, 'tis likely, that the me- thod taken in the old Harmony was juftly excep- tionable, thefe Editors contented themfelves with referring their readers to a kind oi Synopfts, whqre the agreement or harmony of particular churches on different articles is exhibited, without at- tempting to reconcile them on thofe articles, concerning which they did not appear to be una- nimous.

In this Synopfis two things are more efpecially remarkable.

I. On the article of Jttfiifxation and Faith^ which is the 5th in this Index ^ the editors obferve, that " All the confeffions of the [Proteflant] *' churches teach this primary article of the Chri- " ftian religion with a moft holy confent [//].'* Does not this note (with which this article alone is honoured) feeni to imply a confcioufnefs in the editors, that this was the fingle article in which all thefe confelTions did agree ?

*&'

[//] This faft, however, has been lately denied by a vehe- ment advocate for confeffions and fubfcriptions. *' The doftrine " of juftification,'' fays he, " is explained with much greater *' nicety in the French ConkKion (Article iSth) than it is in ours ** (Art. 1 ith) ; and with fuch nicety, as occaKioned a long difpute *' between the French and fome German divines, of whom " Pi/cator was one." Church of England vindicated in r«. quiring Subfcription, Sic. p. 52. But in truth thefe diiputes were of much longer Handing. " Ojlunder, in his Confutation " of the book, which Melandhon wrote againft him, obferves, *' that there are twenty feveral opinions concerning Jujlifica- " tioH, all drawn from the fcriptures, by the men only of the " Augujlan Confefiion." Bp. 7ayIor, Lib. Proph. p. 80.

2. Ac-

14 THE CONFESSIONAL.

2. According to this Synopfis, there is a dead lilence in many (ibmetimes in the majority) of thele confefiions, concerning fome of the funda- mentai articles of the Chriftian religion. Thus only fix of them are referred to as fpeaking of the providence of God, in which number (I am loath to obferve it) the Englifh confeflion is not reckoned for one •, though both Je-ivel's Apology and the thirty- nine Articles are inlerted in this coUeflion *.

Again, eleven of thefe fixteen confeiTions take no notice of the Refiirreuion of the Dead. I men- tion thefe omiffions for the fake of thofe gentle- men, who would have it believed, that churches cannot be fure of the orthodoxy of their minifters in the mofi: important points of the Chriftian re- ligion, without obliging them to fubfcribe to their eftabhfhed confeflions [/J. How many excellent minifters have there been' in different Proteftant churches, who never gave thofe churches any fecurity by Vv^ay of fubfcription, that they believed either a refurre^lion of the dead, or the providence of God ?

* So that a certain right reverend prelate, when he faid ** that the political fyfl-em has notking but the Providence of *' Go'vernment to fuftain it againft its own madnefs, from fall- *' ina into anarchy," did not contradid any article or confejjion of the church oi England. Whether he contradicted any thing elfe, is another queftion. See the Bifhop of GlouceJier''s Ser- mon before the Honfe of Lords, Jan. 30, 1760. Editor's Re- mark.

[7] See Dr. Sfebhing^s Rational Enquiry into the proper Methods of fupporting Chriflianity.

It

THE CONFESSIONAL. t$

It is not at all necefTary to carry this difquifi- tion any farther. How particular churches in fubfequent times havfe been imbroiled on account of their eftablifhed confeffions, is well known. In fome of thefe churches the inconveniences of infifting on thefe tefts of orthodoxy have been fo great, that they have found it the wifeft way ei- ther intirely to drop them, or to content them- lelves with fome general declaration, or promile from the minifter, that he will not openly oppofe them. In fome churches a formal fubfcription is ftill required, even where the inconveniences of it have been no lefs, and where the mofl: fe- rious, confcicntious, and ufeful minifters, are ftill groaning under the burden of fuch fubfcriptions. It is chiefly for the fake of fuch as thefe, that this difquifuion is undertaken, if by any means our prefent governors (who, if they had had the original work of reformation in their hands, to- gether with the light and experience which the prefent and pad ages have afforded, would, it may be prefumed, not have impofed it) may be prevailed with to remove a yoke, which neither we nor cur fathers have been able to bear [A""].

But to proceed. Upon this fhort view of the tendency and effefts of cftabliflied confeffions in I*roteftant churches, the following reflexions leem to be very natural.

I. It v/as a great misfortune to the Protefliants, that their confeffions (hould abound with expli- cations of fo many minute points of fcholaftic

[AT] This was written in the year 1755.

theology,

i6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

theology, which, without flopping one popi/h mouth, with refped to the general accufation of Heref}\ tended fo manifeftly to narrow their ori- ginal foundation, and to give their common ad- verlaries fo great an advantage, by rendering their breaches among themfelves, occafioned by thefe explications, utterly irreconcileable.

2. It was a greater misfortune ftill, that they fliould think of ellablifliing thefe explications as teds of orthodoxy, by requiring their minifters to fwcar to them, or fubfcribe them, as an in- difpenfable condition of admitting them to the paftoral office. Had they been contented with a folemn declaration on the part of teachers and pallors, *' that they received the fcriptures as the *' word of God, and would inftrud: the people *' out of thofe (?/7/v," leaving them at liberty to difown whatever, after proper examination, they judged inconfiltent with them •, in all human probability the interefts of popery would have declined more vifibly, and the true ends of re- formation have been more fpeedily, as well as more effeclually, promoted.

But, afrer all, they who are extremely out of temper with the firft: Reformers, for their mif- taken and unfcafonable zeal in thus prefcribing religious opinions to their fellow-chriftians, with- out fufficient warrant of fcripture, would do well to confider in what fituation they were.

Many abufes in popery lay open to the ob- fervaiion of men oi all fjrts. But ic could hardly be credited of a fudden, by men o^ any fort, that

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 17

the greateft part of that aftonifliing ftrudure called THE CHURCH, which pretended to have for its foundation the Apojlles and Prophets, and Chriji himfelf for its corner ftone, fliould be a mere heap of antichrifcian rubbifh. It is, there- fore, no wonder the moft enlightened of our firffc Proteftant Fathers fhould be afraid of demolifii- ing too much. It was vifible, with what props and fupports the moft eminent faints and doflors of former ages had accommodated the edi- fice. And thefe, it might well be imagined, would hardly have been placed there by fuch venerable hands, without fome good reafon, and apparent ncceffity. In thofe days, nothing was thought to be fufficiently confirmed by fcripture- teftnnonies, without additional vouchers from the ancient worthies of the church : and accord- ingly Terlullian, Chryfojiorhj Aujlin, and 'Jerome^ regularly took their places on the fame bench of judgment witii Faul, Peter, James, and John [K\.

' In procefs of time fome particular perfons be- gan to fee into this miftake. In our own coun- try the learned Cart-wright, in his difpute with Archbifliop IVhitgift, about the year J 573, took the courage to appeal from the authority of the Fathers, and to prefcribe them narrower limits in the province of determining religious contro- verfies. How this would be received in thofe days, might eafily be conjectured without parti-

\_K'\ See the Catholkiu Feicnwi Confenfus, at the end of the Corpus ConfeJj'iOHUtn,

C cuUr

i8 THE confessional;

cular information. The terms in which Cart- wright had charadterized thele venerable do(5l:ors, were collecfted together in a book of Bancroft''Sj and fet off" with tragical exclamations, as if they hid been little Icfs than fo much blafphemy [L]. Some few years afcer this, Erafmus Johannes, a fchool mailer at Antwerp^ took ftill greater liber- ties with antiquity. " He affirm,ed that all the *' councils which had met, and all the books of *' the Fathers which had been written fince the *' death of the Apofiles, were infeded with anti- *' chriftian errors, not excepting the famous *' Council of Nice" He propofed therefore, that, in order to a perfect reformation, the new phrafes, and new ways of fpeaking, invented by the Fathers, ihoul-l be wholly fuppreffed and laid afide, and all religious propofuionsexprelTedi according to the fmipticity of Chrift and his A- poftles. " If any man," fays he, " finds him- " felf obliged to life new terms to cxprefs the '** articles of his faith, fo that the words of the " Prophets and Apoftles are not fufficient for " him, that man's do£lrines and religion are cer- " tainly new, as well as his terms j for otherwife ** he would eafily (ind, in the fcripture, language " proper enough to exprefs his notions {M ]." But the times were not yet ripe for the toleration of thefe fentiments ; and the poor man, who was hardy enough to venture them with the public, was obliged to iiy hi$ country.

[L] Strype's Life of IFhitgift, p. 51.

[M] La Reche^ Abridgment, to!. I. p. 218.

From

THECONFESSIONAL. i^

From thefe days, the authority of the Fathers hath continued gradually to decline among ail fealbnable and confiftent Proteflants, and more particularly fince the publication of Mr. DailWs famous book, Be Ufu Pairum, in i^^i. But none, that I know of, ventured fo far as the fchoolmailer of Antwerp, till about thirty years ago, an eminent prelate of our own church, dill living*, advanced pretty much the fame dodlrine, (Toncerning the explication of points of faith, by new and unfcriptural phrafes ; for which his Lordfhip underwent the difcipline of feveral orthodox pens [N] ; but without any lofs of re- putation among thofe who confidered things with lefs prejudice. For, when it was ken that his Lordfliip had reduced his antagonifts to the dif- agreeable necelTity of holding, that *' nezv and " unfcriptural words would better fix the fenfe of •' fcripture-doclrine, than the words of Chrift ** and his Apoftles," the clamour fubfided. Rea- fonable men began to fee the inconvenience of adopting a principle, which would go near to juftify the worit impofitions of popery j and the pra'-tice of requiring fubfcription to human ex- plications of Chiillian do6h'ine, is now confidered and treated, by many different forts of fenfible writers, as an unwarrantable incro^chment on Chrillian liberty ; from which, there is reafon to believe, all who are capable and willing to exa- mine the fubjeifl without partiality and without hypocrify, heartily defire an happy deliverance.

* September i, 1755. He died April 17, \']6\. [A^] See Dr. Stebh'm^i Rational Enqniry, p- 25,

C 2 Upon

20 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Upon this ftate of the cafe, it appears, that the matter of complaint does not affed the Fa- thers of our Reformation by far fo much as their So'its and Succejfors. Our tirft Reformers were befet with their own and other men's prejudices, to a degree that rendered them, in a great mea- fure, incapable of convii'lion. It was next to impoffible to convince them, that their eftabHQied confeffions of faith were unchriftian impofitions, for which there was no juft authority, when they had the early practice of the Chriftian church to appeal to, long before the tyrannical fpirit of Rome prevailed. Their veneration for antiquity prevented their feeing that thefe very precedents were fome of the fleps by which the papal power afcended to its height, and arrived at the pleni- tude of its ufurpation.

But, fince it has been made appear, that fome of the Fathers who lived neareft to the times of the Apoftles, were greatly miftaken in the fenfe they put upon fome fcriptures, with refpeft to points of no fmall importance, we have reafon to hope, that our fuperiors will no longer bind either themfelves or us to an implicit acquiefcence in an authority, which may occafionally be extreme- ly inconfiftent with our original obligations as Chriftians, 'as well as with the diftinguifhing principles of our profefTion as Proteftants. What- ever expedients of peace and order their own fort of prudence, or the exigencies of the times they lived in, might fuggelt to thefe venerable Fathers, they certainly had no right to prefcribe articles of faith to us. And fliould either they

themfeives.

. THE CONFESSIONAL. 21

themfelves, or any others in their name, pretend to it, we beg leave to remind them of a capital maxim, to the truth of which the Fathers them- felves have occafionally born their teftimony, namely, The fcriptures of the Old and New Tejia- ment contain all things necejjary to [alvation^ a}jd are the fole ground of the faith of a Chriftian [0].

Upon this principle, all impofed fubfcriptions to articles of faith, and religious doflrines, con- ceived in unfcriptural terms, and inforced by hu- man authority, are utterly unwarrantable, and not to be defended but by arguments and pre- tences, highly dilhonourable to the facred writ- ings, and, in many cafes, contradiflory to the cxprefs contents of them.

But, forafmuch as there never yet was any inftance of a profperous ufurpation deftitute of advocates to lay in for it a claim of right and juftice, it would be ftrange if this matter of fub- fcription, wherein fuch large and opulent bodies of men are interefted, fhould be left to fhift for itfclf. What the orators of the church have offered on this behalf we fhall now briefly con- fider.

[O] For a compendious view of the teftimony of the Fathers to the fufficmicy of the holy fcriptures as a rule of religion^ the reader may confult a book intitled The Di<vine Oracles, written by the learned and candid Mr. John Brekell, printed for Waugh £iC. 1743.

CHAP.

22 THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. II.

^he Claim of a Right to eftablijh Confejftons as I'efts of Orthodoxy in Protejlant Churches^ briefly conjtdered.

TH E fundamental pofition, on which the authority of eftablilhed confeflions in Pro- teftant communions depends, is this. " Every " particular church, coniidered as a fociety, has *' a rights as other focicties have, tofecure its own " peace and welfare, by all lawful means ; and " confequently, to prelcribe fuch terms of com- ** munion as appear to be moft expedient for the *' purpofc J provided that nothing be required, " under this pretence, which is contrary to the " word of God, or inconfiftent with the liberty '* of other churches."

To this it has been anfwered in fhort, " That, «' by admitting the principle of felf- defence and *' felf-prefervation in matters of religion, all the *' perfecutions of the Heathens againfl the Chri- " ftians, and even the Popifh Inquifition, may be ** juftined [.^f ].'* If the church of England^ for example, has a right to fix her own terms of com- munion, and, in confequence of that, to fecure the obedience of her members by temporal re-

. [J] See Bifhop Boadlcfs Speech for the Repeal of the Occafional Conformity and Schifm Acts, in T^indafs Continua- tion oi P.afi7t Thoyras, 8vo. vol. xxvii. p. 237.

wards

THE CONFESSIONAL. 23

wards and penalties ; the church of Portugal muft, ■ upon the fame principles, hive an equal right to fecure herfeif by the difcipline of an holy office^ or how other wife fhe thinks proper.

The provifo, that '• church-ordinances be a- " greeable to the word of God," will not in the prefent cafe help the Proteltant churches ar all. EJiabliJhed confefTions, being human compofi- tion3, muft either be fubje<!:1 to examination by the private judgment of thofe who profefs (as all Proteftants do) to make the written word their only rule of religion ; or elfe the church mufl claim a righc of interpreting the fcriptures for all her members, exclunve of the right of private judgment [5]. The former of thefe principles manifeftly precludes the right of the church to eftablifti any thing as k conrdition of Chriftiaa communion, without the previous confent of ^// her members •, that is to fay, of all who, without that condition, would have a right to Chriftiaa communion [C]. The latter, indeed, vefts the

[5] The late Eifliop Conyheare, in his famous Subfcription- Sermon, argues from the ccn/er.t required by the Apolllcs to their doflrines, to the confent required by fucceeding church- governors to human articles. This fallacy has been too apt to pafs without examination : but the fuppofition upon which it is fupported, is indeed neither more nor lefs than this, " Scri- ** pture truths and the church's explications liand upon the *' fame anthority."

[C] Honeft old Rogers, by the church -iKihuh hath authority in contro'verjles of faith, underllands not only the aggregcdc hociy, hxsX every member cf found ju(^g7Kent in the fame. Cach. Docl. Art. XX. Propof. 3. well knowing that every intelligent Chri- ftian, with the fcriptures before him, is, upon Protefiant prin- C 4 church

24 THE C O N F E S S I O N A L.

church with a full meaiure of authority to efta- blifh v/hat fhe pleales ; but then it is an authority which every Proteftant church moil exprefsly dil- claims, and condemns in the church of Rome as an impudent and groundlefs ufurpation.

There is indeed nothing more evident, than that every Chriftian of capacity hath a right to fearch the fcriptures ; a right which he cannot transfer, either to any church, or to any fingle perlbn, becaufe it is his indifp^nfable duty to exercife it perfonally for himfelf. And, if it is his duty iq fearch, it muft alfo be his duty to de- iermim ioY himfelf j and, if he finds juft caufe, to diffent from any or all the human efbabUfh- ments upon earth.

Some writers on this fubjefl difcover an incli- nation to deny the right *of private judgment in every cafi where it is oppofed to church-authori- ty. Thefe we leave to reconcile their principles with their feparation from Rome. Others attempt by various arguments (fome of which \v\\\ occur hereafter) to prove, that the authority of the church to frame and fettle confefTions of faith and do(5!:rine for all her members, is perfedily

clples, and in decrees of this nature, a church to himfelf. This leaves no room for Biihop Bu-nefs diliindion between an in- fallible authority, aud an authority of order, which laft, he faintly infinuates, might be fafely intrufted with the body of the clergy. But his Lordfhip, to do him juftice, qualifies this with a provfo, that this body Is p-operly difpofed for the pro- vince.— Perhaps it might be as difficult to find fuch a body of men, as to find fingle perfuns without miilakes. See Biihop Burnefs ExpofitJon, fol. p. 195.

confident

THE CONFESSIONAL. 25

confiftent with the rights of private judgment. But, to difcover the fallacy of all arguments to this purpofe, it is only neceilary to coniider, that, if this fuppofed authority was vigoroufly exerted; and applied in all cafes (as it ought to be, if the authority is real) and if, on the other hand, the people were diligent and careful in fearching the fcriptures every one for himfelf (as all Protelf ants agree they ought to do) the confequence would mofl probably be, that the far greater part of honell and fenfible Chriftians would be excluded from the communion of every church which has an eflablifhed confeflion. For where is there one of thefe confeffions which does not contain fome very material decifions, from which an intelligent Chriftian, who hath duly examined the fcriptures, mcLy not resL^onably dijjenl F I had almott laid, where is there one of them to which a knowing and thinking Chriftian can ajjent in all points, without proftituting his underftanding and con- fcience to the doftrines and commandments of men ? — I fay, a knowing and thinking Chriftian ; for he muft have confidered the cafe before us very fuperficially, who does not perceive, that the adherence of fuch numbers to the peculiar dodrines of the church from which they receive their denomination, and even to fome doctrines common to the creeds and confeftions of all churches, which call themfelves orthodox, is ow- ing to their ignorance, their indolence, their fe- cularicy, or the early prejudices of education, which are known to be the unhappy circumftan-

ces

26 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ces of the common people, all over the Chriftian world.

Some zealous men have, indeed, inferred a neceffity for confeffions, and confequently an au- thority in the church to eftablini them, from thefe very indifpofitions and incapacities of the people to examine and judge for chemtelves. But,cho' this is perhaps rhe bt^icplea oi right which the church has to alledge, yet wifer ana cooler advocates for confefTions choofe not to abide by an argument, which wjuld equally vindicate the church of Rofm with refpc6l to many of her impofitions. Not to mention, that thefe indifpojiticns znd. inca- pacittes in the Cicrgy would be but an aukward reafon for making tbeir aflenc and fubfcription to confeffions an indiipenfable condition of being admitted into the church as teachers.

Thefe prudent gentlemen, therefore, feem in- clined to acquit the laity of all concern with eflabliflied confelfions, and to confine their au- thority to the clergy -, infomuch that (if I under- ftand fome of our modern cafuifts on this fubjed:) a layman, if he can get over his own fcruples, may pray, hear the word, and even communicate with what Pfoteftant church he pleafes [Dj. If

[/)] The opinions, indeed, of thefe modern divines on this article are not uniiorm. Many worthy minifters of fevera! de- nominations, whofe catholic principles would incline them to rejeft no man who Ihould attend their communions with de- cency and reverence, may ilili think themlelves obliged (and very reafonably) to have refped to the fenfe of the congregation \Vhere they conllantly ofiiciate. Others, I know, think dif- ferently, and thii occafions a variety in prallice. Sec IVhiJlons

this

THE CONFESSIONAL. 27

this be really true, we have reafon to be thank- ful for better times ; for undoubtedly fome of us have remembered v/orie.

But, however this matter might turn out upon the experiment, certain it i.s, that, in fo far a? the laity are allowed not to be bound by thefc church confefTions, the point of right to cftablifh them as tells of orthodoxy is fairly given up, as well

Memoirs, vol. 11. p. 485. and Kllllngnuorth'' s Examination of Dr. Fojier's Sermon on Catholic Communion. — — " It feems to *' me," fays Mr. La Roche, " that Proteftants and Catholics ** Ihould not difcourage thofe heterodox men who come to ** their altars." Ahridg7nent, vol. II. p 613. And fo ic feems to me too, provided fuch heterodox men come there of choice, folely for a religious end, and behave reverendly and decently when they are there. But, when Mr. La Roche adds, ••' The *' church of England is the wifeft national church in the world " upon this head," he refers to a very different cafe, wherein indeed the wifdom of the church had no fhare. Moft of the bifhops, and among them the two archbifhops Wake and Davjes, oppofed the repeal of the aft againft occajional confor- mity with all their ftrength : An aft which, all the world knows, difcouraged heterodox men from coming to our altars. TindaPs Contin. 8vo. vol. XXVII. p. 231 — 241. And to ad- mit thefe heterodox men to our altars, without previoufly re- voking their n.vicked errors, is againft our cannon-law to this hour. Jn the mean time, the "Tejl ASi brings many men to our altars (and it is well if not fome infidels among them) who would never come there of choice, or on a religious account. In the late altercations concerning the bill for naturalizing the Jevjs, mention ^v•.^s made of fome Je~jjs in K. Willia7ns reign, who aftually came to our Chrijlian altars to qualify themfelves for naturalization. Lond. Mag. ior July \j^i. p. 306. We are apt to value ourfelves mightily on the refpeft which foreign Proteftants exprefs for our church : but there are cafes where this refpeft does us no honour. Such a compliment as this of Mr. La Roche is enough to put a fenfible Church- of- England-

for

28 THE CONFESSIONAL.

for the clergy as the laity, fince whatever rule is fufficient to direft the faith and practice of the layman, mud like wife be fufficient to direift the teaching of the clergyman, unlefs the clergyman may be obliged to teach dodrines, which the layman is not obliged either to believe or to praclife.

" But," fay fome'men, " if there be really an " expedience and uiiUty in thefe public formularies, '^ called Confeflions of Faith, we may well infer a *' right to eftablifh them, although concerning " fuch right thefcripture fhould be filent. Many " things relating to public worOiip, and public " edification, muft be left to the nr-jdence and " difcretion of church-governors for the time ** being -, and if confefiions are manifeftiy ufeful *' and expedient for the church, there muft be an " authority lodged fomewhere to prepare and in- *' force them,."

The expedience and tuility of confefTions will be very particularly confidered in the next chapter j for which reafon 1 fhall forbear to fay any thing farther to this plea at prefent, fave only a word or two concerning this method of arguing from

man.who knows the true ftate of the cafe, out of countenance. A law inducing men to profefs, by a folemnaft. that, their religious opinions are what they really are not, is no mark either of wifdom or Chriftian charity in any church. But this point has been (o thoroughly difcuffed and cleared up by the late Bifhop of Win- chefler, that there is no danger it fhould ever be thrown into confufion again ; though, more lately, fome ingenious pains have been taken that way, 'v'lz. in the Book of Alliance be- tween Church and State, written by another Bifhop.

4 the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 29

the -prohahk expedience or utility of any thing in religion to a right or authority to imploy or in- troduce it.

No wife man, who hath duly confidered the genius and defign of the Chriflian religion, will look for much utility or expedience, where the church or church-governors go beyond their plain commifjion. And, whatever may be left to the prudence and difcretion of church-governors, there is fo much more left to the confcience of every Chriftian in his perfonal capacity, that it greatly behoves fuch governors to beware they incroach not on a province which is without their limits. This confideration has always difpofed me to reafon in a manner juft contrary to thefe gentlemen, namely, from the authority to the utility of religious meafures. My opinion is, that where the methods of promoting chrifti- anity are matter of fcripture precept, or plainly recommended by fcripture- precedents, there fuch methods (hould be ftriftly followed and adhered to, even though the expedience of them /hould noc be very evident a priori, Vv'e can have no pre- tence of right or authority to alter fuch methods for others feemingly more expedient, while fo m^very much of the effei5l of religion, or, in other ■ words, of its utility, is made by our blefled Mailer to depend on the inward frame of every man's heart, into which ordinary church-governors can have no farther difcernment than other men. On this account, thofe means of edification, public or private, will always, in my efteem, bid the fairetl

for

50 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fuccefs, which are the trneft copies of apoftoHc originals. Notions of expedience in any thing more than thefe, when there is nothing to judge by but fuperficial appearances, have frequently )ed men to interfere very unfealonably with the diflates of other mens confciences *, and no great- er mifchief has ever been occafioned by any thing in the Chriftian church, than by thofe very expe- dients of human prudence, from which the belt effefts have been expefled.

Among other inftances which might be given to verity this obfervation, we have one at home, in v/hich all thofe who arc called to the miniftry are too nearly concerned not to be capable judges. After Ibnie progrefs had been made in the re- formation of the church o{ England ^'it was thought to be- a great defeft, that a public confeffion of faith and doftrine (hould Hill be wanting [£]. To fupply this defed, the Ai'iicles of Religion were compiled, publifhed, and enjoined to be fub- Icribed. Thefe Articles (with fome alterations v^hich pafTed in thofe days for improvements) are Ulll kiblcribed by, at leail, one hundred of our minillers every year. That above one fifth of this number do not fubfcribe or aiTent to thefc Articles, in one uniform fenfe, we have great rea- fo.n to believe -, and yet the avowed purpofe of this general fubfcrlption is to prevent diverjtiy of (ipiytions. And indeed, conHdering to what forts Qf men rhis ted is made indifpenfable, it is, I

[£] Barnei'i Hill, Refcin. vol. II. p. i6^\ and vol. III. p.

2 0.

think.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 31

think, as mud; as can be expedled, if another fifth fubfcribe them in any fenfe, but the fenfe they have of wanting preferment in the church, if they Hiould not.

It is true, all thefe perfons minifter in their feveral congregations by one common form, framed, for the general, on the model of the confelTion they have fubfcribed ; and fo far all has a fair and honeft appearance, and, while the/ keep their thoughts to themfelves, is confident enough. But no fooner are many of them at li- berty to deliver their own or other men's fenti- ments from the pulpit, but the eftabUlhed fyftenv is laid afide, or perhaps, if it comes in their way, quite overfet \JP.\^ and many things written and uttered with all freedom, by different perfons, equally irreconcileable to each other, as well as to the orthodox confelTion.

What now is the utility or expedience in this affair of fubfcription, which will attone for the fcandal brought upon the caufe of chriftianity by this unfcriptural article of church difcipline ? To fay nothing of the diflrefo of many a confci- entious minifter under the unhappy dilemma of, fubfcribe or Jlawe ; is it poffible that the igno- rance, the indolence, or the infmcerity of the

[F ] " All thofe who write and preach in this nation are not " her [the church of England'' s] fons, any more than they of * Geneva, or Scotland, or Nc-v England, are," fays BifliOp Ri<J}, Defence of Origin, Sec. Phanix, vol. I. p. 83. So that tliit is no new complaint. See likewife Dr. Hartley' s Obfervations on Mao, vol. If. p. 3^4. and a remarkable inftance in J De- ftHce of the EfTay on Soirit, p. 24.

reft

^2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

reft fliould not make confideraWe impreHlons, • both upon the friends and enemies of revelation ? Suppofe the herd of mankind were too much employed in other bulineis to turn their attention of themfclves to remarks of this nature, yet the zeal and eagernefs of the litigants to expofe this prevaricatation on either fide, by calling their fubfcriptions in each others teeth, will not fuffer the moil incurious mortal to be long uninformed of ir, if he fhould only look into feme of the commoneft books of controverfy for his mere amufement.

The fum of the whole matter then is this. Lodge your church-authority in what hands you will, and limit it with whatever reftricflions you think proper, you cannot aflert to it a right of deciding in controvcrfies of faith and do6lrine, or, in other words, a right to require alTent to a certain fenfeof fcripture,exclufive of other fenfes, without an unwarrantable interference with thofe rights of private judgment which are manifeftly fecured to every individual by the fcriptural terms of Chriftian liberty, and thereby contra- dicting the original principles of the Proteftant reformation.

This paint being fettled, the fquabbles among particular churches concerning their fuppofed li- berty within their refpedive departments (in fo far as thefe confeffions come in queftion) is about a thing of nought. For none of them having the liberty to eflablifh or to prefcribe fuchdo6tri- nal confeffions for the whole body, it is matter

of.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 55

of great indifference (feuing afide the fcandal of it) in what degree they exclude or make room for one another.

But, to give this matter a little confideration v/ith relped to the prefeot effefts of it upon Chriftian focieties, let-us fuppofe that Proteitant . churches have fuch a right eiich within its own confines:, The queflion i.-, how (liall one church exercife this right, without encroaching on the light of another? Upon the genuine grounds of fcpa.ration from the church of Rome, all particu- lar churches are co-ordinate [GJ ; they have all . the fame right in an equal degree ; and the de- cifions of one are, in point of authority, upon the very fame level with thofe of another. This be- ing fo, I do not fee how it is pofTible for any church to exercife this right in thofe inllances where Ihe efbablilhes docTtrines peculiar to herfdf, and inconfillent with the doiStrines of other churches,. without abriciging thofe churches of their right to eftablifh thei^ ipvvn doflrines. No

[G] The Proteftant churches every where (et up on this principle ; what regard they iiave paid to it fince, is another affair. One remarkable inllance may be worth mentioning. ** The refugees," fays Mr. La Roche, " who were driven out ** of the to'Lv-Countries by the Duke of JIva in the year 1 57 1 , " held a fynod at Emden, and "their firft canon Was, that no "church flioiild have dominion over another choidi." And, 10 teftify their fincerity herein, they put the French and Dutch confeffions upon the fame tooting, by fubfcribing them both. MrUgment, vol. I. p. 141. But N. B. The Dutch Confeffion was not then eftabliflied, and thefe were poor friendlefs refu- gees, 'Tis pity but fome of them had lived to fee how facredly this canon of Etnlden was obferved.in the fynod oiDort.

D church

34 THE CONFESSIONAL.

church can have a right to eftablifh any doflrines but upon the funpofition that they are true. If the doftrines eflablifhed in one church are true., the contrary do6lrines eftabhfhed in another church muft bcfal/e-, and, I prefume, no church vvill contend for a r/^i&/ toe(lablilli/<2//^ doctrines. And indeed, whatever may be pretended, this is the very footing upon which all Proteftant churches have, occafionally, treated the churches that differed from them, and from whence the conckifion to a difinterefted byftander is obvious ; namely, that, in confequence of thefc co-ordinate powers, none of them had a right to eftablifn any dodrines, but with the unanimous confent of all tlie reft. , .

It is true, Proteftants of one ftate or country have been tender of condemning the confeffion of thofe of another, by any public fcntencj ; and reafon good ; their powers are limited by their fituation, and extend not beyond their own de- partments, nor would their cenfures be regarded clfewhere. But what inftance is there upon record, where this liiferty has been allowed (as the co-or- dinate principle manifeftly requires it (hould be) to more tha.n.one church in thefaine Proteftant ftate ? Every party, in every Proteftant ftate, has, by turns, made fome attempts to have their religious tenets eftabliftied by public authority. In every ftate, fome one party has fucceeded ; and having fucceeded, impofes its own confeffion upon all the reft •, excluding ail difienters from more or fewer of the common privileges of citizens, in propor- tion

THE CONFESSIONAL. 35

tion as the civil magiftrare is more or Icfs in the mood to vindicate, or dillingiiilh, the fyfteni he thinks fit to efpoufe.

This has been the cafe, at different periods, with different churches in the fame country. And (what is chiefly remarkable to our prefent pur- pofe) the party defeated has conftantly exclaimed againfl: the pra6tice, as an unreafonable, unchri- ftian, and wicked tyranny ; — the very practice which they themfelves, in their profperity, en- deavoured to fupport by every claim of right, and to defend by every argument of utility and experience [H].

Of this many remarkable examples might be given, in the complaints of church-men of differ- ent denominations in adverfity ; who, in the day of their exaltation, had carried church -power as far as it could well flretch ; and who, when the feverities of the adverfe party forced thefe la- mentations from them, were obliged to plead their caufe upon principles, which made no

re- [H] " It belongeth to fynods and councils minifterially to *' determine controverfies of faith and cafes of confcience." AJfemhlys Confejjton, ch. xxxi. art. 3. This hath given occa- fion to apply fome words of If ai ah, viz. Look unto the rock f ram 'whence ye are henvn, and to the hole of the pit fr em -ivhence ye are digged, to certain diflenters, who have fcrupled to fubfcribe the firlt claufe of the 20th article of our church. At prefent this wit would be mifapplied. In the year 1718, fome of the wifert and mod eminent among the didenting miniflers made a noble ftandagainft fome impofers of telts in their own fraternity. And in the year 1727 more of them refufed to fubfcribe this very WeJhninJIer Confeflion.

D 2

lerve

S6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ferve of authority with refpefl to one fort of reli- gious fociety more than another [/].

Among others to whom eftablilhed confelTions had been particularly grievous, were the remon- ftrants in Holland^ after the fynod of Dort. Their aflembiies were prohibited, and their minifters filenced and banifhed, for no other offence but contradicting certain doftrines, which, as we have feen above, the forefathers of their perfecutors held to be oino importance \ and which had gained no new merit, but that of being eilablifhed by law.

One would have imagined that this ufage would have cured the Remonftrants of all good liking to confeffions for ever. And fo perhaps it

[/] Thus the ingenious Bilhop Taylor, pleading 'for the liberty of prophefyingf at a time when, to ufe his own expreffion, the 'vejjel of the church ivas daflyed in pieces, found it necefTary to aflert againft the taflc-mafters of thofe days, that, " If we have *' found oat what foundation Chrill and his Apoftles did lay ; ** that is, what body and fyftem of articles fimply neceffary they *•' taught and required of us to believe ; we need not, we can- *' not go any further for foundation, we cannot enlarge *'that system or collection." p. 17. — But, when the Ihattered vefTel came to be refitted, the ikilful pilots found fhe neither had been, nor ever could be, fleered to the port they aimed at, by thefe diredions. And accordingly, when they got pof- feffion of the helm, they adopted the old enlarged fyftem, add- ing as much more of their own to the colle£lion, as they per- ceived might be neceffary to conduft the vefTel in fafety to the golden coaji; without paying the leaft regard to the remonftran- ces of thofe, who claimed an equal property in the bottom, and who inceffantly clamoured, that neither the freight nor the fteer- age were proper for the port to which they were bound, and which, as all fides outwardly agreed, lay in a kingdom that 'was not of this world.

did.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 37

did, of their good-liking to all confeffions — biit one of their own framings which Epifcopius and his fellows adually compofed, fubfcribed, and pub- liflied, in this (late of exile.

Thisftep was fo very extraordinary for men in their condition, whofe diftrefies had been occa- fioned by enforcing a fyftem drawn up in the fame form, that they rightly judged the world would expert fome fatisfaftory account of it, which therefore they attempt to give, in a long Apology prefixed to their Confeflion ; wherein, not contented with alledg'Ing fuch inducements as might well be fuppofed to oblige men in their fituation to explain. and avow their principles to the public, they enter into a particular detail of arguments in favour of confeffions in general ; dropping indeed the point of right to eftablilh them as tefts of truth, but infifting largely on their utility and expedience in a variety of cafes ; and, as they feem to me to have brought together the whole merits of the caufe on that head of de- fence, I fhall attend them in the next chapter, with fome particular confiderations on the feveral articles of their plea.

D 3 CHAP.

58 THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. IIL

The Apology of the Remonftrants for Confeffions^ in confiderat'wn of their Expedience and Utility, ciiamined.

IT had been objedled to confefTions in general, that " they derogated from the authority and " fufiiciency of the fcriptures ; that they en- " croached upon the liberty of private confcience, " and the independency of Proteftant churches, " and that they tended to nothing better than *' reparation and fchifm."

The Remonftrants reply, that " thefe objec- *' tions did not affeft confeflicns themfelves, but " only the ahufc of them." But however, as the pbjedors had fo many inftances to appeal to where confeffions had been, and ftill were thus abufed^ and the Remonftrants fo few, if any, where they were not, the latter were obliged to fet out with very ample conceflions.

" Undoubtedly," fay they, " thofe phrafes and *' forms of fpeaking, in which God and Chrift " delivered themfelves at firft, for theinftrudlion " of unlearned and ordinary men, muft needs be " fufficient for the inftruftion of Chriftians in all " fucceeding ages •, — confequently it is poftible " that the church of Chrift may not only be^ but " alfo that it may well be, without thofe human ** forms and explications, called Confefllons [^l-"

\A] Pieface to the Remonftrants Confeffion, publifhed in Engliftiat London^ 1676. p. 12, 13.

One

THE CONFESSIONAL. 39

One would wonder now, what the Remon- ftrants could find to fay for the fupport of their fide of the queftion. For, if the phrafes and forms of fpeaking, made ufe of in the written word, are fufficient for the inftruftion of unlearned and or- dinary men in all things which concern the wor- fhip of God, and their own and others everlafting falvation ; and if, as the Objeflors infifted, and the Remonftrants could not deny, many and great evils were, for the moft ■part^ occafioned by fuch phrafes and forms of fpeaking in confefTions, as are not to be found in fcripture, the Obje6lors were fairly authorized to conclude, not barely for the pojfibility that the church of Chrift might well bei but for the certainty that it might better be, without fuch human forms, than with them.

The Remonftrants, however, attempt to reco-i ver their ground as follows. " If prophefyings, " or interpretations of fcripture, fav thefe Apo- ** logifts, are not unprofitable, yea rather, if they " be fometimes in certain refpeds necellary, whea " propofed by teachers and pallors in univerfities *' and churches, or other Chriftian aflemblics, for ** the information of theignorant,&c. in familiar, " clear, and ufual expreflions, though not in the " very words of fcripture \ it cannot feem unpro- " fitable, much lefs unlawful or hurtful, {{more " miniflers of Jefus Chrifl: do, by mutual con- " fcnt, joint itudies and endeavours, for the great - *' er illuftration of divine truth, removing of " flanders, edifying the Chriftian community, or " other holy and pious purpofes, publicly open D 4 and

40 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" and declare their judgments upon the mean- ** ings of fcripture, and that in certain compofed •'forms [5]."

It is no eafy matter to-difcover the drift of this aro-umenc. Do the RemonRrants mean to infilt

o

on the fuperior influence and authority of more minifters, in the bunnefs of expounding the fcri- ptures, in comparifon with fingle pallors or pro- feflors ? By no means. Upon any fuppofition of this nature, the Belgic ConfelTion had an au- thority which rendered their revolt from it inex- cufeable [CJ. Would they be underftood to fay, that ConfeiTions compofed by the joint ftudies of feveral miniRers, are as ufsful as ordinary fermons and le(5tures in churches and univerfities .? No,

\B\ Ibid. p. 13, 14. Having not the original Latin at hand, lam obliged to make ufe of the very mean EngHfh tranflation above referred to, picking out the ftrengch and me- rit of the argument as vvel] as one can from a confufed arrange- ment of obfolete words.

[C] Dr. Snbbiag, indeed, would have every one to own, that " Thole explications of fcripture, which, after the matureft de- *' liberation, and the ufe of ail proper helps, are agreed upon ** by a luhck body of men, are lefs liable to be faulty and de- " fedive, than thofe which particular perfons may frame to *' themfelves." Rat. Enq. p. 29. In plain Englifh, Tou nuill ahvays be fafejl ^Lulth the majority. For where is the body of men who will not pretend to the maturejl deliberat'mi, and the ufe of the /ro/^rf/? helps? But the Remonftrants wofe men of fenfe, and faw, what Dr. Stehhii:£s caufe required him to con- ceal, namely, that confi derations of this kind muft, in the event, drive every man headlong into the eftabliflied religion, whatever it happens to be, or by whom foever devifed ; whe- ther by a fynagoge of Pharifees, a Turkifii divan, a council of Trent, or, what theRemonftrants liked as little as any of them, a fynod of Don.

they

THE CONFESSIONAL. 41

they make no fuch cotnparifon ; they only infer, with much ambiguity, from the premifes, that Confejfwns, with the circumftances mentioned, can- not Jeem unprofitable.

But, be their meaning what you will, the cafes of interpreting fcripture in occafional prophefy- ings, and in ilated confeffions, are diifimilar ia fo many refpefts, that nothing can be inferred from the utility of the former, in favour of the latter : but rather the contrary.

If prophefyings, or interpretations of fcripture in Chridian aflembhes, are not delivered in fami- liar, clear, and ufual forms of fpe^ch, they are neither neceflary nor profitable ; nor can any thing be inferred from the utility of fuch prophefyings at all. On the other hand, if the fcriptures are opened and explained to the people in eafy and familiar exprefiions, by their ordinary paftors, what poflible ufe can you find for a fyilematical confeffion ? unlefs you think fit to eiLablifh it as a necefTary fupplement to the holy fcripture, and then you once more return the queftion to th^ point of right.

Again. What the preacher delivers from the pulpit, or the profefTor from his chair, they deli- ver as the fentiments and concluiions of fingle men, who have no authority to enforce their ex- plications, any farther than their own good fenfe, integrity, accuracy, and judgment, make way for them. For the reft, their do6lrines may be que- llioned, the men themfelves called upon to review them, and, if they fee realbn, corrcd, and even

retraft

42 THE CONFESSIONAL.

retra^ them, not only without offence, but, in fome cafes, with advantage to the common faith. But dodlrines, opinions, and explications of fcripture, reduced to a fixed form, and avowed by the public a6l of many fubfcribing minifters, (who by the way are full as likely to be fallible in a body, as in their perfonal capacity) put on quite another afpedt. In that cafe all examina- tion is precluded. No one fubfcriber is im- powered to explain or correcfl for the reft. Nor can any of them retraft, without (landing in the light of a fchifmatic and a revoker from his bre- thren.

It is to little purpofe that the remonftrants would limit the ftrefs to be laid upon confefTions, to their agreement with truth, and reafon, and fcripture. The matter of complaint is, that this agreement fhould be predetermined by the decifion of thefe leading fubfcribers, in fuch fort, as to difcourage all free examination, and conftrain the people to acquiefce in a precari- ous fyflem, by the mere influence of great names and refj eflable authorities, which, without any additional weight, are too apt to overawe the judgment of all forts of men, even in cafes of the greateft importance.

The expedience of ConfefTions in no wife ap- pearing tron. dicfe general confiderations, let us now fee what particular ufes the Remonftrants have for them.

And here they tell us " of times when grofs *' and noxious errors prevail in the world \ whert " necelTary heads of belief are negleded, and

" many

THE CONFESSIONAL. 43

" many points of faith urged and infifted on, " which are not neceflary ; when no diflindlion " is made between doftrines that are barely pro- " fitable, and thofe which are abfolmely necef- " fary ; when human inventions are bdund upon " men's confciences j and laftly, when many " falfe and groundlefs doftrines are palliated ** and cloathed in fcripture-Ianguage. In thefe " times, they think it not barely expedient, but " m a good meafure neceflary, that paftors of ** churches fhould advife and confult together, *' and, if they perceive that blind miferable mortals *' may be affifted in their fearches after Truth, " in fuch days of danger, by a clear elucidation *' of divine meanings, then may they profitably « fet forth the fame, &c." [D]

But in the firft place. How does it appear that Confefiions have more of this ehtcidathig proper- ty than odier forts of Refcripts ? It is a common compl;:int, that thefe formularies of dodrine, abounding in artificial and fcholaflic terms, are rather apt to perplex and confound things that are otherwile clear and plain, than to illuflrate any thing with a fuperior degree of perfpicuity. And I am really afraid there is no room to ex- cept the very confeflion to which this apology is pr<^fixed.

But to let this alone ; there occurs another difficulty, with refpect to this elucidation, not fo eafily got over. It is well known, that fome opinions have been formally condemned by the framers of Creeds and Confefiions, as grofs and

[/)] Pag. 14, .5.

nqxious

44 THE CONFESSIONAL.

noxious erroi*s, which, however, have been main- tained by very folid reafoning, not to fay con- fiderable authorities, from the fcriptures them- felves.

" There are few herefies,'* fays Dr. Stebbing, " which great learning and good fenfe have not *' been called in to countenance : he therefore, *' that would effedually crufh them, muft take *' away thefe fupports [£]." That is to fay, he mtijl, if he can ; and that has not always proved an eafy tafii, even when attempted by the ac- cumulated il-iiil and learning of Councils or Con- vocations. Thefe are difficulties, out of which Mnd miferable mortals are rarely extricated by confefllons, which are rather of the dogmatical, than the didcMic ftrain \ and oftentimes leave the reader to guefs at the reafons, why the com- pilers are fo pofitive in fome of their affertions, for which they do not condefcend to offer any proof. Thefe noxious errors too, have fometimes procured themfelves to be eftablilhed by another party of Confeffionifts and Creedmakers ; in which cafe, thefe authorized formularies are fo far from being of any real utility to an unpre- judiced inquirer, that they only ferve to deftroy the force and virtue of each other.

Again, if confefllons are really profitable to- wards fuppreffing thefe grofs and noxious errors, it muft be profitable, and in the fame propor- tion, needful, to inlarge and amplify them as often as fuch errors arife, and the birth of every

[£■] Rational Enquiry, pag, 47,

new

THE CONFESSIONAL. 45

new herefy, flioiild always be attended with a new article in the confeffion [FJ.

Perhaps there is fcarce a year pafles over, in any country where the prefTcs are open, and .i5i€n's tongues at liberty, without bringing forth fome new opinion, or reviving fome old one with new circumftances, contrary to, or at leaft different from the approved and orthodox fy- ftem ; and confequently within the defcription of a grofs and noxious error. Suppofe the re- quifite ftri(5tures On thefc heterodoxies had been added to the confefllons of the feveral churches where they have appeared for the laft two hundred years ; to what a comfortable bulk would an Harmony of thefe confcflions have amounted by this time ? what plenty of eluci- dation might fuch an Harmony have afforded to blind miferabk mortals ? and what a field is here opened for declaiming againft the indolence and drowfinefs of our appointed watchmen, wlio, during this long and perilous interval, have been iiient upon fo many important fubjeds ; fuffer- ing this multitude of herefies to pals uncorred:ed

[F] One article of diiFerence between K. Charles T. and the Scotch Proteftors, cnns 1638, turned upon the neceffity of r<f- ne'vAng and applying confefTions of faith to cyzxv prefent emer- gency of the church. This the Scots compared to the riding o( Merc/jcs, or boundaries, upon every new " Incroachment." And indeed, fuppofing the uti/ify of confeffions to be what the Remonftrants fay it is. King Charleses whole convocation could not have furnifhed him with an anfwer to this argument of the North Britons, in behalf of their new formulary. See Kujli'worth'' i Colledions, vol. II. pag. 774.

4 by

46 THE CONFESSIONAL, by any public cenfure, even while their partizans have been inceffandy preaching up to us the great utility of confeffions, as the only fovereign antidotes againft them ?

But, inftead of inveighing againft our fuperi- ors for any omiffions of this kind, let us make , ufe of this very circumftance to point out to them the inutility (perhaps fomething worfe) of our prefent eftablilhed formularies of faith and doc- trine. What is become of all thofe herefies

againft which none of thefe public provifions have been made ? Why, many of them are dead and funk down into utter oblivion, as if they had never been -, others being left open to free debate, have had no worfe effefl in religion, thaa other harmlefs and innocent, and even edifying problems, are allowed to have in literature and philofophy :— Whence the conclufion feems ta be inevitable, that the malignity of other here- lies (and perhaps the very exiftence of fome of them) has been perpetuated, only byvthe refpe*!^- abie notice that fome church or other has thought, fit to take of them in an eftabli/hed confeflion.

I will prefume to fupport the juftice of this remark, by an inftance or two in our own efta- blifhment.

In the 42d of K. Edward's Articles, a formal cenfure was pafTed upon the reftorers of Origeris opinion concerning the tsmporary duration of fu- ture punifljments. But in the Articles of 1562, this cenfure is not to be found. Undoubtedly

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 47

the qucftion is of great importance with refpe<5t to the influences and fandlions of the Chriflian religion ; nor is there any point of theology up- on which churches may be fuppofed to decide more reafonably, than this. And yet, had the negative of this problem, Whether future punift}- ments jhall be eternal? ftill been ftigmatized with this heretical brand, we fhould probably have wanted feveral learned and accurate difquifitions on the fubjed, from fome of our mofl eminent writers, fuch as Ruft^ Tillotfan, Hartly^ i^c. By whofe refearches we have gained at leaft a clearer (late of the cafe, and a more accurate infight in- to the language of the fcriptures relative to it, than the compilers of the article had before them ; without laying any invidious prejudice on the judgment or confcience of any man liv- ing, or precluding the right that every Chriftian has to determine for himfelf, in a cafe where his intereft is fo great and important.

Again, the 40th of thefe original articles, *' affirmed it to be contrary to the orthodox ** faith, to maintain that the fouls of men de- ** ceafed, do fleep, without any manner of fenle, " to the day of judgment, &c." This was like- wife difmified in 1562 : fince when, the doc- trine condemned, and (fome few faint efforts ex- cepted) all controverfy concerning it have lain dormant, till very lately, that fomething very like a demonftration that ourfirft reformers were miftaken on this head, has been offered to the 2 world ;

48 THE CONFESSIONAL.

world [G] ; which probably had never feen the . light, if an affent to this 40th article had ftiJl re- mained a part of our minifterial fubfcription.

As to what the remonftrants fay of the negleft of necelTary heads of belief, urging and infifting on points of faith, which are not necefTary ; binding human inventions on men's confciences ; inifapplications of fcripture-expreflions and au- thorities, and the like, if thefe are not to be pre- vented or corrected by the current labours of able and honeft pallors, joined to the juftice which every man owes to himfelf, in fearching the fcriptures for fatisfaftion in all doubtful cafes ; it is in vain to expedt any relief from confcfTions •, many of which, if not all, are ac- cufed on fome Cide^ of thefe very abufes which the remonftrants propofe by their means to reform.

2. Another ufe which the remonftrants have for confeffions is, " to obviate foul and diftioneffc *' flanders,.calumnies, and fufpicions, with which *' th'ofe honeft and upright divines, who under- " take to fet l^Imd miferabk mortals right, may be *' foiled by their adverfaries. In which cafe, fay " they, who is there that will not think them

[G] In a fermon on the Nature and End of Death, and a curious appendix fubjoined to the third edition o^ Co-rjjiderations on the T^heory of Religion, &c. By Dr. Ed;nund La-iv, the reve- rend, learhed, and worthy Mafler of St. Peter s College, Camh. How many dodlrines are defeftded, how many are not oppofed, not becaufe they are to be found in the New Teftament, but becaufe they are efablifmd in a Liturgy, or decided in an Ar- ticle \

" conftrained

THE CONFESSIONAL. 49

** conftrained to inform the Chriftian world, what " manner of perfons they are in religion, by an " ingenuous confeffion of their judgment : efpe- " cially if they fee that, unlefs they do it, all *' good men will be eflranged from them, their " profelytes return to their vomit, and, confe- ** quently, the truth of God be wounded through " the fides of their wronged reputation [//]."

The remonftrants had here an eye to their own particular cafe, and therefore we fhall do no wrong to their argument, if we determine the value of it by their particular fuccefs. One of the calumnies complained of in this preface, is that, " the remonftrants concealed fome things, *' of whichjhey were afhamed to give their judg- *' ment in public." How do they obviate this calumny by their confeflion ? How does their publicly confejjing fome of their doctrines prove that they had concealed none ? They do not ven- ture to fay, that in this formulary they had de- clared their judgment on every point of theology. On the contrary, they admit, that they had pur- '^o(q\y -waved certain thorny and fubtile queftions, leaving them to the idle a?id curious. Might not the do61;rines relative to thefe queftions, be the very things they were afliamed to confefs ? and if fo, what is their apology for waving them, but mere fubterfuge and evafion ?

Bur, indeed, it was worfe with the poor re- monftrants than all this came to. No fooncr was their confeflion made public, than their ad-

[H] Pag. 16, &c.

E verfaries

50 THE CONFESSIONAL.

verfaries fell iipon them with afrefh load of ca- lumnies, taking occafion from the confefTion it- felf ; actufing it of " fwarming with dreadful " herefies from the beginning to the end, not ex- " cepting even the very title page [/]".

What is now to be done ? Shall the remon- ftrants go to work again, and publifh a fecond confelTion to confute thefe new calumnies ? and ^fter that, if future occafion fhould be given, (as they might be fure it would) a thirds and a fourth? No, common fenfe would tell them, it was all labour in vain, and that there is but one way of refuting thefe endlefs calumnies effedu- ally, namely, by confronting the accufation with the matter of fadl, and appealing from time to time, to a fort of evidence, which formularies of confefiion will not admit of.

The remonftrants feem, to hav^e been aware, that it might be thought fufficient to obviate all charges of herefy, if the accufed parties were only to exprefs themfelves in fcripture-language. " But, they fell us, that this very thing is charg- " ed upon them as a crime, that, under the words " of fcripture, they cherifh in their bofoms the *' worft meanings, and mod prejudicial to the

[/] Bayk's Diet. Art. Episcopius Rem. F. See like- wife la Roche Abridg, p. 685. who mentions indeed only the cenfures of two private minillers on the remonftrants confeffion, an effeft, I am afraid, of his extreme and too vifible partiality for their caufe. They who Avill takfe the trouble to turn to Bayle, loc. cit. will fee, that the words tranfcribed above, are part of a cenfure of this confefiion, publiflied by the profefTors of Leyden,

" glory

TH ECO N FES SIGNAL. 51

^* glory of God, and the falvation of man, which " reduces them to a neceffity, whether they will " or no— -kby fome public declaration of their ** judgment, to purge themfelves, and to main- " tain and defend the fincerity of their be- « lief [Xj.»

Well then, let us confider how this cafe (lands. The Cahinijls charge it upon the Remonjirants as a crime, that, under fcripture words, they cherifh the worft meanings. The remonftrants fay it is a calumny, and appeal to their confeffion. The fame remonftrants bring the fame accufation againft another fet of men, as we have feen above. May not thefe men fay too, it is a calumny ? May not they too defend themfelves in a confeffion ? and at what does all this futile reafoning aim, but at proving, that whatever is once got into a con- feffion, mUft of neceffity be infallibly true ?

Where indeed any particular church can pro- cure an eftabiiihmeht for its confeffion, in fuch fort as to make it a rule of teaching, and a teft of orthodoxy for all her paftors and and prbfeflbrs^ a bridle upon the tongue, and a fhackle upon the pen-hand of every man who is difpofed to fpeak or write againft it, formularies of this kind may have their f(/^ and expedience ^ in fecitring the pri^ ve/eges, inter eft s^ and emoluments of that particular church i and, being armed with coercive penal- ties, may likewife operate in the feveral cafes abovementioned. But according to ourapologifts, thefe are the circumftances in which the' abufes of confeffions do chiefly confift. " They are not [AT] Pag. 17, 18.

E 2 "for

52 THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' for allowing confeHions to be the limits and '* bounds within which religion is to be fhut up ; " the indices of ftraight and crooked, or the an- " vil to which all controverfies of faith are to be " brought ; nor would they have any man tyed ** to them, but juft ib far, and fo long, as he is " convinced in his confcience, that the dodlrine " of the confeflion accords with the fcrip- " ture [L]."

This is juft and reafonable : and it would be both unjuft and unreafonable, to deny the re- monftrants their due praife for their moderation, tendernefs, and honeft regard to the rights of private judgment. But however, nothing is more certain, than that by thefe limitations and conceflions, they give up all the peculiar utility and expedience of thefe fyftematical forms, for which they profefs themfelves advocates in other parts of this preface ; leaving them no more vir- tue or efficacy in inftrufling the ignorant, con- futing errors and herefies, or filencing calum- nies, than may be reafonably claimed by, and afcribed to, the writings and difcourfes of any particular divine of judgment and learning.

There is, indeed, little doubt, but that in bringing down confeflions fo very low, particu- larly in their three-fold caution concerning the ufe of them, the remonftrancs took a parti- cular aim at the fynod of Dort, by whofe proud cruelty they had fuffered fo much. In their fitu- ation, to have put any high value upon public

[I] Pag. 20, 21,

confeflions.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 53

confedions, had been to preclude themfelves from all reafonable apology for their cond'udl. And yet who knows, in what all this modera- tion and lenity would have ended, had the re- monftrants been fortunate enough to have en- gaged the civil powers, and, with them, the majority on their fide ? For my part, I fhould have entertained no worfe opinion of their in- tegrity, if, inftead of this trimming apology, (wherein they dextroufly enough fetch back with one hand, what they had appeared to give with the other) they had fairly and honeilly told the world (what was certainly the truth of the cafe) that their circumftances required they fhould have a religious teft as a cement of their party, and to put them upon the refpeftable footing of a church. In the midft of all their moderation, we have feen them above exprefllng their con- cern, left x}i\€\x frofdytes fhould return to their vo' mit. In other pafTages they fpeak of confeffions, as watch-towers^ enfigns^ and Jiandards. On one occafion they have unwarily dropped this obfer- vation. " There are fome things of fo great " weight and moment, that they cannot be " gainfaid without the extreme hazard of our *' falvation. Freely to contradi6l thefe, or quietly *' to fuffer them to be contradi£]ed by ethers ^ would *' he the Jarthcji from prudence and charity pojfible.^" What, may we fuppofe, would the gentle Epif- copius have done with the gainfayers of thefe things, invefied, as he might poffibly have been, with a commifficn from the fecular arm ? All

E.3 this

54 THE confessional;

this moderation and forbearance might, after all, have amounted to no more than what all pro- teftant churches profefs ; namely, to afiert the fovereign authority of the fcriptures, with a com- modious faving to themfelves of a concurrent privilege, of providing for the utility of their own well-beings by an orthodox teft.

Let no man fay, that, confidering the tempe- rate language of the Remonftrants, a furmife of this kind cannot be juftified. In this verbal de- ference for the authority of the fcriptures, no church has ever gone farther than our own, nor confequently left greater latitude for private judgment.

" We receive and embrace" (fays the church of England by the pen of Bifhop Jewel) " all the ' canonical fcriptures, both of the Old and New ' Teftament; — we own them to be the heaven- ' ly voices by which God hach revealed his will ' to US; — in them only can the mind of man ' acquiefce •, in them all that is neceffary for our ' falvation is abundantly and plainly contained -, — ' they are the very might and power of God un- ' to falvation ; they are the foundations of the ' Apoftles and Prophets upon which the church ' of God is built -, they are the mofl certain and ' infallible rule, by which the church may be ' reduced if fhe happen to ftagger, flip, or err, ' by which all ecclefmjlical do^rines ought to be ' tried \ no law^ no tradition^ no cujtom^ is to be re- • ceived or continued ^ if it be contrary to fcripture ; ' no, though St. Paul himfelf, or an angel

rron^

THE CONFESSIONAL. 55

" from heaven, fhould come and teach other- « wife [My*

This was once the fenfe of the church of Eng- land, whatever authority flie may have fince pre- tended to, upon other principles. Be this as it may, fuch of her divines as have afferted this authority with the utterraofl: zeal, and in the higheft terms, have yet, in the fame breath, ex- tolled her moderation, in laying no greater ftrefs upon her Confeffion, than theRemonftrantsthem- felves feem to contend for.

" Our church," fays Bifliop Bull, " profefleth " not to deliver all her articles (ally 1 fay, for *' fome of them are coincident with the funda- " mental points of Chriftianity) as effentials of " faith, without the belief whereof no man can *' be faved, but only propounds them as a body *' of fafe and pious principles, for the preferva- *' tion of peace, to be fubfcribed, and not openly " contradifled, by her fons [A^].

Nay, even the rigidly-ecclefialtical Dr. Stehbing allows, that " when we fpeak of a right to deter- " mine what is the true fenfe of any article of " faith, we do not propofe the explication, given " in virtue of this right, as a rule for the taith or " condu6t of Chriftians •, but only as a rule, ac- " cording to which they fhall either be admitted " or not admitted to officiate as public mini- " fters [0]."

[M] Contra eas nee legem, nee traditiojiem, nee confuetudinem ullam audiendam ejfe, fays the Latin Apol. fed. 27. [jV] Vindication of the Church of England, p. 178. [OJ Rational Enquiry, p. 36.

E 4 'Tis

56 THE confessional;

'Tis true, the obfcurity of thefe concefiions Is fuch, that no man can tell what is intended to be given up by them, and what referved for the church. In my opinion, they are hardly fenfe. But this likewife is the misfortune of the Remon- Itrants, who ofcillate the queftion backwards and forwards, till no mortal can find out what they mean to afcribe to, or what todetrad from, the virtue and merit of a public Confeffion.

The Remonftrants, however, have had thus far the better of us -, they believed their Confeffion at lead when they made this Apology for it. We are driven to make Apologies for, and even to defend fubfcription to a Confeffion which many fubfcribers do not believe ; and concerning which w two thinking men (according to an ingenious, and right reverend writer) ever agreed exa^ly in their opinion.^ even with regard to any one article of

it [P].

Of what curious materials thefe extraordinary Apologies and Defences are framed, we are now proceeding to examine.

[P] Dedication to the EJfay on Spirit, p. vi.

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 57

C H A P. IV.

4 particular Exa-mination of Bijhop Burnet's Intro- du^uon to the Expofition of the XXXIX Arti- cles of the Church of England.

Hitherto our obfervations have been general. Little has been faid on the fubjedt of efta- blilhed confeflions, in which our own church has any greater concern than other proteftant church- es. We fhall now be a little more particular. And as Bi(hop Burnet has brought together all the topics of any moment, relating to the fub- fcriptions required of the Englifli clergy, in a particular difcourfe prefixed to his Expofition of our Articles of Religion^ we fhall do our vene- rable mother no wrong, in felecling, for our pre- fent confideration, the apology of fo mafterly an advocate.

But, before we proceed to examine his Lord- fhip's folutions of the feveral difficulties which have been fuppofed to encumber the cafe of our Englifh fubfcriptions, it may be neceflary to give a little previous attention to the motives and reafons, which engaged his Lordfhip in this par- ticular work of expounding the Articles of our church.

" Some of the Articles," fays the Bifliop, " feemed to lean fo entirely to an abfolute frede- ** fiination^ that fome, upon that account, fcru- ** pled the lubfcribing them : and others re-

" proached

5g THE CONFESSIONAL.

" proached our church with this, that though " our articles looked one way, yet our do5lors, *' for the moft part, went the other way. It was *' fit fuch a point fliould be well cleared ; and it ^' was in order to that, that the late blefied Queen " [Mary] did command me to explain thofe *^ firft ; which flie afterwards enlarged to the •* whole thirty-nine [//]."

Let us reileft a little on this remarkable cir« cumflance.

Every one knows that, in the fenfibleand pathe- tic Condufion, fubjoined to this excellent Prelate's Hiflory of his own Times, his Lordfhip has not icrupled to declare, *' that the requiring fub- *' fcription to the thirty-nine Articles, is a great *' impofition [5]." An opinion which was not the reiult of a late experience. His Lordfhip had expreffed himfelf to the fame purpofe to the principal m^n pf Geneva, with refpedt to their Confenfus DoBrinte, many years before he could have any view to the circumftances which gave rife to his Expofttion, and that with fo much zeal and eloquence, that, according to the writer of his life, (a witnefs v/orchy of all belief) " it was " through his (the Bifhop's) credit, and the " weight of his chara(5ler, that the clergy at Ge- " nev^ were releafed from thefe fubfcriptions, *' and only left fubjedt to punifhment or cenfure,

\.4\ Eifhop Burnet' i Remarks on the Examination of I^is Exporition of the Second Article of our Church, p. %. , \B'\ Folio edicion, vol. 11. p. 634.

in

THE CONFESSIONAL. 59

** in cafe of writing or preaching againfl: the " eftabliflied dodrine [C]."

Thefe being his Lordfhip's uniform fenti- ments, in the earlier, as well as the later part of his life, a queftion is naturally fuggeftcd, why- he Ihould write a book, in the mean feafon, with the avowed purpofe of making men eafy • under their obligations to fubfcribe ? An at- tempt which could have no other tendency, than to perpetuate the impofition in all fucceeding times. For the point the Bifhop was to clear being this, " that the articles were capable of " the feveral fenfes of different doflors," the confequence would be, that all might fafely fub- fcribe them : which would of courfe fuperfede the neceflity of aboliOiing fubfcriptions on the part of the church, let the impofition be ever fo grievous to thofe who could not come into the Bifhop's expedients •, and this, as his Lordlhip had good reafon to know, was no uncommon cafe.

Whether Bilhop Burnet confidereid, or indeed whether he faw his enterprize in this point of light, cannot be determined. That there were feme confiderations, which, notwithftanding the 'weight of a royal command, made him enter upon this tafk with no little reludance, appears pretty plainly from the following particulars :

I. In a paragraph ju ft now cited from one of his Lordfhip's pamphlets, we are informed that he undertook his Expojitioriy at the command of

[C] Life, vol. ii. fol. edit. p. 693,

Queefj

6o THE CONFESSIONAL.

Queen Mary: by whom he likewife fays elfe- where, he was firft moved to write it [D]. But in the preface to his Expofition, he fays, " he was *'' firji moved to undertake that work, by that *' great prelate, who then fat at the helm, [Abp. *' Tillotfon] and only determined in it, by the com- *' mand abovementioned afterwards'*

You may, if you pleafe, call this a contradic- tion ; to me the truth of the cafe is clearly this, that the great prelate, unable to prevail with his friend Burnet, to undertake an affair of that na- ture at his own motion, applied to the Queen, whofe influence, added to his own, left the good Billiop no room to decline the fervice, however difagreeable it might be to him.

2. The Queen and the Archbilhop, dying foon after the Expofition was finifl:ied, and before it was put to the prefs, the Bifhop, as he informs us himfeif, " being advifed not to publifh it, by ** feme of his friends, who concurred with him *' in opinion, that fuch a work would lay him ** open to -many malicious attacks, kept it by " him, in manufcripr, no lefs \}(\2.v\ five years: at *' the end of which interval, he was prevailed on " by the ArchbiHiop S^mnifon'] and many of his ** own order, to delay the publifhing it no long- " er [£]. To which follicitations, we may fup- pofe his Lordfhip to have given way with the lefs difficulty, as he was now at liberty to fpeak his mind in a preface^ which, it is highly probable,

[D] Hid. O. T. vol. ii, pag. 228. [A] Hiil. O. T. ubi fopra.

had

THE CONFESSIONAL. 61

had never ken the light in the circumftances we now have it, if the ^een and 'Tillotfon had fur- vived the publication of the Expofition. For,

3. In ihis, preface y the Bifliop takes particular care to apprize his readers, " that his Expcji- " tion was not a work of authority, and that in " what he had done, he was, as to the far greater *' part, rather an hiftorian^ and a coUe^oroi what " others had written, than an author himfelf." But what is ftill more, he there freely declares, the flender opinion he had of the effed of fuch expedients as he had fuggefted in his introduce ion. ** The fettling on fome equivocal formula- *' ries," fays his Lordfhip, " will never lay the *' contention that has arifen, concerning the chief " points in difference between the Lutherans and '* the Calvinifts*." An obfervation which will equally hold good, with refpedt to equivocal lenfes put upon more pofitive and dogmatical formularies. In neither cafe are the men of dif- ferent fyftems ** left free, as the Bifliop thinks " they jQiould be, to adhere to their own opi- *' nions :" and fo long as they are not, they will be for ever ftruggling to break loofe. No peace will enfue.

Thefe fentiments, I humbly apprehend, had not appeared v^'here we now find them, if the Rxpofition had been pubiiflied as foon as it was finiflied. The right reverend author would mod probably have fupprcfled them, in mere tender-

* See Bayle's DiB. Muscutus, Rem. [G]

I nefs

6i THE CONFESSIONAL.

nefs to the good Archbifhop, whofe notions cofi- cerning thefe healing meafures, and middle ways^ were very different from thofe of Bifhop Burnet. His Grace's temper was mild and cautious, even to the borders of timidity. His leading objeft was to keep church-matters in peace. What he thought of fubfcriptions is not very clear. Pof- fibly he might think they were unwarrantable impofitions, and wilh, at the bottom, to be well nV/ (?/ them [FJ. But the virulence of the op- pofition to a propofed review of the liturgy in 1689, had taught him caution with refped: to fuch attempts. His Grace might, and certainly did, wilh to procure more liberty for himfelf and all honeft men, to write and fpeak their fenti- ments freely. But the articles ftood in the way^ an immoveable barrier to the churchj — a fort of a guard-houfe, to which the centinels of the hie- rarchy were for ever dragging poor culprits, who

[F] And yet Dr. Birch, in his Life of this eminent prelate, hath preferved an anecdote, by no means favourable to this furmife. I mean that ftrange equivalent propofed by his Grace, in lieu of the common form of fubfcription. viz. We dofuhmit to the doflrine, difcipline, and nvorjhip of the Church of England, as it SHALL BE efahlijhed by lavj, and promife to teach and praBife accordingly. This would be bowing our necks to the yoke with a witnefs. What we fubfcribe to now, is before us 5 and in a condition to be examined before hand. What SHAtL BE ellablifhed hereafter, we know not. By fuch a fubfcrip- tion, a man might oblige himfelf to teach and practife popery it felf : " The Church of England,"" faid Bifhop Burr.et once In a debate, " is an equivocal expreffion ; and if popery flioold " prevail, it would be called the Church oi E?: gland iXiW." See Vox Cleri, pag. 68. Birch, Life ofTil/otfon, 8vo. p. 183.

had

THE CONFESSIONAL. 6j

had ftraycd ever fo little beyond the verge of the court. All that could be done, as the cafe then flood, was to expound thefe articles fo, that men of different opinions might fubfcribe them; and by that means, be brought to bear with each other in controvertible points, and to debate matters freely, without incurring fufpicions or reproaches of herefy or prevarication. Into this lervice, I prefume, was the Bifhop of Salisbury prefTed by his Grace of Canterbury ; and with whatever reluftance he might undertake it, we may be fure he would never mortify his friend by publicly declaring, as he does in this preface, the contemptible opinion he had of fuch expedi- ents.

4. There is one circumftance farther to be obferved on this fubjedl, which is well worth our notice. Bifhop Burnet was under a greater dif- ficulty with refpe<5l to fuch an undertaking, than mofl men. The readiefl way to have anfwered Tillotfon's purpofe, would have been to confider and expound this articular fyftem fo, that fub- fcription to it might Hand for no more than a peaceable acquiefcence, or, at mofl, an engage- ment not openly to contradidl it. But unluckily for the prcfent expounder, he had long before, declared in a celebrated work, " that there ap- ** peared no reafon for this conceit, no fuch " thing [as their being intended only for ar^ ** tides of peace] being declared when the ar- " tides were firfl fet out ; infomuch, that they *' who fubfcribed them then^ did either believe

♦* them

64. THE confessional;

" them to be true, or elfe they did grofsly pre* « varicate [G]."

It is, indeed, highly probable, that his Lord- fliip never altered his opinion in this matter. For even when his Expojition was about to be pub- lifhed, Bifbop Williams ftrongly recommended, that they might be confidered only as articles of peace. Upon which the late Judge Burnet, men- tioning this incident in his father's life, obferves, *' that there might, perhaps, be reafon to wifh " that they had only been impofed as fuch, but " there was nothing in our conftitution to war- " rant an expofitor in giving that fenfe to '• them.'* His father was plainly in the fame fentiments when he fet out his Expofttion j which makes it the more extraordinary, that fome mo- dern writers (hould Hill contend for this pacijic fenfe of fubfcription , when two fuch able judges, the one of the original intention of the Church, the other of the point of Law, have fo clearly and pofitively determined againft them.

Whether Biihop Burnet would have given more room to fubfcribers in his Ex-pofition, if that pafiage in his Hijiory of the Reformation had been out of the v/ay, it v/ould even be imperti- nent to guefs. Had Bifhop Williams been the expo/2tor,he would, it is likely, have carried fub- fcriptions no higher than an obligation to acquiefce in the doftrine of our articles j upon a prelum- ption, poffibly, that the prefent generation, if they could agree upon it, need not be bound by [G] Hill. Reformat, vol, ii* p. 169.

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 65

the original intention of the church or the com- pilers. Sir 'Thomas Burnet^ howevwer, we fee, carries us back to our confiitution •, and that im- plies, that what was once the intention of the church in this matter, mud be ftill her inten- tion : and fo, undoubtedly, thought the Bifhop his father. And as his Lordihip had all along feen things in this light, it is amazing to me, that the fenfe he exprefTed of the firft fubfcrip- tions, in his Hiftory of the Reformation, fhould not fuggefl to him, that he could no more give the fubfcribers of the prefent age the privilege of availing themfelves of different grammatical fenfes, than he could allow them to confider the articles, as articles of peace.

His Lordihip hath faid in plain terms, " that *' they who fubfcribed the articles when they " were firft fet out, did either believe them to be '* true, or elfe they did grofsly prevaricate.'* Now, if they believed them* to be true, they cer- tainly believed them to be true in one prectfe imi- form fenfe, that is to fay, in a fenfe exclufive of all diverfity of opinion^ as the title of the articles plainly imports. And if fo, what is there in our conftitution to warrant an expofitor to allow men to lubfcribe in different fenfes ? If the firfl: fubfcribers would have prevaricated in fo dping, the original intention of the compilers will fix the fame reproach upon all fubfcribers who devi- ate from the church's fenfe to this hour.

But whether we are right in fuppofing the

good Bifliop to have undertaken this talk againft

F the

66 TH E CONFESSIONAL.

the grain or not, we have good reafon to believe, that his ("uccefs did not yield him the higheft fa- tisfa6lion in the latter end of his life. His dif- content will appear by and by, in a citation from a pamphlet he was obliged to write in defence of his Expofaicn^ immediately after it was publifli- ed ; and in his golden legacy, at the end of his laft hiftory, he fcrupies not to fay, " that the *' greater part of the clergy fubfcribe the articles *' without ever examining them, and others doit " becaufe they muji do it, tho' they can hardly " fatisfy their confciences about fome things in " them." Is not this faying, that all his pains in expounding the articles, and all his expedients to temper the cafe of fublcription to all taftes and complexions, had been abfolutely thrown away ; and that fubfcription, after all the colours that can be put upon it, is no better than an unwar- rantable impofition ?

I cannot leave this view of the connexion be- tween thefe two prelates Tillotfon and Burnet, without a fhort reflexion on thefe trimming me- thods in matters of religion. When were they ever known to fucceed ? And where were they ever known to conciliate the mind of any one of thofe unreafonabie zealots, to whofe humour they were accommodated ? We, of this genera- tion, have lived to fee how greatly Archbifliop 'Tillotfon was miftaken, in thinking to win over the high churchmen of thofe days, by his heal- . ing expedients. His gentle, lenitive Ipirit, was to their bigotry, what oil is to the fire. Bifhop

Burnetts

THE CONFESSIONAL. 6y

Burnet's friendfhip for the Archbilhop carried him into rhele meafures, contrary to his natural bent, and in mere complaifance to the Archbi- fliop's apprehenfionsofaftorm, which he dreaded above all other things. And I remember to have heard Tome old men rejoice, that Burnet was kept down by Tillotfon''s influence, from pufhing the reformation of the church to an extremity that might have endangered the government itfelf. Some of thefe men, however, might have re- membered, that when the Archbifhop was no longer at hand to temper Burnetts impetuofity, the latter had prudence fufficient to balance his courage, and to keep him from attempting, what he had fenfe enough to perceive was im- practicable. But after all, what has been the confequence oiTillotfons gentlenefs, and Burnet's complaifance for the times ? even this -, thefe two eminent lights of the Englifh Church, could not have been more oppofed while they lived, or more abufed and vilified fince they died, had they firmly and vigoroufly promoted, at all adventures, that reformation in the church of England, which, they were both of them deeply confcious, fhe very much wanted [/],

[/] Befides the ftaler inftances of the outrageous treatment theie two eminent prelates have met with in and nearer their own times, hvOw implacably the malice of fom.e men purfues them even to the prefent mcme.it, may be feen in an abulive and fcandalous charader given of Bifhop Burnet, in a late thing called, OlfertatioKs upcn Tacitus ; and in fome jacobiie Rt' muirki on the Liie of Arclibifliop Idht/c?!, by Dr. Birch.

F 2 But

68 tHE CONFESSIONAL.

But after all, if what Bifhop Burnei has of- fered under all thefe difidvantages, will not juftify the church of £k^/^77^ in requiring fub- fcription to the 39 articles, or leave room for the fincerity of thofe dodors, who feem to go one way, while the articles look another, we may venture to conclude, without any juft imputa- tion of temerity, that this fervice will hardly be more effeflually performed by men of another flamp, who may probably engage in it with more alacrity, and lefs circumfpeftion. What the good bifhop has faid on this behalf, we now pro- ceed to confider.

His Lordfhip begins with flaring the feeming impropriety " of making fuch a coUeftion of te- *' nets, the flandard of the doflrine of a Church, " that, according to his Lordfhip, is defervedly *' valued by reafon of her moderation. This, " fays the bifhop, feems to be a departing from *' the fimpllcity of the firfl ages, which yet we " fet up for a pattern [i^]."

This objeded impropriety (which, by the way, his Lordfhip exceedingly flrengthens and illuf- trates, by an indudtion of particulars) he rather endeavours to palliate and excufe, or, as he terms , jt, explain, than to deny or confute. He gives us an hiflorical recital of the pra6tice of former times, to fhew that our church afls after a pre- cedent of long ftanding. To this no other an- fwer is neceffary, than that this was the pradice of times, which were not remarkable either for

[K] Introdudion, p. i.

their

THE CONFESSIONAL. 69

their moderation ov fimplicity^ and of whofe exam- ple the church of England cannot avail herfelf, confiftently with her pretenfions to thefe two amiable quaUties [L].

But it feems this pradlice was originally the pradlice of the apoflles : a confideration, which will not only authorize our imitation, but ftrong- ly imply the utility and edification of the thing itfelf.

*' There was a form," fays his Lordfliip, *' fet- " tied very early in moft churches. This St. " Pauh in one place CdXh^'The form of doBrine tJoat " was delivered^ in another place, T^heform of found " words, which thofe, who were fixed by theapo- *' ftles in particular churches, had received from " them. Thefe words of his do import a fiand- ** ard Qt fixed formulary , by which all doctrines " were to be examined [M].'* The pafiages here referred to, are, Rom. vi. 17. — i Tim. iv. 6. to which are added in the margin, i Tiin. vi. 3.— iTim.'i. 13. and the Greek words in thefe feve- ral pafiTages which are fuppofed to fignify this fiandard or fixed formulary, run thus — Tu/ro? J'i-

I>10"« Xpig-^f y.xi n xaT iV(riQiniiv J'jJ'oiffJtaAja.

[L] To illufirate this truth, Dr. MoJl:e'w!i Compendious Vieuo of Ecclejiaflical Hijiory, may be confulted, from the times of Covjiantine downwards : and with greater advantage, in Dr. Maclahie^s Englilh tranflation, lately publiihcd.

[M] Introd. p. 2.

F 3 Now,

fo THE CONFESSIONAL.

Now, when a capable and unprejudiced reader confiders the variety of expreffion in thefe feveral pafTages, he will probably be inclined to think, that z. fixed formulary of dodrine is the laft thing a plain man would look tor in them, h fixed for- mulary^ one would think, fliould have z. fixed title. Nor is it at all probable, that one and the fame form of words, (hould be defcribed in terms, which may denote an hundred different forms.

To enter into a jufl: criticifm on thefe expref- fions, would be tedious and unneceffary. Suf- fice it to obferve, after very competent judges,

that TUTToj J'i^aXT)?, and uVoTUTrwo-tf •Cyixivovluv Xoyuv^

appear to refer rather to the exemplification of the Chriftian dodrine in the praBice of pious be- lievers, than to zny form of words. The doBrine is one thing, and the type of the dodtrine, an- other. The do6lrineis, and muft be exprefled by, and confequently contained in, forne form of words. But the type of that/(7rw, muft be feme- thing different from the form it felf ; and the general acceptation of the word tutto?, points out the pra^ical exemplification of the doftrine, to be the thing here intended. The text, Rom. vi. 17. is, it muft be owned, obfcure and difficult, but without giving this fenfe to the words tutto? ^»- §xX'^''^^ it is abfolutely unintelligible [A^]. And

[iV] SeeGrotlus ■anA Bengelius' s GnoTnox\ upon the place. Ttjrof. Typus, veftigium, figura, exemplar, forma. Hen. Stephens. Afts xxiii. 25. -rvmz is the literal ctpy of Lyfias'i epiftle to Felix, not the fum or abridgment of it.

whatever

THE CONFESSIONAL. 71

whatever is die fignification of tutto? here, muft be the meaning of uVoTUTrwo-if, 2 Tim. i. 1 3 [0]].

Again, the literal Engiilh of xtyixmCln; Aoyoj, is healing or falutary words -,. that- is, the words of falvation or eternal life. Our tranflators have rendered the Greek participle by the equivocal words, found and whokfome^ which fignified, I fuppofe, in their ideas, the lame with orthodox.

If you afk where thefe healing words are to be found ? I anivver, in the fcriptures, fometimes, perhaps, abridged and comprehended in fome Ihort fummaries, which occur in Paul's epiftles to Timothy and Titus. But thefe are evidently not X.\\G fixed formularies his Lordfhip means. As the certain confequence of that muft have been, that no man, or body of men whatfoever, could have had the lealt authority to add to them, or inlarge them in any future time.

And if any other flaiidard or formulary is meant, it then comes to our turn to afk the que-

[0] The word is but once more to be found in the New Teftament, 'vix. i Tim. i. i6. Where the apoftle fays, he found mercy— 'Tr^o; vTraltTTfe'c-ii' TO/f pi£AXo>1i;i' TTij-Evc, &C. for « pattern \ which is the fame thing as an excmple of the doflrine ot pardon and mercy, thro' Chrilt. In what lenfe the word tutto? was af- terwards ufcd, may be feen in Mills s tranfiation of Bruys's Hift. of the Popes, vol. i. p. 428. Where an inftrument, or edi£l of the Emperor Confians, for the pacification of tlie difputes concerning the two Vvills of Chrift, is called the ^ype. Which Inltrument contained no formulary of doftrine, but only enjoin- ed that the parties at variance fhould abide by the fcriptures, the five oecumenical councils, and the plain and fimplc paffages ot the fathers.

F 4 ftion.

72 THE CONFESSIONAL.

(lion. Where is it to be found ? What h be- come of it ? For that it fliould be loft, or drop into utter oblivion, if it once had a real exiftence, is wholly incredible.

In anfwer to this demand, the Bifliop gives us to underftand, " that, by 3i fixed formulary, he " does not mean one precife and invariable form " of words, which he thinks it improbable the *' apoftles fhould leave behind them. For his *' Lordfiiip obferves, that the firft apologifts for " Chriftianity, when they deliver a fhort abftradl " of the Chriftian faith, do all vary from one *' another, both as to the order, and as to the " words themfelves. Whence he thinks it more " probable, that they received thefe Ihort ab- " ftrads from the apoftles themfelves, with fome " variation."

A But furely, the moment you admit of t;<«ni2- ilons^ not only the idea of a fixed formulary^ but even the ufe of any formulary, as d.ftandard or teft of all do-flrines, immediately vaniflies away. There mull be left, in fuch varying formularies, room for doubtful and precarious judgments : and the fcriptures alone, in all fuch cafes, muft be the dernier refort. And if fo, why might they not as well have been admitted to decide in the firft jnftance }

But to come nearer the cafe in hand. Do any of thefe apologifts pretend to have received any of thefe fhort abftrads from the apoftles themfelves ? or does it appear among all the va- riety of creeds which thefe primitive fathers have

exhibited.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 73

exhibited, that any one of thenn came immedi- ately from the apoftles ? Mr. fVhiJlon^ who, per- haps, had made as exad a fcrutiny into matters of this nature as any man living or dead, and who was as likely to adopt any thing for apofto- lie, which had the leaft pretence to fo honour- able an origin, frankly confefies, in one of his books, that *' he finds no trace of an apoftolical " baptifmal creed in the writings of the fathers, " for above three centuries, though he makes no *' doubt, but there was all along fuch 'a creed *' among them, notwithftanding [Z']."

I cite Mr. Whifton as a witnefs to a fad, but lay no ftrefs upon his opinion ; nor, indeed, does it delerve the leaft regard, after he has told us, " that in the fourth century, many doubtful and *' exceptionable creeds were publicly ufed in the " church, and did then exceedingly difturb and " confound chriftianity.'* That is to fay, at^ or immediately after ^ the very time, when he makes no doubt but they had fuch an authentic baptif- mal creed among them.

But till fome of thefe apoftolic formularies are brought to light, what his Lordfliip fays of a depofttum^ lodged in the hands of a bilhop, &c. muft pafs only for an inference from ^ pofiulatitmy which, for many good reafons, and fuch, parti- cularly, as rife from our fcripture- accounts of the manner in which the apoftles preached and propagated the gofpel, cannot be granted. And indeed, upon his Lordfliip's fuppofition, that the

[PJ Reply to Dr. Jllix'i Remarks, p. 1 8.

apoftles

74 THE CONFESSIONAL.

apoftles, or their companions, delivered thefe for- mularies of faith as dspofjts, with fuch variations as the cafes and ficuations of partici^lar churches demanded, it is next to impoffiblethey ihould all have perifhed fo abfolutely, that no remains of them are to be difcovered to this hour.

But it leems, there is a way of accounting for this ftate of utter oblivion, into which thefe pri- mitive formularies are fallen, very confiftentwith the fuppofition of their real exiftence for feveral centuries. We are told that thefe formularies con- tained a ^^M(pm $oy^ix.^ ^fecret do5irine, feldom, if ever, committed to writing; the ufe of which was, to fecure the chriftian brotherhood (by way of a teft or teifera of true difciplefhip) from be- ing impofed upon by the infidious and diffemb- ]ed pretences of pagans and heretics. And to t\i\sjecret do5lrine, St. John is fuppofed to allude, where he fays, 2 Epift. v. 10. Ij there come any unto yout and bring not this doSrine., receive him not into yoitr hcufe, neither bid him God/peed.

Some divines are extremely ingenious in dif- covering what the facred writers allude to, when they allude to nothing but what is plainly ex- prejfed in the context. Look back to verfe the 7th, and carry the conneclion of the Apoflle's difcourfe along with you to this loth verfe, and you will plainly perceive the do5lrine mentioned in that verfe to be this propofition, Jefus Chrijt is come in the flejh : which fome perfons, and thofe perhaps pretending to be Chri^ians, then

denied.

THE CONFESSIONAL. ^^

denied *. If you refer the words, this do^rine, no farther back than to the foregoing verfe, and fiippofe the do£irine of Chriff, there mentioned, to be a fecret formulary of doftrine, concealed among the fincere and faithful Chriftians for the purpofes above mentioned, the confequence will be, that though a brother fhould confefs that Jefus Chrilf is come in thejiefh, and profefs his be- lief of every gofpel-truth, which is implied in, or depends upon, that confelTion, you were not to receive him into your houfey nor bid him God fpeed, unlefs he brought this fecret fymbolical dodtrine, which perhaps he might never have heard of. And how oppofite that would be to the fpirit of the gofpel, needs no particular proof.

What other arguments or evidences there may be to fupport this fancy, I have not examined. I freely own it would mortify me greatly to find fuch a pradice fixed upon the primitive church, by any fort of evidence, which lliould fairly de- rive it from the Apoftles [Pj. Nothing could

, * See Chilli ngnvortys Letter to Lenugar. Life by Defmai- zcaux, p. 32. His words are thefe : "If you think me one " of thofe to whom St. 'John forbids you to fay Godja-ve you^ *' then you are to think and prove me one of thofe deceivers ** which deny Jefus Chrift to be come in thefiejhy

[PJ I have been informed, that the late learned Dr. John Colhatch, profefTor of cafulpcal divinity in the univerficy of Cambridge, hath left behind him a manufcript wherein the reality of a x.pt;(piov J'oy/xa among the ancient Chriftians, is clearly proved. I wifh fuch manufcript were printed. For, though I think it impofllble that a fecret of this kind, if ever it had any fubftantial foundation, (hould not tranfpirc before the eighteenth century; yet fuch an attempt from fo learned a

be

76 THE CONFESS^IONAL.

be more inconfiflent with the nature and cireiini- ftances of their commiffion, or the tenour, fpirit, and defign of the gofpel in general. Our Savi- our told his Apoftles, thatw/f'i^/ had been whifpered in the ear (the truths that had been communi- cated to them only) fuoidd by them be proclaimed upon the houfe-tops [^\ St. Paul puts his being pure from the blood of all mertj upon this, that be bad not fhunned to declare to the churches where ■ he preached, the whole counfel of God{R] : and appeals to his opennefs, (implicity, and fincerity on many other occafions. In the fame fenfe of their duty, the whole college join in prayer to God, that they may be enabled to fpeak the word with all boldnefs : (jliIo, Tsacrviq 7trappn(r;«?, with all freedom ; fine involucris, fays Grotius \^S\ And yet, it feems, they had among them a fecret do- £triney refer ved to be communicated only to ad- epts, to the initiated^ and fuch as might be con- fided in : which indeed would have been reducing ehriftianity to a paltry izok.^ and bringing in di-

perfoti as Dr. Colbatch^ would certainly furnifh curiofities enow to recompence the pains of reading his book, however fhort and unfatisfied it might leave us with refped to the main point. A cafuiftical divine is, by his profeffion, a dealer in cryptics. The plain open truths of the New Teftament will not agree with certain fqueamilh confciences. Few people, I apprehend, carry their fcruples to cafuifts, without having a fufpicion that the gofpel is againft them. The doftor, to oblige, or to fa- tisfy fuch patients, muft fetch his drugs from the hidden wi{^ dom of the Fathers and Schoolmen.

[^] Luke xii. 3. compare Matth. x. 27.

[K] Jas XX. 26, 27.

[5] ji£is iv. 29.

4 llindions.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 77

flih61:ions, which could not but have difgufled new converts, many of whom, no doubt, had taken offence at the exclufive rites and myfteries ia the religions they had profeffed, and would, on that very account, be rather inclined to em- brace an inftitution where every thing was open- ly declared, and freely communicated.

What indeed might happen rtiTome Chriftian focieties, and perhaps in no long time after the demife of the Apoitles, I would not undertake to fay.' As little as we know of thofe early times, we have fufScien't evidence of their' widely devi- ating from the Hmplicity of the gofpel -, and all 1 am concerned for is to Ihew, that the Apodles fet them no fuch examples.

Bifhop Burnet indeed makes no exprefs mention of t\\\?>fecret do£frine ; and whether he meant any thing of that fort, by the depofittim lodged in the hands of the Bilhop, is uncertain. But it is plain, without fome fuch fuppofition, the iofs of an apoftolical formulary of faith, mufl: be ULterly unaccountable ; as a depofitim^ in any other cir- cumftances, muft have been preferved and per- petuated, with the fame care and refpedt as the fcriptures themfelves.

But, admitting that there had been fuch a for- mulary of apoftolical authority, and that fome of thofe creeds, which the earlier Fathers have \th us, were framed after the model of it ; we fhould certainly expeft a good account, by what autho- rity thofe large additions were made, which ap- pear in creeds and confeffions of a later date 5

the

7S THE CONFESSIONAL.

the rather as we have good reafon to believe, that the fhorteft of the ancient creeds now re- maining came the nearefl: to the apoftolic model, in coiirie of time, as well as in their contents.

To this the good Bifliop anlwers no otherwife, than by giving us a detail of thofe growing he- renes, which occafioned fuch enlargements. He does not venture to fay, that fuch enlargements were properly grounded upon, or duly authorized by fuch occafions. He had too honefl: a heart, and too difcerning a head, to juftify fuch pradices at all events, as fome others, both before him and after him, have done. On the contrary, he fays, " it had been an invaluable blefling, if the " Chriftian religion had been kept in its firft *' fimplicity." It is not clear, to me at lead, that he thought even the imputation of idolatry, occafioned by the wor/hip of the Son, a fu/Hcient rtafon for adding the words, of the fame fubjiance with the Father^ to the creeds of the Chriftian churches. He once more, however, fays, " it ** had been a great bleffing to the church, if a *' flop had been put here." After which, it could hardly be expetled, that his Lordfliip fliould en- ter upon a formal defence of creeds and con- feffions, fuch as they have appeared in modern churches. Decendy, therefore, and tenderly does the good man clofe this part of his fubjeil, by faying, " In ftating the dodlrines of this church *' fo copioudy, our Reformers followed a method " that had been ufed in a courfe of many ages."

And

THE CONFESSIONAL. 79

And now, the vindication of the church of England being put upon this footing, it became neceffary to fpecify the fubfifting or the growing herefiesj which would account for the copious forni of doi^rine eftablilhed in our own church.

For this purpofe, his Lordfliip mentions two particular circumftances in thofe times, to which it became neceffary our Reformers lliould pay a particular regard.

The firft of thefe circumftances was, " that " when the fcriptures were firft put into men's *' hands at the Reformation, as a rule of faith, *' many ftrange conceits were pretended to ba " derived from them, which gave rife to feveral " impious and extravagant fedts. Whence the *' Papifts took occafion to calumniate the Refor- ** mation, as if thefe fediaries fpoke out, what all " Proteftants thought, — and that all feds were ** the natural confequences of the Reformation, " and of fliaking off the dodrine of the infallibi- *' lity of the church. So that, to ftop thefe ca- *' lumnies, it became neceflary for particular ** churches, and for our own among the reft, to " publifti confeflions of their faith, both for the " inftruftion of their own members, and for co- *' vering them from the flanders of their adver- " faries."

Concerning this method of obviating calum- nies by confeffions, fomething has been faid al- ready in a foregoing chapter. But however, as the cafe of the church of England was fome- >vhat different from that of the Remonftrants, ic

may

8o THE CONFESSIONAL.

may not be improper to confider this plea, in re- ference to our Englijh Reformers.

And here it muft be owned, Bifhop Bumet has, with great juftice and propriety, drawn a parallel between the flanders caft upon the Pro- teftants by the Papifts, and the calumnies thrown at the firfl: Chrillians by the Jev/s and Pagans. Popery, at the time of the Reformation, was a mixture of Judaical rites and traditions, and of Pagan idolatry and fuperftition. The Reforma- tion may be called the refurredlion of the Chrifti- an religion, and would naturally be attended with all the confequences of the firfb preaching and fpreading of the gofpel. Here then the Reformers had a precedent before them ; and fliould have done what the Apoftles did in the fame fituation. The Apoftles were flandered as having taught, that men tjiigbt do evil) that good might come. The dodrine o^ free grace was the immediate occafion of this calumny, which, for the honour and credit of Chriftianity, demanded the moft fpeedy and effedlual refutation. What courfe did the Apoftles take in this exigency ? Did they frame a new creed or confeffion, or infert into an old one a new article, importing, " that no man fhould do evil, for the fake of " procuring the greateft imaginable good ?'* No, they left the calumny to be confronted by the gofpel-hiftory, and the tenor of their owti -writings and converfation, and gave themfelves no farther trouble about it.

in

THE CONFESSIONAL. Si

In like manner, had the Reformers held up the Bible, and faid, " Here is our rule of " faith and manners, and by this only we defire ** to have our do<5trine and pradice examined j" and had they, as the Apoftles did, dSied in con- formity to that declaration^ they muft for ever have filenced every cavil, and every flander, which the wit of man could have devifed asiainfl: them.

But they were governed by other precedents, and had, no doubt, as much liberty, and equal right to publifh apologies and declarations of their faithj as other churches. This was done on the behalf of the church of England by Bilhop Jewel, and that fo much to the fatisfadion of the church, that his book pafled a long time for the authentic ftandard of its doflrine. But, whom did it fa- tisfy or convince, except the Englifh Proteftants ? and what peace did it procure for them ? Let the bulky volume of controverfy teftify (which is yet to be found in many of our churches) fpun out of the bowels of this petty Apology\ no bigger, at its firft appearance, than a three penny pam- phlet.

I hope, however, I fiiall not be thought to derogate from our thirty-nine articles, if 1 fay that this Apology did its work, whatever it was, as well as that more authentic fyftem ; and, what is more, did it without being fubfcribed, or ad- opted as a teft, either of 'fliinilterial or lay-com- munion. And, had the Reformers contented" themfelves with this method of defence, they might have purfucd it without any complaint, and G without

82 THE CONFESSIONAL.

without any ill confequence to their own friendsi The fault we find with them is not for declaring their faith, or confuting the calumnies of the ad- verfary -, but fetting up thefe declarations and de- fences, as tefts of orthodoxy •, and binding them upon the confciences of thofe, who had as much right to difTent from thein^ as they had to diffent from popery : and from this charge, what Bifhop Burnet hath pleaded on their behalf, will not ac- quit them.

That a variety of fe(5ls arofe out of the Refor- mation, was a matter of faft, which can hardly be confidered in the light of a calumny. It nei- ther could nor ought to have been denied. It was the natural effed of great numbers emanci- pated from the fetters of Rome, and reftored to the exercife of their private judgment. If any of thefe fedls were impious or extravagant in their tenets, might not fome of this be owing to the intolerant fpirit of fome of the Reformers them- felves } who, by narrowing the bottom of Chri- ftian communion, and eftablifhingexclufive creeds and confeQions, very probably provoked fome warm fpirits to thofe exceffes, who difdained to have a new yoke laid upon them, by thofe very men who had fo lately fliaken off that of popery. To fay that thefe impious fe6laries fpoke out what all Proteftants thought, was fo ridiculous and abfurd, that it deiVrved no other anfwer, but an appeal to the aSiual feparatlon of one fort from another [i^].

[i^] ■Seckmdoif indeed fpeaks of" a fe^ of fanatics which " fpread in the Loio Countries, before Luther began to attack

On

. THE CONFESSIONAL. 83 On the other hapd, fuch feds as differed from each other, and kept within the bounds of fobri- ety and order, as they manifeftly arofe out of the Reformation, fo were they all upon an equal footing of authority. They might, if they pleafed, reprobate each other in their feveral confeffions, but they could not fay in thofe confeffions, that a variety of feds did not exift, or that fuch a va- riety ever would have exifted, if the whole Chri- ftian world had continued to acknowledge the infallibility of the Roman church. The proper defence againft fuch calumnies, was to fay, as fome of the cooler and more fenfible Reformers did fay, that, after fo long a night of ignorance, and dearth of literature, it was no wonder that men Ihould fall upon different explanations of fcriptures, which had been fo little lludied, and fo carefully fecreted from thofe who were inclined

** popery, and was therefore the offspring of popery, not cf " Lutheranifm. They kept themfelves," he tells us, " from '* inquiry and punifhment, in that they conformed, by a wic- ** ked difllmulation, to the external rites of the eftablifhed ** worftiip, with an equal, and fometimes a greater, affectation *' of fanftity, than others. Some of thefe had a propenfity to " atheifm, or libertinifm ; and the people afterwards afpiring *• to evangelical liberty, thcfe fanatics began, under this pre- *' tence, to infinuate their profane opinions to them, with more *' aflurance." ////?. l.uth. b. ii. p. 30. After which, he cites a palTage, wherein £,«//&^r takes notice of them, and accounts for their being fo Hill and quiet under popery, and fo trouble- fome after the reformation began, from the cafe in the parable o^ the Jlrong man armed, &c. Luke xi. 21. —But, without doubt, there was a variety of fefts, which owed their rife to the pro- grefs of the reformation, without having any connexiom with thefe papiflical fanatics.

G 2 to

$4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

to ftudy them ; and had even been degraded to the level of the decretal epiftles in point of im- portance and authority [RJ,

[K] It is a queftion of fome difficulty, when the church of Rome began to derogate from the authority of the fcriptures, and to raife their traditions to an equality with them r It is generally fuppofed that Pope Nicholas ordained, that the decre- tal epiftles of the Popes fhould be of the fame authority as the fcriptures, about the year 855. But the true cafe was this: Nicholai had faid that the decretals of his predeceflbrs ought to conclude fome French Bilhops, who refufed to appeal to tho Roman fee, upon a point controverted and decided among themfelves. Tlie Ilifliops alledged, that thofe decretals were no part of the canon law. Nicholas replied, that if this was a good reafon for rejedling the decretals, it would afford a pre- tence for rejecting the Old and New Teftament ; for that thele were not to be found in the code of the canon. Du PleJJtSt

Myft. Iniq. P/'c*^/-^ 3 1 . Doubtlefs the argument is a

miferable one; but, however, is far from implying, much more from afierting, that the decretals were of equal authority with the fcriptures. Du Plejfis indeed fays, that Pope Agatho had, 1 70 years before, pronounced openly, " that all decrees made by " the fee apoftolic, ought to be received as if they had proceeded '* from St. Peter'' s own mouth." But, as this doflrine had gained no canonical authority in the pontificate of Nicholas, it ought not fo early to be put to the account of the church. Nor do I indeed find any formal decree to fuch efFedl till the year 141 5, when the council o{ Confiance , in the condemnation of the 38th article of IVycUffe's herefy, ordained, " that fuch " of the decretal cpijUes, as (hould be found, upon examination, *' to be rightly afcribed to the Popes whofe names they bore, ♦* fliould be of equal authority with the epiitles of the Apo- " lUes." L Enfant'' s Hift. Counc. of Conjlance, vol. I. p. 2*9. The qualifying claufe of examination Ihews that they were not even then without juft fufpicions that the colleftions of /fo of Chartres, Gratian, and others, were not wholly authentic. From this period, the fufficiency of the fcriptures alone tc fahoation, be- came a formal herefy, as appears by the twelfth of the interro- gatories exhibited to La:nbcrt in Fox's Martvrology in the year

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 85

Thee other circumftance which, according to Bilhop Burnet^ made a copious confeffion more

1538. Hitherto, however, the fcriptures ftood upon even ground with papal conftitutions ; and the inconfiftencies be- tween them were kept fufficiently out of fight by depriving the people of the ordinary means of Iludying the facred oracles, and entertaining them only with the ignorant and myftical comments of the monks upon them. When this would no longer pafs upon mankind, it then became necefTary to degrade the fcriptures to an inferior clafs. Erafmus, in that colloquy which is intituled l;)(^Qy5^aj^»«, canvafles the point, thus. La- NIO : Petrus igitur habuit autoritatem condendi novas leges? Salsamentarius : Habuit. Law. Hahuit et Paulus, cum cater is apojiolis ? Sals. Habuerunt in fuis qui/que ecclcjiis, a Petro, feu Chrijio commijjts. Lan. Et Petri fuccejjoribus par eft pQteJias cum ipfo Petro ? Sals, ^idni? Lan. Tantundem igitur honoris debetur refcripto Romani pontificis, quantum epijlolis Petri : et tantundem conjlitutionihus epifcoporum, quantum epifiolis PauH? Sals. Equidem arhitror etiam amplius debsri, Ji pr^' cipiant et legein ferant cum autoritate. Lan. Sed fafne eji du- bitare, an Petrus et Paulus fcripferint affiatu divini Spiritus ? Sals. Imo hareticus Jit qui dubitet. Lan. Idem cenfcs de re- fer iptis et conjiitutionibus pontifcum et epifcoporum? Sals. De pontifce cenfeo, de epijcopis atnbigo, niji quod pium efi, de nulla perperam fifpicari, ni res ipja palam clamitet. That Erafnus would be underllood to give his own fenfe in the perlbn of the fjhnonger, is undeniable. With what fincerity, is another mat- ter. This we may depend upon, that he fpeaks the orthodox fenliments of the church, and gives us to underftand, at lead, upon what confiderations the precedence was given to the papal refcripts above the epillles of Peter and Paul. Probably the ' condition, fi pracipiant et legem ferant cum autoritate^ might be his own. But who fees not how idle it is to apply any fuch limitation to thofe decrees, which are confejfedly written by di- vine infpiration, as Erafnus pretends here to think the pontifi- cal decrees were ? This colloquy is perhaps one of the fe- vered fatires extant againft the fuperftitions of popery. But whence had thefe fuperftitions their rife or their authority ? Even from thefe infpired refcripts pf the Popes. Could not Erafmus fee Uiis as well as any man ?

G 3 necefTary

26 THE CONFESSIONAL.

necefiary for the reformed church of England^ was, that concealed Papills being broLight to this teft, might not creep into the church una- v/ares, and fecretly undermine it. " Many" ( fays his Lordfhip ) " had complied with " every alteration, both in King Henrfs and " King Edward's reign, who not only declared " themfelves to have been all the while Papifts, " but became bloody perfecutors in Queen Ma- " rfs days.

There is, indeed, little doubt, but one main view of K. Edward's reformers in compiling the articles of religion, and requiring fubfcription to them, was to exclude all from the miniftry who had any tindure of popery. How ineffedlual this meafure v/as for the purpofe, the good Bi- fnop here confefTes. And therefore, though this may go far towards excufmg Cranmer and Rid-^ ley for contriving fuch a 'teflr, yet it will by no means juftify Queen Elizabeths Bilhops, who had {ttn what had happened in Queen Mary's (days, for continuing fuch a teft any longer. Much lefs will any fuch confideration avail to ex- cufe the impofers of fubfcription in all fucceed- ing times.

Elizabeth, indeed, had very different notions from thofe of King Edward and his bifliops, con- cerning reformation. She thought it right to humour the Papifts, and for that purpofe, made very confiderable abatements in thofe terms of Proteftant communion, which were infifted on in Edward's fyftem.

Among

THE CONFESSIONAL. Sy

Among other things, the compilers, or the re- viewers of Edward^s articles, ftruck out a long paflage againft the real prefence. " The fecret of •' which, fays Bifhop Burnet himfelf, was this. ** The Queen and her council ftudied to unite " all into the communion of the church. And it ** was alledged, that fuch an exprefs definition " againft a real prefence, might drive from the ** church many who were (till of that perfuafion : " and therefore, it was thought to be enough to " condemn tranfubftantiation, and to fay, that ** Chrift was prefent after a fpiritual manner, and ** received by faith. To fay more, as it was ** judged fuperfluous, fo it might occafion divi- '* fion. Upon this, thefe words were by com- *' mon confent left out [<SJ.*'

Would one believe, that the fame hand which wrote this paiTage, could raife an apology for our prefent articles, from the neceflity of exclud- ing concealed papifts out of the church, by a teft

[S] HiJ}. Reform, vol. ii. p. 406. This mutilation of the ar- ticle corkcerning the real prefence, was one of thofe things which drove the ancient Puritans out of the eftablifhed church. Hif. Reform, vol. iii. Colledion, p. 334. And, in thefe latter times, had given occafion to compliment the church of Ejigland, as holding the real prefence, as well as her filter of Rome. See Jp- pendix to Dr. RarrU life of ArchbiQiop VJhery p. 11. e. q. s. This is likewife one principal circumliance, which both Popifh and Proteftant writers have brought to fliew the very little dif- ference there ii between the churches of Rome and England. Fid. Francifci a Sta. Clara (alias Davenport) Expofit. para- phrafticam, in articulos confefTionis Anglics.^ In Art. 28. and Heylins Introduft. to the Life of Archbilhop Laud.

G 4 with

g8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

with which none of them would comply ? I fay the prefent articles, for nothing can be more ab-. furd, than to fuppofe that, the compilers of any ether articles, fhould profit by their experience of what had happened in the reigns of Henry^ Ed- ward^ and Mary. Thefe inconfiftencies, however, are unavoidable, even by the greateft and belt of of men, when they find themfelves under a ne- ceflity of defending ecclefiaftical inftitutions, on- ly becaufe they are ejiablijhed.

Hitherto we meet with nothing in this intro- dudion, to juftify our reformers in eflabhfliing thefe articles of faith and dodlrine, fave only the bare excufe of following the fafhion of other churches. The bifliop himfelf has as good as confeffed, that there is no fcriptural authority for any fuch praftice. It has likewife been fhewn, that with refpedl to the particular occafions of the church of England, the publication of thefe articles had no effed:, either in filencing the ca- lumnies of Papifts, or keeping fuch of them out of the church as were inclined, either wholly to temporize, or to meet the church oi England hdM way.

We might then fave ourfelves the trouble of entering into any debate, concerning the extent of that authority by which our articles were efla- blifhed, and fubfcription to them enjoined. I will, however, make no fcruple to affirm, that no f'Jch authority is vefted in the church. Far- ther than this I fhall not enquire, otherwife than as the good bifhop leads me the way.

His

THE CONFESSIONAL. 89

His Lordfhip obferves, " that whatever may *' be the fandions of a law, it does not alter the " nature of things, nor oblige the confciences of ** the fubjefls, unlefs they come under the fame " perfualion." This is particularly true of any fuch law, as infringes upon the privileges to which Chriftians are intitled under the profeflion of the Gofpel -, and this, we fay, is the cafe of all laws enjoining aflent and confent to human creeds and confefTions, which appear not to thofe, of whom fuch aflent and confent are required, to be in perfeft agreement with the word of God. It is therefore of no fort of confequcnce, whether fuch creeds and confeflions are eftablifhed by ci- vil authority, or by fynods and convocations of profefTed theologues. Upon Proteflant princi- ples, neither the one nor the other can encroach, fo much as a ftraw-breadth, upon the rights of private judgment, in matters of faith or dodrine.

His Lord(hip indeed would feem to fay fome-

thing in vindication of our Princes, for interpo-

fing at the Reformation in a point fo extremely

tender and delicate ; infinuating, that they did

not pretend to judge in points of faith, or to

decide controverfies. '* The part," fays he,

" they had in the Reformation was only this, —

" being fatisfied with the grounds on which it

" went, they received it themfelves, and ena6led

*' it for the people -, and this, in his Lordfliip's

*' judgment, they had as much right to do, as

" every private man had. to choofe for himfelf,

*' and believe according to his reafon and coa-

'* fcience.'*

I pre*

9© THE CONFESSIONAL.

I prefume, his Lordfhip might mean, that our princes were fatisfied with the grounds of Refor- mation, by thofe churchmen whofe province it was to examine them. But here, 1 apprehend, his Lorddiip, by an ambiguity of expreffion, hath put the change upon his readers, and per- haps upon himfelf. The true ground of Re- formation was, the neceffity of being relieved from the incroachments, impofitions, and op- prelTions of popery. The abohtion of thefe grievances, our Princes (including the legifla- ture) had not only a right, but were in duty bound, to enacft for the people. When popery was out of the way, the fcriptures became the rule of religion ; and to fay that thefe facred ora- cles did not contain a fufficient formulary of faith and doflrine (to let alone forms of worihip) with- out explanations of artificial theology, is degrad- ing them once more to that unworthy ftate of fubferviency to human refcripts and decrees, from which the Reformers pretended at leaft to refcue them. Had our Princes therefore purfued the true grounds of Reformation with uniformity, they fhould have difcountenanced the introduc- tion of fcholaftic doftrines and articles of faith of man's device, in their ozvn do^ors^ as well as in thofe of the popifh perfuafion. They could not be ignorant, that an Englifh convocation had no more right to prefcribe to the people diredlories of faich, difl:in(51: from the fcriptures, than an Ita- lian council : or that a fincere Englifh Proteftant could no more make his Bifhop his Proxy in 2 matters

THE CONFESSIONAL. 91

matters of Faith and Confcience, than he could transfer his civil allegiance, which he had fworn to the King or Queen of England, to the Pope c^ Rome. - '

Both the civil and ecclefiaftical authority were on this, as on all other like occadons, under the controul of the word of God.- The word of God had given a liberty to the difciples of Jefus, which no earthly power had any right either to take away or abridge. It was indeed the bufi- nefs and the duty, both of the civil and ecclefia- ftical power, to promote Chriftian edification among the people, for which the word of God had made fuflicient room, without breaking in upon Chriftian liberty.

It is true, this Chriftian liberty might be ab- ufed by abfurd and licentious men, fo as to en- danger the peace, and fubvert the order, of civil fociety. Here the civil magiftrate has his right of interpofing rcferved to him by the Gofpel it- felf. A confid'eration, which, as it fully juftifies Chriftian Princes in their demolition of Popery, fo like wife does it refer ve to them an authority to reftrain all religious corruptions and extravagances which have a like effed:, and break out into overt a(5ls of oppofition to the righteous regula- tions of civil fociety : which however never can be affe(5ted, where any man or any body of men demand or attempt no more than to be permitted to believe and worfhip God, peaceably and fiit- ^erely, in their own way.

The

92 THE CONFESSIONAL.

, The good Bifliop would have us believe, as hath been obferved, that the fyfteni which took place at the Reformation, was only barely enabled, by our Princes, who, according to him, left it to the church to judge in points of faith, and to decide controverfies. How the i^dijlood in ibme periods, I will not ftay to inquire. This I'know, that in the reign of Qiieen Elizabeth the orthodox Law was, that " Religion being variable according to the *' pkafure of fucceeding Princes, that which at one *' time is held for orthodox, may at another be '■' accounted fuperftitious, &c.*' [X] A maxim which was exemplified fo often, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, and in fo many inftances, v^^here the church, as fuch, had not the leaft concern, that it may very well counterba- lance the few cafes the Bifhop may be fuppofed to have had in his eye, when he ventured this aflertion with the public.

But thefe are points, which we are now no longer permitted to debate with the powers in being. The ftate and the church are cordially agreed to continue thefe articles as ftandards of orthodoxy, and the fubfcription to them, as an indifpenfable condition of holding any preferment in the church of England. Still they are points very proper to be debated with an honeft man's own heart: and from this fort of felf-controverfy no honeft man is precluded •, I had almoft faid can well be excufed. For, if the Chriltian reli- gion is of divine authority, and our future hap- pinefs depends, in any degree, upon having its

[X ] Duke's Law of Charitable Uies, p. 131,132.

documents

THE CONFESSIONAL. g^

documents pure, and unmixed with human com- mandments and traditions, the man, who is in a capacity to examine into the truth, mud be in- excufably rafh, Ihould he receive and embrace doctrines unfupported by thefe facred oracles, merely becaufe they are eftablifhed by the powers of this world.

To help us out of the doubts and difficulties which may arife in the courfe of fuch an exami- nation, Bifhop Burnet's next endeavours are laid out in explaining, i. The ufeoi the Articles; and, 2. The importance of the Clergy's fubfcribing to them.

By the life of the articles, one would fuppofe, at firft fight, his Lord(hip meant their tittlity to the church. But, however, without entering far- ther into this matter than we have already feen, and after a fhort digrefllon, importing that they are not merely articles of union and peace, he proceeds to tell us, that, " with refpeft to the " laity, they are only articles of church comrau- " nion."

But 1 would defire to know in what inllance our articles ever had any operation this way ? What layman is or ever was required either to fubfcribe, or folemnly declare his aflent to them, as a qualification for communion with the church of England ? Phyficians and Civilians indeed fub- fcribe them, to entitle themfelves to academical degrees, and the latter fometimes to qualify them- felves for ecclefiaftical offices. But, fuppofe any of thefe men fliould choofe to forego the degree.

94 THE CONFESSIONAL.

or the office for which he is a candidate, rather than comply with this condition (and fome fuch I have known) would this be a fufficient reafon for excluding him from church-communion ? or was ever any one excluded upon any fuch ac- count ?

The Bifhop indeed fays, that the 5^^ canon> which declares " thofe to be excommunicated " ipfofa6lo who fiiall affirm any of thefe articles •' to be erroneous, or fuch as he may not with a " good confcience fubfcribe to, extends to the " whole body of the people, laity as well as cler- " gy.'* I apprehend, that a refufal to fubfcribe the articles in the cafes abovementioned, amounts to fomething equivalent to the affirmation cen- fured in the canon ; not to mention laymen of great name and note, who, both in word and writing, have affirmed as much in plain terms. And yet who ever heard that any of thefe were prohibited from communicating with the church on this account ; or were ever afked a fingle que- ftion upon the fubjeft ? Either therefore his Lordfhip muft have been miftaken in his inter- pretation of this canon ; or here is a relaxation of difcipline in the church, extremely diflionour- able to her governours, and highly fcandalous to her members. Be this as it may, this is a. matter of fad, which proves to ademonftration, that our thirty-nine Articles, confidered as articles of church-communion, are of no manner of ufe to the church, or fignificance to the laity. Some oi our divines, indeed, have attempted to bring

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. ^5

the laity under this obligation of aflenting to ar- ticle-dodrine, by way of implication. Others, however, have frankly exonerated them from any fuch bond, and have left church-communion up- on a more righteous and reafonable foundation, by a way of reafoning, which, to me at leaft, looks like condemning the church for infilling on clerical fubfcriptions, as well as laical aflent, to human doftrines and articles of faith [T^.

[Y"] Dr. Stebbing is among the former fort, who blulhes not to fay, " there is the fame need of human explications of *' fcripture- words, with refpefl to lay-communion, that there *' is with refpefl to minilterial communion. For the holding " the faith of the Gofpel, neceffary in both cafes, and a getjC' ** ral belief that the fcriptures are the word of God, is no evi- *' dence of thisy in either." Rational Enquiry, p. yj. No evidence of what ? I fuppofe he means, no evidence of com- munion with any particular church which efpoufes thefe human explications. More fhame for the church which requires more and other terms of communion, than Chrift himfelf required. But, if we may believe Bilhop Bull, this church is not the church of England: which, according to his Lordfhip, ** does " not require the laity to fubfcribe the articles, though they are " as much obliged to acknowledge the fundamental articles of *' the Chriftian faith, as the moft learned doftors." That is to fay, as much obliged as Chriftians, and^ inforo co7tfcienti<e, to acknowledge thofe fundamentals (not as they are contained in the thirty-nine articles, for then they would be obliged to fub- fcribe, or give their public afTent to thofe articles, but) as they iye in the fcriptures. Which plainly implies, that the church of England thinks this general acknonvledgment fufficient evi- dence of the communion of her lay-members with her. Dr. Stebbing may wifh it were otherwile, and, when he wrote his Rational Enquiry, might hope the laity, at fome time, would be bound to alTent to thefe human explications. But, I truft, be will not live to be gratified.

But,

^G THE CONFESSIONAL.

But, however that may be, the fubfcription of thfc clergy Hands, it feems, upon a different footing, and, as a matter of more confequence, will jde- mand a more particular examination.

The Bifhop begins this part of the cafe with obferving, that " the title of the articles bears, *' that they were agreed upon in convocation, /(7r *' the avoiding of diverjities of opinions^ and the ft a- " hlifhing confent touching true religion. Where," fays his Lordfhip, " it is evident that a confent *' in opinion is defigned." Namely (if common language is the vehicle of common fenfe) fuch a confent^ as is abfolutely exclufive of all diverfi- ties of opinions. Now the cafe Handing thus, and the title of the articles, as well as the cano- nical form of fubfcription, remaining the fame to this very hour, what poffible pretence can there be for conftruing the ad of fubfcription into a fimple declaration of the fubfcribers pofi- tive opinion, in a certain literal and grammatical fenfe, different from the literal grammatical fenfe of another fubicriber? The cafuillry that allows different men to fubfcribe the Tame fet of articles, which, as they all agree, were intended to prevent divcrfities of opinions, not only \n differenty but even in contrary fenfes, muft be weak and con- tertiptible, beyond any thing of the kind that ever came from the Jefuits. Thefe pious fathers, in' all fuch cafes, bring their jmatrers to bear at a pinch, by the help of equivocation and mental referves. We dcfpife and difown this practice as infimous •, and yet, it feems, Vy'c can condefcend

to

THE CONFESSIONAL 97

to arrive at the fame fort of ends, by quibbling uponi the ambiguous fignification of words.

Alas for pity ! that, to explain and defend this mean, unmanly expedient, (hould fall to the fhare of this illuflrious Prelate, contrary to his own ge- nerous fentiments ; as too plainly appears from the following paffage, cited from a piece he was obliged to publifh in his own vindication, while the fheets of his Expo/uion -wetQ hardly dry from the prefs.

" I do not deny but men of the Calvinijl per- ** fuafion m.'.y think they have caufe given them ** to complain of my leaving the articles open to '* thofe of another perfuafion. But thofe of the ** Arminian fide" [who, by the way, were the men who bore the moft tyrannous hate againft him] " muft be men of a peculiar tinfture, who' except " to it" [his Expofition] " on that account : *' though, without fuch enlargement of fenfe, *' their fubfcribing them does not appear to agree " fo well with THEIR OPINIONS, and with com-

" MON INGENUITY [Z]."

But what caufe could the good Biihop give the Cahimfts to complain, if there really was any good foundation lor this enlargement of fenfe, ei- ther in the original defign of the articles, or in any fubfequent decifion of competent authority ? The Arm'mian fenfe is certainly no: the original fenfe of the articles : nor is ic a fenfe they will naturally receive. It is a fenfe v.hich was never

[Z] Bilhop Burnet's Remarks on tire Examination of his Ex- policioti ot^ the Second Article of our Church, p. 3,

H once

98 THE CONFESSIONAL.

J ' once in the heads of thofe who compiled them, nor of thofe who gave them the fanftion of that aft of parliament, under which they are fubfcribed to this prefent hour.

But, it feems, there is a royal declaration at the head of our articles, which makes a confiderable abatement in the ftridPiefs of our fubfcriptions, and leaves room, in exprefs terms, for thefe different liural grammatical fenfes.

It remains then that we examine the validity of this declaration, upon which fo great a llrefs is laid J wherein v/e jfhall endeavour to be as accu- rate, and at the fame time as candid, as pofTibie.

Bifiiop Burnet tells us, that this declaration was fet forth by King Charles I. " and little doubt " cai be made," fays his Lordfliip, " but it was " prepared by Archbifhop Land [^]."

That King Charles I. publifhed a declaration along with the articles in the year 1630, we have the teftimony of Dr. NichoUs [5], who however cites a paifage from it which is not to be found in the declaration referred to by Bifhop Burnet •, that is to fay, in the declaration which in his time was, and flill is, prefixed to our thirty-nine articled. The confequence is, that King Charleses declaration is dropped long ago, and has no au- thority to decide any thing in the prefent que- ftion.

The declaration which {lands before the 39 articles in our prefent books, is m.ore generally

[A] Ibid. p. 3.

[B] Dr. Nicholls's Commentary on the Articles, p. 3.

believed

THE CONFESSIONAL. 99 believed to have been firft publifhed by King James I. and is the fame from which, Dr. Nicholls fays, Bifhop Burnet drew his inference, " that an " article being conceived in fiich general words, *' that it can admit of different literal and gram- " matical fenfes, even when the fenfes are plainly " contrary to each other, both fides may fubfcribe " the article with a good confcience, and without *' any equivocation."

But Dr. Nicholls believed that the force of this declaration did not, nor was defigned to ex- end beyond his [King James's] time. If this be true, this declaration has no right to the place it occupies. It is of no ufe or fignincance to us of the prefent times •, nor could any rule of interpretation be either inferred from it, or au- thoriled by it.

Dr. Nicholls^ indeed, gives no particular reafon fbr his judgment. There was no occafion. The very face of the declaration fhews that he had very good grounds for what he faid.

The King fet forth this declaration by virtue of his being fupreme head of the church. But afls of fupremacy, when unconfirmed by the le- giflature, are merely perfo?ialy and die with the particular Prince whofe aifls they are, unlefs they are revived by his fucceflbrs, with the fame formalities v/hich were obferved at their firft ap- pearance.

The declaration before us is deftitute of all

thefe formalities, even with refped to the Prince

(whoever he was) by whom i; was at firft fet

H 2 forth.

loo THE CONFESSIONAL. forth. There is no royal fignature at the head of it; no atteftation of his Majefty's command, by any of the great officers of the crown -, no mention of the time when, or the place whence, it iffued. And that it has never been acknow- ledged by any fucceeding Prince, is evident from the following circumilance, namely, that, during the reign of Queen Anne^ the title of it flood invariably as it had done from the firft, viz. His Majeftfs Declaration^ which would not have been the cafe, had her Majefty adopted this refcript as her own a(5l, authenticated by the fpecific rati- fication of her royal predecefTors.

On another hand, the language of this decla- ration is fuch, as is abfolutely inconfiftent with the fundamental principles of our prefent happy conftitution.

" We will not endure," fays the declaration, *' any varying, or departing, in the leaft degree, " from the do6lrine and difcipline of the church '* cf England now eftablifhed." This might tal- ly well enough with the politics cf a Ja?7ies or a Charles ; but if our princes and people, in after- times, had perfifted in not enduring the leaft de- parture from the doBrine of the church of Eng- land^ particularly as it is exhibited in the homily againll: wilful rekllion, what muft have become of us at the Revolution ? Where had been our ads cf fettiement and limitation of the crown t" King William^ and the prefent royal family [C]? If

[C] See thefe queftions anfwered, and the point they relate to handled by a mallerly writer, in a pamphlet incided, J plain

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. loi

the difdpline of the church had continued invari- able^ not only the adt tolerating protellant dif- fenters had never feen the light, but the churches cenfur<!, in his IMajefty's commijfwn ecckfiajtical^ had been in full force, not to mention many other wholefome corredives, provided for puritans ^nd heretics by the pious care of ArchbiQiop Laud,

The declaration, indeed, remits the ofFendG,r<; againft it for their punifliment, to the faid cojn- mjjion ecclefiajlicaly as if it was ftill in full force. But this only ferves to betray its weaknefs and impotence, and to fliew, that it has no more au; thority to hcence any one pradice, or to pre* fcribe any one duty to Britilh fubjefls, than an edift of the French King.

Bifhop Burnet^ in the pamphlet above cited, gives the following account of the occ:ifion of publifhing this declaration. " The Arrninian " party (as they were called) was then favoured. " To thefe it was objeifled, that they departed " from the true fenfe of the articles. But it was " anfvvered by them, that, fince they took the " articles in their literal and grammatical fenfe, *' they did not prevaricate. And to fupport this, " that declaration was fet forth.'*

Here it is not denied, that the literal ^^d gram- matical fenfe of the Arminians was different from the true fenle of the articles. But how could men fubfcribe to articles as true, when they could not

and. f roper afpiver to this qticfihu. Why does not the Bijhop of Chgher reji^ii his preferments ? 'Pnxw.zdi iox Shuckhurgb, 1753.

H 3 deny

I02 THE CONFESSIONAL.

deny that they fubfcribed to them in a fenfe that was not the true fenfe of them, without prevari- cation ? If therefore the declaration was not fet forth to fupport prevarication^ what was it in- tended to fupport ?

His Lordfhip, I fuppofe, may have given a true, tho' no very honourable account of the occafion of this declaration -, but it was an occafion that was given, and might be taken, in the latter part of King Jameses reign, as likely as in any part of King Charleses. There is indeed no evidence that James ever turned Arrmnian in principle. This, hov/- ever, -was the party that ftuck to him in his mea- fures and his projeds, and which it became ne- cefiary for him, On that account, to humour, and to accommodate, by every expedient that might fet them in a refpedable light with the people, without bringing any reflexion upon his own confiftency. \¥hoever confiders the quibbling and equivocal terms, in v/hich this inftrument is drawn, will, I am perfuaded, obferve the diftrefs of a mall divided between his principles and his interefts ; that is, of a man e;:a6tly in the fitua- tion of King James I. in the three lad years of his reign.

Charles I. was an avowed Arminian, upon the fuppoficion that all Cahinijls were enemies to his kind of policy, both in church and ftate. His father's declaration had not wrought the end propofed by the Arminians, and therefore to make them eafy, in the year 1626, he iflued a procla- mation.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 103

mation, enjoining filence to all parties with re- fped to the points then in difpute. " The ef- *' fe6ls of which proclamation, fays Rujhis^orth^ " how equally foever intended, became the ftop- *' ping of the Puritans mouths, and an uncon- '« trouled liberty to the tongues and pens of the \ " Arminian party [-£]." Which is eafily account- ed for, when it is remembered, that the rel- iefs and fadious Land had the execution of this proclamation in his hands.

This partiality brought on fo muchoppreflion and ill-treatment of the party obnoxious to the court, that the Houfe of Commons complained of it in their remonftrance againft the Duke of Buckingham^ June 1628 [F] ; and not long after, namely, January 28th, 1628-9, upon the mo- tion of Sir John Elliot^ entered into this rem.ark- able vow.

We the Commons in Parliament ajfemhled^ do claim, protejl, and avow for truth, the fenfe of the articles of religion, which were efiahliftjed by farliament in the thirteenth year of our late ^een Elizabeth, which, by the public a5l of the church ^England, and by the general and current expofitions of the writ- ers of our church, have been delivered unto us. And we reje5i the fenfe of the Jefuits /z«i Arminians, and ail others wherein they differ from us [G].

. Whether either the King or the houfe of com- mons, in a feparate capacity, have a power to in-

[f] Hift. Colledions, vol. I. p. 412, 413. [F] 'Rujh'worth, vol. I. p. 621. [GJ Ibid. p. 649.

H 4 terprec

I04 THE confessional;

terpret the articles of religion for the people, vvlU admit of a difpute •, but that this vow, or pro- teftation, confidered as an a6i: of ftate, hath great- 3y the advantage of the declaration in queftion, in point of authority, wilj admit of none. It is equivalent at lead to any other refolution of the houfe of commons. It is found among the moft ;authentic records of parliament. And what- ever force or operation it had the moment it was publifhed, the fame it has to this hour ; being never revoked or repeale<d in any fucceeding parliament, nor containing any one particular, ■which is not in perfect agreement with every part of our prefent conftitution, civil and religi- gious.

On the other hand, here is a namelefs, and for ought that any one knows, a fpurious declaration. It is a problem to this day in v^hat reign it was fet forth ; which is a circumftance hardly pofli- ble, if any original record of it were forth-com- ing, with thofe folemn atteftations neceflary to give it the weight and authority of a royal man- date [G]. Not to mention thofe particulars in it,

[G] It is hot eafy to fuppofe but there mull be feme printed copy of this Declaration ^AX extant, of fufficient antiquity to aP- certain, whether it was originally fet out by King James I. or King Cmr/fj- r. And it wtrt to be wi(hed, that if any gentle- man hath fuch ancient copy in his cuftody, he would favour the public with an account of it. On the other hand, it is next to incredible, that if any fuch copy had been eafily to be found, two liich men as BiCiop Burnet and Dr. Nicholls Ihould differ fo - wi^f'y ^'^- ^hcir accounts of it, 7 he fowjicr afcribes this D^fc/a-

whjcl^

THE CONFESSIONAL. 105

.which are plainly repugnant to the prefent efta- blifhment both in church and flate.

It is indeed furprizing, that Bifhop Burnet^

ration to Charles^ the latter to Jams. And that Declaration which Dr. Nkholls afcribes to King Charles I. cites the Bifhop of C/?'^f/-V judgment concerning the vvifdom and inoderation of the church oi EnglariJ, of which Bifhop, or his judgment, there, is not the leafl mention in the Declaration now prefixed to our articles, which Dr. Nicholls, and I think rightly, afcribes to K. James. The inducement I have to agree with Dr. 'Nicholls, is as follows: In July 1628, King Charles, in a proclamation, calling in all the copies of Moxii^gMt' s Apello C^^farem, de- clares that, " out of his care to maintain the church in the f' unity of true religiop, and the bond of peace, to prevent un- " necefTary difputes, he had lately caufed the articles of religion *' to be jeprinted, as a rule for avoiding diverfities of opinions." Hiijhivorth, vol. I. p. 634. Now it is abfurd to fuppofe, that the bare reprinting the 39 articles only, would anfwer any fuch end, or, indeed, that copies of the articles fhould be fo vtiy fcarce, as to require a new edition for the purpofes mentioned. Hence I conjefture, that King Charles reprinted his father's De- claration (the fame we now have) along with the articles, as more copies of the articles then extant undoubtedly wanted it, than had it. That this Declaration was publifhed along with thefe reprinted articles, appears from Sir John Elliot's fpeech in parliament, the January foliov/ing, who cites it thus : " It ** is faid,'' (namely in a Declaration he had jufl mentioned) '• if " there be any difference of opinion, concerning xhc fea/onable [perhaps rcafonabk'] '* interpretation of the 39 anicles, the ." bilhops and clergy in the convocation have power to difpute *' it, and to order which way they pleafe." Rujhivorth, vol. I, p. 649, Now this particular is adlually to be found in his Ma- j.eity's Declaration, as we ?ionv have ir. You will fay, perhaps, ♦'And why might not this originally be King GW/^/j own *' Declaration V I anfwer, it might be fo: but if it was, it h "unaccountable his Majefly fhould net fay, in the paiTage above- cited, he had caufed a Declaration, made and publifhed by iiin-ifelf, for the purpofes mentioned in the Proclamation, to be

who

io6 THE CONFESSIONAL>

who well knew from what court-intrigues this declaration took its rife -, how grievoufly it was complained of by the Calvinifls, and hov/ effec- tually it was oppofed and difannulled by the abovementioned vow, fhould lay the lead ftrefs upon it. But not more furprizing, than that he Ihould afcribe the pacifying the difputes of thofe times, to '* men's general acquiefcence, in being •' left to fubfcribe the articles according to their *' literal and grammatical fenfe." Hiftory gives us little reafon to believe, that thofe difputes were pacified in any degree worth mention- ing. And if the difputants went off from thtirjiercenefs, it was only becaufe of the tyran- nical reftraint put upon one fide. But of what nature and extent the acquiefcence has been in other refpeds, is fufficiently evident, in almofl every controverfial book that has been written in, or fmce thofe days, where the leaft occafion or colour has been given to the difputant, to re- proach the adverfe party with the infincerity of his fubfcription.

The Declaration ftanding upon this infirm ground, it would be doing it too much honour to

printed and publifhed along with a new edition of the 39 ar- ticles. Whereas, if you fuppofe, that the Declaration had teen publifhed, and prefixed to the articles in his father's reign, there would be no occafion for a particular fpecification of that refcript, diftinft from the articles. It would be reprinted along with the articles of courfe, and be confidered as a part of the book of articles, as I fuppofe it is by fome people, at this very day.

examine

THE CONFESSIONAL. 107

examine the contents of it, and to (hew what is really the truth, that if there is in it either confiftency, or common fenfe, it binds men to the avoidance of diverfities of opinion, and al- lows of as little latitude of fenfes, as the title of the articles itfelf : unlefs there may be two, or two hundred different fenfes of an article, each of which may be the true and usual, as well as the LITERAL fenfe of it.

There was a time indeed, when Bifhop Burnet accounted for the laxity of the articles upon adif-* ferent footing, which, however, he has not ven- tured to mention in this Introduftion. In the fecond volume of his Hiftory of the Reforma- tion, p. 169, he informs his readers, " that upon *' the progrefs of the Reformation, the German *' writers, particularly Ofmnder^ Jllyrictis, and Jjn- '■^ fiorfius, grew too peremptory, and not only " condemned the Helvetian churches for differing " from them in the manner of Chrid's prefence *' in the facrament, but were fevere to one ano- " ther for leffer pundtihos, and were at this time " exercifing the patience of the great and learned " Melan^hon^ becaufe he thought, that in things' " in their own nature indifferent, they ought to " have complied with the Emperor, ^his made " thofe in England refolve on compftng thefe articles ** ifith great temper in mariy fuch ■points.^''

The good Bifhop, 1 am afraid, fays a good deal

of this at random, or at lead upon plaufible con-

jeflure. A few pages before, he is evidently

under great uncertainty, who compiled thefe ar-

I tides.

io8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tides. '* He had often found it faid, that they •' were framed by Cranmer and Ridley ; which he " thinks more probable, than that they weregiv- *' en out to feveral biflTOps and divines, to deh- " ver their opinions concerning them." Bur, " however, it might be the other way. And, un- der this uncertainty, who can pretend to fay with what teraper they were cornpofed, or by what views or confiderations the compofers were influ- enced ? However, that they learned any modera- tion from thefe inedifying contefts in Germany, or had refpedl to the fufferings oi Mela7t£ihon intern- fcring thefe articles, is rendered utterly incredi- ble by the following fads.

1. At the time referred to, viz. i^^i, Melanc- than was employed by Maurice Eledlor of Saxony^, to draw up a confeflion of faith, to be exhibited at the council Gt Trent, on the behalf of the Saxon churches. In confequenceof which, the princi- pal divines, and prefidents of thofe churches, being afTembied at Lc/^'?f, this confefiion, which v/as no other than that of Augslurgh fomewhat in- larged, was read to them, and fubfcribed by them, with great unanimity, and with very little oppo- fition \H\ So that this feafon, with refped to MelanSihon'^s difpute with Illyrims, &c. was a fea- fon of great tranquillity, the troubles with which bis parience, and that of his brethren, was then cxercifed, being chieEy from the Papifts.

2. In the year 1548, the fecond of King Ed- ward's reign, " Archbifhop Cranmer was driving

•\jH\ fjo^himn. H'Si. Sacrament, vol. ii, p. 373.

« on

THE CONFESSIONAL. 109

" on a defign, for the better uniting the Prote- " ftant churches, viz. by having one common " confeffion and harmony of faith and doftrine, *' drawn up out of the pure word of God, which " they might all own and agree in." MelanSthen^ among others, was confulted by Cranmer on this occafion ; and encouraged by the Archbifhop to go on with his defign, advifing him, however, " to avoid all ambiguities of exprefiion ; faying, " that in the church, it was belt to call a fpade ** a fpade, and not to call ambiguous words be- " fore poflerity, as an apple of contention.'* This advice he inculcates in a fecond letter, pro- pofing, " that nothing might be left under ge- " neral terms^ but exprelTed with all the perfpi- " cuity and diftinftnefs imaginable.'* Some, it feems, thought it might be more conducive to peace, to fuffer fome difficult and controverted points to pafs under dubious exprefllons, or in the very words of fcripture, without any parti- cular decifive fenfe or explanation impofed upon them. " This MelanBhon was againft, faying, " that for his part, he loved not labyrinths j and " that therefore, all his ftudy was, that whatfo- " ever matters he undertook to treat of, they " might appear plain and unfolded. That this " was, indeed, the praflice of the council of " Trent ^ which therefore made fuch crafty de- " crees, that they might defend their errors by «' things ambiguoufly fpoken. But that this fo- " phiftry ought to be far from the church. That

" there

no THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' there is no abfurdity in truth rightly propound- *' ed : and that this goodnefs and perfpicuity of ** things, is greatly inviting, wherefoever there *' be good minds [/]."

Undoubtedly MelanSlhon was highly to be commended for his opennefs and fincerity. But affuredly the method propofed by him, was not the way to compofe differences of opinions, or to bring difagreeing parties to any temper upon dif- ficult and controvertible points.

Mr. Stry-pe thinks it probable, that Cranmer had confulted Melan£ihon on this very- point, .and- judges that Cranmer was the certain good man^ mentioned by Bucer to Peter Martyr, as of opi- nion, " that ambiguous forms of fpeech, which "' might be taken in a larger acceptation, was the " befl: means of ending the great controverfy " concerning the real prefence^ and of reftoring " peace to the church." Now, whoever had mt, Cranmer certainly had a principal hand in framing K. Edward's articles ; and how likely it was that he.lhould compofe them with any tern- ■per, in view either of the fentiments or the fitu- ation of MelanSthon, the fojegoing particulars may ferve to fhew.

3. At the very time that MelanBhon wrote thefe letters to Cranmer, he was in the heat of the difpute he had with Illyricus, concerning the con- ceffions he thought Ihould be made to the Em- peror, in reference to the fcheme of pacification

[7] Strype's Memorials of Archbilhop Cranmer, page 407, 40^.

called

THE CONFESSIONAL, iii

called the Interim. Thefe conceflions, however, concerned only fome rites and ceremonies, which he thought were void of fuperftition and idolatry; but which, in the opinion of Illyricus^ ought to be oppofed to the death. But, for matters of dv5irme^ Melan£lhon was as ftifF and peremptory as Illyricus himfelf. He was the perfon who managed the conferences on the fubjecl of the Interim with the Emperor's CommiJTioners •, and particularly wrote the Cenfure upon it; and indeed, from the year 1544 to the end of his life, conftantly maintained that all matters of faith and doftrine, and particula?ly upon the fa- crament, Ihould be clearly expreffed, and with- out any fophiftry or ambiguity whatfoever [7C].

4. Bifhop Burnet would have done well, to have fpecified whatthofe points were, upon which thefe articles were compofed with fo great temper. Nothing of this appears upon the face of the articles themfelves. " As the Bifhop has Hated the cafe, it would be moft natural to look for this temper, where the dodrine of the real prefence is fet forth. But, in this point, K. Edward's arti- cle was fo rigid, that the reviewers of our fyftem under Queen Elizabeth thought it proper to mol- lify it, by leaving out a long palTage, where the decifion of this matter was thought too perem- ptory, at lead for her Majefty's political purpo- ies. And Hofpinian has quoted this very article,

\_K] BayUs Dift. Mel AN CT HON, Rem. [i], and in the text. See likewife Hofpinian, Hill. Saaaraent, under the year 1 548, and downwards.

to

112 THE confessional;

to fhew, that it was in perfedl agreement wiih Melan^ihon's doclrine on the fame fubjed. Nor indeed can it be proved by any circumftance in thofe articles, that the compilers of them did not clearly and decifively exprefs themfelves, upon every fubjedt they meddled with, in the apteft and precifeft terms the language of thofe times afforded.

And thus I take my leave of Bifhop Burnet's Introdu6lion ; leaving the reader to reflefl upon the difao:reeable fituation, in which a man of this worthy Bifhop's learning and difpofition muft be placed, when is is required of him to maintain, what, in his own private judgment, he is confci- ous cannot be maintained, v/ithout fuch chicane and fubterfnge, as it muft be moft grievous to an ingenuous mind to employ. I fhall now pro- ceed to fhew the ill effeds of fuch miftaken en- deavours in fome ftili more remarkable in- Itances.

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 113

CHAP. V.

A View of the embarapd and fluctuating Cafuijlry of thofe Divines^ who do not approve of or differ

• frojn, BiJJjop Burnet's Method of jiijiifying Sub- fcription to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.

BIfhop Burnet was never a favourite v/ith that part of the clergy who ftyle themfelves or- thodox. He was apt to fpeak his mind freely concerning fuch men and fuch things in the church, as he thought wanted reformation. Flis Fafloral Care^ wherein he cenfured the manners, as well as the fpirit and qualifications of his con- temporary churchmen with little referve, and laid down rules which very few were inclined to follow, created a fort of offence which was never to be forgiven. And fuch was their refentment, that they difdained to be obliged to him, even for his friendly endeavours to fave their credit, by pointing out the only method of fubfcribing the articles, whith would not expofe a large majo- rity of them to the reproach of prevarication.

Accordingly, fome fhort time after his Lord- fhip's Expofition was made public, the Lower Houfe of Convocation fell upon it with the ut- mod fury, as a performance lull of fcandal to the church, and danger to religion. But, being hap- pily reftrained from proceeding to extremities in their corporate capacity, the charge was delivered I over

114 THE CONFESSIONAL.

over to a fingle hand, who, as they had good reafon to beheve, would make the moft of it with the public, and who, in the name of his brethren, purfued the Expofition with fufficient fpleen, in a book intituled, A Prefatory Difcourfe to an Exa* mination of a late Book, intituled. An Expofition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, ^_y Gilbert 5^^/) (s/Sarum, 1702,

This writer's defign being to fhew, that .the thirty-nine Articles were framed to prevent di- verfities of opinions, and, at the fame time, to prove the wifdom and righteoufnefs of fuch a meafure, it became necefTary for him to appeal to the mat- ter of fact, which he very undauntedly does in the following words.

" To the honour of the compilers of our Ar- " tides, it muft be acknowledged, that for the *' fevenfcore years lafl. paft [z. e. from 1562 to " 1702] fmce the publication of them, they have " prevented diverfity of opinion in the church, " to that degree, that little or no difpute " hath hitherto been, about the different fenfes " the words may, in common and unforced con- " ftru6lion, be made to bear [^]."

Here we have a fhort, but at the fame time a full and effedual defence of thofe who compiled the Articles, and of the church for enjoining fub- fcription to them, as well as a proof of the fruit- Icfs and fuperfluous pains taken by Bifhop Burnet to reconcile men of different principles and opi-

[^] Prefatory Difcourfe,^. 12,

nions.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 115

nions, by a peaceable and confcientious acquief- cence in literal and grammatical fenfes. It is, indeed, the only way in which fuch fyitems, con- fidered as tejls of faith and dodrine, can be de- fended. For, if diverfities of opinions and difputes have not in fa6l been prevented by them, it is much to be fufpefted, that fuch forms may have been acceflary to fome difputes and divifions, "which did not exift before fuch forms were efta- blifhed [B'].

When a candid and charitable reader, who has made any inquiry into the true ftate of the cafe, meets with affertions, which, like this, bids defiance to all hillory, coming from the pen of a grave writer, who does not appear to have been out of his fenfes, he would be willing to under- ftand him with any favourable allowance, rather than fufpeft him of advancing a palpable untruth, for the fake of ferving a prefent turn.

[5] " It is the mifery of Chriftendom that we fhould build *' too much upon articles of doflrine, upon opinions, tenets, " and fyfiems ; and they muft be fubfcribed to, fworn to, and ** believed ; which caufeth almoft all the divifion of the ** Chriftian world. We are fo earneft in afferting the ortho- ** doxy of our own efpoufed dodlrines, that we mofl: lamenta- *' bly fall out, break peace, lofe charity, and wretchedly negleft *' the weightier matters, judgment, mercy, and faith, and the *' pradlice of fincere truth and righteoufnefs." Strype's Sermon St Hackney, September 21, IJP/, p. 1^. Befides what this venerable man had feen with his own eyes, his particular ftudies had opened to him a melancholy view of the woful efFeds of thefe fyftematical tefts, from the very time of their commence- ment in Proteftant churches, which he, as a true friend to his own church, has communicated for her ufe, but hitherto to very little puipofe.

I 2 And

ii6 THE CONFESSIONAL;

And therefore, when my aftonifliment (occa- fioned by the fudden recoUetlion of many things 1 had read in the authors referred to in the mar- gin [C] ) had a little fubfided, I began to caft about how this writer's affertion might be made confifcent with the real truth of the eafe ?

The firft expedient for this purppfe which oc- curred to me, was, that this avoidance of di- verficy muft be underftood of a fimpk filence and acquiefcence on either fide, in fome commori and unforced conftrud:ion, which, as he has ex- prefled it, the words of the article might be made to bear. But, befides that I could fee no differ* ence between this plan of peace and Bilhop Bur- netts literal and grammatical fenfes, I found it afterwards to be this author's aim to prove, that none of the articles had, or was ever underftood to have, a double meaning. Nor indeed, admitting fuch double meaning, could the articles be faid to have prevented diverfity of opinions, in any degree.

After many fruitlefs trials, methought I dif- cerned the healing quibble lurking under the words in the church : the author, I ibppofe, being of opinion, that whoever difputed the fingle or- thodox fenfe of an article, was really not z», but

[C] Rogers's Preface to his Expofition. — Fuller's Church-

lliilory. Heyllns Qniaquartieular Hiftoiy. — — Hickmati^s

Anlwer.— — Pryww'-f Anci-arminianifm. Dr. Ward's Letters

»o Archbifliop Ujhsr, apud Parr's Life. — Bilhop Barloiv's Re-

i^ains. EihuarJs's Veritas Redux. Biihop Da-vmani's

Pieces. Montagues and Caritonj Controverfy, and an hun;

♦Jred more,

2 9Ut

THE CONFESSIONAL. 117

out of the church, in confequence of the ipfo-fa^o- excommunication mentioried in the 5*^^ of our canons ♦, which would leave none in the churchy but fuch as were all of a mind.

And indeed I very much incHne, ftill to adhere to this folution of the difficulty, the rather as there is no other way of fecuring the veracity of another orthodox brother, and refpedlabie con- temporary of our own, the late reverend Mr. John White, B. D. who hath laboured with great zeal and earneftnefs in the fame occupation of defending fubfcriptions ; and to this fevenfcore years of peace and reft, hath, without the lead hefitation, 2ididtd forty-feven more.

The cafe with Mr. White was this : Mr. Sa^ muel Chandler, at the end of his pamphlet enti" tuled; The Cafe of Suhfcriplon, &c. calmly and im-partially reviewed, published 1748, had printed ,ithe Speech of the fa mo us Mr. Turretine, Ipokeii to the Leffer Council of GeJieva, June zq, 1706, touching fubfcription to the Fomnula C&fjfenfi^s : the effed of which oratiorfwasi thaf^aU-fCTbfcri- ptions to human forinularies' were thf'ncefbrward Jibolifhed by public authority,-, a prbtpifeonly being -reqwire-d inftea,d thereof, that the pgrfon to be admitted to the fundtion either of minifter or prdfefTor, would teach nothing, either in th'e church or academy, contrary to the (ciidConfenftis, or the Confefiion of the Galilean church, for the fake of peace [D]. This precedent Mv.Cbandl&ir

[D] In a pamphlet publifhed 1719, intituled A Letter fa the Rev, Mr. Tong, &c. occafioned hy the late differenses amovg

i 3 " failed

nS THE CONFESS lON'AX.

failed not to recommend, as a veiy proper one for the church of England to follow ; which pro- voked the abovementioned Mr. PVhite tomake the following reply.

" Becaufe they [the Divines of Geneva] or " moft of them, had fwervcd from the dodrines

the Dijfenters, an account is given of this abolition of fuh- fcriptions, difFerent from tliis of Mr. Chandler, but not lefs honourable to the magiftrates pf Genenja, to the following ef- fadl. " In the year i 706, a Divine of Neufchatel, Mr. "Jacques " Vial de Bedamont, a very worthy Minifter of the Gofpel, be- *' ing called to Gene'ua to exercife his miniftry there, was re- '' quired to fubfcribe that numerous fet of articles [the Con- *' /en/us]. Mr. Beaumoiity inftead of fubfcribing as required, *• wrote to the following purpofe : Thefe I ajfent to, as far as ** they agree nvith the holy fcriptures, ivhich I belie-ve to be the *' nxord of God. I ivill -ahvays teach <vjhat God Jhall teach Tj^e " from thence ; and ixtill ne'ver, kno^wingly, rnalntavt or teach *' any thihg contrary thereunto."" After fome debates and ap- *• peals- from one aflembly to another, a forn^ was agreed upon, *' much to' the fame p'urpofe as that of Mr. Beaumont. To which ** was added indeed an exhortation not to teach any thing con- "*' trary to the decifions of the Synod of Dort, the forty Articles *' o^ the French churches, or the Catechifm of Genei'a, for the *' fakejof keeping peace and union in the church." pag. 77, The material difference between this account of the abolition of fubfcriptions at Gene'ua, and tha^of Mr. Chandler, is, that what the latter fays was a promife required of the candidate, the other makes to be only to be an exhortation from the miniftry. A difference indeed far from inconfiderable : and, as I remem- ber, Mr. Chandler was reminded, in a printed letter addreffed to him about that time, " That, while this promife was infilled *' upon, he {^Chandler] had no great room to boaft as he does ** of the moderation of the church of Gene--va, fuch a promife, *' in foro confcientiit, amounting to little lefs than a formal fub- *' fcription." This objedlion does not affed a fimple exhorta- iioHf againft which a teacher, who Ihould think differently

I whici^

THE CONFESSIONAL, up

" which they were called to alTent and fubfcribe ** to, and were therefore uneafy till their fub- *' fcriptions were removed, are we to be called " upon to remove ours ? we, who have no fuels *' trouble and divijion among fi us, upon the points to " be a[fented and fubfcribed to [£] ?"

This is an home pufii indeed, and wants only the fingle circumftance of truth, to intitle it to the honour of deciding all future controverfy concerning fubfcriptions, in the church of Eng- land.

But in good earned ; could Mr. White be ignorant of the trouble which Dr. Clarke and Mr. IVhiJion met with, for their deviations from the fenfe of the eighth, and fome others of our arti- cles ? Had he never heard of the controverfy concerning Arian fubfcription ? Could he, could

from his exhorters, would always have an unanfwerable remon- ftrance from ji^s iv. 1 9. With refpeft to the matter of faft, 'tis difficult, if not impoflible, to decide whether Mr. Chandler or Mr. Tongs correfpondent were better informed. The latter, indeed, acknowledges, he had not received an exaS account how the matter was tranfadled at Geneva. Mr. Chandler, as coming fo long after him, fhould know more of the matter j and that throws the probability on the fide of the protmfe. But then can any one imagine, that Mr. Beaimonty who undertakes to teach 'vjhat Godjhould teach him from the fcriptures, would bind himfelf by a promife, which might very poffibly oblige him to fufprefs what God Ihould teach him f Perhaps there may be a myftery in this, which our Diflenters choofe not to reveal. All religious focieties have their a.7roppy{la.

[£] A Letter to the reverend Mr. Samuel Chandler, occa- Coned by his late Difcourfe intituled, The Cafe of Subfcription, &:c. pag. 71.

1 4 any

120 THE CONFESSIONAL.

any man, who has read a twentieth part of our controverfies fince the commencement of the current century, be ignorant, that this reproach of going againfl their fubfcriptions, has been cafl: in the teeth of our moft eminent writers, and that too in the moft opprobrious terms [F ] ? And is there, all this while, no trouble or divifion among us, upon the points to be affented and fubfcribed to ?

Why, no. The words we and us, in the above-cited paflage, relate to no body but the orthodox, who have all along been unanimous in

[F] " The unchrlftlan art of confeffing the faith without *' believing it. An art which, I am forry to fay, has of late ■** been brought to its utmoft perfedlion." Archdeacon Brydgess Charge, i7Zi,p. 9. See likevvife a book intituled Ophioma- ches, vol. ii. from p. 292. to 300. where great freedoms of this kind are taken with fome of the greatell names then in our country. The late controverfies occafioned by Dr Middleton' s Free Inquiry ; Free and candid Difquijitions ; EJfay on Spirit, &c. furniOi rnore inftances ftill. Nor hath Mr. W'^/z^ himfelf with- held his mite from this colledlion. " It is commonly fuppofed," fays he, " that the Creeds and Articles of the church of Etig- ?' land are fubfcribed only by the clergy of the church of Etig- *' land. But be it known to all the people oi Great Britain^ *' that there is not in the kingdom one diffenting miniller, who .*' has complied with the terms of the Toleration, but has fb-

" lemnly fubfcribed the Articles, bating three or four, and

*' has alfo fubfcribed the three Creeds (yes, the Athanajlan, as , " well as the other) that they ought thoroughly to be received znd f heliev^d, &c/' Good-natured foul ! Eut, happily for the DilTenters, the civil powers (and not the church) being appoint- ed to take fuch fubfcription, are not fo immediately interejled in the glory of Orthodoxy. Whitens Appendix to his third Letter, p. So.

their

THE CONFESSIONAL. 121

their opinions. While they who have occafioned thefe troubles and divifions, and raifed thefe doubts concerning points of doctrine in the Ar- ticles, are not allowed to belong to this fek^ number, although they continue to minilter in the church of England^ and fome of them, per- haps, to minifter in the higheft ftations in it.

That this is Mr. White s meaning (whatever that of the Convocation-man might be) is pretty clear from the tenor of his expoftulation with his dilTenting advcrfary. " Did the church," fays he, *' perfecute its own members, at any time ? Were ** you or your fathers ever perfecuted, while they ** continued in the church ? And were they driven ** out of it by thofe perfecutions ?** The pertinence of which queftions plainly confifts jn this, that, according to Mr. White's notions, all thefe old perfecuted Puritans ceafed to be members of the church, the moment they offended againft cano- nical conformity, in virtue of the ipfo faSio ex- communication, whatever external marks of church- mem berfiilp they might otherwife bear about them.

But the misfortune of this fyftem of Mr. White's is, that it would contraft the conditions of church-memberfliip into a lefs compafs than is convenient for the orthodox themfeives, who have by no means been uniform in their opini'^ns concerning the fenfe of particular Articles

" There is not any fort of agreemeir . ' • ra fenfible writer, " in the notions of thck r . 1-

•" nent defenders of the Trinity, Dr. '■■'. ' .id

122 THE confessional;

•^ and Dr. Bennet ; and yet both of them plead *-'' very ftrenuoufly for fubfcription to the Articles " in the fenfe of the church ; and both contend, *' tFiat their refpeflive notions are exaflly what " the church, and what the holy fcriptures teach.. *' Both of them have the reputation of being or- ** thodox. Both of them are afraid of collufion, •' difingenuity, fraud, and evafive arts in thofe *' who differ from each of them. —. And yet, if •' the meaning of the Articles be in fuch a fenfe " one meaning, that they can be fubfcribed honeftly " only by fuch as agree in that one meaning, allj *' or all but one, of thofe great men, Bifhop Bull^ ** Doftors Wallis, South, Sherlock^ Bennet, dzc. " muft have been guilty of thefe enormous « crimes [G]."

It behoved thefe Doftors then to contrive plans of fubfcription to the Articles upon a larger bot- tom, fuch at lead as might ferve their own turn. But, as they were all irreproachably orthodox, it was an indifpenfable part of their fcheme to cramp and cohfine the heretics, in the fame degree that they made room for them felves. A circumftancc which reduced them to fuch quibbles and diftin- dions, as have rendered their meaning extremely obfcure and difputable.

Let us take two or three of the moft flaunch and orthodox among them in their order, begin- ning with that celebrated champion of our church, the learned Dr. William Nicholls,

[G] Cafe of Subfcriptlon to the thirty nine Articles confi- fidered, occafioned by Dr. Waterland^s Cafe of jirian Sub- fcriptlon, p. 4.

•« Thefe

THE GONFESSIONAL. ii^

" Thefe Articles," fays the Dodor, " could *• not be defigned to oblige all perlbns who arc " to fubfcribe them, that they fhould agree in " every point of theology which is controverted " among divines [H].'*

Probably not j becaufe many points of theolo- gy have been controverted among divines, which are not mentioned in the thirty-nine Articles. But, with refpeft to every point of theology pro- pofed in thefe Articles, I apprehend fuch agree- ment was defigned.

" No," fays the Do6tor, " becaufe the thing " is impoffible.'* But what then ? The impofii- bility of the thing is no proof that the compilers of our Articles did not dejfgn it. How did the Dodlor know, but thefe fathers of our church might think the thing very pofTible ? Or how Ihall we know what they did or did not dejigtj, but by their words and declarations ? The com- pilers themfelves tell us, that the defign of the Articles w.as to avoid diverfities of opinions. Dn NichoUs comes 150 years after them, and affirms this could not be the defign of them. Which of them is the credible evidence ?

The Do(5lor is of opinion, " that fome of thefe ** Articles were purpofely drawn up in general *' terms, [i. e. in terms admitting feveral fenfes] " becaufe they who compiled and fir ft fubfcribed *' them, were of different opinions."

** Some of thefe Articles." — We defire to know which of them ^ and how the Articles which were

[H] Commentao' on tKt Articles, &c, p. 3. col. i.

" purpofely

124 THE CONFESSIONAL.

purpofely fo drawn up, may be diftinguifhed from thofe which were not ? For the different fentiments of thofe who compiled and firft fub- fcribed thefe Articles, if it prove any thing relative to the defign of the Articles, will prove, that no lefs than the whole fet were purpofely drawn up in general terms, at lead if the Do6lor has given us a true account of the men, to whofe fentim.ents they were to be accommodated. *' Some of " them," fays he, " learned their divinity from " the Fathers, without any relation had to the *' dodlrines of modern Divines. Some went up- " on the foot of Luther^s and MelanSihovh doc- •' trine. Others were perfedtly wedded to CaU " viyis divinity, and perhaps not a little to his *' form of church-difcipline. Some were for a *' reat'i though tindeterminahle ^refence in the Eu- ** charift i whilft others thought Chrift's body " was only there by figure and reprefentation." After which he goes on to afk, " Can any one " fay that thefe feveral perfons held no diverfity *' of opinions ?'*

Rather, can any one fay, that all thefe feveral perfons were agreed upon any one point, delivered in any one Article of the whole thirty-nine.? And if none of them y/Quld agree to the paffing fuch Article or Articles, as excluded his or their own opinion ; t^e probability is, that all and every of the Articles were purpofely drawn up in general terms, as nothing lefs would make room for the heterogeneous opinions of fuch a number of men,

cduc^t^d in fo many different fyftems.

But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 125

But mark how plaih a tale will deftroy this fpecious hypothefis. The articles were compiled by Cranmer^ and at the moft with the help of one or two of his particular friends. And thefe, out of all doubt, were all of a mind. They were then laid before the council, and by them approved, and ratified by the King. They were, finally, introduced into the convocation, not to receive ?iny fy nodical authority thei'e, but to be agreed to by fubfcription. And let men's pri- vate opinions be what they would, when they were given to underftand, that court-favour, and church-preferment would depend upon their com- pliance, we may judge in part, from what hap- pens in our own times, that the diflenters would not be the majority : which yet might pofTibly be the cafe, as it by no means appears, that the iirft fubfcribers were all, or moft of them, mem- bers of the convocation [/]. Dr.MV/6<?//jfufFered himfelf to be impofed upon in this matter, by the fabulous account of Peter Heylin, a man loft td all fenfe of truth and modefty, whenever the in- terefts or claims of the church came in queftion.

Well, but if the compilers made the matter (o eafy to men of all forts of opinions, fubfcription would not give the church fufficient hold of thofe who are put to this teft. This the dodlor fore- faw, and therefore puts in his cautions in time.

[/] See the proofs of this collefled together, in Jn hijlarual and critical Ejjay on the thirty-nine Articles^ &c. printed for Francklyn, 1724. Introduftion, p. 2, 3.

"Men

126 THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' Men mull not indulge fanciful glojfes, Or *' wire-draw the words in the articles to unreafon- *' abkfenfes.

But if the cafe really is what the do(flor hatk reprefentcd it to be, I do not fee how this is to be helped. Would not every Calvinijl among the firft fubfcribers, think the fenfe of the Arminian^ or (as they then were called) the Freewilier, an unreafonahle fenje ? And if the article exprefled the fenfe of the Cahiniji naturally and plainly, would he not call the different fenfe put upon it by the other party, a fanciful glofs ? The com- pilers, it is plain, have left us no criterion in this matter. And if the articles were left io open and indeterminate, as the do6tor*s fcheme fuppofes, no man can pretend to fay what fenfes are unrea- fonahle ; unlefs the do6lor would have faid, that all fenfes but his own, are unreafonable, and then there is an end of ^//latitude.

" He thinks the force of King Jameses Decla- *' ration, did not, nor was defigned to extend far- *' ther than his own time — and that, perhaps, " Bilhop Burnet might extend the rule of fub- " fcribing (in any literal grammatical fenfe) he ** drew from it, too far."

Bilhop Burnet might be to blame, for drawing a rule of ading, from a refcript of no authority ; but undoubtedly, if the articles were purpofely drawn up in general terms, that is, fo as to ad- mit of a confcientious fubfcription by the men of all thofe different opinions, the doctor has men- tioned, the rule itfelf cannot poflibly be extend- ed

THE CONFESSIONAL. 127

€d too' far. Obferve, however, that BifliopBwr- net knew of no authority, or foundation for this rule, but the King's Declaration. This cur doc- tor, indeed, hath reprobated ; but, however, we have no reafon to complain of his abridging our liberty, as will appear by the following in- ftance.

Bifhop Burnet had obferved, that according to the form of fubfcription prefcribed in the 36th canon, namely, " I fubfcribe willingly, and ex " attimoy the party fubfcribing declared his own *' opinion, or, in Dr. Bennetts language, declared " that he believed the articles to be true in fame «« fenfe."

" But," fays Dr. NichoUs, " tho' I am not al- ** together different from his Lordfhip's judg- " ment in this matter, 1 am not fo well fatisfied " with the reafon he grounds it upon. For ex *' animo in that place, does not fignifie, according ** to my opinion, or, as I firmly believe, but readily " and heartily. For this form of fubfcription is *' not a form of fubfcription to the thirty-nine '* articles, but to the three articles contained in " that canon, which are not fo much articles of *' opinion, as of confent, and the fubfcription to *' them declares, not what the fubfcriber believes^ " but what he confents to"

Nicely diftinguifhed indeed ! fo, according to this cafuiftry, a man may, by his fubfcription, confent to what he does not believe. For this being the only form of fubfcribing the articles now in ui^t and the verbal declaration, profefling no

more

128 THE CONFESSIONAL.

more than ajfent and confent to the articles, we are no more bound, by our fubfcription, to be- lieve the thirty nine articles to be true, than if they were fo many propofitions taken out of the Koran.

And yet, immediately afterwards, Dr. NichoUs fays, " The fubfcriber ought to aiTent to each ar- '* tide, taken in the literal and grammatical *' fcnfe."— But why ought he ? or what bufinefs has he with the fenfe of the articles, \vho may give fuch an afTcnt and confent to them as docs not imply belief?

But it is quite neceflary to take thefe gentle- men, every one in his own way. Bifhop Burnet had faid, that men might confcientioufly fub- fcribe to any literal or grammatical fenfe, the words of an article would fairly bear j but he had not faid, what was meant by literal 2ind gram- matical fenfes ?

This fell to the fliare of Dr. NichoUs^ by whom we are informed from Grotius, *' that the gram- *' matical fenfe is twofold^ fefifus grammatualis ab " origine, and fenfus graimnaticalis -popular is ^ thfe '* latter of which only, is to be allowed in the ** interpretation of any law, or writing-, fof, " continues the dodor, to take words in their •'/>// original fignification, which, by length of " time they have much varied from^ may carry ** them off to a fenfe very different from what ." they were firft intended ; tkerifore the expref- ** fions muft be taken in the plain common fenfe

" they

THE CONFESSIONAL. 129

" they are generally ufed in, or were ufed in, at " the time of making fuch law or writing."

The former part of this obfervation we rea- dily allow. If the framers of a law, or a writ- ins:, make ufe of words in a fenfc, different from the original grammatical fenfe of fuch words, it muft be prefumed, that it is becamfe fuch words have deviated, in popular ufe, to a fenfe differ- ent from the original fenfe. In which cafe, the fenfe of the framers, or compofers of fuch law or writing, is to be adopted. But it will not there- fore follow, that fuch words or expreffions are to be taken in the fenfe they are now generally ufed in. Becaufe the popular grammatical fenfe, in which fuch words are generally used NOW, may not be the fame popular grammatical fenfe, in which thofe words were ufed, when the law or writing was made. In all fuch cafes, we mull recur to the fenfe of the author or the lawgiver ; or elfe the law or the writing cannot be underftood ; and the modern fenfe of words may, in fome cafes, carry us as far befide the in- tention of the author or the lawgiver, as the ori- ginal fenfe would do.

For example •, wliatever the original grammati- cal fenfe of the word confent might have been, in is certain that the compilers of our articles meant by it, a confent of belief, or a pcrfeH agreement of opinions : and when fubfcribers were afterwards required to give their confent to the articles, there

K can

130 THE CONFESSIONAL.

can be no doubt but fuch a confent was intend- ed, as is fpecified in the title, namely, fuch a confent as was neceffary for the avoiding diverftties of opinions.

Dr. Nicholls^ on the other hand, finds, that confent may now fignifie a confent of acquiefcence only, with which opinions a.nd Mief have little to do ; and for this fenfe he accordingly contends. But with the worft luck in the world ; for the thing, with refped: to which this confent is to be eflaUifhed, happens to be true religion ; and we may be pretty confident that the compilers never intended that a confent in true religion, which did not imply belief and conviflion, fhould be accepted as fufficient to anfwer the end of fub- fcribing the articles.

By the do6lor's diftinguilliing grammatical fenfes into original and popular, and forming his rule of interpretation upon that dillinflion, one would think, that the grammatical fenfe of v/ords, in any law or writing, could be but one. And yet he agrees with the Bilhop oi Sarum, " thaty^i;^- *' ral grammatical fenfes may fometimes very " fairly be put upon expreffions in the articles.'* But if you may put both the original and popular fenfe upon the fame words, of what ufe is the diftinftion ? or what fenfe is there in his rule of interpretation ?

If, indeed, as the doftor fuppofes, the com- pilers purpofely drew up fome of the articles in general terms, they undoubtedly left room to p[.\tfeveralgra?72maticalkn{ks upon they^;^^^ words •, 4 but

THE CONFESSIONAL. 131

but then, how ihall we know, which of thefe is the popular grammatical fenfe, in which only the law (or, in this cafe, the article) is to be inter- preted ?

To folve this difficulty, the learned Do6lor in- forms us, that *' a Law is to be interpreted ac- " cording to the mind of the legiflator ; fo that, *' if the compilers of the Articles have exprefTed " themfelves obfcurely in any place, that is to " be explained, by what we find to have been " their avowed opinion, or by fome other place " of their writings, or authentic books, where " they have exprelTcd themfelves clearly.^*

But here it is evidently fuppofed, that the ob- fcurity in the article does not arife from the ge- neral terms in which it is purpofely worded, but from fome accidental inaccuracy of the compilers, whofe avowed opinions, in their authentic books, are likewife fuppofed to be uniform, and con- fident with each other. Otherwife, nothing can be more perplexing to the party who wants to have the difficulty cleared up, than the expedient here recommended.

For example : According to the Doflor, fome of the Articles are drawn up in general terms, on purpofe to receive the different fenfes which the compilers, who were of different opinions, might think fit refpedively to put upon them. Hence arifes an obfcurity of expreffion, which the fubfcriber to fuch Articles wants to have cleared up. lie confults the authentic books of a Lu- K 2 theran-

132 THE CONFESSIONAL.

theran compiler, and there he finds the obfcurity cleared up, according to the fyftem that compiler had efpoLifed. But the Calviniji compiler hath likewife written authentic books, of equal autho- rity with thofe of the Lutheran, and he unfolds the myftery in a fenfe juft contrary to that given by the Lutheran. What fhall the fcrupulous and diftra6led fubfcriber do in fuch a cafe ? or what expedient of elucidation fhall he fall upon next ?

But indeed what the good Dodlor means, is only this, that, if you will allow him to point out the avowed opinions of the compilers, and to diredt you to the authentic books you are to confult, he will lead you out of all obfcurity, to a clear, confident fenfe of an article, even though it (hould be drawn up in terms fufficiently gene- ral^ to admit of an hundred d\fftvttit grammatical fenfes.

This is plain from the inftance he brings to illuftrate his general dodrine above recited, which is too curious to be paffed by. It is taken from the twenty-third Article, which fays, That we ought to judge thofe lawfully called and fent^ which he called and chofen to this work [of the mi- niftry] hy men who have public authority given them in the" congregation, to call and fend minijlers.

The plain, and, if you will, the grammatical meaning of which words is, that there is a public authority in every Chriftian church, to appoint the particular perfons who are to minifter in that church, exclufive of all others -, and that they, and they only, who are fo appointed, are lawfully called and fent. And

THE CONFESSIONAL. 133 And yet, fays Dr. Nkholls, " There can be no " doubt made, but that by public authority the " compilers meant the authority of Bifhops."

But, it no doubt can be made of this, what jQiall we fay of thofe compilers who perhaps^ and of thofe/r/? fubfcribers who certainly ^ were wed- ded to Calvin's form of church- difcipline ? " Can " any one fay that they held no opinion diverfe *' from this interpretation ? or can any one think " that they would agree to the palTing this Ar- *' tide, but that they thought it was conceived *' in fuch general terms, that they might fub- " fcribe it with a good confcience, and without " equivocation ?"

Thefe are Dr. Nicholas own queftions, and any one has juft as much right to afk them as he had.

Let us afk another queftion. Have any ot the Compilers interpreted this Article as Dr. Ni- cholls has done ? No. Crannw, and his fellow- compilers of the Articles, (be they more or fewer) are well known to have held a friendly corref- pondence with the great founders and fup- porters of other Proteftant churches abroad ; who had the misfortune (if it is one) to think there might be a lawful call to the minirtry, without a Prelacy. It is even notorious, that the opinion of thefe foreign Divines was alked by our Englifh Reformers, concerning the methods they fhould take in fettling both matters of doc- trine and difcxpline in their own church. And can it be fuppofed that Cranmer meant to fay, K 3 that

134 THE CONFESSIONAL.

that the minifters in thefe foreign churches had

no lawful calling ?

Dr. Nkhdls himfelf well knew, they neither faid it, nor meant it. And therefore, inftead of referring us to their avo-wed opinions^ or their au- thentic books^ as his pofition required hefhoulddo, he appeals to a matter of fad, namely, " that " neither by the laws of the church, or by the " laws of the realm, any public authority is ^^ granted to any other than Bifhops, to call or ** fend minitlei-s into the Lord's vineyard.'* As if the compilers confidered only what was lawful in this refpeft by the fm/conftiturion and human laws of England ; or as if the Lord had no vine- yard but in Britain.

But indeed, if we go back to the times of the compilers, the fa6t itfelf is not true. For, even fo late as the 1 3th of EUz. " every perfon under ••' the degree of a bilhop, which did or fhould pre- " tend to be a prieft or minifler of God's holy " word and facramerits, by reafon of any other '■'■form of inftitution^ confecration^ or ordering., than *' the form fet forth by Parliament, in the time *' of the late King of moft worthy memory, King *'• Edward VI. or [by any other form, than thfe " form] now ufed in the reign of our moft gra- *' cious Ibvereign Lady, — " if he took care, be- fore the Chriftmas next enfuing the pafiing this A6t, to qualify himfelf by fubfcription, &c. as is therein direded, was deemed, by the ecclefiaftical as well as the civil laws of the realm, to be fufE-

ciently

TE^E CONFESSIONAL. 135

ciently called and fent, to enjoy a benefice, and exercife the fundion of a minifter of God's word and facraments, in the church of England itfelf. And there is no doubt but that hundreds, both in K^mg Edward' s and in Queen Elizabeth's reign, miniftered in the church of England as legal Pa- ftors, who had no epifcopal ordination ; which would never have been fuffered, if the doflrine either of the church or ftate was what Y^v .NichoUs* s interpretation of this Article fuppofes it to have been.

If indeed you take the fa6l as Dr. NichoUs has ftated it, and confiderthe grounds and principles upon which it Hands, it might perhaps turn out, that the Article cannot be confcientioufly fub- fcribed by any one, but a downright Erajiian ; which however I would leave to the determina- tion of the judicious reader, after he has duly and ferioufly weighed the following honeft remark of Bifhop Burnet upon this twenty-third Article.

*' They who drew this Article," fays his Lord- fhip, " had the ftate of the feveral churches be- " fore their eyes that had been differently reform- " ed •, and although they had been lefs forced to " go out of the beaten path than any other, yet " they knew that all things among themfelves had " not gone according to thofe rules, that ought " to be facred in regular times." And fo, want- ing grains of allowance themfelves, it was their bufinefs and their wifdom to give them to o- thers.

K 4 Turn

136 THE CONFESSIONAL. '

Turn we now to another church-champion of cafuiftical memory, the famous Dr. Bennett whofe doublings and refinements upon the Articles are fo various and intricate, that it would be an end- lefs tafk to follow him through them all. A few of them may ferve for a fample of the fpirit which pofTelfeth thofe, who undertake to defend human eftablifhments at all adventures.

It appears in Dr. Bennet's Dire^lions for Jlu- dying the ihirty-nine Articles, &c. publiOied in 17 14, that the faid DotSlor was perfciSbly ac- quainted with the lenfe of the church upon them all : which he accordingly opens to his young liudent, fometimes contrary to the moft obvious and natural import of the words. In one place, where he gives an interpretation of this fort, he adds, "This was infallibly the meaning of '' the compilers of our Articles, and they mujl be " underftood in this fenfe [^j.'*

Upon the third Article he fays, " The church *' excludes that fenfe of the word Helh which *' fays that by Hell is meant The Grave j" con- trary to Bifhop Burnety Dr. Nicholls^ Dr. Clarke^ and many more.

Upon the ninth he fays, '* The church does not '* mean, that original fm deferves God's wrath " and damnation in infants which die before the *' rational faculties exert themfelves •,'* and he fays, " that they who believe and fubfcribe the *' Article in this fenfe, believe and fubfcribe more " than the church teaches or requires.'*

Ul Page ^2. upon the fixth Article.

■ Not a

THE CONFESSIONAL. 137

Nota bene ; The Article fays in exprefs words, *' Original (the title adds, or birth) fin, deferveth *' God's wrath and damnation, in every ^erfon *' born into the worW*

Upon the eleventh Article he obferves, *' that *' our church's intention and doftrine about Juf-^ " tification by Faith ^ are abundantly maniteit, '* though they are unhappily worded.^' Which he explains by telling us, " that the church ex- " prefled the real truth in St. Paul's own phrafe, *' but in a fenfe fomevvhat different from what " he [the Apoftle] did moft certainly intend " thereby."

Qli. How far may a man fafely fubfcribe this Article, as being agreeable to the word of God?

Upon the thirteenth Article, he fays, " That " thousfh the church makes ufe of the foftenino- " comparative words yea rather, and we doubt *' not but, yet, the Latin word for rather being " immo, the church diredly affirms, that works " done befpre the grace of Chriji have the nature "of fm.**

The Dodlor inquires, in another work, to what edition of the Articles we are obliged to fubfcribe, by the a6t of the 13 Eliz. chap. 12 [5] ^ The Do(5tor determines for the 7iew Engliffo tranjlation, to which Queen Elizabeth's ratification is an- nexed, and which, out of all difpute, has the foftening comparative words. We are not obliged therefore, by the flatute above-mentioned, to

[B] pfTay on the the thirty-nine Articles, chap. xxx.

take

138 THE confessional;

take any notice of the word immOy although it carries along with it the church's dire^ afirma- tion — But, to accumulate no more inftances.

Upon iht fe'uenteenth Article, he fays, " He " is fo clear that the church condemns the notion *' of abfolute pre deft ination in her Liturgy, that, if " that v/as his notion, he could not fubfcribe to " the ufe of the Liturgy. And with this the *' Article muft be confident." He fliould have faid, " mufl: be made confiftent ;" for which edi- fying purpofe, the Dodor hath taken a great deal of fruitlels pains, to fhew that the Article is in perfect agreement with Arminius upon the fame fubjed.

From thefe particulars it appears, that, in the year 17 14, Dr. Bennet was intimately acquainted with the fenfe of the church, upon the obfcureft and mod ambiguous of the thirty-nine Articles, and accordingly communicated his difcoveries with great freedom, and fometimes fo, that the literal import of the words of the Article was by no means favourable to his confl:ru6lion. And where was the ufe or the pertinence of all his labour, if his young ftudent was not given to underftand by it, that he muft fubfcribe the Articles in thefe very fenfes, exclufive of all others.''

And yet, the very next year, viz. 17^ 5^ the very fame Dr. Bennet, in the 35th chapter of his Effay on the thirty-nine Articles, in anfwer to Prielicraft in PerfeSiion, undertaking to enquire

(by

THE CONFESSIONAL. 139

(by what temptation infatuated does not appear) what liberty the church allows to the fubfcribers of- the Articles ? anfwers, that " The church does not " reftrain us to the belief of any one Article or " Propofition, in any particular fenfe, farther than

*' wc are confined by the words themfelves"

As much as to fay, that, where the words do not confine us, the church has no particular fenfe of her own. Contrary to his repeated interpre- tations in his Dire^ions, where he over and over exhibits the church's fenfe, againft the confine- ment of the words themfelves •, and contrary to his Majefty's Declaration : for, fliould the Doctor have been alked, in what fenfe men are allowed to fubfcribe ? muft he not, to preferve his i'clf- confiftency, have anfwered, " in any fenfe of our " own, which we believe to be true, and which " the conftruflion of the words will admit of?'*

When an Article or Propofition," fays the Dodor, " is fairly capable of two different " fenfes, I would fain know who has power to " determine which is the church's fenfe .'*'*

When the Doctor wrote his Dire^ions, &c. he thought he himfelf had this power -, upon the fuppofition, I imagine, that the church had left no article or propofition capable of two different fenfes. If indeed fuch articles or propofitions are left ambiguous, and, particularly, if (according to Dr. Nicholls) they are fo left of fet purpofe, 1 do not know who has any power to determine that the church, in fuch articles or propofitions, had any fenfe at all.

be

I40 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Be it obferved by the way, that Dr. Bennet perfe6lly ridicules Dr. NicholWs expedient of con- fukir>g the writings of the compilers of the Ar- ticles, for the purpofe of clearing up obfcurities in them. " For," fays he, *' did they write [their *' booksj by authority ? or were all that lived in " their time of the fame opinion ? Might not '^ the Convocation themfelves differ as much as ••^ the words [of the Articles] are capable of ad- «*• mitting ?"

In the 33d chapter of the fame Effay^ the Do- ftor undertaking to prove, (and meaning to prove no more than) that they who fubfcribe the Articles, are obliged to believe them true mfome fenfe -, he hath brought arguments, which prove (if they prove any thing) that fuch fublcribers are obliged to believe them not only true, but true in one and tht fame fenfe, exclufive of all others ; or which prove, that no propofition in the Arti- cles has more than o/fe fenfe. And thus Dr. Ben- nei is not only againft Dr. Nicholls, as to the point of a confent of acquiefcence, but againft himfelf in the tenor of his whole 3 5th chapter.

1. He argues from the title of the Articles, " which," he obferves, " fhews them to be de- ** figned to prevent diverjities of opinions. But if two or two hundred men fubfcribe the fame propofition in different fenfes, the deft^n of the Articles is abfolutely defeated.

2. He argues from the words of a canon made in the Convocation of 1571, viz. I(a tamm, ut

prius

THE CONFESSIONAL. 141

prius fuhfcribant Articulis Chri^iiana ReUgioms^ publice in Synodo approbatis^ fidemque dent, fe velle^ tueri et defender e doc tr in am eam qu^ in illis continetur, ut consentientissimam veritati

VERBI DIVINl.

Now, if the compofers of this canon, by do^ri- nam eam, meant more than one dodrine upon om fubjeft, they exprefled themfelves very ill, both as to grammar and fenfe. If the wording of any propofition admit of two or more do6lrines or fenfes different from each other, as Dr. Bennet allows to be fairly poflible -, and more efpecially if (as Bilhop Burnet contends) thofe dodrines may be literally and grammatically contrary to each other j how could they both or all be de- fended as mo^ agreeable to the divine word? The church declares, fhe herfelf may not, and there- fore certainly would not fuffer her fons, to in- terpret fcripture in a manner repugnant to itfelf. \_Art, XX.] And what are fubfcriptions in diffe- rent fenfes, upon the principles of this canon, more or lefs than this ?

3. The Doclor argues from a judgment at Common Law, reported by Lord Chief Juftice Coke, the fubftance of which is, " that if any *' fubfcription is allowed which admits diverfity *' of opinions, (to avoid which was the Icope of '* the ftatute 13 Eliz.) this A6t touching fub- " fcriptions would be rendered of no effedt.**-^ The confequence is plain. Two fubfcribers to the fame propofition in two different fenfes, are

of

142 THE CONFESSIONAL.

of divers opinions. Admit this fubfcription to pafs, and you render the A(5t of none effeSf.

In one word, whatever argument in this chap- ter does not prove that the Articles, and every propofition in them, are to be believed by every fubfcriber to be true in one and the /??«? uniform, invariable fenfe, does not prove that the fubfcri- ber is obliged to believe them to be true in any fenfe.

The fum then of Dr. Bennefs atchievemenfs upon the thirty-nine Articles, is this.

He hath proved, that the church of England has a particular fenfe of her own upon every one of thefe Articles ; which fenfe, according to the Do(5bor, is fometimes contrary to the natural im- port of the words.

He hath proved, that the church requires fub- fcribers to thefe Articles to believe them all, and every propofition in them, to be true in one par- ticular fenfe.

And yet the fame Dr. Bennet hath proved, that the fame church of England hath no particular fenfe of her own in thofe Articles, where the words are capable of tv/o different fenfes, or no particular itn^t which can be difcovered ; and confequen tly that the Articles may be fubfcribed in any fenfe the conftrudlion of the words will fairly admit of. Of v^\\\ch fairnefs, however, much may be faid by the fubfcriber, to which the church perhaps would hardly agree.

Let us now fee what we can make of Dr. Ni- cholls and Dr. Bennet in company.

Dr.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 143

Dr. Bennet afferts, " that, though we fubfcribe ^ the g5*^ Article, we don't fubfcribe to the *' Homilies. There is in reality," fays he, " no *' fuch thing required of us, as a fubfcription to " the Homilies. We muft fubfcribe the [35th] ■*' Article, 'tis true, but not the Homilies."

But, according to Dr. Nicholls^ the very fame is the cafe with refpeft to the thirty-nine Articles themfelves. " The form of fubfcription," quoth he, " is not a form of fubfcription to the thirty- ** nine Articles, but to the three Articles con- ** tained in the thirty-fixth Canon." "Therefore," to borrow Dr. Bennetts words, " there is in reality *' no fuch thing as a fubfcription to the thirty- " nine Articles required of us." For the two cafes are exa6tly alike ; and Dr. Bennetts reafons for his aflfertion may, with equal force and propriety, be applied to the fupport of Dr. Nicholls's propo- fition. And now, if the fcrupulous fubfcriber is not made perfedlly eafy, he muft be hard to pleafe.

However, it is not advifeable for him to de- pend too much on thefe Cafuifts. *Tis a flippery undertaking they have in hand ; and I am afraid that Dr. Bennetts arguments on this head prove nothing but that he was in great concern to fave his credit with the church, and at the fame time to accommodate his young ftudenr, and perhaps himfelf, with certain convenient quibbles, when the occafion (hould call for them. However, he had great authorities on his fide ; no lefs than the eminent prelates Laud and Burnet.

The

144- THE CONFESSIONAL.

The former fays, that, " Tho' we [have] fub- *' fcribed generally to the docfirine of the Homi- *' lies as good, yet we did not exprefs, or mean ** thereby, to juflify or maintain every particu- •^a"5 ** lar phrafe or fentence contained in them.'*

fey this latitude, his Grace got fome Ihelter for the life of Images in churches; and for his diflent from the calvinifiical cxphniLiions of Grace, Jiijlification^ &c.

Bifhop Burnet holds that, " All we profefs ** about them, [the Homilies] is only, that they *' contain a godly and wholefome dodiine. This, '* fays he, rather relates to the main importance " and defign of them, than to every paffage in " them.'*

It is not improbable, that his Lordfhip had fome objedion (as well he might) to fome faf- fages in the Homilies againft willful rebellion.

To thefe Dr. Bennet hath added the opinion of a Nonjuror, who fays, " The do^rine of the " Homilies is the only thing we are obliged to " maintain, and not the arguments brought to *' fupport it."

But how, if the doElrine cannot be maintained

without the arguments ? Thus we fee one

difclaims an unwholefome phrafe ov fentence, another diflikes a paffage, a third an argument \ and when every one has made his particular exception, what may become of the poior Homilies, who can tell ?

Dr. Bennet obferves, that Archbifliop Laud^ Bilhop Burnet, the abovementioned Nonjuror, and

himfelf.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 14^

himfelf, do exadly agree in the fenfe of what the article fays, touching the Homilies.

Give me leave to add another to the groupe, even the refpcdableAf/^m/d" Francis Sinclair, alias Davenport, who, upon this thirty-fifth article, thus defcants :

Mulia quidcm funt in Homiliis laude digna. Alia

nee nobis [Papiftis/r.] vel dodoribus eorum arri-

dent. Nee tenentur Proteftantes ob hac verba in

Artieulo^ infingula verba vel fententias Homiliarunt

jurare.

Whether Laud took the hint fromi Sinclair, or Sinclair from him, is a point not worth conteft- ing : but I arh greatly concerned to find Bifhop Burnet in fuch company. However, it may be fome excufe for him, that he flicks to the main importance and dejign of the Homilies •, which, out of all difpute, was to exclude and Reprobate Popery.

But what ? no advocate for the goor Homt- lies ? Yes ; here is one worth three dozen of Lauds, Benut'tSy or Sinclairs^ the learned Bilhop Bar low 4

'' The church oi England, fays this worthy bi- *' fhop, has, in her Homilies (confirmed by ads " of parliament and convocation, and fubfcribed " by all the clergy} declared the Pope to be A?;- " tichrijl. And then I defire to know, whe- " ther they be true arid obedient fons of the ** church of England, who publicly deny her ** ejlablijhed dodrines, which they had before '* publicly fubfcribed [D]."

f/)2 Genuine Remainj, p. 19 ^

L Would

1^6 THE confessional;

" Would the reader know who the fins of the church were, who^t truth and obedience 2iXt thus called in queOiion ? Even Gilbert Sheldon^ Arch- bifhop of Canterbury ; and a much honefter man, the painful and pious Dr. Henry Hammond.

But there is a third fort of defenders of the church, who play fad and ioofe in this caufe of the Homilies, and feem to have taken fees on both fides.

Peter Heylin^ having his objedions to the ftri(5t Obfervance of the Lord's-day, as taught in the Irifb Articles of religion, argues thus : " It is '• contrary to the book of Homilies; and, if it •* be contrary to the book of Homilies, it muft be *.' alio contrary to the book of Articles, by which " thofe Homilies are approved and recommended *' to the ufe of the church [£J."

And yet the fame Peter^ (the ********* of thofe times, who was never at a lofs, nor ever incumbered with tht\t2i[\ diffidence) being prefTed with a queftion from Archbilhop Ujl^er, whether he admitted the two volumes of Homilies into his creed ? replied, ** That a man may fo far take '' the two volumes of the Homilies into his creed, " as to believe as much of them as is required of *' him in the book of Articles. For he may very " warrantably and fafely fay, that he does verily " believe that the fecond book of Homilies doth *■' contain a godly and wholefome doflrine, and *f necefiary for thofe times j that is to fay," adds

[5] Heylin's Rejpondet PetruSy p. 130.

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. ^47

the Doctor, ** the times in which they yftucfirft «* publilhed [Fj."

That is to fay. The fecond book of Homilies, confidered as a book publifhed to ferve a prefenc turn (as Bifliop Burnet has it)^ is a good fort of book, and may be fubfcribed without a qualm.

This puts me in mind of a pafTage, where we are told of what ufe and in what repute the Ho- milies have been in thefe latter ages, after thefe our grandfathers were fallen afleep.

" As for the Homilies^* fays my author, " they " are good or bad, of undeniable authority, or •' of none, juft as they themfelves {churchmen "about the year 1724) pleafe. Thofe againft ** rebellion are particularly good againft all tu- " mults, and diforders, and treafons^ but their •' own J and are to be urged home againft the *' men whom they diflike. But thofe againft your ** idolatry and antichriftianifm, and againft many *' oi your dodlrines, I affure your Holinefs, are of " no account among the fame men, but as thd •' warm, over-hafty efforts of ignorant zeal, in " the firft Reformers i not nt to be urged againft " any true churchman (any more than thofe of ** the Cakinijlical ftrain) fince the time of Arch- " bifhop Laud [G]."

\P'\ Heylia's Refpondet Fetrus, p. 130.

[G] Sir RicbarJ Steele'; (or rnther Bilhop *****'s) Letter to Pcpe Ckvmit Xf, prefixed to his Account of the State oi the Roman Catholic Religion, Sak.. p. xxxvi.

I. 2 1 niall

348 THE CONFESSIONAL.

I (hall now difmifs Dr. Bennet with one parting remark upon a ftriking paflfage in the xxxvth chapter of his E[fay.

** I can't but think," fays he, '* that if a man " doubts of the fenfc of his declaration, whether "it is fuch as hz^may mean in the making of it, " he ought, in the prefence of God, to afl< his *.' confcience this queflion. Do I verily think^ that •' if I were to acquaint ?ny fuperiors with it, they " would allow me to under/land my declaration thus ? " 1 dare fay the anfwer of his confcience would ** be a true refojution of the doubt."

But, / dare fay, the anfwer of his fuperior's confcience (which is one of the confciences here- in concerned) would be a truer refolution of the doubt. And why Hiould he hefitate to acquaint \\\% fuperior with it j fince he may do it, whenever he is obliged to fubfcribe or declare, without go- ing out of his way ? — Perhaps the Bifliop might not approve of the meaning ; in which cafe, he mufl: either go without his preferment, or declare in a fenfe he does wt mean. Whereas the mat- ter being tranfa<5led between -the man and his confcience, (which will bear to be debated with more freely than a Bifliop might allow) the con- fcience may be brought over to the fide of the MAN, and the doubt commodioufly refolved to the fatisfadion of both parties.

" A m.an," fays Dr. Waterland, *' mufl: have a ** very mean opinion of the underfl:anding or in- " tegrity of his iliperiors, to fuppofe that they *' ever can allow him to trifle at fuch a rate, in fo

" ferious

THE CONFESSIONAL. 149

" ferious a matter as fubfcription [/i^]."— .That is, to prefume upon their confent, to put a fenfe of his own upon a difputable Article,

And this gives ine an opportunity of intro- 'ducing this learned Dodor's opinions upon this important cafe, who haying treated the fiibjedt ex -projejjb^ in his well-known Cafe of Avian Sub- fcripiion^ and the Supplement he wrote in defence of it, will carry us into a new field of controverfy, as he exhibits much curious matter, which fell not within the notice of Ors. Nicholh and Bennet. Dr. Waterland protefles to fet out where Dr. Stebbing and Dr. Rogers end. And thefe Doctors end " in confirming our excellent church in her *' full power of requiring fubfcription to her own *' fenfe of holy fcripture [/]/'

Now thefe interpretations, or this fenfe of holy fcripture, to which we are required to fubfcribe, are the thirty-nine Articles of Religion, adopted by the church, as they were left by the compilers in J 562. The fenfe, therefore, put upon the holy fcriptures in thefe Articles by the compilers of them, is the fenfe of the church.

'* But," fays Dr. IVaterland^ " the fenfe of the

. " compilers, barely confidered^ is not always to be

*' obferved, but fo far only as the natural and

'* proper fjgnification of words^ or the intention

" of the impofers, binds it upon us [-fiTj."

By the impofers^ I apprehend, muft be meant the minifierial impofers, that is, the Bilhops, they

J \H'\ Cafe of /fV/a« Su'ifcription, p. 45. [/] Ibid. p. 7. -^'.''[./^] Ibid. p. II.

L 3 being

150 THE CONFESSION^AL;

being the perfons appointed by law to take this fecurity of fubfcription, on behalf of the church.

But the Do61:or was told " that the Archbi- *^ fhops and Bifhops, or even the legiflature itfelf ^' (without a new declaratory law), cannot deter- '* mine what fhall be the fenfe of the do6lrines " in the Articles [L]." And he was fo far truly told. For the fenfe of the Articles is already determined to be the fenfe of the compilers, and no other ; the declaration and fubfcription to the Articles being enjoined by a law, which is nearly foaeval with the compilers themfelves.

In this the Doctor found himfelf obliged to ac- quicfce ; and, in his reply, " would not take up- *' on him to determine what the Bilhops or the " Legiflature might do [M]." — So that by this tergiverfation, the natural and proper Jignification of words, and the intention of the impofers, are thrown quite out ot the queftion j and we are once more brought back to the fingle fenfe of the compilers. For, if the Bifhops may not alter the knie of the Articles, in virtue of any power given them by the church, or even by the legiflature •, neither may the fubfcriber, upon pre- tence of giving a 7iatural and proper fignification to the words.

" The fenfe of the compilers and impofers,'* fays the Doftor, *' where certainly known, mull

[Z-] Cafe of Subfcription to the thirty-nine Articles, p. 32. [M] Supplement, p. 41.

" be

THE CONFESSIONAL. 151

" be religioufly obferved, even though the words " were capable of another fenfe [iV]."

The Cenk of the impofers may be always cer- tainly known, and confequently, according to the Do6tor, muft always be religioufly obferved. Which I mention (not that the impofers have any thing to do in the affair, but) to fliew how by this propoficion the Doftor abridged his own li- berty, when it came to his turn to plead for it. The cafe is this : The Do6tor fays, " that diver- ** fity of opinions is intended to be avoided with " refpe<5t to points determined [0]." Among points determined, the Dodor reckons the doiflrine of the Trinity. But, pleading for a liberty to fubfcribe the feventeenth and other Articles in an Arminian fenfe, he confiders tbefe points as un- determined.

Whereas, by taking in the fenfe of the impo- fers, the meaning of the Articles is determinable in all points ; becaufe the fenfe of the impofers may be always certainly known, whatever the fenfe of the compilers may be.

" The Article in the Apoftles Creed concern- " ing Chrift's defcent into //(?//, is now univerfally *' underftood in a fenfe probably different from *' what the compilers of the Creed intended," fays the learned Dr. Clarke.

*' However that be," replies Dr. IVaterhnd^ " one thing is certain, that our church hath left " that article at large, intending a latitude ; and

{N ] Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 1 1 . [O] Ibid.

L 4 /' indulging

152 THE CONFESSIONAL.

.*.' indulging a liberty to fubfcribcrs to abound in " their own fenfe [P]."

Here, if you leave out the intention of the impofers, one thing \s certain, that no latitude is| left to the fubfcriber of the Article •, the words hell and iiiferi never fignifying any thing in the days of the compilers, byt the place of torment. U the intention of the impofers is taken into the account^ another thing is certain, that no liberty ]s allowed to fubfcribers to abound in their own fenfe, unlefs, having deferted the fcnfe of the compilers, they ablolutely negleft the intention of the impofers, v/hich may always be certainly known.

pr. PFaterland indeed tries to falve all this by faying, '* that the ^tn\Q of the compilers and im- '* pofers may generally be prefumed the fame " (except in fome very rare and particular ca- *'fesi^]."

Weil t}ipn, may the impofers, in any of thefe rare and particular cafes, go againfb the knowtiy or even the prefumed (tnk of the compilers ? If \\\ty may, the Dodor fhould have told us how they came by their authority -, and why the im- pofers may not, upon equally good grounds, de- fert the compilers in cafes neither rr^Y nor parti- cular ? Befides, one impofer may think that a rare and particular cafe, which to another is not fo. A third impofer may have his rare and particular cafes, different from them both ; and fo a fourth

[P] Cafe of Ar. Subfcr. p. 35. [^] Ibid. p. 11.

and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 153

and a fifth, till the fenfe of the compilers is throwa quite out of doors in every cafe.

Dr. Waterland^ in particular, had rare and par- ticular Z2.{t% of his own, upon which he afls the part of an impofer with no ill grace.

Of the articles relating to the Trinity, the Dodor fays, " their fenfe is fixed, and bound " upon the confciencc of every fubfcriber, by the " plain, natural fignification of the words, and 5' by the known intent of the compilers and im- « pofers [Ry

But of the damnatory claufes in the Athana- fian creed, he fays, " that the compilers fenfe " being doubtful, and the impofers having left " thofe claufes without any expofition, the fub- " fcriber is at liberty to underftand them in fuch " fenfe as the words will bear, and fuch as bed " anfwers the main intent and defign of that *' creed ; and is mod agreeable to fcripture and ?* reafon [6'].

The fenfe of the articles, fays the Dodor, concerning the Trinity, is fixed and certain. W|io has fixed it ? Not the compilers^ otherwife than by exprefllng the propofitions relating to |:he Trinity, in terms which accorded with their own ideas. And has the compiler of the Atha- pafjan creed, done either more or lefs, with re- fpe6t to the damnatory claufes ? — On another hand, the impofers have left thofe claufes without

{K\ Cafe of Ar. Subfcription, p. 36. [.*^J Ibid. p. 37.

any

154 THE confessional;

any eicpofttion. And where, I pray, is their ex- pofition of the articles relating to the Trinity, to' be met with ?

'* This inftance, continues the Dodor, is no- •f thing parallel to the cafe of the Articles con- •* cerning the Trinity j whofe fenfe is fixed and ** certain as before faid."

That is to fay, " The fubfcriber is not at *' liberty to underdand thefe Articles in fuch " fenfe, as the words will bear j or in fuch fenfe, ** as bed anfwers the main intent and defign of '' the whole fet of Articles, or in fuch fenfe as is " mod agreeable to fcripture and reafon." For in thefe circumftances, according to the Dodor, confifts the fpecific difference, between the cafe of fubfcribing the damnatory claufes in the Atha- nafian creed, and the cafe of fubfcribing the Ar- ticles concerning the Trmty. — And thus, kind reader, " is our excellent church confirmed in »' her fttll power of requiring fubfcription to her " OWN SENSE of Holy Scripture."

The Dr. proceeds. " Fix, in like manner, '' the fenfe of the damnatory claufes -, and it " ihall foon be proved that every fubfcriber *' ought to acquiefce in it."

Having fo good encouragement, let us try what we can do.

Whofoever will he faved^ it is necejfary^ before all things, that he hold the catholic faith ; which faith except every one do keep v.^'oJe and mdefiledy without

doubt

THE CONFESSIONAL. 155

iouht he fiall perijh everlajiing^. Atid the cathoJU faith is this.

Then follows the doftrine of the Trinity, ex- prefled in the articles of the creed, whofe fenfe, the Doftor fays, infixed and certain^ &c. as above. After which we have Tome more of thefe claufes; He therefore that will befaved mufi thus think of the Trinity, And, at the clofe of all, This is the catholic faith^ which except a man believe faithfully., he cannot be faved.

Now what is the plain^ natural fignification of thefe words ? The common fenfe of the fubfcriber anfwers, " that you fhall perifh everlaftingly,** if you don't believe the Athanafian dodlrine of the Trinity, conceptis verbis.

*' No fuch thing, fays the Doflor, the words *' are not fixed and certain ; this is an unrea- " fonably rigorous fenfe of them.** — Well, what is then be done ? Will the learned Dodlor help us to a more commodious fenfe ? No, but he will tell you how you may help yourfelf to one. *' Let any man Ihow, fays he, what fenfe it " is mod reafonable to underftand them in ; " and the fame reafons (if good) fhall ferve to '* Ihow that that was the fenfe of the compiler.** We thank you, good Doftor, and will now make ufe of your expedient.

It is reafonable then to fuppofe, that a warm dogmatical man, heated by controverfy and op- f ofition, who was prcfuniptuous enough to lay

down

tss THE confessional;

down points of artificial Theology, as articles of faith, without any fupport from fcripture, might iiave the afTurance to conGgn all men to damna- tion, who did not believe his do(5lrines ; having probably no other way to procure them to be received.

" No, fays Dr. JVaterland, your rcafons are not ** good. The creed was written and received ** in an enlightened and knowing age, and confe- *' quently by a perfon of great accuracy and " folid judgment, who had his information from *^ fcripture ; and to whom no pafiion or pre- " judice ought to be imputed."

Be it fo J and let us go another way to work. The fenfe of this creed, and the fenfe of the Articles concerning the Trinity, is one and the fame ; and is a fixed and certain fenfe. May a man then disbelieve this fenfe ? or put a fenfe of his ozvn upon the creed or the articles, and noi perifli everlaftingly ? — If, yea, I doubt this/x(?i , ienfe, whatever it may be as to its catholicifmy will not turn out to be the true chriftian faith, on the belief of which the fcriptures fay, ever- iafting life doth abfolutely depend.

Dr. Waterland might rail agTi'mik prevaricationy as long, and as loudly as he pleafed ; but I am . very much miftaken, if he had not as much occa- fjori for it, as any of his opponents.

But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 157

But dodors differ -, and even fome of the or- thodox have refufed this gracious liberty of fub- fcribing the damnatory claufes, in a commodious fenfe.

Dr. Edmund Calamy, had faid, in one of his De- fences of moderate Nonconformity, " that though " the 8th Article intimates, that the Athana- *' fian creed ought thoroughly to be received, " yet it does not neceffarily follow, that it takes " in' the Appendages -, and I may thoroughly re- " ceive the fubftance of the creed, faid he, and " yet abhor the damnatory claufes.'*

" That is, replied Mr. johnfon ofCranhrook, *' by fubfcribingthe whole creed, I meant only the " 7mddley and not l>otb ends. And, by parity of " reafon, other men may fubfcribe to i?otb ends, " and not to the middle [T].'*

" Str&nge, fays Mr. Johnfon, that fuch men as ' **' "thefe, fliould make confcience of fubfcribing " the liturgy, when, upon fuch principles, they " may fubfcribe thfe Mafs-book."

1 am of opinion that this refledtion concerned Dr. Waterland as much within a trifle, as Dr. Calamy.

" I know, fays Dr. U^aterland, many have *' flrained the damnatory claufes ro an unreafon- " able rigour, on purpofe to difparage the " creed." — That is, many have affirmed that the fenfe of thefe claufes is z.% fixed, certain, and pofitive, as the fenfe of the creed itfelf. Mr.

[T] Clergyman's Vads Mecum. Vol ii. 121, 122.

Johnfin

15S THE CONFESLSIONAL.

John/on is one of theffe ; but had it been requir- ed, I would have been Mr. Johnfon's compurga- tor, that he had no purpofe to difparage the creed.

. 7o prove hiis doftrine of fxed and unfixed fenfes. Dr. IVaterland informs us, that " a dif- *^ tkidion fhould be made, between fuch Arti- " cles as being formed in general terms, leave .** a latitude for private opinions, and fuch as, " being otherwife formed, leave no fuch latU " tude[t7]."

Here the Doftor was called upon for his crite- ria, -by which fuch different formations might be dillinguifhed from each other ; " otherwife, his opponent infitted, the liberty might be extended to every propofition in each Article, which is ca- pable of feveral fenfes {JVy

To which the Do6lor replied, " Any certain *' indication of the impofers meaning, is a crite- '*' rion to fix the fenfe of a propofition. When •' there are neither plain words, nor any other " certain indication of the impofer's meaning, ** -the Article, fo far, is left at large, and the "point left undetermined [X]"

Surely this impfer cannot be the Bifhop wha takes the fubfcription : for every man may have a certain indication of the Bifhop's meaning before w^om he fubfcribes, if the Bifhop has the ufe of

ff/1 Cafe of Arian fubf. p. 39. 40. [/f] Cafe of Subfcription, p. 9. \X'\ Supplement, p. 30.

fpcech

THE CONFESSIONAL. 159

li)eech to convey it. The Do6tor too has ae- knowledged in this very pamphlet, that Bifliops, for ought he knows, may have no power to af- certain the fenfe of the Articles. Who or what then is this phantom of an impofer ? And whither mull we go for his meaning ?

"When Dr. ^^^^r/k?»^. allows, that there is a latitude left for private opinion in forac cafes, and when he fuppofes, that fome Articles are left at large, and fome points undetermined ; he fhould feem to mean,yi? left at large, andy^ un- determined, as to admit o^ diffe7'ent, and even co7t' tradi^iory opinions and fenfes.

For example, the opinions of the Arminiam and Cahinifis, concerning conditional and abfo- lute decrees, are contradictory opinions. If then both fubfcribethe feventeenth Article, and each in his own fenfe, they muft give it two inconfiftent ind contradiftory fenfes.

Again ; the opinions of Dr. fVaterland and Dr. Bennet, the one holding the procelTion of the Holy Spirit (propofed in the fifth Article) to be eternal^ the other, only temporal [T\ feem to be opinions flatly contradictory to each other. Would not Logicians fay, that to predicate finite and infinite of one and the fame fubjeft, is a contradiflion ? Moreover Dr. Waterland thought (and indeed fo think I) that the church has determined the point for him. Whereas Dr, Eenmt would not

\X\ CafeofArianSubf. p. 30.

allow.

i6o THE CONFESSIONAL.

allow, that the church had determined either way.

Would any man now fufped, that the Cahi- mjls and /Irmmians fubfcribed \.\\t feventeenth Ar- ticle -, and the Dodors Waterland and Bennet the' Jifth^ in one and the fame lenfe refpedtively ?

Yet this is what Dr. Waterland undertook to prove. " Both, fays he, fubfcribe to the fame " ^/fw^rfl/propofition, and both in the fame fenfe i •» only they differ in the ■particulars relating to *' It ', which is not differing (at least it nee» *' NOT be) about the fenfe of the Article, but " about particulars not contained in it.'*

He inftances in ihtfeventeenth Article. " Ima- *' crine the Article to be left in general term.s. " Both fides may fubfcribe to the fame general " propofition, and both in the fame fenfe ; " which fenfe reaches not to the particulars in " difpute. And if one believes predeftination " to be abfolute^ and the other conditionate^ thi-s " is not (on the prefent fuppofition) differing " about the fenie of the Article, but in their re- »* fpe6iive additions to it."

To this I anfv/er,

I. That in the prefent cafe thefe general terms, have f articular ideas fixed to them by the refpec- tive fubfcribers, and confequently, if thefe are different or opfofite ideas, the terms muft be iub- fcribed, in different or oppoftte fenfes : which, in this prefent cafe, reaches fo materially to the par- ticulars

THE CONFESSIONAL. i6i ticulars in difpute, that the Cahinijl has no idea of any predcjlination which is not abfolute.

2. Though this ingenious neutrality of thcj^- venteenth Article might fervc the turn of the Cal- vinijls and ArminianSi yet it cannot, upon Dr. JVaterland's principles, be applied to the differ- ence between Dr. IV. and Dr. Bennet. For here, according to one fide, the church hath deter- mined. Determined what ? Why concerning a particular not contained in the Article. For, ac- cording to Dr. Bennet., the church never once " adds the epithet eternal to the word procef- " fion.'* The church then, determines concern- ing terms not contained in the Article, as well as concerning thofe that are.

3. Upon this fcheme of unity Dr. Waterland and the Arians, fubfcribed in one and the fame fenfe. *' They all fubfcribed the fame general •' terms, which contain the fame general fenfe. *' They differed indeed about their refpedive ad- *' ditions to the fenfe of the Articles j but not a- " bout the fenfe of the Article itfelf.

No fuch thing, fays Dr. W. " The propofitions " concerning the H. Trinity, contained in our " public forms, are not general or indefinite, but " fpecial and determinate, in the very points in *' difference between Catholics and Arians, " ["^^2.] confubftantiality, coequality, coeternity, " &c. and that in as clear and f^rong words as *' any can be devifed."

M Wc

i62 THE CONFESSIONAL.

We Ihall fee in the next chapter, that fome of tht^e Jpecial and determinate propofitions concern- ing the Trinity, in our public forms, may beta- ken in /j«r different fenfes. In the mean time, fuffice it to obferve, that the Calvinifts are as pofitive for the fpecial and determinate fenfe of the Jfeventeenth Article, as this Doftor is for that of the Trinitarian forms. They tell you, that for the defcription of the fiate of a man, configned by a divine decree to an inevitable lot, exclufive of all conditions, no ftronger, clearer or more precife word can be devifed, than Predefiination : and that it is abfurd, and contradidory, to talk of divine decrees controulable by contingent conditions, which would make them to differ nothing from human decrees. And is there, in very deed, any greater abfurdity in qualifying the words confubjlan- tiality^ soequality^ &c. withfuch epithets, as fuppofe they need not be applied to different Beings, lb as to imply that thofe Beings are in all pofiTible re- fpeds abfolutely fuch ? If fuch qualification may

^ be admitted in any one refpe^, the propofitions

abovementioncd are not fpecial and deterniinate,

any more than the propofitions concerning Pre-

deftination.

Thus we fee. Dr. Waterland^ by opening a door

, for his own Arminian fubfcription, unwarily let in the Avians at the fame entrance, who would not be turned out, for all he could fay to them. And indeed, if there is prevarication on one fide,

, it cannot be helped j it is the fame cafe oh the

other.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 163

other. There mud be the fame latitude allowed to both, or to neithtr.

It is indeed furprizing that Dr. IVaterlancU who very well knew that fublcription to the Articles, is not a term of lay-communion, but of minifte- rial acceptance -, or, in other words, a condition upon which minifterial trufts and priviledges are conferred, fhould admit of the lead latitude in lubfcriptions. For what are thefe minifterial trufts ? Is not one of them a truft to preach the word of God, according to the interpretation of the church of £;/^/<2;7^, fpecified in the xxxix Ar- ticles ? If thefe interpretations are exhibited in thefe Articles in terms fo general, as to admit of different fenfes, how fliall any man be able to exe- cute this truft, till he fhall be informed which of thefe fenfes is the fpecific dodlrine of the church of England ? If the compilers of the Articles, on the other hand, intended that two men, might raife two different dodrines, from one and the fame propofition in the Articles, of what ufe was this teft ? Or where was the com.mon fenfe of e- ftablifhing it ? The truth of the cafe then, is juft as the Bifhop of Briftol ^ hath ftated it, in his noted fermon on fubfcriptions. " Every one,'* fays his Lordfhip, " who fubfcribes the Articles " of Religion, does thereby engage, not only *♦ not to difpute or contradidt them ; but his *' fubfcription amounts to an appprobation of, ** and an affent to the truth of the dodlrines *' therein contained, in the very fenfe [in] which

* Dr. Covyheare.

M 2 " the

1^4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' the compilers are fuppoled to have underftood '' them." And accordingly his Lordfhip, very confidently (mthwhatfolidiiy is another queftion), defends the church of England^ in the exercife of her right to obtrude her own interpretations of fcripture upon her Minifters, to the exclufion of all others.

The {launch champions of the church oi Eng- land know perfedlly well that this is a true re- prefentation, both of the original intention of the church, and the adtual intention of the law. And accordingly, forefeeing that it might beobjefted, that this power of fixing and obtruding her own interpretations of fcripture upon her fons, is ra- ther more than z.'protefiant church ought to pre- tend to, they have prepared an anfwer, which, upon the fuppofition of fuch a latitude, as is contended for, would be utterly impertinent.

Here, fay they, is no inqiufition^ no compulfion in the cafe. The church o^ England compels no man to fubfcribe. They may let it alone, if they pleafe. " All the bufinefs is, fays the merciful *' Dr. St ebbing^ we cannot admit you to the office *' of public teachers [Z].'* And a bad bufinefs enough of all confcience, if, by this non-admijjiony many an honeft pious and learned man is reduc- ed to ftarve : which has been the cafe with fome, and, but for this happy invention of a latitude^ would have been the cafe with with a great many more.

[Z] Rational inquiry, p. 39.

But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 165

But, by Dr. Stebhing^s leave, this is not all the bufinefs. For, when the church hath turned the poor man adrift, it may be, fome body might take him in, if he could but give a good reafon why he did not comply with the church. In thefe cafes, no reafon is comparable to the true one : which would be, that he could not in confcience fubfcribe the xxxix Articles, as he did not believe them to be agreeable to the word of God. But here the church lays her hands on hira with a vengeance. For by uttering an excufe to this ef- fedl, he incurrs excommunication ipfofa5lo\ that is (according to Lyndwood) nulla hominis miniflerio iniervenienie ♦, and is not to be reftored, but only by the Archbifliop.

By this excommunication, the courteous read- er may be pleafed to know, that no more happens to the unhappy mortal, than that he is deprived of the communion ; his perfon fequeftercd from the converfation andfociety of the faithful (mean- ing all who are not excommunicate) j and if his confcience fhould not become more traflablc within forty days, he may be committed to prifon by the King's writt de excommunicato capiendo^ — where he mufl lie and rot till he recants j for the Archbifhop himfelf cannot abfolve him, till after repentance and revocation of his wicked error.

All this while, the church of England compels no man to fubfcribe ! That is to fay, flie does not force the pen into his hand, and oblige him to fign his flame a coups de baton. But -- let us blefs God

for

i66 THE CONFESSIONAL.

for the lenity of the m'// Magiftrate ; *' who, as " the rev. Mr. Jortin obferves, is of excellent ufe " in preventing us from doing one another any '* bodily harm.** For, that the church o^ England is at all out of conceit with any part, either of her doftrine or difcipline, does by no means ap- pear by feme late public indications of her judg- ment herein [y^].

Thus (lands the real naked fact, and pityabic enough it is to make men glad of any fubter- fuores and expedients of latitude, even thofe nar- row ones of Dr. Waterlmid. Bur, alas ! we fee by the concefTions the Do6lor himfclf was oblig- ed to make, that we are of courfe brought back to the fingie fenfe of the compilers j the only fenfe indeed, elpoufed by, or legally authenticated in the church of England. An hard neceffity upon fo orthodox a fon of the church, either to be ob- liged to prevaricate with the naughty Arians^ or to be difowned by his venerable mother, as none of her legitimate offspring.

"Ifinllead of excufing a fraudulent fubfcri- " ption, fays the Dodor, on the foot of human ** infirmity, (which yet is too foft a name for it) " endeavours are ufed to defend it upon princi-

" pie, and to fupport it by rules of art j it concerns *' every honeft man to look about him. For '* what is fo vile and Ihameful but may be fet " off with falfe colours, and have a plaufible turn

\_A] See the convocation's Addrefs, 1754, where it is hinted,

that the church o/^England hath no equal.

" given

THE CONFESSIONAL. 167

** given it, by the help of quirks and and fubtiU *' ties [By*

I have the misfortune to think, that this wife refledlion concerned Dr. IVaterland^ no lefs than thofe for whofe more immediate ufe he intended it. All of them were made fore by fubfcription. All of them wanted, and all of them applied the plaifter of quirks and fiibtikies, in their turn.

A man of principle will never be driven to

make ufe of quirks and fubtilties, till he finds

himfelf bound to fome unreafonable and unright-

.eous conditions. And they who defire fuch

.quirks and fubtilties fhould not be made ufe of,

;.ihould he careful, not to lay fnares, or Humbling

blocks in the way of honeft men, that they may

be under no temptation to prevaricate.

A good and confcientious Chriftian in. matters of pra(5tice, can do little harm by his miftaken opinions. If they have no evil influence upon his own life and converfation, others cannot be far mifled by them. And it is a very poflible - cafe, that fuch a one may be a more edifying teacher, with refpedl to thofe points which are of the utmoft importance, and concerning which few men are liable to err, than he who is warm- ed with the moft fublimed fpirit of orthodoxy.

Let fuch a one alone to follow his confcience, and he will be fmcere, faithful and diligent in difpenfing the word of God, according to his befi: information. But if you have a mind to make a knave of him, you cannot take a more effectual

[£] Cafe, &c. p. 4.

M 4 method

i68 THE CONFESSIONAL.

method, than to contrive tefts for his difputabic opinions, with which he cannot comply without quirks and fubtilties ; and with which, if he does not comply, you deprive him of the means of getting his bread, in the only way he is quali- fied to earn it.

Upon the whole ; we have now feen that e- very fyftem of latitude is, in feme particular or other, exceptionable to every one, but the particular perfon who invents it for his own ufe. Jt is not polHble this fhould be the cafe, if the compilers of the Articles had really intended any latitude, or the laws concerning fubfcription had left room for it. Bifhop Burnet plainly faw that fubfcribers were bound to the fingle fenfe of the compilers before His Majefiy's Declaration was if- fued, which by the faid Bifhop, was underftood to admit of fubfcription in any literal and gram- matical fenfe, even though it fhould be different from, and even contradictory to another literal and grammatical fenfe.

But, fays Dr. fVaterland,.-^':' His [Majefty's] " order is, that every fubfcriber fubmit to the *' Article in the plain and full meaning thereof in " the literal and grammatical fenfe. What ? is •* the plain and full meaning, more than one mean- *' ing ? or is the one plain Z-ndfidl meaning, two **- contradiSlory meanings ? Could it be for the " Honour of the Article, or of the King to fay " this \ No — .'*

And

THE CONFESSIONAL. 169

And Co there's an end of Bifhop Burnetts feheme of Latitude, as it refts upon this Decla- ration. But then, Dr. PFaterland couM work ano- ther feheme out of it for his owji ufe, by making the plain and /«// meaning, to Cignify z general meaning, exclufive of all particular fenfes ; — . till, wanting to plague and ftarve the Arians^ he found out, that the fenfe of the Articles relating to the Trinity, was not general, but fpecial, parti- cular, and determinate.

If the fubjed: were not too ferious, one might find abundant matter of mirthful entertainment, in the quirks and fubtilties of thefe eminent Doc- tors. But fhouid we laugh at them, no doubt but we fliould be told, that we wounded the church and religion through their fides. We fhall therefore content ourlelves with recom- mending to them to confider, how far this ridi- culous felf-contradiding cafuiftry may have been inftrumental in giving diflTenters a contemptible opinion of our church and her difcipline, and in making our holy religion itfelf (though in reali- ty it has nothing to do, either with the cafuifls or the cafuiftry) the fport and fcorn of infidels.

I do not doubt, but fome perfons will be curi- ous know, how it was poffible for men fo fa- mous in their generation, who were fo learned, judicious, and penetrating in other things, and who all thought they were driving the fame nail, to be fo contradidory and inconfiftent, not only with each other, but even with thcmfelves ? Let

fuch

170 THE confessional;

fuch curious inquirers know then, that all thefe experienced workmen were endeavouring to re- pair, and dauh with untempered mortar, certain jirongholds and partition walls, which it was the defign of theGofpel to throw down and to leveK An attempt of this fort could hardly be more agreeable to the Divine will, than the building at Babel. And no marvel that the Crnftfmen fhould meet with the like fuccefs. That is to fay, that their language fliould be confounded, and ren- dered unintelligible both to each other, and to all "who are otherwife concerned to underftand it.

It is true thefe particular Doftors, are all gone off the ftage. But they have left plenty of dif- ciples behind them, who affed to fpeak the jar- gon of their refpedive matters. And it is cer- tain, that, while our fubfcriptions continue upon the prefent footing, there will be no end oi ac- cufing on one fide, or oi recriminating on the other. Let us, at length, come to fome temper with each other, and, if a form of words cannot be agreed upon, which every Chriftian minifler may fub- fcribe willingly, and with a good confcience, let us join in a petition to the legiflature, that the expedient propofed, not long ago, in one of our Monthly pamphlets, may receive the fanflion of law ; namely that the affair of fubfcription (hould henceforth be confidered in no other light, than as An Office of infurance for our refpeSiive prefer- ments>

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 171

CHAP. YI.

A particular Examination of the Sentiments and Reafonings of thofe Writers who have pleaded for a Latitude in fubfcribing to the Articles and Li- turgy of the Church of England, upon the Sup- pofuion that every Protejlant Church vtuff a3 confifiently with its profeffwg to ajfert and maintain Chrijlian Libertj.

I Am now entering, not without regret, upon the moft difagreeable part of my undertaking, namely, that of declaring, and giving reafons for my dilTatisfadion with fuch arguments, as the fons of truth and liberty have offered, by way of juftifying their compliance with the church in this demand of fubfcription to her Liturgy and Articles.

When we confider the irrefiflible force and perfpicuity of that reafoning, by which fome of thefe worthies (when debating the queftion con- cerning church-power in the abftrad) have de- monftrated the unreafonablenefs of that demand, as well as the inconfiftency of it with the pro- fefTions of every Proteftant church, one cannot but lament, that, to the laurels they gained in that difputation, they did not add the glory of becoming confeflbrs to their own principles, and of rather declining the affluence of a plentiful

income.

172 THE CONFESSIONAL.

income, or the figure of a fuperior flation, than accept of thefe emoluments on conditions, which muft have been impofed upon them with fome violence to their inclinations.

It is true, fome of thefe have faid, that " the ** reafonablenefs of conformity to the church of ** England is perfectly confiftent with the rights '* of private judgment [A\''* But they muft only mean, of their own private judgment. For it is well known, that others who diffent from the church of England, are clearly juftified in fuch diflent, upon thofe very principles which thefe tonfqrming writers have laid down ; and confe- quently, the nonconformity of the one is juft as reafonable as the conformity of the other. On the other hand, it is equally well known, that the moft eminent and fuccefsful defenders of our church-eftablifhment, are they who have attacked thefe principles of liberty, and have proceeded upon the fuppofition that the private judgment of individuals ought to give way to the authority of the church ; being well aware that, if thefe theories of Chriftian liberty are allowed to ftand upon a firm foundation, it would be impoffible to vindicate the church of England, with refpedt to the particulars of her conftitution. And there- fore I muft own, I never could fee how the au- thors and defenders of thefe theories could make their conformity confiftent with the enjoyment

[A] Dr. Sykes's Anfvver to Rogers's Vifible and Invifiblc Church of Chrift, p. 6.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 173

of their rights of private judgment, otherwife than by fuppofing that it might be reafonaUe for them to fubmit to conditions, \yhich it i^tiHrea- fonahle in the church to impofe.

In the mean time, their adverfaries have lono: and loudly accufed them of prevarication, in complying with the church ; which, whether the accufation be juft or not, has certainly taken much from the influence they might -have had, both with the true friends of Chriftian liberty, and the partial and prejudiced retainers to church power. On which account it has been a great misfortune to the prefent generation, and will be a greater to the next, that thefe gentlemen did not (land aloof a little longer, till they had tried at lead what concefllons the church would have made them, rather than have wanted their fer- vices, which, under all difadvantages, have been fo great an honour and an ornament to her.

What might not the firmnefs of an Hales and a Chillingworth formerly, or more lately of a Clarke or an Hoadley^ have obtained for us by this time ? Which of us all, abufed and vilified as thefe men have been, by bigots of different claf- fes, would have wiflied to have feen them in another communion ? And who is he that will affirm, the church eflabliflied has loft nothing bv depriving thefe champions of the power of add- ing to their viftories over the fpiritual tyranny of Rome, a complete and folid vindication of her own do<^rine, difcipline, and worfliip ?

But

174 THE CONFESSIONAL.

But that day is pad and gone beyond recall -, with this cold comfort indeed, that thei'e worthy men have left their principles to thofe among us, who are inclined to profit by them. From thefe principles, compared with their pradlice, we can- not but judge they were under fome fmall con- ftraint, touching the fubjedl now in hand. And if it fliould be found, upon a fair examination, that, for the fake of preferving the appearance of confiftency, they have fet their apologies for fub- fcribing in a light which has thrown back the real truth into (hade and obfcurity -, it is but juftice to bring it once more forward to public view •, if haply a circumftance in our difcipline, which has moreor lefs turned to our reproach withDiflenters of all denominations, may at length be either quite difcarded, or put into a condition fit to be owned by every honeft man and fmcere Proteftant among us. ^

1 he controverfy with Dr. Waterland, concern- ing what he thought fit to call Avian fubfcription, took its rife, it feems, from fome pafifages in Dr. darkens Introdudlion to his Scripture-do5frhie of ths Trinity, wherein that learned and excellent perfon (confcious that the contents of his book would hardly be thought to agree with the efta- blifhed forms of the church) thought proper to apprize his readers, that the church of England did not mean more by fubfcription, nor require more of fubfcribers, than that they fhould con- form their opinions to the true fenfe oi fcripture ;

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 175

the inveftigation of which fenfe, he fuppofes, was by the church left to the fubfcriber himfelf ; other- wife, that the church mufl be inconfiftent with her own plain and repeated declarations.

With Dr. Clarke therefore we fliall begin, the rather as Dr. Clarke's reafonings upon this fubjecft have prevailed with fome to comply with the church's fubfcription, who are now ready to own that they think thofe reafonings inrufficient for their juftification.

The Doctor's flate of the cafe then is briefly this : " At the Reformation, religion began to " recover in a great meafure, out of the great *' Apoftacy : when the dodlrine of Chrift and his " Apoftles was again declared to be the only rule *' of truth, in which were contained all things *' neceflary to faith and manners. And had that *' declaration conjiantly been adhered to, and human •* authority in matters of faith been difclaimed in ** DEEDS, as well as in words, there had been " pofilbly no more fchifms in the church of God, ** nor divifions of any confiderable moment a- " mong Proteftants. — But, though contentions ** and uncharitablenefs have prevailed in pradbice, " yet (thanks be to God) the root of unity hath *' continued amongft us ; and the fcripture hath *' univerfally been declared to be the only rule of " truth, a fufficient guide both in faith and prac- " tice ; and thofe who differ in opinion, have " done fo only becaufe each party has thought *' their own opinion founded in fcripture s and

" men

176 THE CONFESSIONAL.

*' men are required to receive things becaufe, '* and only becaufe, they are found (and confe- *' quently in no other fenfe than [that] wherein '* they arc found) in the holy fcriptures. Where- *' fore, in any queftion of controverfy concerning *' a matter of faith, Proteftants are obliged (for " the deciding of it) to have recourfe to no other *' authority whatfoever, but that of fcripture on- « ly [BV

This is fpeclous : And the time was, as I faid, when, by this deduction of particulars, the Dodor feemed to me to be fairly entitled to his confe- quence, which is, that a man may honeftly fub- fcribe the thirty- nine Articles of the church of England, accommodated to the fenfe of fcripture, as he himfelf underftands it. And certainly words and oaths cannot difclaim human authority in matters of faith, with more vehemence and precifion, whether on the part of the church, or fome of her mod eminent do6bors, than is done in the citations that follow this reprefennation.

But, upon having recourfe to thefe paflages upon a fecond occafion, a fudden queftion forced itfelf upon me, and would take no denial ; viz. How Hand the deeds in the church of England? Thefe words indeed are plain j but is there no- thins in the a5fs and deeds of this church, which implies that thefe are but words ? And are there

[5] Introduft. to Script. Doft. of the Trinity^ Ed. 2. p. viiiV ix, X.

THE CONFESSl6l?AL. 17;

no other words,' which diredlyunfay what is faid inthefe? Why yes. It will be found upon exa- mination, that the deeds of the church of Erig^ land are very plain and ftrongon the fide of hu- man authorityi difclaiming in their turn thefe' verbal declarations of the Proteftant religion, by many formal acts and ordinances, and contraveti"* ing them in fome inftances, where there feems to be Tome Outward refpedl paid to them.

Men, it is true, are required to receive things for' no ot\\QV-giv€n caufe, and upon no other de- dared authority, than becaufe they are found in ibripture, arid in no other fenfe but that in which they arc /aid to he fo found. But, in fa^, we are allowed to receive thefe things in no other fenfe, than that in which the church declares flye hath found them herfelf ; which is fometimes a fenfe, that the perfon obliged to receive it is noc able to find, jet him fearch for it with ever io much capacity and diligence. So that though Proteftants are obliged by their original 'princi- ples to adhere to no other authority whatever than that of the fcripture -, yet, by coming under pojlerior engagenrients and flipulations with the. church of England by law eftabliflied, and parti- cularly by acknowledging that this church hath authority in controverjies of faith^ they are obliged to take her interpretations of fcripture, not only in preference to, but in exclufion of their own.

Dr. Waterland indeed fays, " that no man is *' required by the church to fubfcribe [that is, to

N " receive

178 THE CONFESSIONAL.

** receive things] againft his confcience, or in 3 *' fenfe which he thinks not agreeable to fcri- « pture [C].'*

That is to fay, if a man cannot bring himfelf to fubfcribe in the church's fenfe, as thinking that fenfe not agreeable to fcripture, he may let fubfcribing alone, without any cenfure or puniflv- m?nt.

But Dr. Waterland knew very well, and fo did Dr. Clarke too, that fuch a one refufing to fub- fcribe, or to receive things in the church's fenfe, would be underftood, in that inftance, to decline any engagements with the church, and, in fo do- ing, to. forfeit all the advantages that would have accrued from his compliance ; which may hap- pen, to be his whole livelihood.

Dr. Waterhnd could not mean,, that the church cenfures no man for fubfcribing in a fenfe which he thinks agreeable to fcripture, but contrary to the church's fenfe. For he himfelf hath (hewn the contrary, efpecially where fuch fubfcriber avows his own fenfe. And, with refped: to other cafes, the Doflor obferves very pertinently, that " The connivance and toleration of fuperiors at *' offences does not take away the guilt of fuch " offences [D]." The prefcribed form of fub- fcription plainly fuppofes the man who fets his name to it, to fubfcribe in the church's fenfe.

[C] Cafe, p. 16.

[D] Cafe, p. 44.

And

THE CONFESSIONAL, ifg And what occafion or what room have fuperiors either to exerciie or declare any cenfures, when the fubfcriber figns his name quietly and peace- ably to the prelcribed form, without faying a fyllable againft it ?

Dr. Clarke fays, " If tradition, cudom, care- " leifnefs, or miftake, have put a fenfe upon hu- *' man forms, difagreeable to fcripture, a man is " indifpenfibly bound not to underftand or re- " ceive them in that fenfe [£].'*

That is, indifpenfably bound in confdence. True. But if that miffaken fenfe is not barely put there by a private and miftaken man, but bound upon, and incorporated with the human form, by pub- lic authority, this not tmderjianding zV, or not re^ ceiving it,, will juft amount to not Jubfcrihing it.

" The church," faith the Doftor, " hath no " kgiflative authority [F]." We agree to this likewife. Bifhop Hoadley^ and before him St. Paul, have proved it beyond the poiTibility of an anfwer. But, in this cafe of fubfcription, the queftion is not what power the church hath of right, but what power fhe exercifes. It is very poflible for a man to wave or to give up his rights, whether civil or religious, to an ufurped authority.

" Every man," faith Dr. Clarh, " that for the ** fake of peace and order \let me add, or for a

[£] Introduft. p. xxiii.

[F ] Apud Cafe of Arian Subfaiption, p. 2 1 .

N 2 " main-

,So THE CONFESSIONAL.

" maintenance] affents to, or makes ufe of hu-" *' man forms, is obliged to reconcile and under- " ftand them in fuch a fenfe only as appears ta " him to be confident with the doctrine of fcri- " pture •, othervvife he parts with his Chriftianity, " for the fake of a civil and political religion'*

The Doctor means, obliged in confcience, and as a Prote^ant. But, fuppofe he cannot reconcile and underftand thefe human forms in fuch fenfe only^ or even at all^ (which is not an impodible cafe) ; what is he obliged to then ? — May not fuch a man, as the cafe is here put, he obliged fo to underftand, reconcile, and aflent to Pope Pius's creed, or a chapter in the Koran^ upon the fame confiderations ?

But the true cafe is really this : Proteftant churches ought not to employ human powers to eftablifli religion upon civil and political princi- ples, nor ought confcientious Chriftians to receive their religion fo eftablifhed. But, if Proteftant churches, fo called, have done this, and approved by deeds what they have difclaimed in words, they have left the confiflent. Chriftian no option, but either to comply v/ith thofe churches upon civil and political principles, or to decline all do£lrinal connexion with them.

. To what Dr. Clarke fays {Introdu5l. p. xvii.) concerning the declarations of the church in the

[G] Cafe of Ar, Subfcription, p. 23.

fixth,

THE CONFESSIONAL. i8i

fixth, twentieth, and twenty-firft Articles, as giv- ing countenance to his fcheme of fubfcription ; Dr. IVaterland anfwers, " That thefe declarations " amount to no more, than that nothing is to be " received, but what is agreeable to fcripture. " And for this very reafon the church requires " fubfcription in her own fenfe, becaiife (lie judges *' no other fenfe to be agreeable to fcripture \_ti\" This Is indeed giving the church but a very indifferent charafter, reprefenting her as infinuat- hig one thing, and meaning another. But, if it is a true charafler, who can help it ? The church, perhaps, might fuppofe, that the fcripture could never be more accurately interpreted, than fhe had interpreted it in her iVrticles. Be that how it would, her own interpretation of it in thefe Articles, is the only one fhe admits of, exclufive of all other fenfes. And therefore Dr. Waterlani is fairly entitled to his conclufion, " If any judge " that the church's own fenfe is not agreeable " to fcripture, let them not fubfcribe.'*

*' When in the public forms," fays Dr. Clarke^ " there be (as there generally are) expreffions which, at firft fight, look different ways, it can- " not be but men muft be allowed to interpret " what is obfcure, by that which feems to them " more plain and fcriptural [/]•'*

[H] Q^itoiArian Subfcription, p. Z5. [/] Ibid, p. 26.

N 3 Another

i82 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Another advocate on the fame fide exprefleth this matter thus : " Unlefs this hbei-ty be allowed'* (/. e. the liberty of fubfcribing the Articles in any fenfe the words will bear, and in which they may be reconciled to (the fuhfcribers own fenfe of) fcripture, and to the other authorized forms of the church) ''nobody can fubfcribe the Arti- *' cles, Creeds, and Liturgy of the church of " hnglar.d, at all ; there are feveral things in thefe *' forms, which, if taken in the moft obvious fenfe, " contradict one another [/vj."

No matter for that, if you fubfcribe them they muft be fo taken. For who can give you the liberty you defire ? Not the Bifnops, nor even the Legiflature without a new law ; and then furely no private man has the power to take this liberty of himfelf. *' No man, fays Phikleutherus, ^' without this liberty can fubfcribe our public *' forms." Without what liberty .? Why the li- berty of reconciling contradi^ions. Did Philcku- therus confider to what this liberty may amount? What is there that, with this liberty^ a man cannot fubfcribe .^ Might not the moft crude fyftein of Paganifm be m^ade good Chriftian divinity, by putting a Isfs obvious fenfe upon it ?

Let us fee how Dr. Waterland provides againft this inconvenience. " Sometimes, fays he, (in ** our public forms) the Father is filled only God\ oftener all three. Sometimes two of the perfons ^re introduced, in a fubordination of order to the

\K'\ Eflay on impofing, &c. by Phiklmtheriu Cantahrigien' ^-% F- 4-5-

4 ">/.

THE CONFESSIONAL. ^83

*'^firji. At other times, their perfedl equality of " nature'* (which, by the way, excludes all forts and degrees of fubordination, ior fubordination of order, is nonfenf^) " is as fully and clearly pro- « fefled [L]."

Thefe, I fuppofe, are the contradi^ions and ohfarrkies, or feme of them, obje6led by Dr. Clarke, and Phileleutherus. But Dr. IVatcrland will have it, that all here is eafy and confident •, *' be- ** caufe what goes before or after them, and other " palTages in our public forms, reqt.ii re that " they fhould be confifienty In confequence of which. Dr. Waterland is for putting a lefs obvious fenfe upon thofe paflages which feem, citfirji Jjghty to contravene a perfect equality in the Godhead.

Would this ridiculous fophiftry oi Waterland'' Sy have gone down v^ith Dr. Clarke and his party ? By no means. And yet they proceed upon the fame principle, when they would put a lefs obvious fenfe upon the paflages which affirm a ferfeci equality:, namely, becaufe the plain fcriptural doc- trine oi a fubordination of nature^ requires this lefs obvious fenfe X.0 be put upon thofe paflages, that all may be clear and conftjlent.

But who fees not that all thefe feveral fenfes are eflabliihed in our public forms ? Who fees not that, in the eye of the law, and in the inten- tion of the church, every fubfcriber fubfcribes to them all? And confequently, that in fubfcribirig. Dr. Waterland was an Arian, and Dr. Clarke an

\L\ Waterland' $ Cafe, &c. p. 30, 31.

N 4 Athanafian

iS4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Athanafian as often as they received thefe inconr iiftent forms, refpeflively, by lubfcribing them.

In one word, all Dr. C/^^ry^^-'j arguments that I have feen, tend only to prove, that in truth, and reafon, and common jufbice, and common fenfe, ftich and fuch things ought not to have been im- pofed upon Chriftians in proteftant churches : which he and others have done with all poffible precifion and perfpicuity. But, not one of them hath been able to (hew, that fuch things are not impofed. Dr. Clarke^ indeed, has as good as coq- feUed the faft, in the long pafiage 1 have cited from his Introdu^ion. And hath more than fup- pofed it, in the fiiggeftions at the end of his book, concerning the expediency of a Review of our ecclefiaftical forms. For if all thefe liberties in ajjenting to 2,nA fuhfcrihing thefe forms are givep, and may be honcftly and ccr.fcieniloujly taken, the occafion for a Reviezv^ or, in other words, for al- tering thefe forms, cannot be fo very preffing as he would reprefent it,

The next advocate for this liberty and latitude in our fubfcriptions, is the acute writer of, 'The ' Cafe cf fuhfcripiicn^ &c. in anfwer to Dr. Water- land's Cafe oi Arian fubfcription [MJ. But as this Gentleman argues chiefly from Dr. IVater- Und's concefTions, and from that in particular which imports that fome of the Articles are left indeterminate, there is not much in his pamphlet which has not already fallen^ under our notice.

[i">/] CommoKiy fuppofed to be Dr. Syk^s,

Some

THE CONFESSIONAL. 1S5

Some things, however, deferve our farther con- fh.leration.

The firft remarkable occurrence in this per- formance, is the great flrcfs that is laid upon King Charles I's Declaration, which gave the la- titudinarian fubfcribers the firft hint o^ general ^ literal, and grammatical fenfes. It has been proved before, that this refcript is of no manner of vali- dity. But fuppofe it, for the prefent, to have the validity of a royal Declaration ? What would be its operation ? Juft the fame with that of King James lid's Declaration for liberty of Confcience : which went upon the pretence, that there was a power in. the Crown to difpenfe with the Statute- Law of the land. The xxxix Articles in Charles Vs time had as ftrong a ftatute on their fide, as any of thofe which excluded Papifts from offices of truft or power in the reign of James II. The title of thefe Articles was recognized in the A6t of the i3i:h of Elizabeth. And that title fet forth, that they were agreed upon for the preventing di- verfitics of opinions, and confequently, for the pre- venting of z\\ge7teral, literal, or grammatical {enCeSy which admitted diverfities of opinions. King Charles's Declaration then, which is underftood to have introduced thefe fenfes, and thereby to have allowed of diverfities of opinions, was juft as fubverjivc of the ecclejtajiical, as King Jameses was of the civil conftitution. I have indeed faid elfe- where, that I do not underftand the Declaration before the Articles in this light. ' I offer this

therefore

i86 THE CONFESSIONAL.

therefore only as an argument ad hominem, which might have put this ingenious perfon to Tome trouble to vindicate his revolution-principles, of which he v/as known to be a flrenuous and fuc- cefsful afiertor.

What he fays from Fuller''s Church-Hiftory of Britain^ is fomething (and but very little) more confiderable. It concerns Rogers's Expofition of the xxxix Articles. " Some Proteftants, accor- *' ding to Fuller, conceived it prefumption for '^ any private minifter, to make himfelf the mouth *' of the church, to render her fenfe in matters *' of fo high concernment. Others were ofFend- ■^^ ed, that he \^Rogers'\ confined the charitable *' latitude, formerly allowed in thefe Articles ; " the compofers whereof, providently forefeeing '^^ differences of opinions, purpofely couched the ^^ Articles in general terms, &c. [A^]-**

Now, I would defire to know what there is m this cenfiire extraordinary ? or what there is in it that affeds Rogers^s Expofition, more than the fcntiments of particular readers affeft any other new book that is publifhed ? and particu- larly, any expofition of thefe Articles ?

BiOiop Burnet^ in the Hiftory of his own times, gives us an account, of the ill reception his Ex- pofition met with among fome Qhmch-oi- England

[iV] Cafeoffuhfcr. occajioned, &c. p. 14. See this fancy of Dr. Fullers efFedually overthrown in a pamphlet intituled, ^^- marki on the re^o. Dr. Powell's fertnon in defence of fubfcriptions, p. 46. e. q. s. printed for Millar 1758.

men.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 187

men, and records an attempt to cenfure it even in the Convocation, particularly becaufe of his aflerting, that men might fubfcribe the Articles in any literal or grammatical fenfe the virords would bear.

Would the author of the Cafe allow thefe cen- fures to be a good argument, that the compofers of the Articles intended no latitude ? Or would he allow them, without fome farther circumftance of proof, to invalidate His Majejly's Declaration^ under the wing of which the Bifhop afierts this latitude?

If not, what proof can he draw from Fuller's hiftorical account of a matter of fa6l, that Ro- gers was in the wrong, and that the compofers of the Articles did really intend a latitude ?

Probably it will be faid, that the cenfurers of Rogers'" s book, living nearer the times of the com- pofers than Biflibp Burnet's opponents, had a better opportunity to know whether they intend- ed a latitude or not. But to this it would be fufEcient to anfwer, that Rogers himfelf, living nearer thofe times, than either Bifhop Burnet^ or even Ftdler himfelf, muft be better acquainted with the minds of the compofers, than either of thefe hiftorians ; and full as well as any of his cenfurers. So that from this kind of prefumptive reafoning no truth arifes, either on the one fide or the other.

If we go farther into particulars, Rogers has greatly the advantage of all that come after him, in point of authority. His book was de- dicated to Archbifhop Bamrofty whofe chaplain

he

i88 THE confessional;

he was -, and bears in the front of it, a teftimony, that it was perufed, and, by the lawful authority of the church of England, allowed to be public [0],

[O] Both they who faid in Fuller's days, that Rogers made himfelf the mouth of the Church as a frinjate minifier, and they who, in thefe later times, have denied that the faid Ro- gers had the authority he pretends to in his title-page, were miftaken. The appointed licenfers of books, at that time, were the chaplains of the Archbiihop oi Canterbury, and the Bifliop of London, and fometimes of other Bifhops. Rogers was chaplain to Archbifhop Bancroft, and as fuch had (what was then efteemed a hrnvful) authority to give books their pafTporrto the prefs. But to have given a formal imprimatur in his own name, to his own book, would have had an odd ap- pearance. He therefore chcfe to fignify the approbation of bis book in the manner he has done. And as there can be no doubt but he took Bancroft's fenfe of the matter for his rule, he certainly had the authority of the church of England for publifhing his book ; and became the mouth of the church, upon the ftrength of that authority ; and did not make himfdf the mouth of the church, as a private initiljler. On the other hand, Bilhop Burnet, who had the private concurrence and en- couragement of Archbifhop Tennifon and feveral others of the bench, declares that his expofjtion was not a ivori of authority ; nor do any of the reft who have written upon the fubjeft pre- tend to it, except Welchman, and he indeed brings an Imprima- tur from a Deputy Vicechancellor of Oxford, who certainly was noi the mouth of the church. '^"'^ ^°°^ ^^ Rogers's then is the only authoritati've expofition we have of the articles ; though Wekhmatis is the book in vogue for the examination of candidates, and hath paffed through no lefs than ten editions, fix Latin, and/c«r Englilh, and all with confiderable variations "from Rogers, particularly in the article oifcripture proofs, feme of which in V/elchman, are fomething worfe than nothing to the purpofe. And as to the other explanations and authorities that Welchman brings, it is remarkable that he is ten times piore refriaive, with refped to a particular determinate fenfe,

" That

THE CONFESSIONAL. 189

*' That in our Articles, fays this writer, a la- *' titLide was ciefigned to be given to, and there- '* fore may be taken by the fubfcriber, is no new '* opinion, or of nine or ten years (landing only, •* is evident [O]."

That the opinion is not new, Is indeed evident from Fuller. But opinion is one thing, znd fa^ is another. That fuch latitude was really defigned, never has been, nor ever can be proved. It was Dr. fFaierland's opinion, with refped: to the calvi- niftical Articles. But this very Author of the Cafe, hath, in anfwer to fFaterknd*s Supplement, made it fufficiently evident, that the Do6lor's opi- nion was groundlefs. And if fo, theDoflor might €ffe<5iually have turned the tables upon him, with refpedl to the Articles concerning the Trinity, in iome of which the compilers of 1562, have taken away the little appearance of latitude there was in the Articles of K. Edward [^].

This opinion of a latitude intended to be given to fubfcribers of the Articles is indeed only mat- ter of oral tradition, bred out of the diftrefs ot fome particular perfons, who defired to keep a good confcience, and not to part with a good be- nefice. One would think, by Fuller's manner of rcprefenting the cenfures upon Rogers, that there

than Rogers himfelf. And therefore though the fathers of our church do not chufe to own Wekhman, othervvifa than by ^^\t fraclice ; the very ufe they make of him fliews, that they are by no means in love with a laxity of interpretation.

[?] C^ occafioned, &c. p. 14.

[^] See Remarks on Po'wdTi ferraon, p. 5 r .

had

i^o THE CONFESSIONAL.

had been a cloud of witneffes for this intended la- titude. But when he had occafion to defend his pofition, he could name only King James^ who had no better proof of it than another man ; 'viz. the occafion he had for this hypothefis when he was veering about to the Arminians,

Nothing is more evident, in the ecclefiaftical hiftories of thofe times, than that Qiieen Eliza- beth's Bifhops, either had no notion that latitude and toleration were Gofpel-privileges, or an utter averfion to fuch notion, as fchifmatical and puri- tanical. Their own hardships under Queen Mary had taught them very little compaffion for dif- fenters, when the rod of corredion came into their own hands, though honeft Fuller wduld have had it believed, that it was a confideration of this fort, that brought forth this difcrete laxity in wording the Articles •, in which there is juft as much truth, as there is common fenfe in his fup- pofing them to have fredifcovered the diffenfions, that would happen in the church an hundred years after they were dead.

But the ingenious author of the Cafe^ befides bringing thefe authorities, bethinks himfelf of pleading for this latitude from the reafon of the thing.

" He that compofes a form of words, fays he, " either fo inaccurately, or fo defignedlyy as that the " propofitions contained in them, in the ufual " literal conftrudion, may or do fignify differ- " ent things, has no reafon to complain of pre-

" varication,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 191

*' varication, if men of very different notions u- " nice in fubfcribing fuch form."

But the church denies that this is her cafe. She declares her articles were not y^i compofed, cither infixcumtdy or de/tgnedly. The fallacy of this reafoning confifts in the Csfiiijl^s fuppofing, that the ufual literal conftru<5lion of words is not always the fame. When the church fct forth thefe forms of words, the ufual, literal conftrudion of them was but one. If time, and the mutability of language, have given room for another' ufual, literal conftru(5tion of thefe words, or forms, the church cannot help that, becaufe flie could not forefee it. They who underftand both conftruc- tions (as all fcholars do) know very well, that the old one is the church's conilruflion 5 and therefore, they who put the «^wconftru£lion upon the church's dd words, or forms,— /i^f)-, I fay, and not the compilers of the Articles, are the in- accurate perfons, and, as fuch, are jutily com- plained oi iov prevaricating. And indeed all the lubfcquent fophiftry of this writer turns upon what he calls, the natural and proper fignification of words. Natural and proper, with refped to the fignification of fuch words in modern iifagc^ were, he well knows, though he chufes to dif- femble it, unnatural and improper, m the year 1562.

.Let us now take a view of another fincere friend to religious liberty, v^ho wrote a pam- phlet, much efteemed, in the year 1719, under the name of Phikkutherm Cantahrigic7:JiSi intituled

192 THE COiVFESSIONAL.

An ejfay on impofing and fuhjcrthing Articles of Re- ligion.

This vefy fenfible writer begins with making allowances for an (humanly) eftabHflied authoi- rity in matters ecclefiaftical. (And by the way^ makes a great many more allowances than he ought to have made [R\) After which he infifts, that, " no Articles, as a Role and Standard of *' doiflrinal preaching, ought to be impofed, be- " caufe of the great danger that the right of ** Chriftians to private judgment incurrs by fuch " impofition j'* notwithflanding which, be is of opinion, that, "/tr the fake of peace ^ a man may " fubmit to an ufurpation upon this right, pro- " vided he believes what is contained in the Ar- " tides."

When he comes to explain what he means by believing what is contained in the Articles, it ap- pears to be, " believing them in any lenfe the " words will admit of." In confequence of which, he takes fome pains to fhew, that " thefe " Articles may be fubfcribed (and confequently *' believed) by a Sahellian, an orthodox Trinita^ " rian (whofe opinion he calls nonfenfe), a Tri^ " tbeiji, and an Avian fo called."

One would wonder what idea this writer had of peace, when he fuppofed it might be kept by the ad: of fubfcription, among men of thefe different judgments. Why might not the fame

[R] See Jn Apology for a Protcjiant DtJJetit^ printed for ISurne 17559 ?• 28, 29.

men.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 19^

nien, with equal fafety to the peace of the church, fubfcribe four feveral forms of wofds, each ex- prefling his own fyftem clearly and explicitly, as fubfcribe the fame form of words, in foUr ditFer- ent fenfes ?

But did this Gentleman, in good earnefl:, be- lieve, that the compilers of the Articles intended to make room for thefe four feveral fenfes ? I will anfwer for him — He did not believe it. We all know, by the title of the Articles, and he knew it as well as any of us, that the fenfe of the compilers was but one fenfe, and that fenfe being bound upon the fubfcriber by law, it is plain that three of the fenfes abovemenrioned are excluded^ both in the intention of the compilers, and by the tenor of the law which eftablifhes the Arti- cles, and ihjoins fubfcription to them.

Let us now look back to his principles. Why ought not fuch Articles to be impofed upon Chriftian Preachers, as a tefl ? He does not, in- deed, anfwer this queftion in plain terms ; but his principles lead us to a very juft and proper anfwer to it ; namely, becaufe the fubje6l of preaching in a Chriftian Church, is the Gofpel of Chrifl:, over which no human power can have any controul, or exercife any^ without incurring the guilt of fetting up another Gofpel, under an- other authority, diftinc^l from his, who hath de- clared himfelfto be the one Mafter to whom all Chriftians ought to fubmit. Would this Gentle- man have aflertcd totidsra verbis^ that we may give

O ug

194 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tp our Chriftian liberty to thofp who ufurp the province of Chrifl: ? He makes ufe, indeed, of the word ufurpation, but he refers it only to the Tight of private judgment^ and of this right or /;'- htrty^ he makes little doubt, but a man may ^ bridge him/elf ^ P- 33- , But upon what is this right founded ? Is it not folely npon thofe principles of the Gofpel, that Chrift is King in his own Kingdom ? That he is the only Lord and Mafter in matters pertaining to confciencc ? And ca,n any man give way to an ufurpation of that authority, which Chrift claims folely to himfelf, without revolting from his allegiance, and fubmitting to an ufurper of his Kingdom ?

Here let us ftop. There is no occafion ta proceed a ftep further, or to enquire upon what notions of latitude in the Articles the EJfayer eould reconcile his fubfcription to then> with his obligations to Jland faji in the liberty wherewith Chn?c hath made him free. Upon which fubjeft he hath indeed brought no more than hath been anfwered already.

There is yet another writer upon this fubjefl, of the fame complexion, who muft not be wholly paffed by, as he hath been at the pains to fum up the whole merits of this cafe in a few Words [S].

[5] In a pamphlet Intituled, The external Peace of the Church only attciinable by a Zeal for Scripture in its jujl Lati- tude, i 7 1 6, printed for Bchr.

« If,"

a

THE CONFESSIONAL. 195

** If," fays he, " we confider oUrfelves as ** members of the church of England^ we are not *' obliged to an uniformity of opinion."

In other words, the church of England^ as fuch, hath no uniform do5irine -, which, whatever the matter of faft may be, the church, I appre- hend, will not take for a compliment. But this idle notion being built entirely on His Majejly^s Declaration, falls to the ground along with that. He goes on :

" If the Legiflature do not think fit to deter- " mine in what particular fenfe the fubfcriber *' fhall give his afTent, it is very poflible and well " known^ that perfons of quite oppofite opinions ** may and do fubfcribe."

Hath the legiflature then determined, that men may fubfcribe the Articles in oppofite fenfes ? No. If nor, then hath the legiQature deter- mined any thing about articles and fubfcriptions ? Yes, it hath determined that the xxxix Articles fliall be fubfcribed, for the purpofe of avoiding diverfities of opinions. The legiHature then hath determined that the Articles fliall be fub- fcribed only in one fenfe refpeftively •, and that is, in the molt obvious fenfe of each Article.

** The fenfe," faith this author, " which fuch " as require fubfcriptions accept and taleratCy is " to be the rule of fubfcription."

This matter is put in a wrong light. It is the

Law, and tkc Law only, which requireth fub-

O 2 fcription j

196 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fcription •, and " requiretb that it fhould be made " before the Ordinary, that is, in the prefence *' of the perfon who inftitutes. The Ordinary *' is not bound to offer the Articles to be fub- " fcribed ; but the Clerk himfelf is bound to " offer to fubfcribe them ; and he mull fublcribe " without any rcferve, exception, or qualifica- " tion [r J."

1 he canonical fubfcription is indeed another affair, of which there is no prefent occafion to fay any thing, as the queftion here is only concerning fubfcription, as enjoined by the legiQature. And enough has been faid of this to refute our author's fancy about accepting and tolerating fenfes.

The author concludes thus : " Since the church *' therefore accepts and tolerates contrary opinions, " 'lis plain the church does not conceive identity '"• of opinion nccedary to her tranquillity."

The church, as we have {ctn, accepts or tole- rates nothing, but what the Law allows her to accept and tolerate: which is juft the reverfe of contrary opinions. The notion indeed is abfurd, even fo far as there is any colour to apply it to ihe church. If the church accepts and tolerates, fhe likewife efpoufes and maintains contrary opini- ons. For the perfons, vvhofe contrary opinions fiie accepts and tolerates, do, by this very ad of fubfcription, become part of the body of the church herfelf, and molt commonly are the very

[T] Vadt Mecum, p. 79. under Jnjiitution,

mouth

THE CONFESSIONAL. 197

mouth of the church ; and retail their contrary epinions to the public, by the very authority which the church gives them. Is not this to lift the church off her ancient foundations ? Or rather is it not to own the juftice of that reproach, " That *' the church of England^ properly fo called, is " not now exifting [U ] ?"

There were feveral others of this way of think- ing, who bore a part in this controverfy, but, as they all went into the church at the fame door which Dr. Clarke had opened for them, and be- lieved, or pretended to believe, the proteftations of the church, againft the matter of fafl, we meet with nothing in their refpedtive fyftems of latitude, which hath not already been obviated. And, the matter of fad being fo plain and in-

\U ] See a pamphlet intituled, Ohfera/ations upon the Conduct of the Clergy in relation to the thirty-nine Articles. " Thefe " ftridliires of Religion," fays this excellent writer, (meaning the thirty-nine Articles) " are either a rule of teaching in " this church, or they are not a rule. If they are not a rule, ** what conlHtutes the church of England? If they be a rule " and a ftandard, where muft be grounded the authority of " modern teaching, which is not only not agreeable to thefe " Articles, but abfolutely a contrary fyftem ? In cafe, by any " afcer-lights, a clergyman finds caufe to change his fublcribing ** opinion (a right I fhall not difpute), and goes into different " fchemei, why is not fuch difagreement vyich his rule publicly " acknowledged, and the people af vertifed of the difference ? " This myftery of the pulpit appears to me unfair with refpect *' to the people. They have no fixed fight of their minifler's " fcheme. They can have no feairity, no dependance upon f him, in c.ny dodrinal point whatfoever.'' Pag. 2,3.

O 3 difputable.

198 THE CONFESSIONAL.

difputable, it is to little purpofe to argue the matter of ri^^/, upon the original Proteftant prin- ciple ', as if that principle was (till allowed to have its uncontrouled operation in the matter of fubfcription to the Articles, We frankly allow that every Proteftant, as fuch, has a right to deny his aflent to, or approbation of, any doftrinc, which he himfelf conceives to be contrary to the fcriptures. But the moment he fits down to fubfcribe the xxxix Articles, circumftanced and conditioned as that fubfcription now is, he fits down to fign away this right (as rnuch as in hini lies), and to transfer it to the church. The church, indeed, does not in fo many words re- quire him to fubfcribe to any thing which is con- trary or even difagreealU to the fcripture. But the church, by obtaining that fubfcription froni him, takes the interpretation of fcripture out of his hands. It is the church, and the church on- ly, tliat finds therein^ and -proves thereby^ the pro- pofitions to be fubfcribed. And if a man flioulcj after that pretend to interpofe his own judgment in contradidion to the z\\\xx^^ findings and ■prov- ingSi the church, with the help of the ftate, would foon fliew him his miftake v by virtue of that /llliance^ the original inftrument of which hath been fo happily difcovered and commented upon by a great Genius of our own times. The church of England " tells mankind indeed, they fhall ** judge for themfelves. But if they who take

" her

THE CONFESSIONAL. 199

*' her word, do not think and judge as fhe docs, " they fhall fuffer for it, and be turned out of the " houfe.** To prove the equity of which pro- ceeding (equity and utility, in this author's idea, being the fame thing) is the laudable pur- pofe of this famous new-found alliance.

There is yet one writer behind, who hath offered a plea for liberty and latitude in fubfcrib- ing the Articles, of a different complexion from the reft. The writer I mean is Dr. Clayton^ the late worthy Bilhop of Clogher in Ireland, and au- thor of the EJfay on Spirit^ who, in his Dedica- tion of that learned work, hath taken this matter oi fiibfcription into particular confideration.

Bifhop Conybeare had obferved, in his fermon on the Cafe of Siibfcription, that the xxxix Arti- cles are not to be confidered as Articles of Peace, but of Do<51:rine, as the very title denotes, which is, for avoiding diverjities of opinions, and for efiaUifhing confent touching true religion. And from this cir- cumftance his Lordfhip inferred, and very juftly, '* that every man's fubfcription amounts to an *' approbation of, and an affent to, the truth of " the doftrine therein contained, in the very *' fenfe in which the compilers thereof are fup- " pofed to have underftood them.'*

Now, the right reverend Eifayift tells us his cafe was this : " Being a clergyman, he had fub- " fcribed the Articles pretty early in life, and *' probably in the fenfe in which the compilers ♦* underftood them. But finding reafons after- O 4 " wards

200 THE CONFESSIONAL, " wards to difagree with his former opinions, he ^' laboured under fome difficulties how to direct " himfelf in thefe circumftances.'*

Had BiQiop Conybeare been confulted upori thefe difficulties, there is little doubt but he would have anfwered, that this change of opi- nions in the Eflayift was virtually difclaiming his fubfcription, which let hirn into his fundlion ; 4nd, as he now no longer complied with the con- ditions required by the church of all her minifters, an obligation teemed to lay upon him to refign his preferments in the church.

To avoid this confequence, Bifliop Clayton was inclined to confider thefe Articles not as Articles of do6lrine, but as Articles of peace. " As I ap- " prehend,-' fays he, '* that the church oi Ireland ^' does not fet up for infallibility, 1 do not think " (he requireth any other kind of fubfcription " than fuch as is neceffary for peace-fake.'*

What the lav^s of fubfcription are in Ireland, 1 know not •, but if his Lordfhip formed his judgment only on the circumftance of the church of Ireland/s difclaiming infallibility, I fanpy the f afe may be much the fame there, as in our own country -, where, though we are not infallible^ we are alivays in the right. His apprehenjions, there- fore, of ecclefiaftical moderation, in the one coun- try or the other, will go but a little way towards fettling the debatable point between the EfTayift and Bifhop Conybeare^ which, refting upon a mat- ter

THE CONFESSIONAL. 201

ter of fad, muft be determined by fuitable evi- dence.

" I apprehend," fays Dr. Clayton^ " any at- ^' tempt towards avoiding diverfity of opinion, *' not only to be an ufelefs, but an impradticable ^' fcheme.'* In which I entirely agree with him. But what then ? It adlually was the attempt ot pur firfl: Reformers, and is llill the fcheme of the churches of England and Ireland.

" Ido not only doubt," continues he, "whether ^^ the compilers of the Articles, but even whe- ^' ther any two thinking men ever agreed exaftly ^' in their opinion, not only with regard to all the " Articles, but even with regard to any one of *' them.'*

The prefumptive proof is very ftrong, that Cranmer was the fole compiler of K. Edward's Articles. The alterations and corredions of 1562, are well known to be in Parker's hand, who, though he might make a fhew of confult- ing his brethren, moft probably gave them to underftand at the fame time, that the Articles were to pafs as they were then fettled ^. Think- ers in thofe days, any more than in our own,

* The Irijh Articles were different from tliofe of the church pf England, till the year 1634, " when, by the ponuer of the " Lord Deputy Went^vorth, znd. the dexterity of Bifhop Bram- " hal, the Jrilh articles were repealed in a full convocation, *^ and thofe of England authorized in the place thereof." Hey- lins Hiilory of the Prefbyterians, p. 395.

were

202 THE confessional;

were not very common ; and perhaps not haljf a dozen of thofeto whom they were communicated, or who fubfcribed them, confidered how far they differed from each other, or fufpeded that they differed at all. They received them implicitly, as hundreds do to this hour : and confequently in the fenfe of the compiler or compilers. They tranfmitted them to pofterity juft as they received them-, and juft fo were they bound upon pofte- rity by law. The inutility, therefore, and the impraftibility of an uniformity of opinion, where men are difpofed to think for themfelves, is inr- deed an unanfwerable argument why fucH Arti- cles Jhould never be impofed, but will afford no proof that our xxxix Articles are not impofed with this particular view.

But though the right reverend Author of the EJf(iy thinks thus of our Articles, and of the fub- fcribers to them, he feems to think it expedient that there ftiould be fome fuch fyftem of doc- trines, not indeed as a teft of opinions^ but of frofejfion. I fay, he feems to think fo. But let the reader judge from his own words.

*' An uniformity of profeffion," fays he, " may " indeed be both pra6ticable and ufeful ; and " feems, in fome degree, to be neceffary, not only ** for the prefervation of peace, but alfo for the " general good and welfare of fociety."

His Lordfhip muft mean, an uniform'tty of pro- felTion with relped to thofe things, concerning which the belief or perfuafion of the feveral pro-

fejfors

THE CONFESSIONAL. 203

fejfors may be different and multiform. Otherwife the propofition is not of fufficient importance to require, or indeed to deferve, a formal argument to fupport it. For who ever doubted but that, in matters of religion, a man both ufefully may and reafonably ought to profefs what he be- lieves ?

By religion I mean the Chriftian religion. Rut to believe one thing, and to profefs another, the Chriftian religion calls hypocrify^ and under that name feverely cenfures and condemns it. Hy- pocrify, indeed, may fervc the turn of a parti- cular clafs of men in fociety, who have views and interefts diftindl from the general good and welfare of the whole. But how this grand ene- my to truth and virtue fhould contribute either to the peace of, or be otherwife ufeful or whole- fome to, fociety in general, is a myftery that will require fome elucidation.

" I do not conceive," fays this ingenious Pre- late, " how any fociety or commonwealth can " fubfift, unlefs fome form of religion or other ^' be eftablifhed therein, as well with regard to " dodlrine as difcipline ; which [points of doc- " trine] however ought to be as plain, few, and ^' fundamental as poflible."

Forms of difcipline are not, indeed, now at ifllie •, but are however neceffary to be taken in- to the account. And as St. Paul thought, that men might lead quiet and peaceable lives^ in all godlincfs and hGneJiy, under proper fubjedioa

10,

204 T H E C O N F E S S I O N AL;

to, and coercion of the civil magiftrate, I do not fee that I fliould be afhamed to think fo too. And this point being fettled, how the fubfiftencc of any fociety or republic Ihould depend upon the eftablifhment of do^rinal forms of religion, is juft as difficult for me to conceive, as it was to the learned Prelate to conceive the contrary

That his Lordfhip meant fome human form of religion, is evident from his adding, that the points of do^lrine in fuch form, fhould be as -plain, few, and fundamental as pojjihle. But, for my part, 1 cannot fee why eftablifhing the fcriptures fhould not anfwer all the ends of civil fociety, in this -refpe5i, as well as any other forms. When you have made a proper provifion for the external de- portment of men, as fubjed:s to the ftate, by a wholefome and righteous civil inftitute, it remains only that their religious manners, fentiments,

{JV\ " With regard to the fafety of the government from ** perfons difapproving the communion of the church, that *' point the Prince only has to do with, and the Legiflature. *' In cafe a tell can be found, of a fecular kind, adequate to '* that purpofe, as certainly there may, to draw religious con- '' tioverfies into the queftion, is altogether foreign. This lat- ♦' ter makes ths fafety propofed by it (if I am not miftaken) " not fo properly the fafety of the Prince or Monarchy \_one " fiiay add likcvjifcy of the ilate],as l\\e fafety of the Clergy and *' Hierarchy, in their authority and acquifitions. Otherwife " the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance would be fufHcient. " 'Tis the only teft the occafion naturally calls for." Sea- orave's Qhforvatlons ojz the Conduit of the Clergy in rel^,io,n to the thirty nine Articles, p. 45, 4,6.

and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 205

and difpofitions fhould be formed by the rules, precepts, and dodrines of the word of God. But this being a matter rather oi perfonal than of public concern, muft be left to the men them- felves, if we would have the work done with its proper influence and effed. Whatever appear- ances of fandlity, devorion, and Chriftian virtue, external forms and ordinances may produce in public, it is but fo much hypocrify, if a real principle of religion is not in the hearts of the feveral individuals ; and how this principle fhould be planted in the heart, rather by human forms, than by the genuine fcriptures, no mortal can tell. From what I have feen of human forms, I will venture to fay, that points of Chriftian doc- trine cannot be made plainer in them, than they are already in the fcriptures ; and fewer or lefs fundamental they ought not to be made.

But, to come a little nearer the point in hand : The Bifhop doubts, as we have feen, " whether " any two thinking men ever agreed exatStly in " opinion with regard ta any one of our xxxix *' Articles." And he who doubts this can hardly fuppofe that any form of doftrine can be drawn np in human language, confifting of points fo plain, few, and fundamental, as that all, or even a majority, of thofe for whofe ufe they are in- tended, fhall perfedly agree in them. The Bi- fhop will fay, there is no occafion they fhould, becaufe uniformly of profcffion is all that he wants to have ellablifhed. But, if fo, why will not

our

io6 THE COtSFFESSIONAL.

our prefcnt Articles, why indeed will not thti Articles of ^rent, do as well as any other for the purpofe ? He that profeffes to believe points of dodtrine which he does not believe, be they ever io plain, few, ov fundamental, in the apprehenfion of the eftablilhers, is jufl: as much an hypocrite, as if fuch forms were ftuffed with ever fo many impertinences, or even falfities.

The ufe of religion to fociety, I apprehend to bcj that men having in their hearts the fear of God and of his judgments, may be reftrained from evil, and encouraged to be virtuous, in fuch inftances as are beyond the reach of human laws. Points ofdotlrine thereforcj eflablifhed for the public good of fociety, muft have this ufe of relu gion for their object. But if a man difbelieves in his heart, what he profeffes with his tongue or with his pen, religion, as fuch, has no hold of him in that inftance, and fociety has no more benefit from his prof effwn, than if fuch points of do^rine had not been cftablifhed.

Again. To make uniformity of religious pro- fefTion necefTary, in any degree, for the iubfiftence of the commonweath, it muft be necefTary that the points to be profeffed, be eftabliihed upon exdufive conditions. And this extending, in our author's plan, both to dodrine and difclpline, will leave no room for dilTenters in either. For every difienter breaks in upon the fcheme of uni- formity, and conlequenrly on the peace and wcl* fare which this uniformity is intended to main- tain.

JHE CONFESSIONAL. 207

tairi. This, at once, demoliflies all thofe fyftems of Government which tolerate doftrines and dif- ciplines, contrary to the eftablilhed forms. Whereas, experience has taught us, that thofe commonwealths have always been either thefreeft from religious feuds, or the leaft incommoded by them, which have tolerated dijfferent fedls with the greateft latitude, and appropriated the feweft emoluments to one.

If the queftion fhould be afked, why a com- monwealth, or a ftate, cannot fubfift in peace and welfare without fome eftablifhed form of religi* on ? the anfwer to be expeded from his Lord- fhip would be, that except men were uniform in their profeffion of religion, there could be no- thing in a ftate but difcord and confufion. And yet his Lordfhip fays, " if men were not to fpeak " their minds in fpite of eftablifhments (that is •' to fay, openly profefs things contrary to eftahlijh- •' ments)y truth would foon be banifhed from «' the earth."

Does not this plainly imply, that eftablifli- ments banifh truth from the earth, in the fame proportion* as they anfwer the ends of peace and. welfare to the civil community ? Or, how could worfe evils refult from mens fpeaking their minds, when they were under no reftraints from efta- blifhments, than now, that they take that liberty in fpite of them ?

The Defender of the effay on/pirit. Is difpleafed with fomcbody for fuggefting that his client ought to have been againft all religious eftablifti-

ments.

2oS THE CONFESSIONAL;

ments, which however is true enough, if thefc abovemendoned are the efFeds of them. True Religion never can fubfift, whatever may be- come of civil communities, upon the bafis of hypocrlfy ; or where men are obliged to profefs one thing, and allowed to believe another. And if the rule of true religion be taken from the Chrif- tian fcriptures, the temporal peace and fafety of any Chriftian, in civil fociety, is but a fecondary confideration, to the obligation he is under ta hold fad his integrity, in truth znt^Jincerity.

The reafon given, why human eftabliOiments with regard to religion are neceflary, is, " that " the welfare and fupportof fociety is fo founded ** by the great Author of Nature^ on the bafis of " religion, that it is impoQible to feparate the " one from the other •, and, of confequence, the " eilablidiment of the one will neceflarily re- " quire the eftablifliment of the other [^J."

The meaning of which, at the bottom, is only this, that human laws reach the exigencies of ci- vil fociety fo imperfe£lly, that, unlefs the influence of religion is connected with them, the vyelfare and peace of civil fociety cannot be fupported/ Which, I apprehend, no body will deny.

But then, as this plan of civil Government is delineated by the great Author of Nature^ ic will be necefiary to take his dire6lions in the exe- cution of it; if any fach directions may be con:>e at. And if no fuch dirediv.ns are to be found,

[A] Defence of the ,E^ <?/;^^;>;V, p. 2.

it

THE CONFESSIONAL. 209

it is doubtful, whether the plan itfelf, authorized by the great Author of Nature^ may be found.

The fophifm here turns upon the word efia- hlijhment. Religion may be faid to bc^ ejlallijhed^ when it is received and profefTed by individuals, upon the fole authority of divine revelation. Civil fociety can only be eftabiifhed by human Laws and ordinances, at leaft as this author conceives, and as, for the prefent, I am willing to granc. If then the cftablifhment of religion by divine reve- lation, is fufficient to anfwer the purpofes of civil fociety, the purpofes of the great Author cfNaturCy in creating this connection, are anfwered at the fame time ; and with any farther eftablifhment of religion, human laws have nothing to do. "Whether they have or not ? is thequcftion. And hereupon, the writer of the Letter to the Bijhop of Clogher, very pertinently alks, H^'ho is the judge ? That is to fay, who is the judge, how far it may be necefiary tocflablifh religion by human laws ?

To this the Defender anfwers without hefita- tion, " The fame Icgiflative powers, which efta- *' bliili the one, have a right to eftablifli the o- *' ther ; and to chufe that religion which they " think to be belt [rj."

Where it muft be fuppofed, that the great Author of Nature hath left it as free for Magi - ftrates, and LegiOators, to eftabliih by human Laws, what dottriics or modes of religion they

[r] Defence of the Ejja;^ on fpirit, p. 3.

P ' chufe,

2IO THE CONFESSIONAL.

chufe, or find expedient for fecular utility ; as it is for them to chufe what modes of civil fociet/ they find convenient. Which indeed is to fup- pofe, that there never was any authentic revela- tion of true religion in the world. For as furely as God has revealed true religion, fo furely has he inhibited Magiftrates, and all others from eftablifhing any thing contrary to it, or deviating from it.

But by what is faid in the Dedication prefixed to the ejfay onfpirit^ the Defender^ mod likely, would confine this right of the legiflative powers, to the inforcing of an Uniformity of Profejfion on-

ly-

But it has been fliewn above, that in this view, the eftablifhment of religion will afford no aid to civil laws ; in as much as he who profefles one thing, and believes another, will derive none of that influence from his profeffwn, which is necef- fary to fupply the unavoidable defedls of civil ordinances. Not to mention, that if the great Anther of Nature founded the welfare and fupport of fociety, on no flirer bafis of religion than this, it hardly feems worthy of his infinite wifdom to have interpofed in this matter at all.

But indeed, both the wifdom and goodnefs of our benevolent Creator are moft ungracioufly mifreprefented by this author. Upon his prin- ciples, whatever right Chriftlan Legiflators have to eftablifh what religion they chufe for the beji, the the fame had the Pagan Legiflators. Suppofe

thefe

tH£: CONFESSIONAL. 211 thefe then to have extended their eftablilhment no farther than to an uniformity of Profejfon^ what were St. Paul's converts to do ? were they to com- ply with the modes of the times, and profefs themfelves idolaters ? This the Apoftle prohibits in exprels terms ; and herein ventures to counter- adl this right of the civil legiflative powers. And no doubt upon good authoi'ity. f When we apply this theory of religious efta- blifhments to our own circumftances, the cafe will ftand thus. Our legiflative powers have a fight to eftablifh human forrhs of religion, fo far at lead as to require uniformity of profeflion. This right they have exercifed, and this rioht they have from the great Author cf 'Nature. The confequence is, that all Diifenuers fro/n thefe efta- bliflied forms, that is, all who difclaim the//-^- fejfion, as well as the belief oi them, are hot only offenders againfl civil peace and order, but wick- ed oppoicrs of the authority of God himfelf. This indeed has been charged upon them by our zealous church-men-orialifts with all freedom. The civil powers have however granted them a toleration^ which we may be fure they would not have done, unlefs they had entertained more qua- lified fentiments concerning their cion rights ; as well as more accurate conceptions of the welfare and fupport of fociety, than this Defender of the EJ/ay on Sjirit exhibits.

But to conclude this chapter. There is one

particular weaknefs and want of forecall, com-

P 2 mon

212 THE CONFESSIONAL.

mon to all thefe pleaders for latitude. If you take their feveral fchemes, as they are founded upon the church's declarations, nothing can be more righteous or reafonable than to comply with the terms prefcribed by the church ; and then, ferfeSily conjljlent is the reafonablenefs of conformity, with the rights of private judgment. But go back to their principles of Chriftian Liberty, on which they oppofe the Advocates for Church-authority, and you will find there is nothing more incon- fiftent with thofe principles, than the Authority which the church of England adtually claims and exercifes.

The high Churchmen, Rogers, Stebbing, Hare, Waterland, Potter, Snape, and their retainers, claim no privileges for the Church of England, which ihe does not actually enjoy, nor any powers which (he does not adlually exercife. Their proofs are accordingly direfted to (hew, that flie rightly enjoys and exercifes thefe privileges and powers.

When therefore their opponents had fhewn, that the church had no fuch privileges or powers of right -, confiftency required that they ihould have withdrawn from a church, which ufurped an authority that did not belong to her, and to have born their teftimony againft her in deeds, as well as words.

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 213

♦CHAP. VII.

An attempt to dif cover whence the pra5ltce offuhfcrib- ing the xxxix Articles in different fenfes, was de- rived ; mid by what fort of cafuijls, and what fort of reafoning it was firji propagated^ and has been fine e efpoufed,

IT is a fa(5l in which our hiftorical writers of all parries agree, that, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and for fome part of the reign oiY^m^James I. there was no difference between the epifcopal churchmen, and the puritans, in matters of doSirine. The Contefts between the BilTiops and the Puritans of thofe times concern- ing fubfcription, arofe from thofe articles which ailerted the powers of an epifcopal Hierarchy, and an authority to prefcribe and injoin rites and ceremonies. To thefe forms of Church Go- vernment the Puritans had, as they thought, un- anfwerable objedions ; and therefore would never fubfcribe thofe articles, which approved them, without exceptions and limitations.

The Parliament of 1572, feems to have thought thefe objeftions of the Puritans reafonable ; and accordingly in the A6t of that year, injoining fub- fcription, thofe Articles are required to be fub- fcribe d, which only concern the confeffion of the trite faiths and the facraments. And when Archbilhop Parker took upon him to expoftulate with fome members of the Houfe of Commons, for leaving P 3 out

2U THE CONFESSIONAL.

out the refiy he was anfwered, " that they were *' not fatisfied concerning their agreement with « the Word of God [yi]."

The Bi(hops however, who were the perfons appointed by law, to take the fecuriiy of fubfcri- ption from the candidates for ihe miniftry, art- fully found the means of evading this modera- tion of the Parliament, by making^ertain canons, in confcquence of which, fubfcription was exad- ed to all the Articles without exception. Thefe canons are to be found in Sparrow's coiledlion, under the title oi Liber quormdam canonum, anno

The Queen, it feems, (for what reafon does not appear) could not be prevailed with to ratify thefe canons in form •, and they were framed likewife, and made public without the royal licenfe^ requi- fjte in fuch cafes. 1 hey had however her Ma-

[A] Strype^s Life oi Parker, p. 394. See alfo Selden^s Table- talk.

[5] That is, according to the ecclefiaftical computation ; but they weie not publifhed till after the aft was part. In the firfl of thtie Canons, fubfciiption is injoined in thefe words, ita tamen ut fu}fcribant articulis Chrifiiana religioniiy puhlice in ffnodo approbaiis, Jidemque dent, fe 'velle iuer: ei defendere Doc- TRINAM EAM, QUAE IN ILLIS CONTINETUR, Ut COnfentien-

iijjimatn imtati n^erbi di-vini ; which feems to be much the fame with the fubfcription injoined by the Aft. But under the title, Concionatores, the Candidate is to confirm, by his fub- fcription, the Book of Common- prayer, and the Book of Ordina' tioK, Sec. And upon this iiijunftion 'were modelled four ar- ticles, called in thofe days, Jhe Bijhofs Articles, the three firft of which were much the fame with thofe in our 36^1 Canon.

jefly's

THE CONFESSIONAL. 215

jefty's 'verbal approbation, or rather perhaps her connivance \ with which, by the wa7, Grindal then Archbifhop of Tork^ was by no means fatisfied, and very probably, never ventured to carry them into execution within his own Diocefe [C].

The Puritans oppofed this fubfcription with all their might. None of them, that I can find, refufed to fubfcribe according to A£l of ParJia- . ment ; that is to fay, to fubfcribe the doElrinal and facramental articles. They, among them, who fubfcribed them <?//, never omitted to make fome exception, or proteftation,wich refpecltothe articles which concerned church-government or difcipline. Where this was not allowed, they re- fufed to fubfcribe at all, and chofe rather to un- dergo what the Bilhops thought fit to inflicfl upon them. I fay thought fit ; for, certain it is, that the faid Bilhops, had then no legal authority to filence, imprifon, or deprive, as they did, great numbers of thofe who refufed to fubfcribe their articles.

Thefe fads are fufficiently proved by Mr. Pierce^ in his vindication of the Dijfenters. For the prefen^ however, I chufe to appeal to a tefti- mony lefs exceptionable to churchmen, 1 mean Thomas Rogers., in the dedication of his expofuion of the xxxix Articles to Archbifhop Bancroft^ publifhed 1607. Where, though he extolls the Bifhops, and reviles the Puritans with themoft ab- jedl fycophantry, he hath neverthelefs reprefented

[C] See Sirypes Life oi Parker, p. 332,

P 4 . the

2i6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

the matter fo, as to (hew, with fufficient perfpi- cuity, that the Puritans might, wich great truth and propriety, have laid to Elizabeth^ what the Hebiew officers pleaded to Pharaoh^ Exod. v. 1 6. Behold thy fervants are beaten, but the fault is in thine oiv-n people.

Upon the accefljon of James, things went on pretty much in the fame way, till after the Hamp- ton-Court-Conference, and the pubHcation of the Canons of 1604. When, as we are informed by Rogers, certain of the brethren, meaning the Pu- ritans, refufed to fubfcribe, not only to the Fiier- archical Articles, but to the reft likewife, " be- ** caufe the purpofe or intention of the church, *' if not her doflrine were fomewhat varied, [from ^* what they were in time of Queen Elizabeth,] m *' proof of which they alledged the late book of "Canons, the book of Conference, (meaning '* Biftiop Barlow's account of the Conference at " Hampton-Court) and fome fpeeches of men in *^ great place, and others [P]."

1 do not remember to have feen any mention tnade of this fcruple of the Puritans, in any other hiftory or account of thofe tim^es ; and as it is the firft inftance of their refufing to fubfcribe the do5irinal articles of the church, it may be worth the while to look a little farther into it, and to find out, if we can, the nature and caufe of this new fcruple,

[Z)] See Rogers's Dedication, Seft. 34, 35.

Rogers's

THE CONFESSIONAL. 217

Rogers wifely fays nothing to the particulars of this objedion -, that is, nothing of the Canons^ or the paflages in \\\q book of conference, which had given offence. He was writing a fulfome dedieation to Bancroft, the father of all this new mifchief. To have entered into the merits of the complaint, might have difturbed his patron. We are obliged to him indeed, that he would mention this matter at all ; and cannot but do him the juftice to acknowledge, that he hath ac- quitted himfelf of the difficulty upon his hands by a very dextrous quibble ; 'uiz. " that the *' words of the articles being ftill the fame, the *' dodrine, purpofe, and intention of the church *' muft be the fame likewife." And if the Puri- tans would not be impofed on by this fophifm, it was none of his fault.

But to come to the point. The regal fupre- macy, as extended to ecclefiaftical matters, and efpecially in the hands of a woman, was an eye- fore from the beginning to the Puritans, as well as to the Papifts. This obliged Parkei\ in re- viewing Edward's Articles in 1562, to add a pretty long explanation, to the article concern- ing the Civil Magijirate, importing, " that the " miniftring either of God's word, or of the fa- *' craments were not given to our Prince, — but " only that prerogative which we fee to have ** been given always, to all godly Princes in the " holy fcriptures, by God himfelf j" meaning the godly Princes of Judah and Ifrael, Article thirty- ieven.

4 With

218 THE CONFESSIONAL.

With this explanation the Puritans had reafon to be (and probably were) fatisfied. When the Kings of Ifrael and Judah interfered with the facred office of the Priefthood, farther than they were warranted by the law of Mofes, they ceafed to be godly Princes ; and fo long as our own Princes kept themfelves within the like bounds, their fupremacy was liable to no abufe. Should it prove other wife, the Puri- tans had no objedlrion to the doclrine of refin- ance ; or the lawfulnefs of transferring dominion from ungodly Princes to the pious and ele5i.

But thefe doflrines James could by no means relifh. He knew not ,in what light he might fland with his people in procefs of time. If in the light of a reprobate, here was a door left open for transferring his crown to a better man.

Bancroft therefore took care to falve this mat^ ter in the canon which enjoined fubfcription, by adding to the authority of the godly Kings ir^ fcripture> that of the Chrijlian Emperors in the primitive church, godly or ungodly ; and at the fame time veiling James with the fupremacy iq ALL caufes ectlefiallical and civil [£j.

{E] See Canon ii, xxxvi. and Iv. The Article to be fub- fcribed to, concerning the Queen's [E/izahth't] fupremacy, in the injuntTiion appealed to in our thirty-feventh Article, was thus worded : " The Qnecn's Majefty is the chief Governour, •' next under Chrift, oi this church of England, as well in ecr " clefiaftical as civil caufes." Which may be compared with the firft of the three Articles, enjoined to be fubfcribed by ouy thirty-fixth Canon.

This

THE CONFESSIONAL. 219

This alteration put matters upon a very differ- ent footing, and made no fmall variation in the doflrine of the church. It is but dipping into the imperial law, wherever it opens at an ecclefi- altical cafe, to be convinced, that the Chrijlian Emperors far outftripped the Jewifli Kings, in the powers they claimed and ex ecifed over the church [F]. But,

2. The pafiage in the Book of Conference, which gave offence, was chiefly this. In the fixteenth Article of our church it is faid, that after we have received the Holy Ghoft we may fall from grace. Dr, Reynolds imagined this might feem to crofs the do6lrine of Predejlination, unlefs fome fuch words were added z.s,yet neither totally, nor finally, which he defired might be done by way of explanation. He likewife defired that the nine Lambeth Arti- cles, drawn up by Whitgift, might be inferted in the book of Articles.

Dr. Bancroft was highly provoked at this, and obferved, *' that very many in thofe days, neg- *' leiling holinefs of life, prefumed too much on " perfifting in grace; laying all their religion on " Predeftination ; if I fhall be faved, I fJoall be ^^ faved: which he termed a defperate dodrine, " fhewing it to be contrary to good divinity, and - *' the true dodtrine of Predejiination ', wherein we

[F'] They who choofe not^o turn over voluminous codes of the imperial law, may find what is here advanced tolerably well made out in Father Paul's Hiftory of Beneficiary Matters.

« fhould

220 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" fliould rather reafon afcendendo^ \J^2iwdefcendenh^ •' thus, / live in obedience to God, in lo^e "joith my •* yteighhour ; / follow my vocation^ &c. therefore I •' fruji God hath ele^ied me, and pred^jiinated me to ^'^ fahation^ Not thus, which is the ufual courfe •' of argument, God hath predejlinated me to life; " therefore, thotigh I Jin never fa grievoujly, yet I ^•'^ Jhall not he damned ; for whom he loveth, he lov^ •* eth tO' the end. Whereupon, he Ihewed his •* Majefly, out of the next article, what was the ** do<5lrine of the church of England touching •' Predeflination, in the very laft paragraph ; •* namely, we muft receive God*s promifes in " fuch wife, as they be generally fet forth to us *' in the holy fcriptures ; and, in our doings, that *' will of God is to be followed, which we have " exprefsly declared unto us in the word of God" [G].

The Bifhop was much in the right, to fhew his Majefty only iht very laji paragraph of the fe- venteenth Article. Had he turned the King*s attention to the foregoing paragraphs, his Maje- fly would have feen, that his learned harangue was rank Arminianifm, and a flat contradiflion to the faid Article ; which aftually argues, as the Bifliop termed it, dejcendendo ; inferring the walk-

[G] Phcenixy vol. I. p. 151.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 221

ing religioufly in good works, and attmmng to ever^ lofting felicity, from previous predejlination \_H].

When it came to the royal moderator's turn to determine this matter between the two parties, he contented himfelf with fhuffling it off as well as he could. He chofe not to difoblige the Bi- fhops ; and yet in his own opinions was a rigid Calvinift, at this period at leaft. But however, as he began with approving very well what Ban- croft fhewed him in the laft paragraph of the Article, it is probable that this, and his refufing to admit the Lambeth Articles into the public confefiion, might be among the fpeeches of fome great oneSy from which the Puritans concluded, that the purpofe and intention, if not the do^rine

[H ] A certain pamphleteer, having objeQed to the EngHfh Clergy, that they fubfcribed Articles which they did not be« lieve ; Dr. George Fothergiil of Oxford undertook their defence, in the poftfcript or appendix to a F^-fermon preached before that univerfity, February 17, 1758. His aim is to flievv, that the Articles are not Calviniftical ; and one of his arguments is the " non-acquiefcence of the Calvinifts in the prefent fet of " Articles, and their repeated attempts either to get them •' worded more ftridly, or to have others fuperadclcd more de« *' terminate in their favour." It is plain he had this motion of Dr. Reynoldi in his eye, and probably took the hint from Heylin and Montague^ whom he refers to, without knowing, or perhaps caring to know, how thefe writers had been refuted by Carleton, Hickman, and others. It appears, however, that the feventeenth Article afferts Calviniftical Prcdeftination defcendenda in pofitive terms, and is fo far, according to Bancroft, falie di-, vinity. And, if the very lafl; paragraph is Jrmiman, what will Dr. Fothergiil get by Ihewing that he and his brethren fubfcribe ex animo to contradiflions ?

of

222 THE gonfessional;

of the church, had varied from what it had been.

And let me remark, that thefe fame Puritans, in refiifing to fubfcribe the do5irinal Articles, when they iaw this inclination in the Biihops to put a new conftruftion upon them, feem to have underftood the nature of the cafe much better than our modern fubfcribers. What the Bifhops then aimed at (and what their fuccefTors have jhce accomplifhed), was to bring men to a fimple implicit fubfcription, without any referve or li- mitation whatever. The Puritans had all along fubfcribed the Articles with various protefls and exceptions againfl: thofe which related to difcipline. And thefe exceptions the Bifhops, in fome cafes at leaft, admitted. The do^rinal Articles were fubfcribed by all parties without rtferve •, becaufe the opinions of all parties were tolerably uniform with refpeft to the fubjefl- matter of them. But now the cafe was altered. This variation in the purpofe and intention of the church, made it unfafe for the Puritans to fubfcribe the doflrinal Articles implicitly, or without referve. They did not think, as the generality of fubfcribers feem to think now, that they might be allowed to abound in their own fenfe, in what form foever they fubfcribed. They were wifer. 1 hey knew that the Bifhops, taking upon them to interpret the Articles, in the manner Bancroft had done at the Conference, would put what conftrudion they

pleafed

THE CONFESSIONAL. 2^3

pleafed upon their fubfcription, againft which they had found by experience, all their fubfequent re- monftrances would fignify nothing. They knew, in fhort, the Bidiops had fupprefTed the protella- tions they had made with refped: to the difcipli* narian Articles, and proceeded againft them as revolters, and as though they had fubfcribed all the Articles implicitly. And therefore they wifely avoided the fnare, and kept themfelves out of their power [/].

It does not appear, however, that Archbifhop Bancroft made any farther attempt to introduce Arminianilm into the church. And one pretty clear proof that he did not, is that he authorifsd Rogers^s Expofition in the year 1607 ; which, as a very competent judge obferves, went upon the Cahiniftical frame [X"]. The reafon, probably, was, that he found the King not fufficiently pli- able to come into his notions. Dodrinal matters, therefore, continued ftill upon the old foundation, notwithftanding the fufpicions of the Puritans, till Bancroft's death, which happened in the year 1610.

He was fucceeded by George Ahhot^ a man of a very different character in all refpefls.

The next year, 161 1, happened the ruffle be- tween James I. and the States of Holland^ con-

[/] See Viexct's Vindication, p. 109, 1 10. [AT J Hickman's Animadverfions on Heylin's Quinq. Hift, p. 2lg.

cernins

224 THE confessional;

cerning Vorjliusy who was called by the Univer- fity of Ltfden to fucceed Arminius^ as their Divi- nity-profefTor. The King's remonftrances againft this promotion proving incffedual, his Majefty thought proper to attempt the confutation of Vorfitus's book de Deo, in a formal controverfial writing ♦, in which he calls " Arminius a feditious " and heretical preacher, an infedor of Leydm ** with herefy, and an enemy of God •, and with- «« al, he complains of his hard hap, not to hear "of him before he was dead ; and that all the " Reformed churches in Germany had with open «' mouth complained of him [L].

{f] See //"-arr/jV Hift. and Critical Accountof the Life and Writings of James I. p. 124. Dr. Harris fays, ** James is *' faid to have been excited to declare againft Vorfims by Abbots ** archbilhop of Canterbury ; and it is not unb'kely. Moft of ** the ecclefiallics of that time abounded with a fiery zeal, which *' frequently hurried them into aflions not to be juftified." p.

119. This information comes, it feems, from La Roche,

Abridgment, vol. I. p. 31 8. but, I apprehend, without the leaft good authority. Fuller fays not a word of Abbotts being con- cerned in this matter. And Heylin makes no remark upon his filence, which, attached as he was to the opinions of Forfiiust and rancoroufly difaifeded to Abbot, he would certainly have done, had he known of any jufi: grounds for the ilory. Heylin hlmfclf fays indeed (having juft mentioned the King's declara- tion ^Lgzm^Vorfdus., and his Majefty's animofity againft the Remonftrants) — " Some think, he \yame5'\ was drawn unto it " by the powerful perfuafions of Archbilhop Abbot, and Bifliop ** Montague, who then much governed his counfels in all *• churcn-concernments." Hifi. Presb. p. 4.02. But, befides that this relates to the King's general difpofition towards the Remonftrants, he immediately fubjoins three other conjeQures,

I cite

THE CONFESSIONAL. 225

I cite this pafTage only to fhew, that Kino- James^ at this period, was no friend to the Ar- minians.

and adopts the laft as mojl rational, viz; reafon of ftate. If Sir Ralph Win^ood had mentioned the King's being infligated a- gainft Vorfius by Jbbot, I take it for granted. Dr. Harris would have cited him, inftead of La Rocha In the mean time, th6 compilers of Abbot's life, in the Biographia Britannica, tell usi that, " When it was found difficult to obtain from the States *' that fatisfa£lion [in the matter of ^(?r/?/r,fj-] which the Kingde- *' fired, his Grace, in conjunftion with the Lord Treafuref " Salisbury, framed an expedient for contenting both parties/* And for this they cite Winn^jood's Memorials. This does not look like the fery zeal of an i»Jligator. Not td mention that Abbot was too wife and too good a man to approve of King 'James s weak and licentious manner of writing againft Vorjiius. That Abbot had no cordial affedlion for the Arrninians, is very- Credible and very accountable, inafniuch as it was the univerfal opinion of the wifeft and bed: of men in thofe times, that Ar- minianifm was a back-door to Popery ; and certain events in our own country have not at all contributed to difcredit that opini- on, as I obferve below. The Archbifhop's difaiFeiStion toGrotius was owing to the endeavours and propofals of the latter towards a coalition of the Proteftants and Papilb, which every wife and confiftent Proteflant, in every period fince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has confidered as z. fiiarc, and treated accordino-. ly. In the famous letter of Abbot'' s againft Grqtitis, preferved in irimvood, the wsrft part of that great man's charader Is taken from the report of others, and might make the worfe imprelTions upon the Aichbifliop's mind, as his Grace was aware of the pernicious tendency of Grotius's negotiations wi:h James and his Arminiaitizijig prelates, particularly by his join- 5.T0; with the latter in advancing maxims in favour of arbitrary power. For the reft, there never was a prelate freer from the fiery zeal of an ecclefiaflic, perhaps hardly ever a private clergy- man, than George Abbot. Jt was reckoned his dijgrace in the ycxt reign, that he did not tread in the ficps oiihsjiery Ban-

Q In

226 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In the year 1613, James, indeed, fcems to have had more qualified fentiments concerning the Arminian fyftem. He tells the States, in a letter, dsLted'Marcb 6th that year, that, " having feen, *' in a letter fent to him by the Sieur Caron, their •* AmbaHador, the opinions of both parties, and *' the arguments by which they are fupported, ** difculTed at large, it did not appear to him, ** that either of them were inconfiflent with the ** truth of the Chriflian faith, and the falvation "of fouls.'* [La Roche, Abridgement, vol.1, p. 325.] Mr. Harris likewife quotes Sir Ralph fVinwood for the fame fadt [Af].

The two Hiftorians laft cited, MelTieurs La Roche and Harris^ call this ^ contradiflion in James-, and, a contradidion, the latter obierves, was nothing to him. But, I apprehend, the mod

Croft. ** Had LauJ fucceeded Bancroft*'' feid they, " and the •* proje£l of conformity been followed without interruption, the *' enfuing fchifm might have been prevented." Fuller's Wor-

tliies, SuR R Y, p. 83. " He was flack and negligent," fay*

che firebrand Heylin, " in the courfe of his government, and too *■• indulgent to that party, which Bancroft had kept under with

** fuch juft feverity." Hiji. Presh. p. 389. If to this we add,

the noble ftand he made againft the Spanifh match ; his unwea- ried endeavours aiid vigilance againft popery ; his fpirited letter to Ja?nes I. on that fubjefl ; and his not only refufing to licenfe^ but confuting the pofitions in Sibthorp''s fcrmon ; — thefe parti- culars, and his uniform adherence to the fame principles during his whole life, oblige me to wifh that fo undeferved a cenfure Bpon fo excellent a perfon had not efcaped the pen of fo liberal a fpirited writer as Dr. Harris. [il/] Life of Jamt! I. p. I 24.

inconftant

th£ confessional. 227

Inconftant man breathing, if he changes his mind ten times in a day, has fome reafon or motive for it, which operates pro hdc 'vice.

The cafe appears to have been this. Grotlus was very fond of a fcheme he had projefted and entertained, of uniting the Roman Catholics and Proteftants, wherein he was for making concef- fions to the Papifts^ which the Proteftants abroad would never come into. It appears by a Letter Q^Cafaubon to Grotius, which bears date January 27, 1612,13, thsit Grofius had fent fome papers to Cafauhon upon this fubjeft, which the latter had communicated to James^ who greatly ap- proved them i and he tells Grotius, that '* he had " found many Englifh Bifhops, eminent for their ** piety and learning, who revolved in their " minds night and day the fame thoughts with *' himfelf [Ny Which was to fay, that thefe Bifhops would have made the fame concefiion^ ,to the Papifts, that Grotius contended for. That James was in the fame way of thinking, is notori- ous from other documents : particularly his fpeech to his firft parliament [0]. Probably he had not confidered how far he mufl: depart from the Confejfion of faith, in which he had been edu- cated, before the healing meafures of Grotius could take place, till Monfieur Caron put into his hands the refcript he mentions in his letter to the flates,

[AT] Cafaubon's Epiftles, 655, Edit, Bruftf-j.ick, 1656. [O] See the fpeech in Rapin Tkoyras^ and that hiilorian's rex marks upon it. —

0,2 At

228 THE CONFESSIONAL. At this ritne too the Arminians bid fair for being the triamphant party in xht Low Countries -, Gro" tilts and Barnevelt^ being employed by the States, to draw up the ediCl: intended to reflore tranquil- lity between the Gcmarijh and Arminians [P], which edid v/as highly approved of by James and his Bifhops [i^].

With thele in:tpreffiGns upon his mind, James tvrote-the abovementioned letter to the ftates.

In the interval between this time, and the af- fembling of thefynod of Z)fl;7,ourhiflories afford no intcreiling accounts ot King Jameses theologl-

[P] BurigfiPs Life of Grciius, p. 4.7.

[^] Ca'aubon's Epift. Soo. There is a pretty faithful trannation of this Epiille in La Roche's Abridgment, voL i. p. 328, who omits no occafion of doing honour to the Arminians, and fhame to their adverfaries. In that Letter, James and bis Biiliops appear to approve the edift without the leaft excep- tion, and, what is moft furprizing, we find the Archbiflaop of Canierhmy among them, which muft be either a miftake, or have been a piece of Court complaifance in Abbot, who is well known to have oppofed Grotius'"! projefl of reunion, to which this Edift was preparatory. But Cafaubon, epift. 795, tells Grothts, he had noted one or two paflages in the edift, which. he could have wiflied, might have been otherwife exprefled. And he tells him in another epiftle N**. 777, That the form of the edict was much approved in England, except z/e^ things, concerning which he had taken the liberty to apprize him in another letter. What thefe things were, we learn from Burigni, namely, that, " the only thing [in the edidl] which gave the " King fome pain, was to fee the civil Magiftrate afTume a " right of making decrees in matters of religion." Life of Crotitis, p. 49. Burigni cites Cafaubon^ s 863d epiftle, which is not in my edition. Mr. La "Roche, if he knew it, ought not t« have fupprefied this circumftance.

cal

THE CONFESSIONAL. 229' cal fentiments. Cafaubon^ in one of his letters to GroliuSy then in England, tells him, that the Birtiop of Bash and fVells, was never from the King's fide [/<!]. And that the Arminian clergy were not wanting, in improving their confidence with the King, appears from the following pafTage : " It " was infinuated to the King, what dangers would " proceed by training up of young fcudents in the *' grounds of Cahinifm — j that there was no *' readier way to advance the prefbyterial Go- *' vernment in this Kingdom, than by fufFering *' young fcholars to be feafoned with Calvinlan *' dodrines j that it was very hard to fay, whe- " ther of the two, either the Puritan or the Pa- *' pift, were more deftrudive of Monarchical Go- *' vernment [6"].'*

This was touching James in a tender part, and procured fome injundions to be fent to Oxford^ concerning fubfcription to the three articles in the 36th Canon, concerning the method of ftudy, ^nd fome other regulations relative to the de- meanour of fcholars, and their fchool-exerr cifes [T] ; but nothing to the difparagement of dodrinal Calvinifm, anfwerable to the expeda- tions of the infinuators.

For by this time, matters had taken a very different turn in Holland. Some cities did not approve the edid abovementioncd. The Prince of Or^wo-i? had declared againft the Armmans, and

m EpiO. 745-

[S] Ueyllns Life of Laud. p. iX.fjihzwCiO 1616.

[7] Ibid. p. 7:. ^ O q had

t30 THE CONFESSIONAL.

had a large majority both of the magiftrates aiid^ divines on his fide. And the common cry was, to have thefe difputes fettled in a national fynod. Thefe things (which may be feen in La Roche^ and other Hiftories) could not fail of making im- preffions upon James, and would reftrain him from declaring in i2iV0ux o^ Arminianifm, to which he was, moft probably, averfe in his heart \U].

Accordingly, he chofe fix Divines to aflift at the fynod of Dort, who were well known to be zealous Calvinijis. Thefe, among other things, had it in their inftrudlions, " to advife thofe " Churches to ufe no innovation in do6trine, to *' teach the fame things which were taught twen- *' ty or thirty years paft in their own churches— *' and nothing which contradided their own con- ** feflions — to confult, at all times, his Majefty's *' Anibaffador, [Sir Dudley Carleton] who, fay? «* the King, underflandeth well the queftions and •* differences among them \_W\-'*

Thefe Divines concurred with the fynod in ap- proving and ratifying the Belgic confeflion [-STj,

[L'] Dr. Featlj, according to Mr. Hickman, affirmed that King JamsSf not many weeks before his death, called the Jr- wiitmfts Hentks. Jnimad'verfions, 2d Edit. p. 23 i.

\}V'\ '■' Grotius, fdys Mr. La Roche, found out [while he was *' in England] thai the Englifl; Ambaffador at the Hague [the •' fan^e Sir Dudley Carleton] had reprefented to the Archbilhop *• of Canterbury, the ecclefiallical affairs of Holland to the prg- f judice of the Remonftrants." Ahrldgemetit, Vol. 1. p. 326. [A!"] In all dufirinal points : entering a protelt, that the Church of England dil'approvcd fonas of the di/ciplinai-ian Canons. Fuller, X. p. 81, 82.

and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 231

and confcquently in condemning the Remon- ftrants ; and when they returned home, were re- ceived by James with approbation, and courteous entertainment. Three of thefe he afterwards preferred to Bifhopricks, viz. Hall, Carleion, and Davenani ; and Balcanqualy was made Mafter of the Savcy. Thefe particulars may be found in Fuller's Church-Hiftory, and other memorials of thofe times ; and are fufficient to fliew, that at this period, and for fome time after, James was no favourer of the Arminian Theology.

Perhaps indeed there never was a period, from his firft acceflion to the Englifh Crown, till the day of his death, when he would not have made his divinity bend to his poHtics. He hated the Puritans, not for their doctrines, but for their didike to a Prelacy. He thought a monarchy as necelTary for the church, as for the ftate ; and had much the fame idea of claj[es and confijlorieSy that he had of Parlia?7ients. He imagined, that whoever was not a friend to epifcopal power, muft have the fame objedlions to that of Kings. And perhaps he was not much miftaken, with refpeift to his own contemporaries.

The Calvinifts in Holland ftrenuoufly infixed, that the Church, conftituted as theirs was, upon a republican model, had the fole power of defin- ing matters of faith, and of diftinguifliing be- tween points neceflary and unnecefTary j and they held, that the civil magiftrate was bound to in- force. the churches d«ecifions, and to difcourage Qjif. and

23? THE CONFESSIONAL,

an(i fupprefs all fefts and herefies contrary thcF^^ unto. They went farther ftili. They held that the civil magiftrate who did not his duty in thi3 province, ceafed to be a child of God, and might be depofed from his office. And fome of them carried this matter fo far, that, upon fome remifT- nefs in the States to fupprefs what they called the enemies of Gody a deputation had been fent from the clergy, to offer the fovereignty of fix of the feven united Provinces, to Queen Eliza-

beth [r].

It cannot be denied, that many of the Eng- lifh Puritans entertained the fame notions. Per-f haps the greater part of them in fecret. When any extraordinary countenance was fhewn to papifts, either by James, or indeed, before him, by Elizabeth, the Puritans gave no cbfcure inti^ mations of what they thought of the Govern- ment •, and the lefs difcreet among them openly avov.'ed thelawfulnefs of refifting ungodly Princes, both in the rpigns of Elizabeth and James *.

The King however was not fo weak,_but that he faw plainly. Popery was at no great diflance from Jrmimanifm. The bent of the nation lay againlt both. And probably, /^bbot*s influence with him, while it lafted, added to the principles

[y^ Lc. Rcc^-e,voh I. p, 225.

* See Sti-yte's Life of Whit'gift, p. 2gi. And Pucker! >ig^s fpeech in isK//£rV- Worthies, Tic. Tork/?.ire,-p. 201. Puckerii:g y.'uhout rioubr, exaggerated. Eat his word may be taken with jrcipeft ic i:x pcit.t of the Quec);'s Suprcmacyj in eccleualljcal caiife „

for

THE CONFESSIONAL. 233

(or, if you pleafe, the prejudices) of his own edu- cation in Scotland, kept him in thefe lentiments, the rather perhaps as he did not fee, how what were called the fa^ious attempts of the Puritans, were countenanced by the Divinity of Calvin,

It muft be confefled, that with fuch a Prince, the Artninian Bifhops had but a difficult game to play •, but they managed it like workmen. And in the end, turned even the moft unfavourable circumftances to their own account.

Groiius, and the Remonftrants in HoUandi pleaded for Toleration [Z] ; and from their hold- ing this principle, artfully enough fuggefted their fuperior refped for the civil powers : as that would keep Church- authority under the hatches. James had no idea of the righteoufnefs of a toleration. And he faw that if it took pface in matters of doflrine, it might, upon equally good grounds, be claimed for opinions and praftices relating to difcipline. And perhaps his objeflion to the edi(5l of the States General, mentioned be- fore from Burigni, might be founded upon the tolerating powers, vefted by it in the civil ma- giftrate.

The Arminian Bifhops detefted toleration, as much as James could do, and for the fame rea- fens. But went much farther than their brethren in Holland, in their concefllons to the civil power;

[Z] Qiilnquarticulanam litem, tanti non facerem, nifi con- junflam fibi haberet eani, qua; eft de difcretione neceflarioram dog:natum a non neceflariis, iive de mucua Chriftianorum foltrautia. Epijco^ius^ npud ///Vi«tf« Animadverf. p. 122.

2 alkdging^

254 THE CONFESSIONAL.

attedgingy that Ibvereignty, particularly in Mm- archs, vjzsjure dtvino^ and uncontroulable. They knew this principle could do them no harm, qua- lified as it was, by Jameses notions of Epifcopacy : and for the reft, it was a fure bait to draw him in to whatever they might fee fit to build upon it.

But the great difficulty lay here. They had not only the King, but the people to manage. The Puritan party was ftrong, and refpe(5lable for the quality, as w>ell as thenumbers, of its ad- herents. And it would not be fo eafily compre- hended by the people, how they, who were fo perfecflly right in their divinity, could be fo far wrong in their Politics. The nextftep then was to Call fome (lur upon the dodtrines of the Puri- tans, and, if poflible, to wean both the King and people from their fondnefs for them.

Fuller^ in his Church-Hiftory, informs us, that the Archbifhop of Spalato, was the firft who ufed the word, Puritan^ to fignify the defenders of matters doftrinal, in the Englifh church. " For- " merly, fays he, the word was only taken to " denote fuch as diflented from the Hierarchy in ^' dilcipline, and church government, which was " now extended to brand fuch as were Anti-ar- mnian in their judgments.'* And he confeffes, that the word in this extenfive iignification, was afterwards improved to afperfe the moft orthodox in doftrine, and religious in converfation \A\

\A\ Fuller, Ch. Hiil. B. X. p. 99, 100.

Thefe

THE CONFESSIONAL. 255

Thefe improvers, were the Arminian Bifhops and their adherents. We have feen above, what they infinuated to James, upon occafion of obtain- ing from him certain injunflions fent to Oxford, Anno 1616. But ftill, the eftablifhed Articles of religion, were on the fide of the do5irinal Puri- tans. The writers againft Arminianifm made that appear beyond difpute : and Laud himfelf durft not deny it.

The next ftep therefore, was to get the Puri- tan party filenced, from preaching or printing any thing upon the fubje<5t. Ahbofs influence with King James had been broke, by his untrac- table firmnefs in the matter of the Earl oi EJfex^s divorce j as well as by other accidents : and a misfortune in his private condudt, had afforded room for the full effed oi Laud's intrigues, who loft no opportunity of recommending himfelf and his Syftem to James,

The firft-fruits oi Laud's power over the King, appeared in thofe injimilions or diredions, bearing date Auguji 4th 1622, wherein among, other things, it was injoined, that " no Preacher, un- der the degree of a Bifhop or a Dean, — fliould from thenceforth prefume to preach — the deep points of Predcjiination, Election, Reprobatmt, or of the univerfality, efficacity, rejijlibiiiiy or irrejijii' hiltty of God's Grace, &c. [5J.

[B] HeyUns Hiftory oi Laud, p. 97, who confelTes that his Hero had a hand in digelling and drawing up, thefe injun* ilious. What cenfures were paiied upon them may be feen

One

23<5 THE CONFESS I ON AU;

•One might afk how James could reconcile him- fel|j:o a meafure, which, in the cafe of the edidt of the States-General, had given him pain ? That is to fay, how he could, as a civil magijiratey afTume a right of making decrees in matters of religion ?

His Divines would have told us, upon this oc- cafion, I. That he was a civil magiftrateyV^ di- vino ; which was not the cafe with republican ma- giftrates. 2. That by a faving claufe in the end of the dire^ionsy this was only a kind of interimy till the next Convocation fhould aflemble.

7 his, however, was all that James could be brought to during his reign ; unlefs the Declara- tion at the head of the xxxix Articles, is to be afcribed to him ; which however, is a problem I cannot take upon me to foive ; nor is it very ma-' terial.

In his fucceflbr. Laud found a King more to his mind. James had no perfonal elleem for Laudy and gave him a Bilhoprick with much reluflance. His bufy fpirit was accordingly, during Jameses reign, obliged to operate in fubordination to fome Prelates, who had more of the King's confi- dence.

But Charles I- was wholly at Laud's devotion. Hitherto the Calvinijis were barely filenced, and

jn Wiljln and Fuller, fub- aftiio, 1622, who both give the in- jundions at large. Thefe ceiifures are acknowledged by Heylin himfelf, with great indignation, who, as a lefs fufpedled witnefs than thfr odiers, in tliele points, may be conlulted, p. 99.

perhaps

THE CONFESSIONAL. 2^7

perhaps hardly that. Wilfon tells us, " the Arch- ** bifhop recommended it to his Diocefans, that " thcfe dire<5t:ions might be put in execution with *^ caution [C].'* And Fuller fays, " Thefe in- " ftru6lions were not prcfTed with equal rigour '* in all places, and that fome over-active officials *' were more bufy than their Bifliops, &c. [D]/* However, it is natural to fuppofe thefe injunc- tions had fome effect ; efpecially among thofe who expected to rife in the Church. t^^lt was not however, fufficient for Laud*s pur- pofes, barely to filence Calvin. He wanted to have Arminius take the chair, and to didate to the church of England^ inftead of the other. •sc'To try how this would take, he fets Montague to work, a bold, hot headed man (but a good fcholar *) who fcrupled not to exemplify, and vow the political, as well as the theological creed of Jrmnius, in the moft pofitive and explicit terms. Take the ftory from an unqueftionable authority.

" Mr. Richard Montague, in the one and twen- " tieth of King JameSy had publiflied a book, " which he named, J new Gag for an old Goofe, " in anfwer to a popifh book, intituled, A Gag ^' for the new Gofpel. The bufmefs was the^i

[C] Life and Reign of King y<jw«, p. 201. [/)] Ch. Hift X Book, p. III.

* SeUai confefles he was, grace J:mul et latlne do^us. Stldtr. de diisSjrisy p. 361,

" queflioneij

±^8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" queftioned in Parliament [£], and and com- " mittcd to the Archhidiop of Cantcrlfury [Abbof], " and ended in an admonition to Montague.

" Afterwards the Bilhops of the Armiman •* party, confuked [confuking] the propagation " of the live articles condemned in the fynod oi 4? Dort, conckided that Mr. Montague^ being al- *' ready engaged in the quarrel, Ihould publifh ** this latter: book [Appello defarem]^ at firft at- " tefted by their joint authorities, which after- *' wards they withdrew by fubtilty, having pro- " cured the fubfcription of Dr. Francis White *' [Dean of Carlijle'\ whom they left to appear a- " lone in the tefl:imony,as himfelf oft-times com- , " plained pubiickly. The Archbifhop difallow- •• ed the book, and fought to fupprefs it ; never- " thelefs it was printed, and dedicated unto " King Charles^ whereby that party did endeavour *' to engage hin in the beginning of his reign. The ** houle appointed a committee to examine the " errors therein, and gave the Archbifhop thanks '* for the adrrlonition given to the author, whofe " books they voted to be contrary to the articles " eftabhfhed by the Parliament, to tend to the *' King's difhonour, and difturbance of church

[E] Upon the complaint of two Divines of the Diocefcof Nori-uichi Mr. Tates, and Mr. Ward. " They accufed him of '* dangerous errors of Arminianifm and Pcpery, deferting our caufe, inftead of defending it." Fuller, Ch. Hift. B. XL p. 119. 7a/« afterwards wrote again ft Montague, [_ ^ ,•

" and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 239

** and ftate, and took bond for his appear- "ance[Fj." ,

Charks at fir ft attempted to take Montague out pf the hands of the Parliament, by claiming him for his chaplain, ^c. But afterwards he thought better of it, and determined to leave him at their mercy; which being fignified to Laud by the Duke of Buckinghamy " he [Laud] thought it a " matter of fuch ominous concernment,'* fays Fuller, " that he entered the fame in his Diary^ •' in thefe words : 7 feem to fee a cloud arife, and *' threatening the church of England ; God for his '* mercy difftpate it [G].'*

But this little fpirited champion was not fo to be baffled. He knew the Duke's power with the King, and, in conjundlion with the Bilhops of Rochejler and Oxford, recommended Mr. Monta- gue's caufe to him, as the caufe of the church of England.

Rvjhworth hath given us the topics they infift- €d on in this recommendation, which 1 fhall here tranfcribe ; taking leave to intermix fuch remarks as occur upon the feveral particulars of it.

" They fhew, that fome of the opinions which •* offended many, were no other than the refolved " dodrine of this church.'*

Thefe opinions were probably fuch, as related to the divine right of Kings. 1 have not Monta-

[F] Rujhivorth, vol. I. p. 173. ; [G] Church.HiJi. Bopk, p. 121.

gue^s

240 THE CONFESSIONAL.

gue^s Appeal, but fuppofe he might juftify his docflrines out of the HomiHes, Articles, Bancroft'' s Canons, and other documents colleded by Bifhop Bilfon. When our churchmen refolved thefe points, they were writing againil thepopifh King- killers. But, not confining themfelves to the confutation of arguments merely popifh, they made the right of Kings abfolutely indefeafible in all cafes -, of which Laud and his crew made their advantage. '

" — .— . And fome of them are curious points, *' difputed in the fchools, and to be left to the •* liberty of learned men to abound in their own

« fenfe ."

Thefe were \.h& five points of doflrine, difputed between the Cahiniils and Arminians. Could Laud have found the means to frame and eftablifh a new fct of Articles, I am perfuaded, he would have left little room for the Calvinijls to abound in their own fenfe. As things were circumftanced, he was to make the befl of the prefent fet, which was, by pleading in words for a latitude of fenfes, and by infmuating, that thefe difputed points were matters of no great confequence, and might be innocently held either way. We fhall fee by and by how his anions contrafted thefe verbal pretences.

" It beins the great fault of the council

" of Trent to require fubfcription to fchoolopi- " nions, and the approved moderation of the

»* church

THE CONFESSIONAL. 24^: " church oi England, to refufe [^perhaps refute] *' the apparent dangers and errors of the church " of Rome ; but not to be overbufy with fchola-

" ftical niceties .'*

The council of Trent is brought in here only as a (talking horfe. The infinuation is, that the council of Trent did, and the church of Eng- land xiid noty require fubfcription to thefe fchool- opinions in a determinate fenfe. The very reverfe of which is the honeft truth. " MelanSlhon, as ** may be feen above, accufed the council of " Trent oi making ^r.^//)' decrees, that they might " defend their errors by things amUguoujly fpo- " ken." That is to fay, by fuch ambiguities, as permitted the Jefuits and Dominicans to abound in their own fenfe refpedlively, upon thefe very fchool-points [H]. And when Grotius came to plead the caufe of the Arminians before the Ma- giftrates of Amjlerdam, he alledged, among other things, " that the dodrines difputed in Holland^ *' had not been decided by the church oi Rome^ *' (and confequently not by the council oi Trent) " though (he is extremely fond of decifions.'* Which dodlrines were the very fame with the fchool-opinions difputed in England \I\ On the other hand, the apparent dangers and errors of the church of Rome^ were dodlrines and practices,

[//] See above, chap. iv. p. 86, See likewife, Heylin's Quinquarticular Hid. p. 26. and Hickman's Animad. p. 42. [/] La Roche, Abridgment, vol. I. p. 344,

R fj

242 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fo founded npon the Arminian fide of thefe fchool- - niceties, that the church oi England did not think the apparent errors or dangers could be refufed or refuted, without determining thefe fchool-niceties the other way. Which was accordingly done in the xxxix Articles. Was Z.auii ignorant of all this, or was he playing the Jefuit ? And, of all things, that he fliould talk of the moderaiion of* the church of England !

*' Moreover, in the prefent cafe, they al-

" ledge, that in the time of Henry VIII. when the " clergy fubmitted to the King's fupremacy, the " fubmilTion was fo relolved, that, in cafe of any " difference in the church, the King and the Bi- " fhoDS were to determine the matter, in a na- " tional fynod."

But, who made the difference in the church in the prefent cafe ? Thefe very Bifhops. And was it not moil reafonable, that they fhould be both Judges and Parties ? But this was calculated for the meridian of Charleses apprehenfion ; and to furnin-j him with an argument for taking Mcnta- gue^s caufe out of the hands of the Parliament. "'»{.• « — «- And if any other judge in matters of '* doftrine be now allowed, we depart from the *' ordinance of Chrift, and the continual pradice " of the church."

Had the Parliament called for this ordinance of 'Chriff, where would thefe Prelates have found it ? Had they forgot that K. //<?»r>' VIII, fo lately

quoted, 4

THE CONFESSIONAL. 243

quoted, pafTing by the Biihops, and the national Synod, made the Univerfuies of Europe judges in a very important point of doflrine ?

'* -; — .Herewithal they intimated, that, if the " church be once brought down below herfelf, ** even Majefty itfelf would foon be impeached,'*. No Bifhop, no King.

" — — They fay farther, that K. James, in " his rare wifdom, approved all the opinions ia " this book.'*

Perhaps fome tolerably jufl: notion may be formed from what goes before, what opinions, concerning the five points, James approved. It is highly probable he continued a Calvinift in judgment, even to the very laft. No doubt but he approved Montague^s political principles.

" — — And that mofl: of the contrary opinions " were debated at Lambeth^ and ready to be pub- " liilied, but were fupprelTed by Q^Elizabeth.'*

And were thefe opinions only debated at Lam- heth ? or only ready to be publidied ? Surely Ban- croft gave a different account of them at the Hampton-Court Conference. Thefe Biihops would have it believed, that Qtieen Elizabeth fupprefled thefe Articles, out of a diQike to the the fubjecfl- matter of them. Whereas the diflike was to the method ufed in the procuring of them, and the Archbifhop's fending them to Cambridge, to be difputed in the fchools. She was certainly dif- pleafed with Peter Baro, for efpoufmg the con- R 2 trary

244 THE CONFESSIONAL.

trary doflrines, which indeed gave the firfl: occa- fion of framing thefe Articles. And Baro being profecuted in the Vicechancllor's court at Cam- bridge, iox contradiding thefe Articles, after PFhii- gift had received orders to fufpend them, the Quten's ftipprej/ion could amount to a very fmali matter, fince it is plain they ftill continued to have their currency in CmnhridgCy ks much as before [X].

" — And fo continued [z. e. to be fuppreffed] *' till of late they received countenance at the *' fynod of Dort^ which was a fynod of another " nation, and, to us, no way binding, till received " by public authority."

That King James did not continue to fupprefs the Lambeth Articles, is plain from his fending them to Dort, as part of the do6lrine of the church of England ; and to Ireland, where they were in- corporated with their Articles of Religion. And Mr. Pym, in his fpeech in Parliament, Janu. 27, 1628, fays exprefsly. They were avowed by us and our ftate [LJ. On the other hand, one would wonder, what, in the opinion of thefe Bifhops, amounted to " receiving the fynod of Bort by *' public authority." King James fent, by a for- mal deputation, fix of his Divines to that Synod, who concurred with it in its decifions, concern -

\K ] Stnpes Life of Whltgift, book iv. chap, xvii, xviii. See likewife Sykes's Reply to V/aterland' s Supplement. [L] Rajhworth, vol, I. p. 647.

ing

THE CONFESSIONAL. 245

ing all dodlrinal matters. The King approved what they had done, and no churchmen in the kingdom were more favoured by him. This puts me in mind of Mr. Le Gere's obfervation upon the condu6t of the French Divines in regard to the council of Trent. In their public fcholaftic difputations, they cite the canons of that council, as decifive againft the heterodox fide of theoloo-i- cal queftions. But, being prelfcd with the ab- furdityof fome of thofe canons, by their Proteftant adverfaries, their cant is, that the council oi Trent was never received in France [iWj.

" And they boldly affirm, that they

" cannot conceive what ufe there can be of civil " government in the commonwealth, or of exter- " nal miniftry in the church, if fuch fatal opini- *' ons, as fome are, which are oppofite to thofe " delivered by Mr. Montague^ be publicly taught " and maintained.**

This may pafs for what it is, a bold affirmation^ and no more ; calculated to blacken the Puritan party, and to infinuate, that nothing they held, either with refpedl to religion or politics, could poflibly be right.

" Such," fays RuJJyworth^ " was the opinion *' of thefe forenamed Bifhops -, but others of

[M] Defenfe des Sentimens, &c. fur I'Kift. Critique, Lett.

xui.

V^ I *' eminent

24^ THE CONFESSIONAL.

'f eminent learning were of a different judg- «« ment [N J

And no wonder. It would be no eafy matter to fhew (o much prevarication in reafoning, or fo much falfhood and mifreprefentation of Fads, in any other refcript of the fame kngth.

The event of this matter was, that Montague in the end was delivered from parliamentary pu- nifhment by a royal pardon. And, after the diflblution of the Parliament, Laud had Charles in his hands, and molded him which way he would.

X^^<^, accordingly, got the prohibition to preach upon thefe controverted points, extended to Deans and Bilhops j in confequence of which Bifliop Davenant was convened before the council, where he was reprimanded by Harfnet^ Archbifhop of Tork^ for tranfgrefling his Majefty*s Declaration, in a Lent-fermon at Court, 1626. (the crafty Laud walking by the while, without fpeaking one word). Davenant infilled, that he had not broken the Declaration \ and they could not contradid him, but were forced to fly to his Ma- jefty's intention, which turned out to be, " that " he would not have this high point []of Prede- " ilinationj meddled withall, or debated, either " the one way or the other [0]." It was but a very little before, that Laud had faid, " thefe cu-

[iV] Rujhnvorth, vol.1, p. 177.

[OJ Fuller i Church Hift. B. xi. p. 13S--141.

" rious

THE CONFESSIONAL. 247

" rioiis points fhoiild be left to the liberty of ** learned men, to abound in their ownfenfe.'^ But the Parhament, which differed from him on this head, was now diffolved, and mod probably L^^/^ jiever expected to fee another.

I hope, the foregoing particulars may be fuffi- cient to fhew, that fubfcribing with a latitude, or taking particular Articles in different fenfes, was an artifice of xArchbifliop Laud's^ to open a way for his own Jrminia^f opinions.

He hath been followed, however, by many in this pradice, wno have neither had his views, nor approved his example, in other things ; and who therefore muft be fuppofed to have fome reafons of their own, to determine them in a pradice, which, at firfl: fight, is hardly defenfible. Let us confider what thefe reafons may be.

I. Then, it is generally underftood, that the points in difpute between the Arminians and the Calvinijls, are points of no confequence, and may be held either way, without any detriment to the true faith.

Dr. NichoUs calls them, " Theological points, " which do not affed the main of religion.'* So did Heylin before him ; and he had it undoubt- edly from his maRer Laud. King James too, once upon a time, thought fit to fay, " that, if the " fubje6t of Vorjiius's Herefies [in his book de " Deo^ had not been grounded upon queftions of " higher quality, than touching the number and " nature of the facraments, the points of merit, R 4 "of

24S THE CONFESSIONAL.

" o( jujlification, of purgatory, of the vifible head *'' of the church, or any fuch matters, we lliould *' never have troubled ourfelves with the bufi- '« nefs.'*

Upon which, Mr. Tindal, the tranflator of Ra- pn 'Thoyras^ thus defcants : " As if wrong no- *' tions or errors concerning the ejfence of God, " were more pernicious, than fuch corrupt no- *' tions and principles, as are defl:ru6live of mo- " rality, and repugnant to God's moral chara- " der [?]." Such, I fuppofe, as Mr. Tindd takes the notions and principles of the Cdvinijls (among others) to be j and confequently efteems them points of great importance. It is much, however, if Vorjiius or his followers did not draw fome conclufions of the moral kind, from their {peculations on the ejfence of God.

Bifhop Burnety in his travels, met with an emi- nent Divine among the Lutherans in Germany, upon whom he prefled an union with the Calvin- ijls, as neceffary upon many accounts. To which the faid Divine anfwered, that " He wondered *' much to fee a Divine of the church of En^- " land, prefs that fo much on him, when we, *' notwithftanding the dangers we were then in, *' could not agree our differences. They differec^ " about important matters, concerning the attri- " butes of God and his providence ; concerning ^' the guilt of lin, whether it was to be charged

[?] Tindars Rapin, Svo. 1730. vol. IX. p. 333.

«* on

THE CONFESSIONAL. 249

*' on God, or the finner ; and whether men ought " to make good ufe of their faculties, or if they " ought to trutl entirely to an irrefiftible grace. " Thefe were matters of great moment. But, he " faid, we in England differed only about forms " of government and worfliip, and things which ** were of their own nature indifferent, &c." [^J. It would be a very flrange thing, if the fcri- ptures, rightly underftood, fliould give any real occalion to the queftion, whether the guilt of fm is to be charged on God or the finner ? But if occafion is given for fuch a difpute, whether real or imaginary, it is doubtlefs a point of high im- portance : fince no fuch queftion can be decided, without bringing the fupremeGod into judgment, as a party, with one of his creatures, and fubje<5b- ing him to the fentence of another of them. The fcriptures, in truth, give no juft occafion for any luch controverfy. But if occafion is taken for fuch difputes from Creeds, Confefiions, and Ar- ticles of religion of human device ; and if, in particular, fuch a difpute may be railed from the exprefs terms of our own Articles, fhould not a ferious iand confiderate man be cautious how he fubfcribes them? Would it not be inexcufeably ra/h to take it for granted, that they contain mat- ters of no confequence ?

Perhaps, our prefent fubfcribers are generally, "though not univerfally,of the^r;;j/«/^«perfuafion.

[^] Preface to Burners Expof. at the end.

I mean.

250 THE CONFESSIONAL.

I mean, fuch of them as are oi any perfuafion at all. For, I doubt, few of them confider (if in- deed they know) the difference between thai and the perfuafion of the Calvimfts. Surely it concerns fuch fubfcribers not a Uttle to be fatisfied, whe- ther our prefent Articles are truly and properly capable of an Anninian fenfe or not.. But of this more by and by.

2. Another thing which draws in fubfcribers of the prefent generation, is, that, whereas Arm- tiianifm was heretofore eftecmed to be the back- door to popery and arbitrary power, that notion has, upon examination, been found to be utterly groundlefs, and the opinions fo called, abfolutely innocent of the charge.

*' Rapiti,'* fays Mr. Tindalin a note, " as well " as mofl of our writers, efpecially thofe of the *' Puritan party, (eem to confound two things, " which have no manner of relation to each o- *' ther, I'lz. Arminianifm, and High- church " principles." He then puts down five propo- fitions, which, according to him, contain the Arminian doftrine, which the Synod of Dor£, in their wifdom, thought fit to condemn. After which he fays, " Now nothing can be more evi- *' dent, than that a man may embrace all thefe '* opinions, without being one jot the more a *' friend to popery, or arbitrary power [/?].'*

\R] TindaPs Rapin, utfupra, vol. X. p. i6.

Mr,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 251

Mr. Tindal fhould not have been fo pofitive. He did not fo much as know what the five Ar- minian points, condemned at the Synod of Dort, were ; as any one may be fatisfied by comparing the proportions Mr. T. hath exhibited, with the genuine ones in La Roche's Abridgment of Brandt.

The Calvimfts too, certainly, inferred the law- fulnefs of refifting wicked and unrighteous Princes, from their theological principles of Eiec- tion and Grace.

Heylin fays, that Calvin called the contrary dodrine civil idolatry [o]. And Grotius^ artfully enough, improved the prejudices which Magi- ftrates would entertain againft thefe unprincely notions, to the advantage of his own party, by infinuatingthe infinite reverence which the prin- ciples of the Arminians obliged them to have for the civil powers. The Englifli Ann-nians went ftili farther. By excluding Ekofion from any fhare in the foundation of Dominion, and fubfti- tuting indefeafible hereditary right jure divino in its place, refiftance, even to a Nero or a Caligula^ became a damnable fin. Laud, as we have leen, affirmed bolply, that civil Government would be ufelefs, if (omt fatal opinions, oppofite to thofe qf Montague, were to prevail. And Mr. Tindal himlelf confeiTes, that Laud, Neile, and Montague., were for letting the King above the Laws. And

[5] Hiftory of the Preibyterians, in the beginning.

I know

252 THE CONFESSIONAL.

1 know fome very worthy and eminent perfons, warnn and fail friends to the civil and religious rights of mankind, who are of opinion to this hour, that refiftance, even to wicked Princes, can- not be juftified upon religious principles, with^ out having recourfe to the theological dodlrines of the ancient Puritans and Independants.

If the Arminians have learned to feparate the divinity of their forefathers from their politics, it is fo much the better for the public. But, I fear, they have not been altogether fo fuccefsful in weeding their do6lrinefrom the feeds of Popery.

That cafe flands thus : The fcandalous traffic of Indulgences gave the firfl: occafion to Luther to difcover the corruptions of Popery, and af- forded him the firfl: grounds of his oppofition to them. But Indulgences were founded on the Me- rit of Good- works, and that again on Freewill-^ and, what is more, were fo founded by St. Paul*s own reafoning : 'To him that worketh is the reward not of grace, but of debt [T"].

The Reformers univerfally, in a greater or lefs degree, purfued Luther* s fcheme of interpretation. They thought they had very good grounds in fcripture for excluding Freewill from any fhare in the work of juftification. And therefore, when the Arminians arofe, the Puritans appre- hended, with great reafon, that, by opening a door to Free-agency^ it would be impoflible to

[T] Viom. iv. 4.

prevent

THE CONFESSIONAL. 25^ prevent Purgatory, Saint-worfhip, Indulgences, &c. from breaking in along with it. And th^y who will take the pains to read Montague's Ap- peal, and Heylin's Introduftion to his Life of Archbifhop Laud, will eafily difcern, that their apprehenfions were not groundlefs.

Whether the connexion between free agency and merit is real throughout, or where it begins to be broken, I pretend not to decide, or even to examine ; being determined, on the prefent occafion at lead, to offend or difturb no man, with my private opinions. One thing, ho-wever, I beg leave juft to mention, in favour of the Cahinifts ; namely, that fome very eminent men of the prefent generation have gone a great way in their philofophical dif'iuifitionsy towards vindicat- ing the predeftinarian theology of thefe our fore- fathers [C/]. And, when it is confidered that fo able a writer as Dr. Clayton^ the late Bifhop of Clogher^ could find no other way of eftablilhing the free-will or free-agency of man, but by put- ting fuch limitations, as he has done, upon the prefcience of God, no reafonable man would haftily conclude, that the Calvinifls have nothing material to fay for themfelves \}V\.

[i7] See Dr. Hartley's Obfervations on Man, pajftm. The Preface to Dr. Z,«wV Tranflation of Kin£s Origin of Evil. Thournfeyer^s Letters in the French Magazine, 1750, 1751.

\W^ Thoughts on Self-Lo've, Innate Ideas, See. Lond. 1753. The Apoftle Paul hath faid, There muji he herejies. i Cor. xi. g. not $x necej/itate ret ab intu;, but from the perverfe nature of

But,

254 THE confessional;

But, to leave the theoretical part of this pro- blefn for the prefent : Thofe old worthies who predicted the return of Popery, in confequence of the in trod ud ion of Arminianifni., were not fo widely miftaken, as to the event, as may be ima- gined. They had good reafons toexpe6l it, from the whole conduct oi Laud and his fellows. And, though thefe were feaionably ftop'd in their career j their principles have been efpoufed and purfuedby their fuccelTors, in fuch fort, as to give more than a fufpicion to fome competent obfervers, that the church of England has been, and ftill is, though by degrees imperceptible to vulgar eyes, edging back once more towards Popery.

** From the beginning of Charles I." fays a. fenfible writer, '* the pulpit took up a new fcheme, *' under the particular influence of Archbifhop ** Laud. A fcheme fo entirely new, that it was *' remonftrated againft by the Parliament, as coh- " trary to the Articles, and as what had a ten- *' dency to carry back the nation into Popery. *' Perhaps, in fome meafure, the apprehen/ton of that *' Parliament has been verified. And from Charles I. " the nev,r fyftem hath chiefly prevailed, down to " the prefent period [X]." And, he might have

man, fay his interpreters. Perhaps, if men had been candid, capable, and upright throughout, all their controverfies, from Paul's time to this hour, might have been avoided, fave one, that concerning Predefiination, which muft probably have arifen at all events.

[A] Seagrai'is True Proteftant, p. 25.

added.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 255 added, " has been attended with fuitable ef- « fedls."

If any one is defirous to fee thefe apprehenjions verified in particular inftances, he may fatisfy himfelf by confulting a pamphlet written by Dr. Du Moulin, fome time Hiftory-PfofefTor in O.v- forAy printed in 1680 [JT], which might be con- tinued even to the prefent times, by the addition of examples, ftill more tlriking than thofe oi Du Moulin. The effeft of which cannot be more convincingly proved, than by the great and alarm- ing increaie of Popery in thefe kingdoms [Z].

The clergy of the church oi England, it is true, have conftantly difclaimed all connexion with Popery, or any defign or difpofition to promote that caufe •, which however is but an equivocal proof of a different fpirit, and none at all, that the tendency of their doctrines doth not bend to- wards Popery.

When Janfenius publilhed his fyftem of Grace^ the good Catholics taxed him with Cahimfm. .In vain did he endeavour to wipe off the afperfion.

(r] Jmkulcd, J J/jori and true Account of the feveral Ad- <vancei the Church o/" England hath made to^wards Rotne.

[Z} See Dr. Stebbings two little Tradts againft Popery, juft publiOied. Whoever will be at the pains to confuk thisDoftor's Polemical TraSls, and compare fome paflages in them (partica- larly in his Rational Inquiry, &c.) with fome things in thefe little books, will fee how he is obliged to lower his high-church notions, to battle the papifls ; confcious, as it (hould feem, that his old principles had too much of a popiih complexion-

In

256 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In vain did he write moft bitterly againft the Proteftants, in order to convince his incredulous brethren that he was not to be ranked among them. They returned again and again to the charge, and confirmed it, by fhewing both the origin and tendency of his do6lrines [/^].

The Papifts have common fenfe, and can fee, no doubt, into the tendency of certain opinions, as well a.s Luther or Calvin did. And, whatever Jmt- fenius could fay for himfelf, the orthodox Catho- lics faw, that, in the next generation, his follow- ers, if they adhered to his opinions, would, very probably, leave their church : to prevent which, they procured the condemnation of his book, anno

The fame fufpicions procured the famous Bull VnigenituSy condemning the do6trines of Father

[A] ^in in G alius, quod benejicii loco fine duhio nuTTieraruit^ magnam adeptus erat lihrorum Cal-viniatiorum copiam, quorum de fantibm haiijlt Auguftini interpretationem, et inixnerat homines a Calvini difciplind non alienos-y qtiibus liberiores de Grutm/ermo- ms contulerat. Bayle's Dift. Jansenius, remark [F], cited from a book, intituled Janfenim SufpcSlus, afcribed to the Jefuit F^njajfor. The Janfenifts, as may well be fuppofed, endea- voured, by all poilible means, to rid themfelves of this imputa- tion. Mr. Bayle reports their fuccefs in the following words. " The Janfenifts have maintained, with equal heat, that, upon " the point of Liberty, they were not Cal<vinifts. There are " no artifices, or ill grounded dillinftions, but what have been " made ufe of to colour that pretence ; and all this to avoid *• the dangerous confequences they forefaw would follow their " confeiEng any conforntity with the Calvinifts*'' Ibid. Rem.

Tafqukr

THE CONFESSIONAL. 257

Pafquier ^efnel, in the year 17 13. Was this man fo treated, becaufe his condud gave any offence as a Papift ? No -, he died not only a fincere, but a bigotted fon of that church : and, what is more, he fo died in a Proteftant country^ where he was under no necefllty to diffemble j

namely, at Amiferdam^ December 2, 1719.

*' He received extreme unflion, extended on a •' matt ; he took the holy viaticum on his knees ;• *' — he made his profeflion of faith in the pre- *' fence of two apoftolical proton otaries, — im- *' porting, that he believed all the truths, which *' Jefus Chrift taught his church j that he *' will die within the bofom of it, and con- *' demns all errors which it condemns, or fhalt " condemn. He acknowledges the Pope the ^' firft Vicar of Jefus Chrift, and the apoftolical " fee, the centre of union. — But withal, ftill be- ^' lieves he had taught nothing in the obnoxious' *' book, which is not conformable to the faith

^* of the church." And had his fuperiors

thought fo too, they had all the reafon in the world to be fatisfied with his edifying ca- tholicifm;

But go to the propofftions, extrafled from his book for condemnation, and you will prefenily fee, that he was not only of Cahin's mind in the articles of grace, juftificatiojj, &c. but had built upon thofc principles, feme other doftrines, which S are

258 THE CONFESSIONAL.

are in little agreement with the faith he profefTcs to repofe in the church [B].

I forbear to mention the more recent difturb- ances that have been in France, about the fame clo6crines j concerning which it has been imagin- ed, that if the church and Itate could not find the means by their united powers, totally to fupprefs the Janfenifts ; Janfcnifm would infallibly pro- duce a Reformation of Religion, upon the true Proteftant plan.

The refult is, that our firfl: reformers framed and placed the xxxix Articles, and more parti- cularly thofe called Calvimjlicah as the fureft and ftrongell: barriers to keep out popery. A Pro- teftant Divine may poffibly have his objedlions againft the plain fenfe of thofe Articles ; bur, in this cafe, he ought not to fubfcribe them at all. For if he can bring himfclf to alfent to, and fub- fcribe them in a catholic k-nit^ 1 would defire to know what fecurity the church has, that he does not put the like catholic fenfe (with which he may be furnifhed by the Jefuits) upon thofe Ar- ticles which concern Tranfubftantiation and Pur- gatory ?

In anfwer to this, we are told, that.thefe doc- trinal Articles concerning Grace, Freewill, Pre- deftination, &c. are fufeeptible of an Arminian fenfe, and this is the

[5] Thefe propofitions may be feen in ^he prefent State of hhe Republic of Letters^ for Jidy, 1 733. From whence alfo the account above o^ ^^efnePs death is taken.

Third

THE CONFESSIONAL. 259

Third Inducement our modern fubfcribers have to plead.

Archbifhop Laud, as we have feen, was the earlieft patton of this device : However, I cannot think the praftice would have thriven as it has done, if he had been its only patron. His name is in no great veneration with the rational part of the EngUfli Clergy, particularly with thofe who are the moft ftrenuous advocates for a latitude in fubfcribing. And, by an unaccountable feverfe of things, the men who are enamoured the moft bi Laud's political and hierarchical principles, have contended with the utmoft zeal, againft putdng a double fenfe upon any of the Arti- cles.

It feems to me indeed, that thefe two parties have not perfe6tly underftood each other con- terning this double fenfe^ of which one affirms, and the other denies, the Articles to be capable; Let us confider this matter, with refpeft ftill to the doctrinal Articles called calviniftical.

When the cbntroverfy between the Cahi7vfts and Arminians firft appeared \t\ form, the latter were told in plain terms, " that whofoever op- *' pofed the abfolute decree of Predeilination^ " crofled the do<5trine of the church of E-nglajjd •, " and that the Englifh univerfities, and Billiops, " had always condemned the con trad i(5tory to ** abfolute decrees [C]."

[C] Ridiop Davenant, Animadverfions on a trcatife, intituled, God's Lo've to Mankind, p3g. 6.

S 2 , This

26o THE CONFESSIONAL.

This has been often denied, and as often re-af- ferted. Dr. Waterland^ in his Supplement, labours ftrenuoufly,|with old Heylin^s tools, to prove that our Articles in particular are Anticahinijlkal.

But the author of the Reply to the Supplement, who is faid to be Dr. Sykes, hath fo eifcdually confuted him, that it is not likely that pretence will ever be revived any more.

After Dr. Sykes hath proved his point againfl: tht fuppkmenty he fubjoins the following ingenu- ous acknowledgment.

" But without entering into any farther hifto- " rical difquifitions, I think it evident that the " Articles were made by men who were thorough- " /y in St. Aujiin*s Scheme, and that they meant *' to exprefs that. They chofc to exprels them- " felves with great moderation and temper -, in " confequence of which, men of different opini- " ons have thought themf elves at liberty to take a *' latitude, in order to come in. Accordingly *' men of very different opinions, can, and do fub- " fcribe •, and fince the words are capable of fuch " meaning, an Arminian honeftly fubfcribes to *' the general words ; whereas were the fenfe of *' the compiler, and not \i\^ words ^ only the ftan- " dard, none but a Calvini^ could honeftly fub- " fcribe [D]."

I think it very evident that Dr. Waterland and his Antagonift meant, by a latitude in fubfcribirig, two very different things. Dr. Waterland could

\D] Reply, pag. 39.

never

THE CONFESSIONAL. 261 never mean to exclude a Cahinift from fubfcrib- ing the feventeenth Article : fince the iitmoft he ventures to fay of it, is, " I am rather of opinion, " that the Article leans to the Anticalvin'ian per- '* fuafion.'* Dr. IVaterland therefore was ot opinion, that the compilers left room both for the Cahinift^ and the Arminian to fubfcribe. And that both xht Cahinift y2ind /Irminian^ may honeft- ly fubfcribe, that is, confiftently with the fenfcy or rather the intention of the compiler.

On the contrary, Dr. Sykes is of opinion, that with refpedl to xhtfenfe or intention of the com- pilers, the Arminian fenfe is quite excluded, and accordingly derives the allowance of a Latitude to the Arminian, from the fenfe the general 'words will receive. And this, as I take it, is the lati- tude, or the literal and grammatical knie for which Bifhop Burnet, Dr, Clarke, and perhaps the Doc- tors Nicholls and Bennet, contend.

I apprehend that, if Dr. JVJ's hypothecs could be fupported by proper evidence, every one will allow, that he exhibits much the honefier fcheme Q>i Latitude, of the two. But that is impoflible ; and Dr. Sykes''s premilTes, that the Calvinifticd itT^{'& of the Articles, exclufive of the Arminian fenfe, was the fenfe of the compilers, ftand in- difputable.

But how could honeft men ever bring them- felves to think, they were at liberty to put a fenfe Upon a writing, which the authors of that writing never intended ? The writing in cjueftion, is a public writing, and no public authority is preten- 83 ded

262 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ded for taking this liberty, but His Majejlfs Be- claratipn, wliich, whatever weight it might have had in its day, has evidently been of no force, for above an hundred years pad.

What makes it more furprizing, that any the leaft ftrefs fhould be laid upon this Declaration, is, that Dr. Sykes allov/s, that " fupppfing the le- *' giilature itfelf, confidered as fuch, were (with- " out a new declaratory law) to intermeddle in " determining what is the proper fenfe and ex- " tent of the Articles, and what fhall be judged *' agreeable, or difagreeable to them, — — this " would be determining what they had no right " to determine [£]."

Is this Declaration then, a new declaratory Law ? No body, I fuppofe, will pretend that. So far therefore, as it intermeddles in determining what is the proper knk and extent of the Arti- cles, and what fhall be judged agreeable or dif- agreeable to them, it pretends to determine what it hath no right to determine. It would have been very (Irange dodrine in the cars of Dr. Sykes himfeif, to fay, that King Charles^ in the fingle capacity cf a monarch, had a right to do that, which the legifiacure in its collective capacity had no right to do.

When Dr. Sykes firfc undertook to oppofe Dr. V/nierland in this matter, it is probable he did not foreiee, that he Ihould be obliged to own,

[K] Reply, ^Z2^. 15,

that

THE CpNFESSIONAL. 263

that the Articles in queftion were evidently Cat- vinifticaL His arguments, in his firft pamphlet, go upon the fuppofition, that the lenfe of the Articles is not fixed ; which is only faying in o- ther words, that the meaning of the compilers is not known. And to keep matters under fuch uncertainty, for purpofes now very well under- ftood, feems to have been the view of the Kinc^'s Declaration.

But the Dodlor, by acknowleging the fenfe of certain articles to be originally cahinijtical^ has, •with refped to thofe articles, deprived himfelf of the privilege he might otherwife pretend to de- rive from the Declaration ; namely, of fubfcribino- them in an Armiman fenfe. The Declaration fuppofes the Articles to be drawn up in general words, which favour no fide. Allow that the Ar- ticles were originally drawn up to favour one fide, and what ufe can you make of the Declaration ? Or what refuge for various fenfes, can you find under that ?

For my own part, I cannot but think that an honeft man, muft have fome ftruggles with him- felf, before he can bring himfelf to give a fenfe to words, which he knows they were never meant to bear ; and efpecially when thofe words, are the words of a covenant, importing fome kind of'fe- curity given to the public, by aflenting to them. And yet, certain it is, that fome very good and worthy men, by virtue of a certain fort of cafuiftry, have reconciled themfelves to this prac- S 4 tice,

264 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tice, to avoid fome prefent inconveniencies grievr ous to fleQi and blood. And having met with a remarkable inftance of thjis in the courfe of my inquiries into this fubjed:, 1 fhall now lay it be- fore the reader, the rather as, from a certain re- femblance in the features, I am perfuadedj that cur modern Cafulftry is, in a great meafure, de- rived from this great exemplar.

It has been already obfcrved, that fome of the ancient Puritans in King James's time, refufed tq fubfcribe the Articles, upon the fuppofition that the purpofe, if not the do5irine of the church, was changed from what it had been. When Arrni- manijm came to be more openly avowed by the Bifi^iOps, and fupported by King G^'^rfc'j Injun c-' tions, &c. the fame people were in flill greater diftrefs, not knowing what ufe might be made ot their fubfc rip tions, as they were taken in the canonical form, which admitted of no referve or limitation whatever; and it does not appear, that the fubtelties of our modern cafuiftry had then been found out.

But thefe fame Puritans, having, by oppofing thefe attempts of their adverfaries with fpirit and yigcur, got the upper hand, it came to their turn to impofe terms and conditions upon thofe, who }iad formerly put the like hardfliips upon them.

This occafioned a great demand among the Royalifts for caiuidical Divinity, zxi^fahoes of feveral kinds ; jn which myftical fcience, the jnoft eminent adept was Dr. Robert Sanderfon^

afterwards

THE CONFESSIONAL. 265

afterwards Bifhop of Lincoln. A venerable cha- racter, which has defcended with much eftima- tion, even to the prefent times j infomuch that, I fuppofe, few people, who fhoiild fall into any ©fthofe dilemmas, from which he provided ways to efcape, would fcruple to abide by his judg- ment.

Among other cafes of different kinds, a quef- tion was put to this able cafuift, whether a Royal- ift, who had taken the oath of allegiance to King Charles I. might confcientioufly take the Engage- ment^ injoined by the Parliament in the year 1 650, which ran in thefe words ?

/ A. B. do promife, that I will be true and faith- ful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now ejlabli/hed without King or Lords.

But before we take a view of this learned Doc- tor's fentiments on this fubjeft ; it will be proper to look back a few years, to another tranfadion, wherein this fame Dr. Sanderfon had a principal ihare.

In the year 1646,47, the Parliament deter- mined to vifit the univerfity of Oxford, by a com- mittee of their own houfe. " But before the vi- "■ fitation could take place, the Vice-chancellor, " Dr. Fell, fummoned the Convocation [June i.j " wherein it was agreed, not to fubmit to the " Parliament vifitors. A paper of reafons againft " the Covenant, the Negative- oath, ajid the Direc- " tory, drawn up chiefly by Mr. Sanderfon, was " ^Ifo confented to, and ordered to be publifhed

"to

266 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" to the world, both in Latin and Englifh, --. '* under the title of Reafons of the prefent ju^^^ ":me»i of the umverjity of oxford y &c. [i*]."

Under the head, of thefalvoes for taking the. covenant. Dr. Sanderfon expreflfcs the fenfe of the, univerfity, and confequentiy his own, in the fol- lowing terms.

( 1 ) "It has been faid, that we take it [the Co- ** venant] in our own fenfe. But this we appre- ^' hend, contrary to the nature and epdofan " oath ; contrary to the end of ipeech •, contrary " to the defigp of the covenant j and contrary " to the folem confelTion at the concliifion of it, ^' {viz.) that we (hall take it with a true intention *^^to perform the fame, as we Ihall anfwer it to " the Searcher of all hearts at the great day. •':^« Befides, this would be jefuitical -, it would be **- taking the name of God in vain •, and it would *.' ftrengthen the objedion of thofe who (ay^ *' there is no faith to be given to Proteftants.

(2) " It has been faid, we may take the coye- " nant with thefe falvoes txptcik,d. So far as law- *^ fully I may ; — As it is agreeable to the word of *■' God^ and the taws of the land j — Saving all oaths " by me formerly taken., &c. which is no better *' than vile hypocrify j for by the fame rule, one " may fubfcribe to the council of l^rent, or the " Turkifh Alcoran:'

Thus judged the learned Dr. Sanderfon in the year 1647. There are fome other qualifying

Xfj Nea!'! Kift. of the Puritans, ©aavo, vol. iii. p. 434-

^' ' particulars

THE CONFESSIONAL. 267

particulars mentioned in this refcript, which may be feen at full length in NeaWs Hiftory. Thefe are fufficient for my prefent purpofe ; and very naturally fugged the following remarks.

Either the Parliament vifitors would have allowed of thefe falvoes, or they would not. If they would not,for what purpofe are they brought in here ? unlefs it be to condemn fome of the royal party who had made ufe of them. And io far they are right, for this was no better than downright prevarication.

If the Parliament would have allowed of, or connived at, th^iz falvoes (as I think the Oxford' men took it for granted) we fee here was the mens imponentis, the tacit confent, at lead, of the impofers, on the fide of thofe who took it with thefe referves. And yet we find thefe cafuifts were not for making ufe of this indulgence, be- caufe contrary to the plain and exprefs words, as well as the defign of the covenant. They ac- cordingly condemn the pradiice as jefuitical^ fu)l of vile hypocrify, perverting the nature and end of an oath, abufing the end of fpeech, and high- ly fcandalous to the Proteftant name.

I^et us now fee how the fame Dr. Sanderfon fa- tisfied his querift, concerning taking the Engage- went^ in the year 1650, and how confident he was with his own judgment four years before.

He begins with laying it down as a fadl, *' that *' all expreffions by words, are fubject to fuch ** ambiguities, that fcarce any thing can be faid

" or

i6S THE CONFESSIONAL.

«♦ or exprefled in any w6rds, how cauteloi]fly fo-^ " ever chofen, which will not render the whole " fubjed capable of more conftrudlions than « one [G]."

According to this maxim, the Covenant, which was ten times as long, at lead, as the Engagement , muft be capable of ftill more conftruftions. And yet Dr. Sanderfon could fee plainly and clearly in- to the Defign oi that He lays it down,

2. *' Where one conftrudion binds to more, an- " other to lefs, the true itn(t is to be fixed by ♦> the intention of the impofer. For that all pro- '* mifes and affurances, wherein faith is required ^' to be given to another, ought to be under- *' ftood ad mentem imponentii, according to the " mind and meaning of him to whom the faith «' is givent To far forth as the meaning may rea- " fonably appear."

Now furely no man's mind at)d meaning may ^ore reafonably, ory^ reafonably, appear in any other way, as by his own perfonal pofitive ex- planatioa of ir. The (hort and true anfwer then to the queftion had been, '^ If you are under

[G] Kine Cafes of Covfcience, p. 94- Archbifhop Tiltotfon hath faid much the fame thing. " It is plainly impoffible, that »' any thing fliould be delivered in fuch clear and certain words, " as to be abfelutely incapable of any other fenfe." — But then

jjg adds ' " And yet notvvithllanding this, the meaning of

" them may be fo plain, that any unprejudiced and reafonahle *' man may certainly underlUnd them." Preface to his

Jermons, odavo, .74 3» P- ^v- ^^^^<^^^ ^^^"^^ ^° ^^"^ ^^^'^ fufficiently the cafe with the Engagement, to have excufed Dr. Sanderfon the pains he hath taken with it.

2 " any

THE CONt^ESSlONAL. 25^ ** any uncertainty, concerning the meaning of •* any expreflions in the Engagement^ confult the " Impofers^land govern yourfelf by their interpre- " tatioti." Cafes niight have happened, where the intention of the impofer was doubtful, and where the Impofer himfelf could not be come at. In the prefent inftance the Impofers were living, cafily found, and capable of explaining their own meaning with the greateft precifion.

But probably thefe Impofers would riot have anfwered the ^eriji^s end fo well as Dr. Sanderfoti, who goes on,

3. Reafonahly appear^ I mean, by the

*' nature of the matter about which it is coriverf- *' ant, and fuch fignification of the words where- " in it is exprelTed, as, according to the ordinary " ufe of fpeech among men, agreeth beft there- « to."

But if the mind and meaning of the impofer reafonahly appears by the nature of the fubjed, and by the ordinary fignification of the words wherein it is exprefied, then it fufficieni ly cippQSLTS. There is no pretence left, in fuch a cafe, for doubt or ambiguity. The quefl:ion does not con- cern fuch a cafe ; but thofe cafes only, wherein the mind of the Impofer does not fufficiently ap- pear. And here, confcience and good faith re- quire, that you fliould confult the Impofer him- felf, if he may be found " You are miftakcn,

" lays the Cafuift, for,

4. '* If

270 THE CONFESSIONAL;

4. " If the intention of the impofer be not fd *' fully declared by the words and the nature of '* the bufinefs, but that the fame words may, in '* fair conftrudion, be ftill capable of a double " meaning, fo as, taken in one fenfe, they (hall *' bind to more, and in another to kfs, I conceive " it is not necefTary, nor always expedient (but " rather, for the moft part, otherwife) for the *' promifer, before he give [his] faith, to demand " of the impofer, whether of the two is his mean- *' ing ? But he may, hy the rule of prudence, and " that (for ought I fee) without the violation of *' any law of his confcience, make his ju^ advan- " tage of that ambiguity-, and take it in the fame ** fenfe which Ihall bind him to the le/s.'*

This looks extremely like a contradidion to what went before, namely that *' all promifes^ " &c. ought to be underftood ad mentem imponen- *' /fV." But dextrous cafuifts can extricate them- felves out of much more confiderable difficulties; Obferve how nimbly the Doftor comes off here. ''•'' Since the faith to be given, is intended to *' the behoof of him to whom it is given, it con- ** cerneth him to take care, that his meaning be " expreffed in fuch words, as will fufRciently *» manifeft the fame to the underftanding of i. *' reafonable man. Which if he neglefl to dOj " no law of equity or prudence bindeth the pro- '** nriifer, by an overfcrupulous diligence^ to make *' it out, whereby to lay a greater obligation «* upon himfelf, than he need to do."

But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 271

But here the Dodtor is met full in the face by another of his principles, which is, that " fcarce ** any thing can be exprefled in any words, how ^^ cauteloujly foever chofen, which will not admit

*f of more conftruftions than one/* So that

after the utmoft care and caution the impofer could poflibly take, his meaning might be dubi- ous to a reafonable man, and much more 10 d. pre- judiced Qiierift, and a willing Cafuift, as will more particularly appear, now that we attend the learned Doftor, in the application of his principles to the Engagement.

" In which, our Cafuift fays, there are fundry ** ambiguities.

1. " The words true 2Xidi faithful^ may intend, " either fidelity and allegiance to be performed to " the powers in pofTeffion, as their right and

' " due ; or fuch a kind oi fidelity as captives taken " in war promife to their enemies, &c.

2. "By the word Commonwealth^ may either " be meant — the prevalent party —^now pofTefled " of, and exercifing, fupreme power in this King- •* dom : Or elfe the whole entire Body of the Eng" " lijh nation^ as it is a civil fociety, or ftate with- " in itfelf, diftinguifhed from all other foreign •' ftates.

3. " The word eftaUiJhed^ may fignify the ** ejiablijhment of the prefent form of Govern- " ment, either dejure^ or de faHo^ &c.**

Out of thcfe diftindlions he works the two fol- lowing fenfcs of the engagement.

t;2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

** I acknowledge the fovereigri power in this " nation, whereunto I owe allegiance and fub- " jedtion, to be rightly ftated in the houfe of " Commons, wherein neither King nor Lords ** (as fuch) have, or henceforth ought to have " any fliare. And I promife, that I will per- " form all allegiance and fubjedtion thereunto ; " and maintain the fame with my fortunes and " my life, to the utmoft of my power.'*

They who know the hiftory of thofe times, and the occafion of the Engagement, can entertain no doubt but this was the natural meaning of this fecuriry, and will therein fee a manifefl: reafon why Dr. Sander/on would not fend hi^ Querift to the Impofers for a refolution of his doubts: efpecially as, by his quibbles, he could; for his fatisfaflion, fqueeze the following fenfe out of the fame words of the Engagement.

" Whereas, /cr the prefent^ the fupremc power *« in England is aHually fojfeffed arid exercifed by *« the Houfe of Commons, without either King " or Lords •, I promife that,/o long as I live under ** that power and frcte5fion, I will riot contrive or " attempt any a6l of hoftility agairift them ; bur, '* living quietly and peaceably under them, will " endeavour myfelf, faithfully, in my place and « calling, to do, what every good member of a com-^ «' monwealth ought to do, for the fafety of my coun- «* try, and prefervation of civil fociety therein.'*

After

THE CONFESSIONAL. 273

After which follow fome arguments tending to prove, that this latter was 7nore probably the fenfe of the Impofers, than the other; which can be looked upon in no better light than of an at- tempt to infult the common fenfe of all mankind.

In the beginning of this cafe of confcience, the learned Do6tor offers fomething, by way of fhew- ing, that the Solemn League and Covenanty being exprefsly contrary to the oaths of allegiance, was not lawfully to be taken by any man who had taken fuch oaths, or was perfuaded fuch allegi- ance was due. Which he feems to have men- tioned, left his Oxford-dxv'mxty upon the Covenant fliould be applied to the cafe of the Engagement, The difference between the two cafes, however, confifts fingly and folely in thefe probabilities he mentions, that the framers of the Engagement in- tended this lower fenfe ^ which no doubt he thought to be confiftent with the Querifts allegiance to K. Charles, And indeed not without reafon, fmce, "without all difpute, both the Cafuifts and the ^^e- rifls principles led them to believe, that every good member of the commonwealth ought, in his place and calling, to contribute all in his power to the refto- ration of K.. Charles, and ih^.i for the fafety of his country, and the prefervation of civil fociety therein. No one can doubt of this, who knows that it was this fame Dr. Sanderfon who declared, it was not lawful to refill the Prince upon the throne, even to fave all the fouls in the whole world.

T But

274 THE confessional;

But did Dr. Sander/en really think that the powers then in being were fuch fools and triflers, as probably to intend to put no other but his lower fenfe upon the Engagement, or indeed to allow of that fenfe at all ? — It is too evident for his credit, from his own words in this very tradt, that he did not. For he intreats his correfpondent to take care, that no copies of his paper (hould get abroad, " Left the potent party," fays he, *' in confideration of fome things therein hinted, " might think the words of the Engagement too " lighty and might thence take occafion to lay " fome heavier obligation upon the Royalifts, in " words that would oblige to more.**

Could the Cafuiff have entertained any fufpi- cions of this fort, had he really and fincerely thought the lozver confiruolion was the fenfe in- tended by the potent party ^

He concludes his cafe thus : " If any man, *' out of thefe confiderations, rather than fuffer *' extreme prejudice to his perfon, eftate, or ne- *' ceffary relations, fhall fubfcribe the Engagement, " [in that fenfe which binds to lefs] fmce his own heart condemneth him not," [and that it might not, he, good man, had taken no ordinary pains] '* neither do I."

Who Ihall now be faucy enough to fay, there is no faith to be given to Proteftants }

" Many, without doubt," fays Dr. IVaterland, *« have been guilty of prevaricating with ftate

" oaths ;

THE CONFESSIONAL. 275

*' oaths i but nobody has yet been found fan- " guine enough to undertake the defence of it ia " print [H]."

This cafe of confcience, however, was in print before IVaterland was born ; and, what is more, he kne-::j it was. One may charitably hope, in- deed, he did not kifpefl it of defending prevari- cation, otherwife he would hardly have recom- mended thefe Nine Cafes of Confcience^ in his Ad- vice to young Students. What notion had Dr. W, of defending prevarication .? He has told us, in the period immediately preceding the laft cita- tion, " 'Tis defending a fraudulent fubfcription " upon principle, by rules of art." Subftitutc a civil in the place of an ecclefiafiical fubfcription, and you have a true character of Sanderfon's per- formance.

I cannot avoid remarking in this place the fi- milarity of the two cafes for which His Majejlys Declaration, and this Difpenfation of Sanderfon's, were refpedlively contrived.

James I. (or, if you will, Charles I.) wanted the afllftance of the high-flying Arminians. But that he could not have, till, by fubfcription, they had qualified themfelves for preferments in the church : and fubfcribe they decently could not, till the Articles were fome way accommodated to their notions. This was effeded by the Decla^

i . . ration.

{H} Cafe of Arian Subfcrlption, p. 4.

T 2 Qarks

276 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Charles II. then in exile, wanted the aid of the Cavaliers and Prefbyterians, and this he could not have, till they had equipped themfelves for pftfls of truft and power -, and to thefe they muft pafs through the Engagement^ which, in its obvi- ous meaning, would not go down with numbers of them [/ ]. Dr. Sander/on himfelf infmuates, that this temporizmg was neither unknown to, nor difapproved by the King. And, to encourage it the more, tells the Qiierifi:, that " whenfoever *' the prefent force was fo removed from the ta- ** ker [of the Engagement], or he from under it,

[ /] The prefbyterians, if we may believe Dr. Ca/amy, were more fcrupulous about taking the Eiigagementy than the Epif- copalians. The famous Mr. Richard Fines was, for rcfufmg that iecurity, put out of the Headlhip oi Pejnhroke Hall in Cam- bridge, as was Dr. Rainbo^-M at another college in the fame u- niverfity. Dr. Reynolds forfeited the Deanry of Chrift-Churcb, Oxford, on the fame account, Ahridgment 62, 63. Mr. Baxter ^ we are told, ih. p, 104. difluaded men from taking it, wrote af^ainll the taking it, and declared to thoie who were for put- ting quibbling conftrudtions on it, that, " the fubjeft's allegi- " ance, or fidelity to his rulers, could not be acknowledged and " given in plainer words." Bifhop Satiderfon hints at thefe fcruples of the prefbyterians, in this very tradl, p. 94. conclud- ing however, that, " for his own part, when we fpeak of learn- *' ing and confcience, he holds molt of the prefbyterians to be " very litde confiderable." What would not a man fay to ferve a caufe, bad or good, that could fay this ? But let us not forget the excellent Dr. Ifaac Barroiv on tliis occafion, who, *' when the Engagefnent was impofed, fubfcribed it ; but upon " fecpnd thoughts, repenting of what he had done, he applied " himfelf to the commifTioners, declared his dilTatisfadUon, and «« prevailed to have his name razed out of the lilt." Biogr.

^rit. in Article Barrow, Text. Moft people will think

Barrcn/u as good a caf'uiit as Sander/on^

♦'as

THE CONFESSIONAL, 277

" ns that he fhould have power to aft according *' to his allegiance, the obligation would of icfelf " determine and expire." A fort of doftrine that ieems rather to have been born and bred at Uege or St. Omer*s, than at Oxford.

One word with the Doflors Sykes and Sander/on together, and I have done.

Dr. Sykes lays great (Irefs upon this circum- ftance, viz, that the church of England, bein^^ a Proteflant church, cannot confiftently obtrude her own interpretations of fcripture upon her members, fo as to fuperfede or over- rule the right of private judgment, or the liberty every one has to interpret for himfelf. " What- *' ever authority," fays he, " the church may *' claim, [he fhould have added, or exenife] it *' muft ftill be fubfervient to the right of inter- " preting fcripture for one's felf ; or elfe the ex- " horting men to ftudy the fcriptures, is jufl: fuch ** a banter and ridicule, as it would be ferioufly " to command one to fee clearly and diftinitly " any objecft, and at the fame time to put falfe ♦' fpedacles before our eyes [iC ]."

Let us put this into political language. " We ** mufl ftill preferve our allegiance to the fcriptures, " notwithftanding our fubmitting to the claims " of the church de fa5io, which feern to be incon- " fiftent with it. The church herfelf acknow- *' ledges the right of the fcriptures de jure, and " therefore if flie challenges fuch an allegiance

\K\ Reply to WatcrlancPs fupplement, p, 26

T 3 " from

2^8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" from us de fa5lo^ as contravenes our allegiance

" to the fcriptures" what then ? ^ 1 he

premifles certainly lead us to conclude — " We " muft not comply with her, notwithdanding her *' pretences of acknowledging the fovereign au- " thority of the fcriptures." — Inftead of that. Dr. Sykes only concludes — " She muft then be " inconfiftent with herfelf." — As if it was im- poffible for the church of England to be incon- fiftent with herfelf ! The queftion is, whether the church of England does not, by her authority de fa£fOy fuperfede the allegiance which (he profeiTes to be due to the fcriptures de jure, by requiring fubfcriptions to her own interpretations ? And if fhe does, what ought a confcientious man to do in fuch a cafe ? — As little as I am in love with Bifhop Sanderfon's Theology, I will venture to leave this point to his decifion, who in a cafe ex- a<5tly parallel, determines as follows.

" The taking of the late Solemn League andCo- " venant, by any fubje6t of England (notwithftand- " ing the proteftation in the preface, that there- '* in he had the honour of the King before his eyes ; ** and that exprefs claufe in one of the articles of "it, wherein he fwore,' 'The prefervation of the " King's per f on and honour) was an ad: as clear " contrary to the oath of allegiance, and the natu- " ral duty of every fubjedt of England ; as the " ajjijling of the King to the utnioji of one's .-power ; " (which is a branch of the oaths) and the affifi'

THE CONFESSIONAL. 279

*' ^^S againjl any per [on whatfoever^ with his utmoji ** powei\ thofe who were auluaUy in arms againjl the " King, (which was the very end for which that *' Covenant was fet on foot) are contrary the one " to the other [L].'*

The Dodor has expreiTed himfelf aukwardly enough ; but his fentiment is plain, and his in- ference unavoidable. *' Therefore, no iubjeft of *' England, who defired to preferve his allegiance " to King Charles I. could confcientioufly take *' the Solemn League and Covenant, notwithftand- " ing the faving claufes therein exprefled." Let the reader make the application.

I am heartily forry that I cannot derive the pra«5lice of our fubfcribing the xxxix Articles, with a latitude, from a more refpedable origin than thcfe foregoing precedents. Every man however, has the fame right that I have of judg- ing for himfelf. And I pretend to no more in this colledion of fadts, than to afiift thofe to whom the fubjed is of importance, to form their own fentiments upon it, with precifion and im- partiality. There will ftill be numbers among us, who will continue to fubfcribe, and continue likewife to care for none of thefe things. Such as thefe perhaps, care not for matters of mort con- fequence j which indeed, I fhould apprehend to be the cafe with the mod of thofe, who ,an bring themfelves to give a fecurity of this kind

[L] Nine Cafes, p. 92, 93.

T 4 to

28o THE CONFESSIONAL.

to the church, and to the pubh'ck, without a previous examination, to what the nature and circumftances of ib folemn an a6tj do in reality amount.

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 281

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the conclufions that arife from the forego- ing dif^uifttions,

IT is now time to fum np the account, and to confider to what it amounts. A detail of facets, exhibiting all this contrariety of fen timents, all this confufion and uncertainty, with refpefl to the cafe of fubfcribing our eftabliflied forms, would be of little ufe, if fome confequences might not be drawn from it, tending to lead us out of the labyrinth, and fuggefting fome means of putting the matter upon a more edifying foot^ ing.

I have not, willingly and knowingly, mifrepre- fented any thing, in ftating the feveral cafes that have come under confideration. I have cited authorities fairly and candidly, and have not, to my knowledge, fuppreffed any thing that might {hew them to the bed advantage. But if any one fliould think there is a partial bias in the reflexions I have occafionally made upon particular paf- fages, I will readily give them up upon compe- tent proof of fuch obliquity, and abide by the conclufions, which any man of common honefty and common fenfe, fhall think fit to draw from this perplexity and contradiction among fo many

learned

282 THE confessional;

learned writers, who, on other occafions, acquit themfelves with fufficient clearnefs and confiften- cy.

Such a one, I prefume, will make no difficul- ty to acknowledge, that in this matter of lub- fcription at lead, a reformation is devoutly to be "wilhed. The Bifhops Burnet and Clayton, the Do6tors Clarke, Sykes, and others, confefs it, and call for it. And tho' fuch writers a?? Bilhop Ccny' heare, and the Dcxflors Nkholh, Bennet, Water-^ land, Stebbing, &c. the heroes of our fifth chap- ter, neither allow the expedience of fuch refor- mation, nor would have endured any propofals of that kind without a ftrenuous oppofition, yet their own writings on the fubjed, when compared together, are more than a thoufand advocates for it ; if it were only for the fake of taking a- way the offence and fcandal, arifing from the fup- pofed occafion the Church of England has to employ fuch a fett of party-coloured Cafuifts.

Indeed an unlimited latitude of interpretation, allowing every fubfcriber of the Articles, to ab- ound in his own fenfe, tends in a great meafure, to fuperfede the necefllty for a revifion of our prefent fyftem, as fuppofing that men of different opinions may very well acquiefce in it as it is. This is what Bifhop Burnet, Dr. Clarke^ and the writers of that complexion contend for, and in fo doing, furnifli their adverfaries with an anfwer out of their own mouths, whenever they plead

for

THE CONFESSIONAL. 283

a reformation ; a term which fuppofes and im- plies that things are in fuch a flate, as honefl; and confcientious fubfcribers cannot acquiefce in. ■ Of late indeed, the neceffity for a reformation in this^ as well as in other articles of our ecclefi- aftical eftablifhment, has been acknowledged by unprejudiced and confcientious men of different perfuafions. And even they who dread it on private and perfonal confiderations, when they think fit to appear in oppofition to any propofals tending that way, betray the mofl manifeft to- kens of convidion, that a reformation would be a right m.eafure in itfelf ; and therefore fet them- felves to fhew, that a reformation is rather im- praBicabky than unnecejjhry ; of which I fliall pre- sently give fome remarkable inftances.

Let us then procede to confider the force of the arguments againft a reformation, drawn from the impra^icability of it j taking along with us the conceffion, that a reformation is expedient and defirable.

The queftion with which this inquiry naturally opens, is, by whom fhould a reformation in our ecclefiaftical affairs be firfl attempted ?

And here I take it for granted, that all fides will be unanimous in their aniwer : namely by the Bifhops, and other pious and learned divines, who by the courfe of their education and ftudies, and their intercourfe with clergymen of all capa- cities and difpofitions, may well be -fuppofed to

have

2^4 THE CONFESSIONAL, have the clearefl conception both of what is a- mifs, and of the moil effe6lual methods to bring things into order.

Here the only difficulty to be apprehended is, that the Bifiiops having no authority to undertake any thing of this fort of themfclves, recourfe m.uft be had to the higher powers, firft for leave or li- cenfe to make a proper examination into the par- ticulars that may want to be reformed, and after- wards to give a legal fan6tion to fuch alterations as may be found neceffary. And there may perhaps be fome doubt made, whether my Lords the Biihops v/ould fuccede in applying to the Crown for the pov/ers neceffary for luch an under- taking, or to the Legiflature for their authorif- ing fuch a reform, as their Lordfhips and their affiftants might think requifite.

Now for any fuch objeclion as this I apprehend there is not the leaft room, till fuch application has actually been made and rejefted. Have our Bifliops and great churchmen ever made the trial ? Have they been difapointed in the event of it ?

I will venture to anfwer both thefe queftions in the negative : and will fupport my opinion by a witnefs worthy of all credit.

** I have been credibly informed, fays this de- *' ponent, his Majefty * has fometimes faid to a " late great prelate, when paying his duty at *' court, — Is there any thing my Lordf you would

* King George IF,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 2$5

** have me do for the church of England ? If there ** w, let me know it. And he, continues this " writer, who of his own motion will fay this, ** cannot receive otherwife than gracioufly, any " petition for leave and opportunity to his clergy, " to confuk together for its good [Qu. whcfe '* good^ or the good of what, the church, or the ** clergy ?] if it be made with decency and pro- priety [Ay

Upon this fa6t I reft the evidence, that no ap- plication has been made to the throne, on the behalf of reforming the church of England, and that, if our Bilhops had applied, their petition would not have been rejedted.

The patrons of the prefent ecclefiaftical fyf- tem therefore, put the impraoiicability of a refor- mation upon the people, with whom they can life more freedom. They tell us, the times are not ripe for reformation. The Englifh of which is, that the temper and manners of our people are not in a condition to be reformed.

Hear how the fame /r^'d' and i-mpartial confiderer I have juft now quoted, fets forth the unripenefs of the prefent times in this refped:.

** The grofs body of the people are weak, ig^ ** norant, injudicious, capricious, fadious, head-' " ftrong, felf- willed, and felf-fufficienc, and never " lefs difpofed than at this time to acquiefce in

[A] Free and impartial confidcrations on xhsfree and candid Difquijitions, &c. p. 56. printed for Baldntvin 1751. The author of which is now known to be the rev. John \^'hite, b. d.

" the

fiU tHE CONFESSIONAL.

** the wifdom, and fubmit themfelves to the de- *' cifions of their fuperiors, nor ever more impa- •' tient to be driven from their old habits, and *' put out of their way in the offices or any other " matters of religion ; efpecially thofe which they " themfelves are to praftife, and have a perfonal *' concern in. This is now grown to be the general " temper of the people. I dont call it their bigotry. " No, 'tis a fpirit of mutiny and independence. " And this 1» think you muft allow, is ftill in- *' creafing, as much as you or I can pretend the " other is decreafing among us [5]."

I would not have cited this paflage in proof of what I have advanced, but that the author of it gives broad hints that he wrote permijfu fuperi- crtim. " Some things he omitted by the advice of " thofe whofe judgment he greatly reverences, and " cannot allow h'lmklf in any thing to differ from.'* Thefe muft be his ecclefiaftical fuperiors, fince in fome or other of his books, he hath allowed him- felf to differ from men of almoft all other deno- minations, who pretend to be judges of fuch things. He fpeaks as if he had conferred upon the ftibject of alterations " with a perfon in high " ftation," p. S'^. In another place he fays, " nay I am fatisfied we fhall not ftand with ** them [the diflenters] for half a dozen things of ** the like nature, [as the crofs in baptifm] upon «* fo good and valuable a confidcration, as their " coming in and embracing the communion of «' the church [5].'* No man, one would think, [B] [B] Ibidem, p. 7, 8.

at

THE CONFESSIONAL. ;t87

at leafl: no Tuch man as Mr. IVhiie, would ven- tnre to anfwer for my Lords the bifhops, in fo public a manner, and upon.fo nice a point, with- out fome aiTurance that they would not difowa him, would the matter be brought to a trial. I conclude therefore, that this paragraph is agree- able to the fentiments of thofe great churchmen who fupervifed Mr. White's pamphlet ; otherwifc it certainly fhould have been omitted, as fome other things were, by the advice of his friend or friends in high ftation. But let us now proceed to confider the cafe it exhibits.

We have here the general temper of the grofs body of a chriftian people defcribed in terms, which with the addition of one or two epithets, would perfectly charaderize the inhabitants of Pandamonium. Bigotry, or a blind attachment to religious prejudices, v^ould have afforded fome ex- cufe for thefe wretches. Mifled by the fuperfti- tion of ignorant parents, or impofed upon by the wiles of crafty teachers, the fault might not have been wholly their own, that they were not more tradable and fubmiffive to proper authori- ty. But this would have thrown part of their guilt where Mr. IFhite did not want to have it thrown. They are therefore deprived of the be- nefit of this plea, and their depravity afcribed to a fadious headftrong fpirit of their own ; an in- born malignity of heart, one would think, near akin to that of i\\t fpirit s who kept not their jirjl e- Jiate, and equally incurable.

And

255 tHE CONFESSIONAL.

And yetj, when thh free and impartial conCider- cr comes to be crofs-examined upon this accufa- tioD) we (hall find fuch evident tokens of difin- gertuity, as difcover that his teftimony was not founded merely on the love of truth. For in the firft place, who can thefe fuperiors be, in whofe wifdora this mutinous people refufe to acquiefce, and to whofe judgment they will not fubmit? Not their ecckjtajlical fuperiors we may be fure •, fince Mr. JVhite has told us in this fame pam- phlet, that this very people, capricious, fadious, headftrong, &c. as he has reprefented them, have feme refpeB for their fpiritual^^fj^j and governors \ and ferfe enough, with all their weaknefs, ignor- ance, and want of judgment, " to perceive that " thofe who are led by their office, to think con- " tinually on thofe things which concern religi- " on, are more likely to judge rightly of them» " than any /-sy-afTembly whatever," p. 2.

The refult is then that this fpirit of mutiny, ■would only be exerted againft the /<3jy- fuperiors of this headllrong people. But how does this appear, or vv^hat foundation in the prefent cafe is there for any fuch apprehenfion ? When have our lay-fuperiors attempted, within Mr. PVhite's memory, " to drive Us from our old habits, or *' put us out of our way, in the ofHces, or any *' other matters. of religion, efpecially thofe which *' weourfelves are to praftife, and have a perfon- " al concern in .^" For my own part, I can re- collect

THE CONFESSIONAL. 289

colleft but one inftance, the late alteration of the flyle, which gave offence, as I have heard, to fome elderly females, by difplacing, as they thought, fome of their darling feftivals, particu- larly ChriJimaS'day. For the reft, fo far as this in- ftance is in point, nothing can be more unlucky for Mr. White and the caufe he is fupporting. It is an incident that hath happened fince his pam- phlet was publifhed. And the general acquiefcence of our people in this new law, ftiews fufficiently, that they are not fo very tenacious of their old habits againft fenfe and reafon, as he would have it believed, and that he had rafhly and un- reafonably calumniated his countrymen.

The plain truth is, this gentleman was only drefling up a fcarecrow, to deter a certain lay- aflembly from taking matters of reformation out of the hands of the clergy, into their own, of which he every where betrays the moft abjedt fears.

In the paroxyfm of fuch panics, it is ufual for the party affeded, to catch up the firft weapon that falls in his way, and to deal his blows with fo unfteady an hand, and fo undifcerning an eye, as oftentimes to maim or bruife a friend, inftead of an enemy. So hath it happened to this valiant champion on the prefent occafion.

He hath drawn fo deteftable a picture of the

common people, that it may very well frighten

any aiTembly of men in their wits, from meddling

U with

290 THE CONFESSIONAL.

with them in ^«j province, civil or religious. But is it not natural to a(k, how came our countrymen into this degenerate ftate ? There have becQ times, when they were more reafonable and con- defcending to the wifdom of their fuperiors. How come they, particularly, 'to be fo weak, ig- norant, and injudicious in religious matters ? Does not this reprefentation carry with it fome reflec- |;ion on thole who fhould have taught them bet- ter ? And who iliould thefe be, but the appoint- ed teachers of religion ? The Bifhops and paftors of the church, whq receive fome millions annual- ly as a confideration for their watching for th? fouls of the people, and particularly for inftilling into them chriftian knowledge, and chriftian principles ?

Take the matter as Mr. fFhite hath exhibitecl it, and you can perceive no trace of any due pains taken^. with them this way. \{ there is any ap- pearance in his book that their ecclefiaftical fupe- riors have taught them any thing, it is only that fort offenfe which leads to fome refpe^ for them- felves, while they have fuffered them to a6t and think with refped to their civil governors, whatever their unruly, headftrong wills and affedions may fuggeft to them : and will it not be faid, that the clergy may perhaps foment this fpirit of fadion and independence, towards their lay-fuperiors, the better to fecure the dependence of this head- ilrong multitude upon themfelves ?

In

THE CONFESSIONAL. 291

In my opinion, Mr. Whitens friends in high ftaticns could not have pitched upon a worfe ad- vocate to plead their caufe than himfelf. It might have been faid on the behalf of the clergy of the prefent generation at lead, that the people were

corrupted before they came into their hands ;

that thefe extreme degrees of degeneracy, cannot be fuppofed to have been contraded in the com- pafs of a it-^ years — that our prefent Billiops and paftors were obliged to take the people as they found them — but that they were ufing their utmoft endeavours to corred their principles, and meliorate their habits, and had reafon to hope for fuccefs in due time.

But Mr. White^ by alledging that this licen- tious-fpirit of the people \%fiill increafing^ leaves room to believe, that the prefent generation of religious paftors, are jufl as negligent of their charge as their predecefibrs.

But to leave this gentleman a while to himfelf. I could never perfuade myfelf that the argument in defence of the chriftian clergy, drawn from the nature of the times they lived in, however jt may have been managed, is of any fort of weight. An enterprizing genius of the prefent age, feems to have made the moft of it, in a late attempt to reftore the fathers fo called, to fome part of the credit they had loft under the examination of Bailie^ U^ith)\ Barheyrac^ Middkton^ and others U2 [D]. And

igz THE confessional;

[D^. And how has he fucceeded ? Has he fhcwn^ in oppofition to the charges brought againft them JDy thefe writers, that they were judicious critics and interpreters of holy writ •, accurate reafon- ers ', found moralids •, confiftent and confcientious cafuifts •, or even credible witnelTes to matters of fa6b ? By no means. His defence of them is founded upon the conceffion, that they were de- fedive in all thefe articles, not ,thro* their owr| fault, but the error of the times. On this head this ingenious writer takes great pains to Ihew, by a long indudion of particulars, how learning and fcience were abufed, corrupted, and diverted from the purpofe, either of difcoyering or main- taining the truth, in the different fchools and feds of pagan orators, fophifts, and philofophers. Among thefe it feems the fathers had their firft rudiments, and the falhion of the times keeping up the reputation of thefe depraved methods of reafoning, &c. the fathers were obliged to deal with their pagan rivals in their own way, and to play their own fophiitry and prevarication upon them in their turn.

Is it poffible this acute writer (hould impofe this ftate of the cafe upon himfelf, or hope to impofe it upon his readers, for a full juftiiication ^''of the fathers ? For to what does all this learned harangue amount, but to this, that the fathers, inftead of reforming, were themfelves corrupted by the men and the times they lived in ^

^P] Warburton's 'Juliarty Introdudlion.

If

THE CONFESSIONAL. 293

if the times had not been faulty, there had been np occafion for the fathers to mend them. And as they undertook this province, it is but reafonable to fuppofe they had means and expe- dients in their hands, adequate to the difcharge Qf.it. , Thefe means and expedients, they them- felves eonfefs, were the holy fcriptures, from whence they might have been furniihed with all neceflary truths^ as well as with the methods of inculcating them in fmplicity and godly^fincerityy without having reeourfe to the inticing words of fnan^s mfdom. Who gave them a commifllon to model the truths of the Gofpel to the tafte of a licentious and corrupt world ? or to fubtilize the J)lairi dodrines of Chrift and his apoflJes, by the chemiftry of the reigning philofophy ? I do not know indeed that the fathers pretended to any fuch authority. But if they did, we, who have in our hands the only authentic commifiion they had to teach, and the exemplification of it in the pradice of the apoftles, have no occafion to be- lieve them.

The memorable Mr. Hales of Etcn, who faw as much of the right ufe of the Fathers^ and as foon^ as Mr. Daill^ himfelf, and perhaps had full as much candor, with refpe^t to the allowances that ought to be made on account of theif fituation in the world, was well aware of the apology thait this learned Do6lor has made for them % but however feems ta have paid little regard to its merit.

U 3 Arch-

294 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Archbifliop Laud^ offended at the freedoms Hdes had taken with church- authority and tra- dition, in his trad concerning /r,6//w, put" the ho- neft man to his purgation, which he underwent with a degree of courage, decency, and good fenfe, that would have done him honour, had he left nothing behind him but' that fmgle letter to Laud.

*' I am thought," Tays this excellent perfon, to " have been too iliarp in cenfui^ing afiliquiiy be- " yond the good refpect which is due unto it. In " this point, my error, if any be, fprang from ".this, that taking anions to be the fruit by which *' men are to be judged, 1 judged of the perfons " by their a^iom^ and not of anions by the per- *^fons from whom they proceeded. For to judge ^^ of anions by persons and times, I have al- " ways taken to be most unnatural [£^].'*

[£] Mr. Ha/es's Letter to Arclibifliop Laud, ufually printed at the end of Bifhop Hare's Difficulties and Difcouragements, See. The Tra£l concerning 5chifm was written in the year 1636, and this apology very foon after. Which I mention on 'account

■ of a pafTage in it that amounts almoft to a deroonftration, that the fiiil claufe of our twentieth Article, concerning Church-au- thority in contro'verjies of faith, was not, at that time, held for authetitic, and probably was not in any of the printed books of Articles then in ufe. The paflage I mean is this: " I count " in point of decfion of church-quejiions, if I fay of the authority ^^ of the church, that it was none ; I know no adverfary I have, " the church of Rome only excepted. For this cannot be true, ** except we make the z\i\XYc\\ judge of contro'verfes; the contrary

- *' to which we generally w«/«/:«magainft /'Z'i?/ church," Would hales have faid this, and faid it too to fuch a man as Laud^ if

Whether

tHE CONFESSIONAL. 295

Whether the authority of Mr. Haks^ with {o fenfible a confideration to fupport it, (hould not be of fuperior weight to Dr. W—-^s^ backed on- ly with a large quantity of precarious fpeculatioii upon very doubtful f^dls, muft be left to their refpe^Stive readers. For my own part, I am in- clined to think, the fafer apology for the Fathers would have been tha.t obfervation which the fame learned Dodor mentions elfewhere to have been made upon /Irnobius and La5!antius, namely, that they undertook the defence of Chriftianity before they underwood it. This is a cafe which was perhaps common to all the Fathers, and admitted of a reafonable excufe ; the fame which the Apoftle Paul allows in a fimilaf one, they had a zeal for God, but mt according to knowledge.

Whether the cafe of our modern Fathers would admit of a like apology, is not material to in- quire ; as it is certain, that an advoca:te who fhould offer it on their behalf, would meet with no thanks at their hands. They fay^ they fee as well as others, that things are out of order in the church ; but alledgethe unfeafonablenefs of thefe times for any attempt to fet them right. In the mean time, others fee that the infeflion of the

he might have been confronted with an authentic book of Ar- ticles ? 'Tis not unlikely that LmJ, upon this occafion, might refolve to flop that gap for the future, and take care that the fubfequent editions ftiould be more correftly printed. I have now at hand a Latin copy of the Articles, printed at Oxfora, by LichfeU, ^71^ > without the iirft claufe of the twentieth Ar- ticle;

U 4 times

2g6 tHE CONFESSIONAL.

times has, in fome degree, laid hold even of thefe venerable perfonages, and produced ap* pearances of lecularity, which, whenever a refor- mation fhall be happily brought about, we may be fu re will not be fuffered to difparage their fa- cred characters, nor to give offence any longer to thofe weak and fiiort-fighted brethren, who cannot comprehend that fuch conformity to the world can contribute to bring the times to matu- rity for planting and bringing forth more evan- gelical fruits.

But let us do all fides juftice, and now proceed to examine how this plea oiiinpra5iicability has been elucidated and enforced by certain writers, who were a little niore prudent and cautious than the above-mentioned Mr. White.

*' In all propofals and fchemes to be reduced ^^ to praflice," (fays a very dextrous champion of the church of England) *' we muft fuppofe the *' world to be what it is, not what it ought " to be. We muft propofe, not merely what ** is abfolutely good in itfelf, but what is fo with ** refpect to the prejudices, tempers^ and confti- *' tutions ws know, and are furc to be among " us[F]."

To this dotflrine a very eminent name is fub- fcribed, which is likewife fubfcribed to fomc other doctrines utterly inconfiftent with it, at leaft in

[F ] Blfiiop Hoadhys ResfTonabkriefs of Conformity, apad ThiL Cantab, p. IJ-

2 my

THfe COKFESSIONAL. 297

my apprehenfion, unlefs conforming to mbat the w^rld is, and conforming to the fovereignty of Chrift in his own kingdon), is precifely one and the fame thing [G].

Be this as it may, the doflrine of conforming to the prejudices, tempers, and conftitutions, that we know to be among us, has clearly carried the vogue, and is now pretty generally adopted by the clergy, in whatever repute the reft of the right reverend author's divinity may be with them.

" *Tis reprefented, that the world was never kfs difpofed to be ferious and reafonable, than at this period. Religious reflexion, we are informed, is not the humour of the times ; nor can men of any fort be brought to examine their own opinions and popular falhions, with attention fufficient to enable them to judge, either of the efficacy of fuch remedies as might be propofed by public authority, or the propriety or expediency of ad- miniftring them."

'* We are therefore advifed, to exercife our prudence and our patience a little longer; to wait till our people are in a better temper, and, in-the mean time, to bear with their manners and dif- pofitions ; gently and gradually correfting their foolifh and erroneous notions and habits ; but ftill taking care not to offend them with unfeafonablc

fG] Sermon on the Nature Qf the Kingdom of Chrill, and the Biihop's Defeaces of it.

truths.

d98 THE CONFESSIONAL/

truths, nor to throw in more light upon them at once, than the weak optics of men, fo long ufed to fit in darknefs, are able to bear. — In one word, to confider the world as ii is, and not as ;/ ought

to ur

This is the common cant of thofe both in higher and lower ftations, who defire to put a negative upon a review of ourecclefiaftical fyftem. It is fomething, indeed^ that, with refpefl to o*jr prefent fyftem, they will own that the body of the people fit in darknefs j which implies, that, if they were more enlightened, they would have no inconfiderable objedions to the forms in which they now acquiefce. But when it is confidered from whence this light and truth are to come^ namely, from thofe records which have preferved ■to us the Gofpel, as it was preached by Chrift "and his Apoftles, is it not a little ftrange, that this .truth fhould be. unfeafong,hle^ and this light into- krable^ after the Gofpel has been taught, received, and profefied, in a fucceffion of generations, for • near eighteen hundred years ?

But tt) examine his Lordfliip's dodrine a little more narrowly. What the Bifhop calls the pre- judices, tempers, and conftitutions of men, are known to be much oftener, and in much greater abundance, on the fide of folly, fallhood, and vice, than of truth, virtue, and good fenfe. Prejudice and partial atfeflion carry their point every day, againft the loudeft remonftrances of reafon, and

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 299

the:, cleareft light of revelation. If this were *u new, or an incidental cafe, peculiar to the prefcnr, ^4 and unknown to former times, we might be at 2d lofe-for dirediions how to deal with it, and ex- 7 cufeable enough for taking up with the beft ex- pedients that human prudence fhould fuggell. But thefe, in faft, are the very fame circumftances in which our bleffed Saviour found the world at his firft appearance. The prejudices, .tempers, and conftitutions of the men of thofe days, had in them the very fame perverfenefs and obliquity, of which we complain at this hour ; and from the fatal effeds of which Jefus came to fave fuch as would hear his voice.

According to the Bifhop's maxim, our Saviour jfhould have ordered his propofals with a view to the prejudices and tempers of the Scribes and Pharifees, the leading men among the people to whom he made his firft overtures of reformation, and from whom the people derived their own prejudices and tempers.

Inftead of this, Jefus feems to have formed what this right rev. author calls an ecchfiaftkal Utopia. He paid little refped to the eftablifhed church, as it was then modelled. He openly reproved, and by his teaching oppofed, the traditionary re- ligion of the rulers of the Jewifii church, both as to their forms of worfhip and points of doflrine; and taught many things on thofe occafions, which fhew he never intended his religion fhould be fliuc

up

goo THE CONFESSIONAL.

up in a national church, or eftablifhed upon ek- cliiftve conditions. The confequence was, that he was purfued by the great churchmen of thofe tinaes with their utmoft vengeance, even to the deathi

This he knew from the beginnings would be his fate ; neverthelefs, what is ftill more Arrange^ he commanded his apoilles, and in them, as it fhould feem, all who were to fucceed them in the fame province, to follow his example, and to ad- here to the fame methods of reforming the wOrid. It feemsj he committed the event tp the providence of God, who favoured the plan fo far at leaft, as to make it probable in the higheft degree, that if any other had been fubftituted in its place, there Would not have been one Ghriftian this day. in the world.

In anfwer to this, it hath been fuggefted, that the cireumftances of both clergy and people, arc very different nowj from what they were in the apoftles days. The manners and opinions of mankindj it is faid, have undergone great altera- tions, infomuch that if minifters were to irtfiftv either upon the fevere perfonal difcipline, or the unadorned fimplicity of faith and worihip preach- ed and pradifed by the apoftles, men would ra- ther be prejudiced againft, than converted to the pradlice and profeiTion of the Gofpel. / .

But is not this to fuppofe that upon evet-y change of public manners, upon every fluftua- tion of popular opinions, the teachers "of religion

have

THE CONFESSIONAL. 301

have a power of varying their rule ? that is to fay, to fuppofe what is utterly falfe ? Can they (hew any other authentic rule of teaching religion, befides that in the New Teftament ? Does the N. T. mention any powers given to preachers to judge oifitnefs and expediency in refpeft of events, and in confequence of that forefight, to vary their dodlrine and accommodate it to fuppofed exigen- cies ? If they have no fuch powers, and yet aft as if they had, what are they doing but fuperfed- ing the authority of Chrift in his own kingdom, and fetting themfelves up in his place ?

Some, indeed, lay fo much to the account of the great difference there is between the manners and fentiments of the prefent times, and thofe of our Saviour-s miniftry, as to fuppofe that a dif- fcretionary power in the Clergy to accommodate themfelves and their doftrines to the times, muft arife from the nature of the cafe ; which they en- deavour tojuftifyby various arguments, parti- cularly the example of St. Pauly who became all things to all men.

In anfwer to this, I fhall, for the prefent, admit that the manners and opinions of the prefent ge- neration, are as remote as you will from the ge- nius and fpirit of the gofpel ; yet you cannot fay they are more remote from it, than the manners and opinions of the Jews and Gentiles were. On another hand, the manners and principles of the Jews and Gentiles, were in no better agreement

with

302 THE CONFESSIONAL.

with each other, than either of them were with the Gofpeh The Gofpel was neverthelefs preach- ed to them both, as a common meafure of be- lieving and obeying unto falvation, and that with- out any ot thofe accommodations and allowances which are now pleaded for; fo that all arguments for fuch accommodation from the reafon of the things are abfoluteiy excluded by the practice of our Saviour himfelf.

As to the example of St. Patd^ it is firft to be confidered, for what end he became all things to all men, namely that he might gainfome. Gain them ? To what ? — i Why to the profeflion and praftice of Chriftianity. We may be fure then, that he neither indulged them, nor complied with them, in any thing which was a difparagement to the profeflion, or inconfiftent with the pradice to which he laboured x.o gain them. Dr. Middleton hath infinuated that this laying of St. Paul is hy- perbolical [H\ or, in his own language, had in it fome degree of fi^iion. And it is probable the Apoftle meant no more than that fort of ac- commodation to the humours of men, which is implied in the fon of man's coming eating and drinking, by way of Ihewing, that the aullerer dif- cipline of John, was not efjential to the faith and duties of the gofpel. Let our modern accommo- daters keep within the fame bounds, and we fhall willingly allow them the benefit of thefe prece- dents.

\H\ Mifcellaneous Trafts, p. 306.'

2. But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 303

2. But this is not all, St. Paul and his com- panion Luke have between them left us fome re- markable inftances of the Apoftle's compliance with, as well as of his indulgence to perfons of different religious prejudices. His permiffion to Chriftians to feaft or eat with the Gentiles, is plainly qualified by feveral cautions. ~ Some of his accommodation to the Jewifli cuftoms, turn- led our very unhappily ; and there are evident marks in the epiftle to the Galaimns, that he thought he had formerly gone too far in his com- phances with them ; and he plainly condemns the pradice of circumcifion as deftru(5l:ive of the faith of the Gofpel, at leaft in a Greek or a Gentile. And yet it appears he once thought it neceffary to circumcife Timothy, who was of Greek extrac- tion by the father's fide, for no other reafon af- figned, but hecaufe of the Jews who were in thofe quarters [/].

Thefe matters of fad then, are neceffary to be taken in, to illuftrate the apoftles meaning in thefe large expreffions. And it is no lefs expe- dient for us to look at matters of fadl nearer home, to fet bounds to the fancies which we are foo apt to build upon them.

It is now about fifty years fince the venerable Bifliop of Winchefier advanced this maxim of con- fidering the world as it is, rather than as it ought to be j and as the maxim itfelf has been almoft univerfally adopted by the clergy, it is but reafon-

[/j Ads, xvi. I — 3.

able

304 THE CONFESSIONAL.

^ble to expedl it fhouW, by this time, have been juftified by better fruits, than would have been brought forth by our endeavouring to reform the world by the ftrjcler precepts of the Gofpel. Are then the men, or the times, upon whom thefe ac- fommodating methods have been tried, in any better difpofition than they were, before they were introduced ? Are their prejudices rooted out, their tempers foftened, their conftitutions refined, or their manners purified by thefe pru- dential expedients of reformation ? We have feen what Mr. White thinks of the matter : and we are told from other hands, that it is the fame fort of prejudice, &c. which overawes our fuperiors from attempting to reform, what they are very fenfible greatly wants reforming, in more refpefls than one.

The Bifliop oOVincheJier^s maxim is, however, in as much repute as ever. And no wonder. Doctrines which have in them fo much eafe and convenience, with refped: to the teachers of reli- gion, and fo plaufible an air of moderation to- wards their difciples, are in no danger of going out of fa(hion, let them be confronted with ever fo many plain fa^fls, or refuted by ever fo folid reafoning. They pafs from hand to hand with the perfect approbation of all fides ; and with whomfoever it is that we have any difputes, of which the condudl: of the clergy makes a parr, difquifitors, diflenters, infidels, or heretics, the

apology

TH£: CONFESSIONAL. 305

apology is always drawn from the nature and ne- ce/Tity of the times.

Thus in a late anfwer to Lord Bolinghroke^ we are informed that, '* 7 here are times and occa- " fions when politenefs, civrl-prudencc, and tAe ** private motives of friendfhip, ought to deter- ** mineaman who is to livt in the iJ^jorld to comply *' with the ftate and condirion of the times, and *' even to chtife the ivotfe inftead of the better " method of doing good [/C]."

How good things may be improved by keep- ing ! In the beginning of the century, compli- ance with the times, was only a matter oi pru- dence and expedience 'y it is now become a duty. The adverfaries of the do(5lrine hefetofore were onjj^ harmlefs theoretical Utopians.- They are now,- fanatics., enthufiajts^ and bigots. — Juiiice however rnUft be done to' this Jaft writer •, who tells us, that ** there are times and occafions when the *' fobereft thinker (i. e. he who is neither fanatic, *' enrhufiaft, nor bigot) will confefs, that tiie m"- *' terefts of particulars, fliould give way to '* thofe of the public." And one of thefe occa- fions, it feems, is this on which he writes : and where he thinks it would be wrong tct admit thefe confiderations of politenefs, civil- prudence, &c. — How fo ? Becaufe the noble author laid the author of the View, under a neceffity to rc- prefent him both as deteflahle and ridicukusy on

[AT] Apology prefixed to the third Letter of a View of Lord Bolingbriike s pliilolbphy, p. xlix. I edit. 1755'

X accouiit

^66 THE CONFESSIONAL.

account of the freedoms he had taken wkh Mofis, Paul, &c. and fo far his reafon is good. But Lord Bolingbrroke had taken great freedoms (o-reater than with Mofes and Paul) with the mo- dern clergy of our own eftablifhment. Had the author of the View therefore, been able to have prevailed upon his o'Nnpolitenefs and civil-prudence to have defended Mofes and Paul with fobriety and ferioufnefs, and to have chofen on this occa- fion, what he calls the worfe method of doing good, fome people will be of opinion that his ar- guments would have loft nothing by it, either of ih^'w Jlrength qx perfpicuity \ and he would certain- ly have avoided onetv'iS. fufpicion, which has ftuck to him, and of which his, friendly monitor forgot to apprize him i namely, that his free treatment of Lord Bclingbroke, did not arife fo much from his zeal for true religion, as from his fenGbility of the aiTiont offered to the modern clergy; in which, it is but too vifible, the author of the Vieiv is perfonally concerned.

But what are thofe times and occafions which call for this ftrain of good breeding ? The learn- ed writer hath not condefcended to inform us, nor what fort of good may be done by it. When religion is to be promoted or defended, a plain man would be apt to think, that no times or oc- cafions fliould make it a duty to chufe a worfe method of doing good, but where a better is ab- folutely not to be had. But where, as in the prefent cafe, a man is fuppofed to have both me- thods

tH£ CONFESSIONAL. 307

thods before him, and yet oughl to poftpone the beiier^ and chufe the worfe^ the obligation (hould feem to arife from fame Law, or to refer to fome rule of moral practice, which hath no connexion with the Chriftian reUgion.

The learned writer, indeed^ hath limited this duty to the man who is to live in the world. But which of us is not to live in the world, in the common acceptation of that expreffion ? If in- deed by a man who is to live in the world, is meant a man who isy^ to live in it, as never to give offence (" the thing, fays this writef, of all " to be moft dreaded by thofe who know the world^'') it is well if; in the go fpel -account, this polite- nefs, civil-prtidence, and private friendihip, turn out to be any better than, hypocrify, partiality, worldly wifdom, ahd refpedt of perfons.

The plain truth is juft this. The prejudices, tempers, conftitutions, &c. of mankind, with re- fpecft to the expedients of reformation propofed in the Chriftian fcriptures, have been much th^ fame in all ages fmce the heavenly preacher of them firft appeared, Senfual, worldly-minded, and incorrigible men ^^j/f-i/ him, becaufe he re- proved their pride, their avaricci their hypocrify, and other vices, without referve. And fuch men hate fuch preachers to this hour, and will hate them to the end of the world. And yet fuch do<5trines mufi: be preached, with the fame un- referved freedom, if the men who are appointed to the office would difcharge it faithfully. Un- X 2 kfs

3o8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

lefs our prudent and polite reformers can pro- duce a new revelation, exhibiting new fanilions, and new terms of falvation •, or unlefs they can fhew (what indeed fome of them have moi^e than half infinuated) that the fame occafions which the men of that generation gave to our Saviour, exill no longer, and that pride, avarice, hypocrify, fu- perllition, and fenfuahty, are banifhed from the face of the earth. When they have made either of thefe appear, then, but not till then, we can allow them to accommodate themfelves, their doc- trines, and expedients of reformation, to the tafte and temper of the times.

But to proceed a little farther in our examina- tion of thefe commodious maxims. What con- fequences do thefe cautious reformers apprehend, from propofing to tlie world fuch meafures of re- formation, as. are abfolutely good in themfelves, and tend to make men what they ought to be ? Few trials, that I knov/ of, have been made upon this plan, nor does it appear by any repeated ex- periments, what it is that would difappoint them.

On this occafion we are told, " that fadions " would be created, dangerous to civil govern- *' ment itfelf, and productive of evils in fociety, " which all the good that could pofiibly refult *' from fuch endeavours to reform the world, *' would not counterbalance."

I cannot reprefent this argument in any terms fo well adapted to give it its full weight and luftre,

as

THE CONFESSIONAL. 309 as thofe of a late fenfible writer, whofe views and occafions will be explained in the fequel.

" I am very fenfible, fays this gentleman, that ^ »* the truth of any point, or the certainty of any *' matter of faft, can never be determined by the " confequences that flow from it •, yet I think it a '< part yfh'ich virtue^ as well a5;?r«^^;/f^prefcribes, " to be more referved, and cautious of meddling, " where little or no advantage can be gained to " fociety ; but where confequences may pofTibly *' prove hurtful ; and efpecially v/here the point " in queftion is on\y fpeculative. For fpeculative " truth, tho' it greatly contributes to the perfec- " tion of human nature, may yet be recovered, *' in fome cafes, at too dear a rate. What ever <' unfettles the foundations of government, af- ** fedls the well-being of fociety, or any way ♦* dijlurbs the pace and quiet of the world, is of " very defl:ru6live confequence •, and the man " who fhould retrieve fifty fuch truths, at the " expence of one fadlion, would, in my opinion, *' be a very pernicious member of fociety \_Ly* Either this ingenious perfon hath written him- felf quite out of fight of his own principles, or I am not clearfighted enough to difcover his mean- ing. Let me firft confefs my o>vn ignorance,

I. I cannot comprehend how any truth that is merely fpeculative^ can contribute to the per- fcdion of human nature. Human nature has

\i] Remarks on Dr. Chapnati's Charge, &c. p. 9, 10.

X 3 always

3IO THE CONFESSIONAL.

always appeared to me to advance the neareft to perfeftion, by the means of moral habits, form- ed and invigorated by principles of truth, and of religious truth in particular. Whatever difco- veries may be made by the way o^ fpeculatioHy if they may not be turned to fome pradical ufe, or improvement of the moral man, they will pafs with me, for little better than the groundlefs vi- fions of imagination.

. 2V ,It is equally myfterious to me, how truths that are merely fpeculative, Ihould unfettle the foundations of government.

^3', Nor can I poffibly conceive, how fuch truths as greatly contribute to the perfedion of human nature, fhould affs^ the well-being of fociety. I mean, as 1 fuppofe he does, afFe(5l it with an evil influence.

4. In the laft place, I fhould have apprehend- ed, that the recovery o^ fifty truths, which greatly contribute to the perfe^lion of human nature, would pay the expence of one fa6tion at leaft, even though the peace and quiet of the world fhould be, in fome meafure, difturbed by it ; unlefs we muft fay, that little or no advantage is gained to fociety, by the recovery oifo many fuch truths, as greatly contribute to the perfedlion of liumai> nature.

As this ingenious writer has, on this occafion,

contrary to his cuftom, exprefTed himfelf loofely

and ambiguoufly, I dare not take upon me to af-

a certain

THE CONFESSIONAL. 311

certain his meaning. I imagine it however to be this. That where fpeculative errors are efta- blilhed by public authority, it is better to let them reft, than to attempt to remove them ac the hazard of a fad:ion, or by any fuch oppofi- tion or remonftrance, as any way diflurbs the peace and quiet of the world.

Now to this dodrine I would readily fubfcribe, if I knew of any truth or erxur of the religious kind (and of fuch truth and error this author is here treating) that could be called merely fpecula^ tinje ; that is to fay, fuch truth or error, as hath no influence or tendency to improve, or debafe, the religious condu6l of thofe who entertain or rejeft it refpe<5lively. With refpeft to fuch truth, ' or fuch error, 'tis of little confequence what be- comes of them. But few are the truths or errors that I have met with of this complexion.

It fhould feem indeed, that this remarker does not reftrain this prudence and caution to thefe in- fignificant truths and errors. For, he fays, " Whatever unfettles the foundations of go- " vernment, &c. is of very deftruftive confe- " quence.**

Can this be admitted, without condemning the praftice of the apoftles, and firft preachers of chriftianity .?

Tbefe^ faid their Thejfaloman adverfaries, fbat

have turned the world upjide down, are come hither

alfoy whom Jajon hath received j and thefe all do

X 4 contrary

312 THE CONFESSIONAL.

contrary to the decrees of Csefar, faying^ there is mio- iher king, one Jesvs [M].

I expedt here to be told, that the apoftles were faliely accufed, and that they made no attempt to ynfettle Csefar's government. I acknowledge it. But the fa^ion was formed upon that fuppofition, and operated on the well-being of fociety, upor^ that occafion at lead, with as much malignity, as if the charge had been ever fo true. And may not the fame thing happen again ? Has it not happened in many inftances, that pious and zeal- pus reformers haye been accufed of difturbing the public peace, when they were as innocent as the apoftles thernfelves of any fuch intention ?

Befides, no fenfible man can doubt but the imm.ediate eftablilhment of chriflianity in thofe parly days, would have made great alterations in the Gentile, as well as the Jewijh civil and religi- ous polity. The total abolition of the latter was Xhc inevitable cpnfequence of the Kinglhip of Je- fus ; and what ftruggles and tumults were occa- fioned by attempting to introduce it, the facred hiftory has fairly informed us. And yet I pre- fume, our Lord imagined, the truths that would thus be recovered to mankind, vyould more than ^tone for thefe temporary inconveniences. O- therwife he would certainly have taken and pre- fcribed other meafures.

\^{] AQs, xvii. 6, 7,

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 313

The learned writer, with whom I am making fo free, was a fecond to Dr. Middlelon in the con- troverfy concerning the continuance of miraculous powers in the ChriiJian churchy and a very able one i and I the rather hope 1 have not mifunder- ftood or mifreprefented his meaning in the fofe- aoing citation, as lie immediately fubjoins to it the following apology for meddling in that con- troverfy.

" Bat, in the prefent debate, [concerning mt- ** raculous powers, &c.] all fuch fears are vain " and chimerical. Where we may difpute for *' ever, without unfettling or diilurbing any *' thing, except fome fanciful fyftems, which have ^' been ingrafted on the religion of the gofpel, ^' and which fome of our prefent churchmen, for ^' reafons of policy, have been endeavouring to " defend, as abfolutcly neceffary to fupport it."

That is to fay, " The miraculous powers of the *• poft-apoftolic church, are not affirmed in an " eftablifhed Article, or Homily." Had that JDcen the cafe, the point could not have been dif- puted without unfettling, or at leaft difturbing, fomething more than a fanciful fyftem of our prefent churchmen. Something with a more fub- ilantial fupport, than the pditical reafons above- mentioned.

I am of opinion, that, if fomie of our ancient churchmen in former times had forefeen this con- troverfy, or if fome of our modern dodors had even yet the power to bring it about, thequeftion,

lb

514 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fo far as legal decifion could give it a fandion, would not be found To naked of this kiqd of fup- port. Had this point been fecured in due time, the Dodors Chapman^ Stebbingy Churchy and Bod' welly who, for the general, have been fo tame in the controverfy that you] might Jiroak them, •would have thundered about Dr. MiddletotCs ears from the artillery of an eftabli{hment,the moment he had made his appearance in that province j and have plyed him with their great and fmall Ihot, as long as ever he was in a condition to be galled by it.

I fhould be glad to know, what, in fuch cir- cumflances, would have been the conduct of this his ingenious advocate ? He will hardly fay, that little or no advantage could be gained to fociety by this debate, after it has been demon ftrated by Dr. Middleton^ Mr. Tolly and himfelfy how much the Proteftant caufe is interefted in the determi- nation of fo important a fadt. He calls the fyftem contrary to that he efpoufes, a. fanciful one, un- fupported by any thing, but the dirty politics of interefted churchmen. Would the circumftance of being eflablifhed have added any truth or foli- dity to the fyftem, or given it any more merit with refpeft \o the Proteftant caufe? If not, what would there be In the one cafe, that ought to hin- der a reafonable and confcientious Proteftant from expofing and confuting it, more than in the other? Would it be fufficient to excufe a man fo per-

fuaded.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 31^

fuaded, that a faftion might be occafioned by the difpute, and fomething unfettlcd and difturbed, which might affed the peace and quiet or wel- fare of fociety ?

Now, it is very pofllble that feme other perfon, equally difcerning, able, and confcientious as the Remarker, may think fome other fyftem of thefe fanciful divines juft as pernicious to the caufe of true religion, and jufl: as void of truth and reafon, as this of the miraculous -powers ; fome fyftem, I mean, which is under the proteftion of an efta- blifhment. What is to be done ? Is this maa to fit down and acquiefce with the herd, under the apprehenfion of caufing a faEiioriy and unfet- tling, in fome degree at leaft, the peace and quiet of the world ? Had this been the perfuafion of good men at all periods, what had been the creed of the Proteftant, or indeed of the Chriftian world at this inftant ?

It is well for us that fome, both of our fore- fathers and contemporaries, have had none of thefe fcruples. And it may perhaps add fome light to the prefent enquiry, to remark how it has fared with fome of thefe later adventurers, upon a point of orthodoxy, of which all the churches of Europe are extremely tenacious.

It is well known, that, fince the commence- ment of the prefent century, the ^xzzx. Atbanafiui has been attacked by a kicceflion of eminent men, who could not be brought to think his fy- ftem

gio THE CONFESSIONAL.

ftem lefs fanciful, for being enclofed in the fortrefs of an eftablifhed Creed.

Mr. JVhijion led the way. A fa6lion enfued, and the event was, his expulfion from a famous univerfity, and an exclufion from all other pre- ferment. Dr. Clarke made the next effort, nor could he, who was a much more temperate man, prevent a faflion ; and what would have come of it in the end, if an effedual interpofition from the higher powers had not over-ruled thofe of the lower, none can tell. More lately, a learned and eminent prelate, in a neighbouring kingdom, opened the trenches once more before the formi- dable Aihanafius, with all his myrmidons and fortifications about him. Faction was again the confequence -, and, had not death fnatch'd him off the ftage in a lucky moment (of which I am informed as lam writing this), he might probably have been fent, whither his mitre and his rochet would not have followed him. There were feveral others of lefs note, who had \.\i6x factions as well as thefe more eminent leaders j but thefe are enough to explain the cafe in hand.

Let the next quellion be concerning thefe (anions. Whence did they arife } As far as I can perceive, the laity of Great Britain and Ire- land were all this while very much at their eafe, carried on their affairs with their ufual tranquil- lity and fuccefs ; nor did 1 ever hear, that the well-being of iociety was at all affeded, at any

• of

THE CONFESSIONAL. 31/

of thofe periods of time, when the Trinitarian controverfy was on the, any ih Hence it fhould feem,thac no fadions either arofe or fpread among the common people on thefc occafions; and yet faflions there were, as appears both by the offence given by, and the moleftation returned to, the culprits above-mentioned. We mull look for them then among the clergy.

Who expelled Mr. Whifion ? The churchmen ot Cambridge. Who attempted to profcribe Dr. Clarke ? The churchmen of the Lower Houfe of Convocation. Who took counfel againft the Bi- ihop of Clogher ? The great churchmen of Ire- land. Who profecuted Dr. Carter in the eccleli- aftical court ? The church-officers of Dealy at the inftigation, as it is laid, of a churchman of that place. Who profecuted Mr. Emlyn in Ire!a?td, and Meffieurs Pierce, Withers^ and Hallet, in Eng- land? The dilTenting clergy, abetted, as appeared openly in the firfl: cafe [AT], and as was ftrongly fufpeded in the latter []0], by fome great church- men of the eftablifhed church. In one word, what lay-man who was not the inftrument of fome one or more churchmen, was concerned jn thefe fa£lions ?

Let it then no longer be faid, that the times^ but that the churchmen, are not ripe for a refor-

[AT] See Kmlyn's Works, vol. I. p. 26. [O] Tin^art Tr&nn. of R^pi^, Svo. 1746. vol. XXVII. P' 344-

/nation.

318 THE CONFESSIONAL.

mation. The impraSlicability^ as far as yet appears^ arifes wholly from that quarter. Lee the church- men of the eftablilhnlent lllew themfelves defirous of, and fincere in folliciting, a reformation of ouf Ccclefiaftical conftitution j and, if they mifcarry in their endeavours, it is but equitable that thd impradlicability lliould no longer be put to their account.

Plere, methinks, I perceive a fly orthodox bro- ther, v/ho has all this while hung his ears in at corner, begin now to prick them up, and come forward with this expoftulation in his mouth : ** What ! reform according to the deteitable " fyftems of Arius or Socinus I Is it not that you , " are pleading for ? And does not this confirm " the fufpicions of thofe who imputed thefe views «* to xhzfree and candid Bifquifttors ?"

Soft and fair. Let the Difquifitors anfwer for themfelves and their own views and princi- ples i but do not prejudge them beforehand. They have laid before you a great many parti- ^ culars, which perhaps give more opeH and im- mediate offence to the common people, than the dodrines of the 'I'rinity ; about which, I am apt to think, few of them form any ideas. Had you fhewn a dirpofition to reform thefe necej/ary mat- terSi and had you fet about it with alacrity, time and credit would have been given you for the reft. This I prefume to fay on the part of the

Difquifitors.

On

THE CONFESSIONAL. 319

On my own part, I am neither afraid nor a- fhamed to call for a review of our Trinitarian forms, as what, I think, is quite neceflary for the honour of the church herfelf. Confider how the cafe (lands on the very face of our prefent forms.

** So that in all things (ytxlx ucx,v%) fays the *' Athanafian Creed, the Unity in Trinity, and the " Trinity in Unity, is [or ought} to be worlhip- " ed." Is this the cafe in all our forms of worfhip ? Turn back to the Litany^ and you will fee three diflindl invocations of the three Perfons, to each of whom the term God is afligned ; im- plying a fufficiency in each, in his perfonal capa- city, to hear and grant the petition. Inftances, equally remarkable and notorious, of our devia- tion from the Athanafian maxim, might be given in great abundance. What miferable fophiftry Dr. Waterlani employed to make our liturgical forms confident, has been noticed in thefe papers : nor, to fay the truth, is Dr. Clarke under much lefs embarraffment. And, while thefe inconfifl- encies remain, I cannot fee how a defender of our forms of worfhip fliould be in much better agreement with Athanqfius, than IVhifton^ Clarke, or Clayton. To make thefe matters conftftent^ is certainly the proper object of a review^ on which fide foever of the contradidion the truth may lye.

One

320 THE CONFESSIONAL.

One of the laft pieces publiQied on the fubje6t of the Trinity, was, An Appeal to the Common-fenfe of all Chri^ian People^ &c. which book has palTed through two editions without any fort of reply that I have heard of*. This looks 2.s\i abk writers were not willing tooneddle with the fub- ytdi^ or that willing writers were not able to man- age it. Many of the wifer and more thinking " part of the clergy have been long fick of thd Athanafian Creed, and have, by degrees, difufed it in their ch torches. And many of the congre- gations, where it has been fo difufed, if by acci- dent an officiating ftranger fhould read it to them in its courfe, have been known to lignify their furprize and diftike by very manifeft tokens [FJ.

From thefe particulars I conclude, and venture to repeat it, that, when our leading churchmen tell us of the impr amicability of an ecclefiafticai

* When thii was written, I did not know of Dr. MacdotieW i anfwef to the Appeal, and much lefs of the A^'pcllatii's replica- tion, intituled '■The Trinitarian Contro-verfy re-vieiveJ, printed for Millar, tj6oi It is fomething, however, to my purpofe,- that no EngUjhman of any name has offered to confute the Ap- peal, and that the Athanojian doflrine Teems to be configned to' the fole protedion of our Irijh champiori, who makes fo indif- ferent a figure in the hands of the Appellant, that probably wie Ihall hear no more of him ; the faid Appellant havirtg faid enough to deter wife men of both fides from meddling farther in the controverfy, unkfs in the way of a Review.

[P] See ^ Cerious and difpajjloftate Inquiry, Sic. concerning fbme pafTages in the public Liturgy, Athanaftan Creed, &c. p. 80 — 95, 96. Of this I have been an eye-witnefs more th'an

once*

reformation,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 321

reformation, through the unripenefs of the times, the true meaning is, that they cannot obtain their own confent to any meafure, or to any attempt of that fort. And no marvel. A reformadoii that fhould reach to the extent of our deviations from the fcriptures (and, when the door is once ppened, who knows how far a reformation might extend ?) would not flop at a few liturgical forms and ceremonies. The conductors of it mio-hc probably proceed to inquire, hovv far the prefenc polity of the cHurch flood upon a fcriptural foun- dation ? And fhould fuch inquiry be purfued to good effed, the conTequence might be, that the repofe of fome great churchmen would be grie- voufly diiturbed, their labours increafed, the na- ture and tendency of their prefent occupations greatly altered, and their temporaliiies reduced to a due proportion to their duties and fervices.

The worthy friend who Tent me the firfl notice of the demile of Biilibp Clayton,, and an account: of the clerical machinations againfr him, inclofed in the flime packet a fmall manufcript, intituled The Bijhop cf Clogher's Speech^ made in thcHoufi of Lords in Ireland, Feb. 2, 1756 [.^]. I will not anfwer for the authenticity pf this little refcript," though it feem"s to have pa'fled for genuine in that country, and it is certain that the biHiop moved in parlia'.ncnt for fuch a bill as is there mentioned.

[i^] It has fi.ice been printed at London, for B^Hzuir. ar.J Gdojier, '757''

y In

322 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In this fpeech I find the following pafTage : " I " am perfuaded, that if my lords the bifhops will *' but fhew themfelves inclined. to amend, what " they cannot but acknowledge to be amifs, they " will find the laity ready to affift and fupporE *!^ them rather than otherwife."

No man knew the world better than the late Bifhop of Cloghcr. His adverfaries objeded it to him, after they had ranfacked all the obfcure cor- ners of the kingdom for fcandal, that he knew it but too well. Even thsy therefore might take his word on this head. But indeed the thing fpeaks for itfelf. Whenever the people fnall fee tliis hnpraLlkahility fubdued on the part of the clergy, it is impOiTible they lliOuld not be con- vinced both of the utility of the meafure, and of the integrity of thofe who undertake and promote it. Such in (lances of felf-denial, and fo many circumftances of eafe and profit facrificed to the public Vv'elfare and edification, cannot but give them the higheft efteem and alieftion for fo faith- ful and difinterefted Paftors.

I am willing, however, that our fpiritual fa- thers, among whom are fome perfons of diftin- guilhed merit, fhould have the benefitof every plea that can poffibly be ofi^ered for their inaftivityand acquiefcence in our prefent inconvenient and un- edifyingfyltem. And if any of them can derive any eonfolation to themfelves, or any apology to the world for their conducft, from the following con- ccfiion, I fhall not defire to deprive them of it.

" Though

THE CONFESSIONAL. 323

^* Though the chifrch of Chrid," faith a pious and learned writer, " has been thus rorrupted *' [viz. by copying the church o( Rome more or *' \t(s~\ in all ages and nations, yet there have '* been, and v/ill be in all, many who receive the *' feal of God, and worfhip him in fpirit and in ^' truth. And of thefe, as many have tilled high " ftations as low ones. Such perfons, though *' they have concurred in the fupport of what is " contrary to the pure religion, have, however, '* done it innocently with refpeft to themfelves, *' being led thereto by invincible prejudices [^]."

What particulair examples this good man had in his eye, would be hard to fay. Perhaps, fome of the firft Bifhops of the Chriflian church, com- monly called the Fathers, as well as Paftors of more modern times. Let us pitch upon a few of the moft eminent of thefe, and begin with the upper clafTes firft.

The Futhers, fo called, have ever been efteemed the lights of the Chriftian church, and have been' juflly revered for their piety and fanflity of man- ners. But no one will deny, that they were deeply prejudiced in favour of fonfie things, which greatly disfigured and corrupted true religion'. The qucftion is, h6v/ far thefe prejudices were in- 'vincible ?

Jeroni is one v;ho hath figured in all ages, both on account of the aufterity of his difcipline, and

[Rl Dr. David Hartlcft ObfervatJons on Man, vol. II.

f 2 thr

324 THE GONFESSIQNAL;

the fuperiority of his learning. Both popifli arid proteftant writers have, by turns, put their caufe under his patronage •, till the protefl-ants found they were lofers upon the balance, and from thenceforward begin to look a little more narrow- ly into the chara6ler and merits of the man ; and then they found his genius was wholly turned to bragging and d^Jfimulaticn [5"], that he frequently contradided himfelf [T'J, and paid little regard ro truth, when he had a controverfial point to carry, for which l.e CJerc gives a very probable rcafon, namely, his reading and admiring OV*?r<7. *' For Cicero^' fays this excellent Critic, " pro- '' vided what he fays fuits his prefent purpofe, " and may make an impreflion on his audience, ^' takes no thought whether it be true, nor cares *' at all whether he hath contradided it elfe- *' where [[/]."

[5] Jiigeuium Hieronymi totum fult ad ja£latlone?n et dijjiinu* lationem com^ofuum. Le CJerc, ^ajilones Eiero7iymiante y JII. p. 62.

[T ] Le Clerc, ^ent'wiens de qu&lques Theokgiens d' Hollande , See. Lettre xiii. p. 307.

[L/] "J. Ckrici Quasftiones Hieronymianae, VIII. § xiii. p. 24.8. He gives leveral inilances of this condu<S of Cicero^ ;^nd obferves after ^intilian, and after Cicero himfelf, that the ctefiniticn of an Orator flioi>ld not be what it ufually was, 'oir bonus dicendi per it us , but ^cir c alii dm merit i end i pro re naia, et dijjiniidandi peritus. Le Clcrc lliews that Jerom was deeply ^iafiured with this oratorical ciafc, and had his onitiones caufa- runi et iemporum, nonjudicii, as well as Tjdly, which is likewife acknowledged by Erafmnsy his great advocate. But what fhall \,vc fay to a certain Cnrifcian divine and eridc, who will have it

Another

THE CONFESSIONAL. 325 Another excellent pen hath proved thefe con- tradictions upon more of the Fathers, particu- larly in one inftance which lliews a difingeniiity,

*' that in all this Cicero adled no unfair part, becayfe forfooth ** he aiEled it not in his real, but his perfonat^d dl^T^Si.(iX.''^ Pa/}- fcript to Dr. Warburton's Vijitation fermo-n, printed Tor Fletcher Gyles, 1738. p. 31. A perfonated chara£lcr is a _/?t7/V/i5«j one, and whoever puts on fuch a chatader iviV>6 intent to dccei've, feems to me not only to adl an unfair but an immoral parr. *' Hold, fays the nimble cafnill:, unfair is an expreffion that *' relates to a man's breeding, to a point of civility, in not im- *' pofing on good company, rather than his morals.'''' The reader will be pleafcd to take notice, that this good company was often a bench of judges, afiembled to try caufes of the greatell inj- portance to the peace and welfare of the community. Had Cicero appeared on the ftage in the charafter a^ Agameiniion, and fpoke nothing but what Euripides put into his mouth, the good company would have had no reafon to complain, either of his rudenefs or his d'lfljonefy. But when he appears in the naked charafter of Cicero the advocate, and endeavours to impofe upon a folemn tribunal, by a falfe reprefentation of fa£ts in a criminal caufe, he forfeits all pretenhons to the charader of a good patriot or an hcneft man. And, whatever becomes of his breeding., in fo far as he lays claim to thsfe titles, is every- way unfair. There is, however, one inftance upon record, which impeaches Tally's breeding, ^'intilian informs us, that he boafted, fe tenehras off'udijfe judicibus in caifd Cluentii. Inilit. Orat. lib. ii. cap. 17. What would be thought of an Jttorniy-gentral that ftiould boafl, he had amufed and mifled the Judges of the court of King's- Bench ? Certainly not that he was a poUte man. But what is this to Jevom ? A great deal to Jeroin, and to the reft of the Fathers, defended by the Prefacer to Julian. The Apology for Cicero extends to the philofophical, as well as rhetorical difcipline of thofe times. If that was blamelefs, the Fathers who purfued it were fo too. Thrir faults were therefore neither faults of the t'lmcs^ nor of ^he nictt ; that is, the Fathers had no faults at all.

Y3 of

326 THE CONFESSIONAL. '

of which the mod invincibly prejudiced among them, mull have been conicious. He has fliewn^ from the words of above a dozen of them, that when the queftion was concerning conformity to any particular rehgion, they all had the clearefl conception of the iniquity, as well as impiety of intolerance. Neverthelefs, his adverfary challeng- ed him to fhew a fingle inftance, even in thofe councils of which thefe fathers were members, and wherein fome of them prefided, where there was any trace of toleration towards thofe who differed from the eftabliflied faith and opi- nions. The other knew better than to under- take fo hopelefs a taflv j and therefore contented himfclf with fhewing, that thefe fathers contra- diiSted in their pra^ice^ what they had folemnly iaid down for their inconteflable principles [^J. On which fide of fuch a contradidion can the z7?i'ma^/^ prejudice be fuppofed to lie ?

To draw nearer to our own times, and to mention one of the moll: illuftrious characters in all hiflory. Erajmus faw, complained of, cenfur- ed, and expofed the corruptions of Popery with all freedo:n. It is hardly pofiible he fnould not perceive, that all thefe corruptions arofe from the fpurious aurl;ority to which the Popes laid claim. Many paiTages in his comments and paraphrai'es on the New Te (lament, fhew his

\V] Barheyrac, Traitc (k la Morale des Peres, Chaf. xii. § xi. p. 1 8-.

cernment

THE CONFESSION A L. ^27

difcernment in this matter beyond diipute One, I have pointed out in the note [P^]. And

[JV^ Jam vero de Romanl Pontijlds potrJlate,pe7te negotiofius Sfputatur^ quam de potefate Del, dion quttrimus de duplici iUius pot ep ate, et anpojjit ahrcgare quodfcriptis apcjrolids decretum efi ? An pojjrt aliquid Jiattiere quod pugnet cum doBrina enjavgelica ? An pojjit no'vum articulum ccndere in Jidel fymholo ? Utrum ma~ jcrc?n haheat potefatem qiiaTii Peh-us, an par em ? An pojjtt pr<eci~ pere atigelis ? Utrum Jimplex homo Jit, an quajt Dcus, an partici- iet utramque naturnm cum Chrif.o ? A71 clementior fit quam fuerit Chriftus, cum is non legatiir quefnquam a purgatoriis pcenis ri.'vo- tajfe ? Anfolus cmnium non poJJlt crrare ? Sexce7ita id genus dif- putantur^ magnis editis voluminilus, idque a magnis Theologis^ prafertim profejfione religionis infignibus. At que h^sc f.unt non fine manifejla fufpicione adulatiotiis, nee fine injuria Chrifii, ad quem collati principes, quantum'vls magni, quid aliud funt quam niermiculi ? An putant h^ec placere leoni nofiro, germano, <vero- que Chrifii 'vicario, qui tanquajn ruerus pafior, nihil hahet anti- cuius falute gregis chrifii ani, ut 'verus Chrifii fjicarius, nihil habet tarius gloria prituipis fiui Chrifii. Ek ASM. Annotat. in i Tim. i. 6. Upon this pail'age, I would obferve, i . That Erafimus very well knew that the tranfialpine divines, held all thefe ques- tions in the affirmative. 2. That he was little lefs guilty of the adulation wherewith he reproaches them, in calling leo X. the true n^icar ofChrifi, ivho had nothing tnore at heart than the plory of his prince, end the fal-jation of the Chriftian fiock. E- RASMUS could be no ftranger to what all the world knew, namely, that neither xhcperfotial, nor papal charaSer of Leo, intituled him to any fuch encomium. 3. He infinuates, that thefe llrains of adulation were difagreeable to Leo ; and yet it is certain that Leo never difcouraged them, as Erafmus very well knew. Pala'uicim, defending this pope againft the cen- fures of Father Paul, \\\\o had faid, " that he was better ac- " quainted with profane letters, than with facred or religious ♦' lcarning,"allows the fa6t ; but in alleviation of it fays^ " that " he favoured yc/W^/V divinity, and that he honoured three "divines of this complexion with the purple, and made a Y 4 to

^28 THE CONFESSIONAL.

to thefc an hundred more might be added. He well knew that the fcandalous traffick of indul- gences was grounded on the papal power, and •upon no more of it, than the molt moderate dodors afltirted to belong to it. If Erafmus was of a different opinion, he might be retained in the church by a prejudice, but certainly not an iirjincihk one \_X].

Come we now to fome dodors of our own re- formed church. I do not know of any of our Bifnops fince the reformation, who has had moreincenfe offered up to him, than Archbifhop Whitglft^ and that by the very hiftorian from whom I take the following fad.

In the year 157 2, a pamphlet was publifhed in defence of the famous Admonition to parlia- ment, intituled An Exhortation to the bijhopsy

''fourth mafcer of the facre4 palace." 5^^Bayle's Didlion- ary. Art. Leo X. Rem. [//]. Thefe divines then above all others, were Leo's favourites. Was this, do you fuppofe, be- icaafe theie do£lors had determined the queftions abovemen- tioncd in the negative ? Was Erafmus a itranger to the pro- motion of three cardinals ? or to the charadlers and ftudies of the men ? Erafinus, I fay, who knew what was doing in every court, and in every corner of Europe ? Let it not be faid, that thefe incidents might not have happened when Erafmus v^rote "his anmfations. Fope Leo X. died before Erafmus publifhed the third of Yix^five editions of the N. T. and the fame anno- tation is found in them alL Can it be faid, with the leafl probability, that Erafmn''s prejudices on this head, were in- fiincible.

[A) See what Bc.yk fnys of this fubjeft. Did. Art. Agri- coiA George, Rem. [B\.

wherein

THE CONFESSIONAL. 329

wherein their lordfliips were reminded, '* how ^* hard it was to punifh the favourers and abet- ** tors of the Admonition^ becaufe they did but " difclofe the diforders of the church of England, *' and only required a reformation of the fame, " according to the rule of God's word. Where- " as many lewd and light books and ballads flew " abroad, printed not only without reprehenfion, f' but cum privikgio.**

Archh'iihopff^hilgift condefcended to anfwer this pamplet, and to this objeflion thought fit to fay, f it was a fault to fufFer lewd books and ballads " touching manners, but it was a greater fault *' to fufl^er books and libels, diHurbing xhQ peace '* of ibe church, and defacing true religion [T].'*

Which was to fay, i . That lewd books and ballads, printed with privilege, neither difturbed the peace of the church, nor defaced true religi- on. 2. That provided the church might quiet- ly enjoy and pradife her forms, rites, and cere- monies, titles, and emoluments, it was the lels material what were the manners of her members. 3. That true religion confifted in thofe forms, rites, ceremonies, titles, and powers, which the puritans were for defacing.

Thde were prejudices with a witnefs, and, if they were invincible, what was this man doing fo

[2'j Strypes life of Archbiflinp Whitglft, p. 40. who ho- nefty tells us, p. 50. that he took the account oi Cartnvrigbi's Koply from Whitglft himfdf.

Ions

530 THE CONFESSIONAL.

long, in two divinity chairs in Cambridge? Shall we fay that men's prejudices become invin- cible as ibon as ever you name diforders in the church, and talk of reforming them ?

I make a tranfition from this prelate to Arch- bilhop fVake, though the ftep is a pretty long one. But it is not for want of matter in the in- terval of time, ov oi prejudices in the intermediate occupiers of the fee o^ Canterbury^ but through a willingnefs to fave the reader's time and my own.

Dr. IVake^ then Bifliop of Lincoln, at the trial of Sacheverell, fpoke with great force and propri- ety in defence of the Toleration-a6t, and in vin- dication of thofe, who, under a commiflion from K. V/illiar>t, 16S9, were appointed to review the. Jiturgy, and other parts of our ecclefiaftical con- ilitution, for which, according to the faid Dr. IVah, there w^as great occafjon. When theSchifm- bill was in agitation. Dr. IVake^ dill Bifliop of Lincoln, oppofed it in its progrefs through the Houfe of Lords, and, when pafled, protefted againfl; it. But when, in the year 1718, this fame Schifm-bili was attacked. Dr. {Vake, then Avchbi(hop of Canierbury, oppofed the repeal of it with all his might, alledging, that it was one of the main bulwarks and fupporters of the ejia- hlijlcd church \ whereas, in his fpeech above-men- tioned, he infifted, that the eftablifhed church neither loft nor fuffcred any thing by the tolera- tion

THE CONFESSIONAL. 331

^ion of diflenters. On which fide lay the invin- cible prejudice in this cafe [Z] ?

This is the fartheft I choofe to venture towards the prefent times, over which, if I could, I would drop a veil for the fake of fome particulars, who, like Mercurius trivialis, have pointed out the right road, without ftirring an inch themfelves from the centre of the crofs-lanes. Peace be with thofe of them that are gone. To fuch of them as re- main, I would recommend the ferious confidera- tion of what follows that conceflion lad cited from Dr. Hartley.

" Neverthelefs, when it fo happens, that per- ^' fons in high flations in the church have their " eyes enlightened, and fee the corruptions and " deficiencies of it, they muft incur the prophe- ^' tical cenfures in the highefl: degree, if they ftill " concur, nay, if they do not endeavour to re- •' form, and purge out thefe defilements ; and

[Z] " A very ancient and worthy gentleman, now living, .*' \jviz. 1755] fpeaking occafionally of Archbifhop Wake, in *• a company where I lately was, faid, he well remembered to " have feen his Grace returning from court, on the day that he *• had been there to kifs his Majefty's hand upon his advance- ♦* ment to the fee of Canterbury. Dining that day at a friend's " houfe, where Dr. S. Clarke was one of the guefts, he men- ** tioned this incident ; upon which the company, as is common, " made their feveral remarks upon that promotion. Dr. Clarke *' continued fiient for fome time ; but faid at laft. We ha-ve " 7ionu an Archbifhop nvho is Prieft enough.^* Memoir com- mum"catcd to the author by a learned friend. It feems. Dr. Clarke knew the man better thaii fome others did.

*' though

332 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" though they cannot, according to this propo- " fition, expedl entire fuccefs, yet they may be *' bleffed with fuch a degree, as will abundantly ?' compenfate their utmoft endeavours, and rank " them with the Prophets and Apoftles [/f ].

Nothing can poffibly expofe the futility of any pretences to defer reformation, upon account of the tinripenefs of the times, more effe<5tually, than the folemn truths contained in thefe few words. Dr. Hartley, indeed, proceeds to obferve, that *' this corruption and degeneracy of the Chriftian " church — has, all other things being fuppofed " to remain the fame, fuited our circumftances " in the beft manner poflible, and will continue ** to do, as long as it fubfifts. God," fays he, *' brings good out of evil, and draws men to " himfelf in fuch manner, as their natures will " admit cf, by external pomp and power, by *' things not good in themfelves, and by forne ** that are prophane and unholy. The impurity ■ *' of mankind is too grofs, to unite at once with " the ftrid purity of the gofpel." Hence he takes occafion to infer, that good men ought to fubmit to the ecclefiaftical powers that be, for confcience fake, as well as to the civil ones. And hence, I do not doubt but the ecdeftajlical powers that be, will infer the no-necejftty of altering any thing in their prefent fyftems : and fo we get rid of thefe prophetical cenfures at once.

[/i] Obfervauons on Man, u, f,

2 - But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 333

But Dr. Hartley knew well enough what he faid, and was only explaining a cafe which he found in his Bible. The Prophet Ifaiah fpeaks of certain wife and prudent men of his time, who taught the fear of God by the precept of men [5 J. But inafmuch as the fear of God was taught, though by things evil, profane, and unholy in themfelves, whatever Dr. Hartley has faid con- cerning God's bringing good out of evil, is juft: as applicable to this period of the JewifJj church, as to any pofterior ftate of the chriflian. It was upon thefe confiderations, that our Saviour and his Apollles obferved the law, and prefcribed obedience to thofe who fat in Mofis's feat.

But did thefe confiderations exculpate the wife and prudent men of IfaiaFs time, or the Scribes and Pharilees of Chrill's days, who taught for do^rines the commandments of men ? By no means ; the prophetical cenfures fell heavily on them both. And if our enlightened churchmen in high fta^ tions would avoid them, let them go and learnt what that meaneth, Except your righteoufnsfs ex- ceed the righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Fharifees^ yefhall in no wife enter into the kingdom of heaven*

They will tell us, perhaps, that, fenfible as they are of thefe corruptions, they are equally fenfible of the impofTibility that their endeavours or re- monftrances fhould overcome the prejudices or perverfenefs of their brethren, efpecially as they would be likely to (land alone and unfupported

££] Chap. xxix. 13.

In

o

34 THE CONFESSiOr^AL;

in the confliiSl; and confequently that there is not the lead hope that reformation would be ad- vanced, in whole or in part, by the utmoft efforts they could make.

But let them try their firength, arid then they •will have a better right to this apology. Men's endeavourSj in this as well as in other cafes, arc not to be fufpended by the improbability of fuc- cefs, or even by trials apparently fruitlefs. We are not judges what fuccefs our pious endeavours may have in due time. I'be kbigdom of Gotf cometh not ivith obfervation. The light of our te- ilimony may appear to be wholly extinguifhed^; and the feed we fow, totally buried and corrupt- ed, and yet the one may blaze out, and the other fpring up and flourifli, in its due feafon, how, and trhere, and when, we are unable to forefee or even to conteive.

I belie ve^ no book of equal importance ever funk fo fuddenly into oblivion as the Free and Candid Difquifilions •, nor was any other ever treat- ed with more contempt and fcorri by thofe who ought to have paid the greateft regard to the fub- ]td: of it. In fhort, its pernicious tendency was echoed in the converfatdon of every expectant of church-preferment, whofe fuccefs depended, in any degree, upon the favour of his ecclefiailical fuperiors*

But, in fpite of all thefe arts and all this con- tumely, the book has had no inconfiJerable effects

amono;

THE CONFESSIONAL. 3^5

among particular perfons. It has caufed the forms of the church to be weighed in the balance of the finftuary, where they have been found greatly wanting. Many, who formerly paid an implicit veneration to them, begin now to com- pare and reafon upon them, and to draw infer- ences and conclufions by no means in their favour. Thefe imprefiions may poffibly be working si- lently and imperceptibly to a good end, and they who wilh well to the profperity of our Ifrael^ may reap the good fruit of them, either in the preient or a future generation. In the mean time, others vCi-Siy Jleep on^ and take their rejl, perhaps, for many years to come, fecure in their numbers and in- fluence, againil the importunity of clamorous Difquifitors. The Almighty works thofe things which are well-pleafing to him, in his own way, and in his own time, by methods to us infcruc- able, and out of the reach of human projefls* Methods of violence feldom advance the interefts of peace and truth. I'he wrath of man worketh not the righteoufnefs of God. And though the fpirit of Jlumber fliould have feized the public for the prefent, thedrowfinefs will in time be fhakenoff, and the hearts and underftandings of paftofs arid people opened, as of one man, and prepared to receive thofe truths, which at prefent are confined to the breads of a few, who, by the blefTing of God, have found the means of emancipating themfclves from the bondage of/^^r, the idolatry

of

336 THE CONI^ESSIOMAL.

oi lucre i and the enchantments of worldly wifdom,- and who, having born their teftimony in due feafon, though without effect for the prefent, will be found to have delivered theirown fouls, in the folemn hour of vifitation.

Having now examined the pleas that have been offered againft a reformation of our ecclefiaftical fyftem, it may pofTibly be expeded I Ihould de- fcend to particulars, and point out fome of the principal objedts, at leaft, of the reform I may be fuppofed to follicit.

The equitable reader, howCver, will recoiled:, that my fubjeft leads me only to one particular, the-cafe of fubfcription to human creeds and con- felTions, and other ecclefiaftical forms, which are required to be afiented to, as being agreeable to the word of God. Undoubtedly, fuch of thefe as have not this agreement with holy writ, ought not to be retained in the church. Neverrhelefs^ as fomething is due to the ignorance and preju- dices of well-meaning people, it may be allovved not to be expedient to difcontinue the ufe of thent all at once, provided proper endeavours are ufed' to prepare the people for their removal a: a fea- fonable time, by informrng- them wherein their difagreement with the Chriftian fcriptures confifts. But nothing can be more cruel, nothing morb inequitable, than to infift, that candidates for the miniiiry fhould give their folemn affent and con- fen^t to articles of faith,- and modes of difcipline

and

THE CONFESSIONAL, zil ^nd worfhip, which it is certain many of them muft think to be inconfiftent with the word of God, and which, for that reafon, they are obhgeci to wrell and diftort from their natural originatl meaning, before they can reconcile themfelves to this article of conformity.

I am not now looking into any man's heart. I have given indifpntable proofs of what 1 ani here advancing, from the writings of men of great eminence in the church of England^ hy the fy- ftems of fome or other of whom, it is reafonabie to fuppofcj the common run of fubfcribers form their fentiments, or quiet their fcruples.

This (tumbling- block fhould therefore be re- moved out of the way, with the utmoft expedi- tion. As a teft of opinions, it is utterly ufclefs. It is an affair in which the prejudices ot the peo- ple h^ve nothing to do. The candidates for the ininiftry are ftip^pofed to be perfons of learning, capable of judging of fuch things ; and liable to be hurt and dif'iuietcd by fo difii'greeable a dilemma, as they are brought into by this piece of difciplineo If there are any of this clafs weak enough to be offended with the removal of this barrier of or- thodoxy, why let them be gratified too. The reftoration of their feufible and confcientious bre- thren to their chiiltian liberty, need not preclude them from expreffing their belief of, and their veneration for, every thing cftabhfhed in ihs church of England, in as high terms as they can invent.

7. ' Bi)t

33S THE CONFESSIONAL.

But it may be demanded, would you have tiie church to authorize and fend forth minifters and .paftors among the people, without taking any fecuritv of them for the faithful difcharge of their ciiice, and particularly, without guarding againft- their preaching falfe and erroneous doc- trines ?

Anfwer: In our ofHce of ordination, there are eight quellions put to every priefl: ; the anfwers to the jccond^ fourth^ fifth, fixth^ and feventh of which, fcem to me to contain as ample fecurity in this behalf, as any Chriftian church can defire, or can be authorized to demand.

Hc're the prieH: declares, and declares it at the altar, " That he is perfuaded that the holy fcri- . " ptures contain fufficiently all dodlrine required *' of necefTity for eternal falvation, through faith " in Jefus Chrift ; that he has determined, by " God's grace, out of the faid fcriptures, to in- *' ftrufl the people committed to his charge, and " to reach nothing (as required of neceffity to ''• eternal falvation) but that which he fhall be *' perfuaded, may be concluded and proved by

*' the fcripture He promifes, the Lord being

*' his helper, that he will be ready, with all " faithful diligence, to banifli and drive away all *' erroneous and ftrange do6lrines, contrary to *' God's word ; — that he will ufe both public and "private monitions, as well to the fick as to the «' whole, v/ithin his cure, as need fn all require, 2 *' and

THE CONFESSIONAL. S39

^^ and occafion fhall be given ; — that he will be " diligent in prayers, and in reading of the holy " fcriptures, and in fuch ftudies as help to the " knowledge of the fame, laying afide the ftudy " of the world and the flelli ; — that he will be " diligent to frame and fafhiori his own felf and *' his family according to the doflrine of Chrift^ " and to make both himfelf and them, as much " as in him lieth, wholefom examples and pat- " terns to the flock of Chrift ; — that he will " maintain and fet forwards, as much as in him " lieth, quietnefs, peace, and love, among all " Chriftian people, and efpecially among thofe *' that are or fiiall be committed to hrs charo-e."

o

I omit the >i?, ihird, and eigblb of thefe que- ftions, and the anfwers to them, without any re- mark, becaufe, whatever 1 or any other perfon' may think of them', thefe declarations, in my opinion, are what no confcientioiis minifter would refufe to make, and are as good fecurity as any Proteftant church can in reafon demand, for the due difcharge of the paftoral office; and, I be- lieve, I fhould have few opponents, if I Ihould add, that whoever performs thus much of what he promifes at his ordination, will give little occa- fion to the church to bind him in any firider obligation. I will go one (lep farther flili. There is nothing in this declaration, but what the dif- fcnting clergy themfelves might declare ; and, be- ing laid down as a common meafure for all //- Z 2 cmfed

340 THE CONFESSIONAL.

cenfed or tolerated minifters, one complaint would be effectually removed, namely, that the diflent- ing clergy are entitled to their privileges and emoluments upon eafier terms, than thole of the eftablilhed church.

But, all this while, you will fay, we have no evidence of this man's opinions ; he may think very differently from the church, when he comes to interpret the fcriptures. The words of this declaration zrt general and indeterminate : and after all, they are but words. Here is no fubfcription ; and confequently nothing whereby the declarer may be convided of falQiood or prevarication, in cafe he fhould break his engagements with the church.

I anfwer to fome of thefe objedions, by afklng fome queftions. What evidence have you of the, opinions of him who fubfcribes to the thirty-nine articles ? Do not the very champions of the church infifl:, that the words of thefe articles are general and indetermifjate, and fufceptible of differ- ent fenfes ? Has not this been lately afferted from the pulpit, in the face of the univerfity of Cam- b'ridge, at the folemn time of commencement, in a fermon afterwards printed, and difperfed all over the nation [B] ?

For the reft, I take it for granted, that who- ever has no objection to the making this decla- ratioFj ori tenus^ in public, will have none to the

{B] 1757, by Dr. Pc-av/A

fubfcribing

THE CONFESSIONAL. 341

fubfcribing his name to it. And, if that will fatisfy, it is a circumftance which will readily be given up.

There is, indeed, fomething in this declaration, that amounts to an acknowledgment of the divine authority of the fcriptures •, and Dr. Hartley^ hav- ino- firft reprobated all other fubfcriptions, hath feen fit to add, " That it feems needlefs, or in- ••' fnaring, to fubfcribe, even to the fcriptures " themfelves. If to any particular canon, copy, " &c. infnaring, becaufe of the many real doubts " in thefe things. If not, it is quite fuperfluous " from the latitude allowed [C]."

I will freely declare, that I think this is fpin- ning the thread too fine. But, before I proceed to offer my fentiments upon the whole of this pafTage, let us confider, what may be inferred from fo much of it, as may be fafely allowed •, and that is, that to require fubfcription to any particular copy or canon of fcripture, is infnaring.

That no man, or body of men, have authority to authenticate one copy of the fcriptures, rather than another, will, I fuppofe, appear fufficiently to tliofc who have read and confidered what the writers among the Refornied have written con- cerning the fuperior refpeft paid to the Vulgate by the council of Trent. Even the cooler fort of the Roman catholic writers themfelves have

[C] Obfervatiqns, vol. II. p. 353.

Z 3 found

342 THE CONFESSIONAL.

found this fo reafonable and evident, that, to fave the honour of the council, they have been obliged to hunt for a more conimodious fenfe of the ca- non, than the plain words import -, that is to fay, a fenfe which does J20f imply that the Fathers of TrerJ intended to authenticate the Latin ver- fion in preference to any other [D].

Hence arifes an argument a fortiori, againft requiring fubfcription to creeds, articles, or f^- Hems, either dogmatical or explanatory, compofed and eftablifhed by human authority. If no body of men have authority to authenticate one copy of the fcriptures above another, no body of men have authority to interpret the fcriptures, fo as to authenticate fuch interpretation, as a ftandard for all v/ho receive the fcriptures. The encroach- ment upon Chriftian liberty is the fame in both cafes. The authority of the council of 'Trent, in the former cafe, v^as difowned on all hands. And concerning the power of Chriftian magiftrates at large. Dr. Hartley has truly obferved, that " the " power which they have from God to infii(5l *' punifliment upon fuch as difobey, and to con- " fine the natural liberty of afting within certain " bounds, for the common good of their fub- •* jefls, is of a nature very foreign to the pre-

[D] Le Chn, Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hol- laiu-ie fur THiftoire Critique du Vieux Teftament, par Mr. Si- Kon. Lettre xiv. p. 511, 312, &c. flWDefenfs des S^eiitimens^ ^c. Lettre xiii, p. 327. e. q. f.

tences

THE CONFESSIONAL. 343 " tences for confining opinions by difcourage- " ments and punifliments [£]."

I cannot, iiowever, come into this worthy per- fon's fentiments, with refped to the inutility of fubfcribing to the feriptures with more latitude, let the fubfcriber pitch upon (for his own ufe) what copy or canon you will.

It has been obferved over and over, that, not- withllanding the variations of fo many MSS. of the New Teftament, " there is not one various *' reading, choofe it as aukwardly as you can, *' by which one article of faith or moral precept

^' is either perverted or loft, or in which the

" various reading is of any confequence to the " main of religion, nay, perhaps, is not wholly *' fynonymous in the view of common readers, " and quite infenfible in any modern verfion'*

Again, with refpefb to the canon ; thofe book? v/hich have been among the a{i\iXiyo'^im, are al- lowed to be perfedlly confident, in point of doc- trine and precept, with thofe whofe authority is more indifputable, by reafon of their univerfaj reception ; which latter however, of themfelves, contain all things necelTary to be believed, or known, in the Chriftian religion. So that whe- ther you admit or rejeft the doubtful books, it

[E] Obfervations, vol. If. p, 351.

\_F] fi««//.?yV Remarks on a difcourfe of Free-thinking, 6th edit, parti, p. 69 — 72.

Z 4 is

344 THE CONFESSIONAL.

is the fame rule of faich and manners, by which you are guided.

, ■ This being admitted, it is furely a fufficient ..•<3ercription of the fcriptures, to call them the hooks of the Old and New Tejiament^ generally re- ceived among Chri^iiam ; and for a public pallor to declare, that he believes the fcriptures, and will make the contents of them the rule of his teaching, is a very moderate fecurity, and no more than the fociety with which he is'connefled may with reafon exped.

I have, indeed, met with fome gentlemen, fuf- ficiently difgufted with the prefent forms and objeds of our fubfcriptions, who would propofe, that the candidate fhould deliver in an account ojf 'his belief of the fcriptures, and of the principal articles of faith he draws from thence, in fome form oi his own, " The man himfelf," fay thefe worthy perfons, " beft knows his own conceptions ** concerning the authority, as well as thecon- " tents, of the fcriptures j and, by exprefling " thofe conceptions in his own language, he will '* conv'ey to whom it may concern, a much clearer *■' idea of his reverence for thofe faCred oracles, ''^ and of the weight and authority he afcribes to *' them, than can poffibly be gathered from his " afienc to any other form compofed by others. *^* Not to mentioh the abfurdity of obliging men . *' fe* confefs their own faith in the words of others, *-' ^vho have no njore authority or any better pre-

*' tence

THE CONFESSIONAL. 345

'* tence to interpret the fcriptures than them- " felves.

" They," continue thefe gentlemen, " who " are fond of deriving our rituals, and other ec- " clefiaftical apparatus, from primitive antiquity, " will find, that this was the ancient method ta- " ken to prove the orthodoxy of Chriftian bi- " fliops ; and indeed feems to be much better " calculated for the purpofe of a teft, than either " the prefent articles, or any others for which " they fhould be exchanged."

With thefe gentlemen I fo far agree, as tode- fire that fuch an experiment might be made for a limited time, and in the cafe only of our elder divines, who may be fuppofed to have formed fuch judgment on thefe matters, as they are not likely to retrad. Many of thefe take inftitution to new preferments, in an advanced age, and may be fuppofed to have clofed their (ludies, or, as a certain author has it, made up their minds, with rcfped to all theological opinions, when they oi'ier themfelves to the trial.

But, I believe, the certain confequence would be, that they who fhould be appointed to receive thefe formularies, perceiving a wide difference in the fentiments of thefe veterans, many of whom would be found to be men of the founded learn- ing and brighteit capacities, would think it much better, thefe candidates fliould be left to the en- joy n^.cnr of their own opinions in fecret, than that

they.

34^ THE CONFESSIONAL.

they, or the church they belong to, Ihould, by fuch refcripts under their hands, beexpofed to the perverfe refie(5lions that might be made upon their refpedVive variations from each other.

Nothing, indeed, could be more infnaring to the younger fort of candidates for the miniftry, than this method propofed by thefe worthy per- fons above-mentioned. Thefe formularies might be produced againft them at fome future period, v/hen, in the courfe of their iludies, they had found reafon to change their minds. An incon- venience, to which the declaration I have pro- pofed, and which is drawn as above from the ordination-office, is not liable. There the can- didate is fuppofed to be ftill carrying on the ftudy of the fcriptures, " along with fuch [other] ftu- " dies, as help to the [farther] knowledge of the " fame;" a fuppofition, v/hich feems to me to be abfolutely inconiillent with any peremptory afient to the articles, as agreeable to the word of God, at his firft entrance upon his miniftry.

There is another circumftance which recom- mends thefe forms of declaration extremely, and that is the modejiy with which the anfwers to the feveral queftions are exprelfed, agreeable to that fiate Ox probation^ in which the compilers of the office knew young candidates muft remain, at leaft for fome confiderable time.

" Are you perjuaded^^ fays the fecond queftion, •' that the holy fcriptures contain fufficiently all

" dodrine

THE CONFESSIONAL. 34;

5' do(5lrine required of neceffity for eternal. falva-

" tion, through faith in Jefus Chrift ?" The

candidate anlwers, " I am fo perfuaded." And fo he very well may be, without having examined the fcriptures with that application and accuracy, which are neceflary to form a judgment upon their whole contents. The objed of this perfua- fion lies within a fmall compafs •, and the know- ledge necefTary to produce it, may be obtained with a thoufandth part of the pains neceflary to perfuade an ingenuous mind, that our xxxix Ar- ticles of religion are in perfeft agreement with the word of God.

When we confider the cafe of candidates for 'orders in general, it may well be queftioned, whether the perfuajion above-mentioned is not as far as the majority of them can fafely go.

Many of them, in the northern diocefes elpe- cially, come immediately from a grammar-fchool, where they have thought of nothing but learning Latin and Greek. At the univerfities, the point for the firfi: four years, is to qualify themfelves for their firfl: degree, vv^hich they may take with the utmofl: iionour and credit, without ever hav- ing feen the infide of a Bible [G]. And it fhould

[G] " Young men," faid Dr. Prideatix, " frequently come to " the univerfky, without any knowledge or tindlure of religion *' at all ; and have little opportunity of improving themfelves " therein, whilll under-graduates, becaufe die courfe of their " ftudies inclines them to philofophy, and other kinds of learn- *' ing 5 and they are ufually admitted to their firll degree of

feem.

548 THE CONFESSIONAL.

feem, by an anecdote in the Life of Dr. Humphrey Prideaux, as .if it were determined, ti:iat, during that interval, it is better they fhould not.

That anecdote is as follows. " Dr. Bujhy of- " fered to found two catechiftical ledlures, with *' an endownnent of lOo/. per annum each, '* for inftr tiding the under-graduates in the ru- *' diments of the Chriftian religion, provided all *' the faid under-graduates fhould be obliged to " attend the faid leflures, and none of them be " admitted to the degree of Bachelors of Arts, *' till after having been examined by the catechift, " as to their knowledge in the doiftrines and pre- " cepts of the Chriftian religion, and by him ap- " proved of — But this condition being rejedled '' by both univerfities, the benefadlion was rejeded " therewith, and the church hath ever fincefuffer- " ed for the want of it [^].'*

Our univerfities are generally efteemed to be fo far out of the reach of all reprehenfion, that I Ihould not have ventured to have retailed this little piece of hiftory upon the credit of a lefs refponfible voucher than Dr. Prideaux. But as

" Bachelors of Arts, with the fame ignorance, as to all facred *' learning, as when firft admitted into the univerfity; ^nd *' many or thern, asfoon as they have taken that degree, offering ** themfelves for orders, are too cften admitted to be teachers in ";, the church, when they are only fit to be catechumens therein." Life of Dr. H. Prideaux, printed for Knapton, 1748, p. 9I.

XH] Ibid. p. 92. Dr. 5/«^j was not ignorant, with what tiii<5ture of religion thefe youngfiers either came to him or went irom him.

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 349

the fa6t ftands upon To good authority, 1 hope I may be indulged in a few reflexions upon it, without being accufed of outraging thefe refped- able bodies, for which I have the utmoft venera- tion [7 ].

[/ ] They who will be at the pains to look into the end of the Preface to the fecond edition of the Divine Legation, pub- liflied in the year 17 '2, will find enough to frighten any man from ever hinting at any blemiihes in our univerfities. By the facred fence with which they are there inclofed, one would think every gremial as fafe from itnpugiiers, as an article of faith is, when it hath once got into an ejtablijhed confejjion. The Prefacer, perhaps, did not then know that they had been at- tacked by any more confiderable perfon, than the addle-headed Dr. Wehjler ; much iefs that the eminent Dr. Prideaux had pro- pofed, among other nece/Tary regulations in thefe feats of learn- ing, to have a new college erefted in each by the name of Drone-hall, for reafons there Specified, by no means honour- able to the academical bodies. If I miftake not, tv:o editions of the Divine Legation have lince appeared without that Pre- face, which indeed would with a very ill grace have introduced to our notice a book, wherein fuch freedoms are taken with THE King's Professor of Divinity in one of the univer- fities, and matter of ridicule and contempt raifed from circum- ftances of the office, common to all profejfpn in the fame chair. I have feen a lill of the compH/netits paid to the learned and worthy ProfefTor in the performance above-mentioned, drawn out into one view, for which, according to the opinion of very competent judges, the ProfefTor might have made his concurrent a legal return, in a way, however, which would have fhewn the little propriety of dedicating a things with the title the lawyers gave it, to the Lord Chief Justice of England. I have fince learned, from one of our monthly produdtions, that the fame hand hath been more lately full as liberal to another Profejfor of the other univerfity, left both fliould not equally partake of its favours. In this laft inflance (fuch is his diftrcfs) he finds himfelf obliged to pull off his own

In

Z50 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In my humble opinion, the mod reafonabfe account that could be given of the motives of thefe learned bodies for rejeding a benefadlion of this fort, would be, that fufficient care is al- ready taken for the Chriitian inftrudion of thefe younger ftudents, v/ithout the aid of 2. fupemume- rary catechifl:. If fo, both thefe doftors mull have been miflaken, the one in defcribing the: diftemper, the other in indicating the method of cure.

The rejeSlion^ indeed, is in the narrative put to the account of the condition^ perhaps becaufe the catechift, after the candidate had fatisfied his examiners in philofophy^ might have it in his power to put a negative upon him, for deficiency in Chriftian knowledge, which would look like an hardfliip 5 and the rather, as there feems xa be an expedient already in the hands of both univerfities, calculated to anfvver all the ends of appointing a particular cafuill.

For, if I am not mifinformed, in both univerfi- ties, every mafter of arts hath a right to examine every candidate for, a barcbelor's degree, and a power of putting a negative upon him, and as much for a deficiency in Chriftian knowledge,

{blemn hqidfjorid robe, and force it on to the fhoulders of the worthy Profefibr. After vvhJch, he hinrfelf drolls away in the ^ei'po of a pici/e herrbig, firft to divert, arrd then to efcape from, the jufl: indignation of his affronted audience. See a late Letter to the R. R. Author of the Div. Leg. of Mofis Demo?iJIrat- t,{, hi Anfojcr io the Appendix to theffth Volume of that 'work.

as

THE CONFESSIONAL. 351

as for any other default. Upon inquiry how- ever, I am cold, that few if any candidates have their degree poftponed on that account. Per- haps fome may think it is, becaufe they are kl- dom or never examined in that branch, for a reafon which the univerfities think very fufiicient, and which operates equally to the exclufion of an appointed catechift.

Let us fuppofe this reafon to be the impropri- ety of intermixing catechiftical examinations with thofe which afcertain the candidate's quali- fications for a degree in arts, and of a catechift's interferinq; in the conferrino; uich degi^ee 1 yet might not the condition be model'd by a fmall alteration, fo as to render fuch a be- nefadtion eligible both to the univerfities and the public ?

Suppofe, for exampile, no academical candi- date ihould be promoted to the ofiice o^ deacon , without exhibiting to the bifhop, among the reft of his papers, a tcilimonial from the academical catechiil of his proficiency in Chriilian know- ledge ? It does not feem at firfl: fight at all more proper, that the arts which qualify a man for a batchelor's degree fhould of thcmfelves qualify himfortheChriftian miniftry, than that Chriftian knowledge alone fiiould qualify a man for a de- gree in arts.

But here I fliall certainly be told, that this is Uie afi^air of the Biftiops, and not of the Univerfi- ties i

352 THE CONFESSIONAL;

ties J and that it is an unwarrantable reflexion "upon their Lordfhips to fuppofe, they fhould want to be informed by a catechift, of the abili- ties of a candidate in that branch of knowledge, which is the particular objed of their own exa- minations.

To this I can only anfwer in the words of Dr. Prideaux above-cited, " many who have taken *' their firft degree, are too often admitted " to be teachers in the church, when they are oh- " ly fit to be catechumens.''* Perhaps, matters may have mended fince the days of Dr. Prideaux -y or if not, the whole fault may not belong to the Bilhops and their examiners. For if, as the wor- thy Dean of Norwich hath obferved, " bilhops ** are often deceived by falfe te/limonials,'* the univerfities may come in for a (hare of the blame, fince they give as ample teftimonials, and often upon as flender grounds (particularly with refpect to Chriftian knowledge), as country miniflers.

In the mean time, thefe confiderations, as matters now fland, make it ftill more neceifary,- that the church (to fave the credit of all parties) fhould content herfelf with the declaration, fram- ed from the ordination-office, f^t forth aboVe. This declaration, not only admits of improvements ■ in theological learning, but exhibits the candi- date as determined to make them j and furely the profeiTing fuch determination, Ihould be no trif- ling

THE CONFESSIONAL. 25$ ling part of the fecurity he gives to the church. And after that, to require the fame candidate to fubfcribe to a fyftem of opinions, or interpreta^ iions of fcripture, eftablifhcd in perpetuity, and which he may not ^<3i;i/^_y at any future period (notwiftanding what he may find in the fcripture to the contrary) on the peril of being excom- municated ipfo fa5l0y is not only abfolutely to preclude him from all future improvements, but like wife difabling him from performing his pro- mife to any good purpofe, wz. " to be diligent " in reading the holy fcriptures, and in fuch " ftudies as help to the knowledge of the fame.'* *' No, fays a late notable Cafuift, young people ** may give a general aflent to die articles, on the *' authority of others-, more cannot be expedled or " underftood to be done by thofe who are juft " beginning to exercife their reafon — by which *' means room is left for improvements in theo-

"logy[A:r

Which, as I take It, implies a fuppofition that x.\iQ{^ young fubfcribers are left at liberty to retraSi their afient to the' articles, if, in the progrefs of their ftudies, they find what they aflented to in- confiftent with their farther difcoveries and im- provements in theology. And, if this is really the cafe, why would not the preacher fpeak out ?

\K\ Sec Dr. Poive/Ps Sermon, on Commencement- Sunday,

»7S7'

A a This

554 THE CONFESSIONAL.

This fermon, (o far as I know, is the laft for- mal Defence of the fubfcriptions required in the church of England, that hath yet appeared -, and is fo well calculated to niake all ends meer, thzt it is a thoufand pities it Ihould ever be fuperfeded by any new produdion upon the fubjedl, which may change the pojlure of Defence \ particularly, as (in conjunction with two or three other trads, lately publifhed) it 'will greatly affift our poflerity in forming a true judgment of the liberal fentiments of the prefent age on the article of moral honejiy, as well as give them a juft idea of our improve- ments in theology^ and how far we go beyond the zeal and dexterity of our forefathers, in accom- modating plain, ftmple^ naked Chriftianity, with the arts, ornaments, opulence, power, and policy of the kingdoms of this world.

FINIS.

I