The confessional, or, A full and free enquiry into the right, utility, edification and success of establishing systematical confessions of faith and doctrine in Protestant churches

&t

<t ft* ***** V

^ PRINCETON, N. J. *»

Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.

Division

Sec/ ion o< ^r / ^^

Number Q, .'. ..(.■

%

THE

CONFESSIONAL:

O R,

A Full and Free I NQJU I R Y

INTO THE

RIGHT, UTILITY,

EDIFICATION, and SUCCESS,
Of eftablifliing

SYSTEMATICAL CONFESSIONS

OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE

IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES.

THE THIRD EDITION, ENLARGED)

With the Prefaces to the Firfl and Second Editions ;

an Advertisement and many Additions occafioned

by fome Publications fince the Second;

and an I ytp ex. , /

Quam vos facillume agitis, quam eftis maxume

Potentes, ditcs, tbrtunati, nobiles ;

Tarn maxume vos aequo animo asqua nofcere

Oportet, ii vos voltis perbiberi probos. Terent.

LONDON:

Printed for S, Bladon, in Pater-nofter-rm*

MDCCLXX.

^s»

J

CONTENTS.

C H A P. I.

4 fummary View of the Rife, Progrefs, and Succefs,
of efiablifhed Confeffions of Faith and Doctrine in
Proteftant Churches, Page I

CHAP. II.

The Claim of a Right to eflabltjh Confeffions as Tefls
of Orthodoxy, in Proteftant Churches, confidered,

30

CHAP. III.

The Apology of the Remonftrants/or Confeffions, in
confideration of their Expedience and Utility,
examined, 61

CHAP. IV.

A particular Examination of B 'if h op Burnet's Intro-
duction to the Expofition of the xxxix Articles of
the Church of England, 82

CHAP. V.

A View of the embarraffed and fluctuating Cafuiflry

of thofe Divines, who do not approve of, or differ

from, Bifoop Burnet's Method of juftifying Sub-

* a 2 fcription

iv CONTENTS.

fcriptlon to the xxxix Articles of the Church of
England, Page 152

CHAP, VL

A 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
Suppojition that every Pfoteftant Church muft
acl confidently with its profeffing to affert and
maintain Chriftian Liberty, 217

CHAP. VIL

An Attempt to difcover whence the Praclice of fub-
fcribing ihe xxxix Articles in different Senfes
was derived ; and by what fort of Cafuijis^ and
what fort of Reafoning, it was frjl propagatedf
and has beenfince e/poufedy 270

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the Conclufions that arife from the fore-
going Difquifitions, 354

ADVE&

[ v ]

ADVERTISEMENT,

THE controverfy occafioned by The Con-
fessional hath been carried on with a
fpirit to fearching, and attended with an event
fo little to the difadvantage of the work itfelf,
that no room is left for any confiderable addi-
tions to this third publication of it. Some,
however, the reader will find, fuggefled chiefly
by occafions given iince the appearance of the
fecond edition, and thofe of importance only to
fuch as are apt to take it for granted that the
defenders of public inftitutions mull needs be in
the right in every thing.

For the reft, the patrons and partizans or
church-fubfcriptions, well know to whom they
are indebted for the late elaborate investigations
of thofe ancient and modern muniments of
Church authority, which give the pra&ice its
greateft ftrength and plaufibility. Nor, on the
other hand, are the friends of religious liberty
infenfible of their obligations to thofe, who have
* b fhewn

[vi] ADVERTISEMENT.

fliewn how little thofe precarious charters are able
to maintain their refpe&ive claims, when con-
fronted by the original record of the rights and
privileges of chfiftian men.

Among the worthies of the latter clafs, ftancfc
foremofl one a, whofe fuperiority in this difpu-
tation will be acknowledged and admired in dif-
tant times (the cordatior atas)t when his oppo-
nents are remembered chiefly by their titles, or
the titles of thofe by whom they were fummoned
and animated to the conteft.

There are likewife other fenfible and fpirited
writers who have done honour to The Confes-
sional by efpoufing its honefl; caufe, as the
caufe of the Proteftant religion in general, and
of the Protedant church of England in particu-
lar : and if among the more recent advocates for
Chriftian liberty fhould be found fome learned
and refpectable writers of the diifenting perfua-
fions, who can wonder? Is there a reader of com-
mon penetration who does not perceive, that if
the ideas of Meflieurs Rutberfortb, lbbctfoni
Bafguy, the EJfayiJi on Eftablijhments, and the

Dr. Benjamin Dawson, Reftor of Burch in Suffolk,

Writers

ADVERTISEMENT. [vil]

Writers of three or four Bulky packets of ano*
nymous Letters, were to be realized by ftatute
and canon law, there mud be an end of all Tole~
ration, and a fpeedy revival of excommunica-
tions, deprivations, fines, imprifonments ; and,
at laft, of new proceffiorts to Smithjield : " For,'*
as a celebrated writer hath obferved^ " Popery
" is but the confummation of that tyranny,
ct which every religious fyitem in the hands of
" men is in purfuit of, and whofe principles
" they are all ready to adopt, whenever they
" are fortunate enough to meet with it3 fuc-
" cefs b."

The fame ingenious and learned writer hath
laid, that " If it were poffible for mankind to
" receive a perfect religion" (which, it feems,
he thinks, it is not), (t national eftablifhments
r< would be neceflary for its fupport, and yet
t( infallibly productive of its deftru&ion."
Whether the learned Inquirer' intended by this
Theory to accommodate our rigid conformiiis
with an argument for a perfcft acquiescence in
our prefent fyflem, I will not fay. But I al-

b A Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin cf Evil. ed.
.;;-, p. 184.

■ b 2 moil

[viii] ADVERTISEMENT.

mod think, that fome of our modern pleaders
for church authority have not been averfe to
avail themfelves of this flate of the cafe, in the
methods they have taken to filence all demands
of Reviews and Corrections of our prefent forms.
• The procefs, methinks, lies thus. Decency,
and, in my humble opinion, Truth, obliges them
to hold, that Chriflianity is a perfecl religion.
Their own intereft requires them to fay, it can-
not be fupported but by a national eltablifh-
ment, at the fame time that common fenfe, and
notorious fact, wrings from them a confeflion that
all human eftablifhments are imperfect. What-
foever is fo connected with imperfection, has cer-
tainly a tendency to decay, and in the end to
deftruction. Happily however for the caufe,
religion may be evaporated with little or no da-
mage to the eitabliihment. In Popifh countries
Chriflianity hath difappeared, but the eftablifh-
ment ftill remains ; and why may not that be
the cafe hereafter elfewherej When true reli-
gion is gone, the human eitabliihment may re-
main, as a fuccedaneum, and do the political
bufinefs at lead:, of true religion, as well or
better than true leligion itfelf.

2 a There

ADVERTISEMENT. f>]

" There may be good and important reafons,"
faid the late Archbifhop Seeker, " to fubmit,
*' even without remonftrating,. to what we do
" not approve." And again, " Dodlrines not
" necejfary, may be ufeful."- In thefe cafes, true
religion, or Chriilianity, is out of the queftion.
Chriftianity requires me not to fubmit to, but to
remonflrate againft, impoiitions which I do not
approve. And doctrines not ncceffary, are not
Chriftian do&rines. Hence it appears that the
good and important reafojis, and the ufefulnefs
here fpoken of, relate entirely to the prefervation
of the ejlablijljment, and not at all to that of
Cbrijiianity,

Dr. Balguy is ft ill more full to the purpofe.
He fpeaks of the folly of " going, to the fcrip-
" tures for what is not to be found in them ;"
meaning, the foundation of Church-authority,
or, in other words, of national eftablifhments.
The confequence is, that thofe national eftablifh-
ments will bid the faireft for permanency, which
have their greateft fupports from human power,
and the lead countenance from the fcriptures. —
But then thefe are the eftablifliments againft
which the cries of the Chriftian reformer are the
* b 3 loudeft.

JV] ADVERTISE MEN T.

loudeft. Ergo — the Chriftian reformer is — a
wronghead — the whitewaflier of a Negro.

Thefe Gentlemen, indeed, do not chufe to
own the above-mentioned confequence, though it
immediately follows from their premiffes; be-
caufe our forefathers, from whom we derive our
prefent reformed Syflem, are generally fuppofed
to have built it upon a different foundation. But
the mifchief is, that while they are labouring to
eftablim tW\x conjiftency , they bring thdrjincerity
into queftion. A circumftance brought to light
by a late publication c will explain this,

The doctrine of Archbifhop Seeker above
cited, is delivered in a letter, which difcovers to
what extremity that eminent prelate was em-
barraffedby the fine reflections of the late Dr.
Lardner upon the proceedings of the council of
JVio? d, fo long ago as the year 1750. His
Grace's pretenfions to candour and moderation in
matters of religion,: which he profeffed even to a
degree of affectation, could hardly prevent his
chagrin from breaking out on this trying occa-

c Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Reverend
Nathanael Lardner, D. D.

d Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory. Tart ii. Vol. VIII.

fion*

ADVERTISEMENT. [xi]

fion- Dr. Lardner's principles in that incompa-
rable digreffion are irrefragable, and the appli-
cation of them to the prefent times next to ine-
vitable ; and if an expedient could not be found
to mitigate the fentence pafied with fo much
juflice on the council of Nice, it would una-
voidably fall on fome councils and convocations
of more modern date, for whofe honour and re-
putation his Grace was more immediately con-
cerned. The management was mafterly. The
fagacious prelate grants Dr. Lardner's premiffes
in general words, with much feeming franknefs,
but warily guards, as he goes along, againft his
conclufions, by certain limitation, fo expreffecj,
that they might, upon any future emergency,
take away all meaning from his conceffionsj.
For particulars, I beg leave to refer the reader to
the letter itfelfe, and fhall only obferve, that
when the caufe of The Confessional (which
was precifely the caufe pleaded by Dr. Lardner)
came into judgement fifteen years after, the great
benefit of his Grace's cautionary rejlriclions was
immediately acknowledged ; the jury appointed
to try the culprit by his Grace's canons, finding

e Memoirs, p. 98.

* b 4 him

[xii] ADVERTISEMENT,

him guilty of offending againft every one of
them, without going out of court.

Br. Lardner indeed was a diflemer, and was
prejudiced againft fubfcnptipns for reafons and
confiderations, which, as the orthodox will have
it, lay quite out of the rpad of the author of
The Confejfional. To this one might anfwer, that
reafons and confiderations drawn from the
Chriftian fcriptures, fhould not feem to lie out of
the road of ^wyProteflant. But be it fo. May
they not be fuppofed to lie full as far out of the
road of cardinal Bellarmin ? Grant me this, rear
der, and then try whether yon cannot find an
apology for the author of The ConfeJJional in the
following detail, even though he fhould be
found with a mitre upon his head.

About an hundred years ago, the Divines of
France were greatly divided, and grievoufly em-
broiled in the controverfy occafioned by the doc-r
trines of Jan/emus. The Archbifhop of Parisy
in concurrence with the Jefuits, procured the
condemnation of thofe doctrines, as being herer
tical ; and prevailed fo far as to have that con-
demnation acknowledged as catholic and juft, by

a general

ADVERTISEMENT. [xiii]

a general fubfcription, extending to forne lay-
profeffions, and even to the Nuns of certain
monafteries.

One of the belt pens of Port Royal (and they
had few bad ones among them) was employed,
under the name of Damvilliers, to expofe this
novel and abfurd pra&ice. The propofition to
be fubfcribed did not fpecify any particular
dogma ; but imported merely, that tlfe words,
" The fenfe'of Janfenius is catholic," was an he-
retical propofition. The Janfenift writer, having
noted this Jefuitifm, goes on thus in his own
language, which I forbear to tranflate, as the paf-
fage contains an opprobrium, that aProteftant ad-
vocate for fubfcriptions fhould blufh to deferve :
" II faut avoiier, que depuis que les hommes
" raifonnent il n'y eut de pareille extravagance.
" Mais le fucces en eft encore plus etrange. Car
" quoique la pluffjart du monde s'en mocque en
*? particulier, on agit pourtant en public comme
<l fi on eftoit perfuade, et les Jefuites ont le credit,
P pour etablir cette abfiirdite inoiiie, d'introdu-
lc ire use pratique de souscription, dont on
*' ne trouve aucun exemple dans l'Eglife catho-
" lique, mais feulement parmy des Herctiques,
*' qui en font blamez par ceux qui ont de«
f i fendu l'Eglife contre eux, Car il eft bon que

" Ton

f>iv] ADVERTISEMENT.

"■■ P on fcache que depuis que l'Eglife eft 1' Eglife,
" on n'a jamais fait figner ny des Religieufes, ny
" des Maiftres d'Ecole, ny des Clercs, ny meme
" des fimples Prefixes. Ce furent les Lutheriens
^ d'Allemagne de la Confeffion d'Aufbourg qui
" s'aYiferent, pour une fois feulement, de faire
u iigner leur Confeffion de foy par les Principaux
" de College, et les Maiftres d'Ecole. Et ils en
" font rgpris par le Cardinal Bellarmin comme
"d'une vanite infupportable, et d'une nouveau-
" te inoiiie dans l'Eglife de Dieu, depuis les
" Apoflres. Or qu'une chofe aufty etrange que
" cette pratique, a laquelle on rf a jamais eu re~
6i cours dans les plus damnables herefies, ait eftc
" introduite en France, c'eft a dire, dans l'Eglife
" du monde la plus libre, et la plus enemie de
tc ces fervitudes, fur la plus grande des toutes les
" bagatelles, cela eft admirable ; mais en la ma-
" niere qu'on admire les eftets extraordinaries de
" la bizarrerie des hommes. II eft vray que les
u Jefuites ne pouvoient mieux faire voir l'exces
P du credit qu'ils ont dans l'Eglife, que par ce
" moien. Ce n'eft rien d'etablir des chofes rai-
fi fonnables; on ne fcait fi c'eft la, raifon ou la
" force qui les a fait recevoir. Mais pour bien
" faire paroiftre fon pouvoir, il faut choifir des
(i chofes comme celle-la qui foient exceffivement

" deraifonnables.'*

A D V E R T I S EM E N T. [xv]

u deraifonnables." Les Imaginaires. a Liege,
1667. p. 99. — Happily the Parifian Prelates, in-
junction went one degree beyond the ProteflantS'
in this extravagance. We have no Nuns among
us, nor any thing like them, unlefs you chufe to
call the Religious of the Afylum by that name :
and nobody, I imagine, thinks of taking fub-
fcriptions from them f . It is j uft enough, that our
Pratique, atone of the Univerfmes, takes in boys
at their admiiTion into colleges; and at both, gra-
duates of all ages and profeffions, poor curates in
all circumftances, and even country fchoolmafters.
It is, however, with us juft as it was with the
Trench in thefe days of Janfenifm. Few fenfible
men talk of thefe things in private parties, but
with high difapprobation ; and yet the practice

f I would not however be underftood to anfwer in future,
for every individual concerned in that laudable inftitution.
A refpeftable friend, a great dealer in Curioiities, fhewed
me the other day, a book publiflied by one of them, inti-
tuled, Comfort for the djfticled, decorated with an elegant
Frontifpiece, wherein is feen the fpiritual Direftor ftanding
before a <vjeeping Magdalen in the habit of his order, and
pointing to a Crucifix placed behind her. Such a reprefen-
tation, in a book of Proteflant piety, feems to be no inconfi-
derable llep towards the Confummation mentioned by the in-
genious writer above cited. And thus, by gradually car-
rying one point after another, the introduction of Sub-
fcription into the Society may at length be but a mere
bagatelle,

is

[xri] ADVERTISEMENT.

is continued, for no end that can be difcovered,
but that the power of the church may appear
with the greater brilliance, the more unreafon-
able the things are that ihe enjoins. Forr I ftupr-
pofe, no fmcere Proteftant will fay with Y>v.Pow-
el, that the novices in theological literature may
reafonably fubfcribe a fyftematical Confeffion upon
ihe authority of others..

It has been faid, that the author of The Con-
fejfional is an enemy to all eftablifhments ; and
fome people, it feems, think it incumbent upon
him to be explicit upon this head. He does not
think fo himfelf ; but as the explanation required
may be brought within a fmall compafs, he will
give it.

He thinks, in the firft place, that the Chriftian
religion is perfectly adapted, in all its parts, to
the flat e and condition of man ; and is, fo far, a
perfecl religion : but being in itfelf a religion
of the greatefl: fimplicity and liberality, its
excellency mud; be debafed, in proportion as
it is incorporated with fuperftitious modes of
worfhip, and reftridlive forms of doctrine. In
the firft inftances, he thinks the Chriftian reli-
gion hath been corrupted, in the other cramped,
by human eftablifhments ; and the longer it re-
main*

ADVERTISEMENT. [xvii]

mains in fuch unnatural connexions, the more
probable will be its tendency to deltru&ion.

He is not of opinion that the Chriftian religion,
" by being kept intirely feparate from worldly
" interefts," or, in other words, profefled by in-
dividuals without refpett to temporal emolu-
ments, " would be neglected, or perifli in obli-
" vion," becaufe he is perfuaded it is enjoined to
be fo kept, and fo profeffed, by. the gracious Au-
thor of it. Hence it follows, that human eftab-
liihments are not neceffary to it's fupport. A cer-
tain writer hath faid, that " if men were not to
" fpeak their minds in fpite of eftablifhments,
" Truth would foon be banilhed from the earth."
And the very fame may be faid of Piety and
Right eoufnefs. So little is the Chriftian religion
indebted to human eftablifhments for its fupport .

Where is the mod bigoted Formalift who will
venture to fay he is a friend to thofe national
eftablifhments, which are " infallibly productive
" of deftructiontothe Chriftian religions?'' Why
then fhail the author of The Confeffional be re-
trained from faying, he is an enemy to fuch efta-
blifhments ? If the queftion were to be, whether
the Chriftian religion or the national Eftabliih-

8 See, The Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of
Evil, p. 192.

mcnt

[xviii] ADVERTISEMENT.

ment ftiould be deftroyed ? he hopes and be-
lieves he mould have the honour of voting with
the whole Hierarchy of the church of England,
But he is riot for having things come to any fuch
extremity. Whatever he may think of particu-
lar eftablimments, he thinks there are none of
them (o bad, but that it may be reformed by be-
ing brought back to the terms of the original
record (to which all Chriftian eftablimments ap-
peal) with refpect to thofe points in which it has
deviated from it ; namely, by difcharging all
fuperfluous traditions, and fyfliematical doctrines,
with which the Chriftian religion hath been in-
cumbered by the craft or the vanity of men pre-
fuming to be wife above what is written*

Two things have been faid to this ; i. That
this is not to be expected of the prefent genera-
tion : and I find fome men have been called w*
fwnariesy even for talking of it. — But why fo ?
It is no more than ought to be expected of any
generation of Chriflians ; and every man fo per-
fuaded, may both lawfully and laudably folicit
it from thofe who have the power, and who can-
not modeftly be fuppofed not to know that it is
their duty.

2. The other thing offered byway of filencing
thefc teazers of eftabliflimcnts, is, that their de-
mands

ADVERTISEMENT. [xix]

mands are vague and not explicit. " Tell us
u only what you would have, and you fhall ei-
" ther be gratified, or we will give you unan-
" fwerable reafons why not.'* — This, it feems, is
the fort of our prefent Antireformers ; and he
mufl: be a little hardy who would attempt to
ftorm it. The author of The ConfeJJional is no
fuch adventurer, though he hath been called too
peremptory for an Inquirer. To conciliate the
mind of the worthy perfon who thought him fo,
he begs leave to exprefs his demands in that
gentleman's own words ; viz. " An ecclefiaftical
" conftitution, calculated to comprehend all that
" hold the fixed and fundamental principles and
11 points of faith, in which all ferious and fincere
tl Proteftants of every denomination are unani-
" moufly agreed, and to exclude thofe only that
4< hold the peculiar tenets that essentially
" diftinguilh all true Proteflantifm from Popery."
To the eftablifhment of this Ecclefiaftical confti-
tution the author of The Confcjfwnal never will be
an enemv.

P Pv E-

[ i ]

1 ■ — ■ ■ i r i

PREFACE

T O THE

SECOND EDITION:

CONTAINING

REMARKS on a late Vindication of
the Right of Proteftant Churches to re-
quire the Clergy tofubfcribe to an eflablifoed
Confefjion of Faith and DocJrines*

H^E TIBI ERUNT ARTES!

THE favourable reception The Confejficnal
hath met with from the Public, though it
will not be admitted as an argument of the merit
of the book, is undeniably an argument of fome-
thing of much more confequence. It is an argu-
ment, that the love of religious Liberty is
(till warm and vigorous in the hearts of a con-
fiderable number of the good people of England,
notwithstanding the various endeavours of intereft-
ed and irreligious men, in thefe latter as well as in
a former

ii P r e f a c t to the

former times, ro check and difcourage it ; and
notwithftanding the defponding appreheniions of
fome good men, that thefe Jiiflers had well nigh
fucceeded in their unrighteous attempts.

It now appears, that a little plain reafoning,
illuftrated by a few indifputable facts, in favour
of this invaluable legacy of our Proteftant An-
ceftors, hath been iufficient to engage the at-
tention of many well-wiihers to its prefervation
and perpetuity, who, perhaps, might not other-
wife have been aware of the prefent importance
of fuch a difquilition ; but who, by having their
obfervation turned upon the artful and indirect
methods that have been taken by fome of its
infidious adversaries, under the mafk of friend-
fhip, to diminifh its e.ftimation, may, by the
bleHing of God, be excited to a greater degree
of vigilance, that this fountain of all true piety
and evangelical virtue may never more be
choaked up by the rubbifh of traditional for-
malities.

The Confejfional hath likewife had the good
fortune to make another valuable diicovery;
namely, that encroachments on religious liberty
in Proteftant communities, by whatever fpecious
pretences they are introduced, can never be de-
fended upon Proteftant principles.

A Divine, of good learning and character,

who occupies, with reputation, one of the full

theological chairs in Europe, hath tried his

flrength upon this fatherlefs production of the

2 prefs,

Second Edition. iii

prefs3, without foreseeing, I dare fay, that he
would fo fuddenly meet with a more able oppo-
nent From another quarter; who hath fhewn, in
a fflafterly manner, how little definitions and
diftin&ionsj which pals, perhaps with applaufe,
in the fchools for found and Scientific, are to be
depended upon, when confronted by fcripture
and common lenfeb.

In this excellent and decifive little tract, the
author of the Confcjjional thought he had fo far
found his account, that he determined, when a
fecond edition of his book was called for, to pats
over, in the revifal of it, the learned Profeifor's
Vindication in profound filence, and to leave it in
that ft ate of inefficiency to which the author of
the Examination had reduced it.

But fome of his friends, by whofe fuperior
judgment he hath greatly profited on other occa-
fions, obferving to him, that fome ofDr.Rather-
fortl/s ftri&ures might be underftood to affect
the ConfeJJional in particular, apart from his
general argument, it was thought neccflary, that
particular anfwers fhould be given to thole
ftri&ures ; which accordingly will be found in
fome notes, fubjoined to thofe palfages again! i

a In a Vindication of the Right of Proteftant Churches to
require the Clergy to fubferibe to an eftablilned Confefiion of
Faith and Doctrines.

b Exaviination of Dr. Rutberfurtb' 's Argument, refpeclir.g
the Right of Proteitant Churches to require the Clergy to fub-
feribe to an eitablifhed Confeffion, CSV.

a 2 which

iv P R E F A G E to the

which the learned Profeffor hath pointed his
efforts.

In running over the Vindication, the author of
the Confeffional could not avoid obferving feveral
flaws in the learned Profeflor's foundation,
which have, in a great meafure, been left un-
touched by the Examiner; who, perceiving that
it would be fufficient for his purpofe to expofe
the futility of the Profeflor's conditions, candidly
left him his premifes, whereon to erec"t another
fort of fabrick, in cafe occafion and encourage-
ment lhould once more call him forth to vindi-
cate the right of requiring fubferiptions in Pro-
teftant Churches.

The author of the Confcffional is not a little
concerned, that he cannot follow this benevolent
example. For, as it hath been thought proper
that he lhould make his own particular defence,
it is become indifpenfably neceflary for him to
lay open the feveral infirmities of the Profeflor's
foundation, which will now appear in a few fhort
remarks on the three firfl: paragraphs of his
Vindication.

The learned Profeflbr opens his charge with
a recital of the thirty-fixth canon of the church
of England, as if that particular law of our
church was to have been the principal, if not
the fole object of his Vindication. Nor, indeed,
had that been the cafe, and fuppofmg him to
have fucceeded in his undertaking, would he, in
my apprehenfion, have come fliort of his more

general

Second Edition. v

general dcfign. For, after having effectually
vindicated the right of the Proteftant Church of
England to require fubfcription to her confeflion
of faith and doctrines, upon the foot of this
canon, he might fafely have inferred the right
of all other Proteftant Churches, as a thing of
courfe; inafmuch as it maybe prcfumed, that
none of their ordinances or injunctions, requiring
fubfcription to their refpective confeflions, are
exprelTed in terms more ftrict and precife than
thofe of this canon.

But, inftead of undertaking the particular vin-
dication of our own fyflem, he declares, that
" he does not defign, at prefent, to enquire into
" the force and meaning of this fubfcription [the
" fubfcription enjoined by this canon], when it
" is applied to theie Articles [thexxxix Articles
" of the Church of England] in particular." And
herein lcannot but commend his difcretion ; for,
as it happens, we have certain laws of the State
enjoining fubfcription, which do not require that
every perfon who is received into the miniftry,
or is admitted to an eccleiiaftical living, mall
acknowledge, by fubferibing, &e. that all and
every the thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to
the word of God. The cafe {lands thus :

The flatute, 13 Eliz. c. 12, enjoins fubfcrip-
tion to all the articles of religion which only con-
cern the cenfjjion of the true Chrijlian faith,
and the doclrine of the fa cr anient sy comprifed in
a book imprinted, intituled, " Articles? &c. as
a 3 in

vi Preface /a the

in the title of our prefent Articles. This Bill
had puffed the Houfe of Commons five years
before, namely, 8 E/iz. and was reje&ed by the
Lords; and being now refumed in 157 1, fome
members of the Houfe of Commons, and among
the reft Sir Peter Went worth, were fent to the
Archbiihop of Canterbury [Parker], for the
Articles which then [viz. 157 13 palled the
Houfe. The Archbiihop took that occaiion to
expoftulate with the members who were fent to
him, Why they did put out of the Book the articles
for the homilies, confecrating of bifhopsi and fuch
like f [meaning, by the limiting claufe, confining
fubfeription to articles only of a certain tenor. J
Surely, Sir,faid Went worth, becaufe we were fo
decupled in other matters, that we had no time to
examine them how they agreed with the word of
God. What! faid the Archbiihop, fur eh you
mifiook the matter ; you will refer yourf elves wholly
to us therein. Sir Peter replied, No, by the
faith I bear to God, we will pafs nothing before
we underfland what it is ; for that were but to
make you Popes : make you Popes who Ujl ; for wn
will make you none c .

From this converfation it appears,
i. That the Lay part of the legiflature, of
that time, thought themfelves as competent
judges of what did, or did not, agree with the
word of God, as the biihops.

c Journal of Parliament, by Sir Simmonds D'Ewes, p. 239.

2. That

Second Edition. vii

2. That the Lay part of the legiflature of
that time thought, that the leaving it to the
governors of the church, exclufive of them-
felves, to determine what articles of religion
flionld be eftablifhed for the public confeflion,
was to make them Popes : That is to fay, in veil
them with a power which, upon the principles
of the Reformation, did not belong to them.

3. That, by palling the Aft with the limiting
claufe, the legiflature did not only flunk, but did
determine, that the governors of the Church of
England had no right to require the inferiour
clergy to fubferibe to any confeflion of faith and
doctrines, without the authority of Parliament.

4. That, by palling the Aft with the limiting
claufe, no other fubfeription is required by it
than to thofe Articles which only concern the con-
fejjion of the true Chrijlian Faith, and the doclr'me

of the facr anient s.

5. That no other Aft having repealed this
Aft, or in any wife contravened it, touching fub-
feription to the Articles of Religion ; and the Aft
of Uniformity in particular, 14 Car. II. having
referred to it, as the Jlanding Law, concerning
fubfeription to the Articles of Religion ; the
limiting claufe is in full force to this hour d.

*■ Great hath been the wrangling upon the queflion, Whe-
ther the clergy are not, by this aft, obliged to fubferibe to ibe
w'riolexxxix Articles, notwiihftanding the limitation inthe&rft
paragraph of it. The lateil account we have of this matter is
h'ju: Di\ Burn, who lays, that, " in //v?J7;'iv,ufcemetli to have

a 4 No\\\

viii Preface to the

Now, had the learned ProfefTor vindicated
this canon upon the fame principles, and by the

" been generally underftood, thatthe fubfequent claufes in the
" Aft, requiring fubfcription in time to come to the faid ar-
" tides, do refer to the whole book of Articles abovemen-
" tioned, and not to thofe only which were at that time re-
" quired to be affented to and fubfcribed." Ecclef. Law, Title
Articles, p. 74. I am unwilling to afk, in whofe praftice it
feemeth to have been fo underftood ? as a praftice direftly con-
trary to an Aft of Parliament can convey no very advantageous
idea of the praftifer's integrity. The Doftor proceeds to give
the reafon why it hath been fo underftood : " For, faith he,
" there is no other Aft of Parliament that enjoins the fub-
*' fcription of perfons admitted to benefices." But, what
then ? Does this circumftance give the pratlifers authority to
aft as if there was ? What would become of our liberties and
properties, if pratlifers in civil cafes were allowed to make
laws according to their own underftandings, in default of better
authority from an Aft of Parliament ? To go on a little far-
ther. This learned and worthy perfon, by obferving that
f« the Aft of Uniformity, 14.C.II. doth not extend to perfons
f* admitted to benefices in this refpec7," feems to think that the
Aft of Uniformity extends tofme perfons \nfme other refpeft,
than the Aft of the 13 Eliz. extends to perfons admitted to
benefices. But though the learned Canonift hath either forgot,
or did not chufe to remark it, it is certain, that neither Heads of
Co/leges nor Left urers are obliged, by the Aft of Uniformity, to
fublcribe to any other Articles than the xxxix Articles mentioned
in the ftatute of 13 Eliz. ; and the Articles mentioned in that
ftatute to be fuhferibed, are thofe Articles which only concern the
confejjior, of the true Cbrijlian Faith, and the Doilrine of the Sa-
craments. §0 that it fhould fcem, whoever requires any clergy-
man to fub.fcribe any other Articles of Religion, befides thofe
mentioned and defcribed in the firft feftion of the 13 Eliz.
hath not the authority of any ilatute for that praftice ; and
how far fuch praftice can be jufiified in a Proteftant State,
*nd in a Country that calls itfelf a Land of religious and ci-

famd

Second Edition. ix

fame arguments he employs to prove the general
right, he would, too probably, have laid a foun-

vil Liberty, by any other authority, is to me an impenetra-
ble fecret. I cannot leave this fubject without bearing my
teilimony to the candor and moderation of many of Dr.
Burn's remarks, in relation to ecclefiaflical authority. Of
the former, I take his giving the whole converfation between
Archbifhop Parker and Sir Peter Wentworth to be a ftriking
inftance. The Doctor, indeed, tells us, that Wentworth was
fent to the Tower, for the fpeech wherein he related this con-
vention himfelf in the Houle of Commons. But, leir. this
fhould make fome aukward impreffions on the unwary reader,
it will be neceffary to remark, that Wentvwrth 's aflertion,
concerning the Articles of Religion, made no part of his of-
fence, as appears from his examination, printed immediately
after his fpeech, in the Journal of Sir Simmonds D'Enxes. As
I am upon this fubject, 1 (hall take the freedom to reftify
another overfight of Dr. Burn's, which is too material to be
parted by. At the bottom of page 7^, he fays, " and, by
" the ltatute 1 3 Eliz. if any peribn (hall advifedly maintain
«' —any doctrine — contrary — to any of the xxxix Articles''
&C. There is no mention in the whole Aft of xxxix Articles.
The words are, any of the Jaid Articles, viz. the doctrinal
and facramental Articles mentioned in the firil fedtion. This
paragraph, indeed, in the act 1 3 Eliz. here cited by Dr.
Bum, is a plain proof, that by the words the faid Articles,
or any of the faid Articles, no other Articles are meant, in
any of the fubfequent claufes, befides thofe Articles defcrib-
ed in the firft feftion. They mud be little converfant in the
hillory of thofe times, who can fuppofe, that the Parliament
of 157 1 would confign any minifler to cenfure, and finally
to deprivation, for maintaining any thing contrary to the
Jifciplinarian Articles. Archbifhop Laud's word will pafs,
where mine will not; 1 will, therefore, rifque this matter
upon his credit. " If you will be plcafcd to look back,
' !..;,•; he, and confuler who they were that governed buii-

vkuion.

x Preface /o //j;

elation tor forae variance between church and
ftate. For the Statute, with thefe limiting

" neffes in 157 1, and rid the church almoft at their plea-
" fure ; and how potent the anceftors of thefe libellers
" [Prynne, Burton* Ba/l<wick, Sec.] began then to grow, you
*' will think it no hard matter to have the Articles printed,
** and this claufe [meaning the firlt claufe of the xxth Ar-
" tide] left out." Rujb-zuortb, Hilt. Coll. Vol. III. Appen-
dix, p. 131. Here, I fuppofe, we have the limitation upon
fubferiptions, 13 Eliz. fufficiently accounted for.

The laborious Dr. Ruthcrforth, in a pamphlet which he
calls A Defence of bis Charge, hath taken great pains to
prove, that the limitation in the ftatute 13 Eliz. is not in
force at this time, and for this purpofe quotes the 30th and
3 I ft fecYiQHS of the A& of Uniformity, 14 Car. II. chap. iv.
which, according to him, " require fubfeription to the 36th
*f Article of Religion concerning the Book of Ordination."
Whereas thofe feclions require neither more nor lefs, than,
that they, noko by this Ail, or by any other, law then
im FORCE <were required to fuhjeribe the faid Articles, fhould
nor miiiake one book for another. The queftion llill re-
maios, whether any perfon was, by this act, or by any other
law then in force, required to fubferibe this 36th article.
But, not to deprive the learned Profeifor of his whole cavil at
once, let us fuppofe for the prefent, that a fubfeription to
;he 36th article is here required. In what light is the re-
quiiition to be underilood ? Merely as a fingle exception
to the limiting words of Queen Elizabeth's act, and, confe-
quently, by a known rule, a confirmation of them in ncn cx-
ceptis. For this being the fingle fpecification of an article
out of the bounds of the limitation to be found in this whole
ad of Uniformity, the fubferiber is manifeftly left (if thefe
two feclions are to be coniidered as enjoining any fubferip-
tion) at full liberty with refpeel to thofe other articles that
do not concern the confejpon of the true chrijlian faith, and the
doSirins of the facraments; and this is all that the Profeifor

words

Second Edition xi

words in it, being fiill in full force, and not
contravened by any other Statute whatever, the

can poffibly profit by his blunder. And of this indeed he
feems to be aware, and therefore his next attempt is to make
fure work, and by the help of Mr. Cay, to repeal the lla-
tute, 13 E/iz. with refpedt to the fubfcription of any eccle-
fialtical perfons whatever, who have been ordained by Pro-
teftant Bifhops. For if the limitation only concerned Papiils,
and fuch as received their orders in foreign churches, the
fubfcription enjoined did not concern thofe who received or-
ders according to the forms of the church of England, nor
does it concern any fuch to this hour. And the confe-
riuence will be, (if we take Dr. Bum along with us, who
appears to know fomething more of the matter than either
Dr. Rutherforth or Mr. Cay ) that perfons admitted to benefices
are not bound by the ilatute law to fubferibe any articles. For
Dr. Burn is clear, " that the Aft of Uniformity, 14 Car. II.
" doth not extend to fuch perfons in this refpeft," that is,
in refpeft to their fubfcription to the articles. The late
Bilhop Conybeare, in his f.rmon on The Cafe of SuVcription,
p. 10, fay?, " The reafon why the Ckrgy in particular are
" required to fubferibe, is this, becaufe they are Teachers,"
and immediately refers to the act 13 E/iz. The term teachers
indeed doth not occur in any part of the aft, but the reafon
is clearly implied in the preamble, viz. That the Churches of
the Queens Majejlfs dominions may be ferved <u ith Pastors
of found nligion. The reference would have been imper-
tinent and abfurd, had the preacher, in agreement with the
Profeflbr's ideas, confined the word, pafors, to fuch of the
clergy only, as had Prefbyterian or Popifli ordination.
Strype and Neale, whom the ProfefTor cites upon this occa-
fion without underitanding them, knew very well what
they faid, and are indeed very fubftantial witnefies againil
him. Strype fays, " the perfons who had either Popifh or
" Prefbyterian ordination were comprehended" (Neale fay?,
were included) " in the limitation above-mentioned." Which

learned

xii "Preface to the

learned Profefior, in vindicating the right of
church- governors to require this canonical fub-

manner of expreflion implies, it feems, in the Profeflbr's
common fenfe, the exclufion of all others. Not unlike the
fellow who having fold a couple of fowls, out and out, made
a cludation for the feathers. How this aft is to be under-
ilood, appears by the marginal note to the firll feftion of it,
which is coeval with the publication of the ltatute itfelf, and
is of more authority than an hundred abridgers. It is in
thefe words, Every ecclejtajlical per/on Jhall fubferibe to the ar->
tides touching the confejfion of the faith, and declare his aJJ'ent
thereunto. Which fhews, even to demonftration, that the
limitation runs through the whole aft, and that, to foift in,
after the words, the faid Articles, the words, whereupon it ivas
agreed, Sec. into any part of it, is nothing better than down-
right forgery. Mr. Se/den, who probably was not lefs able
to interpret an Aft of Parliament than Mr. Cay, fpeaking of
the Articles, fays, " There is a fecret concerning them. Of
" late, minifters have fubferibed to all of them ; but by the
'* Aft of Parliament that confirmed them, they ought only
" to fubferibe to thofe Articles, which contain matter of
" faith, and the doftrine of the Sacraments, as appears by the
** f.rfl fuhferiptions" Table-talk, title Articles. Mr.
Selden indeed was no friend to Church-Secrets, and on that
account may be an exceptionable witnefs with our Profeifor.
He appeals however we fee to the prailice, which was only
to be controuled, by the fori 'iji 'cation (as the Profefibr's fpiri-
tual progenitor Heylin very properly calls it) of Canons and
Synodical Afts. For, as the fame Heylin is obliged to own,
*' the Lawvers were clear, that by the ftatute, no fubfeription
••was to be required, but only unto points of doftrine."
Hft of the Prejlyterians, p. 269. I will juftgive the learned
Profeifor one more authority from a man after his own heart,
the famous Sir Roger UEjhange, who having occafion to affert
King femes the fecond's power to difpenfe with, make, in-
force, or abrogate, Eccleiialtical laws, jure rigali, ufes,

fcription,

Second Edition.

xiu

fcription of every minifter, and to all and every
the xxxix Articles under an authority different

among others, the following argument. " Before the
•* 13 Etix. c. 12, fubferiptions were enjoined by the regal
'* power; and tho' this Statute required fubfeription, yet,
" it being to the articles of religion "which only concern the con-
" fejjion of the true chrijli an faith, and the doctrine of the facra-
" ments comprized, &c. it was deemed by the bifoops to be
" infuffieient ; who therefore apply themfelves to their
" Prince, that by her Majefty's power ecclefiaftkal, they
" might enjoin a fuller fubfeription, not only to the articles
" of faith and doftrines of the facraments, but unto the
" government, the rites and ceremonies of the church ; and
M fuch as refufed this larger fubfeription, though they would
" readily fubferibe, as by this Jlatute required, were fuf-
" pended and deprived ; and has not his prefent Maieily
" the fame power that Queen Elizabeth had ?" Lord Soc-
men's Trafts, vol. I. p. 241. What is it the Profeffor would
be at ? Would he have it underftood that there was no
difference between the fubfeription required by the (tatute
13 Eliz. and the fubfeription required by the Bilhopg
Articles (as they were called) and afterwards by the Canons
of 1603 ? Or would he have it, that the difference only
fubiilled till the Aft of Uniformity, 14 Car. II. ? If the firft,
it will be incumbent upon him to prove, that they who re-
fufed to fubferibe the articles touching church Government,
or other articles, which do not concern the Confejfion of the true
faith, or the doctrine of the facraments, and who for fuch refufal
wereimprifoned, fufpended, deprived, &c. were legally convict-
ed upon the Jlatute, even any one of them. If he fays, that the
laft Aft cf Uniformity took away this difference, be mull
then (hew, in contradiftion to Dr. Burn, that the faid Aft
extends to perfons admitted to benefices in refpeft of their
fubferibing the Articles. I cannot conclude without ob-
ferving, that this cafe has never yet received any folemn
decifion upon a fair trial at Law. Should that ever happen,
I have no doubt but the Clergy would from thenceforth be,

from

xlv Preface to the

from that which enacted the limiting law, could
hardly have avoided running foul of the civil
conftitution of his country ; more efpeeially as
the argument, by which he vindicates the general
right of Proteflant church-governors to require
fubfcription to feme confeflion of faith and doc-
trines, mud conclude for the general right of
fuch governors to cftablijh any confeiTion of faith
and doctrines, to which they have a right to re-
quire fubfcription ; otherwife his argument has
very little bufinefs with the writer, who led the
learned Profelfor to employ the thoughts of the
Eflex clergy on the fubjecl of fubfcriptiona . A
right to require fubfcription, without a right to
eflablijh the formulary to be fubfcribed, would
amount to little more than Glendoiver's right to
call fpirits from the vafty deep. To which any
one might rejoin, with equal pertinence and pro-
priety, as Percy does to the faid Glendower:

Wky,fi can I, andfo can any man ;
But will they come when you do call I

This may ferve for one anfwer, among others,
that might be given, to a queftion which I have
heard often afked, viz. Why the learned Pro-
feffor would fet at the head of his difcourfe, as
it were by way of a text, a particular law of a

in this refpett, put upon a footing with his Majefty's Lay
fubjefts, and be no longer liable to the bondage of a pre-
carious canonical impohtion, in exprefs contradiction to a
plain Aft of Parliament.

particular

Second Edition. xr

particular church, into the force and meaning of
which he did not defign to enquire ?

But, to borrow his own language, upon a
later occafion, " inflead of confidering what he
" omits, we will enquire how well he fucceeds in
" what he attempts c."

He undertakes, then, " to vindicate the ge-
*' neral right which the governors of our own,
" or of any other Protcftant church, have to
" enjoin, that all thofe, who are admitted to the
" office of public teaching in it, (hall fubferibe
" to the truth of some confeffion of faith and
" do&rines."

Some confeilion of faith and doctrines \\.
is undoubtedly in the Scriptures ; and there is
nothing in the plan of Vindication, as it is here
laid jDivr, which hinders you from undei Handing,
that the right to be vindicated extends no farther
than to the enjoining a fubfeription to the truth
of the So7/>////r-confef]ion of faith and doctrines.
But, as we go along with the learned ProfefTor,
we perceive, that, beiides the general right to
enjoin fubferiptions, there is a general benefit
propofed by them ; for the fecuring of which,
it feems, a fubfeription to the truth of the fcrip-
tures, or of a confeflion of faith and doctrines,
in merely fcripture-words, would not be fvif-
ficient.

* See Dr. Rutberforths 't fccond Vindication, p. z.

But,

XVI pRIFACt /« the

But, if fo, is not the learned Profeffor's defign
Worded in too loofe and captious a manner ? Is
there not fome defcriptivc word wanting, to en-
able us to diftinguifh the fort of confeffion to
which church-governors are faid to have a right
to enjoin fubfcription, from the confeffion of
faith and doctrines contained in the fcriptures,
or a confeffion of faith and doctrines drawn up
in merely fcripture-terms?

Left, therefore, it mould be faid, that a
learned ProfefTor, in a celebrated Univerfity,
had put more into his conclufton than was con-
tained in his premi/fes 9 I will venture, with his
leave, to fupply this defcriptive word, which is
fome way or other dropped out of the propo-
rtion. The claufe mould have run thus — pall
fubfcribe to the truth of fome systematical
confeffion of faith and doclrines. And I make
this emendation with the more freedom, as,
without it, fome people might be of opinion,
that the learned Profeffor's difpute with the
author of the Confeffwnal could hardly be kept
on foot ; or, at the beft, would prefently dwindle
into infignificance : For the latter having al-
lowed that " a declaration from a public pallor,
" 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 connected may
" with reafon expect if the queftion, in whom

i ConfeJJlonal, p. 344., of the firfl edition.

the

Second Edition* xvii

the right of requiring this fecurity is veiled? is
hardly worth debating.

We are now arrived at the corner-done of
the argument, which is thus laid down. rt The
" univerfal church of Chrift is a fociety, which
" he inflituted, and of which he is the head,
" including in it all thofe, who profefs to believe
" in his name, and have been received by bap-
" tifm into the number of his difciples."

From this definition we are referred to Locke
on Toleration, Works, vol. ii. p. 255, which
feems to denote, if not that the definition was
taken from Locke on Toleration, yet that it is
agreeable to his fenfe exprefTed in the page re-
ferred to. But having a violent fufpicion, that
Mr. Locke would not, at any rate, have fubfcribed
the Profeffor's definition, I refolved to have re-
courfe to the pafiage cited ; but the edition I
ufe, being that of 1727, exhibiting nothing ap-
plicable to the Profeflbr's definition, in the page
fo numbered, I was obliged to make a random
fearch, and, for fome time, in vain ; which I
mention by way of intimation to the learned
Vindicator, that though he is above being fcfcued
himfelfs, yet that we, his inferiors, are humble
enough to defire as exprefs directions as we can
obtain to the fenfe and meamig of thofe authors
with whom it is our fortune to be concerned.

* Dr. Rutberfirtb's fecond Vindication, p. 4.

b Ac

xviii Preface to the

At length, at page 235, of the fecond volume
of Locke's Works, of the edition abovementioned,
I found the following definition of a church.

" A church, fays this incomparable writer, I
" take to be a voluntary lociety of men, joining
" themfelves together of theif own accord, in
tc order to the public worfniping of God, in fuch
" manner as they judge acceptable to him,, and
" effectual to the falvation of their fouls."

This is all the definition of a church I can find
in Mr. Locke's Letters on Toleration. If there is
any other in them more to the learned Pro-
feffor's purpofe, he will certainly be able to pro-
duce it. If there is not, it will, I apprehend, be
incumbent upon him to reconcile his own defini-
tion with this. The Profeffor's good faith.
requires this of himh.

h The learned Profefibr, faith, ** this lhot is ill aimed
"and flies over his head." Metaphorically fpeaking, a
fhot aimed at a man's good faith, is aimed rather at the
heart than the head. However, I am glad the head has-
efcaped, as the lofs of fuch a head, would have been irre-
parable. But while the Profefibr was ducking the head to
avoid the twenty pounder from the heavy artillery, he was
not aware of a (hot from the fmall arms, which took him a
little lower. " The fefcut" faith the Jhifty Profefibr, "is
" fo held out, as to point, not at the definition which goes
•• before, but at the fentence which follows it. My ufual
" practice is to place the letters of reference, at, or near,
" the beginning, and not at the end of the paffage, to which
'* they belong : and this rule is obferved here. I deligned
" to refer my readers to that part of Locke's letters on tole-
** ration, where he fays, The end of a religious fcciety is the

But

Second Edition. xik

But whether he can accompiifh this reconci-
liation or not, if the learned ProfelTor's defini-

*' public ntjorjhip of God, and by means thereof, the acquifiition of
" eternal life*." Miferable fubterfuge ! By this accommo-
dation of his fefcue, the incautious reader is given to under-
Hand, that the end of A religious society afligned by
Locke, is afligned by him as the end of this society which
the Profeflbr had juft before defined. Is not this plainly and
pofitively fathering upon Locke his own abfurd definition
immediately preceding ? Will his fhifting the fefcue acquit
him of the fraud? or enable the reader to find in Locke's
letters on Toleration, the definition in queftion ? Confcious
of this mifreprefentation, and abaihed as much as fuch a
writer can be, by the detection, the Profeflbr next endea-
vours, by a detail of dull prevarication, to make this fame
Locke father the confluences he, the Profeflbr, draws, in favour
of Church-Governors, from his own popifh definition. This
he attempts, by citing from Mr. Locke's Commentary ori
Eph. iv. a paflage which begins thus, " He [Christ] alone,
*' framing the conftitution of his new government, by his
*' oivn power, and according to fuch rules as he thought befl.,y
Is there then, no difference between the power by which
Chrifl: ac~ls alone, and the authority afcribed by this learned
Profeflbr to modern Church-Governors : (in confequence of
his definition of the Church) viz. of framing the conititu-
tion of church-government according to fuch rules as they
think beft? And yet, from this fingle inftance, the Profeflbr
has the modefty to infinuate, that Mr. Locke mull either be
confiflent with Dr. Rutberfortb, or inconfiitent with St. Paul
and himfelf. To do him juftice, however, feeling the fmart
of an attack upon his good faith, he is willing to divert the
ftroke from his heart to his head. For allowing the reference
to be fairly made, the application of it is, it feem9, to be
taken for a mere mi/fake, and his readers mull get clear of it
as they may. If I were worthy to offer a word of admonition

* Defence, p. ao, zi.

b 2 tion

xx Preface ft the

tion will itand the tell of a Proteflant examina-
tion, it will be, we own, lefs material to him
what Mr. Locke thought of any church.

The firft objection I make to the learned Pro-
feiTor's definition is, that it wants explanation*
He hath not informed us, whether this universal

to the learned Profeflbr, it fhould be, to leave St. P^/ and
Mr. Lccke to take their own way, and to flick to his Hooker,.
in matters of Church-Government.. He will never have any
luck in attempting to prefs either the Apoftle or the Philofo-
pher into his fervice. How poorly he comes off in his at-
tempts upon the former,- may be feen in Dr Daivfon's ad-
mirable Letter to Dr. Rutberforth, occafioned by his fecond
Vindication; On the other hand, he plumes himfelf in this
Defence, p. 35. on Mr. Lockers ""confenting that tbefe men'"'
[not, fucb Proteflanis as tbefe, as the Profeflbr has amended the
paflage] " fhould have a Ruler" [not Ruhrs, as the Profeflbr
cites it, and confequently not, whether bijbops or prejbyters^
but, as Mr. Locke hath Hated it, a hi/hop or prefhyter, without
excluding even a Pope] "of their Church, eltablilhed by
" fuch a long ferie3 of fucceffion, as they judge neceflary."
What advantage can the Profeflbr draw from this confent?
even after tutoring it, in the exuberance of his good faith, to-
his tafle ? I make no doubt but Mr. Locke would have given
his confent to a congregation of Mahometans, to be governed
by a Mufti deriving hi3 authority from Mahomet by an unin-
terrupted fucceffion, upon the fame condition that he gives
it xofuch Protef.ants as tbefe: And what is all that to the ar-
gument in the Confefjional? Would not a- man of common
feelings have had lome little remorfe in perceiving that he
muft firfl fa!ffy.t\\e paflage in queflian, before he could wich-
any mew of pertinence reproach his adverfary for the fv,ppreffm
of it ? He would have a fine time of it, who fhould under-
take to follow a writer gifted with thefe fophidicating talents,
ikp by flep, through a controverfial pamphlet of 1 14 pages.

church

Second Edition. xn

church of Chrift is a vifible or an invifible church.;
an omillion, I apprehend, of no fmall confe-
cmence to the fubfequent parts of the learned
I'roferTor's Vindication. Till this be known, we
•are at a lofs how far to admit his fcheme of
church-governraent. We muft, therefore, try
to find out this circumfhm.ee as well as we can.

The members of the invifible church of
•Chrilf., who, as all judicious Divines agree, are
in a ftate of actual acceptance with him, are no:
clifcernible by any external marks or tokens
■whatever. But in this definition we have two
•outward vifible marks, pointing out thofe who
are members of Ghrift's univerfal church : i . Pro
feffion of helief 3 and, 2. reception into the
number of Ghrift's difciples by baptifm. Thefe
■vifible tokens determine the Profeffor's univerjd!
church to 'be a vifible church.

Now I own it would puzzle me extremely, if
it were my affair, how to provide for the go-
vernment of this univerfal vifible church,, other-
wife than by introducing an univerfal vifible go-
vernor. Chrift, the head, is invifible. ; and we
have no way of coming at his directions for
church-government, but by .having recourfe to
■the written record of them in the fcriptures.
But though thefe written directions might do
well enough for the government of one of Mr.
Locke's voluntary focicties, in a ftate of inde-
pmdency, yet I much queftion how far they
*vould be deemed fufficient to fettle an unifor-
b 3 jnity

xxii Preface to the

ipity of government among particular churches \
which being, according to the ProfefTor, farts
of the univerfal vijible church, mufl be not only
in connedion with it, but dependent upon it. A
particular fociety, which is a part of an univerfal
fociety, can neither . be voluntary nor inde-
pendent.

Again, we fhall hear prefently of fome per-
fons, " who are appointed, under Chrift, to
" fuperintend and govern particular churches."
I hardly think the learned Profeflbr will pre-
tend, that thefe perfons receive their appoint-
ment immediately from Chrift. How they come
by it, we iliall have occafion to aflc by and by.
In the mean time, the matter of fact is, that they
differ widely from each other, not only concern-
ing the nature and extent of this appointment,
but concerning the authority under which they
reflectively claim it. Allow the particular
churches, over which thefe perfons prefide, to
be parts of the univerfal vifible church, and you
mult allow their governors or fuperihrendents to
be members of an univerfal vifible government ;
but how fhall thefe fuperintendents, or parti-
cular governors, who differ fo widely concerning
their authority and appointment, be brought
into order, without the fuperintendency of an
univerfal vifible governor? Does not the learned
Profeflbr know, that it is from this undeniable
fact, viz. the variance among particular churches
concerning church-authority, and this abfurd and

grounclleft

Second Edition. xxik

groundlefs pretence, that particular churches are
de jure parts of the univerflil viable church,
laid together, that the papifts infer the neceility of
an univerfal vifible church-.governor.

But this mccjjity all Proteftant churches vehe-
mently difclaim, and the church of England as
vehemently and as loudly as an) of them. And5
therefore, I fhould think the church of England
would hardly agree to have any of her tights
•founded upon ib precarious a definition of the
univerfal church or Ghrift, as leaves an opening
whereat the Pope may be flipped in upon her
•unawares-

The ProfefTor proceeds : " The end and pur-
*' pofe for which this fociety was inftituted, is
" to lead men to eternal life, by the prefervation
" and advancement of true religion."

A fociety, inJHtuted by Clmft himfelf, " for the
<{ end and purpofe of leading men to eternal
*' life," implies, that no man can attain eternal
life, except he is a member of this fociety.
Otherwife we muff fay, that Chrift irrftituted a
•fociety for an end and purpofe that might be
"brought about without it, which no true believer
will allow. The refult is, that to be in com-
munion with this fociety, is neceffary to fal-
vatiori.

The reader will not forget, that this fociety
is an univerfal vifiblc churchy of which all parti-
cular churches are parts, the church of Rome, as
b 4 well

xxiv Preface to the

Well as others, as hath been ftiewn by the accu»
rate Examiner of Dr. Rutherfortfrs Vindication.
Therefore, to be in communion with the church
of Rome is neceffary to falvation.

An ingenious Prelate of the eflabliihed church,
and no enemy to church-authority, was fo fefi*
fible whither the necefiity of church-communion,
even with a national proteftant eftablifhment,
would conduct us, that he hefitates not to de-
clare, that this doctrine " alters the terms offal-
" vation, as they are delivered in the Gofpel,
tC which are, faith in Chrijiy and repentance
" towards God; by adding others to them, fuch
li as fellow -member jhip in church -communion"- —
" A church, adds he, acting with this fpirit, not
" only throws off fubje£tion, but affumes the
" fovereignty ; and is no longer the fheepfold
" of the good fhepherd, but the den of Anti-
" chrift, die thief, and robber." What, then,
muit we think of the churchman who preaches
this doctrine ?

Again. ll Though for the better conveyance
" of the glad tidings of falvation, fays this
M learned Biihop, it was expedient that the dif-
" ciples of Chrift fhould be formed into a kind
tf of fodality ; yet the founder of our holy faith
" never intended this, or any other religious
" fociety, to be part of its eflentials, as appears
" from his exprefs words in my text (Luke'ix. 49.)
" where he receives one, who was propagating
u the faith in him? to all the benefits and prero-

* gatives.

Second Edition. xxv

** gatives of his religion ; though he was out of
" the pale of that fraternity, hehadjufl then
" inftituted1 ."

But our ProfefTor, we fee, not content with
confining the neceflity of church-memberjlnp to
fome particular church, hath, by making every
particular church a part of the univerfal vifible
church, extended the necelTity of church-member-
/hip to falvation, to the univerfal vifible fociety,
and confequently to every particular church,
whofe members have to fhew the tzuo common
marks of their belonging to the univerfal vifible
church, which, without doubt, the Papifts have
to fhew as evidently as the members of any other
particular church.

It is true, our ProfefTor, to get rid of a difficulty
he met with in the ConfeJJtonal, hath thought fit
to fay, " feparate churches are, in refpecl: of one
i( another, like feparate men. If each individual
ft Proteftant holds his religion independently of
" all others, fo does each particular proteftant
" church k."

I will not fufpeft the if in this paflfage to be
meant for a drawback upon the conceffion, in
cafe of need ; becaufe the learned ProfefTor
hath acknowledged it in the amendment of his
bill ', as an exprefs declaration, that " each par-

J Bifhop Warburtoiis firft fermon on Church Communion, in
the 2d volume of his Sermons, p. 161 — 163.
k Vindication, p. 15, 16.
1 Second Vindication, p. 29.

" ticular

XXV I

Preface to the

1( ticular protefta&t church holds its religion in-
" dependent!}' of all others ;" which, however,
cannot be true, if each particular church is " a
" part of the univerfal vifible church, inflituted
" by Chrift himfelf." Where there is a reli-
gious connection, there mud be a religious de-
pendency, and efpecially where the connection is
iuch, that it cannot be broken, without defeat-
ing the end and purpofe of the inflitution by
which it was created.

We have here, then, two plain propofitions
laid down by one and the fame writer: i. Every
particular church is a part of the univerfal vifible
church, injlituted by Chriji himfelf. And, 2 . Each
particular proteflant church holds its religion in-
dependently of all others. Now, as one of thefe
propofitions mutt, on the mere confideration of
felfconfiflency, be either retracled or quibbled
away, I cannot but hope the learned Profeffor
will abide by the latter, and then let him work
his will upon the former and welcome. It will
give me great pleafure to have it in my power
to congratulate a very valuable part of his Ma-
jefly's fubje&s, I mean the Pro.teftant DifTenters,
on this happy change in their religious affairs.
On this principle of independency, ail idea of
fchifm, which hath {luck fo long to their refpec-
rive churches, mull vani'fli away of courfe. I
am of opinion it may even chrijlianize the honed
.,: for. the cooneclron anddependency of

ell

Second Edition. xxvii

all particular religious focietics upon the Pro-
feflbr's iiniverfal vifible church being diflblved,
the fincerely pious and good among them may
ftill be members of the invifblc church of Chrifl:,
notwithftanding the abfence of one of the marks,
without which they could not, according to
the Profeflbr, be included even in the large
and capacious bofom of the univcrfal vifible
church.

As to what may become of national churches,
txchfive ejlablijhments, tejl-laws, and alliances,
in thofe Protedant ftates where each Proteftant
church holds its religion independently of all
others, I lift not to inquire. They are already
in very good hands ; I mean thofe of the learned
Profeflbr, who, I doubt not, will take fufficient
care that they come to no detriment, notwith-
flanding the aukward afpect his doctrine of inde-
pendency may feem to bear towards them.

But to go on with the learned Profeflbr. " It
" is therefore the duty of thofe who are ap-
" pointed under him [Chrift] to fuperintend
" and govern particular churches — "

Before we proceed any farther, pray, who
are they that are fo appointed, and how do they
come by their appointment? Thefe are no un-
neceflary queftions; for, till we know the men,
and the authority by which they aft, we can
neither judge of the extent of their duty in
governing, nor of our duty in fubmitting to
them,

The

xxviii Preface to the

The learned Vindicator does not fay they are
appointed by Chrift, but under Chrift ; which
implies, that their appointment is conveyed to
them from Chrifl through fome medium; which,
as the governors themfelves, as well as the
churches they fuperintend, are vifible, ihould be
vijible too.

One thing muft be agreed on all hands,
namely, that an immediate vifible appointment of
governors or fuperintendents under Chrift, and
by Chrift himfelf, was never vouchfafed to any
churches, fmce Chrifl's appearance on earth, but
to the firft chriflian churches in which his
apoftles miniftered. I would, therefore, willing-
ly be informed, how the governors of proteftant
churches can make their title, or their appoint-
ment, under Chrift, to govern, appear to the fa-
tisfa&ion of the churches to be governed ; and,
particularly, to govern in the manner contended
for by the learned Profeffor, in the courfe of
his Vindication ?

The mod natural expedient fuggefted by the
Profeffor's fcheme, is for particular churches,
which, ex hypothcfi, are parts of the univerfal
vifible church, to apply to the univerfal vifiblc
church, to have fuch governors appointed and
properly authorized, under Chrift, to ferve their
feveral occafions as they arife. But, then, how
could the univerfal vifible church accommodate
them with fuch governors, otherwife than by
referring thera to the univerfal vifible head;

whofc

Second Edition. xxix

whofe fubftitutes the governors, appointed by
him, of courfe mult be ? But Proteftants, as
obferved above, would have their objections to
this fort of appointment, as they abfolutely deny
that any fuch chara&er, as that of an unherfal
vifible governor, has any bufinefs to interpofe in
any fuch appointment ; not to mention that
for a particular Protejlant church to apply to
the univerfal vifible church, on any fuch account,
would be to give up that independency which the
learned Profeffor exprefsly declares to belong to
each of them.

There are fome who tell us, that church-
governors take or receive this appointment under
Cbrifty by way of fucceflion from the apoftles.
But this will hardly pafs with Proteftants, who
confider that the pretended governors of the
univerfal vifible church fay the very fame thing,
in afferting the plenitude of papal power. And
it happens, that fome Proteftant Divines, of the
firft account among us, in putting a negative
upon this claim of the Roman pontifs, have done
it in fuch terms, and by fuch arguments, as clear-
ly and undeniably prove, that the claim of
apoftolic fucceflion, made by any church-gover-
nors, is not at all more adiniffible than the claim
of the Pope to the iucceffion of St. Peter in par-
ticular m.

m See Dr. Whitby's Sermon on Matth. xii. 7. intituled,
Ritual Obfcr-uations to give place to Charity; but more especial-
ly the appendix,

Mr.

xxx Preface to the

Mr. Locke, indeed, hath effectually blocked up
this channel of appointment by an argument,
which will admit of no reply.

" Some, fays he, perhaps may object, that no*
" fuch fociety £as the voluntary fociety above-
" mentioned] can be faid to be a true church,
" unlefs it have in it a bifliop or presbyter,
" with ruling authority derived from the very
" apoftles, and continued down to the prefent
" times by an uninterrupted fucceffion.

" To thefe I anfwer, in the firfl place, let
" them fhew me the ediel: by which Chrifl has
" impofed that law upon his church. And let
" not any man think me impertinent, if, iri a
" thing of this confequence, I require that the
" terms of that edicl be very exprefs and pofi-
" tive : for the promife he has made us, that
<f wherefoever two or three are gathered together
ft in his name, he will be in the midfl of them,
" feems to imply the contrary. Whether fuch
" an affembly want any thing neceffary to a true
" church, pray do you confider. Certain I am,
" that nothing can there be wanting to the falva-
" tion of fouls, which is fuftkient to our pur-
" pofe V'

It appears, then, that our learned ProfefTor
hath left his premiffes extremely fhort and in-
fufficient, in this material article, for the fupport

n Firft Letter on Toleration, Works, fol. 1727. vol. ii.
p. 236.

cf

Second Edition. fchri

of his conclufions. For the appointment of church-
governors under Qbri/2, being the fuppofed foun-
dation of thofe rights, and that authority, which
the ProfefTor vindicates to them, and to which
his opponents queftion their title, it is by no
means to be taken for granted ; but will require,
on the part of the Vindicator, the cleared and
moll explicit proof.

But wc mujl take the Profeflbr's performance as
we find it ; and the next point that comes under
confideration is the duty of thefe church-go-
vernors— ** It is, therefore, the duty of thofe
" who are appointed under him to fuperintend
" and govern particular churches, which are
" only parts of the univerfal church, to fecure
" and promote, as far as they are able, the true
" faith and^ doctrines of the Gofpel." Vind.
p. 2.

To this the very candid Examiner, giving the
ProfefTor credit for this appointment, and paffing
by fome equivocal words, which would other-
wife have required more immediate explanation,
anfwers as follows : " This is as readily granted
" as the other (the propofition in the foregoing
" period): granted, however, not as a juit de-
" du&ion of a duty peculiar to church-governors,
tc but of a duty incumbent on every chriflian
" man, on all the members of every particular

" church,

xxxii Preface to the

" church, whatever office they may or may not

" bear in the fame °."

But this was not what the ProfefTor wanted ;
and yet, unhappily, was as much as he could
demand : for, as the peculiarity of the duty de-
pended upon the nature and circumftances of
the appointment, which he had refted upon his
own bare word, and as he had limited the duty,
even with refpeft to church-governors, by the
words as far as they are able, he could not
fafely deny, that it was equally the duty of every
chriftian man, who mould have abilities equally
with a church-governor, to fecure and promote
the true faith and doctrines of the Gofpel ; for
this would have been to deny, that it is the duty
of every chriftian to inflruct, exhort, and admo-
nifli his fellow members, as far as he is able.

But the peculiarity could not, after all, be
fpared ; and thus the Profeflbr endeavours to
recover his title to it.

" This duty, which is common to all chriftians,
" is to be difcharged by each, in fuch a manner
*' as is fuitable to his particular flation ; and, in
*' every fociety, the flation of the governors of
" it makes it their peculiar duty to take care, as
" far as they are able, that the other members
" of it, in their refpecYive flations and callings,
" advance the proper ends of it, by the proper
*' and legitimate means P."

* Examination, p. 33.

9 Sfcond Vindication, p. 2 &.

Now

Second Edition. xxxiii

Now the learned Profeffor bath told us, in
exprefs terms, that '.* the only legitimate means
" of advancing and preserving the true religion
" of Chriil, are initru&ions in the faith and
" doctrines, which he, and his apoftles in his
" name, delivered to mankind, with exhortations
" and admonitions to attend to them, to embrace
" them, to perfevcre in them, and, by a pious
" and virtuous life and converfation, to bring
" forth the proper fruits of them*" V'mds

P- 3-

Would the learned Profeffor, then, by thus
limiting a common duty to particular ft at ions y be
underflood to mean, that there are chriilians,
to whole particular Ration it is unfuitable to ad-
vance and preferve the true religion of Chrift,
as far as they are able, by the fa legitimate
means ? or, that it is unfuitable to the particular
itations of fome chriilians to advance and pre-
ferve true religion, as far as they are able, by
any means whatever ? Ir it be not unfuitable for
a chriilian, in any ftation, to advance and pre-
ferve true religion, as far as he is able, by fome
means, what means mull he make ufe of, If thefe
only legitimate means are unfuitable to his particu-
lar (laden ?

Or, would the learned Profeflbr be underflood
to mean, that thefe means are only then legiti
and proper means, when in the hands of chi rch-
c governors •

xxxiv Preface to the

governors ; and improper and illegitimate in the
hands of men in other {rations ? If this is his
meaning, what is the duty he fpeaks of, as common
to all christians f And, if neither of thefe is his
meaning, what ufe would he make of his analogi-
cal arguments, drawn from the government in
every fociety, towards proving the peculiarity he
wants to vindicate to his church-governors? Or,
laftly, would he be underftood to mean, that the
fociety he fpeaks of, as inftituted by Chrifl him-
felf, for the end and purpofe of leading men to
eternal life, is analogous to every fociety inftituted
for temporal ends and purpofes I

To thefe queftions, I apprehend, the learned
Profeffor will be obliged to give anfwers, for
the fatisfa&ion of his concurrent, the Exa-
miner.

However, 1 cannot but confider the paflage
I have juft cited, from the fecond Vindication, as
a plain overture towards a compromife ; and
methinks I difcern, even through this obfcurity
and confufion of language, what terms would
content the learned Profeflbr. — " It is the duty,
" he tells us, of thofe who are appointed, under
" Chrifl:, to fuperintend and govern particular
" churches — to fecure and promote, as far as they
" are able, the true faith and doclrines of the
« Gofpel."

Now

Second Edition. xxxv

Now it fcems to me very likely, that the
learned ProfefTor would allow the promoting the
true faith, &c. to **be a duty common to all
chriltians, provided he might have l#ave to ap-
propriate the duty of feet/ring the true faith and
do&rines of the Gofpel to the ftation of church-
governors.

To trufl the duty of fecuring, &c. in the
hands of the Laity, might be attended with great
inconveniences. The people, in that cafe, might
put in their claim to the right of fifting and
aicertaining the faith, and fouudnefs in doftrine,
of their refpective pallors, even after they had
pafTed through the hands of their church-
governors. Whereas the governors of the
Church, having previoufly fecured the true faith
in an eitablifhed confejjion, the duty of promoting
it in the terms of that confeffion might be fafely
intruded with chriftian men in other ftations.

The learned ProfefTor, however, muff, excufe"
us, if we take a little time to confider how far
it may be advifcablc for us to accede to this par-
tition of duty. We fhall defire, in the fir it place,
to know, what he means by the word fecure,
when applied to the faith and doctrines of the
Gofpel ! We fhall, then, requeft to be in-
formed, again ft what that faith and thofe doc-
trines want to be fecured i Whether, with re-
fpeer to their being recorded, they are not full as
c 2 well

xxKvi Preface to the

well fecured in the fcriptures as in any peculiar
archives in the keeping of church-governors ?
And, with refpeft to their impreffions on the hu-
man mind or intellect, whether church-governors,
by virtue of any peculiar powers or appoint-
ments, can pretend to fecure any thing relating
to them, belides the bare outward profejjion of
them? And, laftly, whether the duty offecuring
the faith and doclrines of the Gofpel, when ap-
propriated to church-governors, may not, at the
long run, end in the application of a fort of
means, nearly related to a Cardinal's Hat and an
Inquifiiion ; and more particularly, if the religious
focieties they govern are inflitutedupon the fame
plan with every other fociety ?

I have now only to add a few words, concern-
ing the candor and ingenuity of our learned Pro-
fefibr, in the management of his Vindication, which
will fufficiently appear by a ihort comparifon of
his Exordium with his Peroration,

What he begins to vindicate is only " z ge-
" neral right, which governors of proteftant
" churches have to require aflent and fubfcrip-
" tion to the truth of some confeilion of faith
" and doctrines q ; which they, who can fatisfy
themfelves concerning the appointment of his
church-governors, might be ready enough to
grant him, as they may feem to imply no more

1 Vindication, p. I.

than

Second Edition. xxxvii

than a right to require fubfeription to the Scrip-
tures ; and, likewife, as he feems particularly
fhy of even attempting the defence of the con-
feflion of his own church. But they, who (loop
to this lure, will find themfelves drawn in with
a witnefs, in the hilt page of the pamphlet ;
where he claims, for his church-governors, " a
M right to fecure the teaching of fuch doctrines
u to the members of their church, as they judge,
" upon the bed information they can get, to be
" agreeable to the truth of the Gofpel r." A
claim, which, if it mould be admitted, would
ferve to vindicate the particular confeilion of
every church in Chriitendom, whether Proteflant
or not : For will not the governors of the church
of Rome fay, that they go upon the bed informa-
tion they can get ?

The claim, we fee, is founded exactly as it
might be, if the fcriptures of the New Tefta-
ment were loft, and the doctrines of them no
way recoverable, but by fuch information as
fcraps of tradition, and mutilated and imperfect
citations in fome old books, would afford. Not-
the leaf! room is there left, as this claim is
(fated, for a fufpicion that the written Gofpel,
exhibiting the very doctrines of Chrift and his
apoftles, i;; fiill in being, and in a condition to
be confultcd by every man, who wants or defires

' Vindication, p, 18.

c 3 in form a-

xxxviii Preface to the

information. Not the lead fhadow of a fuppo-
fition, that, upon the principles of the Proteilant
Reformation, every chriftian not only may, if he
will, but is in duty bound to fearch thefe Scrip-
tures, for his own information, concerning the
rule both of his faith and duty, and to follow
what he finds there, at all worldly hazards,.
The whole is founded upon the prefumption,
that no member of the church, who is not a
church-governor, may have hater, or fo good,
or indeed any information, concerning the agree-
ment of fuch and fuch doftrines with the truth
of the Gofpel, but what his church-governors
are pleafed to impart to him. And, what is the
ftrangeff. part of the ftory, this claim is put in
by the learned ProfeiTor, for the governors of
proteilant churches, even while he is pretending
to fliew the difference between thofe churches
and the church of Rome !

The learned ProfefTor tells us, that " this
" difference is remarkable. The church of Rome
f cannot change its doclrines, without giving up
" its pretentions to infallibility ; whereas Pro-
" teflant churches may be better informed at one
te time than at another, and may therefore change
f1* them, without any inconfiflency *>."

Thaty however, is juff. as it happens. Before
we get to the bottom of the page, we find there
are cafes, wherein proteilant church-governors

*Vind. p. 18.

cannot

Second Edition. xxxix

cannot change the confeiTions of their churches,
without being inconfijlent ; " namely, without
" fuch a weaknefs and levity as is unbecoming
" their office, and inconfijicnt with the trull com-
" mitted to them." This cafe happens to be,
when they are " led away by every one who
" thinks himfelf able to reform it ; and as often
" as any are found who diflike the faith and
tl doctrines contained in it.'*

To be fure, this is fairly 2.T\<\ingemwvJly ftated,
as will appear by a fhort view of Proteftant
Churches, with refpeft to their confeiTions, fince
the commencement of the Reformation.

Some of the confeffions in Proteftant Churches
have been ejlablijhed near two hundred years,
during which time various remon (trances have
been made by the members of thole churches
reflectively, not only concerning the precarious
doctrines contained in the confeftion, but againft
the cjlabiijhment of any fuch fyftematical for-
mularies as telts in Proteftant Churches. Even
fome of the wifeft and belt of the governors of
thofe churches have confeffed, that requiring
fubfcription to fuch formularies is a great impo-
fition ; and have wilhed to be well rid of fome
things maintained in them, as matters of which
no good account could be given. And fuch, indeed,
has been the language of the moft eminent, or
at lead the moft liberal fpirited writers in all
Proteftant Churches, that they have condemned
c 4 them,

Xj P R E F A C E tO the

Them, if not in exprefs terms, yet by plain atid
d;*recl confluences, to be drawn from their
principles and reafonings.

This, I fuppofe, will be confidered, by the
candid reader, to be a different cafe from that
dated by the Profeilbr ; where it is reprefented,
as if only here and there a conceited wrong-
head, or no body knows who, pretending to the
character of a reformer, had exprefTed their
diflike of the eitablifhed confeffion, without
offering any reafon.

Now it is well known, that, in fome of thofe
churches where thefe confeifions are now, and
have been eftablifhed for the length of time
abovementioned, church-governors have never
once taken their church-confeflion into ferious
and folemn confideration ; never once fubmitted
it to the fair and impartial examination of
learned and unbiafTed men ; or ever declared
themfelves ready to make fuch alterations in it
as might, upon fuch examination, appear to
be reafonable, neceffary, or edifying to the
community in which they prefided. Have they
not rather difcouraged all inquiries into the
real merits of it ? Have not fome of them for-
tified their confeffion with canons, and terrific
menaces, to difcourage all difquillticns of that
tendency ? Have not particular perfons been in
former times perfecuted, in latter times brow-
beaten,

Second Edition. xli

beaten, and marked for their even raodeft, and
refpectful addrefles to their church-governors to
have fuch matters examined, and, if needful,
reformed ?

To what purpofe is it, then, to fay of thofe
churches, of whofe governors this hath been
the conduct, that they make no pret cnfions to in-
fallibility f Are not thefe the genuine, the
natural, the conftant effects of thofe preten-
fions ? To what purpofe is it to fay of thofe
Proteflant Churches, which have never fought
for better information, that they may be better
informed at one time than another ? To what
purpofe is it to fay, that it is not neccjfary a
'Proteflant Church Jhould always maintain the
fame doclrines, when nothing but fuch necejjity
can excufe the refufal of fome Proteflant
Churches, even upon the moil reafonable re-
monfrrances of pious and learned men, to review
their doctrines ; and when it is faid too, by the
fame man, and almoft in the fame breath, that
it is unbecoming the office of church-governors,
and inconfijlent with the trufi committed to them,
to change them ; and this upon the difingenuous
and falfe fuppofition, that neither the remon-
ftrances, nor the men who have made them,
were confiderable enough to deferve the lead
regard ? And, laftly, upon what grounds can
the learned Profeffor pretend, that all Pro-
teflant Churches arc open to better information,

when

xlii Preface to the

when he himfelf rauft know, that fome of them
have fliut up their confeffions in fuch fortreffes
and inclofures, as are, with refpeft to an;
better information, impenetrable and inaccef-
fible.

Indeed, upon one fuppofition, mentioned by
the learned ProfefTor, viz. That Proteflant
Churches, though not infallible^ are always in
the right, nothing can be more impertinent than
to folicit them to change any thing that has
once got an ejlablijhment among them. Our
learned Vindicator finds fault with this faying,
as containing more fmartncfs of exprejfwn than
juflnefs of fentiment. But the jujlnefs of fe?iti-
ment does not, I apprehend, .come fo imme-
diately in queflion, as the truth of the facl .;
and that is what makes the exprejfion fmart fo
much. Be that as it may, the ProfefTor dif-
likes the fentiment, and therefore would mend
it ; which he tries to do, by telling us, that
though Proteflant churches, or rather church-
governors, are ever fo wrong in their doctrines,
• yet, if they think themfelves in the right, they
are obliged to abide by them ; againfl which
there would be little to fay, if the Profeffor's
confequence were not, that the duty of church-
gorernors, under this perfuafion, leads them to
oblige others, who are otherwife perfuaded, to
abide by them too, on the peril of wanting the
good things thefe churches and church-governors

have

Second Edition. xliii

have to bellow ; and, if this is the cafe, I do
not fee why Protcftant church-governors, as well
as others, ihould not be infallible.

Eur, after all, it is a fact to be depended
upon, that " all governors of Proteftant
(' churches have always thought the doctrines
" of their eftablifhed contentions to be right?"
Has the learned ProfefTor never heard of any
pf them, who have held, written, or taught
an)" thing contrary to the doctrine of the con-
feffion of his own particular church? If he
has not, has it not {truck him with furprize,
that fo many men fliould have arifen, in dif-
ferent parts of Europe, for two hundred years
fucceflively, with intellects fo exactly fitted to
their refpective confeffions, as if both had
been fliaped together, like the coat and the
lining, by the fame ftroke of the fhears ? But
if he has heard (as who has not?) of Dif-
fentients among the governors of Proteftant
Churches, and thofe in no fmall numbers, was
it fair in him to build fo much upon the con-
trary fuppolition I

But I can forgive the learned Profeflbr any
thing, even this fpice of controverfial artifice,
in confideration of his fending his readers to
Mr. Locke's firfl Letter on Toleration, and to
the Dedication to Pope Clement XI. prefixed to
jSir Richard Steele's Account of the State of the

Roman

xliv Preface, &c.

Roman Catholic Religion, in all parts of the
World. Whoever reads thofe two excellent
tra&s, with attention and underflanding, will
never be the worfe for reading this Vindi-
cation.

PREFACE

PREFACE

T O THE

EIRST EDITION.

THE author of the following performance
freely confefles himfelf to be one of thofe,
who, in common with an eminent prelate, " have
" been feized with that epidemical malady of idle
•' and vi/ionary men, the projecting to re-
" form the public a." Nor would he have
any reafon to be afhamed of claffing with fo con-
fpicuous a character, were it not that he hath
unhappily taken an antipathy to that courfe of
medicine, to which fo many others of the frater-
nity owe the recovery of their health and fenfes.
He is (till, alas! labouring to bring his project
to bear, even when all the world about him is
exclaiming at the folly of every one who is en-
gaged in fo defperate an enterprize.

The honeft truth is, he thinks the remedy
worfe than the diieafe ; having feldom obferved
any one of thefe patients perfectly cured, but by

a See, The firjl Dedication prefixed to the fecond volume of
The Divine Legntkn of Mofe?, &c. publifhed 1 758, p. $.

the

ii Preface /j /^

the application of&cbarm, which ufually operates
in the other extreme ; and, in the fhape of politi-
calfpedacleSy reprefents the public as too good to
need reformation ; a fort oivifwn, which, of courfe,
ends in a perfect conformity to the principles and
manners in fafhion, and not feldom puts the re-
Jlored fanatic in a hopeful way of recovering with
advantage, whatever he was in danger of lofing,
by perilling in his former reverie.

Our fage advifers will, no doubt, fuggeft, that
there is a middle way between the two extremes ;
and that a man of prudence and probity, having
tried his talent at reforming without fuccefs, may
well fit down contented, enjoy his own opinion,
and praclife his own virtue in fome corner, 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 bed of it.

To this fober counfel, I, for my own part,
fhouldhave the lefs objection, could I be fatisfied,
that a neutral character in matters concerning pub-
lic reformation, where talents are vouchfafed
tho' ever fo fparingly, were to be juftified ; and
particularly where, as in this country, every man
may, within decent reftri&ions, pubHJhy as well as
enjoy, his own opinion.

There are certain provinces and (rations,
where, if the public really wants to be reformed,
they who occupy them muft be at fome trouble
in {lining their own convictions, before they can

lie

Fi r st Ed ition. m

lie down peaceably in the repoie of a neutrality.
To many of theie provinces belong conf: -Arable
degrees of influence and authority, fufficient to
give weight and fuccefs to feafonable and fpirit-
ed remonitrances. And they who are in the
lowed flations of watchmen and labourers, may-
bear their teflimony, perhaps with more advan-
tage than may be apprehended by thofe, who
conlider not, from whom we are to look for the in*
creafe of what is planted or watered by any hand.
And wherever the obligation exiits, I mould think
it can hardly be removed out of view, without
opening the proipect: of lbme difcomfort, at that
awful period when every man's final account
fliall be called for.

But, indeed, indolent neutrality is not a com-
mon, and hardly a poflible, effect of the cure per-
formed upon idle and vi/ionary reformers of the
public. Id/enefs, in the proper fenfe of the term,
is not their failing. They are commonly perfons
of active and lively fpirits, who are not eafy un-
der want of employment. Their inexperience
leads them into fanguine hopes, that fame, ho-
nours, and rewards muft crown their labours. It
is inconceivable to them, that, where the public
is fo grofsly and notorioufly wrong, it mould not
acknowledge its obligations to thofe, who intereit
themfelves to fet it right, by the molt fubftantial
inftances of its gratitude. And this is the idle
part of the character, in the figurative fenfe.

$ But

iv Preface-?!! f&

But when the aftonifhed vifionary finds his mif-
take, and perceives that public error, of the mod
palpable kind, has its champions ready armed at
all points, and prepared to difpute every inch of

ground with him, that nothing would be

got by the unequal conflict but difgrace, con-
tempt, and poverty ; human nature, and an im-
patience to be figuring with eclat, commonly
bring him over, without much hefitation, to the
furer fide ; where he fets himfelf to aft the part
of a true profelyte, that is to fay, to reform back-
wards, with a violence and precipitation propor-
tioned to the fufpicions his new allies might en-
tertain of his hankering after his old deviations,
fhould he not give the mod fpirited proofs of his
effectual converfion.

Were not the fubjeft of too ferious a nature
(for the particulars above are to be underdood
of reformation and reformers of religious mat-
ters), and were not the Dramatis perfona of too
folemn a cafl to be exhibited in Comedy, one
might give very diverting inflances of this kind
of frailty, in more than one of thofe who have
not only affefted, with a kind of philofophical
grimace, to ridicule their own former conduct as
idle and vifionary, but alfo, to fill up the meafure
of their merit with their party, have been the for-
warded to expofe, reprobate, and, to the utmoft of
their good-will, perfecute thofe who perfift in this
epidemical folly.

The

First Edition. v

The perjijlers, indeed, are but tew ; and no
wonder. All their difcourageraents confidered,
they may be faid, like Abraham, again/} hope, to
believe in hope. In the firft ranks of their adver-
faries appear thofe who enjoy plentiful emolu-
ments from the nature and conftruclion of the
ejlablifoment, who are therefore concerned to de-
fend every thing belonging to it, not becaufe it
is true, or reafonable, or righteous in itfelf, or with
refpect to the defign of the Go/pel, but becaufe it
is eftablijhed. With litigants of this complexion,
arguments drawn from reafon, from fcripture,
from the moil: notorious facts, are of no force.
When particular anfwers fail them, they have
general ones at hand, which do their bufinefs ef-
fectually. Public authority, long polfeflion, the
concurrence of the majority, the danger to pub-
lic peace from attempts to innovate, he. Sec. &c.
have fuch a formidable appearance, even in the
eyes of fome of the warmed friends of Reforma-
tion, that they will often fhudder at the temerity
of their own champions, when they contider with
whom and with what they are to engage, and
(fuch are the effects of this kind of intimidation)
will fupprefs their own fpeculations, to avoid
fufpicions of being connected with a fet of men,
whom the nature and tenor of fuch anfwers go
near to ftigmatize with fomething more heinous
than faction and fedition.

d The

▼i P r e f a c e to the

The whole cafe is fet forth by Mr. Bayle in {q
mafterly a manner, that I cannot refill the tem-
ptation of giving a pretty long extract from him,
without any fear however of difgufling the fenfi-
ble reader with the prolixity of it, for which the
juftnefs of that great man's fentiments upon fo
interefling a fubjecl: will make him ample amends,
as well as furnifh me with fome reflections arifinsf
from the cafe as ftated by Bayle, compared with
the conduct of the anti-reformers in our own,
country.

John de Launoi, a Parifian doctor of the Sor-
bonne, 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 popifh calen-
dars, made no fcruple to publifti his difcoveries*.
and, in confequence of them, to propofe, that
thefe imaginary beings might be expunged from
thofe Calendars, Marty rologies, &c. as occafioning
an highly criminal fuperftition in thofe who paid
religious adoration to them. He even ventured
to attack the angelic doctor Aquinas, as charge-
able with great ignorance, or great infmcerity, in,
building his arguments againfl heterodoxy upon
fabulous traditions.

One Baron, a Jacobine friar, undertook the
defence of Aquinas, maintaining, that (i thetradi-
61 tions he built upon had been derived from pri-
'* mitive times ; that LaunoVs refearches and con-

" clufions

First Edition. vir

" clufions were the employment of a pragmatical
*c genius, more concerned to obtain a great than
" a good name ; that Launoi ought, like St. T/jo-
t( 7iiasy to have let things alone, when they were
" well ; and that, admitting fome of thefe tradi-
" tions were of a doubtful authority, or even fa-
" bu\ous,Lau?ioi{hould have paid a proper regard
" to that maxim of the phyficians, Malwn bene
" pofitum m ?noveto." Which, being transferred
into divinity, fignifies, thdxfalfe traditions, which
do not hurt faith, and promote piety, ought to be
retained, and not diflurbed. Upon which Mr«>
Bayle thus reafons :

" If all the circumftances fet forth by this Ja-
" cobine were true, there is no doubt but John
tl de Launoi was defervedly condemned, as one
" who, to make himfelf talked of, and to fatisfy
<( his ill nature, would oppofe many general opi°
" nions, 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-

f* bonne doctor. The traditions he oppofes have
" no good title, and his arguments againfl them
w are unanfwerable. Now, in this cafe, it is'
" plain, there is all the right in the world to bring
" the mod general and ancient opinions to a trial,
" efpecially when their falfity keeps up a criminal
a devotion.

d 2 f< I defire

viii Preface to the

" I defire it may be obferved, that the reafon-
u ings of this doctor were of fuch force, as to
" undeceive abundance of people ; but yet the
ic abufes have not been removed. Things remain
" upon the fame foot "m Provence h, and elfewhere.
" They tell you (till the fame {lories they told
" your anceftors, and you fee the fame worfhip
" and the fame ceremonies. This proves the
" diiference there is betwixt private perfons and
u the public. Particular people are mod of them,
" one t:.me or other, undeceived ; and yet the
" practice of the public remains the fame.'*

After which Mr. Bayle brings fome parallel
inflances from Cicero and Juvenal, to ihew, that
public inftitutions in the Roman date, kept their
ground againft the conviction even of a majority.
And then goes on thus :

" There is no likelihood that they who follow
" the fleps of John de Launoi can do any fervice,
" whilil things are only carried on by way of li-
" terary difpute. The patrons of falfe devotion
u will never recede. They find their account
" too much in not bating an ace, and they are
" powerful enough to fecure themfelves from
" any violence. The court of Rome will fecond
" and fupport them. The Romifii church feems
" to have adopted the religion of thegodTERMi-
" >ius of the Roman republic. This god never

b Where a fictitious Mary Magdalen is vvorfhiped as the
converter of the country.

" yielded

First Edition. ix

" yielded a tittle, no not to Jupiter himfelf ;
" which was a fign, faid they, that the Roman
rt people mould never recede, nor yield an inch
" of ground to their enemies. If any Pope fhould
Kt be willing to facrifke fomething to the reunion
" of the fchifmatics, fome infignificant devotions,
u fome fuperannuated traditions, he might ap-
'.' prehend as great a murmur againft him, as the
" Heathens made againft the fcandalous peace of
u the emperor Jovian?'

He then proceeds to give fome modern in-

ftances of the bad fuccefs of Reformers. Of

the Jefuit Papcbroch, and his affiftants, "who at-
" tempted to purge the Acta Sanctorum of many
" fabulous and fcandalous particulars, for which
" fervice the Carmelites and other monks pro-
" cured feveral volumes of the faid Ads, fo
t( purged, to be burned by the inquifition of To-

i( ledo." 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, Phy/irian, heal
" thyfelf\ — reform firft the worfhip paid in fome
" houfes of your order of St. Lencdicl to faints
" as dubious as any. He was likewife told of
(t the injury he did the church, and the advan-

" tage he gave to Protellants." Laftly, of

Mr. Thiers, who " fet up againft falfe relics, —
" examined where the bodies of martyrs lay, —
" publifbed fome difTenations upon the holy

d 3 # « of

K Preface /o the

£' of Vendome, and upon St. Firmin. All, fays
" Mr. Bay le, was loft labour. The King's council
if fuppreifed his book about St. Firmin, as the
?f* bifhop of Amiens had condemned a letter he had
'/ publifhed upon the fame queftion.,?

Mr. Bay lis concluding reflection is as follows:
■" The fruits of a difcreet zeal are deftroyed
" in the bud. They build upon this principle,
fe 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 minjler where we find it* The
f profperity of the Chriftian Rome, juft like that
ft of the Pagan Rome, is founded upon the pre-
ff fervation of ancient rights. Confecrations rauft
" be complied with ; religion will allow no alter-
ie ation in them, Jed ilia mutari vet at rcligio, et
" confecratis utendum eft" In our days, faid a
fub-prior of St. Anthony, let us beware of inno-
vationsc.

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 determined
the whole body not to yield an inch, even to
the united powers of piety, truth, and common
fenfe.

* Bffllf.i Di£l. Art. La un oi (Joh)* de) Rem. E.

Bur,

First Edition. xi

But, methinks, I hear a zealous anti-reformer,
iteady to his point, and not eafily difconcerted,
cxpoflulating with me to the following effecl :

" We fee, indeed, from this reprefentation of
*' Mr. Bayle, how it is ; but only, how it is in
" popi/Jj countries. Do not Proteftant churches
*' reprobate faint-worfhip of all forts I Have we
" any fuch inftances among us of grofs idolatry,
" as that of worfhiping an imaginary faint? And
a can you pretend, there are any errors or cor-
tf ruptions in the church of England, any thing
*' like to have fo ill an effect upon the people, as
tf the mameful fuperftitions attacked by the French
" reformers above-mentioned? On another hand,
" is it fair to put the Reformed, churches, and
" particularly the church of England, which pre-
*' tend to no infallibility, and which are founded
t( upon principles of Chriftian liberty, upon the
" fame footing of obftinacy with the church of
'• Rome, the very genius and fpirit of which ex-
*' eludes all examination, and all right of private
'* judgment ? And is it not upon record, that the
" church of England hath made alterations in her
u public forms, and doth me not declare that fhe
" is ready to make them again, upon jufl and
" weighty occafions?" ;

To the firft part of this remonflrance I anfwer,

that neither Launoi, Papebroch, Mabillon, nor

Thiers, made the lead quellion about the lawful-

Qefs of worfhiping thofe whom they efteemed to

d 4 be

j?ii Preface /a ^

be real faints, or venerating what could be proved
to be true relics* They faw not the lead idolatry
or fuperftition in either practice. And, it being
prefuppofedby them, that faint- wodhip was both
lawful and edifying, I apprehend, it would not be
of much fignificance, with refpect either to the
piety or moral principles of the people, that they
were under the delufion which thefe reformers
endeavoured to remove. Mr. Bayle, indeed, calls
it a criminal devotion ; but, upon principles which
he hath well explained elfewhere, it could not be
criminal in the party who intended his wprfhip
to a real faint d. If a French papifl was perfua-
ded that his prayers to St. Finnin or St. Rena-
fus were as properly directed as thofe he made to
St. Peter or St. Paul, his inward ipirit of devotion
would be no lefs zealous and fmcere 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, fenjible.
And this is the circumilance which gives all its
worth to Father Baron's maxim. Malum bene pofi-
turn ne mo-veto.

The cafe, indeed, is different., when you afcend
from the common people to. their governors and
directors, who were confcious of the delufion, and

d See his Comment Philcf ph. fur ces paroles de J. Chrilt,
Contracts, ics d'enirer. Par: II. chap. viii. where he undertakes
(0 prove, que la conscience qui ejl dans Ferreur, a les mimes droits
que cdle qi.i uj eji ja**

ftiU

First Edition. xiii

(till kept it up, or who were capable judges of
Launoi's reafonings, and refufed to examine them.
But even here it would be difficult, perhaps, to
ft ate the comparative guilt of popifh and protect-
ant rulers in the like circumftances, within their
refpecHve departments ; and the whole (as it feems
to me at lean1) would turn upon the true anfwer
to this fmgle queftion, Whether certain particu-
lars, which are equally proved to want reformation
among proteftants, have not as ill an effect upon
a protectant people, while they continue unre-
formed, as the miitake of a falfe faint for a true
one has upon a papift, who believes faint-wor-
fliip to be an indifpenfable duty ? I forbear to
give inftances, though there are more than one
at hand.

With refpeft to the fecond member of the ex-
poftulation above, I would beg leave to obferve,
that Mr. Bayle's fpeculations are founded upon
the nature and genius of religious establishments
in general. Nor can the church of England take
it amifs to be ranked with the church of Romey
nor the church of Rome to be ranked with a Pa-
gan eftablifliment, fb far as the parallel really and
infacl will hold. To me there does not appear
one confideration which impeached the prudence,
or obstructed the fuccefs, of Launoi, Mabillon, or
Thiers, that would not operate equally to the dif-
reputation and difappointmcnt of an Englifh Pro-
teftant Reformer. In all excfofivc eftablifhments,

where

xiv ' Preface /« the

where temporal emoluments are annexed to the
profeffion of a certain fyftem of doctrines, and the
ufage of a certain routine of forms, and appropri-
ated to an order of men fo and fo qualified, that
order of men will naturally think themfelves in*
terefled that things mould continue as they are.
A reformation might endanger their emoluments.
For though it ihould only begin with fuch things
as are mod notorioufly amifs, the alteration of
which would no way affeft their temporal interefls,
yet, by opening a door to farther enquiry (which
would be the natural effect of it), their dignities
and revenues might poilibly be brought into que-
flion, and be thought to need fome regulations,
which it can hardly be fuppofed they would ap-
prove. So that they who afk, Who knows where
a reformation may end f by way of giving a rea-
fon why it Ihould 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 protected 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

First Edition. xv

to things of a worfe complexion6. We have an
example in the renowned Tillotfon, what murmurs
the prefiding character in our church experienced,
upon giving way to a reformation of our public
forms and fervices, though in the leafl important
particulars. The arguments againft a reform,
taken from poffeffion and antiquity, and the expe-
dience of adhering to ancient rights, 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 Dijenting Gentleman re-
main a memorable and Handing evidence. Father
Mabillon himfelf could not hear more of the ad-
vantage he gave to Proteftants, than the authors
of the Free and candid Difquifitions have been
told of the countenance they gave to the Engliih.
Proteftant DilTenters f . And I am not certain
that he would be miftaken, who fhould affirm of

e See Bifhop Be verege's Latin Sermon before the Convoca-
tion, 1689, and molt of the Sermons at Hatchins's Lectures.

f " This book of yours [The Free and CandidDifquifitions]
" will be a means to leffen very much the credit and eftima-
■" tion of the church of England in the eyes of many of its
V members, as well as to confirm and encourage the Diifent-
H ers in their prefent ways, perhaps alfo to increafe the num-
" ber of them. — Your Difquifitions, doubtlefs, will be
" confidered as a grand Arfenal, ftored with ordnance of
" almoft all forts, fit to attack the church of England, which
*.« our adverfaries, no doubt, will thank you for, and have
f* recourfe to, upon all occafions." Free and impartial Con-
fiderations on the Free and candid Difquifitions , afcribed to IWr.
White, p. 59, 60.

fome

xvi Preface to the

fome who would be thought pillars of the church
n't England (what Luther did of his Romijh adver-
faries s ) that the remonftrances of thefeDifqia/itors
have rendered them more tenacious and inflexi-
ble, even with refpe£t to fome particulars which
feemed to be given up on all hands, till they were
pointed out for reformation by thefe idle and
vifwnary mfenh,

_ To what the alterations that have been made in
our ecclefiaftical fyflem amount, and confequently
how far the church may be difpofed to a farther
reformation upon juft and weighty occafions, ..
will be feen by and by.

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

s Verum concordiam fidei, feu doftrinse, fruftra qua^rit
Erafmusy eo coniilio ut mutuum cedamus et condonemus,
non tantum quod adverfarii prorfus nihil cedunt, nee cedere
volunt, quia potius rigidius et obitinatius nunc omnia de-
fendunt quam unquam antea, etiam talia aufi nunc exigere,
qua; ante Luthcrum ipfimet damnaverant, et reprobaverant.
Luther apud S-sckendorf, lib. iii. p. 53.

& See Occafional Remarks upon fome late Striftures on
The Ccnfjfimal, Part ii. p. 37 — 50.

7 but

First Edition. xvii

butoftener, perhaps, by what kills as furely, tho'
not fo quickly, hunger and nakednefs.

For the misfortune is, that the malady of re-
forming the public, is moil apt to feize upon
thofe, whofe profeflion leads them to a more inti-
mate ftudy of the holy fcriptures ; whofe views
in life, and ordinarily, whofe fcanty circumftances
require, that they fhould preferve fome credit
with their eccleiiaflical fuperiors, in order to pro-
cure themfelves a decent maintenance. Nothing
can be more fatal to fuch, than a mutinous fpirit
of reformation. They are marked of courfe as
forbidden and contraband men. A fprightly aca-
demic was one day making fome free obfervations
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 flawing, as well as burning inquiii-
" tions."

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

Mr. Bayle, as the reader hath fcen, obferved,
that " the reafonings of Dr. Launoi had force
'* enough to convince abundance of people," and
thofe of courfe, people of the bed fenfe, and the
moil rational piety. So, no doubt, hath it hap-
pened

xviii P R e f a c a to the

pened to the pleaders for a farther reformation*
iii our own church, many of whom have been not
a whit behind the Sorbonne doctor, either in the
evidence of facts, or in the force of their reason-
ing. Nor is it unreafonable to prefume, that, as
farther developements are made, the number of
the convinced mufl be increafed.

The weaknefs of the few anfwers that have
been made to the important remonftrances of fe-
rious and judicious men on the article of a far-
ther reformation, and the fupercilious contempt
with which the moft refpectful as well as the mod
reafonable of them have been palled by, mull
detract fomething from the eftimation 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 to the
eftablifhed fyftem, for fome political purpofes not
fit to be owned ; while no folicitude is perceived
to relieve the reafonable fcruples of confcientious
diffenters, or to confult the real neceffities of our
own people, by fubftituting, in the room of hack-
neyed, and not always juftifiable forms, more in-
telligible as well as more animating methods of
public worfhip, and public edification.

To be plainer flill; this temper and conduct in
a fet of men, many of whom make it appear, on
other occafions, that they want neither learning
nor capacity to form an accurate judgment on {o
interefting a cafe, will hardly allow us to think
i- them

First Edition. xix

them in earned in their weekly exhortations to
christian piety and virtue, or the zeal they occa-
fionally exprefs for the proteftant religion and
government. Their doctrine,, contrafted by their
practice, will look to the difcerning part of the
public, as if nothing was meant by thefe terms,
in their mouths, but mere conformity to an eccle-
fiaftical eftablifhment, and a refolution to fupporc
and defend that at all events, with, or without,.
reafon.

But, if ever the mafk fhould fall off in fome
future fkirmifh * (the probable and frequent effect
of a rivalfhip for temporal honours and emolu-
ments), and one of the parties fhould be reduced.
to the neceflity of leaning upon the friends of re-
formation, by way of balance to the other, it is
then that the labours of thefe idle and vifwnary

1 This was once very near being the cafe, when, in the
memorable year 1 74^, two of our leading churchmen could
not agree, whether, upon the received fyftem of divinity, the
Rebellion then on foot was to be confidered as a judgment
upon the /late, or only upon particulars. The diiference, how-
ever, was happily compromifed in the following manner.

" In the mean time, moft polemic Sir, let us agree in this
" however different we may go in other matters, to reve-

** RENCE AND SUPPORT OUR HAPPY CONSTITUTION.

" And, that I may bring the matter as near to you [might he
" ?:ot have added, and to myfelf ?] as I can, what other conlH-
** tution but this, let me afk you, would have heaped ChanceU
" lorjhips, Archdeaconries, Prebends, &C with fo liberal a hand,
,f and on fo worthy a fubject ?" — This was an argument ad
utrurrque, which would admit of no demur; and fo, we may
fuppofe, they fhook hands, and parted frientk.

men

XX P R E F A C E to the

men may come to have their weight; and fome of
thofe, at leaft, who are now pining away in a de-
fponding obfcurity, under the frowns of their
difobliged fuperiors, may pombly live to fee the
way they have been preparing, gradually open-
ing to the accomplishment of what all well-in-
formed chriftians and confident Proteftants have
been fo long and fo ardently wifhing for in
vain.

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

It is an objection which, by turns, has been
made to all the reformed eftablifhments in Europe,
that their refpective plans are too narrow and
circumfcribed ; nor is it to be denied, that, along
with all their profeffions of afferting chriftian li-
berty, they have, more or lefs, impofed upon
their members certain doctrines and modes of
worfhip, for which they have no other than hu-
man authority.

When this is objected to any of them, as in-
confiftent with their original foundation, the holy
fcriptures, they conftantly appeal to the practice
of each other, as a common j unification of them

all j

First Edition. xxi

all; lis if that were luilicieiit to preclude all ap-
peals to any other authority.

The learned and excellent Dr. MofJjehn hath,
complimented the church of England with the
title of, TBe chief and hading branch of that great
tommunity^ ivhich goes under the denomination of
the reformed church k. What prefcriptive or
equitable right the church of England has to
this preference, I fhall not (lay to enquire. It is
fufficient for my purpofe that (lie accepts the
compliment, having, indeed, paid it to herfelf an
hundred times1. And yet, when her own un-

k That is, according to Dr. Madeline's Translation, vol.
ii. p. 575. quarto Ed. Mojhe'wis words are, Anglieana Ec-
clefia, que nun: princeps eft Rcformatorum. The compliment
in the Englifh is a little drained. M fluin, by the word
princeps, meant only, the mqft conjiderahle. He could not
repreient the church of England under the idea of a leader
of the Nonepifcopal churches. Princeps, in good latin au-
thors, often fignifies, the firji in order of time. [See Dr.
Jurtins Life of Erajmus, vol. i. p. 552.] But that fenfe is
excluded by the words nunc eft, neither is it true that the
church of England was the fi-ft church that was reformed.
It is juil enough to fay, flie Is t'-.e v.oft confiderable. Mo-
sheim's Hiilory is a valuable acquilkion to the cbriftian as
well as the litaary commonwealth, and is well worth the
perufal of thofe who would not be deluded by the falfe and
fallacious views in which the conduct of churchmen, both
with refpecl to facts and fy items, has been placed by former
Hiltorians. Dr. Maclaiius translation and notes have, /',:
general, great merit.

1 Cl We thiak," fays a learned Ctfhop, " our own church
«' the belt ; every body thinks it far from the wont." — " The
" Lutherans," fays another (if another), M prefer it to the

e icriptural

xxii Preface to the

fcriptural impofmons come to be objected to her,
(he hath the condefcenfion to alledge in her de-
fence, the ufages of proteftant churches abroad ;
nay, hath fometimes been humble enough to
take fhelter under the practice of the diflenting
churches at home, — thofe very aflemblies, which,
on other occafions, fhe hath refufed to acknow-
ledge as fifter-churches; a degree of humility,
in my poor opinion, much below the dignity of
a leading church, which furely fhould maintain
her ground, and vindicate her practice by ori-
ginal authority, without accepting any fupple-
mental aid from the examples of thofe, whom,
in every other light, fhe looks upon as fome-
thinglefs 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 I The way is

'* Calvinifl communion, the Calaiinijls to the Lutheran, and
'* the Greeks to both."' — Which is explained to mean, that
every one thinks the church of England the next belt to his
own. " Bur this," fays Dr. May hew, " is faid without
" proof." Second Defence, p. 6. — And mark what a bitter pill
the Doctor gives us in the room of this Jhveetmeat, with
which we treat ourfelves. " There is indeed,'' fays he,
" one church, a very ancient and extenfive one, which it
" may naturally be concluded, for a reafon that fliall be
*' namelefs, confiders the communion of the church of
" England the next bell to her own." Qbferv. p. 1 27. For
-my part, I fhould think we are well off, if, for this namelefs
reafon, all other Proteftants do not think our church the
worjl but one.

open.

First Edition. xxiii

Open. Let her be the frfc to remove every
ft ambling-block out of the way of her weak (if
fo (he will needs call them) but confcientious
fellow-chriflians. Let her nobly and generoufly
abolifh and difavow all impoiitions, all bonds,
and yokes, all beggarly elements, difagreeable to
the fpirit and dcfign of Christianity. Let her re-
move all grounds of fufpicion of her hankering
after Romifto fuperftition, by renouncing every
rite, ordinance, and ceremony, which maynourifh
this jealoufy among theDilfenters, and for which
flie is driven to make apologies, that fo remark-
ably contrail, her pretentions to an authority to
decree them m. Let her do this, and fet the
glorious example to the other Proteftant churches
ot Europe, and then will ilie be juilly entitled to
thofe encomiums, which, while me dfumes them
in her prefent fituation, will only pafs with the
judicious for the meaneu: of ail mean things,
J elf- adulation, - ,

But to wave our fpeculations for the prefent,
and to come to a few plain facts. Let us take a
curfory view of the fleps taken, by authority, to
reform the church of England, after the fettle-
mint of it by Queen Elizabeth's Act of Unifor-
mity.

Elizabeth would enter into no treaty with the
old puritans to alter or reform any thing. They

m Vul. Canon xx*. and the Kubrick at the «nd of the
Communion Service.

e 2 were

XXiv Preface to the

were delivered over to Parker and Whitgift, for
correction only ; which the latter exercifed with
fo unfeeling a hand, and fo far beyond his legal
powers, that, upon the Queen's demife, he began
to be terribly frighted at the approach of King
James's fir ft: Parliament; and it is probable
enough his appreheniions haflened his death.

He lived, however, to be prefent at the Ham-
pton-Court conference, where all objections were
happily filenced by the commodious maxim of,
No biJJjop, no king. The whole affair ended with
extravagant compliments to the royal moderator,
which fome people, who were not puritans,
thought chriitian bifhops mould not have carried
fo far.

Barlow's account of it might well enough
have been called, A Farce of three Aclsy as it was
played by Lis Majeft-fs Servants at Hampton-
Court, &c. But it proved to be no farce to the
poor confcientious puritans, with whom James
faithfully kept his promife, viz, that. " if they
" would not conform, he would har?~y them cut
" of the land, and even doworfe n. Accordingly
many of thefe worthy confeffors 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 comfort-

* Fullers Church Hift. B. x. p. 19, ar.d Heylhis Hiftory
cf the Prefbyterians, B. xi p. 376.

5 , able

First Edition. xxv

able afyltim, the authority of government was
rnoft cruelly interpofedj to deprive thofe, who
would have followed their brethren, of this relief,
that the bifhops iright not lofe the latisfaction
of tormenting them at home °. And afterwards,
when, in the reign of Charles I. thefe refugees
began to be happy and profperous, the malicious
Laud, that they might reap no advantages from
their induftry, commercial genius, and chriftian
liberty, contrived to cramp their trade by foolifh
proclamations P, and, to complete their mortifica-
tion, was upon the point of fending them a Ei-
RHor with a military force to back his authority,
if the Scots had not found him other buhnefs %

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

It is more than probable, that James himfelf
was one of thefe cripples, till he talked with his
bifhops ; the time had been, when he could no
more digeft thefe ceremonies, than his new puri-

° See TindaPs Rapin, 8vo. 1731, vol. IX. p. 312 — 395;
T.Iacautay, vol. I. p. 6j. But above all, Wilfout p. 74.
p RaJIjiwtb, fccond part, p. 718.
1 HeylinslAk of Laud, p. 3. '9.
f Fuller's Cliurcb Hillory, B. X. p. 21.

e 3 tan

xxvi Preface to the

tan fubje&s, and when he talked againft thofe of
the church of England, in particular, with fcorn
and contempt s .

No doubt but, upon the event of this confer-
ence, there was a confiderable/tf///wg ojf. So it
will always be in fuch cafes, even with thofe who
know their own minds well enough. Bancroft pre-
tended to SpGtfwood, Archbifhop of St. Andrews,
that, " when the rolls were called of thofe who
" flood out, and were depofed, which was fome
" years after, they were found to be forty-nine in
" all England, whereas the miniflers in that
" kingdom are reckoned nine thoufand and
" abwe1.''

Bancroft probably forgot to tell his brother
Spoffwood, how many ihipioads he had terrified
into foreign countries u. It might be too, that he
found no more than forty-nine, whom he held it
fafe to perfecute ; poor, friendiefs, and moneylefs
men, who had nothing wherewithal to buy off
their ccnfures, nor any patrons to protect them.
There are authentic accounts, that the Noncon-
formifl rnin'ifters were not fo thin fofon even in
Bancroft's reign.

5 He called the Engliuh Liturgy, " an evil-faid mafs in
'« Enelifh ; which wanted nothing of the mafs but the lift-
'! ino-3." CaliLr'wood, apud Harris, p. 25.

1 Spctfiuocd's Hift. of the Church of Scotland, p. 479. and
2%/2'a'j Hift. of the Preibyt. p. 376. Calderwoqdfoy*, that
the number of iilenced and deprived ministers, on that occx-
Jion, were 300. Aliare uarr.rfcenum, Praefat.

J See Cccafional Remarks, Fart II. p. 91 — 93.

But

First Edition. xxvii

But perhaps a little anecdote, preferred by a
feniible and candid conformift, may help us to
account for this grofs mifreprefentation. " In
€t 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 eafily fuppreffed by the ajfiflance of the civil
" magiftrate » *"

This was a call of Sheldon's politics, the fyftem
of which he took from that excellent original,
Bancroft >'. It would not have looked well to
the civil magiftrate to do the Hierarchical
drudgery of the prelates, while the nonconforming
were efteemed confiderable for their numbers
and quality. Even Charles's minifters might
have boggled at this.

But Spotfzoocd's reflection upon Bancroft's re-
port, muft not be forgot. " Such a noife, fays
" he, will a few difturbers make, in any fociety
" where they are tolerated." Experience hath
fhewn, that the more fuch diflurbers are tolerat-
ed, the lefs noife they make. But Spotfwood, by
the word tolerated, meant, fuffered to live. No-
thing like a halter to make a man ceafe his
noife !

x Con form ills plea for Nonconformifls, Part I. p. 40.
7 See Pierce's Vindic. p. 169, 170.

e 4 What

xxviii P r. e f a c e to the

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 reforma-
tion even in thele days) ; what they did obtain,
was imprifonment, depofition, and exile.

The violence with 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 large
enough to cover it) loft them firft their feats in
parliament, and afterwards their whole epifcopal
authority.

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

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

With this view, archbifhop U/Iper drew up his
plan of the reduclim of Epifcopacy \ and would the

z " But Cromzvdl fubdued his country when this fpirit [of
f Liberty] was at its height, by a fuccefsful itruggle againft
" court opprefiion, and while it was conduced and fupport-
*! ed by a fet of the greaieft geniufes for government the <world
'f ever favj embarked together in one common caufe." Notes
upon Potis EJpjj ok mauj edit. 174.5, quarto, p. 103.

bifhops

First Edition. xx'im

bifhops have contented themfelves with the
powers referved to them in that plan, fome have
iuppofed they might have laved themselves, and
very probably the king.

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

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 accomplifn his reflora-
tion, and having fome mifgivings, fuggefled
probably by Lord Clarendon ■> that the noncon-
forming party might flill be ffrong enough to give
him much uneafinefs, publifhed a declaration at
Breda a, giving the prefbyterians to underftand

a *' In the deep fenfe of this danger" [of the old fdencing
and dividing work] " I fet myfelf to try, whether terms of
** pojfkble'' [q. feaobab'e] " concord might be obtained. The
" London miniuers joined. The King greatly encouraged
"us; fujl by his Declaration at Bred a, and that again il
" debauchery. Next by perfonal engaging us in a treaty
M with the bilhops, and his promife that he would draw

TWu

XXX P R L F A C E /<7 //?<?

fVmc;?, which were never intended to be

■; \\ into execration, hut upon the extremeft

oviliion: j. A new mode! of the church

of Finland. 2. Where this fhouJd fallihoFtbf

lilrtjsfymg tender conferences, all poffible eafe

s?nd relief, by a large and comprehenfive tolera-

Cbarlcs ioon found that trie difTenters were in
Ecr condition to moleil him. Neverthekfs, as
tirtji royal word was given ft^fo? ci.rr, fome fhew
: : be made of keeping it. And this produced
die Savoy conference fo called ; a complication
of fophiitry, hypocrify, and virulence, on the
part of the orthodox, hardly to be paralleled in
popifh hiltory.

Clarendon,. Sheldon, and Morlcy, were the con-
dinelors of the Drama, the two latter true fons of
Bancroft and Land. Clarendon paffes with many-
tor a man of integrity, feduced, in this inftance,
partly by his own prejudices, partly by the artifi-
ces of thebifnops.

«' them to meet us, if we would come as near them-
*' as we could. Then by his gracious Declaration1'
[concerning ccd-jlafiical affairs'] " and the teitimony there
" given of our loyalty and moderation. Then by
" bis commifiion to treat for the alterations of the li-
«' tut ■-.-. Uut the bifhops denied the need of any altera-
•'t'.ons; and the convocation caft by the King's indul-
*' pence ; and iiiued all in the Act of Uniformity." Baxter's
Life by Sylfiefter, Appendix, p. 120. See, Qccajional Remarks
upon fome late tinctures on The Cotsfsfftonal, Part I. p.
J J, 17.

Bifhop

First Edition. xxxi

Bifhop Burnet puts the inflexibility of Clarendon
towards the nonconform ids, to the account of
his gratitude to the bifliops, for the fervices they
did him in the affair of his daughter's marriage
with the duke of York b. If this was the cafe, and
if Clarendon was otherwife inclined to moderate
and healing meafures, more fliame for the bifhops
who required fuch a requital.

But, upon the fuppofition that Lord Clarendon
had really the lead inclination to relax the terms
of conformity in favour of the diffenters, he muft
have been the mod difingenuous man that ever
lived. For, in the pofthumous hidory of his
Life, publiflied 1759, he lays it down for a ma-
xim, that, u nothing but the fevered execution
" of the law, could ever prevail upon that claflis
u of men, to conform to government." What
could a vindictive prelate of thofe times have
laid more?

Be it here noted, that Lord Clarendon wrote
this account of his own Life at Montpelier, when
he could have no temptation to difTemble. Did
he then always think fo highly of edabliflied ec-
clefiaftical forms, as this maxim imports? Cer-
tainly not, if we may judge from two of his effays,
written likewife at Montpelier, the one, On the
regard due to antiquity, the other, On multiplying
controyerfies. However, if any one chufes to add
his Lord (hip to the examples in the lad chapter

b Pill. O. T. vol. I. p. 260.

of

XXXI 1

Preface to the

of this work, of great churchmen labouring un-
der invincible prejudices , I have no objection.

Clarendon' '& removal from the helm made way
for a fourth attempt to reform the church of Eng-
land, in the year 1668, in which the undertakers
on the fide of the church were fmcere and hearty.
Thefe undertakers were, judge Hale, bifnop Viil-
kins, Dr. Tillotfon, and a few more, with the coun-
tenance of the lord keeper Bridgman. Men,
one may venture to fay, of fufEcient abilities
and integrity to recommend a plan of Church-
reformation to any Chriftian government.

46 But, fays Burnet, what advantage foever the
" men of comprehenfion might have in any other
(< refpect, the majority of the houfe of commons
" was fo pofTeffed againft them, that when it was
" known in a fucceeding feffion, 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 palled, That no bill to that
" purpofe, fhould be received c."

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

" Bilhop Wilkins, who was a candid, ingenu-
il ous, and open-hearted man, acquainting bilhop
" Ward [Seth lord bilhop of Salijbury~] with
'" the whole matter, hoping to have met with
" his concurrence in it, he \JVard~] fo beflirred
* Hift.O. T. vol. I.p. z6o.

« himfelf,

First Edition. xxxiii

V himfelf, and all his friends, and made fuch a
" party, that nothing could be done in it d."

This fame bhhop Ward, (i to get his former
" errors to be forgot (for he had complied 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 confi-
" derable man upon the bench c."

To finiih his character : " He was fo far in-
" cenfed with fome things contained in the nrft
" part of [the learned and truly antipapiftical]
" Dr. Daniel Whitbf 's Protejiant Reconciler, that
" he obliged him to make a retractation." Which,
if I had room, I would add in the margin, jufl
as it was impofed by this fteady, holding-in bifhop,
as it may ferve for a precedent, in cafe retracta-
tions fhould once more come into fa(bion. I can-
not forbear, however, putting down two of the
obnoxious proportions retracled f .

d Calamfs Abridgment, p. 322. e Burnet, u. f. 192.

{ l. It is n'J lawful for fuperiors to impofe any thing in the
•worjlip of God, that is not antecedently neceffary.

2. The duty cf not offending a iueak brother is inconfiflcnt with
alt human authority of making la-zis concerning indifferent things.
Qu. Are theft proportions orthodox, upon the principles of
the a l li at; en, -or ?.re they not? See, A fhort Account of Dr.
Whitby, p/ 6.

But the worthy Dodlor lived to fee better time?, and
another fort of a bifhop in that fee ; and in a fermon upon
Matth. xii. 7. intituled, Ritual Obfr-vations to give place to
charity (publifhed in 1720 with ten more, and dedicated to
Bifhop Hoadley) may be faid in effect to have retracled theie
■ ratraitatiens. Dr. Whitby found himfelf obliged to change

Some

Xxxiv V R e f a c e fo the

Some faint attempts towards an accommoda-
tion with the proteftant diffenters, by abating in
the terms of conformity, were afterwards made
during the reign of Charles II. particularly in the
years 1673 and 1674. Popery was then making
fo formidable a progrefs, that even Morley and
Ward were frightened into an appearance, at
leaf!:, of defirino; to make room for the noncon-
formifls in the church, as an acceffion of ltrength
againfl the common enemy. Calamy, in his
Abridgement of Baxter s hi (lory, hath given
fome particulars, and a iketch of abatements
drawn up by Baxter, at the defire of Lord Orrery,
in the year 1673 h*

Morley's character is highly painted. " The
te bifhop of Winchejter, that it might not feem to
" be for nothing that he oft pretended to be of
" fo peaceable a difpofition, furthered an acl 011-
" ly to take off the ajfent and confent [to the
(r Vook of Common prayer], and the renunciation
« of the covenant. But, when other bifhops were
" ao-ainft even this fljew of abatement, he told
" them openly in the houfe [of lords], that, had
" it been but to abate them a ceremony, he would not
" havefpoken in it. But he knew they [the dif-

his opinions on fome other fubjecls, whereof an account
was given to the public, in a little piece intitled Dr. Whitby's
Laft Thoughts, with a candour zn&fincerity of which it is much
to be regretted that, we have not more examples.

* From p. 338«t0 34g- ,?_ %

" fentersj

First E t> i t i 1 • &

" fonters] nyere bound io the farm things jSi
** other ciaufcs or obligdtfQQis t if thefts evrv

" pealed K"

1 Ibid, p. 340, but more particulr.ily Baxter
Sylveiter, part iii. p. 140, 141. Morfey-, lipotrfam*
aft'efted great candour und mode ration ton.'.
Nonconformiils. Me told one of tinea (Mr. Sa?A
that " he mult not philofcphize upon the word',
*' coa/entj nor fuppofe that die parliament did by .-j c-i
" an aft of the understanding, and by m./t .( an «ct
'* will: for rro more was intended, than thai the per
"declaring, intended to read the book,'" adding, that *• :■
" he (Sprint) would make the dechn.tlon in the
" the Aft of Uniformity, and then fay that thereby he aneart
** no more thin that he would read the Comv.cx .
11 would admit him into a living." Cakmy's Account, £;"«■.
p. 341. They who drew up the !\Cl of Uniformity, mj.Cs/-.
II. would hardly have acqnielcrd in this utrp&ilafcifrkL-ail
doftrine. In the year 1665 an attempt was made foraderl*-
ration of njp.nt and confmt injoined by the aft of Ur.m
to the fame effeft with this explanation of Eilho
but was rejeded with indignation, as an alteration wherein
was neither jttflice nor prudence. Celsmy'j Abridgment v? Bax-
ter j Life, p. 205. Mr. Ohj':, and the 'ate Bifh<
were of the (a me mind with biihop Msrhy. .And thi
haps, the biOiops of the prefent day would afk no q 1 :

a candidate, how he understands the ajpnt no .Yea

he is required to declare, yet, I d:,re fay, they \vo\
low him to explain hi; declaration in Bifhop 'Mt
in fo many words. Nor, indeed, do I lb ink that a dec u:
limited by fuch an explanation would be kged. "'.
ever, is an initance of what has often been fuppofetl,
thegreateft f.icklcrs for conformity have been felf-com
that the terms by which it is enforced are in
men as Morlty could not but know, that, if the p rlia
had meant any thing hut what they plainly cx.p:e
might have found words lit for their purpofe, T/ithqpt !<

xxxvi Preface to the

This is fo black and infamous, that I fhoiild
hardly blame a zealous churchman, who mould
demur to the competency of the evidence, as
coming from a diffenter. There it hath flood
however, for above fifty years, uncontradicted,
as far as I know, by any one.

In the year 1675 tnere was a conference, in
order to a comprehenfion, between Dr. Tillotfon
and Dr. Stillingfleet on the one part, and fome
diffenting minifters on the other ; and matters
being brought into a fair way towards a compro-
mife, the hifhops Ward and Fear/on were to be
told in confidence, and upon promife of fecrefv,
by the two Doctors of the eflablifhment, f{ how
" far they had gone, and how fair they were for
iC agreement." The event is related by Dr. Til-
lotfon in a letter to Mr. Baxter, as follows :
" Sir,
" I took the nrft opportunity, after you were
" with us, to fpeak to the bifhop of Salijhury
il [}¥ard~], who promifed to keep the matter pri-
vate, and only to acquaint the bifhop of
Chejler [Pear/on] with it, in order to a meet-
ing. But, upon fome general difcourfe, I
plainly perceived feveral things could not be
" obtained. However, he promifed to appoint a
" time of meeting ; but I have not heard from
" him fince. — " And there ended the treaty.
Ward appears to have acted the fame part with

others to find out meanings, which evejy man of common
fenfe fees their words will not bear.

Tillotfon,

First Edition. xxxvii

*Tillotfon, in 1675, that he did with Wilkins in
1668, only perhaps with a little more hypo-
crify k.

The reafon why the fc two bifliops, Mcrley and
Ward, 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 Ward kept in mind,
not without fome degree of horror, how narrow-
ly Bel and the dragon had efcaped an ambufcade
by the freedom and opennefs of honefl bilhop
Wilkins.

The next attempt to reform the church of
England, had not only the concurrence of fome
worthy bimops 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 anfpicious authority of William III. in
the year i68o<

By a fatal miitake^ it was agreed, that the
matter ihould pafs through the forms of convo-
cation, where it met with an effectual defeat from
the zeal and activity of a faction in the lower
houfe, led on indeed, as was fufpecled, by fome.
of the bench, particularly Mew and Sprat,

Dr. Birch brings fome authentic proofs of
bifhop Complon's intriguing to have Dr. Jane
chofen prolocutor, in preference to <Tilloifoni not

k Baxter's life by Syl-vejler, partiii. p. 157.

•Ut

xxxviii Preface to the

out of a difaffe£tion to the caufe, but to the man K
But lie who could put the caufe in fo fair a way
of being ruined to gratify his own perfonal re-
fentraent, 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 eftabliihed church, do not think fit to
" mention the word religion, any further than
tl it is the religion of fome formed eflablifhed
u church."

The word for religion, in the Greek teftament,
is 9-p»tr>ce<«, which is no where appropriated to a
formed eftablifhed church. Paul fpeaks of feels
in the Jewifh religion m, fome of which were jufl
as much efablifjed, as the prefbyterians and
quakers are in England. James defines pure and
undejiled religion before God and the Father n, in
terms which ihew,that fuch religion may be prac-
tifed and conformed to, where there neither is,
nor ever was, an eftablifhed 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 call. Religionem, earn, qutz in metu-j/
Cjeremonia Deorumfty appellant, fays Cicero Q.
But another pagan feems to have had a more

1 LifeoT Tillotfott, p. 179. m Alsxxv. 5.

* James i. 27. ° De Inrentione, ii. 22.

evangelical

FiksT Edition. xxxix

Evangelical idea of religion. Religiofus eft non
nwdo deorum fanclitatcm magni aftimans , fed etiam
officiofus adverfus homines p.

One cannot well call the Free and Candid Dif-
quifttions, relating to the church of England, or
the excellent Appeals which followed them, by the
name of attempts to reform the church. Thefe
were rather attempts to feel the pullcs of the
ruling ecclefiaflics 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
thrufls of thefe reformers, who had the dexte-
rity to handle his Weapons fo, as to appear in the
eyes of the fpefrators, to part at lead on equal
terms with his antagonists.

Here then hath Terminus fixed his pedeftal,
and here hath he kept his ftation for two whole
centuries. We are juft where the A£ts of Uni-
formity left us, and where, for aught that ap-
pears in the temper of the times, the Iaft trum-
pet will find us, — if popery will pleafe to let
us be quiet, and leave us to cur repofe with the
fame complaifance, that we have left her bifjops
to go about here, and excrcife every part of their
funclion without offence, and without obferva-
tion a-.

p jFV/7wx, in verbo rezigiosus. .

* In the firit edition, the laft part of the paragraph flood

•thus,— "i pcpert will pleafe to let us be quiet, andicave

f 2 Having

xf P R E F A c e io the

Having now given a fhort feries of inftances
of the church of England's difpcntion to reform
" us to our repofe with the fame complaifance, that we have
fc left her to go about and perfirm all her funSicns, without of-
" fence, and without obfervation." Soon after the Confefizonal
was publifhed, a pacquet, directed to the Author, was receiv-
ed through the Printer's hands, containing a pamphlet, inti-
tuled, A Review of Dr. Mayhew's Remarks on the Anfwer to
his Obfervations on the conducl of the Society for the Propagation
tf the Gofpel in foreign Parts, by Eaft Apthorp, M. A. printed
for J. Rivington. With this pamphlet was conveyed an ano-
nymous ticket in thefe words. " The Author of the Confef-
«' fional is defired to read p. io, u, 12. of the inclofed
" pamphlet; and then to confider ferioufly, whether he hath
" given, in p. 36, 37, of his preface; ajuft reprefentation

" of the words there quoted." Upon looking into the

preface, the Author of the Covfejfional could find no words
quoted at p. xxxvi. which had the leait relation to any part
of the controverfy carried on with the late Br. Mayhew,
concerning the Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel,
£fff. By the ingenious fencer there mentioned, the Author
meant the late Mr. White, who was faid to have animad-
verted on the Free and Candid Difquifitions, in a performance
quoted above. If any gentleman now living is confcious
that the term ingenious fencer might be applied to himfelf,
upon account of his parrying the thrufis of the faid Difquifi-
tions, the Author of the ConfeJJional declares he knows no
fuch gentleman, and therefore is not accountable for any
offence taken at that expreflion. In the xxxviith page of.,
the firft edition are indeed the words fet down in. the
beginning of this note, alluding to, rather than quoting the
paffage in queftioru However, to be ingenuous, the Author
of the ConfeJJionnl acknowledges, that he had fome words in
the Anfwer to Dr. Maybews Obfervations, p. 66. then in
his mind, and he now begs leave to confider how far his
manner of referring to them may be called a mifreprefentation.
Upon infpedting Mr,. Apthorp' s pamphlet, the fuppofed mif-

5 tlie

First Edition. xli

the exceptionable parts of her conftitution, I hope
I may be indulged in a few remarks upon it.

reprefentation, it is conjectured, confifb in this, viz. that
Popery is put for Popijh Bijbcps, and all her fund ions for every
pari of 'their funQion. But the Prefacer thinks, that wherever
Popifh bifhops are permitted to exercife every part of their
funclion without cffer.ee and without obfervation, it is a very
reafonable prefumption that there every function of Popery is
performed with as little refentment or interruption : and
among the reft, (if that may be called a function of Popery)
the making of profelytes. Not fo, fays Mr. Apthcrp, " The
*' Anftverer evidently means every part of their peculiar
" function as bifhops ; confirming the youth, ordaining and
" viiiting the clergy of their own communion : for his ar-

" gument led him to fpeak of nothing elfe. Profelytes

<{ are chiefy made by their prielts ; and many cannot be
"made by fo few bifhops as they have here," p. 10, ii,

. What authority Mr. Apthcrp had to interpret the words

of Dr. Mayhew's Anfwerer in this manner, he knows beft. But
the Prefacer is of opinion, that the Anfwerer himfelf (who
indeed appears, by his pamphlet, to be a much abler writer
than Mr. Apthcrp) would hardly have been fo weak as to
have explained himfelf in this fort. For, in the firft place,
to fay as Mr. Apthorp does, that profelytes are chiefy made by
Popifh prieits, is to allow that profelytes are net made by
prieits only : and to fay that many profelytes cannot be made
by fo few bifhops as the Papiits have here, is to a^mit'that
fome may be made by thefe bifhops in proportion to their
numbers : nor is any thing advanced by Mr. Apth-.rp to fhew
that making profelytes is more the peculiar buiinefsof prielts
than of bifhops. If making profelytes is the duty of prielts,
it is the duty of bifhops to fee that it is difcharged ; to make
this an article of inquiry when they vifit their clergy ; to en-
courage thofe who are diligent and fuccefsful in the work ;
and to reprove the indolent and the negligent. When Popifh
bifhops confirm the youth of their communion, do they con-
firm no profelytes among them ? Do they confirm profelytes

f 3 '< The

P r'efaci to the
i . The profetTed motive of thofe great church-
men who gave way to any movements towards;

without knowing them to be fuch ? Hive the Papifb a lower
opinion of the necefiity, virtue, or efficacy of confirmation,
than they have who make the want of it in New England an
argument for fending bifhops thither ? If not, is not the full
liberty of confirming profelytes, one very conilderable en-
couragement both to the pried and the profelyte in the
making of them ? In one word, is it poffible to conceive how
bifiiops can exercife every part of their fiin&iqn, while the
Inferior clergy are reftrained from exercifing any part of
theirs? Mr. Apthorp tells us, '■' the Anf-werer's argument led
" him to fpeak cf nothing elfe [befides every part of their
" peculiar function as bifhops ; confirming the youth, or-
IC daining and yi firing the clergy of their own communion],
*.* And, continues he, it is a known fact, that thofe things
f* do give no offence either to churchmen or difienters in this
" kingdom." In my humble opinion, Mr. Apthorp might
have been furer of this fall, had he faid that there are
churchmen and difienters in the kingdom known to him/elf,
ro whom thofe things give no offence. The kingdom of
England is of large extent; and there may be, and certainly
are, in it great numbers both of churchmen and difienters, un-
known to Mr. Apthorp, -to whom thofe things do give offence.
He proceeds, " Whence he [the Anfvverer of Dr. Mayhevj]
*' concludes, that the fame things done by Protellant bifiiops
*' would give none in Nezv England." The same things !
Are then the fame things, and no other, peculiar to the func-
tion of a Popifh and a Proteftant bifhop refpeclively ? Let not
this be faid, or even fuppofed. In the Pontifical publiftied
at Rome, 1611, p. 57. the following words Hand as part of
the oath of every bifhop at his confecration, Hrereticos et re-
belles Domino Pap<n perfequar et impugnabo. The moment this
oath is taken, P erf edition of heretics and rebels to the Pope be-
comes a part of The peculiar funclion of a Popifii bifhop. And
when it is conlidered to whom thefe characters of heretics
and rebels to the Pope are afcribed by the Papifts in general,

a re?

First Edition. xliii

a reformation before the Revolution, was not, if
you will believe them, any connection in their own

I apprehend, neither our churchmen nor diffenters will think
this a token of incjfinfwenefs in the peculiar fun&ion of fuch
bifliop. Thanks to the better fpirit of our reformers, no
fuch thing is to be found in our office appointed for The
Confecratkn of Bijbops. But it is not impoflible that fome-
thingelfe might be found in it, which would give umbrao-e
to the people of New England who diffent from the eftablifh-
ed church of the mother-country, and which, if a bifliop
fhould think himfelf obliged to fupport the full difcipline of
an epifcopal church, might carry him fomewhat beyond the
three articles mentioned by Mr. Apthorp, as peculiar to the
function both of a Protectant and a Popifh bifhop. Mr.
Apthorp, I hope, will excufe me for taking thefe freedoms
with his Review, when he confiders, that it has been made
the inttrument by which fomebody or other endeavoured
to fix upon the Author of the Confejiotial an imputation of
which every honefl: man would acquit himfelf if he could.
The faid Author, however, declares that no mifreprefenta-
tion was intended by him ; and to fhew this, hath conformed
himfelf, in this third edition, to what the Ticket-writer
tails a quotation, by fubftituting the very words of the An-
jhver to Dr. Mayhew's Ob/r-vations, &c. as they (land in that
pamphlet, leaving it to his readers to determine what the
Author of the ConfcJJional lofes, or what the Author of the
An/iver gains, by the alteration. As Mr. Apt harp's Review
has been thus thrown in my way, and as it was the lad per-
formance which has appeared in the debate with the late ex-
cellent Dr. Mayheiuy it is not unlikely but it may be efteemed
by one fide, as decifi-ve of that not unimportant controverfy,
and that Dr. Mayhenu was effectually filenced by it. I ima-
gine, however, that an impartial reader of the particulars
above may be of opinion, that Mr. Apthorp" s Review is not
wholly impregnable. And as the late Dr. Mayhew may be
fuppofed to have been the beft able to give his own reafons
f 4 minds,

jiliv Preface to the

minds, that any circumftance of doctrine, difci?
pline, or worfhip in the ellablimed church, was
really wrong. It was always aliened, chat the
.church needed no reformation, and only con-
defcended to thefe moorings partly to oblige the
nonconformifls with a hearing, and partly to
Convince them by argument, how little their
diffent was to be ju frilled : but might not one
fay with more truth, — much oftcner to enter-

for not replying to it, I fhall, upon this occafion, Sub-
join an extract from a letter of the worthy Doctor's, written
to a friend in Great Britain (who had fuggefted to him, that
his reply to Mr. Aptborp's pamphlet was expected) dated ?
Boflon, April 7, 1766. " In truth, Sjr, I was fulHciently
" weary of that contioverfy, i-s I intimated at the clofe of my
*' Second Defence of the Objtrij.atiom. Not that I thought I
" had a bad caufe to manage, but becaiife I had written
ft three large pamphlets upon the point. Accordingly I fig-
" nified in the laft of them, that I Ihould publilh no more
ff upon it,' unlefs fomethirig both ne*.v a?id material fhould ap-
" pear on the other fide. In the opinion of fundry gentle-
" men here, for whofe judgment I had much regard, a?
** well as in my own meaner Opinion, there was nothing in
" Mr. Aptbqrp's Review, CSV. which deferved thai cbaracler,
f or merited a particular reply. Neither, indeed, could I
'.' learn, that even the zealots of the epifcopal party here
" confidered it as of any confequence, unlefs it were merely
" as the lajl word; an honour, of which I was not ambitious.
" I had little or no hopes of convincing any, who remained
*' unconvincced after reading my three t rafts upon the fub-
f} jeft of the minions ; and was not fuch a falamdnder as to
f ch'jfe to live long in the fire of controverfy. Befides, it
" was fo long before the laid Review appeared in thefe parts,"
f that the fubject of it was become ftale; it ceafed to engage
f* the attention of either party here."

tain

FlRST EDITION. xlT

turn the church's friends with a triumph after a
yi&ory preconcerted with the civil powers ?

The divines, indeed, who were employed un-
der King Williaiifs commiffion, were free enough
in acknowledging and characlcriz'ing the blemifhes
in the church of England -, at leaf!, if the remain-
ing, though imperfect, accounts of that tranfacrion
may be depended upon. And this has been
given as a reaibn, why the original papers relat-
ing to it have been fo carefully fecreted from the
public, as hitherto to have efcaped the mod di-
ligent inquiries after them.

And this fecurity is, no doubt, one circum-
flance which hath given frefh courage to the
church of England, once more to hold fail her
integrity, and to return to her old pofture of
defence, in ?ne?norials, fchifm-bilh , alliances , and
other expedients, fome of which fhew that even
Bancroft and Land would not have been difpa-
raged by learning fome particulars of church-
artifice from more modern mailers 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
ilir a flep.

But

xlvi Preface to the

But here I would afk, what reafon the clergy
of the prefent times can have to doubt of the
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 (land by the eitablifhed clergy
in all their perils; and, in one inftance, achially
fell with them for a feafon. But even then, their
days of darknefs were but few, in comparifon
with the profperit^ they have enjoyed in the
courfe of two centuries. Since when, we have
feen them rife from their tight afflictions with re-
doubled vigour and advantage, fo remarkably as
to be able to check a reformation againft the
united endeavours of fome of their own falfc
brethren in the highefr. ftations, and the moil fan-
guine difpofition in the Sovereign himfelf to
effeel it.

Nor have we the lead reafon to imagine that
their intereft with the civil powers has declined
to this hour. It is not much above ten years
fmce the public was told by a great churchman,
that " things were then come to that pafs, that
" the flate feemed to be in more need of the fup-
te port of the clergy, then they of the date's k."
The reafons given for that prefumption flill fub-
fiif. in their full force : not to mention fome later
appearances, which feem to tend towards a far-
ther need} in no long time. So that it is to be

* View of Lord Bolingbroke's Philofophy, 8vo, 1754. p. 5.

hoped

First Edition. xlvii

hoped we fhall hear no more of this plea for the
inactivity of the ruling clergy, till full proof is
given to the world by a fair and open trial, that
their fmcere and zealous endeavours for a farther
reformation are actually controuled by the civil
powers.

3. The laft remark I (hall make upon the
foregoing facts is, that the alterations made in
the forms of the church of England, inftead of
relieving the fcruples of conscientious noncon-
forming, greatly increafed them. The Savoy-
Conference has been compared to the council of
Trent. Both were the effects of an unwelcome
ceceihty. In both the obnoxious party prefided,
and gave judgment : and the event of both con-
vinced the remonftrants refpectivcly, how vain a
tiling it was to contend againfl 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.

I doubt not but the intelligent reader, who is
moderately converfant in EfigliJJj hiftory from
the commencement of the prefent century, will
perceive what room is left for purfuing reflections
of the fame fort through the lafl: fixty years. But,
as 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 interefling circumftancc in our prefent

eftablifh-

xlviii Preface to t/je

establishment, which has not a little employed
the fpeculations of men of the firft abilities of all
parties.

There is not, perhaps,, an inftance of a law

enadted in a proteftant community, which is lefs

defenfible in a religious view, than that of the

Jacramental tej}y enjoined as a qualification for

holding civil offices.

In Charles IPs reign, which gave birth to it,
a man who mould have propofed the repeal of
this laWjWithrefpeci: to proteftant diffienters, would
have pafTed for a Socinian at the bell, perhaps
for an aiheiji.

In the next reign, the inconveniencies, and
poillbly the unrighteoufhefs, of it were feen and
felt, even by fome of the great churchmen them-
ielves, among whom Bancroft is named for one ;
and it was not imagined at that time, but that,
upon any fuch deliverance from popery as the
Revolution, the proteftant interefl would be re-
lieved from fuch an incumbrance for all future
time.

Perhaps, at that particular juncture, little more
was confidered among churchmen, than the ill
policy of excluding fo confiderable a body of
protectants, 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 effect.

But, after Mr. Locke's letters for toleration had
appeared, it was prefently perceived, though the

title

First Edition. xlix

title of them ran only for toleration, that his ar-
guments concluded againft the authority of any
Chriftian fociety to prefcribe religious teds or
modes of worihip, which were not clearly, plain-
ly, and indisputably, agreeable to the Scriptures,
whether with or without the Sanction of the civil
magiilrate l.

The flrft effect of Mr. Locke's reafoning ap-
peared in a very Senfible proteji, in behalf of the
rejected bill for abrogating the Sacramental teft,
in the year 1689 m. No more, however, could
then be obtained but a bare toleration, or exem-
ption of proteftant diffenters from the penalties
before laid upon them for holding and frequent-
ing conventicles.

In the reign of Queen Anne, the friends of re-
ligious liberty were kept under by church memo-
rials, and other alarms of the church's danger,
calculated to inflame the people, which had all
the SucceSs the party could wim. And no won-
der, if it be true what Swift tells us in his hifcory
of the four lait years of the Queen, " that the

1 It is well and truly obferved, in the Preface to tke lail
beautiful edition of Mr. Locke's letters concerning Toleration,
in quarto, 1765, " that Mr. Locke was not the firll writer on
" this fubjedl; for that the argument was well understood
" and published during the ch'il war." All, therefore, th:t
is meant by what is faid above, is, that the attention of the
public as well as the Subject was then revived, which may
eaiily be accounted for by the eminence and known abilities
of the living author.

* See this Proteft in Calamfs Abridgement, p, 440.

« whole

1 V ret ace to the

" whole facred order was underflood to be eon**
t( cerned in the profecution of Sacheverel11"

But nothing exhibits a more lively picture of
the fenfe and temper of thofe times, than the fe^
veral attempts in favour of a Law againft Occa-
fional Conformity, related in Bifhop Burnefs 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 elfe of infinitely more confequence.

But, providentially for the public, the reign of
thefe politicians was now at an end. They were
totally eclipfed by the acceflion 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 reign, that
all that could be effected in favour of Chriflian
liberty, and even that after many ftruggles and
violent oppofition, was the repeal of the two acts,
that againft Occafional Conformity, and the other
to prevent the growth of Schif?n.

Attempts, indeed, were made to relieve the
Proteftant difTenters from the hardfhips of the
Teft-acT:, 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

n P. 6.

did

Fir st Ed it ion. fi

did not mifcarry for want of the hearty concur-
rence of the princes upon the throne.

In the mean time, whatever the political reafons'
might be for defifting from any farther molefta-
tion of the Tefl-aft, it would have been ftrange,
if; under the aufpicious patronage of a Sovereign
of the illuftrious Houfe of Brunfwick, the fons of
liberty mould have been wanting to their caufe,
by fitting down in profound filence. The right-
eoumefs of Teft-laws was now difcufTed in form,
by the accurate Bifhop Hoadley, and the principles
on which they were defended in a religious light,
fo effectually expofed anddifgraced, that even the
abilities of the inimitable Sherlock were found
unequal to the tails: of fupporting them.

In this ftate things remained for fome time.
The eyes of the moft prejudiced began to open,
•and to fee the equity of relieving the protectant
diffenters from this ignominious diftinclrion ; and
great hopes were conceived, that in no long time
it would be removed; the rather, as even the
conformists themfelves were cccajionally obliged
to comply, not without fome relu£tance; fome of
them, I mean, who perhaps never had, nor would
have, given the church of England that particular
airurance of their being in communion with her,
if they had not been called upon by motives in
which their refpeft for her and her inititutions
had no (hare.

It may well be fuppofed, that this was a ltroke
W,hich the high-church party could not bear with

tolerable

jii P r e f 4l c e to the

tolerable temper. But what was to be done i
The argument was at an end, and perfonal attacks
upon the adverfary was to little purpofe, who
Was equally unexceptionable as a writer and as a
man, and who were only vulnerable in point of
his conformity to a church, whofe forms of dis-
cipline and government he had fliewn, upon
Gofpel-principles, to be liable to fo many impor-
tant objections.

In this diftrefsful hour of defpondency, and
when things, on the part of the Tejl-?nen Were
going on fad towards a flate of defperation, arofe
a champion for the church, who, changing the old
■pojlure of defence, undertook to vindicate the teff.-
law upon the hypothefis of an Alliance between
Church and State.

Two circumftances, indeed, appeared upori
the outfet of this undertaking, which bore art
unpromifmg afpe£r towards the learned author's
fuccefs.

The firfl Was, that the queflion concerning re-
ligious liberty had already paffed thro' the hands
of Milton, Locke, Hoadley, Sherlock, and other ma-
tters of reafoning of the firfl 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, however, did

0 View of Lord BcIingbrokSs Philofopliy. Lett. iv. p. 83.

not

First Edition. liii

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 Bqffuet n.

The other circumftance which incumbered" his
enterprize, was his propofing to fupport a test
on fuch reafoning as would not deftroy a tole-
ration °; 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 refpeft
to feparate places of worfhip or different modes
of difcipline, or in allowances of partial and oc-
cafional conformity.

Whereas the toleration contended for by the
advocates of religious freedom, was " abfolute

n Of De Marca, Bilhop Burnet, fpcaking of the authors
from whom he collected materials for the work cited below,

fays " The chief of whom is the late molt learned Arch-

M biihop of Paris, De Marca, who has written very largely,
" and with great judgment and exaftnefs, on this argument.
«' But I cannot commend his ingenuity (o much, as I mult do
" hi? other excellent qualities ; for he has written defectively,
*' and has concealed very many things, to which a man fo con-
" verfant in all parts of ecclefiaftical learning could not be
" a ftranger." Preface to Bifhop Burnet's Hijiory of the Rights
of Princes in the difpojing cf Ecclefiajlical Benefices end Church-
lands, p. 7. De Marca wrote a voluminous book of ddiante.
The ingenuity of Bcjfuet is more generally known, and may
be feen in BafnagSs Hilt, de 1'Eglife Rcforme, Wakens Ex-
pofition of the Do&rine of the Church of England, 1687,
and Defence of it, &c.

■ View of 'Lord Boiinglrole 1 Philofophy, Lett. W. p. 2$.

g « liberty,

liv P R E F A c e to the

" liberty, ju ft and true liberty, equal and impartial
" liberty upon the principle that neither fingle
tl 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 p." An attempt to make
a t eft-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 iff elf,
the want of which fecret hath ruined many a
hopeful trial at a perpetual motion.

For the reft, our learned author's principles
are chiefly of the political kind, leading to expe-
dients of civil utility. He was not, however,
infeniible, that, fo far as the church was to con-
tribute her quota to this kind of utility, ihe muff
have the authority of the Gospel.

Bifhop Hoadley, from the circumftance that our
Saviour had declared his kingdom not to be of this
ivortdx bad inferred, that " Chrijl is himfelf the
" fole Lawgiver to his fub feels, and himfelf the
" fole judge of their behaviour, in the affairs of
" conference and eternal falvation; — that he hath,
" in thofe points^ left behind him no vifible hu-
" man authority; no vicegerents, who can be faid
'• properly to fupply his place; no interpreters,
" upon whom his fubjecls are abfolutely to de-

P See the Preface to the Englifh tranflation of Locke's firfl:
letter concerning Toleration, and the letter itfelf, p. 42. of
the quarto edition, printed for Millar, 1765.

" pend;

First Edition. lv

c< pcnd; no judges over the consciences or religion
" of his people u."

Hence it followed, that no fubjecls of Chrifl's
kingdom, under the name or notion of the churchy
could convene, as our author expreifes it, with
the civil magiflrate, lb, as to give up any points
of confeience to his direction ; nor could the ma-
giflrate accept of fuch overtures, or fuch conven-
tion, without ufurping upon the province which
Chrifl had referved to himfelf.

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

Our learned author, therefore, was under a
necefTity 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
" world ; which bears this plain and obvious fenfe,
" that the kingdom of Chrifl. to be extended
" over all mankind, was not, like the kingdom
" of God, confined to the Jewifh people, where
" religion was incorporated with the 11 ate, and
te therefore of this world, as well in the exerciie
<c of it, as in the rewards and punifhments by
" which it was adminiftred ; but [the kingdom
" of Chrifl] was independent of all civil communities.
" and therefore neither of this world as to the

\ Sermon on the Nature of the KitrJom o. Cbm (h of Chri:L

g 2 " exerciie

lvi Preface /o the

" exercifeof it, nor as to the rewards and ptinilli-

" ments by which it was adminiftred r."

That a kingdom to be extended over all man*
kind fhould not be like a kingdom confined to
one particular people, is indeed plain and obvious
enough ; but is equally plain and obvious with
refpeft to the Roman as the Jewijh kingdom: and
why the former fhould not be pitched upon as
the inftance put into comparifon with ChrifVs
kingdom, efpecially as the declaration was made
to a Roman governor, who might be apprehen-
sive of our Saviour's pretentions to fupplant Ti-
berius, is not quite fo obvious. The difference
too was the very fame in the Roman as in the
Jewijh kingdom, both as to the exercife of it,
and the rewards and punifhments by which it
was adminiftred. Can any one fuppofe it to have
been 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 Bifhop Hoadley's in-
ferences. Whether it will bear any other, We
may fee as we go along*

" But, continues our author, whoever ima-
" gines that from this independency by inftitu-
" tion, the church cannot co?ivene and unite with
" the ftate, concludes much too faff.."

Here the kingdom of Cbrijl is turned into the
church, which in this place mult mean fome
1 Alliance , p. 178.

particular

First Edition. lvii

particular formed focicty of Chrift's fubje&s, im-
powered a priori to aft for themfelves and all the
reft, that is, for all mankind. But then, where
is this church to be met with ? A neceflary que-
stion, which Should have been anfwered before
the learned author had flirred a ftep farther.
And now for the reafoning by which this hafly
conclufion is obviated :

(i We have obferved, 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 diftinguifti it from the kingdom of
" God. That is, it was given to Shew, that this
" 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 from
ell the reft of the kingdoms of this world) a di-
stinction as certainly intended in our Lord's de-
claration, as that mentioned by our learned au-
thor I The reafon is plain. In that cafe, the
kingdom of Chrift could have allied with none of
the kingdoms of this world, fince the moment
fuch alliance Should take place, the mark would
be extinguijfoed of 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
becomes, to all intents arid purpofes, a kingdom

S 3 cf

((

it

lviii Preface to the

of this world, both as to the exercife of it, and as
to the rewards and pumfliments by which it is
admini fired.

This mark of dijlinclion, therefore, was not to
appear with refpect to any kingdoms of this
world, but the Jewifh only; and with that there
was no danger that the kingdom of Chrift fhould
enter into alliance, as it was now upon the point
of being broken up.

But the dexterity of our learned author appears
to the greatefl: advantage in the confequence he
draws from the foregoing poiitions :

Consequently, that very reaibn which

made it proper for the Mofaic religion to be

united by divine appointment to the ft ate,

te made it fit the Chriflian iliould" -what ?

The cafl of the argument and the mark of diflin-

clion prepared you to expect " fhould not

" be united to the ftate." But, no : this would
have embroiled the theory of alliance with a witnefs ;
and therefore happily and feafonably does our

learned author turn afide, and conclude •

" made it fit that the Chriftian [religion] fhould
be left free and independent."

Agreed ; free and independent of every legifla-
tor, iudge, vicegerent, or interpreter, but Chriffc

aloilC, TO THE END OF TIME.

No, here we part; for the learned author aiks,
4; But to what end, if not fortius, to be at liberty
" to adapt itfelf to the many various civil policies
fi by a fui table union and alliancef"

And

First Ed i t i o n. lix

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

But to the queftion, u To what end, if nor for

" this?" and is our learned author really in

earned? Can he not perceive one other end for
which the Chriftian religion was \&hfrc,2 and in-
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, even though he
fliould be unconnected with, or excluded from,
the privileges of every human eftabliihment on
the face of the earth.

Let the learned author now try to make his
end confident with this, to which the fcriptures
bear (o ample and fo often-repeated; a teftimony.
We will be reafonable. One lingle pafi'age 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, oneiingle paflage.
from which it may be clearly inferred s. And thus

6 The learned author refers u?, indeed, to a prophecy of
Ifaiab) xlix. iz> 2j. which he cites tk.is; . .;./., the.

lx P R E F A C E tO the

much furely the learned author owes to his own
argument ; as many a plain, fincere Chriftian, even
after all the pains taken with him in the book of
Alliance, may, without fuch additional evidence,
be extremely at a lofs to conceive, what union or
alliance between a kingdom which is, and a king-

Lord God, Behold, 1 will lift up my band to the Gen TILES,
anifet up myfandard to the people — and Kings shall bethy

KURSING FATHERS, AND THEIR QuEENS THY NURSING

mothers. This prophecy, he would have us believe, re-
ceives its ultimate 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 his
completion will turn out. If the Kings and Queens here men-
tioned reprefent the Jlate, the party to be nurfedhy them re-
prefents the church in alliance with them. Now let us go on
with the prophecy, for the learned author hath left it fhort.
They [the Kings and Queens, i. e. the state] Jhall how
down to thee [the church] with their face toward the earth,
and lick up the dujl of thy feet. If this is to be the ultimate com-
pletion of the prophecy, we have reafon to be thankful that
it hath not yet taken place, and that we have no intimation
in the Chrillian fcriptures that it ever will, as the prophecy
is here interpreted. The learned author hath all along
taken it for granted, that church tyranny muft be the con-
fequence of the church's being independent on the ltate,
and hath been at fome pains to load the protejlant alfertors
of this independency with its invidious papifical confe-
quence; being willingly ignorant, as it ihould feem, that
the independency contended for by the advocates for Chriftian
liberty, is not the independency of any wfible focicty , but of
individuals only. But, to take the matter at the very worft,
what will the itate gain by bringing the church into its de-
pendency, if the humiliation above defcribed is to be the ef-
fect of this laboured alliance?

dom

First Edition. lxi

dom which is not, of this world, can "with any pro-
priety be c&Wedfuitable.

Let us now attend to the tipfhot : " An al-
" liance then we mufl conclude the Chriftian
(i church was at liberty to make, notwithftand-
iC 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 doctrines]. But no fuch
" power is granted or ufurped by the fupremacy
" of the (late [which extends only to difci-
" pline] *fi

I mud confefs my ignorance. Till now I have
thought difcipline as proper an object of legifla-
tion as doctrine. And, unlefs Chrift hath left no
rules of difcipline for the fubjefts of his kingdom,
the civil magiftrate and the church too are ex-
cluded from altering difcipline by the fame con-

1 See the Alliance, p. 180. and View of Lord Boling;broke's

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

whole controvcrfy concerning Church- authority of a loofer and
more equivocal iignification that the word difcipline. Rita
and ceremonies are reckoned by fome writers among the ar-
ticles of difcipline. And yet rites and ceremonies may be
idolatrous. 1 'efts and fubferiptions are conhdered by others, un-
der the notion of difcipline; and thus the magiftrate, upon the
principles of the Alliance, may have the power of altering
doctrines. Eifhop Hoadlvfs ftate of the cafe prevents con-
fuhon. Whcre-cverconfcience is concerned, whether in mat-
ters of doctrine or difcipline, there all lawgivers or judges,
Chrift alone excepted, are excluded.

fiderations

Ixii Preface to the

fiderations which prohibit their altering doctrines.
That Chrifl hath left rules or laws of difcipline
for his fubjects, I think I may venture to affert on
the teftimony of the learned author himfelf, who,
when the merits of this complex theory were not
in agitation, could plainly fee the fuperior autho-
rity of the Chriflian defcipline incomparifon with
that of the alliance.

The cafe was this : A certain Chancellor of a
diocefe, an officer appointed to execute the code
of difcipline by the powers in alliance, having
unhappily incurred the learned author's difplea-
fure, is fummoned by him before a foreign ju-
dicatory (a judicatory foreign to that wherein
the faid Chancellor prefided), that is to fay, holy
scripture. If this be really the cafe, what be-
comes of the ALLIANCE?

To this foreign judicatory, however, let us all
appeal ; and, when thefacramental tcjl can ftand
its ground before this tribunal, it will readily be
given up as an object of reformation.

It may now, perhaps, be expected that I ihould
give fome account of a publication, which has in
ir io very little of the complexion of the times,
and which appears at a fcafon, when there is but
lijttle profpecr. of engaging the attention of the
public to fubjects of this nature and tendency.

The reader will perceive, that fome part of
rhefe papers were written at times very diftant
from others, and not in the fame order in which

they

First Edition. lxiii

they now appear. Perfons and fa&s are men-
tioned or alluded to, which, when they were
noticed, were frill upon the flage, but have now
many of them difappcared ; nor has the author
perhaps been fufficiently careful to adjuft his re-
marks upon them to the prcfent period, fo as to
avoid the imputation of anachronifms.

The Free and Candid Difquifitions, and after-
wards the Effay on Spirit, gave occafion to feveral
little pamphlets on the fubje& of a re-view of our
public fervice, and to the difcuflion of feveral
particular points, which were fuppofed to be
proper objects 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

j

thrown, where it was his hap to mention a glar-
ing inconfiilency in the cafe of fubfcription to
our eftabliihed articles of religion. Some gentle-
men of good fenfe and refpectable ftations, then
prefent, exprefled the utmofl furprize on the
occafion ; 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,
though, for the honour of the church, he made an
attempt at a folution by that fort of cafuillry, of
which feveral famples may be met with in the
enfuing difcourfe.

One ot the lay-gentlemen defircd to have the
cafe Hated upon paper, which, after fomc time,

was

lxiv Preface to the

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 form upon the fubjecl: immedi-
ately.

In thofe days, the two principal fees were
filled with two prelates, well known, while they
were in fubordinate if ations, for their zealous at-
tachment to civil liberty, and for their enlarged,
generous, and chriflian fentiments in religion ;
in which one of them perfifled to the lad: moment
of his life, and in the higheft eminence of ftation,
and gave proof of it in a remarkable inilance,
which, when the time comes to give his charac-
ter its full luftre, will do him honour with our
late if potter ity.

Here was then encouragement to venture
fomething for the truth, and on that fair occa-
iion the author methodized and put the flniih-
ing hand to his collections. But a hidden change
in the face of affairs quickly convinced him,
irmt a publication of iuch fentiments would be
now quite out of feafon.

It will certainly now be demanded, if out of

feafon f/joi, what is it that hath brought to light

i work of this fort at a period, when there is

nqt only fo conhdefable a change in the public

2 tafte,

First Edition. Ixv

tafte, but when other circumftances, unfavoura-
ble to the caufe of reformation, feem to diffuade
an enterprize of this kind, for ftill more cogent
reaibns ?

It may look like a paradox to alledge (in an-
iwer to this expoffulation) that there are others
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-
fote, to cover her march ; and the furprizing in-
difference with which fome public and even cla-
morous notices of her progrefs were received,
where, one would have thought, both interefl
and duty were concerned to remark and obflruct
her paffage.

As this is a matter of fome confequence, I
muff beg a little more of the reader's patience
for a few reflexions upon it, having firft rectified
a miftake, into which I was led by a paffage in
the quarto edition of Dr. Madeline's tranflation
of Mejheim's Ecclefiaflical Hiffory.

That paffage runs thus : " Hence, in our times,
<f this great and extenfive community [the reform-
" ed church] comprehends in its bofom, Armini-
" ans, Calvinifls, Supralapfarians, Sublapfari-
" ans, and Univerfaliffs, who live together in
" charity and friendfhip, and unite their efforts in

11 healing

lxvi Preface to the

" healing the breach, and diminifhing the weight
" and importance of thofe controversies which
(t feparate them from the communion of the
" Romijh church V

Having never feen Mojlje'urfs Latin, nor having
any opportunity of confulting it, I did not fuf-
pett any error in the tranflation, but fuppofed
Mojhebn's fenfe was truly reprefented, and on
that fuppofition, remarked upon the paffage, in
the two former editions of The ConfeJJionaL

It now appears, that Dr. Machine, in a very
pardonable monmit of inadvertency, miftook the
fenfe of his author, who meant only to fay,
that " certain Proteftant Setts, living together
<f upon friendly terms, ufe their joint endea-
" vours to diminifli the importance of thofe
" controverted points, which feparate them from
" each other*.

" How fuch a ftrange and groundlefs afper-
c< fion could efcape the pen of our excellent hilto-
" rian, is difficult to conceive. The reformed
" churches were never at fuch a diftance from the
' " fpirit and dottrine of the church of Rome, as
" they are at this day. The improvements in

u Mojheim, Comp. View, p. 574. Vol. II. Dr. Machine's
Tranflation, /j.to.

x Mojheim's words are thefe; " Hinc in ampliflimo hoc
*« ccetu hodie Arminiani, Supralapfarii, Infralapfarii, Uni-
** verfalifts, amice inter fe vivunt, et junclis id agunt vi-
" ribus, ut pondera litium, qua? Chriilianos a Romana
«« communione femotos deflinent, magi? extenuentur et
«t diminuantur." p. 909.

" fcience.

First Edition. lxvii

" fcience, that characterife the lad and prefent
" age, feem to render a relapfe into Romijh fu-
tc perdition morally impoffible in thofe who have
(t been once delivered from its baneful influence.
" If the dawn of fcience and philofophy, towards
" the end of the fixteenth, and the commence-
" ment of the feventeenth century, was fo fa-
" vourable to the caufe of the reformation, how
" mud their progrefs, which has a kind of influ-
" ence even upon the multitude, confirm us in
" the principles that occafioned our reparation
i( from the church of RomeV*

This, I own, is fpecious, and there is no doubt
but the improvements in fcience, 6ft. may feem
in theory to render a relapfe into Romijh fupcr-
ftition morally impoflible with refpect to the re-
formed churches. But I hope Dr. Machine will
excufe me for taking the liberty to obferve, that,
" whether the reformed churches were never at
" inch diltance from die fpiritand doctrine of the
" church of Rome as they are a: this day," is
a quedion of fact, the refclution of which will
not depend fo much upon hypothetical reafon-
ing, as upon the obfcrvation of what has actu-
ally palled in thofe reformed churches.

I am very ready to acknowledge, that l< the
" dawn of fcience and philofophy, towards the
" end of the fixteenth, and the commencement of
" the feventeenth century," was extremely fa-
vourable to the caufe of reformation, and that

the

Ixviii Preface to the

the progrefs of fcience in thofe days, for fame
time, was more favourable flill. But what I
queflion, and what I mould be glad to fee well
proved, is, that " the influence of fcience in pro-
" moting the caufe of reformation, and fubduing
" the fpirit and doctrine of the church of Rome,
" has been equally powerful and fuccefsful in
il thefe latter times, in proportion to the progref-
" five improvement of it V And with refpedt to
this queflion, till I am better fatisfied, I am obli-
ged to hold the negative. Methinks modern hif-
tory, and the fpeculations of fome very judicious
obfervers, have not only ihewn very confiderable
abatements in this influence, but have likewife
very well accounted for them. And fome circum-
ftances are mentioned in the enfuing trait, not al-
together foreign to this purpofe.

On another hand ; has there been no progrefs,
no improvement in fcience and philofophy in
popifh countries? This cannot be faid. Are the
improvements in thefe articles in fome of thofe
countries, lefs or fewer, than in any reformed
country ? Neither will this be affirmed. What
intelligence, then, have we from thofe popifh
countries where thefe improvements are the
mod confpicuous, of a proportionable progrefs
of religious reformation in them? In what re-
fpecl is either the fpirit or the doclrine of the
church eilablifhed in thofe countries altered from
what it was in the days of Galileo f Mr. ilfof-
laine informs us at the end of this note, that

" the

First Edition. hi*

** the ejfential chara&er of Popery is a fpirit of
u deipotifm and perfecution, founded upon an
" extravagant and ridiculous pretention to infal-
u libility," in which I moit cordially agree with
him >'. And as long as this pretenfion lafts, we
fhall in vain look for any alteration either in the
fpirit or doftrine of the church which makes it.

y The learned and benevolent Dr. Wortbington, in his
Effay on the fbeme and condu£ly procedure and extent of Man's
Redemption, publifhed 1743, p. 156, hath intimated as if
fome of the grofler errors of popery had of late been ex-
plained in a manner more agreeable to truth and fcripture
[.than heretofore]. I fuppofe he might have the emollients
of the late bifhop of Meaux in his eye, mod of which have
been fince difowned, and fome of them, if I miitake notP
condemned by his own church. The truth is, thefe expla-
nations were, as' the worthy Doctor properly expre/Tes its
forced from the faid bifhop and his coadjutors by the very
nature of the fervice to which they were applied. The fame
entertaining and inltruftive writer adds, a little lower, " Nor
" do the papifts at prefent feem to thirll fo much after pro-
" teftant blood." But this, however, he qualifies by fay-
ing, " though there is reafon to fufpeel that they ftill retain
" but too much of the old- leaven, durji they fuffer it te
" work out." Since the time that this obfervation was made,
we have had' repeated inftances of the old leaven's working
as much as ever, and' of its being quite ready to Work out,
both in this and a neighbouringcountry,upon the f.rftfavour-
able occafion. For my part, I cannot but look upon thefecon-
ceffions, even with thefe drawbacks upon them, as inffances
of an eajinefs towards popery in proteftants of the prefent
age, unknown to our forefathers, and for which, however,
they had full as much reafon as we have. It is well
known, by fome late productions of popifh advocates, what
life they make of thefe concefhons from protectants, even
h Th^

ixx Preface te the

Tht feeming moral impojfibility oi proteftants re-
lapfing into popery, to whatever it may amount^
may, perhaps, be more reafonably accounted for
(efpecially among the multitude) from the in-
fluence of education, and particularly from an
early and familiar acquaintance with the fcrip-
tures, than from any improvements in human
fcience. It mud indeed be confefTed, that hu-
man fcience has been eminently ufeful in the
advancement of fcripture-knowledge among
fcholars ; but this has been the mod remarkable
in points of inferior importance. In a gofpel
preached to the poor, and, confequently, adapted
to all capacities, one would naturally look for a
plainriefs and fimplicity which does not want the
elucidations of human fcience, in thofe articles
at lead which are of univerfal concern to people
of all ranks and degrees. Accordingly we find
this character given of, and fully exemplified in,
the Gofpel of Chrift. And this plainnefs and
fimplicity applies fo materially to the confuta-
tion of the errors of Popery, that, even in the
infancy of the Reformation, and where improve-
ments in human fcience were totally out of the
queltion, the common people, only by reading
the fcriptures in their mother tongue, were en-
while they themfelves (confcious of the truth of the cafe)
are unable to fhew, either from matters of fa&, or any
real modification of their ancient principles, that they have
the lead right to them. How long is this delufion to laft,
and where will it end ?

i abled

First Edition. lxxi

abled to put to filence the fubtileft of the popilh
doctors with whom they were engaged, as may
be feen in a variety of inftances in Fox's Mar-
tyrolugy. And notwithstanding the kind of influ-
ence that fcience and philoibphy may be fuppofed
to have upon the multitu.de of thefe days, I very
much queltion wrhether an equal number of
them would acquit themfelves lo well in the like
conflicts.

As to the proficients in modern fcience and
philofophy, I make a very confiderable differ-
ence between the fund of this kind of learning
they lay in, and the actual influence it has upon
them, with refpect to their religious opinions.
To fuppofe the influence equal to thefe improve'
tnents, is to fuppofe that a large majority of man-
kind will always be governed by their own con-
victions, and that no worldly motives or tempta-
tions whatever will feduce them into compliances
and conformities to what they know to be wrong.
There is the ftrongeft prefumption that the mat-
ter of fact is juft contrary to this fuppofition,
not to mention the indifference and fecularity of
the prefent times in comparifon of the zeal and
piety of the jirji proteftants. The queftion,
however, as I faid above, is a queftion of fact,
and to be determined by what has actually hap-
pened among the reformed in thofe regions
where thefe motives and temptations are laid in
their way. Have we no reafon to fufpect, that

h 2 if

txxii Preface to the

if an accurate account were to be taken for aa
century backwards, the balance in point of con-
verfions in thofe Roman Catholic countries which
are the mofk improved in fcience and philoibphy,
would be greatly againft the reformed reli-
gion ?

While I took Dr. Machine's tranflation of the
paifage abovementioned to exhibit the true fenfe
of his author, I imagined Mojheim might chiefly
. have had in his eye the doctrines of Arminianifm,
concerning which, the more rational members of
the federal reformed churches,, fo called, are now
faki to. entertain more temperate fentiments than
heretofore. According to Dr. Maclaine, " Ar-
" minianifm may be faid to be predominant
a among the members of the church of Eng-
" land'1'.''' I imagine it may have prevailed in
fome degree, among individuals in fome other
reformed churches abroad, befides thofe of the
Remonftrants. But it will hardly be denied, that
fome of the doclrines of Anninhts have a mani-
feft tendency to diminifh the weight and im-
portance of certain controverfies that feparated
the firjl proteftants from the communion of the
church of Rome.

On another hand, improvements in philofo-
phy, or fomething fo> called, are faid to have
made many fceptics in religion, in all churches
reformed and unrcformed. And fcepticifm,.

1 See Dr. Machines next note.

when,.

First Edition. Ixxiii

when, in a melancholy or a departing hour, it
is mixed, as frequently has been the cafe, with
a certain degree of appreheniion of what may
be hereafter, is very apt to take its repofe in the
bofomof that church which offers the fpeedieft
and mod effectual fecurity every way, without
putting the perplexed patient to the trouble of
examining and determining for himfelf. And
of all the churches in chriftendom, that which
offers this fort of fecurity with the greateft con-
fidence, is, out of all -question, the church of
Rome \

a The improvements in fcience and philofophy in the laft
and prefent ages have, perhaps, never been exhibited to more
advantage than in the famous French work called Encyclopedic.
It is well known, however, that the freedoms taken with re-
vealed religion in fome articles of it, occafioned a public cen-
fure to be patted upon it, and, if I miftake not, a prohibition
with refpedl to the fale of it. The gentlemen chiefly con-
cerned in that noble compilation, are the greateft geniufes of
France. It is needlefs to mention their names. They are
eminent all over Europe. I have been informed, that all, or
moftof them, profefs the Roman Catholic religion, and com-
ply with the forms of that church. Without inquiring into
the nature of the imprefiions thofe forms make upon them,
we may prefume they will conform to the end. — In the laft
age Cardinal Richelieu was called an dtheijl over and over.
Father Caujfftn infinuated fomething very like it to the king
himfelf, and gave inftances. Richelieu was a man of fcience,
and an encourager of its progrefs. When he came to die, all
fufpicions of his heterodoxy vaniihed. He went through the
minuteft fuperftitions of the church, even though he was told
by the curate who attended him, that fome of them might be
difpenfed with on account of his quality. See Vie dt Cardinal

h 3 But

Ixxiv Preface to the

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 in any other: I mean the fcience of poli-
tics, which, as fome think, has had no obfcure
effects upon them all. And church-politics, in
reformed countries, chiefly aim at accommo-
dating all the peculiarities in their refpeclive
iyftems, as much as may be, to the religion of
the magiftrate; a conduct, which, out of all
doubt, cannot be defended in every in/lance,
upon any principles which are of proteftant ori-
ginal. It is the fame fort of policy which hath
laid to fleep ib many controverfies among the
reformed, which fome perhaps may think a
bleffmg. Controverfies, however, have had this
good in them : they have kept the feveral
parties among the reformed upon their guard,
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 fublided.
It is a good hearing, if it hath not funk along
with it, the Jimplicity, godly fincerity, and truly
apojlolical zeal, of our firfl reformers againfl po-
pery : otherwife we may have no great occafion
to rejoice ; and fhould be feht to learn what that

puc de Richelieu, Cologne, 1696, p. 313 and 592 of the fe-
pond volume. The French Memoirs afford other examples in
great abundance.

meaneth,

First Edition. lxxv

meaneth, my peace I leave with you, my peace I
give unto you; not as the world giveth,

GIVE I UNTO YOU b.

b Dr. Maclainet\n the fecond of three Appendixes fubjoined
to the new edition of his tranflation of Mojheints Ecclefiafti-
<ral Hiftory, hath replied to this reprefentation ; alledging,
that, " the excefjive apprehenfions of the author of The Con-
" fejponal, of the progrefs of popery, have had an undue in-
U fluence on his method of reafoning on this fubject."
Being thus called to a rehearing, let us once more ftate the
propofitions advanced by the Doctor in the note of his
former edition, 'viz. l. That the reformed churches ivere
never at fuch a difiance from the fpirit and dodrine of the Church
cf Rome, as at this day. 2. That the danun of fcience and
philofophy toivards the end of the fixteenth, and the commencement
cf the fcuenteenth century, bt ing favourable to the caufe of Re-
formation, the progrefs of them in the/e latter limes muft be fill
more favourable, and confirm us in the principles that occafioned
cur feparation from the church o/*Rome. In this Preface, the
(matter of fact afTerted in the former of thefe propofitions
is difputed : in the latter, the premifles are admitted, and
only the confequence drawn from them called in queflion.
But, before we proceed to confider the Doctor's manner of
fupporting his opinions, let us flop to contemplate the
fingular fituation of this fecond Appendix. It is not a little
remarkable that it ftands between tnva others, in the fir/? of
which, the Doctor finds himfelf obliged to defend the firll
Reformers, againft a charge of Enthufiafm, brought by a
modem protefiani philofopher, of the firlt reputation, even in
Dr. Maclaine's elteem : In the latter, the Doctor undertakes
the defence of a Proteflant prelate entering into a corre-
fpondence with fome Popifh doctors, for the purpofe of
bringing about an union between the protectant church, in
which he prefided, and the church of Rome. In dealing
with the philofopher, Dr. Maclaine is reduced to the neceflity
of allowing, that there was not only a fpecies of enthufia/m,

li 4 But,

txxvi Preface to the

But, not to lay too much flrefs upon circum*
jlances,, fuppofitions, and inferences from mere

but a large mixture of human pajfions , and even of intemperate
xeal, in the firlt reformers ; concefiions, which, I can allure
him, the author of The Confejjional would not have made,
but under reftrictions very different from thofe which feem
to have occurred to Dr. Maclaine. In my humble opinion,
the Dodtor had done much better, had he left the philofo-
pher in the hands of the writer of thofe incomparable letters
on Mr. Enmes Hiftory, to which he hath referred his rea-
ders. A°d ^o, it feems, have fome others thought ; for it
hath been obferved, that the Doftor, in this ftri&ure on Mr.
Hume, hath Jhified the ground of the contro<verfy, more than
once. [Crit. Review, Oclober 1769, p. 243, 244.] But that
:s not my bufmeff, which is only to fhew by this inftance,
that modern improvements in fcience and philofophy have
been rather unfavourable to the caufe of Reformation. It is
true Dr. Maclaine tells us, [Appendix ii. p. 12. of the 4to
edition] that " neither the fcience nor the genius of Mr.
Hume are the caufes of his fcepticifm." But I am of opinion,
Mr. Hume would, in this cafe, appeal from the perfuafion and
equitable affirmation of Dr. Maclaine, to the judgement of his
peers, where, I dare fay, he would be fure of a verdicl. The
refult is, upon the y/hole, that Dr. Maclaine undertakes, in
hi sfecorj Appendix, to fupport an hypothefis, which is moll
unfortunately contralled by the cafe exhibited in his firft.
The counterpoife'va his third Appendix is Hill more unlucky
for his proportion, that the reformed churches nvere never at
Juch a diftancefrotn the fpirit and doilrine of the church of Rome,
as they are at this day. It holds forth to public view, a prelate
at the head of that church, which the Doctor in his tranfla-
tion of Mcjheim's hiftory dignifies with the title of the chief
and leading branch of that great community, ivhich goes under
the denomination of the reformed church, entering into a corre-
spondence with certain dodors of the Sorbonne, in order to
promote an union with their popifh church, on the foot qf

appearances,

First Edition. Ixxvii

appearances, let us attend to a remarkable fact,

mutual concejfions. It exhibits the opinion of a learned and
ingenious pallor of a coniiderable proteflant church in a
neighbouring country (who cannot be fuppofed to be a Gran-
ger to the fentiments of his fellow-paftors in that religion)
that the faid prelate was greatly in the right to enter into this
correfpondence. Every one now knows whence Dr. Machine
had his materials for the defence of this prelate, as well as
the fpirit and quality of thofe protejlant clergymen by whom
he was encouraged to undertake it, one of them, perhaps,
in the higheft range of ecclefiailical importance. And are
we frill to belii ve that the reformed churches were never at
fuch a diitance from the fpirit and doctrine of the church
of Rome, as at this day ? — The matter might very fafely be
jefted here ; for the Doctor profeifes only to confirm his Theory
in this fecond Appendix, and attempts that, only by bringing
prefumptive evidence, which is far from being conclufive as
to the matter of facl in difpute. But, as this kind of evi-
dence is apt to be taken by fome forts of readers for more
than its real value, it may be proper, for the fake of fuch, to
examine to what Dr. Machine's proofs amount, towards the
decifion of the queitions before us. In the ftrft place, we
have a quotation from D'Alembert, fetting forth, the fuperio-
rity of the Proteflant Univerfities in Germany, in comparifon
with thofe of the Romiih perfuanon, p. 15. But has
D'Alembert (hewn, that thefe univerfities had clone, or were
doing, any thing towards advancing the Proteflant refor-
mation, in proportion to this fuperiority ? Can Dr. Machine
apply this citation from Mr. D'Alembert in evidence of this
advancement ? No, he does not pretend to it. He contents
himfelf with inferring from this fuperiority, " the connex-
" ion there is between improvements in fcience, and the
"free fpirit of the reformed religion." An original con-
nexion of this kind there nvas without doubt ; but the
queition is, does it fcill continue ? Will Dr. Machine affirm,
that it is impoflible thefc improvements in fcience fhould be

brought

lxxviii Preface to the

brought indeed on another occafion by Dr. Mo-

going on, while the free fpir it of the reformed religion is un-
der manifeft controul from other caufes ? The queftion be-
tween us is, concerning the influence thefe improvements
in fcience actually ha<ve in promoting the caufe of the re-
formation, and not concerning the influence they might
or ought to have., in virtue of the fuppofed connexion.
Does Dr. Madeline fuppofe that D'Alembert's sorrow arofe
from the confideration, that the reformed religion made no
quicker progrefs in the popifti univerfities of Germany ? On
another hand, would theDoftor conclude, from thepublication
of one wrong-headed book in fo large a city as Vienna, that
the Roman Catholics of Germany had none of the free fpirit
efthe reformed religion among them ? As it happens, there is
recorded an illuftrious inftance to the contrary. In lefs than
two years after the appearance of this Arijlotelic fyftem, viz*
Jan. i, 1752, John Joseph De Trautfohn, Archbifliop of Vi-
enna, publifhed a paftoral Letter to the clergy within his ju-
rifdiftion, wherein he laments, with great zeal and freedom,
the devotional regard paid by his flock to apocryphal reve-
lations, precarious miracles, indulgences granted to particular
churches, the nuorjhip paid to particular faints, the trujl re-
fofed in their images, in procejjions, confraternities, and other
fuperflitious dotages (fuperftitiofa deliramenta) ; feverely
reproving the preachers, for leading the attention of the
poor people to thefe external trifles, and omitting to inftrutt
them in the falutary doctrines of the nvord of God ; of which
he fpeaks in the fame ftrain, and with the fame venera-
tion, that a zealous Proteftant would do. What proficiency
this worthy prelate has made in philofophy, and what are
called the liberal fciences, does not appear ; his appeal is
to the nvord of God only, to which he fuppofes the reft of
his clergy might have as free accefs as he had ; and the
Arijlotelic fyftem could not be fuppofed to have any influ-
ence in obftrufting a reformation built upon that foundation.
Not to mention, that the ftate and quality of this illuftri-
ous prelate might be fuppofed to promote a reform in re-

fieim,

First Edition. lxxix

Jheim, but which fully juftifies his obfervation

ligion, as much at lead as the work of an obfcure monk
could be fuppofed to retard it. What was the event? The
Archbifhop was cenfured and filenced, for reafons merely
political. And has not fomething parallel to this happened
in Proteflant flates, where the free fpirit of the reformed
religion once ftione out with as much luftre as in any

other country? The little appearance of the free fpirit

of the reformed religion in Italy zndSpain obliges the Do&or
to fay, that " thofe countries are ftill under the gloom of
" the canon law, monkifh literature, and fcholaflical me-
■' taphyfics." With refpeft to Italy indeed he acknowledges,
that " fome rays of philofophical light are now breaking
" through the cloud. Bofcovicb," he tells us, " and fome
" geniufes of the fame {tamp, have dared to hold up the
" lamp of fcience, without feeling the rigour of the in-
" quifition, or meeting with the fate of Galilei. H this
«<«dawning revolution," continues the Doctor, * be brought
** to any degree of perfection, it may, in due time, pro-
cc duce effects, that at prefent we have little hopes of."
But will not the Italians tell him, that he is rating their im-
provements too low ? There is one Baretti, now or lately
refident in England, who hath given us a copious account of
the manners and cuftoms of his countrymen, among whom
he reckons up above feventy learned men by name, as
** a few among the learned of Italy, with whofe conver-
" fation and works he is Aire any Englifhman will be
" pleafed, let bis knowledge be ever fo great and multifarious."
p. 217, 2 1 8. vol. I. He gives us, moreover, a long lift of
books, in almoft all branches of learning, produced in the
Angle town of Brefcia, from the year 1724 [which is much
about the time when VAlembert (Deftruction des Jefuites,
p. 103) fays, the philofophers began to be liltened to in France]
to the year 1766. That this Baretti h a man of fcience, there
is upon record the teftimony of men whofe judgment neither
Dr. Madeline nor I mud be bardy enough to difpute. This,

above

Ixxx Preface to the

above cited, and is the more interefling to us, as

I fhould think, is much more than a daivning towards the
decree of perfection, upon which the Doctor feems to build
fome hopes. What effects then has it produced hitherto ?
"Would Dr. Madame think it ? This very man of learning, not
having the fear of Philofophy before his eyes, moll ftrenu-
oufly defends all the fuperftitious procejjioas and rareejheixis
of his country, not only as harmlefs, but as of the greater!
public utility ; fneering, in the warmth of his zeal (but furely
with fufficient impudence], the manners and cuftoms of the
country which entertains and protects him, by way of con-
traft. Nor is this all. This very learned man, after ac-
knowledging the difficulties and disadvantages which his
countrymen lie under with refpect to the publication and
fale of their works, perfectly fh udders at the thoughts of a
free prefs, " left the Pope fhould be called Antichrif,
*' and mother church a whore;" which, in his ideas,
would be irreligion ; very politely dignifying thofe who

do not agree with him, with the name of dunces.

From Italy, pafs we back to France, where the Doctor feems
to allow that very confiderabie improvements in learning
and fcience have taken place. And here the Doctor thinks
?#' he might grant, that the balance of con<verfons in this country,
*' if an accurate account could be taken, ivould be againfl the re-
" formed religion, without giving up any thing he maincain-
*- ed in his note." That is to fay, without giving up his
theory, 'viz. that " the progrefs of fcience and learning
" muft confirm the reformed in the principles that occafioned
" their feparation from the church of Rome;" and the con-
sequence thereupon depending, namely, that " the reformed
*' churches were never at fuch a diftance from the fpirit and
*« doctrine of the church of Rome, as at this day." I ihould
however think it pretty difficult to maintain an hypothefis,
after allowing matters of fact which are juft contrary to it.
However the Doctor will not thus give uphistheory ; and where
do we find him in the end of the conteft ? Even in the quar-
ters of his antagonift, brought thither indeed by a round-
it

First Edition. l'xxxi

k immediately relates to our own eftablifhed
church.

about way, and a little parade of fkirmiihing for his caufe^
but effectually deferring it, by allowing all that his adver-
fary contends for, vix. " that political confiderations and
u fecular views are too hard for the influence of fcience,
" and the conviftion of principle, and that the heroifm re.
" quired to counteract them, even in this enlightened
" country of France, is a thing too rare in modern times."
The point of honour I willingly refign to the worthy
Doctor ; that is to fay, the honour of exprefling my fenti-
ments in better language than I have done myfelf. In the
fecond place, the Doctor admits, that men eminent for learn-
ing and genius have adhered ferioufy to the profeflion of
Popery. " But what,'1 he afks, " does it prove ?" and then
anfwers, " It only proves that in fuch perfons, there are
** ciraanjlances that counteract the natural influence of learning
" and fcience," which is all I defire it to prove. For, this
being granted, I will take the liberty to add, that fuch cir-
cumjlances are not peculiar to fuch men of genius and learning
as adhere ferioufly to the profeflion of Popery. Does not Dr.
Maclaine mean to account for the fceptic'fm of Meflrs. Hume
and D'Alembert in the very fame way ? And what advantage
will Dr. Madame gain in favour of his theory, till he has
proved that fuch circumjlances are not common to a majority of
of men eminent for genius and learning of all religious de-
nominations ? If this fafi is really againft him, how will his
barely attempting to account for it ferve his hypothefis P —
At length the Doctor appeals to particular fatts, the principal
of which are, the oppofition the Pope's authority hath met
with in France, Spain, and Portugal, and the expulfion of the
Jefuits from thofe three kingdoms. The Dr. feems to fpeak
of the firft of thefe articles as a neav phenomenon. As if
this oppofition had not happened in all thefe countries before
the dawn of learning and fcience as well zsfnce ! As if it had
not happened over and over, that while one of thefe powers

« As

Ixxxii Preface to the

" As to the fpirk of the eftablifhed church of

was oppofing the Pope's authority, another of them was
viooroufly fupporting it ! As if France itfclf had not reje&ed
and fubmitted to the Pope's authority by turns, almoft ever
fince there was a Pope and a King of France ! As if this late,
or if he pleafes this prefent oppofition to the Pope's authority,
were owing to the influence of learning and fcience, and not
merely to the politics of the day ! Archbifhop Wake, I dare
fay, will find more credit with Dr. Maclaine than I can pre-
tend to. ** We,'' fays the Archbifhop, " honeftly deny the
" Pope all authority over us. They pretend in words, to
" allow him fo much as is confident with what they call their
*' Galilean Privileges. But let him ufe it never fo little
«• contrary to their good-liking, they proteft againft it, ap-
<c peal to a general council, and then mind him as little as
" we can do." [See Dr. Maclaine's third Appendix 410,
p. 49.] which his Grace might have confirmed by examples
from hiftory for feveral hundreds of years backwards. The
fame might be (hewn of Spain and Portugal, if the compafs
of a note (already perhaps too long) would admit of it. I
humbly hope Dr. Maclaine would not put upon us the expul-
fion of the Jefuits (who, by the way, were not a little inftru-
mental in depriving the faintly legend of its faireft honours)
as the effeft of learning and fcience in progreflion. Befides
their being a very learned and fcientific body of men, Mr.
jyAlembert as good as owns, that, wicked as they were, reafon
and jujiice would not have compafled their expulfion, without
their handmaids, human pajjlon and per/oval hatred. \DeJl.
des Jefuites, P, i. p. 13.] The Venetian editt concerning
the Inquifition, is not more than (if fo much as) the revival
of certain laws of their Hate, enatted before the time of Father
Paul. In one word, I would not have Dr. Maclaine be too
fure that the blo-w given to the Pope's abfolute power, in
France, will be mortal. The reftoration of the Jefuits, even in
that kingdom, may, for aught he or I know, happen in no
long time, and with it as much deference for his Holinefs-

t( England,

First Edition. lxxxiii

" England, fays Dr. Mofieim, in relation to thofe

as ever he had among them. Who knows what the religious
or political fentiments of their next monarch, upon thefe
heads, may be? I am much miltaken if Mr. D'Altmbert him-
felf is void of fufpicion, that the reftoration of the Jefuits
may one day take place [u. f. p. 200, 201]. If our news
from Italy may be depended upon, his Holinefs hath already
told the King of France, that not only a number of Roman-
catholic princes, but even one Protejiant .monarch is againft
the abolition of the Jefuits ; and hath dexteroufly enough
turned upon the French their own doctrine, that a council is
above the Pope, whence it may come to pafs, that the French,
in order to induce the Pope to decree the abolition, may be
forced to acknowledge that his Holinefs is at lead above the
council of Trent, which, his Holinefs fays, authori/ed the
Jefuits. \Vid. St. James's chronicle, November z\, 1 769.]
The truth of the matter feems to be this : Popiih princes,
though ever fo liberally minded, and free from vulgar preju-
dice's, while they are furrounded with a bigoted and avari-
cious clergy, can make no way for thofe improvements in
fcience, from which the correction of popular fuperftition
might mod hopefully be expected. The maxims alfo of their
own flatefmen and political philofophers will obftrudl their
endeavours on another hand. We have feen what the fcientific
Baretti hath faid on the fubject. I will now give an anecdote
to illuftrate the influence of the clergy, when oppofed to the
fentiments of the prince in a late inftance; for the authen-
ticity of which I do not pretend to anfwer ; but fuch as it is,
together with my authority for it, it is at the reader's fervice.
" Dr. Turberville Needham lately received an invita-
" tion from the King of Portugal, to read lectures of philo-
** fophy at Lijbon, which the doctor very gladly accepted.
** In one of his difcourfes, as he was endeavouring to ex-
M plain the Newtonian fyftem to his auditors, he was interrup-
" ted by an officer of the Holy Inquifition, who aiked him,
" whether what he advanced was per the/in, or hypothcjin P

" who

Ixxxir Preface to the

•' who difTent from its rule of doctrine and go-

M The do&or, luckily for himfelf, anfwered the latter.
** Had he faid, the former, he would, in all probability-,
" have been clapt up in the inquifition. However, the doftor
" took the firft opportunity of getting on board an Englifh
" fhip, and bade farewel to Lifoon."" Public Ledger,
Saturday, November n, 1769. The Philofopher was fen-
fible how little he could avail himfelf, in fuch a cafe, even of
the King's protection. — It might have been expected
that Dr. Maclaine would have faid fomething in fupport of
his affertion, that " the reformed churches were never at
*' fuch a diftance from the fpirit and doctrines of the church
•' of Rome, as they are at this day." It had been a comforta-
ble hearing, that the reformed churches of Saxony and HeJJet
and fome others, have found no imprefiions made upon them
by the converfion of their refpe&ive fovereigns. It hath
been known in fome cafes, that political confiderations have
had as much weight with the fubjects of fuch fovereigns, as
learning and fcience. The doctor calls the negative of his
propofition a paradox; butfeems to decline entering into tclofe
examination of It, in the hope that the fact may not be true;
giving broad hints however, that the moment the proof ap-
pears, he is prepared to account for it ; and I will not deny
that I have half a mind to fet him to work. In the firft place
with refpect to doctrines, I mean fuch as are merely theolo-
gical. It is well known that concerning fome of thefe, there
are divisions among the Papifts, as well as among the Pro-
teftants. The Jefuits, the chief fupport of the Papacy, think
and teach upon the points of predellination and grace as the
Arminians do among the reformed. The Janfenifts hold
the doctrine of St. Auftin, which is underftood to be the
doctrine of the Calvinijh ; accordingly the Janfenifs are
conftantly reproached by their fellow-catholics, as heretics,
of the fame kidney with Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, &c. ;
and indeed, purfue the doctrine of the fa7ijemjis to its obvi-
ous confequences, and there is an utter end of all the.im-

<l vernmenv

First Edition. lxxxv

" verriment, we fee it no Where better than in the

menfe trcafures of the church, arifing from the dottrine
of merit, fupererogation, &c. Dr. Madeline will hardly deny,
that Arminianifm hath gained, and is Hill gaining, ground in
the reformed churches. I leave him to draw the conclufion.
Again, the reformed who call themfelves orthodox hold, as
the church of Rome does, the docTxine of the feparate exigence
of the foul ; and thofe among them who make the revivifcence
of thefoul.as well as of the body, to depend upon the redemp-
tion purchafed by ChriH, are Higmatized as Sadducees, Soul-
fleepers, Materializes, and what not that is odious. Yet no-
thing more certain than that popifh purgatory, faint-wor/bipi
and other idolatrous practices, have their whole authority
from the doctrine of the feparate exiftence of the foul, which
has been acknowledged, by fcmeofthemoflinlightened among
the reformed j to be a doctrine rather oSthc light of nature, or the
light ofphilofophy, than of the word of God. Among the papills
indeed it Hands upon another bottom, viz. the canon of a
venerable council, with a pope at its head. And fo much for
Aoclrines. — Thejpirit of Popery (theimpofing, intolerant fpirit)
has indeed been difavowed in words, by mofl of the reformed
churches, but too much adopted in practice in all of them.
It is true, they have been at diiferent periods, and according
to the different difpofitions of their civil rulers, at a Greater
or a lefs diltance from it ; and perhaps not at the greateji
at this prefent time. I am he.irtily forry there fhouJd be fo
affecting an inflance of this, as is exhibited in the cafe of Mr.
Herport of Berne, a worthy fellow-labourer in the caufe of
religious liberty. Poffibfy Dr. Madeline may treat this in-
flance en bagatelle ; for I obferve he fays, " It is itraining
" matters too far to alledge the demand of fubfeription, as
" a proof that the eftablilhed church is verging towards po-
" Perv>" P- >7- This, and what goes jufl before, is Hating
the matter very favourably for the efiablifhed church. But
they who confider with what circumflanccs that demand is
accompanied, and in what a refufal to comply with it al-
ways ends, will find it very diJficult to overlook fomethinp-

i il conduft

lxxxvi P R e f a c e to the

" conduct of Dr. Wake, archbifhop of Canterbury,

in the procefs verging towards the fpirit of Popery. And
when it is further examined, what has been lately advanced,
in fupport of the demand, by certain writers, who would
gladly pafs in the world for pillars of the eftablifhed church,
one might proceed a good deal further, and fay very jultly
of the le particular writers, that it will require very little mo-
dification of their principles, mould they, in other refpedls^
find their account in pairing over to the very tents of Popery.
They would have lefs to do than thofe, who, in DrI Mac-
laine's opinion, are verging towards the Reformation. — The
Doclorintimates (with fome caution and obfeurity indeed) that
the Methodists are the molt likely to make way for Pope-
iv, of any other feci; within the pale of the Reformation,
" on account of their fanaticiftn, difcrediting _/>*■<? inquiry,
" crying down human laming, pretending to illuminations
te and impu'fes, and the like," p. 17. On thefe heads, let
the Methodills anfwer for themfelves. I will only obferve,
that one of thefe accufations comes a little out of due time,
and with no very good grace, after the expulfion of fix Un-
dents from a famous univerfity, whither they came for the
purpofe of acquiring human learning; and whofe only crime
was their profefling the tenets, and following the devotional
practice, of the Methodifts fo called, wherein there was no-
thing difcernible either of the doilrines or the fpirit of
Popery. But the Methodifts fay, there was a fpice of both
in the courfe of the proceedings againft them, which might
perhaps have admitted of fome little difpute, if fomebody
had not put it into Dr. NoivelPs head to apologize for the
expellers After which, indeed, more of the proteltant pro-
feflion than the methodills, were furprifed to find how far
and how fuddenlyour improvements in learning and fcience
had carried us back towards the pious and catholic quarters
of mother church. — I will not pretend to guefs for what
reafon Dr. Maclainc, on this occafion, takes the church of
England more efpecially into his patronage, rather than
other reformed churches. PoJJibly he might be invited to

" who

First Edition. Ixxxvil

<( who formed a project of peace and union be-

this labour of io<ve by thofe who fUrnlflied him with mate-
rials for the defence of Archbifhop Wake. If that was the
cafe, it is reafonable enough to fnppofe he muft have been
favoured by the fame hands with his information, at what
d-ilance we are at this day from the church of Rome. But
were they who are not offended, that Popifb Bijhops go about*
and exercife every part of their fundion among us, likely to
give him an impartial itate of fafts of the fame tendency ?
Would they be forward to tranfmit to him the accounts pub-
lifhed by our modern travellers of the numbers of our pro-
teltant youth educated in popifh feminaries abroad ? or
the intelligence we have, from time to time, of Romr-n-
catholic feminaries and their defignation in our own coun-
try ? Is it likely the Doftor fhould be informed by thofe
gentlemen, of certain decorations in fome of our places of
Protejlant •u.orfiip, copied from the leading objedts of Po-
pifh fuperflition ? The toleration of & PopiJh Bifhcp and
popifh fcminary at <%gebec (from which, if I am rightly in-
formed, very difagreeable confluences are likely to en-
fue) is a matter of more general notoriety. — In a printed
fheet now before me, intituled, " The cafe of the Protejlant
" Dijfenters in Nova Scotia impartially flated, and hum-
'* bly recommended," it is fet forth, that the Roman Ca-
tholic inhabitants of this Colony " are ailcwed, for rca-
" fans of fate, to have a prieft among them, with a mainte-
*' nance provided for him,*' while many of the protellant
diffenting minifters there, " men of character, and regu-
"' larly educated for the mini iiry,— are in the moil diftref-
" fed condition, and mult be obliged either to leave the
"province, or to flarve there, unlefs fome relief and afiift-
" slice can be procured for them." Now, ftrilcing as this
reprefentation is, I am apt to believe, from certain to-
kens in the body of The Cafe, as well as from fome other
confiderations, that it mull have undergone fome modifi*
cation fince it cro'fed the ocean. Suppofing the law to be
open in that province for diifenters of all denominations,

12 " twee a

Sxxxviii Preface to the

" tween the Englijh •a.ndGallican churches, found -

Popijb as well as Proteftant, a maintenance provided (without
faying by whom) for a Popifh Priefl, while the minifters
officiating among the Proteftant diflenters are fuffered
to ftarve, would be an inftance of partiality fomeivhere, not
very favourable to Dr. Machine's hypothefis. But when it
is underftood, that there is a law in this province, enact-
ing, that every Popijb Prieft, or per/on exercijing tbefunclion
of a Popijb Prieji ', Jhall depart out of this Province on or he-
fore tbe 2$tb day of March 1759; and if any fucb perfon or
perfons Jhall he found in tbe Province after tbe faid day, he
or they Jhall upon conviclion be adjudged to fuffer perpetual
imprijonment ', and if any perfon or perfons, fo imprifoned, Jhall
tfcape out of prifon, be or they Jhall be adjudged guilty of
felony without benefit of clergy ; and enacting farther, that
any perfon or perfons who Jhall knowingly harbour, re-
lieve, conceal, or entertain any fucb clergyman ef
the church of Rome, or Popifh Prieji, or perfon exercijing
the function of a Popijh Prieji, Jhall forfeit ffty pounds, one
moiety to his MajeJly,for the fupport of his government in this
Province, the other to the informer, and Jhall alfo be adjudged
to be fet in tbe pillory, and to find fureties for bis good beha*
viour at the difcretion of the court ; — when, I fay, it is un-
derftood, that this is a pofnive law in the Province where
a Popifli Priefl hath, for reafons of fate, a maintenance
provided for him, is it credible that the Proteftant folici-
tors of Nova Scotia ihould not ftrengthen their cafe with
a circumftance of ft) high importance to all his Majefty's
Proteftant fubjecls as well as themfelves ? Are they who
defy the Law of the Province in this open manner, in fa-
vour of Popery, likely to have dealt either legally or equi-
tably with the Proteftant DifTenters there ? and can it be
fuppofed, that the fufferers would fupprefs an account of
their hardfliips of that kind, in recommending their cafe,
and requesting relief from the Proteftant mother-country ?
This fpirit of timidity and accommodation is not methinks
natural to the colonifts of the prefent period. But this

"ed

First Edition. Ixxxix

(t ed upon this condition, that each of the two

muft be left to the determination of thofe through whofe
hands (his cafe (moil remarkable, even in its prefent
condition) hath parted to the prefs. It is only a conjec7ure„
which may or may not be well grounded, and for which
I have no great occafion in Hating a fact fo glaringly
inconfiftent with Dr. Madeline's prefumptions. — What has
pafled in Grenada is of a more ferious nature (till ; but
as that rpatter is now in agitation, and may become the
object of public inquiry, I mall only give the reprefenta-
tion of it from a feafonable and falutary caution which
has appeared in four or five at leail of our public News*
papers fince the commencement of this prefent year 1770:

THE PROTESTANTS OF THE THREE KINGDOMS AND CO-
LONIES ARE REQUESTED SERIOUSLY TO CONSIDER WHAT
IS NOW TRANSACTING IN THE ISLAND OF GRENADA,
AND HOW FAR THE GRANTING LEGISLATION AND MA-
GISTRATURE TQ PAPISTS MAY AFFECT THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE REFORMATION AND REVOLUTION. See the St,

'James's Chronicle, Thurfday January 18, 1770. — Dr. Mac-
laine may very fafely exercife his pen in accounting for
thefe fads, without coming within the cafe of a com-
mentator on the Golden Tooth ; and it is devoutly to be
wifhed, he may be able to do it without afcribing thefe
appearances to an indifference fomewhere, and an indolenct
fomewhere elfe, with refpeft to the reformed religion,
which, if they do not denote a fpirit of approximation to
Rome, denote at leaft a deplorable decay of that fpirit,
to whofe operations in our magnanimous proteltant an-r
ceftors we are indebted for the portions of civil and reli-
gions liberty we now enjoy. — '< We do not live," fays.
Dr. Machine, M in the days of a Laud." True, not in
the days of a church governor of that name. But be it
known to the Doftor, that Laud left his mantle behind
him, which is preferved to this day as a precious relic,
not without the virtue of conferring a double portion of
his fpirit upon the venerators of it. And let any one ho-

i 3 " commu*

kc Preface /h^

(( commwnities fhould retain the greateft part of

(f their refpe&ive and peculiar doctrines n."

rieftly characterise the man, who was a fcandal to tbofe days,
or others, who,, after his example, have fcandalifed other
days, and he may be fure to hear from the keepers of the
Archives where the mantle is deposited, of his bafely tramp-
ling on the ajhes of the venerable dead, [See an Ail-Ser-
mon preached at Oxford, by one Dr. Frampton, July 9,
1769.] "Nor," continues the Doftor, "do his fucceflbrs
" feem to have imbibed his fpirit. 1 don't hear that the
'* claims of church power are carried high in the prefent
'.' times, or that a fpirit of intolerance characterifes the
" epifcopal Hierarchy." There is no depending, as we
have juil now feen, upon what Dr. Madame does not hear.
What does he think of depriving and excommunicating all
thofe who in any respect depart from the public infi-
tution ? This is indeed the fentence of a fubordinate clerk,
a would-be fucceifor to Laud, no doubt ; for wnofe fpirit, I
would hope, if I durfl, his fuperiors will not think them-
felves anfwerable, as they mu ft know, that, take our public
inftitution all together, it is not poflible, even for thofe
who defire to adhere to it with the utmoft precifion, not to.
depart from it in many respects. And though it may
be true that our epifcopal Hierarchy, as it is fupplied at
prefent, is not, in general, characterifed by a fpirit of in-
tolerance ; yet furely we have fomething bad enough to
apprehend from the fuccejjion, if thefe approximating gentry
(who, by the bye, have no reafon to complain of the dis-
couragement from the epifcopal quarter) think of making
their way to the bench, by retailing fuch maxims as that
above mentioned. Undoubtedly improvements in fcience and
philofophy operate upon thefe geniufes with confiderable

n Compend. View, vol. ii. p. ^76. Dr. Maclaine's Tranf-
Jation, 4to. Mrjheimys words are thefe. — Guil. Wakius,
entijhi noh ita pridem Cantuarieniis, puueos ante annos,pa-

What

F I R s t Ed IT ION. xci

What a door is here opened for reflexion ! A
Proteftant Archbiihop of Canterbury, a pretended
champion too of the proteftant religion, fets on
foot a project for union with a popifh church,
and that with concefiions in favour of the groiTefl:
fuperftition and idolatry ; and this reprefented as
the jpir'it of the eftabliihed church of England,

cem cum ecclefia Gallicana, faluis utnufqtte partis fententiis
pLriijue, facere t'oluit. The long note in the fecond edition
of this preface is now rendered ufelefs by the publication of
Dr. Madair.e's third appendix to his Supplement to the Quarto
edition of Dr. Mojhe'mi s Ecclefiaflical Hiftory ; and of the
examination of that Appendix, in the latter part of Occafwnal
Remarks upon fome late ftridtures on The Confessional,
Part II. to which they who defue to know the true ftate of
the controverfy are referred. It is indeed a controverfy
which, as it has been managed by the advocates for Arch-
biihop Wake, abounds with curiohties. For example ; Du
Pin was freely cenfured by the orthodox in France, for cor-
refponding with a Proteftant prelate on fo delicate a fuhje6r..
Whereupon one of his Elogifts makes the following apology
for him : " Ceux qui lui ont reproche fes liuifons et fon
" commerce de lettres avec Guillaume Wake, Archeveque de
" Cantorberie, paroiffent n'avoir pas ete au fait de cctte
" affaire. Ces liaifons etoient imiocentcs, et Mr. Du Pin ne
" les entretenoit que pour Vhonnmr et I'avautage de Veghfe"
Di'ft. liilt. de Mr. L'Avocat, torn. ii. Art. PIN. — It
mould not feem to be the honour and advantagt of the
Church of England, that are here meant; or that Mr.
L Avocat fhould think himfelf concerned to vindicate Du
Pin's innocence with refpeft to any reproachers but the good
catholics of France. And yet (who would think it ?) this
paflage has been pointed out as fome fort of apology,
not to Roman Catholics for Du Fin, but to Proteftants for
Archbilhop Wake.

i 4 in

xcii Preface to the

in relation to thofe who diffent from its rule of

doctrine and government !

'Tis true, there are proteftant diftenters from
the rule of government of the eftabliftied church
of England) who agree with her in her rule of
doctrine ; and Dr.,. Mojheints inftance being
brought as an indication of the fpirit of the
church of England in general, it might be fup-
pofed this eftablifhed church would go as far to
meet thefe difTenters, as to meet the papifts. — I
wifh this could be faid. But our hiilory affords
no inftance of an archbifhop of Canterbury nego-
dating with proteftant dilTenters upon any fuch
condition as that mentioned by Mojheim : and
fuch of them as, fmce the Reformation, might
have had an inclination that way, have been too
wary to go (o far as Dr. Wake is faid to have
done with Du Pin. And if the conduct of the
church of England is to be judged of by that of
Archbifhop Wake, the pppolltion of that prelate
to the repeal of the Schifm-bill fhews, that an
union with proteftant dilTenters, upon the condi-
tion offered to the papifts, is the laft thing the
eftablifhed church of England would think of.

But, happily for us, Dr. Mojheim was miftaken
in taking his meafure of the fpirit of the efta-
blifhed church of England, from the fpirit of
this archbifhop of Canterbury. Some bifhops
may be as apt to be intoxicated with power and
pre-eminence as other mortals, and have too

often

First Edition. xciii

often been tempted to extend their domination
beyond its e/labliJJjed bounds, when, if they
had been called to account, the church eftablilhed
(even upon principles of The Alliance) mutt have
difowned their authority, becaufe the law and the
magiftrate would. The circumftances of Arch-
faifhop Wake's tranfaclion with Du Pjn and
others, concerning an union with the GaUican
church, are now, in a good meafure, before the
public ; from which we perceive, that the pro-
ject could not have been brought to bear without
pafling through other hands. And I remember
enough of the times when Dr. Wake figured at
the head of the church, to be very certain that it
would then have been loft labour to folicit the
confent of a majority even of the members of
the church of England to an union with the
GaUican (that is, the French popiih) church, even
though all the bifhops upon the bench had re-
commended it.

Is our hiftorian then to be condemned, for his
temerity in making fuch a judgement of the
church of England? By no means. A treaty of
this kind, openly avowed, efpoufed, and pro-
moted by an archbifhop of Canterbury, and with
refpecl 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 improper inftance of one reformed church, at
|eaft, " ufing her efforts, in thefe latter days, to

" diminifh

xciv Preface to the

" diminifli the weight and importance of thofe
" controverfies that feparate her from the com-
" munion of the church of Rome"

And here I cannot help remarking that Dr.
Maclaine, who has cenfured Mofocim for his fup-
pofed reflexion on the Proteftants in general,
feems not only to acknowledge the truth of this
particular fact, but likewife, in fome meafure, to
approve of it :

" The interefts of the proteflant religion, fays
l£ he, could not be in fafer hands than Archbifhop
tc Wake's. He, who fo ably and fuccefsfully de-
" fended Proteftantifm as a controverfial writer,
" could not furely form any project of peace and
tl union with a Roman-catholic church, the terms
«' of which would have reflected on his character
" as a negotiator d."

d What character Archbifhop Wake deferved as a negotiator,
the public may now judge, from his article in the laft volume
of the Bi agraphia Britannica. Suffice it for the prefent to fay,
that the Proteflant religion never did, nor ever will, want a
negotiator with a Roman Catholic Church. If the propofing
an union with a popifli church was impudent in Lejlie, it was at
the bell: officious and prefumptuous in Dr. Wake, who fhould
Itave better known his duty to the church over which he
prefided, as well as the deference due to the laws of his coun-
try, than to have entered into a negotiation of that nature
without any authority from either. As for his talents for this
kind of negotiation, they are pretty well laid open by his
Biographer. It appears by his account, that Dr. Wake was
fairly duped by the French politicians giving the line, and
letting things go on to a certain length, till the negotiator was

Surely

First Edition. xcv

Surely Dr. Machine, when he exprefled him-
felf thus, did not reflect upon the condition men*
tioned by Dr. Mo/bcim as the bafis of the treaty

fallen irrecoverably into the ambufcade. The event of
which was, that, as the Archbilhop was underftood to nego-
tiate for and on the behalf of the church of England, the
church of England, by his management, became expofed to
the triumphs of her enemies, for which the Archbilhop ought
to have been feverely cenfured. By the way, it mould feem
as if this negotiating fpirit was not yet totally extinguifhed
among us, and as if fome of us wanted fl ill to be doing in
that way. In the end of a Dedication prefixed to a pretty
bulky compilation of EcclefialHcal Law, publifhed no longer
fince than 1763, I find it thus written: " Perhaps a middle
"/rate between what the church once was, and
*' what it now is, may be the condition mod defirable."
What the church ot England once was, the church of Rome,
I apprehend, ffonvts ; and how we fhall come at this deferable
condition without fome fort of negotiation with her, and taking
in his holiness as a party to the compromife, I am not
canonift enough to determine. Lejlie indeed was abfurd
enough to delire that the Gallican church might be more
popifh than (he really was. Archbilhop Wake few not quite
fo high : and, as I take it, this middle Jlate was precifely the
moji defirable condition he wanted to bring us to. But the
bafe luck he had in the attempt, one would have thought, had
given us enough of it, for one century at lead. To be ferious :
J have read in the writings of fome men of no little eminence
in the church of England, that, in order to perfect her Refor-
mation, (he mould go a good way farther from what fhe
once was, than fhe now is. But as to this middle way of
reforming backwards, I have no great opinion of it ; and was,
not many years ago, much inclined to hope, that every pro-
pofal and every wilh of that tendency had been buried in the
graves of the Lauds, the Leslies, and the Wakes, never
rnore to rife again in a land of religious and civil liberty.

between

xcvi Preface to the

between the two churches, namely, that each

of the two communities mould retain the

GREATEST PART OF TKEIR RESPECTIVE AND

peculiar doctrines. When we confider to
what thefe peculiar do&rines amount, even in
the modified popery of the Gallican church,
what are we to think of that man's Protejiantifm
who fhould be ready to unite with her upon the
terms above-mentioned ?

Dr. Wake's merit, as a controverfial writer for
the proteftant religion, will be readily acknow-
ledged ; nor is his conduct (friendly to reforma-
tion) 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
effect of objects, in the fame profpect taken from
an inferior pofition, This had its influence upon
Dr. Wake, and it has had the fame upon others,
And, after all, this inflance of a reformed church
growing more placable towards the church of
Rome, might have been brought home to Dr.
Machine, as an inflance ad hominem, even though
the Doctor had not miflaken Mojheim's fenfe;
which, all things coniidered, might pofTibly have
appeared to fome people in a lefs invidious light
than that of an afperjian.

Dr. Machine, indeed, muff be much better in-
formed concerning the ftate of religion abroad
than we in this ifland; and he affures us, in this

prefent

£irst Edition. xcvii

prefentyear, 1765, that iC the reformed churches
" were never at fuch a diftance from the fpirit
" and doctrine of the church of Rome as at this
u day ;" and if this is faid upon good grounds,
we cannot but rejoice that our foreign proteftant
brethren are (o fledfafl and immoveable, and
have lefs reafon to be alarmed at the contrary
appearances at home, where Dr. Machine will
allow us to be competent judges in our turn.

It hath been lamented of late, that the zeal
and vigilance both of pallors and people in the
church of England, againft popery and popifli
emiffaries, is vifibly declined. The papifts,
ftrengthened and animated by an influx otjefuits,
expelled even from popifti countries for crimes
and practices of the worft complexion, open
public mafs-houfes, and affront the laws of
this proteftant kingdom in other refpects, not
without infulting fome of thofe who endeavour
to check their infolence. It is not long ago
that we were told, with the utmoft coolnefs and
compofure, in a pamphlet written exprefsly in
defence of fome proceedings in a certain epifco-
pal fociety, and, as is conjectured, by fomebody
in no ordinary (ration, that " Popijh Bijhops go
" about here, and exercife every part of their
" function without offence, and without
" observation >'." A circumftance that can no
otherwife be accounted for, than upon the fup-

y Anftvcr to Dr. Maybewt Obfervations.

pofition

xcviii Preface to the

pofition that the two hierarchies are growing*
daily more and more into a refemblance of each
other; which fuppofition is indeed neceffary for
the fupport of the point, in proof of which this
notable fa£l is employed. Surely thefe phenomena
were not common, even in Archbifhop Wake's
time*

Our protedant diffenters in general have, I
hope and believe, very different conceptions of
the malignity of popidi principles, and of their
fatal afpecl upon the civil and religious rights of
Great Britain. I know fome of the worthieft and
molt, judicious among them, who fee with
concern and anxiety the little interruption that
is given to the unwearied endeavours of treache-
rous priefls to pervert his Majeity's proteftant
fubje&s to their intolerant fuperdition, and con-
fequently from their allegiance. — A late cafe,
however, remarkable enough to have taken up
no little room in the public prints, hath difco-
vered, that all the leading characters among them
are not of the fame (lamp, and that popery itfelf
may be diverted of its terrors in the eyes of a once
zealous champion for religious liberty in-its fulled
extent, when taken into the protection of a man,
who, for the time being, had the didribution of
the loaves and the fifties.

But let us now proceed to inquire what popery
hath done to intitle herfelf to this complaifance
from the reformed churches ; what deps die hath

taken,

First Edition. xcix

taken, or what difpofition fhe hath ihewn, to meet
all or any of thefe churches half-way ?

And here I will not afk whether the papifts
have endeavoured to diminifh the weight and
importance of thofe controverfies they have with
us, which are merely of the religious kind. I
will not inquire whether and how far the church
of Rome hath modified her abfurd and impoflible
doctrine of Tranfubftantiation. I Will not examine
her on the head of purgatory ', faint -ivorjlrip, relics,
maffesfor the dead, penances, and other articles,
which have no immediate ill effect upon civil fo-
ciety. I will only inquire whether popery hath
reduced her ancient pretenfions fo far, as to become
a friendly, benevolent, and charitable neighbour
to perfons of the reformed religion.

In the firft place, hath fhe acquitted the pro-
tectants of herefy f 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 doctrines are
built?

Have the papifts of Great Britain, in parti-
cular, given the King and his Government the
fecurity of their allegiance, as proteftant fubjects
do? Do they acknowledge no King of Great
Britain but his Majefly King George III ? Have
not a majority of Englifh papifts of rank and

fortune

6 P R e f a c i to the

fortune Jefuits in their houfes, as directors of
their confciences? Hate not their youth been
fent to be educated among Jefuits? Are hot the
Roman-catholic priefts* ftatioiied all over Eng-
land, chiefly of the Jefuitical order ? Is it not
the doctrine 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, coniidered by this order of men, as already
excommunicated? Are not all perfons whofe
confciences are directed by Jefuits obliged to
believe as the Jefuits themfelves believe? And
are not they who hold thefe opinions fworn
enemies to the proteitant government of thefe
kingdoms \

If thefe queftions cannot be anfwered to the
fatisfaction of a proteftant people, it behoveth
every good fubject of 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 fufficient to give them an
equal chance in a ftruggle, to wreft out of our
hands our ineftimable rights and liberties civil
and religious.

But you will afk, " What has all this to do with

" fubfcription to Articles of religion, and the efta-

5 " blifhment

First Edition. ci

" blifhment of Confeffions of faith and do&rine id
" proteftant churches ?"

Not fo little as you may imagine. All reli-
gious impofitiorisin Proteftant focieties, not war-
ranted by fcripturej and which mufl: be fubrhitted
to on the pain of wanting bread, have a ten-
dency to lefTen the apprehenilons, that they who
have fo much at flake as Britiih fubjecls have,
ought to entertain of the encroachments of
Popery. Men of liberal education, finding they
cannot be compleatly qualified for certain pub-
He flations, without complying with terms, of
the rectitude of which they are riot fatisfied, and
with which they mud comply or lofe the .ex-
pence as well as the fruits of their education,
will naturally be loth 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 fufpeft, that a free examination into the
merits of the cafe might leave impreflions,
which would either difappoint their profpects in
life, or, in cafe of compliance, bring upon them
anxieties that would embitter every emolument
arifing from their profeflion. What wonder that,
in thefe circumflances, they mould take up with
the firfl flimfy cafuiilry fuggefted to them by a
fellow-feeling brother ? or, which is the fhorter
Cut, and by far the moil current anodyne, repofe
themfelves in the authority of the church?

ik I

cii Preface, &c.

In either cafe, they are in a train which would
lead them with equal fecurity to acquiefce in
the genuine impofitions of popery. The cafes
only differ in the degrees of more and lefs : and
they of courfe mud be tender in afierting the
privileges of chrijVnin liberty, on the peril of
being mortified with recriminations, which the
reproof of their own hearts would force them to
apply, not without painful fenfations. Nor is
there any alternative, but a flate of profligate
fecularity, difpofing men to fee"k affluence, power,
and dignity at any rate, and by any means that
will give them the fpeediefl poffeffion; and with
fuch men, popery and proteftantifm, the evange-
lifls 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 argu-
ment againfl popery, in thofe few and fuperficial
difcourfes on the fubject, which are now-a-days
heard from the pulpit.

It' can never be for the interefl of a free (late
to have men under this kind of diflrefs in any
public office ; much lefs thofe who are callous,
and perfectly proof againfl fuch feelings. It may
be for the interefl of a church to have a hank of
this kind upon the clergy; but it mufl be the
interefl of a church, with which it is not for the
interefl of a free Proteftant flate to cultivate an
alliance.

THE

C i ]

THE

CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. I.

Afummary View of the Rife, Progrefs, and Succefs,
of ejlablifoed Confejfions of Faith and Doclrine
in Protejlant Churches.

WHEN the Proteftants firft withdrew from
the communion of the Church of Rome,
the principles they went upon were fuch as thefe :
"JESUS CHRIST hath, by his gofpel,
u 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 understandings and endeavours.
" For this work of falvation fufficient means are
<f aiforded in the holy fcriptures, without having
" recourfe to the doclrines and commandments
" of men. In thefe fcriptures all things needful
" for fpiritual living and man's foul's health are
" mentioned and fhewed. Confequently, faith
A " and

2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" and conference, 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 mew for the fpiritual dominion (lie
" claimeth. The church of Chrifl is congregated
U by the word of God, and not by man's law ;
" nor are the King's laws any farther to be obey-
u ed, than they agree with the law of God a."

* Thefe principles were advanced by here and there an
honeft man, and a good chriftian, long before Luther ■, viz.
" Canonem five regulam fidei et religionis, unicum effe
*' verbum Dei fcripturis propheticis et apoftolicis compre-
•* henfum : Non autem traditicnes ecclejlet, caiiones fynodorum.,
*l aut fcripta patrum. Authoritatem verbi ex dignitate
44 evangelii, five ipfius verbi, non ab autfioritate ecclefise,
" pendere : Licet ilia miniitra fit et magiftra ad iidem.
" Dogmata ecclefue ea tantum recipienda, qua? cum verbo
" hoc confentiunt." VVksselus apud Dan. G:rde/ium, Hfft.
Reform, vol. I. p. 45. See his article in BayWs Dictionary.
After the Reformation got footing, propofitions to the fame
eftecl. were advanced in thejh, for public difputation :
** Ecclefia Chriiti ex Deo nata eft ; Deum igitur audiat,
44 alium nullum. Ecclefia Chriiti non condit novas leges
44 fine Deo, fed obfervat leges fponfi fui Chrifti." Gerde-
Jtut, vol. ii. p. 301. who brings a multitude of inftances
of this principle, aflerted by various Reformers, in his very
valuable Hiflory. In our own country the principle was
avowed in its utmoft extent. 4< The Gofpel taketh not
" his authority of man, but of God only j the church muft
44 only teach that which cometh of God, and not man's
44 precepts." Philpot, apud Fcx, Martyrolog, 1656. —
" For we think it no true obedience unto the Queen's
44 Highneis [Mary"], or to any other magiftrate ordained of
44 God under her, to obey in things contrary to God's
'« word, although the fame be never fb- ftraitly charged in

Private

THE CONFESSIONAL. 3

Private Chriflians being thus left at liberty,
by the original principles of the Reformation, to

her Grace's name." Fox, Mart. p. 1729- I take the
[otherwife fuperfluous] pains of putting down thefe au-
thorities, for the fake of a weak brother, who, in a fecond
Letter to the Author of The Corifefjional, alledges, that " he
" no where finds, that the firit Proteitants undcrftood this
" glorious liberty to mean a difcharge from all human au-
" thority in matters of religion." And to fhew that they
did not fo underftand it, he quotes fome pafTages of Luther
and Calvin. How he hath mifufed Calvin and Luther, on
this occafion, hath been fufficiently fliewn by the hand of
a complete mauer of the fubjecT:. \Vid. An Addrefs to the
writer of a fecond Letter to the Author of the Confeffional.
By the learned Dr. B. Dawson.] But let us grant him as much
as he can pcflibly demand ; namely, that Luther and Calvin,
and, if ne will, he may add the Church of England, admit-
ted the decifions of human authority in matters of religion.
What is the confequence ? Even what the Author of The
Confeffional imputes to them, that they departed from their
frjl principles, and contracted their original flan. In the
mean time, the original principle was adhered to by numbers,
and was often aflerted againit Luther himfelf, in the difputes
between him and Carolo/ladius, Zuinglius, and others. Cal-
vin heard ftill more of it, particularly from Cajlellto, who
fcrupled not to tell him, that too many paid greater refpeel
to his authority, than to the truth — that he ailed the Pope —
that he perfecuted thfe who would not fign his Confejfion of
faith— and that he denied to others the liberty which be took
himfelf. " Agedum [fays he, to Calvin and Be-za], per
" Chrifti vifcera, qua;fo et oro vos miflum me facite, et
*' infettari definite ; et mihi meam fidem fideique profeffi-
" onem liberam relinquitc, quemadmodum vos veitram vo-
" bis relinqui vultis, et ego relinquo. Neve eos qui a
" vobis diiTcntiunt continuo a veritate difientwe judicate,
V aut pro blnfphemis habete ; nam multi pii in multis a
«• yobis diffenriunt." Seb. Caff. Defenf. Opufc. p. 382.

A 2 iearch

THE CONFESSIONAL.

fear:' i '.liptures for the grounds of their, re-
ligion, and to build their faith on this foundation
onlji a very moderate ihare or fagacity would
enable the leading Reformers to forefee, that di-
verfity of opinions, concerning many points of
docTrine, would be unavoidable ; and that from
hence frequent occafions of offence would arife
among themfelvc?, not without fome advantage
to the common adverfary.

Whether they might not, in a good mcafure,
have prevented any very ill conferences of this
liberty, without departing from the fimplicity of
the Scripture-plan ; that is to fay, whether they
might not have kept the terms of communion
fumxiently open for pious and reafonable Chrifti-

When the old Puritans were harrafTed by the bifhops in
Queen Elizabeth's reign, they conftantly had recourfe to
the origins! Proteuant principle, of being governed by the
tvord of God alone. The biihops pleaded againil them the
Queen's authority. The Puritans denied, and in many
cafes they truly denied, that the biihops had the Queen's
authority. But, even admitting the biihops had the royal
authority for their doings, the Puritans fiuck to their prin-
ciple. " Chriit, and not the chriltian magillrate, is the
** head of the church. In the commonwealth the Prince
" maketh and repealeth laws, as fhe thinkcth the fafety of
'* her eltate, and benefit of her people, do require. Rut
" in the church there is no Lawgiver but Christ Jesus."
Derings Examination, apud Part of a Regiiler, &c. p. 79^
Is this the principle of all Protectants now ? If it is, I
am afraid, the inevitable conclufion muft be, that the writers
of thefe three Letters (for they are not all from the fame
hand) and their coadjutors in the Anti-confeJJtonal caufe,
were not Proteflants.

ans

THE CONFESSIONAL. 5

ans of very different opinions to have complied
with them, without abridging their Chriflian li-
berty, or doing violence to their confeiences, can-
not now be determined. Certain it is, that fuch
an experiment was never tried, nor perhaps ever
thought of, till the diitemper was gone too far to
be cured.

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 Ibciety without uniformity
" of opinion," — that " the true fenfe of fcripture
" could be but one b," and the like, prefently fell
upon the expedient of preventing diverfity of opi-
nions, by contracting 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
refpeclive churches within the bounds of a theo-
logical fyftem. The conlequence 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 herefy.

b See Mo/helm's Compend, View of Ecclef. Hift, vol. II.
p. 159. and Maclaine'i note [a],

iV 3 Hence

p THE CONFESSIONAL.

Hence it comes to pafs, that many Proteflants
of very different characters and tempers, finding
thefe incroachments on their Chriflian liberty,
and themfelves not only excluded from commu-
nion with their brethren, but ftigmatized with
an invidious name, were provoked to feparate
from their leaders, and fet up for themfelves ;
which many of them did on grounds fuffkiently
justifiable ; whilft others, whofe pride, paffion,
and felf-conceit, knew no bounds, and whom
probably the mod reafonable terms of commu-
nion would not have retrained, under the pre-
tence of aflerting their liberty againil thefe dog-
matical chiefs, formed themfelves into fects*
which afterwards made the mod infamous ufe
of it.

That fome of thefe feels 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
doctrines which afterwards dillinguifhed the fober
and ferious Proteftant churches were not yet made
public, nor perhaps perfectly fettled. They were
yet only to be found in the writings of fome pri-
vate doctor, whom his brethren were at liberty to
difown, or in catechifms for youth, or directories
for minifters within their feveral departments.
i — A concurrence of unhappy circumftances,
which afforded the Papifts a mod favourable op-
portunity of calumniating the whole Proteftant

body

THE CONFESSIONAL. 7

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 thefe hot-headed ir-
regulars were difowned, and their doctrines re-
probated, by fome of thofe eminent doctors on
whom the credit and fuccefs of the Reformation
Teemed chiefly to depend. Thefe might fpeak
their own fenfe; but it did not appear by what
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 (till be true, that all Proteftants thought in
their hearts, that thefe indifcreet feclaries fpoke
out. A fufpicion which was not a little confirmed
by the leading principle of the mod outrageous
Anabaptifts, which was expreffed in the very
words of Luther himfelf c.

Thefe circumftances laid the Proteftants under
a neceiTity of publishing to the whole world ex-
plicit confefiions of their faith and doctrine, au-
thenticated by formal atteftations of the leading
members of their refpeclive churches. That of
the Proteftant Princes of Germany led the way ;
being folemnly tendered to the Emperor Charles
V. in the diet held at Augjburgh inthe year 1530.
This precedent other Proteftant ftates and

c Viz. A Chrijiian man is majier of every thing. See Boyle's
Dictionary, art. Anabaptists, rem. [A],

churches

8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

churches thought fit to follow on different occa-
fions ; and by this means acquitted themfelves,
at leaft among all equitable judges, of the fcan-
dal of abetting the fchifmatical and fedkious 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 i i.

They were folerrmly fubfcribed by the leai ing
men of the feveral communions on whole: behalf
they were exhibited, as docTrmi 3 by which they
would live and die ; and were confequentiy to be
defended at all events. And, therefore, to fecure-
the reputation of their uniformity to all fucceed-
ing times, an unfeigned affent to the public con-
feffion, confirmed either by fubfeription or a fo-
lemn oath, became, in moft of the Proteftant
churches, an indifpenfable condition of qualify-
ing their paftors for the mini dry, 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 embroiling different churches one with
another, to a very unedifying degree. The com-
pilers of fome of thefe confeffions, in their zeal
to ftigmatize the herefies of the moft obnoxious
feci aries, had made ufe of terms which no lefs re-
probated the doctrines of their orthodox bre-
thren :

THE CONFESSIONAL. 9

thren : the immediate confequence of which was,
that fever al controverfies which had arifen among
the refpeftive leaders of the Reformation at the
beginning, and had been partly compofed, and
partly fufpended, in regard to their common in-
tereft, were now revived, not without much heat
and bitterneis.

On this incident, the Papifts changed their
method of attack, and readily took this occafion,
not only to infult the Reformed in their want of
unity, but to turn many doctrines to their own
account, which particular men had advanced in
conformity to their own confeilions d.

4 " The Lutherans and Calvinijls" fays a very competent
judge, " by cheriflnng fome errors of their refpective prin-
" cipals, were altogether hindered from rightly anfwering
"the Papijh." See Phczmx, vol. II. p. 315. At length
arofe the immortal Cbillingivortb, who difclaimcd the defence
of the Proteilant religion, as it lay in fyftems and confeflions,
and appealed to the Bible only. By this means many cavils
were cut off at once, and many confeffions of fyltematical
do&ors rendered of no ufe to the Papifls at all; who, being
well aware of the advantages the Popilh caufe would lofe by
this expedient, were accordingly extremely provoked at it.
They called it a novelty which the Protellants in general would
not approve. And it appeared, in the event, that they were
not totally miftaken. For the application of this rule by a
liberal-fpirited Engtifa Prelate on a certain occafion, put
another Englifh Prelate [bifhop Hare] extremely out of hu-
mour: a Prelate who, when the force of epijeopal prejudice
was out of the way, had ridiculed fyltematical attachments
in a much-admired irony, which however owed all its beauty
and all its force to this very principle of Cbiilingivortb. Mr.
J)e/maizeaux [Chillingvju/tb's biographer) thought it necef-

Againft

jo THE CONFESSIONAL.

Againft thefe objections the Proteftants had a
variety of defences, fome of which, it mud be
owned, had more ftrength as they were applied
to the Papifts, than merit it themfelves. They
faid, that " a want of unity was no greater re-
" proach to them from the Papifts, than it was
tc 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
for the moft 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 infilled 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
mofl: conliderable of the points in difpute among

fary to exculpate Chillingnvortb from this Popifh charge of
novelty, and, as it feems to me, has fucceeded very ill. He
fays, " All Proteftants had declared in their confeflions, or
'* articles of religion, that the fcriptures are the only rule of
" faith by which thofe confeffions themfelves are to be tried."
But the queftion was not, what all Proteftants had declared,
but whether any Proteftant church had aSled conformably to
that declaration, and ventured to defend the Proteftant reli-
gion on fcripture-principles, even at the expence (if fo it
mould fall out) of its own eftablilhed confeffion ? His anfwer
to bifhop Hare's peeviflinefs is much better. Life of Mr.
Chillingwortb, p. 169, and 19$.

them,

THE CONFESSIONAL. it

them had never been decided e cathedra, and fo
were left open to amicable debate without breach
of unity ; whereas the doctrines controverted
among Proteftants were folemnly eftablifhed in
their feveral confeflions, and the confeflions
themfelves ratified by oaths, fubferiptions, &c.
and the belief of them thereby made an indif-
penfable condition of communion e.

After much mortifying litigation concerning
this want of unity among Proteftants, it fo hap-
pened, that the Belgic and Galilean churches, in
the name of themfelves and their orthodox lifter-
churches, thought fit to deny the fact ; and, in
the year 1581, exhibited what they called An
Harmony of the ConfeJJions of no Iefs than eleven
Proteflant churches, which they intended as an
ample teftimony of the unanimity of Proteftants
in their principal doctrines, and a full and fatif-
faftory confutation of the Popifh calumnies on
this headL

e Thus, with refpect to the famous five points concerning
which the fynod of Dort was fo untraceable, the difputes in
the church of Rome were bitter enough; but then " the
" council of Trent had drawn up her decrees, on thefe heads,
" with a neutrality which pleafed all, and difobliged none."
Heylin's Quirtquarticular Hift. p. 26. Grotius made ufe of
this circumftance in pleading with the magiftrates of Amjler~
dam for a toleration of the Remonftrants. " The doftrincs
" difputed in Holland" faid he, " have not been decided by
" the church of Rome, though fhe is extremely fond of de-
" cifions.'' Abridgement ©^Brandt's Hi/lory of the Reformation,
&c. by La Rocher p. 344.,

thb

12 THE CONFESSIONAL.

This work, however, was not equally approved
of by all the churches whofe confeffions it har-
monized. It was even affronted by the church
of England f : For, being tranflated into Eng-
HJJj in the year 1586, Archbifhop Whitgift (who
at that time had the controul of the prefs) would
not allow it to be printed in London, and employed
his authority likewife to have it fupprefled in
other places s.

There were, indeed, fome confiderations natu-
rally fuggefted by the manner in which this work
was executed, that would greatly obftruct the
good effects expected from it, whether with re-
fpect to compofing differences among Proteftants,
or obviating the reproaches of the common ad-
verfary.

1. In the firfl place, the compilers made no
mention of the confeflions or doctrines of any

f The Englifh confeflion, exhibited in this Harmony, cqn-
fifted of extra&s from Bifhop Jewel's Apology ; a book, in
thofe days, of equal authority with our thirty-nine articles.
Strype's Annals, vol. I. chap, xxv — xxvii. and Life of Parker,
p. 179.

s The Harmony was, however, printed at Cambridge that
year, notwithftanding Whitgift* s exprefs prohibition. Strype,
xx. {. vol. III. b. ii. ch. 8. — Mr. Strype has not informed
u* why the Archbifhop difkllowed the Harmony : but theBe/-
gic and Gallican churches having expreffed notions of
church-government,ceremonies,&c. in fomefhortobfervations
at the end of the book, not very favourable to Whitgiffs
principles , his Grace's diftafte for the work is not wholly
unaccountable.

3 Prcteffants,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 13

Proteflants, who dirTented from the public forms,
in thofe countries where the reformed religion
had gained an eftablifhrnent. They were indeed
hardly charitable to fuch diffentersj cenfuring
with particular fe verity the authors of the book
of Concord, which had appeared about this
time h.

h And indeed not without reafon, if thefe cenfures could,
have been paffed confidently with their defign of exemplify-
ing the Harmony fubfilHng among Proteflants. By this book
of Concord (the work of fome rigid Lutherans) all thofe
churches were excluded from Ghriftian communion, who
would not fubferibe it. For which fchifmatical prefumption,
the reformed divines of the Low-Countries, expoltulated
fharply with thefe authors, alledging the fcandaland mifchief
of fuch peremptory decifions, feeing that the Lutherans and
Calvinifls differed only about two articles, the Lord's fupper,
and the two natures of Chrift. BIcndel indeed obferves,
" that they differed about two articles more, viz. predelti-
" nation and grace ; yet, believing thefe to be of no impor-
" tance, they [the Low-Country divines] made no mention
** of them." La Roche, u. f. p. 197. Would thefe divines
have believed a prophet who (hould have foretold, that their
fucceffors, in the fpace of forty years, would certainly treat
all who differed from them in thefe two articles of no impor-
tance, juft as the authors of the Concord had treated themfel ves
for differing with them on the other two ? Mr. La Roche has
given a pretty long extract of this Remonihance of the Low-
Country divines, and fays, he inferls it nvith pleafurt, kecaufe
it is very glorious to thofe divines. But to have perfectly at-
chieved this glory ior them, he mould have fuppreffed his
account of their perfecuting Hubert Du fe he and

his party refufed to fubferibe their book of Concord See
p. 194. 203. 207.

14 THE CONFESSIONAL.

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 fliould refufe to fubfcribe the
cohfeffion of that church, even though he ihould
offer to fubfcribe or fwear to every other fyfterft
ill the collection.

3 . The Jhort obfervations at the end of the
Harmony, the defign of which appears to have
been to accommodate thefliy/focw-^expreffions in
fome of thefe confeffiohs to the Orthodox fenfe of
the Belgic and Galilean churches (a liberty which
the Harmonizers feem to have taken without any
fort of eOmmiffion), plainly fhew, that fome of
thefe churches Were at too great a diftance 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 confeffions in other refpe&s,
he may be referred to a Lamentation which ap-
peared about thirty years after the publication
of his Harmony ; fetting forth, (: That thefe
'* confeffions were read by few : that they were
" hardly to be found in bookfellers fhops ; that
u men rather chofe to provide themfelves with
" the writings of private doctors, and to deter-
" mine religious matters by any other teftimo-
" nies, rather than thefe public forms.',

This complaint h taken from the Preface to.
the Corpus Confcjfiomtm, printed at Geneva, 1 6 1 2 j

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 15

the delign of which work was, to revive the cre-
dit or* theft eflabllfhed formalities, and to re-
commend them as " authentic tables and flan-
" dards of the old and primitive faith." For
this purpofe the confeilions of fixteen different
churches are here exhibited (not in detached and
fele&ed portions, as in the Harmony, but) ivholc
and entire, as they were publifhcd and acknow-
ledged by the churches to which they reflective-
ly belonged '.

But, though the profefTed defigft of this Body
of Confcjpons was to accommodate divines and
lhidcnts in theology wirh a commodious and
comp'rehenfive view of the whole doclrine of the
reformed churches, yet was not the expedient of
harmonizing their feveral confeffions quite over-
looked. But finding, it is likely, that the me-
thod taken in the* old Harmony was jufUy excep-
tionable, thefe Editors contented themfelves with
referring their readers to a kind of Synopfis, where
the agreement or harmony of particular churches

1 This, however, the famous Peter Heylin, diiputing for
his doctor's degree at Oxf.rd 1633, (.Icnicd to be true ; alledg-
ing on tlie part of the church of Liigland, that the firft claufe
of her xxth article, concerning Church Authority, was, in this
collection, felonioufly fecreted •, appealing to another edition
of the Articles, which was on that occafion fetched from a
neighbouring bookfelier's, and in which the r.forefaid claufe
flood fair and legible. Vemiiti Life of Heylin, p.. 58 — 6 .
Seethe editors of the Corpus Ccuftjinnign well vindi-
cated, in Jn Jiipricdl and 'Critical Mjay en the Thirty-nine
Jrt.'clej, &.c. printed for Franh'ir,, 1724, introduction, p. 22.

£ on

16 THE CONFESSIONAL.

on different articles is exhibited, without at*
tempting to reconcile them on thole articles
concerning which they did not appear to be una-
nimous.

In this Synopjis two things are more efpecially
remarkable:

i. On the article of JuJlificaUon and Faith,
which is the 5th in this Index, the editors obferve,
that " All the confeffions of the [Proteftant]
" churches teach this primary article of the Chri-
" flian religion with a moll holy confentk."
Does not this note (with which this article alone
is honoured) feem to imply a confcioufnefs in the
editors, that this was the fingle article in which
all thefe confeffions did agree ?

2. According to this Synopjis, there is a dead
filence in many (fometimes in the majority) of
thefe confeffions, concerning fome of the fimda-

k This faft, however, has been lately denied by a vehe-
ment advocate for confeffions and fubfcriptions. " The
" do&rine of j unification," fays he, " is explained with
Si much greater nicety in the French Confeffion (Article
" 18th) than it is in ours (Art. 11.) ; and with fuch nicety,
** as occafioned a long difpute between the French and fome
" German divines, of whom Pifcator was one." Church of
England vindicated in requiring Subfcription, &.C. p. 52. But
in truth thefe difputes were of much longer itanding.
'* OJiander, in his Confutation of the book which Melanclhon
** wrote againft him, obferves, that there are twenty feveral
*' opinions concerning J unification, all drawn from the fcrip-
'* tures, by the men only of the Augujtan Confeffion. " Bp.
Taylor, Lib. Proph. p. 80.

mental

THE CONFESSIONAL. 17

mental articles of $he Chrii'tian religion. Thus
bniy fat of ihem lire referred to -as. 1 peaking ot
the providence of God, in which number (L am
loth to obferve it) the Englifh confeilion is not
reckoned for one ; though both Jewell's Apology
and the thirty-nine Articles are infened in this
collection l.

Again, elcven-oi thefe f.xtecn confciTions take
no notice of the Rcfur reel ion of the Dead. I men-
lion thefe omiilions for the fake of thofe crentle-
rnen, who would have it believed, that churches
cannot be fure of the orthodoxy of their miniflers
in the moil important points of the Chriilian re-
ligion, without obliging rhem to fubferibe to
their eitabhfhed coufeilioris"1. How many ex-
cellent minillers have there been in different Pro*
teftant churches, who never gave thofe churches
any fecurity by way of fubfeription, that they
believed either a refurnelion of the dead, or the
pi'oi-'idcnce of God f

It is not at all necefTury'to carry this difquifi-
tion any farther. How particular churches in

1 So that a certain right reverend prelate, when lie fuid
" that the political fyftem has nothing but the Pfavidtmee of
t( Gj-veni/r.c.t to iuitain it again ft its own madneis, from i a 11—
14 ing into anarchy," did not contradict any article or (en-
n of the Church of England* Whether he contradicted
any thing elfe, is another quettion. See the Eiiliop of Clou*
U Sermon before the Houfe cf Lord:, Jan. 30, 1760.

r- See Dr. $t:bi>;ngs Rational Enquiry into the proper Me-
thods of fupporting Christianity.

B 2 fubfe-

18 THE CONFESSIONAL,

fubfequent times have been embroiled on account
of their eftablifhed confeffions, is well known.
In fome of thefe churches the inconveniences of
infilling on thefe tefls of orthodoxy have been lb-
great, that they have found it the wifeft way ei-
ther intirely to drop them, or to content them-
felves with fome general declaration, or promife
from the minifter, that he will not openly oppofe
them. In fome churches a formal fubfcription
is flill required, even where the inconveniences
of it have been no lefs, and where the moil fc*
rious, confcientious, and ufeful minifters, are flill
groaning under the burden of fuch fubfcriptions.
It is chiefly for the fake of fuch as thefe, that
this difquifition 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 our fathers have been able to bear11.

But to proceed. Upon this fhort view of the
tendency and effects of eftablifhed confeftions in
Proteftant churches, the following reflexions feem
to be very natural :

i . It was a great misfortune to the Proteftants,
that their confeihons fhould abound with expli-
cations of fo many minute points of fcholaftic

n This was written in the year 1 7 55.

theology,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 19

theology, which, without flopping one Popifh
mouth, with refpect to the general accufation of
Herefy, tended fo manireftly to narrow their ori-
ginal foundation, and to give their common ad-
vcrfaries fo great an advantage, by rendering
their breaches among themfelves, occaiioned by
thefe explications, utterly irreconcileable.

2. It was a greater misfortune frill, that they
fhould think of eftablifhing thefe explications as
tefts of orthodoxy, by requiring their minifters
to fwear 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 initruft the people
" out of thofe only °," leaving them at liberty to

0 The learned Profefibr Rulhafortb feems to apprehend,
that " a general profeffion of believing whatever is contained in
" the fcripture, or of adhering to the doctrine of the apoirles,
** was not likely to fatisfy Timothy or Titus, that they who
" made it, held fajl the faithful nvord as they had been taught ,
*' the my fiery of faith in a pure confcicnce." Charge, p. y, 8.
But this is a cafe of too great conference 'to he determined
by likelihoods, which may be juit as well grounded on the
one fide as on the other; and the learned Profeifor does no-
thing for his caufe, unlefs he can prove that Timothy and Ti-
tus were actually dij/atisfed with fuch general profeffion. In
the mean time, has he confidered, whither, as he fiates the
cafe, this likelyhocd would lead him r For what is the point
concerning which Timothy and Titus would want to be fatif-
fied? It is, according to the ProfefTor, that the minilkrs they
appointed, held the myjlery of the faith in a pure confeience. But

13 3 difown

20 THE CONFESSIONAL,

difown whatever, after proper examination, they
judged ' inconiiilent with them; in all human

what could fatisfy Timothy or Titus of this, lefs than a perfect
in light into the faccrity of thofe who made the profeffion ?
Now, allowing Timothy and Tifus to have had the gift of dif-
ceming the hearts and confeiences of particular perfons for this
purpofe, how would the learned Profeffor prove, that church
governors of the prefent times are endowed with the fame
gift ? I do not indeed think it at all neceifary to fuppofe
that Timothy and Titus had a perfect difcernment of the hearts
and consciences of thofe whom they admitted to the miniftry,
I do not think it neceifary to fuppofe that St. Paul himfelf
had this gift in, fuch perfection, as to be able at all times to
know what was in the men whom he himfelf ordained. At
leaft there is no appearance in fcripture that he had a prfeel
ojfurauce beforehand of the Jinccrity and good confcicnce of all
whom he ordained to the miniilry. And hence I conclude,
that it is likely the learned Profeffor may be under fume mif-
2pprehenfion, with refpec~t to the points wherein he fuppofes
Timothy and Titus would want Satisfaction. But here I fball
expeft. to be told, that " the lefs the apoftles and their imme-
f* diate fucceffors are fuppofed to be gifted as above, the more
f' Occafion they would have to be Satisfied of the fi.ncer.ty and
f fun confeience of candidates for the nn\\\[\ry Jl:ne other -i<-"y»
" and (what is ftill more to the Profelibr's purpofe) the more
" mult the prefent governors of the church be fuppofed to be
" upon a level with PW, and Timothy, and Titus, in this part
" of their office." Now fuppofe all this to be granted, it
Vvill ftill be incumbent upon the learned Profeffor to (hew,
that the other ixay that Timothy and Titus took to fatisfy
themfelves of ihc jiuccrity and pure ccnfciei:ce of the candidates
khey admitted, was to amplify and Split the apoitolic confef-
iion exprelfed in general terms, into puticular proportions,
ind to require from the faid candidates a iubfeription or de-
claration pf aifent to this amplification. For this, according
jo the learned Vindicator, is what the prefent governors of
the church pretend they have a right to require, and that too

5 probability

Jfi$ CONFESSIONAL. 21

probability the intcrefls of Popery would have
declined more vifibly, and the true ends of re*

for the purpofe abovementiorced. For the learned Vindicator
tells us, p. 11, that " the governors of the church have a
" right to examine into, and «f certain the faith and doctrires
u of the candidates for the orHce of public teaching." But
to afcertain the faith and doctrines of any man is impoffible,
unlefs you can, at the fame time, afcertain his fincepity in pro-
feiling them. Is this then one of the general benejits of efta-
Jblifhing confeiHons, to give church governors an infght into
the conf'.enccs, rnd to enable them to a/certain the fi/.cerity, of
the fubferibers ? Is this method o$ fifing the ccnjcience always
to be depended upon ? And are not another fort of Confef-
J-.ons, called auricular, much more beneficial 'for this purpofe ?
And is it likely the governors of our own church will thank
the learned Profeflbr for 'vindicating to them the exercife of
fo prefu?nptuous, and, at the fame time, fo i<felej's a right ?
Much lefs is it likely that nothing elfe would have fatisfied
Timothy and Titus ; at leal! it is not likely they fhould take
the Profeflbr's method of obtaining this fatisfacfion, unlefs ic
is likely that they had not the common (cr,{c to know, that he
who was injincere in profeffing his faith, in the general doc-
trine of the apoltles, might be equally injincere in profefling
his faith, when amplified in a variety of dogmatical propor-
tions. As to the learned Prpfeflbr's inftancei by which he
would eftablifh the likdyhood of what would or would not
fatisfy Timothy and Titus, I mini confefs I cannot find out
how he would apply them, unlefs he means to build his lirll
likelyhood on pwo more ; viz. I. the likelyhood that St. Paul
wrote his epillle to the Romans by way oiConfjfion, to be fub-
fcribed, or otherwife affented to, by the candidates ordained
by Timothy and Titus. And, 2. the likelyhood that the epiitle
to the Romans might be ivreflcd before it was written. \Con-
(iming the n-fpecli'-je dates of the epijlle to the Romans, and of
the firjl epiflle to Timothy, fee the learned and accurate D>\
L-rdacr's Supplement, &c. vol. II.]

B 4 formation

22 THE CONFESSIONAL.

formation have been more fpeedily, as well as
inb're effectually, promoted.

But, after all, they who are extremely out of
temper with the fiifl Reformers, for their mif-
faken and unfeafonable zeal in thus prefcribing
religious opinions to their fellow-chriftians with-
out fufiicient warrant oi fcripture, would do well
to coiifider in what fituation they were.

Many abufes in Popery lay open to the ob-
fervation of men of all forts. But it could hardly
be credited of a fudden, by men of any fort, that
the greater! part of that aftonifhing ftrn&ure
called the church, which pretended to have
for its foundation the Apq/lles and Prophets, and
Chrijl himlelf for its corner ftone, fhouki be a-
mere heap of antichritlian rubbifh. It is, there-
fore, no wonder that the moil enlightened of our
firfl: Protectant Fathers fhould be afraid of de-
molishing too much. It was vifible, with what
props and fupports the moil eminent faints and
doctors of former ages had accommodated the
edifice. And thefe, it might well be imagined,
wrouid hardly have been placed there by fuch
venerable hands, without fome good reafon, anc\
apparent necefhty. In thole days, nothing was
thought to be IhiTiciently confirmed by fcripture-
tellimonies, without additional vouchers from
the ancient Worthies of the church : and accord-
ingly Tertidlian, Chryfojlom, Au/l'm, and Jeromey
regularly took their places on the fame bench

of

r

THE CONFESSIONAL. a*

of judgement with Paul, Peter, James, and
John p.

In procefs of time fome particular perfons be-
gan to fee into this mit'take. In our own coun- '
try, the learned Cariwrlght, in his difpute with
Archbiihop Wbiigift, about the year 1573, took
jhe courage to appeal from the authority of the
Fathers, and to prefcribe them narrower limits
in the province of determining religious contro-
vcrfies. How this would be received in thofe
da;, ;, might eafily be conjectured without particu-
lar information. The terms in which Cartwright
had charactcrifed thefe venerable doctors, were
collected together in a book of Bancrofts, and
fet off with tragical exclamations, as if they had
been little lefs than lb much blafphemyi.

Some few years after this, Erafmus Johannes, a
fchoolmailer at Antwerp, took fliil greater liber-
tics with antiquity, " He affirmed, that all the
" councils which had met, and all the books of
" the Fathers which had been written fince the
" death of the Apoflles, were infected with anti-
" chriftian errors, not excepting the famous
(t council of Nice" He propofed, therefore,
that, in order to a perfect reformation, the new
phrafes, and new ways oi fpeaking, invented by
the Fathers, fhould be wholly fupprelled and

p See the Cathdicus Veterum Conjhifus, at the end of the
Qorpus ConfcJJionum.

i Slype's Life of Whit 'gift, p. 51.

laid

THE GONFESSIONAL.

laid afide, and all religious proportions expreffed
according to the fimplicity of Chrift and his A-
poftles. " If any man/' fays he,, " finds him-
•* felf obliged to ufe new terms to exprefs the
tfc articles of his faith, fo that the words of the
** Prophets and Apoftles are not fufficient for
*( him, that man's doctrines and religion are cer-
tc tainly new, as well as his terms : for otherwife
** he would eafily find, in the fcripture, language
" proper enough to exprefs his notions r." 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 fly his country.

From thefe days, the authority of the Fathers
hath continued gradually to decline among all
reafonable and confident Proteftants, and more
particularly fince the publication of Mr. Daille*s
famous book, De Ufu Patrian, in 1631. But
none, that I know of, ventured fo far as the
fchoolmafter of AnHverp, till, about thirty years
ago, an eminent prelate of our own church
advanced pretty much the fame doctrine, con-
cerning the explication of points of faith, by
new and unfcriptural phrafes ; for which his
Lordlhip underwent the difcipline of feveral
orthodox pens s ; but without any lofs of repu-
tation among thofe who confidered things with
lefs prejudice. For, when it was feen that his.

r La Roche, Abridgement, vol. I. p. 218.
* See Dr. Stebbitigs Rational Enquiry, p. 25.

Lordlhip

THE CONFESSIONAL . 25

Lordfhip had reduced his antagonifts to the dif-
agrceable neceffity of holding, that " new and
li wife ripi ural words would better fix the fenfe of
" fcripture-dcclrine, than the words of ChriH:
'* and his Apoftles." the clamour fubfided l. Rea-

* " Do not they [fays Dr. Rutberfortb, Charge, p. io.J

" who object this to us, [w's. the pretence that new and un-

V fcripturJ words will better fix the fenfe of fcripture doc-

" trine, than the words of Chrift and his apoftles]. — Do not

f' they hold, that pallors and teachers, by familiar, clear,

f* and iifuai forms of fpeech, can make the fenfe of fcripture

i* more plain to their hearers, than if they were to read it to

" them in the words which Chrift and his Apoftles made ufe

f* of? Theymuft, if they think otherwife, maintain, that all

f preaching and interpreting of :he fcriptures is intirely ufe-

*' lefs, and that the public teachers in Proteftant churches

f have nothing elfe to do for the inltru&ion of their congre-

ff gations, but to read the Bible to them." Truly, Mr. Pro-

fefTor, neither $us noryo, as anyone may be fatisfied who

will take the trouble to read the 39th, 40th, 2nd 41ft pages

of the ft rft edition of the ConfeffionaU to the laft of which only

you refer; and even in that you might have feen enough to

have faved you the trouble of propofing your alternative.

However, it lhould feem as if the particulars in that page had

not been altogether without their effect upon the learned

Profeffor. For t* he does not mean from the utility of

" preaching or interpreting the fcriptures in Chriflian affem-

V blies, to infer the utility of eltablifhed confeffions." Why

rot, if his alternative is rightly ftated ? But rightly flated

it cannot be, unlefs the cafes are cxaSlly Jimilar, and that

probably he might learn, from that part of the Co nfejjicnal

Yk. refers to, was by no means the fact. Well, but what is it

he does mean ? why, " to remind the oppofers of fuch con-

i* feffions, that what they hold in one cafe is exafily Jimilar to

" what they imagine would bring an odium upon us if we were

M to fay it in the other." Pray, Mr. Profeffor, do you know

fonable

26 THE CONFESSIONAL,

fonable men began to fee the inconvenience of

any oppofers of eilablifhed confefuons who hold that " new
*' and unfcriptural words, ufed by preachers in their popular
'* diicourfes, will better fix the fenfe of fcripture doctrine,
*' than the words of Chrift. and his Apoitles ?" Do you
kno.' any fuch oppofers who hold, that " new and unfcrip-
'-* tural words ufed in fuch popular diicourfes" will fix the
fenfe of fcripture doctrine at all i or is either of thefe propo-
rtions in the />/? member of ycur alternative ? If not, what
they hold is not exaclly fimilar to what, they fay, you hold.
And if you really do hold it, the odium Rill remains with you.
For it is to little purpofe to fay, " If the fenfe of fcripture
*' may be expreffed more plainly, why not more precifily,
" than in the words of Chrill and his Apollles." 1 he con-
trail, is not between the words plainly and precifely, but be-
tween the words exprejid and fixed. Their difference with
you is occafioned by your pretending xofix the fenfe of fcrip-
ture by new and unfcriptural words in an efiahli/hed confeKion,
to the exclufion of the right of private judgment, and not
by your endeavouring to make the fenfe of fcripture either
more plain or more precife in a popular difcourfe, which pre-
cludes no man from rejecting the preacher's fenfe, if his own
judgement leads him to another, And indeed after all this
twilling thefe poor oppofers in a dilemma, thus the learned
Frofe(fcr appears to underfland them ; for towards the end
of the paragraph (p. n.) he finds it convenient to fay,
that " '-what are called new and unfcriptural words and ex-
ef preflions are introduced [in:o confeifions], not to fix the
•' fenfe of fcripture- doctrines, but to fix the fenfe in which
" foipture-exprtflions are [rather, mull: be] underflocd by
'* thofe who are candidates fcr the office of public teach-
*' ing." Of which unmeaning distinction he hath heard fo
much from one of thefe perw/fe oppofers, that it cannot be
very plcafant to him to be reminded of it any more. See,
Jn Examination of Dr. P.utherfonh's Vindication, &c. p. 20.
21.

adopting

THE CONFESSIONAL. 47-

adopting a principle, which would go nearer to
juflify the worft impofitions of Popery ; and the
practice of requiring fubfcription to human ex-
plications of Chriflian doctrine, is now confidered
and treated, by many different forts of fenfible
writers, as an unwarrantable incroachment on
Chriflian liberty ; from which, there is reafon to*
believe, all who are capable and willing to exa-
mine the fubject without partiality and without
hypocrify, heartily defire an happy deliverance.

Upon this flate of the cafe, it appears, that
the matter of complaint does not affect, the fa-
thers of our Reformation by far fo much as their
Jons and fuKceJfors. Our firil reformers were
befet with their own and other men's prejudices,
to a degree that rendered them, in a great mea-
fure, incapable of conviction. It was next to
impoflible to convince them, that their eftablifhed
confeilions of faith were unchriflian impofirions,
for which there was no jufl authority, when they
had the early practice of the Chriflian 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 ot its ufurpaiion.

But, fince it has been made appear, that fome
of the Fathers who lived neareil to the times of
the xL\poitk's, were greatly miftaken in the fenfe

they

a THE CONFESSIONAL

they put upon fome feriptures, with refpeft td
points of no fmall importance, we have reafon to
hope, that our fuperiors will no longer bind ei-
ther themfelves or us to an implicit acquies-
cence in an authority, which may occafionally
be extremely inconfiftent with our original obli-
gations as Chriftians, as well as with the diftin-
guifhing principles of our profeflion as Proteft-
ants. Whatever expedients of peace and order
their own fort of prudence, or the exigencies
of the times they lived in, might fugged to'
thefe venerable Fathers, they certainly had nd
right to prefcribe articles of faith to us. And
fhould either they themfelves, or any others in
their name, pretend to it, we beg leave to re-
mind them of a capital maxim, to the truth of
which the Fathers themfelves have occafionally
borne their teflimony, namely, Thefcriptures of the
Old and New 'Teflament contain all things nccef
fary to fahation, and are the fole ground of the
faith of a Chr'iflian tt.

Upon this principle, all impofed fubferiptidns
to articles of faith, and religious doftrines, con-
ceived in unfcriptural terms, and inforced by hu-
man authority, are utterly unwarrantable, and
not to be defended but by arguments and pre-

u For a compendious view of the telHmony of the Father^
to the fufjiciency of the holy fcriptures as a rule of religion, the
reader may confult a book intitled, The Divine Oracles, writ-
ten by the learned and candid Mr. John Brekell, printed for
Waugb, &c. 1749.

fences,

The confessional. 2?

tences, highly diihonourable to the facred writ-
ings, and, in many cafes, contradictory to the
exprefs 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
juflice, it would he flrange if this matter of fub-
fcription, wherein fuch large and opulent bodies
of men are interefted, mould be left to fliift for
itfelf. What the orators of the church have
offered on this behalf, we fliall now briefly con-
fider.

C U A P.

$6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. n.

''The Claim of a Right to eftabliftj Confejfions as
Tefts of Orthodoxy in P rote ft ant Churches,
briefly confidered*

THE fundamental pofition, on which the
authority of eftablifhed confeffions in Pro-
tectant communions depends, is this: "Every
" particular church, confidered as*a fociety, has
tf a right, as other focieties have, to fecure its own
" peace and welfare, by all lawful means ; and
" confequently, to prefcribe fuch terms of com-
Cl munion as appear to be moft expedient for the
*' purpofe ; 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*
tc by admitting the principle of felf defence and
" felf-prefervation in matters of religion^ all the
" perfecutions of the Heathens againft the Chri-
" flians, and even the Popifh Inquifition, may be
" juftified a." 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-

a See Bifliop Hoailefs Speech for the Repeal of the Occa-
fional Conformity and Schifm Acts, in TindaVi Continua-
tion of Rnpin Tlojras, 8vo. vol. xxvii. p. 237.

Ward?

THE CONFESSIONAL. 31

War Js and penalties •, the church of Portugal mu ft,
upon the fame principles, have an equal right to
lecure herfelf by the difcipline of an holy office,
Or how othenvile fhe thinks proper b.

b "lam as ready to allow," fays Dr. Rutberfortb, " as
"' any man can be to contend, that temporal rewards and
Cl punifliments — are not the proper means for promoting true
** religion;" referring to ConfeJJional ', p. 22. 23. of the firft
edition. But who thanks him for -this conceffion ? The
queftion here is not concerning the means of promoting tru$
religion, but concerning the means of fixing the terms of com-
munion, and fecuring obedience to thofe terms in a particular
church. The Doctor tells us, that " legal emoluments are
" indeed temporal rewards — but that they are only rewards
". for doing the work of the miniftry," p. 3. But then it is
only for doing the work of the miniftry in one particular mode,
prefcribed by the particular church or church-governors
where the minifier does the work. Whoever does the work,
of the miniitry in any other nvay, is not intitled to the legal
reward. In this light the rewards are plainly the means of
fixing the terms of communion in the particular churches
here mentioned, and of fecuring the obedience of the mem-
bers of thofe churches fo rewarded, to the terms fo fixed.
And the queftion here is not concerning the propriety of thofe
means for thofe particular ends, but concerning the right
that particular churches or church-governors have, iofix
the terms of communion by fuch means. If the Doctor will prove
the right, we will not difpute with him the prcprie'y of pro-
moting temporal ends by temporal means. On the other hsnd,
if the Doctor will allow that church-governors have no right
to fix the terms of communion by temporal rewards and
punifliments, he will tender us fomething worth our accept-
ance, and will fave us the trouble of inquiring how true reli-
gion is promoted by fending honeft and confeientious men,
who cannot comply with the terms of doing the <work, to get
iheir livelyhood in fame other <way. But here the Doctor hath

C The

32 THE CONFESSIONAL.

The provifo, that " church-ordinances be a>
(i greeable to the word of God," will not in the
prefent cafe help the PrOteftant churches at all.
Eftablijhed confcilions, being human compofi-
tions, muft either be fubjecl to examination by
the private judgement of thofe who profefs (as all
Proteftants do) to make the written word their
only rule of religion ; or elfe the church muft
claim a right of interpreting the fcriptures for
all her members, exclufive of the right of private
judgement c. The former of thele principles

taken care to guard his conceffion againffc any fuch miflake.
" Temporal rewards," fays he, <« are therefore fuch means,
" as the governors of the church have no right to make ufer
" of for the attainment of that end, to which the fociety
" wherein they prefide, and the office which they bear in it,
" are ultimately referred." Which hinders not, but
that church-governors may have a right to make uie of fuch
means, for intermediate ends, to which the fociety and the of-
fice are not ultimately referred.

c The late Bifhop Conybeare, in his famous Subfcription-
Sermon, argues from the confent required by the Apollles to
their doctrines, 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 :
" Scripture truths and the church's explications ftand upon
*' the fame authority." This will readily appear, by taking
a mort account of Bifhop Ccnybeare's foundation, and what he
builds upon it. His firft head of enquiry is, " What right or
•* power the church hath to demand fuch fubferiptions,"
namely, fuch fubferiptions as are demanded to the thirty nine
articles of the church of England. " For the better decifiort
«* of this queftien," he tells us, *' we are to confider the

manifestly

THE CONFESSIONAL. 33

manifestly precludes the right of the church to
eftablilh any thing as a condition of Chriitian

" church, not barely as a number of perfon?, who profefs a
" belief in Jejus ChriJ? as the promifed Mefiias, but as a reli~
11 giom body or fociety of men ; who are united under Chriji
" the fupreme governor, as well as founder of this fociety.
<l Thus is it,*' adds the Bifhop, " conjiantly reprefnted in tkt
** New Trfament." p. II, Now this reprefentation in the
New Teftament, is of a church or churches formed under the
fupreme governor, Jfus Cbrijl, by the miniftry of hi>
apollles, who indeed required, as appears by the bifhop's
text, [1 Tim. vi. 3, 4.] confent to the wbclcfome words of our
J. crd fefus Cbrij}, and to the doctrine which is according to goj-
linefs, that is, to the doctrine which they taught, and have
left in the books of the New Teitament. This confer.*, they
had a right and power to demand, given them by Jelus Chrift
himfelf, and they demanded no ether confent; Now the
Bilhop gives not the leaft hint that the church into whofe
right and power he propofes to inquire in his firft head, is a
different church from that reprefented in the New Teftament.
Is it not therefore evident that he means to transfer the right
And power of the New Teftament-Church, to the church
which demands fuch fubferiptions as thofe that are demanded
to the thirty nine articles of the Church of England F If he
does not, he deferts his premiffes, and his fubfequent reafon-
ing is juft as pertinent to the cafe of fubfeription to the ar-
ticles of the Koran, as to the articles of a Cbrifian church
(for the church of Mahomet is as much a religious fociety as the j
church of England, or any ether church). But this, 1 take it
for granted, the admirers of the Bifhop's way of build ng
will not allow. The alternative is* that Bifhop Conybeare,
In his ferrnon on the cafe of fubfeription to the articles of re-
ligion, " argues from the c nfent required by the Apoflles to
" their doclrines, to the confent required by fucceeding
*' church-governors to human articles." In other words,
a;guss, that " Scripture truths, and the church's explica-
" tior,*, Hand upon the fame authority."

C 2 communion,

34 THE CONFESSIONAL.

communion, without the previous confent of all
her members ;-that is to fay, of all who, without
that condition, would have a right to Chriftian
communion d. The latter, indeed, vefts the.
church with a full meafure of authority to efta-
blilh what fhe pleafes; but then it is an authority
which every Proteflant church mod exprefsly dif-
claims, and condemns in the church of Rome as
an impudent and groundlefs ufurpation.

There is, indeed, nothing more evident, than
that every Chriftian hath a right to fearch the
fcriptures ; a right which he cannot transfer,
either to any church, or to any fingle perfon,
becaufe it is his indifpenfable duty to exercife
it perfonally for himfelf. And if it is his duty
to fearch, it muft alfo be his duty to determine
for himfelf; and, if he finds jufl caufe, to dilTent
from any or all the human eftablifhments upon
earth.

d Koneft old Rogers, by the church nvhich hath authority in
controversies of faith, under/lands not only the aggregate body,
but every ?nember of found judgement in the fame. Cath. Doft.
Art. xx. Propof. 3. well knowing that every intelligent Chri-
ftian, with the fcriptures before him, is, upon Protectant
principles, and in decrees of this nature, a church to himfelf.
This leaves no room for Bifhop Burnet's dillin&ion between
an infallible authority, and an authority of order, which
laft, he faintly infinuates, might be fafely intruited with the
body of the clergy. But his Lordfhip, to do him juftice,
qualifies this with aprovfb, that this body is properly difpofed
for the province. — Perhaps is might be as difficult to find
fuch a body of men, as to find fingle perfons without mif-
tekes. See Bifhop Burnet's Expo lit ion, fol. p. 195.

Some

THE CONFESSIONAL. 35

Some writers on this fubjeft difcover an incli-
nation to deny the right of private judgement in
every cafe where it is oppoied to church-authOri-
tv. Thefe we leave to reconcile their principles
with their reparation from Rome. Others attempt
by various arguments (fome of which will occur
hereafter) to prove that the authority of the
church to frame and fettle confeflions of faith
and doctrine for all her members; is perfectly
confident with the rights of private judgement.
But, to difcover the fallacy of all arguments to
this purpofe, it is only neceffary to confider, 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 Proteftants
agree they ought to do) the confequence would
moil probably be, that the far greater part of
honed: and fenfible Chriftians would be excluded
from the communion of every church which has
an eilabliihed confeflion e. For where is there one

e A certain writer, in the Daily Gazetteer of Sept. 30, 1766,
pronounces, that ** the Author of the Confeffional cannot,
" confiftently with his principles, be a member of any efta-
" blifhed church." Whether the hint was taken from this
paflage, or fome other, is not any great matter. The quef-
tion is, how far the faid Author is within the reach of this
fulminating cenfure ? or what the confequence mull be if he
falls under it ? " He," fays Lord Clarendon, " who will pro-
<• fefs all the opinions held by the moft ancient fatbits, and ob-

C 3 of

$6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

of thefe confeflions which does not contain fome
very material decifions, from which an intelligent
Chriflian, who hath duly examined the {criptureSj

li ferve all that was praftifed in the primitive times t cannot
tf be of the communion of any one church in the world."
EJfays, fol. 1727. p. 226. As this zealous brother in the
Gazetteer may probably be one of thofe who eftimate ortho-
doxy by an agreement with Fathers and Times, one would
wifh to know v/hat abatements in profejfion and practice he
thinks proper to make, in order to qualify himfelf to be a
member of the eftablifhed church with which he communi-
cates ? An explicit declaration on this head, by fo ftrenuous
an adherent to ejlabtifiments, would be both edifying and
entertaining. The Author of the Confejfwnal, on his part,
declares, without hefitation, that he knows no Fathers of the
ChriiHan church more antient than the Apoftles of Chrift, nor
any times more primhi-ue than thofe in which they preached
and wrote. Whatfoeyer they taught, he profelfes cordially
to believe ; and how much foever he may befneereJ for ad-
hering to fcripture-precedenis, is defirous to obferve whatfo-
ever was prattifed in the firft Chriftian churches fettled by
thofe venerable Fathers, fo far as he can difepver it in ths
fcriptures. And if any eftablifhed church fhould difown him
for a member, upon accountof his not believing or not prafli-
fing more or lefs than he finds in thofe fcriptures, he appre-
hends the fault will, in the event, be found, not in himfelf,
but in the church or churches who rejeft one whom the
.Apoftles of Chrift would not have rejected. " J'avoue que?
" je fuis de ceux qui font pour le Chriftianifme apoftolique,,
'■' ou pour celui qu'on pent tirer de leurs ecrits, en propres
f* termes, oupardes confequences neceffaires, lorfqu'il s'agit
?« d'uu dogme eflentiel," fays Mr. Le Cltrc, Bibl. Choifie,
torn. 21. p. \ K- And. fo fay I too; referving to myfelf,
however, the privilege of drawing thefe nectjjary conjequenccs
for my own ufc, without being obliged to trull to the logic 0/
latj^ursof mpye modern dmcq.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 37

may not rcaforuibly dijfentf I had almoft. faid,
where is there one of them to which a knowing
and thinking Chriflian can affent in all points,
without proflituting his underflanding and con-
science to the dottrines and commandments of
men ? — I fay, a knowing and thinking Chriflian ;
for he mud have confidered the cafe before us
very fuperficially, who does not perceive, that
the adherence of fuch numbers to the peculiar
■doctrines of the church from which they receive
their denomination, and even to fome do&rines
■common to the creeds and confeffions of all
churches, which call themfelves orthodox, is ow-
ing to their ignorance, their indolence, their fe-
cularity, or the early prejudices of education,
which are known to be the unhappy circumflan-
ces of the common people, all over the Chriilian
world.

Some zealous men have, indeed, inferred a
neceffity for confeffions, and consequently an au-
thority in the church to eftablifh them, from thefe
very indifpofitions and incapacities of the people
to examine and judge for themfelves. But, tho'
this is perhaps the belt plea of right which the
church has to all edge, yet wifer and cooler ad-
vocates for confeffions chufe not to abide by an
argument, which would equally vindicate the
church of Rome with refpect to many of her im-
pofitions. Not to mention, that thefe indifpofi-
tions and incapacities in the clergy would be but

C 4 *Q

38 THE CONFESSIONAL.

an aukward reafon for making their affent and
fubfcription to confefiions an indifpenfable con-
dition of being admitted into the church as

teachers.

Thefe prudent gentlemen, therefore, feem in-
clined to acquit the laity of all concern with
edablifhed confeffions, and to confine their au-
thority to the clergy ; infomuch that (if I under-
fland fome of our modern cafuifts on this fubjecl)
a layman, if he can get over his own fcruples,
may pray, hear the word, and even communicate,
with what Proteftant church he pleafesf. If

f The opinions, indeed, of thefe modern divines on this
article are not uniform. Many worthy minifters of feveral de-
nominations, whofe catholic principles would incline them tp
rejecl. no man who mould attend their communions with de-
cency and reverence, may ftill think themfelves obliged (and
very realbnably) to have refpecl: to the fenfe of the congrega-
tion where they conftantly officiate. Others, I know, think
differently ; and this occafions a variety in pra&ice. See
fVbifton's Memoirs, vol, II p. 485. and Killing<wortli s Exami-
nation of Dr. Foffer's Sermon on Catholic Communion. — "It
' *' feems to me," fays Mr. La Roche, " that Proteftants and
" Catholics fhould not difcourage thofe heterodox men who
«' come to their altars.-" Abridgement, vol. II. p. 613. And
fo it feems to me too, provided fuch heterodox men come
there of choice, Jolely for a religious end, and behave reve-
rently and decently when they are there. But, when Mr. La
Roche adds, " The church of England is the wifeft national
ti church in the world upon this head," he refers to a very
different cafe, wherein indeed the wifdom of the church had
no (hare. Molt of the bifhops, and among them the two
archbifhops Wake and Dawes, oppofed the repeal of the z£t
againit occajional conformity with all their ftrength : an acl

this

THE CONFESSIONAL. 39

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

But, however this matter might turn out upon
the experiment, certain it is, that, in fo far as the
laity are allowed not to be bound by thefe church
confeffions, the point of right to eflabliih them
as iclb of orthodoxy is fairly given up, as well
for the clergy as the laity; fince whatever rule

which, ali ihe world knows, difcouraged heterodox men from
coming to our altars. TindaVs Contin. 8vo. vol. XXVII. p.
231 — 241. And to admit thefe heterodox men to our altars,
without previously revoking their nvickcd errors, is againit.
our canon-law to this hour. In the mean time, the Teft Ad
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 Jews, mention was
made of fome Jet&t in K. William's reign, who actually
came to our Qbriflian altars to qualify themfelves for natura-
lization. Land. Mag. for July, 1753, p. 306. We are apt
to value ourfelves mightily on the refpett which foreign Pro-
teftants exprefs for our church : but there are cafes where
this refpedl docs us no honour. Such a compliment as this
of Mr. La Roche is enough to put a fenfible Church-of-
England-man, who knows the true ftate of the cafe, out of
countenance. A law inducing men to profefs, by a folemn
aft, that their religious opinions are what they really are not,
iino mark either of wifdom or Chriftian charity in awychurch.
But this point has been fo thoroughly difcufled and cleared
up by the late Bilhop of Winch -eft 'er, that there is no danger
it mould ever be thrown into confufion again ; though, more
lately, fome ingenious pains have been taken that way, viz.
in the Book of Alliance between Church and State, written
by another Bilhop,

is

40 THE CONFESSIONAL.

is iiiffieient to direct the faith and practice of the
layman, muft likewife be fufficient to direct the
teaching of the clergyman, unlefs the clergyman
may be obliged to teach doctrines, which the
layman is not obliged either to believe or to
praclife*.

s " As if," faith Dr. Rut bet forth, " the governors of the
vhurch, becaufe they do not bind the laity to fubfcribe to
11 the eilablilhed confeflion, did not underfland them to be
*' bound in confcience, as much as the clergy, to believe
w and practife what is contained in it," p. 15. And yet it
feems, that after the governors of the church have fet forth
this confeflion as a rule to direcl the faith and practice of the
Jaity, " they leave every man to judge and determine for
" himfelf, whether it is fuch a one as he ought to a/Tent to,

41 or not.'* That is to fay, every layman ; for the clergyman,
having already affented to this confeihon, is net left thus
to judge and determine for himfclf. Now as the layman is
left thus to judge and determine to the end of his life, with-
out aay requifition on the part of church-governors, ei-
ther to fubfcribe or declare his a-flent to the confeflion, how
can thefe governors poflibiy underfland that the layman is as
much bound in confcience to believe and praftife what is
contained in the confeflion, as the clergyman who hath fo-
lemnly fubferibed, and declared his afient to it? In truth,
the governors of the church underfland no fuch thing; and
Dr. Rutberforth himfelf mall, upon this occafion, be my
voucher. For, flrange as it may appear, in thefe very words
docs he conclude the paragraph : " Of the laity they do not
'•' require this fubfeription ; becaufe, after they have taken
e* care that thefe fhould be duly inflrutted, their duty extends
" no farther, and therefore gives thetn no right to know what
f determination the private judgment of any one of this rank
" may have led him to-" But it is upon this very determination,
^vhich church- governors have no right ts know, that the obli-
g tioi) ui the layman's confcience depend',. Whence it ap-

" Put."

THE CONFESSIONAL. 41

" But," fay fome men, " if there be really an
u expedience and utility in thefe public formularies
" called confeflions of faith, we may well infer a
" right to eftablifh them, although concerning
*' fuch right the fcripture mould be filent. Many
" things relating to public worfhip, and public
" edification, mufl be left to the prudence and
" difcretion of church-goTernors for the time
fl being ; and if confefhons are manifeftly ufeful
" and expedient for the church, there mufl be an
" authority lodged fomewhere to prepare and
" inforce them."

The expediency and utility of confeflions will be
very particularly confidered in the next chapter ;
for which reafon I fhall forbear to fay any thing
farther to this plea at prefent, fave only a word
or two concerning this method of arguing from
the probable expedience or utility of any thing in
religion to a right or authority to employ or
introduce it.

pears that church-governors, whofe duty is limited as above, do
not pretend to underfland toit^a/the layman is or is not bound
in confeience with refpeft to their eftablilhcd confeffion ; and
if they underfland the clergyman, upon account of his fub-
fcribing the confeffion, to be bound in confeience to believe
and praftife what is contained in it, it will follow, that
«* the clergyman may be obliged to teach do&rines which
•' the layman is not obliged either to believe or practife."
for ex bypotbefi the eftabliffied confeffion is the rule for the
clergyman's dotlrinal teaching, from which he may not de-
part, on the peril of being held -unjlund by his governors.

42 THE CONFESSIONAL,

No wife man, who hath duly confidered the
genius and defign of the Chriftian religion, will
look for much utility or expedience, where the
church or church-governors go beyond their plain
commijfion. 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 coniideration has always difpofed
me to reafon in a manner j lift 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 fhould be ftriclly followed and adhered
to, even though the expedience of them fhould not
be very evident a priori h. We can have no pre-

h " When thofe," faith Dr. Rutberfortb, " who allow
" that * fuch methods of promoting Chriftianity, as are plainly
" recommended by fcripture-precedents, ought to be ftrictly
" followed,' complain of it as an unwarrantable encroach-
" ment on Chriftian liberty, that fubfcriptions fhould be
" required to be made to religious propofitions expreffed in
" any other than fcripture-language, one is apt to fufpetl,
•«' that by a fcripture precedent they mean a precedent of a
•* confeflion recorded in the fcriptures, and expreffed there
** in unfcriptural words. But without looking for fuch in-
" confiftencies" — This method cf looking for inconjljlenciesy
is fo very neiv, that I cannot readily find a clafs for it among

tence

THE CONFESSIONAL. 43

tence of right or authority to alter fuch methods
for others feemingly more expedient, while fo

the current arts of controverfy. May I venture to call it a
piece of Profefjorjl.ip, where an aptnefs to Jufped is a neceflary
part of the calling, left the unwary Moderator fhould be fur-
prifed into inconvenient conceflions by the infidious colour-
ings of heretical pravity, as hath fomctimes been the cafe. The
Profeflbr refers to Confeflional, p. 19. 29. The thing com-
plained of, p. 19. of the firft edition, as " an unwarrant-
*' able encroachment on Chriftian liberty," is, " the prac-
" tice of requiring fubferiptions to human explications of
c< ChriiHan doclrine." Are fcripture-precedents there called
for to juftify the practice ? or are they there fo much as
mentioned ? Nothing like it. But fcripture-precedents ia
general happen to be recommended, at the diltanca of tea
pages, as the fafeft for church-governors to follow in all ca-
fes ; and why fhall not a ^rc/^/difputant have the privilege
of tacking things together to make his own ends meet, and
to fix any abfurdity upon his opponent that may fubierve his
own argument ? But, however, we have no reafon to com-
plain of the learned Profeflbr for declining to gratify even
our inconfiflent demands, fince he does his beft endeavour to
give us a fit ipture-pn cedent for requiring fubfeription or de-
claration of affent to a confeflion exprefted in wfiriptural
words. " But," fays he, " without looking for fuch inconfijl~
" encies, it is enough for us to find, that St. Paul, when he
" commanded Timothy and Titus to examine into the faith
" of all thofe whom they fhould receive into the miniltry,
" gave them no directions to ufe only fcripture language."
Which is to fuppofe that, when the epillles to Timothy and
Titus were written, the oilier fcripturcs of the N. T. were
extant, and collected together as we now have them ; other-
wife the no dirtQions of St. Paul might be owing to the want
of a complete rule whereby to direct the examination of can-
didates. It is not enough, therefore, fjr the Profcflbr's pur-
pofe to find thefe no directions, till he hath proved, that the

3 very

44 THE CONFESSIONAL.

very much of the effect of religion, or, in other
words, of its utility, is made by our bleffed Mafter
to depend on the inward frame of every man's
heart, into which ordinary church-governors can
have no faf ther dlfcernment than other men. On
this account, thofe means of edification, public or

faiptufes of the New Teftament were in the hands of Timo-
thy and Titus in the circumftances above mentioned. But
for once let us fuppofe they were ; and how then ? Why
then, " we may reaTonably conclude that Timothy and Titus
" were left at liberty to propofe their quellions in any
'* words that would afcertain theit meaning." Conlidering
the ufe the learned Profeflbr propofes to make of this fcrip-
ture-precedent, I fliould think he hath exprefled himfelf here a
little unwarily. Would he have it underftood that Timothy
and Titus were left at liberty to propofe their queftions in
any words which would afcertain a meaning of their owun,
different from the meaning of the fcriptures^ which they are
fuppoled to have had in their hands ? And would he infer
from hence, that church-governors of the prefent times are
left at the fame liberty ? No, I will not fuffer myfelf Xo/uf-
pitl that the learned ProfefTor, adventurous as he is, would
go this length in vindication of any Protejlant church. I will,
therefore, fuppofe this to be a Hip of his pen ; and that he
meant to fay, that Timothy and Titus were left at liberty to
propofe their queftions in any words that would afcertain the
meaning, or, what is the fame thing, Jix the fenfe of the /cap-
tures they had in their hands. And yet I know not how far
I mould be right in thi3 modification of the Profeflor's ex-
preflion, or how far he Would think fit to own it. For on the
oppofite page he tells us, " that new and unfcriptural words
•* and expreflions were introduced by church-governors, not
«' to fx the fenfe (in other words, to afcertain the meaning )
**■ of fcrip/we-doclrines, but to fx the fenfe—oi fomething
«" elfe." And fo much for inconftfencies,

. private,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 4$

private, will always, in my efteem, bid the faireft
for fuccefs, which are the trued copies of apofto-
lic originals. Notions of expedience in any thing
more than thefe, when there is nothing to judge
by but fuperficial appearances, have frequently
led men to interfere very unfealbnably with the
dilates of other mens confeiences ; and no greater
mifchief has ever been occasioned by any thing
in the Chriflian church, than by thofe very expe-
dients of human prudence, from which the bed
effects have been expected.

Among other inftances which might be given
to verify this obfervation, we have one at home,
in which all thofe who are called to the miniftry
are too nearly concerned not to be capable judges*
After fome progrefs had been made in the re-
formation of the church of England, it was thought
to be a great defeat, that a public confeflion of
faith and doclrine fhould ftill be wanting'.
To fupply tills defect, the Articles of Religion
were compiled, publifhed, and enjoined to be fub-
fcribed. Thefe Articles (with fome alterations
which palTed in thofe days for improvements) are
flill fubferibed by, at leaft, one hundred of our
minifters every year. That above one fifth of
this number do not fubferibe or affent to thefe
Articles in one uniform fenfe, we have great rea-
fon to believe ; and yet the avowed purpofe of
this general fubfeription is to prevent diverfity of

1 Bumfs Hid. Reform, vol. II. p. 166. and vol. Ill,
p 210.

2 opinions.

46 THE CONFESSIONAL.

opinions. And indeed, confidering to what forts
of men this teft is made indifpenfable, it is, t
think, as much as can be expecled, if another
fifth fubfcribe them in any fenfe, but the fenfe'
they have of wanting preferment in the church
if they lhould not.

It is true, all thefe perfons minifler in the1
feveral congregations by one common iovm,
framed, for the general, on the model of the
confeflion they have fubfcribed ; and fo far all
has a fair and honefr. appearance, and, while they
keep their thoughts to themfelves, is confiftent
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 eftabliflied fyftem
is laid afide, or, perhaps, if it comes in their way,
quite overfet k, and many things written and
uttered with all freedom, by different perfons,
equally irreconcileable to each other, as Well as
to the orthodox confeffion.

What now is the utility or expedience in this
affair of fubfcription, which will atone for the
fcandal brought upon the caufe of Chriftianity
by this unfcriptural article of church difcipline ?

k " 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 New England, are," fays Bifhop'
Rufl, Defence of Origen, &c. Phoenix, vol. I. p. 83. fo that
this is no new complaint. See likewife Dr. Hartley's Obfer-
vations on Man, vol. II. p. 354. and a remarkable inftance
in A Defence of the Effay on Spirit, p. 24.

To

THE CONFESSIONAL. 4?

To ray nothing of the diftrefs of many a confei-

entious minifter under the unhappy dilemma of,

fubferibe or ftarve k j is it pofftble that the igno-

k " Take away the legal emoluments of the miniilry," fays
Dr. Rutherforth, " and though you leave fubferiptions, thefe
" ufeful" [he fnould have added confeientious'] " minifters, as
" they are called, will make no complaint of their being under
" the dilemma of either fubferibing to our articles, orcf not
" enjoying the liberty of preaching the gofpel." Vindication,
p. 5. A moft uncharitable judgement, and, as it happens,
contradicted by notorious matter of faft. It is well known,
that the diflenting clergy are excluded from the legal emolu-
ments of the miniilry, and are not legally at liberty to preach
the gofpel, but upon condition of their fubferibing the major
part of our articles. In the year 1719, Mr. James Pii.-ce and
Mr. Jo/epb Hallet junior, of Exeter, were fhut out cf their
pipits, as Mr. Pierce exprcfies it, for refufing to fubferibe the
firjl article of the church of England. Wcjlern Inquifition,
p. 70. 147, 148. About the fame time, others of their bre-
thren were excluded from, and fome of them by, their re-
fpeclive congregations, for the fame caufe. And among
thefe, fome were obliged to betake themfelves to fecular em-
ployments. Ibid. p. 158, 159. Thefe, and feveral others
which happened in different places, are cafes in point againfl
Dr. Rutherfortb. I have been informed upon good authority,
that the late Dr. Fcjier never fubferibed the articles, and that,
when fome diftant attempts were made by a great churchman
of thofc times to inforce a compliance with the toleration aft
upon all the dilfenting clergy, he bore a noble and fpirited
tcftimony, which fhewed at lead that fecular hopes or fears
were no part of the motives upon which he exercifed his mi-
niilry. I could augment this lift pretty cdnfiderably, by ad-
ding others of different denominations within my own know-
ledge, were this a proper place for information of that kind.
Far be it from me to fet the ufefulnefs of dijfenters upon an
equal footing with the ufefulnefs of a learned and laborious

D ranee,

48 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ranee, the indolence, or the infincerity of tbe
refl, fhould not make confiderable impreffions,

Profeflbr in a celebrated univerfity; but I cannot help ex-
prefling my apprehenfions, that fome of the works of Pierce*
Hallet, and Fojier, will be inquired after and read with edifi-
cation, long after the ConfcJfio7ial and this elaborate confu-
tation of it are buried in oblivion. If fueh then is the felf-
denial of diflenters, who pafs with us for mijlaken men in the
greater part of their fyftcm, fhall we fay, or even fuppofe,
that legal emoluments have a ilronger bias upon the more en~
lightened minds- of the members of the eftablifhment r or will
the Profeflbr fay, that none of the eftablifhed clergy have
any fcruples about fubfeription at all? — " Nor>" continues
the learned Profeflbr, ,{ is the cafe fairly ftatedin the prefent
w fituation of things. Subfcription is no 7ie<w teft of our
" opinions, which is- then firft propofed to us when we are
" already in the miniftry, and are going to be admitted to
" an ecclefiaftical benefice ; for we cannot be admitted to
'* the lowctl order of minifters without it." No, Mr. Pro-
feflbr, nor without a competent Jlipend, on the peril of the can-
didate's being thrown on the biihop who ordains him, for a
maintenance ivith all things necfffary, till he do prefer him to fome
ecclefiaftical Hiring* Canon xxxiii.. In what refpeft then is
the cafe unfairly Mated ? " Why, they who are concerned in
" this dilemma fhould not be called mimfiers" Very well,
we will not Hand for fmall matters. We will call them men ;
and then the Hate of the cafe will ftand thus : " Many an
" ufeful, confeientious man, after having fpent his time and
" his fortune among Doftors and Profeflbrs, in fitting him-
*' felf for the miniftry, finds, in the twenty- third of his life,
" fuch conditions prefcribed, as he cannot inconfciencecom-
" ply with, and that he is reduced to the unhappy dilemma
«* of fubfcribir.g at all adventures, or farming." " No," fays
the Profeflbr, " he may apply himfelf to fome other way of
" getting a livelyhood." But may it not be fomewhat of the
lateft, when his money is gone, and the man himfelf perhaps

both

THE CONFESSIONAL. 49

both upon the friends and enemies of revelation ?
Suppofe the herd of mankind were too much

under canonical correction for his ivicked errors. But, rc«-
rage ! Things are not quite To defperate. Tne mere carcafe
of an indigent heretic in durance would not, /* the prefent
foliation of things, pay the expence of ^'jignifieawt', and the
man, being left at large, mult be poor indeed if he cannot
purchafe a fpade and a pickax. — An able-bodied man rr.ajf
always find work upon the turnpike roads. At length, in-
deed, the Profeflbr owns " there have been fome minifters
*' who have fcrupled to repeat the fubfeription, and have
" therefore continued without any ecclefiaftical preferment
" till their fcruples were removed, or perhaps as long as they
" lived. But," adds the humane Profeffor, M the number
" has been too fmall for any one to pretend that it would be
" reafonable for the fake oifuch as thefe-to give up the general
" benefit propofed by fubferiptions." Such as thefe; that is to
fay, ufeful and confeientious minifters. For they are fitch as
thefe that the Confejfional fpeaks of. Shall we fay then, that
it is not only the fmallnefs of the nutnler, but the fort of men,
which makes it unnafinable to give up the general benefit
propofed by fubferiptions ? But, to have given its proper
weight to his argument, the learned ProfefTor fhould have
faid, " the general benefit aclaally obtained by fubferiptions.'*
They who firft required fubferiptions might propufc a general
benefit, which has never been obtained. To make us judges
of this, the learned i'reieffor fhould h:ve been particular in
explaining in what this general benefit conftfts. If fubferip-
tion is confidered in the light of ztefi whereby the foundnefs
of the candidate in faith and doctrine is ascertained, and if
this be the general benefit propofed by it, I fhould appre-
hend, from the latitude allowed by other defenders of fub-
feription, that this benefit is fo far from being gene; al, that it
never can be obtained from any fubferiber who takes advan*
tage of the latitude allowed by thefe difcr.ders. And they
who do not take this advantage are, perhaps, flill fewer in
number than they who fcruple to fubferibe at all. Where

D 2 employe J

5o THE CONFESSIONAL.

employed in other bulinefs to turn their attention
of themfelves to remarks of this nature, yet the
zeal and eagernefs of the litigants to expofe this
prevarication on either fide, by calling their
fubfcriptions in-each other's teeth, will not fufFer
the moll incurious mortal to be long uninformed
of it, if he mould only look into fome of the
commonerl 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 reltriclions you
think proper, you cannot aflert to it a right of
deciding in controversies of faith and doctrine,
or, in other words, a right to require affent to a
certain fenfe of fcripture, exclulive of other fenfes,
without an unwarantable interference with thofe

then would be the unreafonabknefs of giving up what cannot
be obtained, for the fake of ufeful and confcientious men»
though ever fo few ? Indeed, if the general benefit of fubfcrip-
tions is the letting a number of men into a <way of getting a
lively hood (the only obvious alternative hinted at), perhaps
the general benefit propofed, and the general benefit obtained^
may be nearly equal : and then the fort of tnsu who objedl to
fubfcriptions, will be out of the queftion. For then the equi-*
/«£/£ decifion of the cafe will depend, not upon the reafona-
blenefs of having fome regard and compaflion for ufeful and
confcientious miniiters, or upon the reafonablenefs of the
fcruples which with- hold them from fubfcribing, but upon
the reafonablenefs of accommodating the numbers of thofe
who have no fcruples, at the expence of thofe who have
fcruples.

richts

THE CONFESSIONAL. 51

rights of private judgement which are manifeftly
iecured to every individual by the fcriptural
terras of Chriftian liberty, and thereby contra-
dicting the original principles of the Proteflant
Reformation [.

1 " But can any one imagine, fays Dr. Rutherforth, that
" Chriit and his Apoftles purpofdy delivered their do&rines
" in fuch expreffions as would admit of different interpreta-
" tions, that each particular perfon might interpret them for
" hirnfeif, and might, in determining what his faith fhould
" he, have a variety to choofe out of?" p. 12. I fuppofe,
the learned Profeffor will think each particular perfon fafe
enough in imagining what his church- governors have imagined
before him. " Nor arc thefe changes of fenfe, fays the reve-
*' rend Dr. Powell, unufual even in our moil folemn forms.
" The paffages of the Pfalms, or other fcriptures, which make
¥ a part of our daily devotions, cannot always be applied by
«< every Chriftian as they were by the writers." Strmon in de-
fence of fubfeription, p. 14. Here, we fee, change of applica-
f;:>:, when thefe inftances occur, implies change of fenfe.
Whether the writers of thefe paffages purpfcly delivered them
in fuch expreffions as would admit of different interpretations,
1 leave to be difcufled by thefe two eminent Doctors. Jf they
did, I cannot fee why each particular perfon fhould not,
upon Protcftant principles, have as much right to choofe an
'interpretation for himfelf, as his church-governors have to
choofe one for him. If they did not, I am afraid it will
follow that every Chriftian who makes ufe of thefe folemn
forms, and cannot apply the paffages of fcripture in them
as the writers of thefe paffages applied them, has been />«>•-
pfth led, by thofe who compofed and authorized thefe forms,
iirto a mifapplicathn of fcripture. But to anfwer the Profeflbr's
qucllion directly : Nobody that I know of does imagine, that
this was the defign of Chriil and his Apoftles; and what
then ? Why then, " the terms which fecure to each Chriftian

D 2 This

52 THE CONFESSIONAL.

This point being fettled, the fquabbles among
particular churches concerning their fuppofed li-

" the right of interpreting them [the difcourfes or writings of
" Chrift and his Apoilles] for himfelf, cannot without impro-
fi prieiy be called the fcriptural terms of chrijlian liberty : they
" fhould rather be called the terms of an accidental liberty%
f1. which belongs to Chriftians in their prefent fituation."
And fo all this parade of objection ends in an impropriety !
and well it is no worfe. However, if it is an impropriety,
the author of the Confejfional was led into it by an authority
equal at lead to that of Dr. Rutberfrib, even the authority
of the great Cbillingmuortb, whofe words are thefe : " This

• vain conceit, that we can fpeak of the things of God bet-
' ter than in the words of God; this deifying our own in-
' terpretadons, and forcing them upon others ; this reftrain-
1 itg the nvord of GOD from that latitude and generality, and
' the w:derfiandings of men from THAT LIBERTY WHEREIN
' Christ and his Apostles left them, is and hath
' been the only fountain of all the fchifms in the church,

* and i;» that which makes them immortal." Chap iv. feci.
1 6. The Profefior, however, having left this fma!l cavil to
take its chance, returns to the true queflion, " Whether
" this liberty is not unwarrantably interfered with, by re-
f* quiringChriltians to afhn to any certain fenfe of fcripture,
tf where they are perfuaded it will admit of other fenfes,
*' and have a right to judge for themfelves which is the true
" one ? The anfwer, fays the Profelfor, is obvious. No
*.' Chriitian is jequired to fubferibe to fuch confefiions as I am
f* fpeaking of, who is not in his own private judgement con-
f vinced that they are agreeable to the word of God."
p. l 3. I would not willingly fufpedt the learned ProfeiTor of
attempting to evade the force of the queilion, under the
cover of the wofd. fubferihe. The term in the queltion is
fffent ; ana if it is not required of thofe Chrillians, who
are not required to fubja-ibe, to aJJ'ent to the confeffion, how
can the governors of the church poffibly underhand thofe
Chriftians who do not fubferibe the cenfeffion, to be bound

THE CONFESSIONAL. 53

"berty within their refpeftive departments (in lb
far as thefe confeffions come in queflion) is about

in confcicnce to believe what is contained in it, as much
as they who do fubferibe it, as the ProfefTor afftrts in the
very next page ? Can any man be underftood to be bound in
conference to believe apropofition, to which he is not required
to offent ? Well, but there are Chriflians of a certain clafs,
who are required both to ajjbit and fubferibe to a certain
fenfe of fcripture expreffed in fuch confeffions as the Profef-
for is fpeaking of. What right have church-governors to
interfere with the private judgement of thefe, any more than
with the private judgement of any <?/£«- Chriltians ? The Pro-
fefTor anfwers, *' Thefe confeffions are defigned to be tells
" by which the governors of the church may find out, whe-
" ther they who defire to be appointed pallors and teach-
•' ers, affent to the faith and doctrines contained in them or
'.' not." p. 13. But what is all this to the point of right
thus to interfere ? where is the warrant of thefe church-go-
vernors to find this out? If the faith and doctrines contained
in thefe confeffions are different from the faith and doctrines
contained in the fcriptures, the governors of the church can
have no fcriptural warrant for impofing any fuch tell. If the
faith and doctrines contained in thefe confeffions aft: the
fame with the faith and doclrines contained in the fcriptures,
the requiring an affent to the latter will enable the governors
of the church to find out as much to the full as they are *uar»
ranted to rind out. Be it here obferved, that the right of
interfering is wholly built upon the right of finding out what,
urrlefs fubfeription to the confeffion is an infallible tefl, they
never can find it out. For it is not a clear cafe that any one
who fubferibes the confeffion affents to every thing contained
in it. And what is the confequence if he does not? Why
truly " he frultrates the purpofe for which confeffions were
" eibblifhed.'" And is not this fruftrat ion a poffible cafe ?
Is it not a very common cafe ? Is it not what fubferibers of
.different complexions object to each other on various occa-
sions with all freedom ? And are not the governors of the
D 4 a thine

54 THE CONFESSIONAL.

q. thing of nought. For, none of them haying
a right to eftablifh or to prefcribe fuch do&rinal
confeflions for the whole body, it is matter of
great indifference .(fetting afide the fcandal of it)
in what degree they exclude or make room for
ope another.

But, to give this matter a little confideration
with refpect to the prefent effects of it upon
Chriflian focieties, let us fuppofe that Proteftant
churches have fuch a right each within its own
confines. The queftion is, how flialj one church
exercife this right, without encroaching on the
right of another ? Upon the genuine grounds of
feparation from the church of Rome, all particu-
lar churches are co-ordinate"3 ; they have all the
fame right in an equal degree ; and the decifions
of one are, in point of authority, upon the very

church moft highly obliged to the learned Profeflbr for
pleading fo ftrenuoufly for their right to be the dupes of
their own policy ?

01 The Proteftant churches every where fet up on this
principle ; what regard they have paid to it flnce, is another
affair. One remarkable inftance may be worth mentioning:
'* The refugees," fays Mr. La Roche, " who were driven out
" of the Low-Countries by the Duke of Alva, in the year
*• 1 57 1, held a fynod at Embden ; and their firft canon was,
" that no church fhould have dominion over another church. :'
And, to teftify their fiftcerity herein, they put the French and
Dutch confeflions upon the fame footing, by fubferibing them
both. Abridgement, vol. I. p. 14.1. But N. B. The Dutch
Confeflion was not then eflablifhed, and thefe were poor
friendlefs refugees. 'Tis pity but feme of them had lived
to fee how facredly this canon of Embden was obferved in the
fynod of Dart.

4 fame

THE CONFESSIONAL. 55

fame level with thofe of another. This being
fo, I do not fee how it is poffible for any church
to excrcfe this right in thofe inffances where fhe
dhiblifhes doctrines peculiar to h erf elf, and in-
coniiflent with the doctrines of other churches,
without abridging thofe churches of their right
to eftablifh their own doctrines. No church can
have a right to eftablifh any doctrines, but upon
the fuppofition that they are true. If the doc-
trines eftabliihed in one church are true, the
contrary doctrines eftabliihed in another church
mud be falfe ; and I prefume, no church will
end for a right to eflablifh falfe doctrines".

0 " A very common diftinction, fays Dr. Rutherforth, will
•*' clear up this matter. No church has a right to eflablifh,
" as no individual has a right to hold, falfe doctrines, as
" falfe doctrines. But if either a Proteitant church, or an
" individual Proteitant, mould, after due con fi deration, be
" perfuaded that any doctrines are true, which in reality are
f* falfe, either the right of a church, acting under this per-
" fur.fion, to provide for and fecure the public teaching of
" thefe doctrines, "which in the prefent quejiion is all that <we
" mean by a right to ejiablijh them, mufl be well founded ; or
" an individual, acting under the fame perfiiafion, can have
•" no right to hold them" Charge, p. 17. How much is
a cc~. erfial writer at his eafe, when he takes the liberty
.c his own cafe, and to apply to it his own diftinctions!
-And is this in truth all that the author of the ConfeJJional
n by a right to cfiallijb theft doclrines ? Does he not

P " '^n a right pretended to in any one Proteitant
«- oh tc bliih its peculiar doctrines, as ftandards of or-
t be tubok body of Proteflants ? Does he not plain-

1 1 an eltablifhment as excludes or reprobates other

! do not hold the fame doctrines ? Does he not

And

$6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

And indeed, whatever may be pretended, this is
the very footing upon which all Protectant
churches have, occafionally, treated the churches
that differed from them, and from whence the
conclufionto adifintereited by-dander is obvious ;
namely, that, in confequence of thefe co-ordinate
powers, none of them had a right to eflablifli any
doctrines, but with the unanimous confent of all
the reft.

plainly ^ppofe to this pretended right, the principle of co-
ordination, on which all Proteftant churches at firil fct up,
and by « hich they renounced, each for itfelf, all dominion
over any other church ? And has he not explained himfelf
beyond the portability of being miftaken by any reader of
common fehfe and common attention, by confidering the
c tfe OiKore than one Proteilant church in one Proteftant (late?
And fhall he after this be fuppofed to mean no more by a
right to eftablifh doctrines, than " a right in a particular
*' church to provide for and fecure the public teaching of
'* fuch doclrines as fhe holds within her own department ?"'
But, one word more with the learned ProfefTor. While he
was looking for this diftin&ion, hath he not manifeftly de-
fcrted his own church-fyftem ? He forgets, I'm afraid, upon
this occafion, that his particular churches are not like Mr.
Locke's voluntary focieiies, where the confent of all the mem-
bers mud be had in order to eilablifh any thing, and in that
refpect may each of them be compared to an individual
Proteftant with fufhcient propriety. Whereas the Profef-
for's particular churches have Rulers and Governors appoint-
ed under Chrift, and inverted with a right independent of
the lay-members, to eftablifh whatfocver they may judge
to be expedient for them. He hath therefore brought
himfelf under a neceflity either of diverting his church-
governors of their right, or of dropping the analogy between
a particular Proteftant church and a Proteftant individual, un-
lefs indeed it is fuch an individual as is in the arms of a nurfe.

h

THE CONFESSIONAL. 57

It is true, Proteftants of one ft ate or country
have been tender of condemning the confeffion
of thofe of another, by any public fentence ; and
reafon good : their powers are limited by their
lituation, and extend not beyond their own de-
partments ; nor would their cenfures be regarded
elfewhere. But what instance is there upon re-
cord, where this liberty has been allowed (as the
co-ordinate principle manifestly requires it fhould
be) to more than one church in the fa?ue Proteftant
ftate ? Every party, in every Proteftant ftate,
has, by turns, made fome attempts to have their
religious tenets eftablifhed by public authority.
In every ftate fome one party has fucceeded ;
and, having fucceeded, impofes its own confeftion
upon all the reft ; excluding all diflenters from
more or fewer of the common privileges of citi-
zens, in proportion as the civil magiftrate is more
or lefs in the mood to vindicate, or diftinguifh,
the fyftem 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
againft the practice, 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

5S THE CONFESSIONAL,

and to defend by every argument of utility and
expedience0.

Of this many remarkable examples might be
given, in the complaints of church-men of dif-
ferent denominations in adverfity ; who, in the
day of their exaltation, had carried church-power
as far as it could well ftretch ; and who, when
the feverities of the adverfe party forced theie
lamentations from them, were obliged to plead
their came upon principles which made no re-
ferve of authority with refpect to one fort of reli-
gious ibciety more than another P.

" " It belongeth to fynods and councils miniilerially to
*' determine controverfies of faith and cafes of conference."
jifhnblys CorfeJJion, ch. xxxi. art. 3, This hath given occa-
sion to apply fome words of Ifaiah, viz. Look unto the rock
from <v;hence ye are henvn, and to the hole cf the pit fiom ivhence
ye are digged, to certain diffenters, who have fcrupled to fub-
{cribe the firft claufe of the 20th article of our church. At
prefent, this wit would be mifapplied. In the year 17 18,
fome of the wifeil and mofl eminent among the dirTenting
minifters made a -noble ftand againfi fome impofers oftefts in
their own fraternity. And in the year 1727, more of them
lefufed to fubferibe this very Wefiminjitr Confeffion.

P Thus the ingenious Bifhop ^Taylor, pleading for the liber-
ty of prcphejyingy at a, time when, to ufe his own expreflion,
the heffeJ of the church tvas dafied in pieces, found it necefTary
to afiert agafnft the taflc-m alters of thofe'days, that " if we
" have found out what foundation Chrift and his Apoftles
M did lay ; that is, what body and fyilem of articles fimply
" ncctjFary -they taught, and required of us to believe j we
•• need not, we canno: go any further for foundation, wa

" CANNOT ENLARGE THAT SYSTEM OR COLLECTION."

Among

THE CONFESSIONA 5)

Among others to whom eftablifhed confeffions
had been particularly grievous, were the Remon-
ftrants in Holland, after the fynod of Dorf,
Their affemblies were prohibited, and their mi-
nifters filenced and banifhed, for no other of-
fence but contradicting certain doctrines, which,
as we have feen above, the forefathers of their
perfecutors held to be of no Importance ; and which
had gained no new merit, but that of being efta-
bliihed by law.

One would have imagined that this ufage
would have cured the Remonstrants of all good-
liking to confeffions for ever. And fo perhaps it
did of their good- liking to all confeffions — but
one of their own framing, which Epifcopius and
his fellows actually compofed, fubferibed, and
publiihed, in this ftate of exile.

This ftep was fo very extraordinary for men in
their condition, whofe dillrerTes had been occa-
iioned by enforcing a fyftem drawn up in the
p. 17. — But, when the fhattered veflel came to be refitted,
the fkilful pilots found fhe neither had been, nor ever could
be, fleered to the port they aimed at, by thefe directions.
And accordingly, when they got pofleflion of the helm,
they adopted the old enlarged iyitem, adding as much more
of their own to the collection, as they perceived might be
necetfary to conduct the velfel in fafety to the golden coaft ;
without paying the leail regard to the remonftrances of thofe
who claimed an equal property in the bottom, and who in-
ceffantly clamoured, that neither the freight nor the ftecr-
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 oft hi j world.

fame

** THE CONFESSIONAL.

fame form, that they rightly judged the world
would expect fome fatisfa&ory account of it,
which therefore they attempt to give, in a long
Apology prefixed to their Confeffion ; wherein,
not contented with alledging 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 eflablifh
them as tells of truth, but infilling 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 mail attend them in the next chapter,
With fome particular confideratioris on the feveral
articles of their plea.

CHAP,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 61

CHAP. III.

The Apology of the Remonilrants for Co?ifeJfio7is,
in confiderat'ion of their Expediency and Utility,
examined,

IT had been obje&ed to confefiions in general,
that " they derogated from the authority and
" fufficiency of the fcriptures; that they en-
" croachedupon the liberty of private conscience,
" and the independency of Proteilant churches ;
" and that they tended to nothing better than
" feparation and fchifm."

The Remonilrants reply, that " thefe objec-
" tions did not afFecl confeffions themfelves, but
" only the abufe of them." But, however, as the
objectors had fo many inflances to appeal to,
where confeffions had been, and flill were, thus
abufedy and the Remonilrants fo few, if any, where
they were not, the latter were obliged to fet out
with very ample conceihons.

" Undoubtedly," fay they, " thofe phrafes
" and forms of fpeaking, in which God and
" Chriil delivered themfelves at firfl, for the ki-
" flruction of unlearned and ordinary men, niufl
" needs be fufllcient for the initru&ion of Chrif-
w tians in all fuccceding ages ;-*-confcquently, it
" is pomblc that the church of Chriil may not
tc only be, but alio that it may well be, without

62 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" thofe human forms and explications, called
" Confeffions a."

One would wonder now, what the Remon-
ftrants could find to fay for the fupport of their
fide of thequeftion. For, if the phrafes and forms
of fpeaking, made ufe of in the written word,
are fufficient for the inflruftion of unlearned and
ordinary men in all things which concern the
worfhip of God, and their own and others ever-
lading falvation ; and if, as the Obje&ors infill-
ed, and the Remonftrants could not deny, many
and great evils were, for the mojl party occalion-
ed by fuch phrafes and forms of fpeaking in con-
feflions as are not to be found in fcripture, the
Objeftors were fairly authorized to conclude,
not barely for the pojjibility that the church of
Chrifl might well be, but for the certainty that
it might better be, without fuch human forms
than with them.

The Remonftrants, however, attempt to reco-
ver their ground as follows : " If prophefyings,
" or interpretations of fcripture, fay thefe Apo-
" logifts, are not unprofitable, yea rather, if they
" be fometimes in certain refpe&s neceflary, when
" propofed by teachers and pallors in univerfities
" and churches, or other Chriftian affemblies, for
(C the information of the ignorant, &c. in familiar,
" clear, and ufual expreiiions, though not in the
" very words of fcripture j it cannot feem unpro-

a Preface to the Remonftrants Confeffion, publifhed in
Englifh at London, 1676. p. 12, 13.

u fitable,

THE CONFESSIONA|L. 63

" fitable, much lefs unlawful or hurtful, if more
<e minifters of Jefus Chrift do, by mutual con-
" fent, joint ftudies 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
" and declare their judgements upon the mean-
" ings of fcripture, and that in certain compofed
" forms b."

It is no eafy matter to difcover the drift of this
argument. Do the Remonftrants mean to infill
on the fuperior influence and authority of more
minifters, in the bufinefs of expounding the
fcriptures, in comparifon with fingle paftors or
profeffors ? By no means. Upon any fuppofi-
tion of this nature, the Belgic Confeilion had an
authority which rendered their revolt from it in-
excufable c. Would they be underflood to fay,

b Ibid. p. 13, 14.

c Dr. Stebbing, indeed, would have every one to own,
that " thofe explications of fcripture, which, after the ma-
" tureft deliberation, and the ufe of all proper helps, are
*' agreed upon by a nvbole body of men, are lefs liable to be
" faulty and defective, than thofe which particular perfons
*• may frame to themfelves." Rat. Enq. p. 29. In plain
EnglihS, You ixj'dl always be fafeji <witb the majority. For
where is the body of men who will not pretend to the mature/}
deliberation, and the ufe of the properejl helps? But the Re-
monftrants were men of fenfe, and faw, what Dr. Stebbing's
caufe required him to conceal, namely, that confiderations
of this kind muft, in the event, drive every man headlong
into the eftablifhed Religion, whatever it happens to be, or
E that

64 THE CONCESSIONAL,

that Confeffions compofed by the joint (tudies of
feveral miniflers are as ufeful as ordinary fermons
and lectures in churches and univerfities ? No,
they make no fuch companion ; they only infer,
with much ambiguity, from the premifes, that
Confeffions , with the circumftances mentioned, can-
not fe em unprofitable.

But, be their meaning what you will, the cafes
of interpreting fcripture in occafional prophefy-
ings and in dated confeiTions are difiimilar in
fo many refpecls, 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 Chriflian aifemblies, are not delivered in fa-
miliar, clear, and ufual forms of fpeech, they are
neither neceffary nor profitable,; nor can any thing
be inferred from the utility of fuch prophefyings
at all. On the other hand, if the fcriptures are
open and explained to the people in eafy and
familiar expreffions, by their ordinary pallors,
what poifible ule can you find for a fyflematical
confeffiun ? unlefs you think fit to eftabliili it as
a neceffary fupplement to the holy fcripture, and
then you once more return the queflion to the
point of right.

Again. What the preacher delivers from the
pulpit, or the profeffor from his chair, they deli-

fay whorcfoever devifed; whether by a fynagogueof Pharifees,
a Turkifh divan, a council of Trent, or, what the Remon-
fhants }iked as little as any of them, a fynod of Dart.

THE CONFESSIONAL. ■ 6$

vcr as the fentiments and conclufions of fingle
men, who have no authority to enforce their ex-
plications, any farther than their own good fenfe,
integrity, accuracy, and judgement, make way for
them. For the reft, their doctrines may be que-
stioned, the men themfelves called upon to review
them, and, if they fee reafoii, correct, and even
retract them, iiqA only without offence, but, in
fome cafes, with cxlvantage to the common faith.
But doctrines, opinions, and explications of fcrip-
ture, reduced to a fixed form, snd avowed by
the public aft of many fubferibing minifters, (who
by the way are fuli as likely to be fallible in a
body, as in their perfonal capacity) put on quite
another afpeel:. In that cafe all examination is
precluded. No one fubferiber is empowered to
explain or correct for the reft. Nor can any of
them retract, without {landing in the light of a
fchifmatic and a revolter from his brethren.

It is to little purpofe that the Remonitrants
would limit the ftrefs to be laid upon confeffions,
to their agreement with truth, and reafon, and
fcripture. The matter of complaint is, that
this agreement fhould be predetermined by the
declfion of thefe leading fubferibers, in fuch
fort, as to difcourage all free examination, and
conftrain the people to acquiefce in a precari-
ous fyftem, by the mere influence of great names
and refpcctable authorities, which, without any
Jldditional weight, arc too apt to overawe the
F 2 judgement

66 THE CONFESSIONAL.

judgement of all forts of men, even in cafes of
the greateft importance.

The expedience of Confeflions in no wife ap-
pearing from thefe general confiderations, let us
now fee what particular ufes the Remonflrants
have for them.

And here they tell us " of r.imes when grofa
" and noxious errors prevail in the world ; when
*■' neceffary heads of belief 2lve ^eglefted, and
" many points of faith urged and infilled on,
i( which are not neceffary; when no diftinction
({ is made between doctrines that art? barely pro-
" fltable, and thofe which are abfolutely necef-
" fary ; when human inventions are bound upon
•" men's confciences; and, laftiy, when many
" falfe and groundlefs doctrines are palliated
" and cloathed in fcripture-language. In thefe
f times, they think it not barely expedient, but
" in a good meafure neceffary, that pallors of
ie churches mould 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
<e of divine meanings, then may they profitably
f* fet forth the fame, &c." d

But, in the firfl place, How does it appear that
Confeffions have more of this elucidating proper-
ty than other forts of Refcripts ? It is a common
complaint, that thefe formularies of doctrine,

« Pag. 14, i£.

abounding

THE CONFESSIONAL. 67

abounding in artificial and fcholaftic terms, are
rather apt to perplex and confound things that
are otherwife clear and plain, than to illuftrate
any thing with a fuperior degree of perfpicuity.
And I am really afraid there is no room to ex-
cept the very confeffion to which this apology
is prefixed;

But to let this alone; there occurs another
difficulty, with refpe£t to this elucidation, not fa
eafily got over. It is well known, that fome
opinions have been formally condemned by the
framers of Creeds and Confeflions, as grofs and
noxious errors, which, however, have been main-
tained by very folid reafoning, not to fay con-
fiderable authorities, from the fcriptures them-
felves.

u There are few herefies," fays Dr. Stebbing,
" which great learning and good fenfe have not
H been called in to countenance: he, therefore,
" that would effe&ually crulh them, mud take
" away thefe fupports e." That is to fay, he
muft, if he can; and that has not always proved
an eafy talk, even when attempted by the ac-
cumulated ikill and learning of Councils or Con-
vocations. Thefe are difficulties, out of which
blind miferable mortals are rarely extricated by
Confeflions, which are rather of the dogmatical,
than the didaclic (train ; and oftentimes leave
$he reader to guefs at the reafons, why the com-

* Rational Enquiry, pag. 47,

E 3 pilers

68 THE CONFESSIONAL.

pilers are fo pofitive in fome of their affertio>ira,.
for which they do not condefcend to offer any
'proof. Thefe noxious errors too have, fometimes,
procured themfelves to be eftablifhed by another
party of Confeilionifls and Creedmakers ; in
which cafe, thefe authorized formularies are fa
far from being of any real utility to an unpre--
judiced inquirer, that they only ferve to deflroy
the force and virtue of each other.

Again, if confeffions are really profitable to-
wards fuppreffing thefe grofs and noxious errors,
it muft be profitable, and in the fame propor-s
tion needful, to enlarge and amplify them as.
often as fuch errors arife, and the birth of every
new herefy ihould always be attended with a
new article in the confeflion f.

Perhaps there is fcarce a year pafTes over, in
any country where the prelfes are open, and
men's tongues at liberty, without bringing forth
fome new opinion, or reviving fome old one
with new circumllances, contrary to, or at lead

f One article of difference between K. Charles I. and the
Scotch Proteltors, anno 1638, turned upon the neceffity of
renewing and applying confeffions of faith to every prefent
emergency of the church. This the Scots compared to the
riding of Merches, or boundaries, upon every new " In-
" cronchmenc." And, indeed, fuppohng the utility of con-
feffions to be what the Remonftrants fay it is, King Charles's
Whole convocation could not have furnifhed him with an an-
swer lo this argument of the North Britons, in behalf of their
tew formulary. See Rujbwort&'s Collections, vol. II. pag.

different

THE CONFESSIONAL. 69

different from, the approved and orthodox fy-
ftem ; and confequently, within the description
of a grofs and noxious error. Suppofe the re-
quifite (triftures on thefe hetorodoxies had been
added to the confeffions of the feveral churches
where they have appeared for the laft two hun*
dred years ; to what a comfortable bulk Would an
Harmony of thefe confefiions have amounted by
this time? what plenty of elucidation might fuch
an Harmony have afforded to blind miferable mor-
tals? and what a field is here opened for de-
claiming againfl: the indolence and drowfinefs of
our appointed watchmen, who, during this long
and perilous interval, have been filent upon fo
many important Subjects ; fuffering this multitude
of herefies to pafs uncorrected by any public cen-
fure, even while their partizans have been ince£-
fantly preaching up to us the great utility of
confeffions, as the only fovereign antidotes againfl
them ?

But, inflead of inveighing againfl our fuperi-
ors for any omifiions of this kind, let us make
ufe of this very circumftance to point out to them
the inutility (perhaps fomething worfe) cf our
prefcnt cflabl idled formularies of faith and doc-
trine. What is become of all thofe herefes

againfl: 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
E ^ debate,

7o THE CONFESSIONAL.

debate, have had no worfe effect in religion, than
other harmlefs and innocent, and even edifying
problems, are allowed to have in literature and
philofophy: — Whence the conclufion feems to
be inevitable, that the malignity of other here-
fies (and perhaps the very exiflence of fome of
them) has been perpetuated, only by the refpeft-
able notice that fome church or other has thought
fit to take of them in an eftablifhed confeffion.

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

In the 42 d of K. Edward's Articles, a formal
cenfure was pafTed upon the reftorers of Origerts
opinion concerning the temporary duration of fu-
ture pumfoments. But in the Articles of 1562,
this cenfure is not to be found. Undoubtedly
the queftion is of great importance with refpecl:
to the influences and fanctions of the Chriftian
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 punifo-
ments Jhall be eternal f ilill been ftigmatized with
this heretical brand, we mould probably have
wanted fcveral learned and accurate difquifitions
on the fubjeft, from fome of our mod eminent
writers, fuch as RuJ}, Tillotfon, Hartly, csV. ; by
whofe refearches we have gained at leafl a clearer
ft ate of the cafe, and a more accurate infight into
the language of the fcriptures relative to it, than
x the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 71

the compilers of the article had before them ;
without laying any invidious prejudice on the
judgement or confcience of any man living, or
precluding the right that every Chriftian hath to
determine for himfelf, in a cafe where his interefl
Is fo great and important.

Again,the 40th of thefe original articles " affirm-
" ed it to be contrary to the orthodox faith, to
u maintain that the fouls of men deceafed do
" fleep, without any manner of fenfe, to the day
" of judgement, &c." This was likewife difmif-
fed in 1562 ; fince when, the doctrine condem-
ned, and (fome few faint efforts excepted) all
controverfy concerning it have lain dormant, till
very lately, that fomething very like a demonftra-
tion that our firfr. reformers were miftaken on this
head, has been offered to the worlds ; which
probably had never feen the light, if an afTent
to this 40th article had (till remained a part of our
minifterial fubfeription.

As to what the Remonftrants fay of the neglect
of neceffary heads oi belief ; urging and infilling
on points of faith which are not neceffary ;
binding human inventions on men's conferences ;

e In a fermon on the Nature and End of Death, and a cu-
rious appendix fubjoined to the third edition of Confidcration:
on the Theory of Religion, &C. by Dr. Edmund Lazv, the reve-
rend, learned, and worthy Matter of St. Peters College, Camb.
nowBifhop of CarliJIe. How many doctrines are defended,
how many are not oppofed, not becaule they are to be found
in the New Teftament, but becaufe they are ejlablijhed in a
Liturgy, or decided in an Article ?

mifappli-

72 THE CONFESSIONAL.

mifapplications of fcripture-expreffions and au-
thorities, and the like ; if" thefe are not to be pre-
vented or corrected by the current labours of able
and honeft paftors, joined to the juflice which
every man owes to himfelf, in fearching the fcrip-
tures for fatisfa&ion in all doubtful cafes ; it is
in vain to expect any relief from confeffions ;
many of which, if not all, are accufed on fome
fide, of thefe very abufes which theRemonflrants
propofe by their means to reform.

2. Another ufe which the Reraonftr ants have
for confeffions is, l( to obviate foul and difhoneft
" flanders, calumnies, and fufpicions, with which
<l thofe honed and upright divines, who under-
" take to fet blind miferable mortals right, may be
" foiled by their adverfaries. In which cafe, fay
" they, who is there that will not think them
*' conftrained to inform the Chriftian world, what
" manner of perfons they are in religion, by an
t{ ingenuous confeffion of their judgement: efpe-
<c cially if they fee that, unlefs they do it, all
" good men will be eftranged from them, their
" profelytes return to their vomit, and, confe-
tc quendy, the truth of God be wounded through
" the fides of their wronged reputation h ."

The Remonftrants had here aci 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

the calumnies complained of in this preface, is,
h Page 16, &c.

that

THE CONFESSIONAL. 73

that " the Ilemonflrants concealed forae things,
*' of which they were afhamedto give their judge-
" rcent in public." How do they obviate this
calumny by their confeflion ? How does their
publicly confeffing fome of their doctrines prove
that they had concealed none f They do not ven-
ture to fay, that in this formulary they had de-
clared their judgement on every point of theolo-
gy. On the contrary, they admit, that they had
purpofely waved certain thorny and fubtile que-
ftions, leaving them to the idle and curiam. Might
not the doctrines relative to tbefe queftions, be the
very things they were amamed to confefs ? and
if fo, what is their apology for waving them, bo:
mere fubterfuge and evafion ?

But, indeed, it was worfe with the poor Re-
monftrants than all this came to. No fooner was
their confeflion made public, than their adversa-
ries fell upon them with a frefli load of calum-
nies, taking occafion from the confeflion itfelf ;'
accufing it of " fwarming with dreadful herefies
" from the beginning to the end, not excepting
" even the very title page'."

1 Bayle's Dift. Art. Episcopius,Rcm. F. See likewifeia
Roche, Abridg. p. 6S5. who mentions indeed only thecen-
fures of two private minifters on the Remonftrants confeflion,
an tffeft, I am afraid, of his extreme and too vifible par-
tiality for their caufc. They who will take the trouble to
turn to Bayle, loc. cit. will fee, that the words tranferibed
above are part of a cenfure of this confeflion, publilhed by
the Profeflbrs of Leydin.

What

74 THE CONFESSIONAL.

What is now to be done ? Shall the Remori-*
ftrants go to work again, and publifh a fecond
confeffion to confute thefe new calumnies I and
after that, if future occafion mould be given (as
they might be fure it would), a third, 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 effectually j
namely, by confronting the accufation with the
matter of facl, and appealing from time to time
to a fort of evidence, which formularies of con-
feffion will not admit of k.

k Episcopius found himfelf obliged to defend the con-
feffion of the Remonftrants again!!: the cenfures of four Pro-
feilbrs of Leyden, in an Apology near ten times as long as the
Confeffion itfelf. From this Apology the Profeflbrs extracted
and publifhed a fpecimen of calumnies and heterodox opinions,
faid to be contained in the faid Apology ; to which Epifcopius
was again conftrained to write a long Anfvjer on the behalf
of himfelf and his party. This begot a book, intituled, Ar-
cana Arminianifmi , written by Nicholas Vedelius, a Profeffor of
Deventer. To which Epifcopius replied in another, which he
called Vedelius Rhapfodus. The controverfy probably was
carried on ftill farther, or at leaft had furnifhed materials
for continuing the difpute in infinitum. Epifcopius immedi-
ately forefaw this, upon the neceffity he found himfelf under
to write his Apology, and ingenuoufly lays the blame upon
the writers of Confejfions : " Qui Confeffiones femel fcribere
•* incipiunt, de fcribendis fine fine Apologiis cogitare opus
" habeant. Apologia deinde Apologiam trudit, uti fludtus
" fluftum. Nihil tarn rette fcribi poteft, tarn innoxie d'e-
«' fendi, tarn candide fuggeri, quod fufpicio malefana non
" detorquet in pejus, et livor morfu fuo non maculat ac
M confpurcat. Hinc Apologiarum ac Declarationum nee

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 75

The Remonftrants fcem to have been aware,
that it might be thought fufficient to obviate all
charges of herefy, it the accufed parties were'
.only to exprefs themfelves in fcripture-language.
fl But they tell us, that this very thing is charged
" upon them as a crime, that, under the words of
<c fcripture, they cherifh in their bofoms the word
" meanings, and moft prejudicial to the glory cf
" God, and the falvation of man, which reduces
" them to a neceffity, whether they will or no—
{i by fome public declaration of their judgement,
" to purge themfelves, and to maintain and de-
" fend the fincerity of their belief1."

Well then, let us confider how this cafe (lands.
The Cal-vinijls charge it upon the Remonftrants as
a crime, that, under fcripture-words, they cherifh
the word 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 notthefe 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, mud of neceffity be infallibly true ?

"Where indeed any particular church can pro-
cure an eftablifhment for its confeffion, in fuch
fort as to make it a rule of teaching, and a teft of
orthodoxy for all her paftors and profefibrs, a

" modus, nee finis." Epifc. Apol. pro Declar. Rcmonjlran-
V tium,"

^ag. 17, 18.

bridle

76 THE CONFESSIONAL.

bridle upon the tongue, and a {hackle upon the
pen-hand of every man who is propofed to fpeak
or write againft it, formularies of this kind may
have their ufe and expedience, in ft curing the pri-
vileges, inierejls,and emoluments, cf that particular
■church \ and, being armed with coercive penal-
ties, may likewife operate in the feveral cafes
abovementioned. But, according to our apclogifts,
thefe are the circumftances in which the abufes
of confeilions do chiefly coniilt. " They are noc
" for allowing confeilions to be the limits and
" bounds within which religion is to be fliut up ;
" the indices of Ifraight and crooked, or the an-
16 vil to which all controverfies of faith are to be
" brought ; nor would they have any man tied to
ec them, but jufl fo far, and fo long, as he is con-
" vinced in his confeience, that the dexftrine of the
" confefhon accords with the fcripture m."

This is juit and reafonable : and it would be
both unjufl and unreafonable, to deny the Re-
monstrants their due praife for their moderation,
tendernefs, and honed regard to the rights of
private judgement. But, however, nothing is
more certain, than that, by thefe limitations and
concefuons, they give up all the peculiar utility
and expedience of thefe fyflematical forms, for
which they profefs themfelves advocates in other
parts of this preface ; leaving them no more vir-
tue or efficacy in inilructing the ignorant, con-

51 Pag. 20, 21.

futiijg

THE CONFESSIONAL. 77

fining errors and herefies, or filencing calum-
nies, than may be reafonably claimed by, anil
afcribed to, the writings and difcourfes of any
particular divine of judgement and learning.

There is, indeed, little doubt, but that, in
bringing down confefTions fo very low, particu-
larly in their three-fold caution concerning the
ufe of them, the Remonftrants 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
confeffions, had been to preclude themfelves
from all reafonable apology for their conduct.
And yet who knows, in what all this modera-
tion and lenity would have ended, had the Re-
monflrants 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 dexteroufly enough fetch back with
one hand what they had appeared to give with
the other), they had fairly and honeftly 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 refpeclable footing of
a church. In the midfl of all their moderation,
we have fcen them above expreffmg their con-
cern, left their profclytes ihould return to their vo-
mit.

78 THE CONFESSIONAL.

mit. In other paffagcs they fpeak of confeffions,
as watch-towers, enfigns, and Jlandards. On one
occafion they have unwarily dropped this obfer-
vation : " There are fome things of fo great
" weight and moment> that they cannot be gain-
" faid without the extreme hazard of our ialvation.
(i Freely to contradift thefe, or quietly to fuffer
" them to be contradicled by others, would be the
" far theft from prudence and charity pojfible"
What, may we fuppofe, would the gentle Epif-
copius have done with the gainfayers of thefe
things, inverted, as he might pofTibly have been,
with a commiffion from the iecular arm? All
this moderation and forbearance might, after all,
have amounted to no more than what all Pro-
teftant churches profefs ; namely, to affert 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-being, by an orthodox ted.

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
judgement.

" We receive and embrace" (fays the church
of England by the pen of Bifhop Jewel) f( all the
" canonical fcriptures both of the Old and New
" Teflament ; — we own them to be the heaven-

" ly

THE CONFESSIONAL. 79

" ly voices by which God hath revealed his will
u to us; — in them only can the mind of man
11 acquiefce ; in them all that is neceffaiy for our
u falvation is abundantly and plainly contained; —
u 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 mod certain and
" infallible rule, by which the church may be
•' reduced if (lie happen to ftagger, flip, or err,
" by which all ecclefiajlical doclrines ought to be
" tried ; no law, no tradition, no cujlom, is to be re-
*c ceived or continued, if it be contrary to fcripture ;
" no, though St. Paul himfelf, or an angel from
tf heaven, fhould come and teach otherwife m."

This was once the fenfe of the church of Eng-
land, whatever authority fhe 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 uttermott zeal, and in the
higheit terms, have yet, in the fame breath, ex-
tolled her moderation, in laying no greater flreis
upon her Confeflion, than the Remonftrants them-
fclves feem to contend for.

" Our church," fays Biihop Bull, fi profefleth
" not to deliver all her articles (all, I fay, for
" fome of them are coincident with the funda-
" mental points of Chriftianity) as eflentials of

■ Contra eat nee legem, nee traditionem, nee cenfuctudinem ul'am
audnndam ej/'e, fays the Latin Apol, fe&. 27.

F " faith,

So THE CONFESSIONAL.

"' faith, without the belief whereof no man cars
j(* be faved ; but only propoundsfthem as a body
te of iafe and pious principles, for the preferva-
" tion of peace, to be fubfcribed, and not openly
" contradicted, by her fons n."

Nay, even the rigidly-ecclefiaftical Di\ Stebbmg
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 faith or
tl conduct of Chriflians ; but only as a rule, ac-
*e cording to which they (hall either be admitted'
Ci or not admitted to officiate as public minifters °.'?

'Tis true, the obfcurity of thefe conceffions is
fuch, that no man can tell what is intended to be
given up by them, and what refer ved for the
church. In my opinion, they are hardly fenfe.
But this iikewife is the misfortune of the Remon-
flrants, who ofcUlate the queflion backwards and
forwards, till no mortal can find out what they
mean to alcribe to, or what to detract from, the
virtue and merit of a public Confefiion.

The Remonftrants, however, have had thus far
the better of us ; they believed their Confeilion
iaft when they made this Apology for it. We
are driven to make Apologies for, and even to
defend, fubfeription to a Confefhon which many
fubferibers do net believe ; and concerning which

n Vindication aft fa Church, of 'England, p. 178.
0 Rational Enquiry, p. 56.

no

THE CONFESSIONAL. 8*

no two thinking men (according to an ingenious
and right reverend writer) ever agreed exaclly irt
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 EJJay on Spirit, p. vi.

F 2 CHAP.

82 THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. IV.

A particular Examination of Bifiop Burnet's.
Introduction to the Expofition of the XXXIX
Articles of the Church of England.

Hitherto our obfervations have been general.
Little has been fa id on the fubjeft of
ellablifhed confeffions, in which our own church
has any greater concern than other Proteftant
churches. We fhall now be a little more parti-
cular. And as Biihop Burnet has brought to-
gether all the topics of any moment, relating to
the fubfcriptions required of the EngHJh clergy,
in a particular difcourfe prefixed to his Expofi-
tion of our Articles of Religion, we fhall do our
venerable mother no wrong, in fele&ing, for our
prefent confideration, the apology of fo mafterly
an advocate.

But, before we proceed to examine his Lord-
ihip's folutions of the feveral difficulties which
have been fuppofed to encumber the cafe of our
Encrlijh fubfcriptions, it may be necefiary to give
a little previous attention to the motives and rea-
fons which engaged his Lordfliip in this particular
work of expounding the Articles of our church.

" Some of the Articles,'' " fays the Bifhop,
" feemed to lean fo entirely to an abfolute pre-
i( defiination, that fome, upon that account,

" fcrupled

THE CONFESSIONAL. 83

" fcrupled the fubfcribing them: and others re-
" proached our church with this, that though our
u articles looked one way, yet our doclors, for the
" mod part, went the other way. It was fit fuch
" a point lhould be well cleared; and it was in
" order to that, that the late blefled Chieen
■' [Mary] did command me to explain thofe
" firft ; which fhe afterwards enlarged to the
** whole thirty-nine a."

Let us reflect a little on this remarkable cir-
cumstance..

Every one knows that, in the fenfible and pa-
thetic Conclufwn, fubjoined to this excellent Pre-
late's Hi/lory of his own Times, his Lordfhip has
not fcrupled to declare, " that the requiring fub-
" fcription to the thirty-nine Articles is a great
" impofition b ;" an opinion which was not the
refult of a late experience. His Lordfhip had
exprefTed himfelf to the fame purpofe to the
principal men of Geneva, with refpect to their
Conjenfus Doftrinte, many years before he could
have any view to the circumstances which gave
rife to his Expojition, and that with fo much zeal
and eloquence, that, according to the writer of
his life (a witnefs worthy of all belief), " it was
" through his (the Bifhop's) credit, and the
" weight of his character, that the clergy at
" Geneva were releafed from thefe fubferiptions,

* Bifljop Burnet's Remarks on the Examination of his Ex-
position of the Second Article of our Church, p. 2.
k folio edition, vol. IJ. p. 634.

F 2 " and

84 THE CONFESSIONAL.

i* and only left fubjecl: to punifhment and cenfure,
(e in cafe of writing or preaching againft the
*f eftablifhed doctrine c."

Thefe being his Lordfhip's uniform fentiments,
in the earlier as well as the latter part of his life,
a queftion is naturally fuggefled, why he fhould
write a book, in the mean feafon, on the avowed
purpofe of making men eafy under their obliga-
tions to fubfcribe ; an attempt which could
have no other tendency, than to perpetuate the
impofition in all fucceeding times ? For, the point
the Biihop was to clear being this, se that the
fC articles were capable of the feveral fenfes of
" different doctors," the confequence would be,
that all might fafely fubfcribe them: which
would of courfe fuperfede the neceffity of abo-
lifning fubfcriptions on the part of the church.,
let the impofition be ever fo grievous to thofe
who could nqt come into the Bilhop's expedients ;
and this, as his Lordfhip had good reafon to
know, was no uncommon cafe.

Whether Bifhop Burnet considered, or indeed
whether he faw, his enterprize in this point of
light, cannot be determined. That there were
feome confiderations, which, notwithstanding the
weight of a royal command, made him enter upon
this talk with no little reluctance, appears pretty
plainly from the following particulars :

i. In a paragraph jufl now cited from one of
his Lordfhip's pamphlets, we are informed that he

c Life, voL II. fol. edit. p. 693.

undertook

THE CONFESSIONAL. 85

Undertook his Expoftion, at the command of
Queen Mary : by whom, he likewife fays elfe-
where, he wasyfr/2 moved to write it d. But in
the preface to hi:; Expq/ition, he fays, " he was
<( firjl moved to undertake that work, by that
" great Prelate who then fat at the helm [Abp.
"" 'TWotfbn], 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
Bifliop no room to decline the fcrvice, however
difaprecable it miqdit be to him.

2. The Queen and the Archbifliop dying foon
after the Expoftion was finiihed, and before it was
put to the prefs, the Bifliop, as he informs us him-
felf, " being advifed not to publifh it, by fome 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 manufcript,
M no lefs than five years : at the end of which
•" interval, he was prevailed on by the Archbilhop
" [Tenifcri] and many of his own order, to delay
" the publilhing it no longer V To which fo-
■licitations we may fuppofe his Lore ;i to have

d Hift. O. T. vol. II. p. 228.
• Hilt. O. T.' ubi fupra.

,E 4-

86 THE CONFESSIONAL.

given way with the lefs difficulty, as he was now
•jt liberty to fpeak his mind in a preface, which,
it is highly probable, had never feen the light in
the circumftances we now have it, if the £>ueen
and Tillotfon had furvived the publication of the
Expofition. For,

3. In this preface, the Bifhop takes particular

care to apprize his readers, " that his Expofition

" was not a work of authority ; and that, in what

<c he had done, he was, as to the far greater part,

st rather an hifiorian, and a colleclor of what others

" had written, than an a uthor him fe\f." But, what

is dill more, he there freely declares, the (lender

opinion he had of the effect of fuch expedients as

he had fuggeded in his introduction. " The

i{ fettling on fome equivocal formularies," fays

his Lordlhip, " will never lay the contention that

" has arifen, concerning the chief points in dif-

" ference between the Lutherans and the Calvin-

" ills f." An obfervation which will hold good,

with refpeft to equivocal fenfes put upon more

pofitive and dogmatical formularies. In neither

cafe are the men of different fydems " left free,

" as the Bifhop thinks they mould be, to adhere

" to their own opinions :" and fo long as they are

not, they will be for ever draggling to get loofe.

No peace will enfue.

Thefe fentiments, I humbly apprehend, had
not appeared where we now find them, if the
Expofition had been publiihed as foon as it was
f See Bayk's Via. Muscu&us, Rem. [G].

finiflied.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 87

finifhed. The right reverend author would mod
probably have fuppreflfed them, in mere tender-
nefs to the good Archbifhop, whofe notions con-
cerning thefe healing meafures, and middle ivays%
were very different from thote of Bifhop Burnet.
His Grace's temper was mild and cautious, even
to the borders of timidity. His leading object
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 wiih, at the bottom, to be well
rid of them g. But the virulence of the oppofi-
tion to a propofed review of the liturgy in 1689,
had taught him caution with relpect to fuch at-
tempts. His Grace might, and certainly did,
wifh to procure more liberty for himfelf and all
honed men, to write and fpeak their fentiments
freely. But the articles flood in the way, an

6 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 ltrange equivalent propofed by his Grace,
in lieu of the common form of fubfcription, viz. Wedofubmit
to the doctrine, difcipline, and <worJhip of the Church of England,
as it shall BE ejlablijhed by /atv, and promt fe to teach and
praclife accordingly. This would be bowing our necks to the
yoke with a witnefs. What we fubfcribe to now, is before us ;
and in a condition to be examined before-hand. What shall
b e eftablimed hereafter, we know not. By fuch a fubfcription,
a man might oblige himfelf to teach and praftife popery itfelf:
" The Church of England," faid Bilhop Burnet once in a de-
bate, " is an equivocal expreflion ; and if popery fhould pre-
" vail, it would be called the Church of England ftxll." Se«
Vox Cleri, p. 68. Bircb, Life of Tiltotfon, 8vo. p. 183.

immoveable

38 THE CONFESSIONAL.

immoveable barrier to the church, — a fort of a
guard-houfe, to which the centinels of the hierarchy
were for ever dragging poor culprits, who had
ftrayed ever fo little beyond the verge of the
court. All that could be done, as the cafe then
flood, was to expound thefe articles {o, that men
of different opinions might fubferibe them-, and,
byr that means, be brought to bear with each
other in controvertible points, and to debate
matters freely, without incurring fufpicions or re-
proaches of herefy or prevarication. Into this
fervice, I prefume, was the Biiliop of Salijbury
preifed by his Grace of Canterbury ; and, with
whatever reluctance he might undertake it, we
may be fure he would never mortify his friend by
publickly declaring, as he does in this preface , the
■contemptible opinion he had of fuch expedients.
4. There is one circumflance farther to be
■obferved on this fubject, which is well worth our
notice. Bifhop Burnet was under a greater dif-
ficulty with refpect to fuch an undertaking, than
mod men. The readied way to have anfwered
Tillotfon's purpofe, would have been to confider
and expound this articular fyftem fo, that fub-
fcription to it might ftand for no more than a
peaceable acquiefcence, or, at moll, an engage-
ment not openly to contradict it. But, unluckily
for the prefent expounder, he had long before
declared in a celebrated work, " that there ap-
ic peared no reafon for this conceit, no fuch
tc thing [as their being intended only for articles
" of peace] being declared when the articles

1 ' were

THE CONFESSIONAL. 89

*' were fir ft fet out; infomuch that they, who
" fubfcribcd them then, did either believe them
* to be true, or elfe they did grofsiy prevari-
" cate il."

It is indeed highly probable, that his Lord-
(hip- never altered his opinion in this matter.
For even when his Expojition was about to be
publifhed, ffflhopWiffiams 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 rcaion to wifli,
'■ that they had only been impofed as fuch, but
u there was nothing in our conftitution to warrant
" an expofitor in giving that fenfe to them." His
father was plainly in the fame fentiments, when
he fet out his Expoftion; which makes it the
more extraordinary, that fome modern, writers
fhould (till contend for this pacific fenfe of fub-
fcription, 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 againf! them.

Whether Bifhop Burnet would have given more
room to fubferibers in his Expoftion, if that paf-
f<ige in his Hi/lory of the Reformation had been
out of the way, it would even be impertinent to
guefs. Had Bifhop Wii/iams been the expofitor,
he would, it is likely, have carried fubferiptions
no higher than an obligation to acquicfee in the
h Hia. Reformat, vol. II. p. 169.

doctrine

9o THE CONFESSIONAL,

do&rine of our articles ; upon a prefumption,
poffibly, that the preient generation, if they could
agree upon it, need not be bound by the original
intention of the church or the compilers. Sir
Thomas Burnet, however, we fee, carries us back
to our confiitution ; and that implies, that what
was once the intention of the church in this mat-
ter, mufl be flill her intention ; and fo, undoubt-
edly, thought the Bifhop his father. And as his
Lordfhip had all along feen things in this light,
it is amazing to me, that the fenfe he expreffed of
the firft. fubfcriptions, in his Hiflory of the Re-
formation, fhould not fuggeft 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 peaee.

His Lordfhip hath faid in plain terms, " that
" they who fubfcribed the articles when they
*' were firft fet out, did either believe them to
u be true, or elfe they did grofsly prevaricate."
Now, if they believed them to be true, they
certainly believed them to be true in one precife
uniform 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 fubfcribe in different fenfes ? If the firfj:
fubfcribers would have prevaricated in fo doing,
the original intention of the compilers will fix the

fame

THE CONFESSIONAL. 91

fame reproach upon all fubfcribers who deviate
from the church's fenfe to this hour.

But, whether we are right in fuppofing the
good Bifhop to have undertaken this tafk againft
the grain or not, we have good reafon to believe,
that his fuccefs did not yield him the highefl fa-
tisfa&ion 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 Expofttion, immediately after it was publifhed ;
and in his golden legacy, at the end of his lad
hiftory, he fcruples not to fay, " that the greater
" part of the clergy fubferibe the articles without
" ever examining them, and others do it becaufe
" they muji do it, tho' they can hardly fatisfy their
" confeiences 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
fubfeription to all tafr.es and complexions, had been
abfolutely thrown away ; and that fubfeription,
after all the colours that can be put upon it, is no
better than an unwarrantable impofition ?

I cannot leave this view of the connexion,
between thefe two prelates, Tillotfon and Burnet,
without a (hort reflection 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 unreafonable zealots, to whofe humour
they were accommodated ? We, of this genera-
tion,

P2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tion, have lived to fee how greatly Archbifliop
Tillotfon was raiftaken, in thinking to win over
the high-churchmen of thofe days, by his heal-
ing expedients. His gentle, lenitive fpirit, was
to their bigotry, what oil is to the fire. Bifhop
Barnefs friendship for the Archbilhop carried
him into thefe meafures, contrary to his natural
bent, and in mere complaifance to the Archbi-
ihop's apprehenfions of a ftorm, which he dreaded
above all other things. And I remember to have
heard fome old men rejoice, that Burnet was kept
down, by Ti/Iotjon'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 remem-
bered, that when the Archbifliop was no longer
at hand to temper Burnet's impetuofity, the latter
had prudence fufficient to temper his courage, and
to keep him from attempting, what he had fenfe
enough to perceive was impracticable '. But, after

* This truly wife and good Prelate, however, feems to have
entertained fome hope, that, upon the acceffion of his Ma-
jefty King George I. things might take a more favourable
turn. For thus he expreffes himfelf in the Dedication of the
third volume of his Hitfory of the Reformation . to that il-
luftrious Monarch, of ever-to-be honoured memory : " Your
" Majefty, we truft, is defigned by God to complete the Re-
" formation itfelf; to reclify what may be yet amifs, and to
*' fupply what is defective among us ; to oblige us to live
** and to labour more fuitably to our profeflion ; to unite us
«' more firmly among ourfelves ; to bury, and for ever to ex-
" tinguifh the fears of our relapfing again into Popery;

all,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 93

all, what has been the confequence of Tillotfon's
gentlenefs, and Burnet's complaifance for the
times? Even this ; thefe two eminent lights of the
Englifti church could not have been more op-
pofed while they lived, or more abufed and vili-
fied fince they died, had they firmly and vigour-
ouily promoted, at all adventures, that reforma-
tion in the church of England, which, they were
bcth of them deeply confcious, flie very much
wanted k.

But, after all, if whatBifhop Burnet has offered
under all thefe difadvantages, will not juflify the
church of England, in requiring fubfeription to
the xxxix Articles, or leave room for the fincerity

" and to eftablilh a confidence and correfpondence with the
" Protestant and Preformed churches abroad." If any-
one afk how thefe hopes of the good Bilhop came to be dif-
• appointed? he mull be referred to the Hiflory of the fubfe-
quent times. There are two incidents, however, upon re-
cord, which alone will go a great way towards accounting
for the difappointment : i. Bilhop Burnet died in about
feven months after the acceflion of that Monarch, from
whofe wifdom, moderation, and fteadinefs, he expected all
thefe good things, namely, in March 17'*. And, 2. the
"January following, Dr. William Wake was promoted to the
fee of Canterbury ; and he rather chofe to ejiablijb a conjidenct
and cm-rcfpondcnce with the Popish Gallic an church, than
with the Protestant Reformed churches, either at home
or abroad.

k Befides the flaler inftances of the outrageous treatment

thefe two eminent prelates have met with in and nearer their

own timec, how implacably the malice of fome men purfues

even to the prclent moment, may be feen in an abu-

fiyc and fcandaious character given of Bilhop Burnet, in a

of

94. THE CONFESSIONAL.

of thofe doctors, who feem to go one way, while
the articles look another, we may venture to con-
clude, without any jufl: imputation of temerity,
that this fervice will hardly be more effectually
performed by men of another (lamp, who may
probably engage in it with more alacrity and lefs
circumfpection. What the good Bifhop has faid
on this behalf, we now proceed to confider.

His Lordfhip begins with dating the feeming
impropriety " of making fuch a collection of te-
" nets the ftandard of the doctrine 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
" fimplicity of the firil ages, which yet we fet
'* up for a pattern1."

This objected impropriety (which, by the way,
his Lordfhip exceedingly ftrengthens and illuf- 1
trates, by an induction of particulars) he rather
endeavours to palliate and excuie, or, as he terms
it, explain, than to deny or confute. He gives
us an hiftorical recital of the practice of former
times, to mew that our church acts after a pre-
cedent of long (landing. To this no other an-
fwer is neceffary, than that this was the practice
of times, which were not remarkable either for

late thing called, Obfervations upon Tacitus ; and in fome
jacobite Remarks on the Life of Archbifliop 7'illotfo?!t by Dr.
Birch. It is an honour to the puny author of The Confejfionalt
to be reviled by the fame fort of zealots who abufed thef&
great men, and for the fame fort of offence.
1 Introduction, p. i.

their

THE CONFESSIONAL. 95

their moderation or [implicit 'r, and of whofe exam-
ple the church of England cannot avail herfelf,
confidently with her pretentions to thefe two
amiable qualities m.

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

" There was a form," fays his Lordfhip, " fet-
" tied fery early in moft churches. This St. Pau!>
" in one place, calls, The form of doctrine that was
fs delivered \ in another place, The form of found
,( words \ which thofe, who were fixed by the
n Apoftles in particular churches, had received
u from them. Thefe words of his do import a
" Jlandard or fixed formulary, by which all doc-
" trines were to be examined n." The palfages
here referred to are, Ro?n. vi. 17. — r Tim. iv.
6. — to which are added in the margin, 1 Tim.

vi. 3 2 Tim. i. 13. and the Greek words in

thefe fcveral palfages which are fuppofed to fig'

m Ecclefiattical Hiftory, from the days of Con/lantine down-
wards, bears an ample teliimony to this truth. After Cc«-
jhintine took it into his head to accommodate the church ac-
cording to changes he thought proper to make in the civil
conltitution of the Empire (fee Mojhcim, Hi it. Ecclcf.
p. 140.) there was very little cither of moderation in the
government, or of Jimplic'ity in the doflrine and worjbip of the
Christian church fo called.

6 Introd. p. 2.

G nif>

96 THE CONFESSIONAL.

nify this ftandard or fixed formulary , run thus—
TvTrog SiStx'/YiS ——'Y7rolviru(ns vyiccivoflwv Xoyccu — Aoya
■ZeTjrfwf, >c»i xzXns ^iSuffytzXiotg — 'Yyiuwovliq Xoyoi, ci ra
Ku^jh Jijawi/ \%vz X/5if«, xai » kcit tviriStizv hoourxaXiz.

Now, when a capable and unprejudiced reader
confiders the variety of expreflion in thefe fevefal
paffages, lie will probably be inclined to think,
that a fixed formulary of doctrine is the laft thing
a plain man would look for in them. A fixed
formulary, one would think, fhould have a fixed
title. Nor is it at all probable, that one and the
fame form of words fhould be defcribed in terms,
which may denote an hundred different forms.

To enter into a juft criticilin on thefe expref-
fions, would be tedious and unneceimry. Suffice
it to obferve, after very competent judges, that

ruTroi Si^zyn^y and uVoTU7rco<nf Cyiaivofluv Xoyw, appear

to refer rather to the exemplification of the Chri-
ftian doctrine in the praclice of pious believers,
than to any form of words. The doclrine is one
thing, and the type of the doctrine another. The
doctrine is, and mufl be, expreffed by, and confe-
quently contained in, fame form of words. But
the type of that form mud be fomewhat different
from the form itfelf ; and the general acceptation
of the word rvvog, points out the practical exem-
plification of the doctrine, to be the thing here
intended. The text, Rom. vi. 17. is, it mufl: be
owned, bbfeure and difficult ; but, without giving
this fenfe to the words Tukos h5jt%t,g, it is abfo-

lutely

THE CONFESSIONAL. 97

lately unintelligible °. And whatever is the
fignification of tuttcs here, mull be the meaning
Of uVoTUTrwe-r, 2 Tim. i. 13. P.

Again, the literal Englifj of Jyiaivovlf,- Aoyn, is
healing or falutarv words ; that is, the words of
falvation or eternal life. Our tranflators have
rendered the Greek participle by the equivocal
words found and wfmkfome, which fignified, I
fuppofe, in their ideas, the fame with orthodox.

If you alk where thefe healing words are to, be
found I I anfwer, in the fcriptures, ibmetimes,
perhaps, abridged and Comprehended in fomc
1hort fummaries, which occur in Paul's epiflles
to Timothy and Titus. But thefe are evidently
not the fixed formularies his Lordlhip means. As
the certain confequence of that mud have been,

0 See Grotius and Bengelius's Gnomon upon the place. Tf -
to?, Typus, veiligium, figura, exemplar, forma. Hen. Stephens.
Afts xxiii. 25. Twos is the literal copy of Ly/IaSs epillle to
Felix, not the fum or abridgement of it.

p The word is but once more to be found in the Nc.vTef-
tament, <viz. I Tim. i. 16. where the Apoflle fays, befc.nl
mercy — argog uirolv7raaiv ruv piKkoHun to-itelsiv, &C. for a pat-
tern ; which is the fame thing as an example of the doclrine of
pardon, and mercy, thro' Chriit. In what fenfe the word
Tir>? was afterwards ufed, may be feen in Mills's tranflati^n
of Bruys's Hift. of the Popes, vol. II. p. 42 3. where an
inltrument, or edict, of the Emperor Conjians, for the pacifi-
cation of the dilputes concerning the two Wills of Chrill, is
called the Type ; which inflrument contained no formulary
of doctrine, but only enjoined that the parties at variance
ihould abide by the fcriptures, the five oecumenical council-,
ind the plain and fimple paflages of the fathers.

G a that

9S THE CONFESSIONAL.

that no man, or body of men whatfoever, could
have had the leaft authority to add to them, or
enlarge them in any future time.

And if any other Jlandard or formulary is
meant, it then comes to our turn to afk the que-
Jtion, Where is it to be found ? what is become
of it I For that it fhould be loft,, or drop into
utter oblivion, if it once had a real exiftence, is
wholly incredible.

In anfwer to this demand, the Bifhop gives us
to underftand, " that, by a fixed formulary ', he
" does not mean one frccife and invariable form
" of words, which he thinks it improbable the
" Apoftles fhould leave behind them. For his
S( Lordfhip obferves, that the firft. Apologifts for
" Chriftianity, when they deliver a fhort abftract
*f of the Chriflian faith, do all vary from one
" another, both as to ihe order, and as to the
sc words themfelves. Whence he thinks it more
" probable, that they received thefe fhort ab-
*' ftrafts from the Apoftles themfelves, with fomc
" variation."

But furely, the moment you admit of varia-
thus, not only the idea of a fixed formulary, but
even the ufe of any formulary, as a Jlandard or
icjl of all doctrines, immediately vanishes away.
There mcit be left, in fuch varying formularies,
room for doubtful and precarious judgements :
and the fcriptures alone, in all fuch cafes, mufl
be the dernier rejort. And if fo, why might they
2 not

THE CONFESSIONAL. 99

not as well have been admitted to decide in the
firft inftancer*

But to come nearer to the cafe in hand. Do
.any of thefe Apologifts pretend to have received
any of thefe fhort abftra&s from the Apoftlcs
thcmfelves? or does it appear, among all the va-
riety of creeds which thefe primitive £itfe$rs have
-exhibited, that any one of them came immediately
•from the ApoMles 1 ? Mr. WhiJlony who, perhaps,
had made as exa<ft a fcrutiny into matters of this
nature as any man living or dead, and who was
as likely to adopt any thing for apoftolic which
had the leail pretence to fo honourable an origin,
frankly confeiTes, in one of his books, that " he
" finds no traces of an apoftolkal baptihnal 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, not-
*' withftanding V

I cite Mr. Whiftoti as a witnefs to s fa<Ft, but
lay no ftrefs upon his opinion; nor, indeed, does
itdefervethe lead regard, after he has told us,
" that in the fourth century, many doubtful and
u exceptionable creeds were publickly 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

1 Some of thefe Creeds may be feen in Dr. Chandler's Cafe
<cf Subfcription.
J Reply to Dr. Allixi Remarks, p. iS.

G 3 no

ioo THE CONFESSIONAL.

no doubt but they had fuch an authentic baptifr
inal creed among them.

But, till fome of thefe apoftolic formularies are
brought to light, what his Lordfhip fays of a
depojitum, lodged in the hands of a bifhop, "&c.
mult pafs only for an inference from ■\fojlulatumi
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 Lordihip's iuppofition, that the
Apoftles, or their companions, delivered thefe for-
mularies of faith as depoftts, with fuch variations
as the cafes and fituations of particular churches
demanded, it is next to impofiible they mould all
have p enflied fo abfolutely, that no remains of
them are to be discovered to this hour.

But, it feems, there is away of accounting for
this ftate o-f utter oblivion, into which thefe pri-
mitive formularies are fallen, very confident with
the fupporniqn of their real cxiftence for feveral
centuries. We are told that thefe formularies
contained a xgu<p«w <Joy(a«, zjecret doctrine, feldom,
if ever, committed to writing; the ufe of which
was, to fecure the Chriftian brotherhood (by way
of a tell or teffera of true difciplefhip) from
being impofed upon by the infldious and diffem*
blecJ pretences of pagans and heretics. And to
this fee ret doclrinc Sr. John is fuppofed to allude,
where he fays, 2 Epift. ver. iQ.lf there come any

unta

THE CONFESSIONAL. ioi

unto you, and bring not this doclrine, receive him not
into your houfe, neither bid him God f 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*
pre/fed in the context. Look back to verfe the
7th, and carry the connexion of the Apoflle's
difcourfe along with you to this 10th verfe, and
you will plainly perceive the doclrine mentioned
in that verfe to be this proportion, Jefus Chrijl
is come in the Jlc/Ij : which fome perfonc, and
thofe perhaps pretending to be Chri/Tuins, then
denied ■ . If you refer the words, this, doclrine, no
farther hack than to the foregoing verfe, and
iuppofe .the doclrine -of Chrijl, there mentioned,
to be a ferret formulary of doclrine, concealed
among the fmcere and faithful Chriflians for the
purpofes abovementioned, the confequence wiljl
be, that though a brother fhould confefs that
Jefus Chrijl is come in the Jlejh, and profeis his
belief of every gofpel-truth, which is implied in,,
•>r depends upon, that confefTion, you iccre not to
receive him into your houje, nor bid him God/peed,
unlefs he brought this fecret Symbolical doctrine,
which perhaps he might never have heard of,.

' See Cbiltingivortb's Letter to Lctvgar. Life 'by Definai-

■ ■ *, p. 32. His words are thefe: " If you think me one

thofe to whom St. John forbids you to fay God 'fave ycu,

" then you arc to think and prove me one of thofe deceivers

ich deny Jefus Chriil to be com: in tljefrjb."

G a 4^4

10? THE CONFESSIONAL.

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.
1 freely own, it would mortify me greatly to find
fuch a practice fixed upon the primitive church,
by any fort of evidence, which fhould fairly de-
rive it from the Apoflles t. Nothing could be

* I have been informed, that the late learned Dr. John
Colbatchy prftpffor of cafuijlical divinity in the univerfny of
Cambridge, hath left behind him a manufcript, wherein the
reality of a xfvQtov Jay^a,. among the ancient ChrilHans, is
clearly proved. I wifh fuch manufcript were printed. For,
though I think it impoihble that a fecret of this kind, if ever
it had ?.ny fubftantial foundation, fhould not tranfpire be-
fore the eighteenth century ; yet fuch an attempt, from fo
learned a perfon as Dr. Colbatcb, would certainly furnifli cu-
riofities enow to rccompence the pains of reading his book,
however fhort and unfatisfied it might leave us with refped
jo the main point. A cafuiftical divine is, by his profefiion,
a dealer in cryptics. The plain open truths of the New Tef-
tament will not agree with certain fqueamifh confeiences.
Few people, I apprehend, carry their fcruples to cafuifts,
without having a fufpicion that the gofpel is againll them.
The Doctor, to oblige or to fatisfy fuch patients, muft fetch
his drugs from the hidden wifdpm of the fathers and fchool-
men. 1 have lately been favoured with a fight of Dr. Collatch's
manufcript, confuting of forty fiye quarto pages, written out
fair, as intended for the prefs, but left unfinifhed. The
title is, An Enquiry into the antiquity and authority of the Apoflles
cried. The Doctor's hypothefis is, that this creed was de-
livered by the Apoltlcs themfelves, and was in ui'e, in the
Christian churches, even before the books of the New Tef-
tament were written. He fuppqfes it to have been the only
baptiimal creed \n ufe for feveral centuries; and to account

mor9

THE CONFESSIONAL. 103

more inconfiflent with the nature and circum-
(lances of their commiflion, or the tenor, fpirit,
and defign of the gofpel in general. Our Saviour

for it's late appearance, he averts,, that the baptifmal creed
of the primitive church had no place in any other facred
office ; that it was never committed to writing, but only-
taught by word of mouth, and learned by heart; in fhort,
that this form of words was induflrioufly concealed from all
but baptized Chriilians, or fuch as were in a readinefs for
baptifm, and not only fecreted from infidels and heretics,
but from the catecbumeni themfelves, until they were of the
rank of competentes, and not communicated to thefe, till about
a week before their baptifm. The reufon why this form ol
words was thus fecreted, was, the Doctor fays, that it might
be a fignal, or tejfera hofpitalis, by which true Chrillians, in
times of perfecution and dillrefs, made themfelves known te
one another, and thereby avoided impofitions from fuch as
only pretended to be Chriftians, for finifter ends. He affigns,
indeed, another ufe for this creed, which fome perhaps mav
think not quite fo confluent with this careful concealment of
it, namely, that of a rule to diftinguifh between true and
falfe doctrines. But even this he finds the means to recon-
cile with the foregoing fuppofition, of its being incommuni-
cable to all but the competentes, by fuppofing, that when there
was occafion to confute the falfe doctrines of thofe early times
openly, other creeds were made ufe of, fuch as thofe exhibited
in the works of Ignatius, Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, Sec.
containing the fame articles, but expreffed in different for-
mularies, both with refpeel to the arrangement of the articles,
and the form of words. Thefe particulars the Doctor en-
deavours to fupport, againft the opinions of Epifcopius, Vojfius,
Vuifnngc, Dochvcll, Lord King, Sec. reflectively, by authori-
ties from the Fathers, and reafonings upon them, which fhew
that the Doclor was a man of learning, and no contemptible
difputant. I thought this (ketch of Dr. Colbatc&s fentiments
en thj: fubjccl would not be unacceptable to the reader,

tpld

I04 THE CONFESSIONAL.

told his Apoftles, that what had been whlfpcred
in the car (the truths that had been communi-
cated to them only) Jhould be by them proclaimed
upon the houfe-tops u. St. Paul puts his being
pure from the blood of all ?ncnt upon this, that he
had not Jimmied to declare to the churches where
he preached, the whole counfel of God * : and
appeals to his opennefs, fimplicity, and fincerity,
on many other o.ccafions. In the fame fenfe of
their duty, the whole college join in prayer to
God, that they may be enabled tofpeak the word
with all boldncfs: y.tla. zrcttrxg zTzppYi<ri*s> with all
freedom ; -fine involucris, fays Grotius x. And
yet, it feems, they had among them a fecret dc-

whofe curioiity might be railed by what is faid in the former
part of this note. But here I muft flop, without adding the
Jcafr, ftri&ure of my own, upon the Doctor's performance.
However precarious or incompetent I might think his autho-
rities, or however infirm his reafonings, I cannot allow my-
felf the liberty to examine them, while the public has no
opportunity of judging between us. I (hall therefore only
add, that along with the fair copy of this tract, there was,
when I faw it, a coniiderable number of loofe papers, con-
taining a larpe collection of teftimonies and obfervations re-
Litive to the fubject, which mew that the author had been
indefatigable in this difquifition j and containing likewife,
as far as 1 could judge, fufHcient materials to compleat the
difcourfe which is left imperfect in the fair copy. This, it
is to be wiihed and hoped, the worthy and refpeclable perfons
in whole hands the faid manufcript and papers are lodged,
will, at fome convenient time, undertake to do, as the work
itfelf is in many refpects both curious and interefting.

u Luke xii. 3. compare Maltb. X. 27.

f, T4c?s >:x. 26, 2 7, x A3s iv. 29.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 105

flrine, referred to be communicated only to ad-
epts, to the initiated, and fuch as might be con-
fided in : which indeed would have been reducing
Chriflianity to a paltry left, and bringing in di-
ftin&ions, which could not but have difgufled
new converts, many of whom, no doubt, had
taken offence at the exclufive rites and myfleries
in 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 in fome Chriflian.
focieties, and, perhaps, in no long time after the
demife of the Apoflles, I would not undertake to
fay. As little as we know of thofe early times,
we have fufficient evidence of their widely devi-
ating from the fimplicity of the gofpel ; and all
I am concerned for is to fhew, that the Apoflles
fet them no fuch examples.

Bifhop Burnet indeed makes no exprefs men-
tion of this fecret doclrinc • and whether he meant
any thing of that fort by the depojitum lodged
in the hands of the Bilhop, is uncertain. But it
is plain, without fome fuch fuppofition, the lofs
of an apoflolical formulary of faith mufl be ut-
terly unaccountable ; as a depojitum, in any other
circumftances, mufl have been preferred and per-
petuated with the fame care and refpedt as the
fcripturcs thcrnielves.

But,

i06 THE CONFESSIONAL.

But, admitting that there had been fuch a for-
mulary of apoftolical authority, and that fome of
tliofe creeds, which the earlier Fathers have left
us, were framed after the model of it ; we mould
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 ;
the rather, as we haye good reafcn to believe,
that the fhorteft of the ancient creeds now re-
maining came the neareft to the apoftolic model,
in courfe of time, as well as in their contents.

To this the good Bifhop anfwers no otherwife,
than by giving us a detail of thofe growing he-
refies, 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 honed a heart,
snd too difcerningahead, to juftify fuch practices
at all events, as fome others, both before him
<md after him, have done. On the contrary, he
lays, " it had been an invaluable blefiing, if the
l< Chriflian religion had been kept in its fir ft
" fimniicity." It is not clear, to me at leaft,
that he thought even the imputation of idolatry,
occafioned by the worfhip of the Son, a fufficient
reafon for adding the words, of the fame fubftance
ivith the Father, to the creeds of the Chriflian
churches. He once more, however, fays, " it
" had been a great bleiling to the church, if a
*• Hop had been put here." After which, it could

hardly

THE CONFESSIONAL. 107

hardly be expected, that his Lordfhip fliould en-
ter upon a formal defence of creeds and con-
fefiions, fuch as they have appeared in modern
churches. Decently, therefore, and tenderly,
does the good man clofe this part of his fubjecl,
by faying, " In ftating the doctrines of this
" church fo copioufly, our Reformers followed
" a method that had been ufed in a courfe of
** many ages/'

And now, the vindication of the church of
England being put upon this footing, it became
necefTary to fpecify the fubfifting or the growing
herefies, which would account for the copious form
of doctrine eftablifhed in our own church.

For this purpofe, his Lordfhip mentions two
particular circumftances in rhofe times, to which
it became necefTary our Reformers fhould pay a.
particular regard.

The firft of thefe circumflances was, u that,
" when the fcriptures were firft put into men's
" hands at the Reformation as a rule of faith,
" many flrange conceits were pretended to be
" derived from them, which gave rife to fcveral
" impious and extravagant lefts. Whence the
11 Papifls took occafion to calumniate the Rcfor-
" mation, as if thefe feftaries fpoke out, what all
u Proteftants thought, — and that all feels were
" the natural confequence-. of the Reformation,
" and of making off the doctrine of the infalli-
" bility of the cluirch. So that, to flop thefe ca-

" lumnies.

io8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ft lumnies, it became heceflary for particular
<c churches, and for our own among the reft, to
K publifh confeilions of their faith, both for the
li inftruclion of their own members, and for co-
" vering them from the flandefs of their adver-
" faries."

Concerning this method of obviating calum-
nies by confeflions, fomething has been faid al-
ready in a foregoing chapter. But, however, as
the cafe of the church of England was fome-
what different from that of the Remonftrants, it
may not be improper to confider this plea, in re-
ference to our Englifh Reformers.

And here, it muft be owned, Bifhop Burnet
has, with great juftice and propriety, drawn a
parallel between the flanders call upon the Pro-
teftants by the Papifts, and the calumnies thrown
at the firft Chriflians by the Jews 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 refurre&ion of the Chrifti-
an religion, and would naturally be attended
with all the confequences of the firft preaching,
and fpreading of the gofpel. Here then the
Reformers had a precedent before them ; and
ihould have done what the Apoftles did in the
fame fituation. The Apoftles were flandered as"
having taught, that men might do evil, that good
may come. The doc~trine of free grace was the
immediate occaiion of this calumny, which, for

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 109

the honour and credit of Chriftianity, demanded
the molt fpeedy and effectual refutation. What
cotirfe did the ApofHes take in this exigency ?
Did they frame a new creed or confefTion, or
infert into an old one a new article, importing,
" that no man mould 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 own writings
and converfation, and gave themfelves no further-
trouble about it *.

x " We find, however," faith Dr. Rutherforth, " that St,
" Paul was led by it [the calumny] to write thus to the Rc-
" mans, If the truth of God bath more abounded through my lie
" unto his glory, <why yet am I alfo judged as a finer ? and not
" rather (as ive he fanderoujly reported, and as fome affirm that
" ive fay) Let us do evil, that good may come ? ivhofe damnatkn
" is juf. Rom. iii. 7, 8." Charge, p. 8. I do very feriou fly
allure the learned Profeflbr, that it was what the Apoille
Paid was led by this calumny to write in this very pnflage,
that led me to write as I did in the Confejf.onal. The only
queftion then between us is, which of the two reprefentations
is nearer the truth ? The learned Profcffor's comment (which,

I hope, I may have leave to examine in my turn) is as follows :
" Care, therefore, was taken by the Apoftles explicitly to

II condemn this doctrine, and infert an article in oppofition
" to it, if not into any creed or confeffion diclindt from the
' fcriptures, yet into the fcripturcs themfelves." 1. " Care
" was taken by the Jpofles ;" by which we arc to underfland,
that the epillle to the Romans wis compofed in a full aflembly
of the Apoftles, and that Paul was no more than the fcribe
of the fynod ; by way, 1 fuppofe, of a fcripture precedent for
an article-making convocation, c. " The Apoftles took
•* care explicitly to condemn the doflrir.e." Not in tfii

In

no THE CONFESSIONAL.

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
(C doctrine and practice examined ;" and had they,
as the Apoflles did, acled in conformity to that
declaration, they mull for ever have filenced every
cavil, and every flander, which the wit of man
could have devifed againfl 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 faith, as other churches. This was done
on the behalf of the church of England by Bifhop
jewels and that fo much to the fatisfa&ion of the
church, that his book patted a long time for the
authentic ftandard of its doctrine. But whom

St. Paul barely relates that the dottrine was Jlanderaujly af-
cribed to them. The Apoltle, indeed, denounces condemna-
tion upon the flanderers ; but that gives the paffage the air
of a canon, rather than of an article ; a diflindtion our learned
Profeffor fhould be better acquainted with. 3. — " And to
" infert an article in oppojition to it.''' I fhould be glad to know
ivbere ? I am fure no fuch article is in thefe two verfes, or in
the context to them. The cafe then, as fet forth in the
Confeffional, ftands good, and is not at all affected by any
thing the learned Profeffor hath offered to the contrary.
Whereas the reprefentation which the learned Profeffor gives
of what happened among the .Apoltles, upon occafion of
this calumny, fo far as it depends upon this paffage in the
epillle to the Romans, is vj\\o\\y fidilious ; and, if he would
eftablifli the fads he attempts to build upon it, he mull look
fur fome other authority.

did

THE CONFESSIONAL. in

did it fatisfv or convince, except the Engli/Ij Pro-
tectants ? 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 firll appearance, than a three-penny
pamphlet.

I hope, however, I mail not be thought to
derogate from our thirty-nine articles, if I fay,
that this Apology did its work, whatever it was,
as well as that more authentic fyflem ; and, what
is more, did it without being fubfcribed, or ad-
opted as a ted, either of minifterial or lay-com-
munion. And, had the Reformers contented
themfelves with this method of defence, they
might have purfued it without any complaint, and
without any ill confequence to their own friends.
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
defences, as tefls of orthodoxy ; and binding
them upon the confciences of thofe, who had as
much right to diffent from them, as they had to
diflentfrom Popery : and from this charge, what
Biihop Burnet hath pleaded on their behalf will
not acquit them.

That a variety of feels arofe out of the Refor-
mation, was a matter of fa<ft, which can hardly
be confidered in the light of a calumny. It nei-
ii ther

ii2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ther could nor ought to have been denied. It
was the natural effecT: of great numbers emanci-
pated from the fetters of Rome, and reflored to
the exercife of their private judgement. If any
of thefe feels were impious or extravagant in their
tenets, might not fome of this be owing to the
ir.tDlerant fpirit of fome of the Reformers them-
felves? who, by narrowing the bottom of Chri-
flian communion, and eftablifhing exclufive creeds
and confeffions, 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 lb lately fhaken off that of Popery.
To fay that thefe impious feftaries fpoke out
what all Proteftants thought, was fo ridiculous
and abfurd, that it deferved no other anfwer, but
an appeal to the affual feparation of one fort
from another y.

y Seckendorf indeed fpeaks of " a fedt of fanatics which
" fpread in the Low Countries, before Luther began to attack
" Popery, and was therefore the offspring of Popery, not of
" Lutheranifm. They kept themfelves," he tells us, " from
" inquiry and punilhment, in that they conformed, by a
" wicked difiimulation, to the external rites of the eftablifh-
" ed worfhip, with an equal, and fometimes a greater, affec-
** tation of fandlity, than others. Some of thefe had a pro-
*« penfity to atheifm, or libertinifm ; and the people after-
'* wards afpiring to evangelical liberty, thefe fanatics began,
" under this pretence, to infinuate their profane opinions to
«< them, with more affurance." Hiji. Lutb. b. ii. p. 30.
After which, he cites a paffage, wherein Luther takes notice
of them, and accounts for their being fo full and quiet under

On

THE CONFESSIONAL. 113

On the other hand, fuch fe<fte as differed from
each other, and kept within the bounds of fobri-
ety and order, as they manifehHy 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 confemons;
but they could not fay in thofe confeffions, that
a variety of fe£te did not exift, or that fuch a va-
riety ever would have exifted, if the whole Chri-
stian 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 mould fall upon different explanations of
fcripture, which had been fo little fludied, and

Popery, and fo troublefome after the Reformation began,
from the cafe in the parable of the Jlrong man armed, Luke
xi. 21. — But, without doubt, there was a variety of feels,
which owed their rife to the progrefs of the Reformation,
without having any connexion with thefe papiltical fanatics,
whom I take to be the fame with thofe mentioned by Mo-
Jheim, Eccl. Hift. p. 570. under the name of Myllics. For
Mojheini's words, sanitate cultus externi demcnjlrata, fignify
only, that they taught the vanity of external worihip, which
they might do, and yet join in it, to avoid puniihment ;
and that is the very thing which gives Seckemforf octahon to
accufe them of a wicked dijfimulation. Dr. Machine's tranf-
larion reprefents them as renouncing all the ails and cercmoniet
of external ivorjhip-, for which, I apprehend, he hath not fuf-
ficicnt authority from the original.

H 2 fQ

n4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fo carefully fecreted from thofe who were inclined
to fludy them ; and had even been degraded to
the level of the decretal epiftles in points of im-
portance and authority z.

z It is a queftion of fome difficulty, when the church of
Home began to derogate from the authority of the fcriptures,
and to raife their traditions to an equality with them ? It is
generally fuppofed that Pope Nicholas ordained, that the de-
cretal epiltles of the Popes mould be of the fame authority
as the fcriptures, about the year 85^. But the true cafe was
this : Nicholas had faid that the decretals of his predecefTors
ought to conclude fome French Bilhops, who refufed to ap-
peal to the 'Roman fee, upon a point controverted and decid-
ed among themfelves. The Bilhops alledged, that thofe de-
cretals were no part of the canon law. Nicholas replied,
that if this was a good reafon for rejecting the decretals, it
would afford a pretence for rejecting the Old and New Tef-
tament ; for that, thefe were not to be found in the code of
the canon. Du PleJJis, Myft. Iniq. Progrejf. 31. — Doubtlefs,
the argument is a miferable one; but, however, is far from
implying, much more from afferting, that the decretals were
of equal authority with the fcriptures. Du Plejfis indeed
fays, that Pope Jgatha had, 170 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 doctrine had gained no canoni-
cal authority in the pontificate of Nicholas, it ought not fo
early to be put to the account of the church. Nor do I in-
deed find any formal decree to fuch effect till the year 141 5,
when the council of Con/lance, in the condemnation of the
38th article of Wycliff's herefy, ordained, *! that fuch of the
" decretal epijlles, as fhould be found, upon examination, to
" be rightly afcribed to the Popes whofe names they bore,
" lhould be of equal authority with the epiftles of the Apo-
•' itles." VEnfanfs Hift. Counc. of Conjlance, vol. I. p.
229. The qualifying claufe of examination fhews that they

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 115

The other circumftanee which, according to
Bifhop Burnet, made a copious conferTion more
neceTiary for the reformed church of England,

were not even then without juft fufpicions that the colle&ions
of Lvo ofChartrcs, Gratian, and others, were not wholly au-
thentic. From this period, the fufticiency of the fcriptures
alone to falvation became a formal herefy, as appears by the
twelfth of the interrogatories exhibited to Lambert in Fox's
Martyrology in the year 1538. Hitherto, 'however, the
fcriptures ltood upon even ground with papal conflitutions ;
and the inconfiitencies between them were kept fufficientlv
out of fight, by depriving the people of the ordinary means
of fludying the facred oracles, and entertaining them only
with the ignorant and myfiical comments of the monks upon
them. When this would no longer pafi upon mankind, it
then became necefTary to degrade the fcriptures to an infe-
rior clafs. Erafmus, in that colloquy which is intitled
J^Qvopaytz, canvafles the point thus. Lanio: Petrus iguur
habuit autC'-itatem condendi novas hges ? Salsamektarivs:
Habuit Lan. Habu'.t et P aulas, cum ceteris apoftolis ? Sals.
Hakucrunt in fuis quifque ecclefiis, a Pctro, feu Cbrijio commiffis.
L a n . Et Pet> i fuccefforibus par eft pet eft as cum ipfo Pet>o ? Sals.
Quidni ? Lan. Tanlundcm igitur honoris debetur refcipto Ro-
mani pontifcis, quantum epiftolis Petri : et tantui-dem con/litutio-
nibus epifcopcrum, quantum epiftolis P auli ? Sals. Eqzddemarbitror
ttiam amplius deberi, fi precipitant et legem ferant cum autori-
tate. Lan. Sedfafne eft dubi/are, an Petrus et Paulas fcripferint
afjlatu di<vini Spirit us ? Sals, lmo hareticus.Jit qui dubitet. Lan.
Idem cenfes de refcriptis et conftitutionibus pontifcum et epiicopo-
rum ? Sals. De pontif.ee cenfeo, de epifcopis ambigo, ni ft quod
pium eft, de nullo perferam fufpicari, ni res ipfa palam clamitet.
That Erafmus would be underilood to give his own'fenfe in
the perfon of the ftjhmonger, is undeniable. With what fin-
cerity, is another matter. This we may depend upon, that
he fpeaks the orthodox fentiments of the church, and gives
us to underftand, at lead, upon what confiderations the pre-

II 3 was,

u6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

was, that concealed Papifts, being brought to
this tefl, might not creep into the church una-
wares, and fecretly undermine it. " Many'*
(fays his Lord {hip) " had complied with every
" alteration, both in King Henry's and K'mgEd-
Ci ward's reign, who not only declared them-
*' (elves to have been all the while Papifts, but
** became bloody perfecutors in Queen Mary's
" 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 miniitry who
had any tiri£hire of Popery. How ineffectual
this meafure was for the purpofe, the good Bi-
•fhophere confefTes. And, therefore, though this
may go far towards excufing Cranmer. and Rid-
ley for contriving fuch a ted, yet it will by no
means juftify Queen Elizabeth's Bifhops, who
had feen what had happened in Queen Mary's
days, for continuing fuch a tefl any longer.

cedence was given to the papal refcripts above the epiftles
of Peter and Paul. Probably the condition, ft pracipiant
et legem fer ant cum autoritate, might be his own. But who
fees not how idle it is to apply any fuch limitation to thofe
decrees, which are cotifejjealy written by divine infpiration,
as Erafmus pretends here to think the pontifical decrees were?
Thib colloquy js perhaps one of- the feverell fatires extant a-
gftinft the fuperilitions of Fopery. But whence had thefe
fuperflitions their rife or their authority ? Even from thefe
inj\.ired refcripts of the Popes. Could not Erafmus fee this
as wejl as any man ?

Much

THE CONFESSIONAL. 117

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 Edwar d and his bifhops, con-
cerning reformation. She thought it right to
humour thePapifts; and, for that purpofe, made
very confiderable abatements in thofe terms of
Proteftant communion, which were infilled on
in Edward's fyftem.

Among other things, the compilers, or the re-
viewers, of Edward's articles, ft ruck out a long
paffage againfi: the real prefence. " The fecret of
" which, fays Bifhop Burnet himfelf, was this.
" The Queen and her council ftudied to unite
te 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 ftill of that pcrfnafion :
u and, therefore, it was thought to be enough to
" condemn tranfubftantiation, and to fay, that,
" Chrifl 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-
11 mon confent left out a."

a Hijl. Reform, vol. II. p. 406. This mutilation of the ar-
ticle concerning the real prefence, was one of thofe things
which drove the ancient Puritans out of the eftablifhed church.
Hifi. Reform, vol. III. Colk&ion, p. 334. And, in thefe lat-

H 4 Would

n8 THE CONFESSIONAL. '

Would one believe, that the fame hand which
wrote this paffage, could raife an apology for
our prefent articles, from the neceffity of exclud-
ing concealed Papifts out of the church, by a ted
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
other articles fhould profit by their experience
of what had happened in the reigns of Henry ^ Ed—
ward, and Mary. Thefe inconfiflencies, however,
are unavoidable, even by the greateft and belt
of men, when they find themfelves under a ne-
cefhty of defending ecclefiaftical inflitutions;
only becaufe they are efiablijijed.

Hitherto we meet with nothing in this mtro-
xlu&ion, to juftify our reformers in eftablifhing
thefe articles of faith and doctrine, fave only the
bare excufe of following the fafhion of other
churches. The Biihop himfelf has as good as
confeffed, that there is no fcriptural authority
for any fuch placlice. It has likewife been fhewn,

ter times, had given occafion to compliment the church of
England, as holding the real prefence, as well as her fitter of
Feme. See Aftendix to Dr. Farrs Life of Archbifnop Uj?:er,
p. i i. e. q. f. This is likewife one principal circumftance,
which both Popifli and Protefcant writers have brought to
ihew the very little difference there is between the churches
of Rome and England. Vid. Trancifci a S:a. Clara (alias
J)ai>erport) Expofit. paraphraflicam in articulos confeflionis
Anglic*-, in Art. 28. and Heylins Introduce, to the Life
ql Archbifhop Lavd.

that

THE CONFESSIONAL. 119

that with refpc& to the particular occasions of
the church of England, the publication of thefe
articles had no effect, 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 of Englan d half
way.

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

His Lordfhip obferves, " that whatever may
" be the fanctions of a law, it does not alter the
u nature of things, nor oblige the confciences of
Cl the fubjects, unlefs they come under the fame
" pcrfuafion." This is particularly true of any
fuch law, as infringes upon the privileges to
which Chriflians are intitled under the profeflion
of the Gofpel; and this, we fay, is the cafe of all
laws enjoining affent and confent to human creeds
-and confeffions, which appear not to thofe, of
whom fuch aflent and confent are required, to be
in perfect agreement with the word of God. It
is therefore of no fort of confequence, whether
fuch creeds and confcllions arc cftablifhed by ci-
vil authority, or by fynods and convocations of
proicfied thcologr.es. Upon Proteftant princi-
ples,

12© THE CONFESSIONAL.

pies, neither the one nor the other can encroach,
fo much as a itraw-breadth, upon the rights of
private judgement, in matters of faith or doctrine.

His Lordfhip indeed would feem to fay fome-
thing in vindication of our Princes, for interpo-
ling 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. t( The part," fays he,
" they had in the Reformation was only this, —
*' being fatisfled with the grounds on which it
" went, they received it themfelves, and ena&ed
" it for the people ; and this, in his Lordfhip's
" judgement, they had as much right to do, as
*' every private man had to chufe for himfclf,
" and believe according to his reafon and con-
te fcience.'*

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, I apprehend,
his Lordfhip, by an ambiguity of expreflion,
hath put the change upon his readers, and per-
haps upon himfelf. The true ground of Re-
formation was, the neceility of being relieved
from the incroachments, impoutions, and op-
preffions of Popery. The abolition of thefe
grievances, our Princes (including the legifla-
ture) had not only a right, but were in duty
bound, to enaft for the people. When Popery

was

THE CONFESSIONAL. 121

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 doctrine (to let alone forms of worfhip) 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 doctrines and articles of faith
of man's device, in their ozun dotlors, as well as in
thofe of the Popifli perfuafion. They could not
be ignorant, that an Engliflo convocation had no
more right to prefcribe to the people directories
of faith, diftincl: from the fcriptures, than an Ita-
lian council : or that a fincere EngliJ]} Proteflant
could no more make his Bifliop his Proxy in
matters of Faith and Confcience, than he could
transfer his civil allegiance, which he had fvvorn
to the King or Queen of England, to the Pope
of Rome.

Both the civil and ecclefiaflical authority were
on this, as on all other like occafions, 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-
xicis and the duty, both of the civil and ecclefia-

ftical

122 THE CONFESSIONAL.

flical power, to promote Chriftian edification
among the people, for whK the word of God
had made fufficiem re sHthout breaking in

up.,*; Chtifi ' ...

It h tie; this Chriftian liberty might be ab-
tifed by abfurd and licentious men, fo as to en-
danger the peace, and fubvert the order, of civil
fociety. Here the civil magiflrate has his right
of interpofmg referred to him by 1 it-

felf. A con fide rati on, which, as it fully jui
Chriftian Princes in their demolition of .
fo likewife does it referve to them an authority to
reflrain all religious corruptions and extravagances
which have a like effect, and break out into
overt acts of oppofition to the righteous regula-
tions of civil fociety: which however never can
be affecled, where any man or any body of men
demand or attempt no more than to be permitted
to believe and worfhip God, peaceably and fin-
cerely, in their own way.

The good Bifhop would have us believe, as
hath been obferved, that the fyftem which took
place at the Reformation, was only barely enacled
by our Princes, who, according to him, left it to
the church to judge in points of faith, and to
decide controverfies. How the faStJlood'm fome
periods, I will not Hay to enquire. This I know,
that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth the ortho-
dox Laiv was, that " Religion being variable ac-
il cording fo the pleafure of fuccecding Princes, that

" which

THE CONFESSIONAL. 123

" which at one time is held for orthodox, may at
" another be accounted fuperftitious, &c." b. A
maxim which was exemplified fo often, in the
reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, and in
fo many inftances, where the church, as fuch, had
not the lead concern, that it may very well coun-
terbalance the few cafes the Bilhop may be fup-
pofed to have had in his eye, when he ventured
this affertion with the public.

But thefe are points, which we are now no
longer permitted to debate with the powers in
being. The flate and the church are cordially
agreed to continue thefe articles as flandards 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 honed 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 Chriftian reli-
gion is of divine authority, and our future hap-
pinefs depends, in any degree, upon having its
documents pure, and unmixed with human com-
mandments and traditions, the man, who is in a
capacity to examine into the truth, muft be in-
excufably rafn, fhould he receive and embrace
do&rines unfupported by thefe facred oracles,
merely becaufe they are eftabiifhed by the
powers of this world.

b Dukes Law of Charitable TJfes, p. ijt, 132.

To

J24 THE CONFESSIONAL.

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

By the ufe of the articles, one would fuppofe,
at firft fight, his Lordlhip meant their utility to
the church. But, however, without entering far-
ther into this matter than we have already feen,
and after a fhort digreffion, importing that they
are not merely articles of union and peace, he
proceeds to tell us, that, " with refpect to the
" laity, they are only articles of church comr
" muni on."

But I would defire to know in what inftance
our articles ever had any operation this way?
What layman is or ever was required either to
fubfcribe, or folemnly declare his aiTent to them,
as a qualification for communion with the church
of England d I Pbyficians and Civilians indeed

d Dr. Ruiberfortb reprefents me as " fuppofing here Bifliop
" Burnet to mean, that all laymen are required either to fub-
" fcribe or folemnly declare their afient to the articles, as a
4< qualification for communion with the church in which they
" are etlablifhed." I wim it were not below the Profeffor's
dignity to endeavour to underftandMxs opponents before he un-
dertakes to reprefent them. The plain obvious cafe is this.
Bifhop Burnet calls our articles, fo far as the laity are concern-
ed with them, articles of church communion. In examining
whether they really are fuch or no, I enquire how they ope-

fubfcribe

THE CONFESSIONAL. 125

fubfcribe them, to entitle themfelves to academi-
cal degrees, and the latter fometimes to qualify
themfelves for ecclefiaflical offices. But, fuppofe

rate upon the laity for the purpofe of admitting them to, or
excluding them from, communion with the church in which
they are eftabliflied. 1 prove that they have no operation this
way, by fhewing that the laity in general are actually admit-
ted to communion with the church, not only without being
required either to fubfcribe or declare their affent to them,
but without being afked a fingle queftion concerning the ar-
ticles. Hence I conclude, they are not, with refpect to the
laity, articles of church-communion. Farther than this I
neither did nor thought I had occafion to enquire what was
Bifhop Burners meaning. It was fufficient for me to have
fhewn, that whatever it was, it depended upon a fuppofition,
contrary to matter of fact. But Dr. Rutherforth hath found
out the Bifhop's meaning, and hath very gracioufly adopted
it ; and thus explains it : " Every layman, who is a member
•' of any church, not only if he is perfuaded, that all the
" propofitions contained in its eftablifhed confeffion are true,
" but, if he thinks that none of them are erroneous in fo
*' high a degree, that he cannot hold communion with fuch
" as profefs them, he is obliged to continue in its com-
" munion." Charge, p. 13. I wifh the learned Profeffor
hath not here fuppofed Bifhop Burnet to mean what he did
not mean. But without enquiring at this time into Bifhop
Burnet's meaning, let us confider how the Profeffor's fyftem
will be affected by the meaning he hath here avowed. As
he hath flated the cafe, a layman is obliged to hold com-
munion with the church of which he is a member, although
he (hould think every article of the confeffion of that church
to be erroneous, provided he does not think any article or any
propofition in the confeffion to be erroneous info high a degree,
that he cannot hold communion with fuch as profefs it.
Here it is obfervable, that the obligation to hold communi-
on, does not wholly arife from the fubject- matter of the ar-
ticles, or the high or the low degree of errors contained in

any

i26 THE CONFESSIONAL.

any of thefe men fliould choofe to forego the
degree, or the office for which he is a candidate,
rather than comply with his condition (and fome

them, but chiefly from the extent of the layman's charity. A
layman may be of that catholic fpirit, that he mail think
himielf obliged to hold communion with pious and well-
meaning perfons, even though he mould be perfuaded that all
the articles of the confeffion, or at leafc the major part of them,
profefTed by thofe perfons, are unfcriptural, and fome of them
perhaps antifcriptural, than which there can hardly be among
Proteitants an higher degree of error. Such laymen there
have been in the world; and when that happens to be the
cafe in any degree, what can fuch laymen have to do with
the articles of any confeffion, or the articles with him ? A
great deal, if we believe the learned Profeflbr. For in the
very next paragraph we are informed, that " the governors
V of the church understand the laymen to be bound in con-
?.' fcience to believe and praftife what is contained in the
" confeffion [of the church, we muft fuppofe, with which
" he is in communion], as much as the clergyman who fub-
«' fcribes, and folemnly affents to it." If the governors of
the church are right in fo underftanding, they mull imderfiand
the articles of the confeffion to be as much a teji to the lay-
man, as they are to the clergyman. And this being the cafe,
the governors mould feem to have as much right to exclude the
unajjenting layman from communion, as they have to exclude
the unfuhfcrihing clergyman from the office of teaching. And
yet, by the ProfefTor's own Hate of the cafe, church-gover-
nors can have no fuch right. For the layman may dijjent
from all the articles of the eftablifhed confeffion in a certain
degree, and that a very high degree, and ftill be obliged to
continue in communion with the church in which they are
eirabliihed. He is left to his own judgement, or rather to
his own charity, for the extent of the obligation. And what
have church-governors or church-confeffions todo with that ?
Either therefore the articles of the eftablifhed confeffion are
not to fuch a layman, nor conferjuenily to any layman, ar-

fuch

THE CONFESSIONAL. iif

fuch I have known), would this be a fufficient
reafon for excluding him from church-communi-
on? or was ever any one excluded upon any fuel*
account I

The Bifhop indeed fays, that the $ih canon;
which declares " thole to be excbmmunicated ipfd
" faElo who mall affirm any of thefe articles to be
" erroneous, or fuch as he may not with a good
u confcience fubfcribe to, extends to the whole
" body of the people, laity as well as clergy.'*
I apprehend, that a refufal to fubfcribe the ar-
ticles, in the cafes abovementioned, amounts to
fomething equivalent to the affirmation cenfured.
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 ac-
count, or were ever afked a firjgle queftion uponl
the fubjec't? Either therefore his Lordlhip mud
have been miftaken in his interpretation of this
canon, or here is a relaxation of difcipline in the
church, extremely difhonotirable to her governors,
and highly fcartdalous to her members. Be this
as it may, this is a matter of fact, which proves
to a demonfVration, that our thirty-nine Articles,
confidered as articles of church communion, are
of no manner of life to the church, of fignificance

titles of church-communioh; or we hatre here two counter
obligations, which 1 fear the learned Profcflbr, with all his
dexterky at dijlinguijhing, will never be able to reconcile,

I to

l28 THE CONCESSIONAL.

to the laity. Some of our divines, indeed, have:
attempted to bring the laity under this obligation
of affenting to article-do&rine, by way of i?npli-
eation. Others, however, have frankly exone-
rated them from any fuch bond, and have left
church-communion upon a more righteous and
reafonable foundation, by a way of reasoning,
Which, tome at lead, looks like condemning the
church for infilling on clerical fubfcriptions, as
well as laical affent, to human doftrmes and ar-
ticles of faith e. Bat^however that may be, the

e Dr. Siebbing h amcmg the former fort, who bluflies not
'to fay, " there is the fame need of human explications of
*' fcripture-words, with refpeft to lay-eommnnion, that there
*' is with refpecl to miniilerial-communion. For the hold-
" ing the faith of the Gofpel, neceffary in both cafes, and
*' a general belief that the fcriptures are the word of God,
*' is no evidence of this, in either." Rational Enquiry,.
p. yj. No evidence of what ? I fuppofe he means, no evidence
of communion with any particular charch 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 Bifhop Bull, this
church is not the church of England: which, according to his
Lordfhip, " docs not require the laity to fubfcribe the ar-
** tides, though they are as much obliged to acknowledge
*' the fundamental articles of the Chriftkn faith, as the moll
f* learned doctors." That is to fay, as much obliged as
Chriflians, and inforo confeienti<z> to acknowledge thofe fun-
damental (not as they are contained in the thirty-nine ar-
ticles, for then they would be obliged to fubferibe, or give
their public affent to thofe articles, but) as they lie in the
fcriptures. Which plainly implies, that the church of
England thinks this general acknowledgment firfficient evidence

fubfeription

THE CONFESSIONAL. n9

fubfcription of the clergy {lands, it feems, upon
a different footing, and, as a matter of more
confequence, will demand a more particular ex-
amination*

The Bifhop begins this part of the cafe with
obferving, that " the title of the articles bears,
if that they were agreed upon in convocation,/^
u the avoiding of diversities of opinions ■, and the
" ft xablifoingconfc7it 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 (landing 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 act 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 fubfcriber? The cafuiftry that allows
different men to fubfcribe the fame fet of articles,
which, as they all agree, were intended to prevent
divcrfities of opinions, not only in different, but

of the communion of her lay-members with her. Dr. Stelbing
might wifh it had been otherwife, and when he wrote his
Rational Enqui>yt might hope the laity would, at fame fine, be
bound to affent in form to thefe human explications. If he
had any explications of that fort, he did not live to be gra-
tified. And that matter is juft as well as it is.

I 2 .even

i3o THE CONFESSIONAL,

even in contrary fenfes, mud be weak and con-*
temptible, beyond any thing of the kind that
ever came from, the Jefuits. Thefe pious fathers,,
in all fuch cafes, bring their matters to bear at a
pinch, by the help of equivocation and mental
referves. We defpife and difov/n this practice as
infamous; and yet, it feems, we can condefcend
to arrive at the fame fort of ends, by quibbling
upon the ambiguous fignifkation of words*

Alas for pity ! that, to explain and defend this
mean, unmanly expedient, fhould fall to the fhare
of this illuilrious 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 iheets of his Expofition were hardly dry from
the prefs :

" I do not deny but men of the Cahinift per-
" fuafion may think they have caufe given them
<; to complain of my leaving the articles open to
v thofe of another perfuafion. But thofe of the
" Armmlan fide" [who, by the way, were the
men who bore the moft tyrannous hate againft
him] " mull be men of a peculiar tinfture, who
" except to. it" [ his Expofition ] u on that ac-
et count : though, without fuch enlargement of
4< fenfe, their fubfcribing them does not appear
" to agree fo well with their opinions, and

*c With COMMON INGENUITY f."

f Eifhop Burnet's Remarks on the Examination of his Ex>
pciition of the fecond arucleof our Church, p. 3.

But

THE CONFESSIONAL. ij%

But what caufe could the good Bifhop give the
Calvinijls to complain, if there really was any
good foundation for this enlargement of fenfe, ei-
ther in the original defign of the articles, or in
any fubfequent decifion of competent authority ?
The Armiiuan fenfe is certainly not the original
ienfc of the articles: nor is it a fenfe they will
naturally receive. It is a fenfe which was never
once in the heads of thofe who compiled them,
nor of thofe who gave them the fanclion of that
aft of parliament, under which they are fubferib-
ed 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 ftrictnefs of our fubferiptions,
and leaves room, in exprefs terms, for thefe
(different literal grammatical fenfes.

It remains then that we examine the validity
of this declaration, upon which fo great a drefs is
laid ; wherein we fhall endeavour to be as accu-
rate, and at the fame time as candid, as poflible-

Bifhop Burnet tells us, that this declaration wag
fet forth by King Charles I. " and little doubt
" can be made," lays his LordUiip, " but it was
" prepared by Archbiflipp Laud g.v

That King Charles I. publiflied a declaration
.along with the articles in the year 1630, we have
the teftimony of Dr. Nicholls h, who however

y

* Remarks, p. 3.

•'.. 'r.lli's Commentary on the Articles, p. j.-

1 3 &C|

132 THE CONFESSIONAL.

cites a paflage 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 itill is, prefixed to our thirty-nine
articles. The confequence is, that King Charles's
declaration is dropped long ago, and has no au-
thority to decide any thing in the prefent que-
stion.

The declaration which {lands before the thirty-
nine articles in our prefent books, is more gene-
rally believed to have been firft publifhed by
King James I. and is the fame from which, Dr.
Nichclls fays, Bifhop Burnet drew his inference,
" that an article being conceived in fuch genera}
" words, that it can admit of different literal and
tf grammatical fenfes, even when the fenfes are
*£ plainly contrary to each other, both fides may
" fubfcribe the articles with a good conicience,
" and without any equivocation."

But Dr. Nicholls believed that the force of this
declaration did not, nor was defigned to, extend
beyond his [3£ing Jame/s^ time. If this be true,
fhis declaration has no right to the place it occu-
pies. It is of no ufe or fignificance to us of the
prefent times ; nor could any rule of interpreta-
tion be either inferred from it, orauthorifed by it.

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

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 133
The King fet forth his declaration by virtue
of his being fuprerne head of the church. But
acrs of fupremacy, when unconfirmed by the
legiflature, are merely perfonal, and die with the
particular Prince whofe acts they are, unlefs they
are revived, by his fuccefTors, with the fame
formalities which were obferved at their firft ap-
pearance.

The declaration before us is deftitute of all
thefe formalities, even with refpecr. to the Prince
(whoever he was) by whom it was at firfl fet
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 circumitance, namely, that, during
the reign of Queen Anne, the title of it flood
invariably as it had done from the firit, viz. his
Majcfly's Declaration ; which would not have been
the cafe, had her Majefty adopted this refcript
as her own act, authenticated by the fpecific rati-
fication of her royal predeceffors.

On another hand, the language of this decla*
ration is fuch, as is abfolutely inconiiffent with
the fundamental principles of our prefent happy
conilicution.

" We will not endure," fays the declaration,

'' any varying, or departing, in the leafl degree,

I 4 " from

i54 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" from the doctrine and difcipline of the church

" of England mow eftablifhed 5r" This might

1 It is neceffary here to obferve, that the word now (as
far as may be judged from evidence next to demonflrative)
was not in the original declaration, but a mere interpolation,
craftily enough calculated for the deception of after-times ;
but (confidering the purpofe for which the declaration was
fet forth) molt abfurdly inferted in the place it occupies in the
common copies. This difcovery we owe to the good offices
pf &fmall writer, who was extremely provoked that this de-
claration fhould be afcribed to King James I. and who fent
lis for better information Xo'Heylitfs Life of Archbifhop Laud,
where, we were told, is an authentic copy, taken from a
collection of King Charles's papers, intituled, Bibliotbeca
Regia. It was to this writer's purpofe to prove fomething or
other from the emphatical expreiiions, now eflablilhed, and,
already eflablifhed, which occur in the common copies
of this Declaration. Upon examining the copy of it in
Hey/in's "Life of Land, p. 188. the words now and already
were not to be found. This circumflance occafioned a long-
ing to fee this Bibliotbeca Regia, which, it was fuppofed, could
be nothing lefs than an authenticated collection of Royal
mandates by fome public officer, of whofe fidelity and ac-
curacy there could be no doubt. But upon having recourfe
to Anthony Wood, [Ath. Oxon. Vol. II. p. 282. J it appeared
that this collection was compiled and publiihed by the indi-
vidual Peter Hcylin who wrote the Life of Laud, and confe-
cuent'ly, that in referring to this Bibliotbeca Regia (as he fre-
quently does in his Hiftory of that Prelate) he was only
quoting himfelf. Some lit tip time ago I had an opportunity
of confulting this Billiotheca Regia, printed, as the title page
informs, in the year 1659. .. In the copy of the Declaration
exhibited in this book, the words now and already ftand
as they do in cur common copies ; which, as one might be
fure Hiylm would not mifquote himfelf, and as it was next
1 to impofiible that both thefe e;nphatical words mould be

emitted iri his Life of Laud by accident, wa.s not eafil- 0

''•-■•'-■ l ; • 1

THE CONFESSIONAL. 135

tally well enough with the politics of a James
or a Charles ; but if our princes and people, in

be accounted for. But being informed by A. Woody that
there were two former editions of this Bibliotheca Regia, the
one in 1649, the other in 1650, I have no doubt but the
words in queftion have been foifled into this hit edition,
not only becaufe, as we are informed by A. Wood, [u. f. p.
99 ] there are other alterations in the later editions of the
Bibliotheca, but becaufe the Declaration in this copy of 1659
diners materially, in other inf.ances, from that in Heylin's Life
of Afchbiihop Laud. It was once conjectured, that the in-
terpolation might probably be the work of Dr. Anthony Spar-
row, and contrived to accommodate the new eitabliihment pro-
jecting about the time his collection fir It came out. We now
honourably acquit Dr. Sparrow of that manoeuvre, and mult
be contented to leave the true author of the forgery in his
concealment ; for that a forgery it is, appears indifputably
from internal tokens, as well as from the circumltances above-
mentioned ; nothing being more abfurd than to talk of doc-
trine or difcipline already ejiablijhed in convocation voith the
King s royal ajjent, when nothing of the fort had been done
in convocation for the King to aflent to. [See Fuller's
Church Hijiory, B. xi. § 12. and p. 131. § 65. fub anno
1628. ] We may then fafely take it for granted, that the copy
of the Declaration in Htylins Life of Laud is genuine, and,
as fuch, e.ifily explained by the fentiments of the times con-
cerning eflablifnments, and the Archbifhop's views in pub-
lilhing it. The political Prelate was aware, that, in the
opinion of the Lawyers of thofe days, there had been no
legal euablilhmcnt of forms of worfhip, or ordinances of dif-
ciplii.e, fince the demife of Queen Elizabeth. This encou-
raged him, as well as left him room to introduce fo many
ceremonies from what he thought fit to call primitive antiqui-
ty ; for which, though he had no prefent authority but his
own, he thought he might fafdy truft to a future eltablifh-
ment; and for this, he manifeflly intended to pave the way
py this Declaration, not apprehending an oppofition from

aftertimes.

136 THE CONFESSIONAL.

after-times, had perfifted in not enduring the leaft
departure from the dodrine of the church of Eng-

an affcmbly of more conlequence, and lefa devoted to him,
than a convocation. What the fentiments of that genera-
tion were, concerning the eftablifhment of forms of WQrfhip
3nd ceremonies, may be underftood from the following cita-
tion, which, it is hoped, will not be unacceptable to the cu-
rious reader, whom fo remarkable a paffage may have efcap-
ed. The author, having given account of fome circumftances
relative to Queen Elizabeth's acceffion, proceeds thus :
" The enfuing Parliament was wholly made up of fuch per-
*' fons, as had already voted in their words and aclions,
" every thing the Queen could defire to have confirmed in
" the Houfe : fo as no fide but were miftaken in their ac-
*' count ; the Proteftants gaining more, and the Catholics
" lefs, than could be expected, to the taking the title of Head
" of the Church, and conferring it on her Majefly, which was
" thought unfuitable to her father and brother, and therefore
" far more unbecoming the perfon of a woman: the caufe a
" Declaration was not long after iffued out, to (hew in what
«« fenfcs it was to be underftood." [Fid. Queen Elizabeth's In-
junctions, 1559, and the 57th Article of religion.] " And to
" prove they more intended the limitation of the Roman p<m>er,
4* than to fecure themfelves from tyranny at home, an Aft
" was parted, enabling the Queen, and commiffioners for the
•* time being, to alter or bring what ceremonies or worfhip
w they thought decent into the fervice of God, without
** excepting that formerly exploded : whereby a return
" (likeiieil to be made ufe of) or a farther remove was left
" arbitrary at the will of the Queen : nuhcfe fucccjjors not be-
* ' tng mentioned in the Acl, left room to quejlion^ it ought to be
*' nn linger in force than l.er life; for whofe gratification
M alone her privy counsil (that did then, and indeed almoft
P* all her time, govern parliaments) had intended it. But
?' King James and the Bijhops, finding the advantage it
" brought the crown, no lefs than the cfarch, did not only

- . fond)

THE CONFESSIONAL. 137

land, particularly as it is exhibited in the homily
againft wilful rebellion, what mud have become

" own it amongft the ftatutes unrepealed and in force, but
** did print it, with a proclamation to itrengthen it, at the
" beginning of the book of Common-Prayer. Neither had
" the High Commiffion any better vizard to face the tyran-
" ny daily p raft i fed by the clergy, but what the authority
*' of this Act did r.iford ; which may one day tempt the
'* people to a new, if not a more difmal reformation, after
" experience hath taught them, how pernicious it is to en-
" truft either Prince or Priefl with any power capable of
" abufe : yet, to the honour of this Princefs it may juftly
" be faid, that fhe never made ufe of her own liberty to
" enflave the nation, but repaid, or rather exceeded, in
" thanks and acknowledgments, all power they gave her:
?' an art loft in thefe later times, or thought unkingly.
" But I leave this her wifdom to be justified by the happy
" fuccefs." Osborn's Works, 1673, p. 414, I would
not abridge this pafiage on feveral accounts, but chiefly to
(hew on what grounds they went, who affirmed them was no
legal ecclefiaflical eftablifhment in this country from the
death of Queen Elizabeth, till the Aft of Uniformity, 13
Car. II. How far a mere aft of fupremacy might avail
towards ellablifhing any thing, though not confirmed by
Parliament, I fhall not pretend to fay; but I hardly think
it would be allowed in thefe days, that an Act of Parliament
which had expired, might be revived by a royal Proclama-
tion. I imagine the churchmen themfelves in King James's
time, might be aware of this. The title page of Rogers's
Expofition of the xxxix articles runs thus, The Faith, Doc-
trine, and Religion, professed and protected in the
Realm of England, &c. Why would he not fay, pro-
filed and eftablijked? Perhaps becaufe he knew the religion
of the realm wanted the fanftion of Parliament, and was
only proteStd by regal power. If it fhould be faid, that
Rogers, or, what is the fame thing in the prefent cafe, Bifhop
fiancrcft, had no reafon to be fo fhy, as Rogers's bufinefs was

of

138 THE CONFESSIONAL.

of us at the Revolution? Where had been our
2.£ts of fettlement and limitation of the crown to
King William, and the prefent royal family k ? If
the difcipline of the church had continued invari-
,cble9 not only the aft tolerating Proteibmt dif-
fenters had never feen the light, but the churchy
cenfure, in his Majeity's oommiffim ccckfiajiieat^
had been in full force, not to mention many other
wholefome correctives, provided fox-puritans end
heretics by the pious care of Arehbifhop Laud.

The declaration, indeed, remits the offenders
againft it for their punifhment, to the faid com-
mrffim ecclejiaflical, as if it was flill in full force.
But this only ferves to betray its weaknefs and
impotence ; and to (hew, that it has no more aiv
ihority to licence any one practice, or to pre-
scribe any one duty, to Britijl) fubjefts, than an
edift of the French King.

only to expound the xkx'xx Articles, which were eftablilhed
by an Aft of Parliament, vix. \3Eliz. I anfwer, that they
very well knew, that eltablifhment did not reach tliofe ar-
ticles which concerned Government and Difcipline ; and thefe
the commentator took into his plan, as well as the dotlrinal
and facroinenfal articles. And there happened to be no
Profefibf either of law or divinity in thofe days, who would
venture to llretch the Aft of Parliament to the whole thirty-
nine.

k See thefe quellions anfvvcred, and the point they relate
to handled, by a mafterly writer, in a pamphlet intituled, A
plain and proper anfwer to this qzujiion, Why does not the Bijkop
cf CkgLer rffign bit preferments? Frinted for Sbuckburgbt

753-

THE CONFESSIONAL. igp

Bifhop Burnet, in the pamphlet above cited,
gives the following account of the occafion of
publishing this declaration: " The Armlnicn
* party (as they were called) was then favoured,
lt To thcll- it was objected, that they departed
" from the true fenfe of the articles. But it was
4< anfwered by them, that, (ince they took the
i( 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 and gram-
matical fenfe of the Arminians was different from
the true fenfe of the articles. But how could men
fubferibe to articles as true, when they could not
deny that they fubferibed 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, though no very honourable account of the
occafion of this declaration ; but it was an occa-
fion that was given, and might be taken, in the
latter part of King 'James's reign, as likely as in
any part of King Charles' 's. There is indeed no
evidence that James ever turned Arminian in
principle. This, however, was the party that
(hick to him in his meafures and his projects, and
which it became necefiary for him, on that ac-
count, to humour, and to accommodate, by every

expedient

i4o THE CONFESSIONAL.

expedient that might fet them in a refpectable
light with the people, without bringing any re-
flexion upon his own conuftency. Whoever con-
fiders the quibbling and equivocal terms in which
this mitrument is drawn, will, I am perfuaded,
obferve the diftrefs of a man divided between his
principles and his interefts; that is, of a man
exactly in the fituation of King James I. in the
three lad years of his reign.

Charles I. was an avowed Arminian, upon the
fuppofition that all Cahinijis were enemies to his
kind of policy, both in church and flate. His
father's declaration had not wrought the end
propofed by the Anninians;2.r\d therefore, to make
them eafy, in the year 1626, he ifTued a procla-
mation, enjoining filence to all parties with re-
fpedt to the points then in difpute. " The effects
H of which proclamation, fays RuJIizvorth, how
" equally foever intended, became the (topping
" of the Puritans mouths, and an uncontrouled
" liberty to the tongues and pens of the Arminian
" party 1." Which is eafily accounted for, when
it is remembered, that the refllefs and fa&ious
Laud had the execution of this proclamation in
his hands.

This partiality brought on fo much oppreffion
and ill-treatment of the party obnoxious to the
court, that the Houfe of Commons complained
of it in their remondrance ao-ainfl the Duke of

o

1 Hift. Colle&ions, vol. I. p. 412, 413.

Buckingham,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 141

Buckingham, June 1628™; and not long after,
namely, January 28th, 1628-9, upon the motion
of Sir John Elliot, entered into this remarkable
vow:

We the Commons in Parliament ajjfembled, do claim ,
protefl, and avow for truth, tbejenfe of i he articles
cf religion, which were ejlablijhcd by parliament in
the thirteenth year cf our late Queen Elizabeth,
which, by the public acl of the church cf England,
and by the general and current expojitions of the
writers of our church, have been delivered unto us.
And we rejeel the fenfe of the Jefuits and Armeni-
ans, and all others, wherein they differ from usn.
Whether either the King or the Houfe of Com-
mons, in a feparate capacity, have a power to in-
terpret the articles of religion for the people,
will admit of a difpute ; but that this vow, or
proteftation, confidered as an acl of (late, hath
greatly the advantage of the declaration in que-*
ftion, in point of authority, will admit of none.
• It is equivalent at leafl to any other refoluiion of
the Houfe of Commons. It is found among the
mod 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 repealed in any fucceeding Par-
liament, nor containing any one particular, which
is not in perfect agreement with every part of our
prefent conflitution, civil and religious.

•" Rujbvsorth, vol. I. p. 621.
* Ibid. p. 649.

On

i42 THE CONFESSIONAL.

On the other hand, here is a namelefs, and*
for aught that any one knows^ a fpurious decla-
ration. It is a problem to this day in what
reign it was fet forth; which is a circumftance
hardly poffible, if any original record of it were
forth-coming, with thofe iblemn atteflations ne-
ceffary to give it the weight and authority of a
royal mandate °. Not to mention thofe particulars

• It is not eafy to fuppofe but there muft be fome printed
copy of this Declaration ftill extant, of fufficient antiquity to
afcertain, whether it was originally {et out by King James I.
or King Charles I. And it were to be wifhed, that if any
gentleman 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 fuch men as Bilhop Burnet and Dr. Nicbolls
mould differ fo widely in their accounts of it. The former
afcribes this Declaration to Charles, the latter to James. And
that Declaration which Dr. Nicbolls afcribes to King Charlit
I. cites the Bilhop of Chefter's judgement concerning the
wifdom and moderation of the church of England ; of which
Bilhop, or his judgement, there is not the leaft mention in
the Declaration now prefixed to our articles, which Dr. Ni-
cholls, and I think rightly, afcribes to King James. The
inducement I have to agree with Dr. Nicbolls, is as follows!
In 1628, King Charles, in a proclamation, calling in all
the copies of Montague's Jppello Cafarem, declares, that,
*' out of his care to maintain the church in the unity of
«« true religion, and the bond of peace, to prevent unnecef-
■' fary difputes, he had lately caufed the articles of religion
'• to be reprinted, as a rule for avoiding diverfities of opi-
" nions." Rujhix>orth,vo\. I. p. 634. Now it is abfurd to fup-
pofe, that the bare reprinting the xxxix articles only, would
anfwer any fuch end, or, indeed, that copies of the articles
fhould be fo very fcarce, as to require a new edition for

in

THE CONFESSIONAL. 143

in it, which are plainly repugnant to the prefent
eftabli foment both in church and (late.

It is indeed furprizing, that Bifhop Burnet,
who well knew from what court-intrigues this
declaration took its rife ; how grievoufly it was
complained of by the Calviniits, and how effec-
tually it was oppofed and difannulled by the
above-mentioned vow, fhould lay the lead flrefs
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

the purpofes mentioned. Hence I conjecture, that King
Charles reprinted his father's Declaration (the fame we new
have) along with the articles, as more copies of the articles
then extant undoubtedly wanted it, than had it. That this
Declaration was published along with thefe reprinted arti-
cles, appears from Sir John Elliots fpeech in parliament,
the January following, who cites it thus : " It is faid,"
" (namely, in a Declaration he h*d juft mentioned) if there
" be any difference of opinion concerning the fcafmable
[perhaps reafonable J " interpretation of the xxxix articles, the
" biihops and clergy in the convocation have power to dif-
" pute it, and to order which way they pkafe." Rujhnxjorth,
vol. I. p. 649. Now this particular is actually to be found
in his Majetty's Declaration, as we no-iu have it. You will
'fay, perhaps, " And why might not this originally be King
" Charles's own Declaration ?" I anfwer, it might be fo :
but if it was, it is unaccountable his Majefly lhould not
fay, in the palfage above-cited from the Declaration of
1628, he had caufed a Declaration, made and publifhed by
himfelf, for the purpofes mentioned in the Proclamation, to

K were

144 ™E CONFESSIONAL.

were pacified in any degree worth mentioning.
And if the difputants went off" from their Jierce-
nefsj it was only becaufe of the tyrannical re-
straint put upon one fuie. But of what nature
and extent the acquiefcence has been in other
refpects, is fufHciently evident, in almoft every
controverfiai book that has been written in or
fince thofe days, where the lead occafion or co-
lour has been given to the difputant, to reproach
the adverfe party with the infincerity of his fub-
fcription.

The Declaration flanding upon this infirm
ground, it would be doing it too much honour to
examine the contents of it, and to mew, what is
really the truth, that, if there is in it either
conliftency or common fenfe, it binds men to
the avoidance ofdiveriities of opinion, and allows
of as little latitude of fenfes, as the title of the
articles itfelf: unlcfs 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 Biihop Burnet
accounted for the laxity of the articles upon a dif-

be printed and publifiied along with a new edition of the xxxix
articles. Whereas, if yon fuppofe that the Declaration had
been publifiied, and prefixed to the articles in his father's
rei"-n, there would be no occaiion for a particular fpecifica-
tion of that refcript, diftinft from the articles. It would be
reprinted along with the articles of courfe, and be confidered
za a part of the book of articles, as I fuppofe it is by fome
people at this very day.

ferent

THE CONFESSIONAL. 145

ferent footing, which, however, he has not ven-
tured to mention in this Introduction. In the
fecond volume of his Hiflory of the Reforma-
tion, p. 169, he informs his readers, " that upon
" the progrefs of the Reformation, the German
" writers, particularly Ofiandery Illyricus, and
" Jmjlor/ius, grew too peremptory, and not only
" condemned the Helvetian churches for differing
" from them in the manner of Chrift's prefence
" in the facrament, but were fevere to one ano-
" ther for leffer punctilios, and were at this time
" exercifing the patience of the great and learned
" Melanclhon, becaufe he thought, that in things
u in their own nature indifferent, they ought to
" have complied with the Emperor. This made
tl tbofe in England refolve on compojing thefe articles
" with great temper in many fuch points ."

The good Riihop, I am afraid, fays a good deal
of this at random, or at lead upon plaufible con-
jecture. A few pages before, he is evidenriy
under great uncertainty, who compiled thefe ar-
ticles. M He had often found it faid, that they
" were framed by Cranmer and Ridley ; which
** he thinks more probable, than that they were
" given out to feveral bifhops and divines, to de-
i( liver their opinions concerning them." But,
however, it might be the other wav. And being
under this uncertainty, how could his Lordfhip
undertake to fay with what temper they were
compoied, or by what views or confiderations the
compofers were influenced ? However, that they
K 2 learned

146 THE CONFESSIONAL.

learned any moderation from thefe inedifying
contefts in Germany, or had refpecl: to the fuffer-
ings of Melanclhon in tempering thefe articles,
is rendered utterly incredible by the following
facts.

i. At the time referred to, viz. 1501, Melanc-
thon was employed by Maurice Elector of Saxony,
to draw up a confeflion of faith, to be exhibited
at the council of Trent, on the behalf of the Saxon
churches. In confequence of which, the principal
divines, and prefidents of thofe churches, being
affembled at Leipfic, this confeifton, which was no
other than that of Augsburgh lbmewhat enlarged,
was read to them, and fubfciibed by them, with
great unanimity, and with very little oppofition^.
So that this feafon, with refpecl to Melanclhon's
difpute with Illy r km, &c. was a feafon of great
tranquillity, the troubles with which his patience,
and that of his brethren, was then exercifed, be-
ing chiefly from the Papifts.

2. In the year 1548, the fecond of King Ed-
ward's reign, " Archbifhop Cranmer was driving
iC on a defign for the better uniting the Prote-
" ftant churches, viz. by having one common
" confeffion and harmony of faith and doctrine,
" drawn up out of the pure word of God, which
" they might all own and agree in." Melanclhon,
among others, was confulted by Cranmer on this
occafion ; and encouraged the Archbiihop to

* H^jpnian, Hi ft. Sacrament, vol. ii. p. 373.

go

THE CONFESSIONAL. 147
go on with his defign, advifing him, however,
" to avoid all ambiguities of expreflion ; faying,
" that, in the church, it was beft to call a fpacle
" a fpade, and not to call ambiguous words be-
" fore pofterity, as an apple of contention."
Tins advice he inculcates in a fecond letter, pro-
pofing, " that nothing might be left under gc
*' neral terms, but expreffed with all the perfpi-
*' cuity and ciiHincTnefs imaginable." Some, it
feems, thought it might be more conducive to
peace, to fuiFer fome difficult and controverted
points to pafs under dubious expreffions, or in
the very words of fcripture, without any parti-
cular decifive fenfe or explanation impofed upon
them. u This Melanclbon was againft, faying,
" that for his part, he loved not labyrinths ; and
" that therefore, all his fludy was, that whatfo-
" ever matters he undertook to treat of, they
" might appear plain and unfolded. That this
" was, indeed, the practice 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-
w phiflry ought to be far from the church. That
" there is no abfurdity in truth rightly propound-
11 ed : and that this goodnefs and perfpicuity of
" things is greatly inviting, wherefoever there be
" good minds r."

1 Stypes Memorials of Archbifhop Cranmer, p. 407, 408.

K 3 Undoubt-

148 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Undoubtedly Melanclhon 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. Strype thinks it probable, that Cranmer
had confulted Melanclhon on this very point, and
judges that Cranmer was the certain good man,
mentioned by Bucer to Peter Martyr , as of opi-
nion, u that ambiguous forms of fpeech, which
" might be taken in a larger acceptation, was the
" bell means of ending the great controverfy
*.' concerning the real prefence, and of reftoring
i{ peace to the church." Now, whoever had not,
Cranmer certainly had a principal hand in fram-
ing K. Edward's articles ; and how likely it was
that he fhould compofe them with any temper,
in view either of the fentiments or the fituation
of Melanclhon, the foregoing particulars may
ferve to ihew.

3. At the very time that Melanclhon wrote
thefe letters to Cranmer, he was in the heat of the
difpute he had with Iltyricus, concerning the con-
ceflions he thought fhould be made to the Em-
peror, in reference to the fcheme of pacification
called the Interim. Thefe conceffions, however,
concerned only fome rites and ceremonies, which
he thought were void of fuperftition and idolatry ;
but which, in the opinion of II/yricus, ought to

THE CONFESSIONAL. 149

be oppofcd to the death. But, for matters of
doftrinc, Mclanftbon was as ftiif and peremptory
as 11/yriciis himfclf. He was the perfon who ma-
naged the conferences on the fubjecl: of the Inte-
rim with the Emperor's Commiffioners ; and par-
ticularly wrote the Cenfure upon it; and, indeed,
from the year 1544 to the end of his life, con-
ftantly maintained, that all matters of faith and
doc/trine, and particularly upon the facrament,
mould be clearly exprefTed, and without any fo-
phiilry or ambiguity whatibever *.

s Boyle's Di<fl. Melancthon, Rem. [L], and in the
text. See likewife Hofpinian, Hill. Sacrament, under the
year 1548, and downwards. Ludo-vicus Camerarius, in the
epiille dedicatory, prefixed to his edition of Hubert Langucfs
letters to his [Camerarius1 s] father and grandfather, publilhed
in 1646, after taking notice that Mel < ncibcn opened himfelf
to Languet on the fubjeft of the Eucbarift with the moil un-
referved fincerity, adds this remarkable paffage, with refpecl,
as it Ihould feem, to fome fufpicions that Mtlanclbon had
concealed or difiembled his fentiments on that article. Ne-
que enim cbfcurum, et a CI. Peucero aliifque accurate demonjira-
tum ejl /crip! is pullicis, qua in evcharijlicd ilia controverfid, poft
accuratiorem cum Oecolampadio difquifitionem Philippi [Me-
lan&honis] fuerit fententia, quam ufque, ad piutn fuum obitum
conjianler retinuit ; quamvis earn non omnibus promifcue oHx.cp$r,*
( certo juo cohfdio ufus) apcruerit. Cum co'itentiojis <vero Tbeulogis
de illo argumento rixari pub lice nunquam loluit. Semper enim
provoca'vit ad dcclorum et pier am <virorum col/oquia, aut ad com-
munes fynodos, in quibus non daretur locus fopbi/licis altercatiori-
bus. Synods of Proteilant Divines were then, we will fup-
pofe, in the fimplicity of their childhood. In 1549 Languet
went to live with Melandkon, whofe fituation, from the death
of Luther, in 1546, to the hour of his own death,, was, with

K 4 4. Bifliop

150 THE CONFESSIONAL.

4. Bifhop Burnet would have done well, to have
fpecified what thofe 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 ftated
the cafe, it would be mod natural to look for this
temper, where the doctrine of the real prefence is
fet fonh. 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 palfage, where the
decifion of this matter was thought too perem-
ptory, at lead for her Majeily's political pur-
pofes. And Hofpinian has quoted this very article,
to fhew, that it was in perfect agreement with
Melanclhon's doctrine on the fame fubject. 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 fubject they meddled with, in the aptefl
and precifefl terms the language of thofe times
afforded.

And thus I tal<e my leave of Bifhop Burnet's
Introduction ; leaving the reader to reflect upon

rcfpecl to his eflimation in the reformed churches, moll cri-
tical j fo that his occafional caution, in not entering into
public difputation with contentious divines, and his profef-
nng a deference for the judgement of other pious and learned
men, were marks of his wifdom, as well as of his unaffected
modefty, and gave him the authority and influence with the
1'roteflfnts it) general which he fo juftly merited.

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 151

the difagreeable fituation, in which a man of this
worthy Bifhop's learning and difpofition mud be
placed, when it is required of him to maintain,
what, in his own private judgement, he is con-
fcious cannot be maintained, without fuch chicane
and fubterfuge, as it muft be moil grievous to an
ingenuous mind to employ. 1 fhall now proceed
to fhew the ill efFecls of fuch miftaken endeavours
in fome flill more remarkable in fiances.

CHAP.

152 THE CONFESSIONAL,

CHAP. V.

A View of the embaraffed and fluctuating Cafuiflry

of thofe Divines y who do not approve of or differ

from, Bifhop Burnet's Method of juftifying

Subfcripiion to the xxxix Articles of the

Church of England.

BISHOP Burnet was never a favourite with that
part of the clergy who Mile 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. His
Pafloral Care, wherein he cenfured the manners,,
as. well as the fpirit and qualifications of his conr
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, which would not expofe a large majority
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-
mofl fury, as a performance full of fcandal to the
church, and danger to religion. But, being hap-
pily retrained from proceeding to extremities in

their

THE CONFESSIONAL. 153

their corporate capacity, the charge was delivered
over to a fmgle hand, who, as they had good
reafon to believe, 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 Difcoitrfe to an Ex-
amination of a late Book, intituled, An Expofition of
the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
by Gilbert Bifoop of Samm, 1702 a.

This writer's deiign being to (hew, that the
thirty-nine Articles were framed to prevent diver-
fitics of opinions, and, at the fame time, to prove
the wifdom and righteoufnefs of fuch a meafure,
it became neceflary 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 mu ft be acknowledged, that for the
" fevenfeore years 1 aft pad [/'. e. from 1562 to
" 1702] fince the publication of them, they have
" prevented diverfity of opinion in the church,
" to that degree, that little or no difpute hath
u hitherto been, about the different fenfes the
" words may, in common and unforced conftruc-
" tion, be made to bear b."

Here we have a fhort, but at the fame time a
full and effectual, 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-

a Generally afcribed to Dr. Binckes.
k Prefatory Difcourfe, p. 12.

lefs

i54 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Jefs and fuperfluous pains taken by Bifhop Burnei
to reconcile men of different principles and opi-
nions, by a peaceable and confcientious acquief-
cence in literal and grammatical fenfes. It is,
indeed, the only way in which fuch fyflems, con-
sidered as tefts of faith and doctrine, can be de-
fended. For, if diver/it ies of opinions and dif-
putes have not in fact been prevented by them,
it is much to be fufpected, that thofe forms may
have been acceffary to fome difputes and divi-
fions, which did not exifl before fuch forms were
eflablilhedc.

When a candid and charitable reader, who
has made any inquiry into the true flate of the
cafe, meets with afiertions, which, like this, bid
defiance to all hiftory, coming from the pen of a
grave writer, who does not appear to have been

c ** It is the mifery of Chriftendom, that we fhould build
" too much upon articles of dodtrine, upon opinions, tenets,
** and fyftems ; and they mull be fubfcribed to, fworn to,
M and believed ; which caufeth almoft all the divifion of the
** Chriftian world. We are fo earneft in aiTerting the or-.
" thodoxy of our own efpoufed doftrines, that we mod la-
" mentably fall out, break peace, Iofe charity, and wretch-
" edly negledt the weightier matters, judgement, mercy,
*' and faith, and the praclke of fincere truth and righteouf-
" nefs " Strype's Sermon at Hackney, September i\> 1707,
p. 1 2. Btfides what this venerable man had feen with his own
eyes, his particular ftudies had opened to him a melancholy
view of the woeful efTefts of thefe fyftematical felts, from the
very time of their commencement in Proteftant churches
which he, as a true friend to his own church, has communi-
cated for her ufe, but hitherto to very little purpofe.

out

JUE CONFESSIONAL. 155

out of his fenfes, he would be willing to under-
{land him with any favourable allowance, rather
than fufpect him of advancing a palpable untruth,
for the fake of ferving a prefent turn.

And, therefore, when my aftonifhment (occa-
fioned by the fudden recollection of many things'
I had read in the authors referred to in the mar-
gin d) had a little fubfided, I began to cad about
how this writer's afTertion might be made con-
fident with the real truth of the cafe ?

The firft expedient for this purpofe, which oc-
curred to me, was, that this avoidance of di-
verfity mufl be underflood of a fimple filence
and acquiefcence on either fide, in fome common
and unforced conftru&ion, which, as he has ex-
preffed it, the words of the article might be ?nade
to bear. But, befides that I could fee no differ-
ence between this plan of peace and Bifhop Bur-
net's 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 underflood
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.

d Rogers's Preface to his Expofition. Fuller's Church-

Hiflory. Heylins Quinquarticular Hiftory. Hickman's

Anfwer. Prynne's And arminianifm. — Dr. Ward's Letters

to Archbifhop Ufier, apud Parr's Life. — Bifhop Barhiu's Re-
mains. Edwards's Veritas Redux. Bilhop Daveaata'j

Pieces. Montague's and Carlt.ns Controverfy, and an hun-
dred more.

After

156* THE CONFESSIONAL.

After many fruitlefs trials, methought I dif-
cerned the healing quibble lurking under the
words in the church : the author, I fuppofe, being
of opinion, that whoever difputed the iingle or-
thodox fenfe of an article, was really not in, but
cut of the churchy in confequence of the ipfofaclo-
excommunication mentioned in the 5 th of our
canons ; which would leave none in the church,
but fuch as were all of a mind.

And indeed I very much incline ft 1 11 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 refpectable con-
temporary of our own, the late reverend Mr.
John White, B. D. who hath laboured with great
zeal and earncftnefs in the fame occupation of
defending fubferiptions; and to this /even/core
years of peace and reft, hath, without the lead
hefitation, added forty /even more.

The cafe with Mr. White was this : Dr. Sa-
muel Chandler, at the end of his pamphlet inti-
tuled, The Cafe of Subfcription, he. calmly and
impartially reviewed, publifhed 1748, had printed
the fpeech of the famous Mr. Turretine, fpoken
to the Leifer Council of Geneva, June 29, 1706,
touching fubfeription to the Formula Confcnfus :
the effect of which oration was, that all fubferip-
tions to human formularies were thenceforward
abolifhed by public authority; a promife only
being required inftead thereof, that the perfon

to

THE CONFESSIONAL. 157

to be admitted to the function either of minifter
or profeflbr, would teach nothing, either in the
church or academy, contrary to the faid Cotifenfus,
or the Confeflion of the Gallican church, for the
fake of peace c. This precedent Dr. Chandler

I n a pamphlet publilhed 17 19, intituled, A Letter to the
Rev. Mr. Tong, Sec. occajionid by the late differences ammo
the Dijlnters, an account is given of this abolition .of fub-
fcriptions, different from this of Dr. Chandlrr, but not Iefi
honourable to the magiftrates of Geneva, to the following ef-
f«sft : " In the year 1706, a Divine of Neufchatel, Mr. Jacques
" Vialde Beaumont, a very worthy Minifter of the Gofpe], be-
41 ing called to Geneva toexercife hisminiilry there, was r.e-
** quired to fubferibe that numerous fet of articles [the Cun-
* /enfitj]. Mr. Beaumont, initead of fubferibing as required,
" wrote to the following purpofe: Tkejc I ajjent to, as far as
" they agree nuith the holy fcriptures, which I believe to be the
** 'word of God. I will always teach what God Jhall teach me
" from thence ; and will never, knowingly, maintain or teen b
u any thing contrary thereunto." After fome debates and ap-
** peals from one affembly to another, aform was agreed upon,
0 much to the fame purpofe as that of Mr. Beaumont. To which
•' was added indeed an exhortation not to teach any thing coo-
*' trary to the decifions of the Synod of Dart, the forty Arti-
" cles of the French churches, or the Catechiffn of Geneva,
" for the fake of keeping peace and union in the church,"
pag. 77. The material difference between this account of the
abolition of fubferiptions at Geneva, and that of Dr. Chandler,
is, that what the latter fays \va6 a promife required of the can-
didate, the other makes to be only an exhortation from the
minillry. A difference indeed far from inconfidcrable : and,
as I remember, Dr. Chandler was reminded, in a printed let-
ter addrefled to him about that time, " That, while this
" prom ft was infilled upon, he [Chandler] had no great room
" to boaft as he does of the moderation of the church of Qe~

failed

i58 THE CONFESSIONAL.

failed not to recommend, as a very proper one
for the church of England to follow; which pro-
voked the abovementioned Mr. White to make
the following reply :

" Becaufe they [the Divines of Geneva] or
" mofl of them, had fwerved from the doctrines
u which they were called to afTent and fubfcribe
" to, and were therefore uneafy till their fub-
" fcriptions were removed, are we to be called
" upon to remove ours I we who have no fuch
" trouble and divifion among ft us, upon the points
" to be ajfented and fubfcribed to f I"

rt neva, fuch a promife, in faro cotifcientia, amounting to lit—
*' tie lefs than a formal fubfcription." This objection does
not affecl a fimple exhortation, againit which a teacher, who
fhould think differently from his exhorters, would always
have an unanfwerable remonurance from Afis iv. 19. With
refpeft to the matter of fa&, it is difficult, if not impoffible,
to decide whether Dr. Chandler or Mr. Tong'j correfpondent
were better informed. The latter, indeed, acknowledges,
the had not received an txacl account how the matter was
tranfacled at Geneva. Dr. Chandler, as coming fo long after
him, fhould know more of the matter; and that throws the
probability on the fide of the promife. But then can any one
imagine, that Mr. Beaumont, who undertakes to teach what
God Jhould teach him from ihefcriptures, would bind himfelf by
a promife, which might very poffibly oblige him to fupptefs
what God fhould teach him ? Perhaps there may be a myflery
in this, which our Diffenters chufe not to reveal. All re-
ligious fbcieties have their diropfflu.

f A Letter to the reverend Dr. Samut! Chandler, occasioned
by his late Difcourfe, intituled, The Cafe of Subfcription, &c.
page 7 1.

3 This

THE CONFESSIONAL. 159

This is an home pufh 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.
Whifton 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 fubfeription ? Could he, could
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 againft their fubfcriptions, has been caft
in the teeth of our moil eminent writers, and
that too in the mod opprobrious terms 2 r*

£ " The unchriftian art of confeffing the faith without be-
•' lieving it; an art which, I am forry to fay, has of late
" been brought to its utmoft perfection." Archdeacon
Brydg es's Charge, 1721, p. g. See likewife a book intituled
Opbiomacbes, vol, ii. from p. 292. to 300. where great free-
doms of this kind are taken with fome of the greateft names
then in our country. The late controverfies occafioned by
Dr. Middletons Free Inquiry; Free and candid Difquifit 'ions ;
EJfay on Spirit, &c. furnifh more initances flill. Nor hath
Mr. White himfelf with-held his mite from this collection.
" It is commonly fuppofed," fays he, " that the Creeds and
" Articles of the church of England are fubferibed only by
" the clergy of the church of England. But be it known to
" all the people of Great Britain, that there if not in the
" kingdom one dilfenting minifter, who has complied with
L And

i6o THE CONFESSIONAL.

And is there, all this while, no trouble or divijion
among us, upon the points to be affented and
Jubfcribed to?

Why, no. The words we and us, in the
above-cited paffage, relate to no body but the
orthodox, who have all along been unanimous m
iheir opinions : while they who have oecafioned
thefe troubles and divifions, and railed thefe
doubts concerning points of doctrine in the Ar-
ticles, are not allowed to belong to this feletl
number, although they continue to minifter in
the church of England, and fome of them, per-
haps, to minifler in the higheit flations of it.

That this is Mr. White's meaning (whatever
that of the Convocation-man might be) is pretty
clear from the renor of his expoftulation with his
difTenting adverfary : " Did the church," fays he,
<f 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 perfections?" The pertinence
of which queflions plainly confifts in this, that,
according to Mr. White's notions, all thefe old

" the terms of the Toleration, but has folemnly fubfcribed
<e the Articles, bating three or four, — and has alio fubfcribed
'* the three Creeds (yes, the Athana/ian, as well as the other)
" thai thsy ought thoroughly to be received and believed, &c."
Gocd-natured foul ! But, happily for the Diffenters, the
civil powers (and not the church) being appointed to take
fuch fubfcription, are not fo immediately interejied in the
glory of Orthodoxy. White's Appendix to his third Letter,
p. So.

perfecuted

THE CONFESSIONAL. t6i

pcrfecuted Puritans ceafed to be members of the
church, the moment they offended againft cano-
nical conformity, in virtue of the ipfo faclo ex-
communication, whatever external marks of
church-memberfhip they might otherwife bear
about them.

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

" There is not any fort of agreement," fays a
fenfible writer, " in the notions of thofe twoemi-
" nent defenders of the Trinity, Dr. Water/and
" and Dr. Bennct; and yet both of them plead
* very ftrenuoufly for fubfcri prion to the Articles
" in the fenfe of the church ; and both contend,
" that their refpeclive notions are exactly 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 meanings that they can be fubferibed honeftly
u only by fuch as agree in that one meaning, all,
" or all but one, of thofe great men, Bifhop Bull,
" Doctors Wal/is, South, Sherlock, Be?met, &c.
L 2 » mufl

1 62 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" mull have been guilty of thefe enormous
" crimes V

It behoved thefe Doctors 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 confine the heretics, in the fame degree that
they made room for themfelves ; a circumftance
which reduced them to fuch quibbles and diflin-
clions, as have rendered their meaning extremely
obfcure and difputable.

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

" Thefe Articles/' fays the Doclor, " could
" not be defigned to oblige all perfons who are
" to fubfcribe them, that they lhould agree in
,e every point of theology which is controverted
" among divines l.M

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

h Cafe of Subfcription to the thirty-nine Articles con-
fidered, occafioned by Dr. Waterland's Cafe of Avian Sub-
fcription, p. 4.

> Commentary on the Articles, &c. p. 3. col. 1.

« No,"

THE CONFESSIONAL. i6$

". No," fays the Doctor, " becaufe the thing
" is impoilible." But what then? The impoffi-
bility of the thing is no proof that the compilers
of our Articles did not defign it. How did the
Doctor know, but thefe fathers of our church
might think the thing very poffible? Or how
fhall we know what they did or did not deftgn>
but by their words and declarations ? The com-
pilers themfelves tell us, that the defign of the
Articles was to avoid diverfities of opinions. Dr.
Nicholls comes 150 years after them, and affirms
this could not be the defign of them. Which
of them is the credible evidence ?

The Doctor is of opinion, " that fome of thefe
" Articles were purpofely cjrawn up in general
" terms, [i. c. in terms admitting feveral fenfes]
" becaufe they who compiled and firfl fubfcribed
" them, were of different opinions,"

" Some of thefe Articles." — We defire to know
which of them ? and how the Articles which were
purpofely fo drawn up, may be diflinguifhed
from thofe which were not ? For the different
fentiments of thofe who compiled and firfl fub-
fcribed thefe Articles, if it prove any thing relative
to the defign of the Articles, will prove, that no
Ids than tl^e whole fet were purpofely drawn up
in general terms, at leafl if the Doctor has given
14s a true account of the men, to whofe fentiment:
they were to be accommodated. " Some of
« them," fays he, " learned their divinity from
I- 3 «' the.

1*4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" the fathers, without any relation had to the
" doclrines of modern Divines. Some went up-?
" on the foot of Luther's and Melancthoifs doc-
" trine. Others were perfectly wedded to Cal-
s: yin's divinity, and, perhaps, not a little to his
" form of church-difcipline. Some were for a
" real, though undeterminable, prefencem the Eu-
i( charift ; whilft others thought Chriff/s body
u was only there by figure and reprefentation."
After which he goes on to ark, " Can any one
" fay that thefe feveral perfons held no cliverfity
" 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 would agree to the pairing fuch
Article or Articles, as excluded his or their own
opinion ; the 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,
educated in fo many different fy items.

But mark how plain a tale will deftroy this
fpecious hypothefis. The articles were compiled
by Cranmer, and at the moll with the help of one
or two of his particular friends. And thefe,
put 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 any fynodkal authority there, but to be

agreed

THE CONFESSIONAL. 165

agreed to by fubfcriprion. 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 ma)' judge in part, from what hap-
pens in our own times, that the diflenters would
not be the majority : which yet might poflibly
be the cafe, as it by no means appears that the
fir ft fubfcribers were all, or molt of them, mem-
bers of the convocation k. Dr. Nicholls fuffered
himfelf to be impofed upon in this matter, by the
fabulous account of Peter Heylin, a man loft to
all fenfe of truth and modefty, whenever the in-
terefts or claims of the church came in queftion l.

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

" Men muft not indulge fanciful glo/fes, or
" wire-draw the words in the articles to unreafon-
" Ablefenfes."

But if the cafe really is what the Doctor hath
reprefentcd it to be, I do not fee how this is to
be helped. Would not every Calvinijl among the

k See the proofs of this collected together, in An hijlorical
and critical Ej/ay on the Thirty-nine Articles, &c. printed for
Francklyn, 1 724. Introduction, p. 2, 3.

1 ** Our firit reformers, out of Peter Hey/ins angry (and,
** to our church and truth, fcanJalous) writings, are made
" fanaticks" Bifhop Barlow's Genuine Remains, Ed. 1695,
p. 18 z.

I, 4 firfll

i66 THE CONFESSIONAL.

jfirft fubfcribers, think the fenfe of the Arminian,
or (as they then were called) the Freewiller, an
unreafonable fenfe f And if the article expreffed
the fenfe of the Cahinifi 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 fo open and
indeterminate as the Doctor's fcheme fuppofes,
no man can pretend to fay what fenfes are unrea-
fonable -y unlefs the Doctor would have faid that
all fenfes but his own, are unreafonable, and then
there is an end of all latitude.

" He thinks the force of King James's Declara-
" tion did not, nor was defigned to extend farther
'* than his own time — and that, perhaps, Bifhop
" Bumet might extend the rule of fubfcribing (in
" any literal grammatical fenfe) he drew from it,
" too far."

Bifhop Burnet might be to blame, for drawing
a rule of acting from a refcript of no authority;,
but undoubtedly, if the articles were purpofely
drawn up in general terms, that is, fo as to ad-
mr of a confcientious fubfcription by the men of
all thofe different opinions the Doctor has men-
tioned, the rule itfelf cannot poffibly be extend-
too far. Obferve, however, that Bifhop &/r-
i knew of no authority or foundation for this
rule, but the King's Declaration. This our Doc-
tor, indeed, hath reprobated ; but, however, we
have no reafon to complain of his abridging our
liberty, as will appear by the following inftance.

Bifhop

THE CONFESSIONAL. 167

Bifhop Burnet had obferved, that, according to
the form of fubfcription prelcribed in the 36th
canon, namely, "I fubfcribe willingly, and ex ant-
u mo, the party fubfcribing declared his ownopini-
" on, or, in Dr. Bennetts language, declared that
" he believed the articles to be true infome fenfe."

" But," fays Dr. Nicholh, « tho' I am not al-
" together different from his Lordfliip's judge-
•* ment in this matter, I am not fo well fatisfied
tc with the reafon he grounds it upon. For ex
" ammo, in that place, does not fignify 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 arricles 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
ufe, and the verbal declaration profufling no
more than affent and confent to the articles, we
are no more bound, by our fubfcription, to bc-
lieve the thirty-nine articles to be true, than if they
were fo many proportions taken out of the Koran.

And yet, immediately afterwards, Dr. Nicholh
fays, " The fubfcriber ought to affent to each ar-

" tide,

i6S THE CONFESSIONAL.

" tide, taken in the literal and grammatical
" fenfe." — But why ought he? or what bufmefs
has he with the fenfe of the articles, who may
give fuch an affent and confent to them as does
not imply belief?

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

This fell to the fhare of Dr. Nicholls, by whom
we are informed from Grotius, " that the gram-
" matical fenfe is twofold, fen/us grammatical'^ ab
*( origine, and jenfus grammaticalis popular is ', the
" latter of which only is to be allowed in the
" interpretation of any law, or writing; for,
" continues the Doctor, to take words in their
" firjl 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 firii intended; therefore the expref-
u fions mull be taken in the plain common fenfe
"' thev are generally ufed in, or were ufed in at
" 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-
ing, make ufe of words in a fenfe different from
the origina' grammatical fenfe of fuch words, it

THE CONFESSIONAL. i69

mud be prefumed that it is becaufe fuch words
have deviated, in popular life, 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 the words dare generally use
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 mult recur to the fenfe of the author or the
lawgiver ; or elfe the law or the writing cannot
be underflood; and the modern fenfe of words
may, in forne cafes, carry us as far befrde the in-
tention of the author or the lawgiver, as the ori-
ginal fenfe would do.

For example; whatever the original grammati-
cal fenfe of the word confent might have been, it
is certain that the compilers of our articles meant
by it, a confent of belief, or a perfeel agreement of
opinions: and when fubferibers were afterwards
required to give their confent to the articles, there
can be no doubt but fuch a confent was intend-
ed as is fpeciiied in the title, namely, fuch a
confent as was necefTary for the avoiding divcrfi-
ties of opinions.

Dr. Nicholls, on the other hand, finds, that
confent may now lignify a confent or acqiricfcence
only, with which opinions and belief have little to

do;

i7o THE CONFESSIONAL.

do ; and for this fenfe he accordingly contends.
But with the word luck in the world ; for the
thing, with refpect to which this confent is to be
eftablijhedy 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 conviction, mould be
accepted as fufEcient to anfwer the end of fub-
fcribing the articles.

By the Doctor's diftinguifhing grammatical
fenfes into original and -popular, and forming his
rule of interpretation upon that diftinftion, one
would think that the grammatical fenfe of words,
in any law or writing, could be but one. And yet
he agrees with the Bilhop of Sarum, " ihatfe've-
" 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
distinction ? or what fenfe is there in his rule of
interpretation ?

If, indeed, as the Doctor fuppofes, the com-
pilers purpofely drew up fome of the articles in
general terms, they undoubtedly left room to put
fever al grammatical fenfes upon the fame words ;
but then, how fhall 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 Doctor in-
forms us, that " a Law is to be interpreted ac-

" cording

THE CONFESSIONAL. 171
** cording to the mind of the legiflator ; fo that,
st if the compilers of the Articles have exprefled
" 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 exprefled 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 Doclor, 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 refpectively to put upon them.
Hence arifes anobfcurity of expreflion, which the
fubfcriber to fuch Articles wants to have cleared
up. He confults the authentic books of a Lw
thcran compiler, and there he finds the obfcurity
cleared up, according to the fyftem that compiler
had efpoufed. But the Calvini/l compiler hath
likewife written authentic books, of equal au-
thority with thofe of the Luthenm, and he un-
7 folds

i72 THE CONFESSIONAL*

folds the my fiery in a fenfe juft contrary to that
given by the Lutheran. What fliall the fcrupu-
lous and detracted fubfcriber do in fuch a cafe ?
or what expedient of elucidation mall he fall up-
on next I

But, indeed, what the good Doctor means is
only this, that, if you will allow him to point
out the avowed opinions of the compilers, and
to direct 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 mould be drawn up in terms fufEciently gene-
ral, to admit of an hundred different grammatical
fenfes.

This is plain from the inflance he brings to il-
luftrate his general doctrine 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
be called and chofen to this work [of the miniftryj
by men who have public authority given them in the
congregation, to call and Jhidminiflers.

The plain, and, if you will, the grammatical
meaning of which words is, that there is a public
authority in every Chriflian church, to appoint
the particular perfons who are to miniiter 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. 173

" And yet," fays Dr. Nicholls, " there can be
" no doubt made, but that by public authority the
«' compilers meant the authority of Bifnops."

But, if no doubt can be made of this, what
{hall we fay of thofe compilers who perhaps, and
of thofe fir/i fubferibers 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 paffing this Ar-
u tide, but that they thought it was conceived
" in fuch general terms, that they might fub-
" fcribe it with a good confeience, and without
u equivocation?"

Thefe are Dr. Nicho/Is's own queftions ; and
any one has jufl as much right to afk them as he
hadm.

m This hath been reprefented as inconfiftent with what
hath been faid before, concerning the retrained feofe of the
articles, as the author feems here to be contending againft
Dr.KiJjolls, for a latitude admiiiivc of more fenfes than one.
But every candid and fenfible reader will eafily perceive that
the appearance of inconfiilcncv arifes mereiy from the author's
arguing here againfl Dr. Ntcholh, ad bominem, upon the
Doctor's own principles. The fenfe of this article is only,
that mimjlers may be lawfully called or fent without the Pope's
authority ; and was directed folely againit the contrary doc-
trine, and might be fubferibed by any Proteitant minifter,
whether Epifcopal or not. " The Papills," fays old Rogers,
(fpcaking of the adverfaries to the truth of this article) **. al-
" beit they allow the afiertion, yet take they all minirters

5 Let

i74 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Let us afk another queftion. Have any of the
Compilers interpreted this Article as Dr. Nicholh
has done ? No : Cranmer, and his fellow-compi-
lers of the Articles, (be they more or fewer) are
well known to have held a friendly correfpond-
ence with the great founders and fupporters of
other Proteflant churches abroad ; who had the
misfortune (if it is one) to think there might be
a lawful call to the miniftry, without a Prelacy.
It is even notorious, that the opinion of thefe
foreign Divines was afked by our EngliJJj Re-
formers, concerning the methods they fhould take
in fettling both matters of doctrine and difcipline
in their own church. And can it be fuppofed
that Granmer meant to fay, that the minifters in
thefe foreign churches had no lawful calling f

Dr. Nicholls himfelf well knew, they neither
faid it, nor meant it. And therefore, inftead of
referring us to their avowed opinions, or their
authentic books, as his pofition required he fhould
do, he appeals to a matter of fact, namely,
" that neither by the laws of the church, or by

" to be violves, hirelings, laymen, and intruders, who are no
" facrificing priejls, anointed by fome antichrijlian bijbop of
" the Romijb fynagogue," referring to Cone;/. Trid. Sejf. 7.
Can. 7. As to what he fays before, of the Anabaptifts, Fa-
7nilifts, and Bronunijls, as if the article had fome refpect to
them, it is a mere dream of his own. The article is copied
word for word from the 24th of King Edward's articles of
1552, when Familijls and Broiunijls were unheard of, and
when no difturbance was given, or apprehended, from the
Anabaptijls) in this country. *

« the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 175

" the laws of the realm, any public authority is
t( granted to any other than Bifhops, to call or
" fend minifters into the Lord's vineyard :" as
if the compilers confidered only what was lawful
in this refpe<5l by the m>/7conftitution 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 fadl: itfelf is not true. For, even
fo late as the 13th of Eliz. " every perfon under
" the degree of a bifhop, which did or Ihould pre-
" tend to be a pried or minifter of God's holy
" word and facraments, by reafon of any other
f* form of injlitution, confecration, or ordering, than
" the form fet forth by Parliament, in the time
" of the late King of moft worthy memory, King
t{ Edward VI. or [by any other form, than the
" form] now ufed in the reign of our moft gra-
" cious fovereign Lady, — " if he took care, be-
fore the Chriftmas next enfuing the paffing this
Act, to qualify himfelf by fubfcription, &c. as is
therein directed, was deemed, by the ecclefiaftical
as well as the civil laws of the realm, to be fufH-
ciently called and fetit, to enjoy a benefice, and
exercife the function 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 King Edward's and in Queen Elizabeth's reign,
miniftered in the church of England as legal Pa-
M ftors,

i76 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ftors, who had no epifcopal ordination ; which
would never have been fuffered, if the doctrine
either of the church or ftate was what Dr. M-
cholWs interpretation of this Article fuppofes. it
to have been.

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

" They who drew this Article," fays his Lord-
ibip, " had the ftate of the feveral churches be-
" fore their eyes that had been differently re-
" formed; and although they had been lefs forced
" to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet
" they knew that all things among themfehes had
" not gone according to thofe rules, that ought to
U. be facred in regular times." And fo, wanting
grains of allowance themfelves, it was their bufi-
neis and their wifdom to give them to others.

Turn we now to another church-champion of
cafuiflical memory, the famous Dr. Bennet, whofe
doublings and refinements upon the Articles are
lb 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

THE CONFESSIONAL. 177

which pofTeffcth thofe who undertake to defend
human eftablifhments at all adventures.

It appears in Dr. Bennet's Directions for Jiu*
dying the thirty-nine Articles, &c. published in
1 7 14, that the faid Do&or was perfectly ac-
quainted with the fenfe of the church upon them
all : which he accordingly opens to his young
fludent, fometimes contrary to the mod obvious
and natural import of the words. In one place,
Where he gives an interpretation of this fort, he
adds, t( This was infallibly the meaning of
" the compilers of our Articles, and they mujl be
" underftood in this fenfe1."

Upon the third Article he fays, " The church
" excludes that fenfe of the word Hell, which
" fays, that by Hell is meant The Grave •" con-
trary to Bifliop Burnet, Dr. Nicholls, Dr. Clarke,
and many more.

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

Nota bene ; The Article fays in exprefs words,
* Original (the title adds, or birth) Jin deferveth
" God's wrath and damnation, in every per/on
t( born into the world."

1 Page 6t. upon the fixth Article.

]\i 2 Upon

i78 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Upon the eleventh Article he obferves, " That
" our church's intention and doctrine about Juf-
t( tification by faith, are abundantly manifeft,
ff though they ^re unhappily worded?' Which he
explains by telling us, " that the church expref-
1* fed the real truth in St. Paul's own phrafe,
" but in a fenfe fomewhat different from what
" he [the Apoflle] did molt' certainly intend
" thereby111."

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

Upon the thirteenth Article he fays, " That,
" though the church makes ufe of the foftening
i( comparative words yea rather, and we doubt
" not but, yet, the Latin word for rather being
u immoy the church directly affirms, that works
" done before the grace of Chri/i have the nature
"of fin."

The Doctor inquires, in another work, to what
edition of the Articles we are obliged to fubfcribe,
by the aft of the 13 Eliz. chap. 12 n? The
Doctor determines for the new Engliflo tranjlation,
to which C)ueen Elizabeth's ratification is an-
nexed, and which, out of all difpute, has the

"> Perhaps the Apoftle pur^oftly delivered this do&rine in
fuch exprejfwns as would admit of different interpretations, to ac-
commodate THE church with a 'variety to choofe out of,
though he did not leave fuch choice to each particular per/on.
See Dr. Rutberfortlj's Vindication, &c. p. 12.
* Eflay on thirty-nine Articles, chap. xxx.

foftening

THE CONFESSIONAL. 179

foftening comparative words. We are not obliged
therefore, by the datute above-mentioned, to
take any notice of the word inuno, although it
carries along with it the church's direcl affirma-
tion But, to accumulate no more indances,

Upon the feventecnth Article, he fays, " He
il is fo clear that the church condemns the notion
" of abfolute predejtination in her Liturgy, that,
" if that was his notion, he could not fubfcribe
" to the ufe of the Liturgy. And with this the
" Article muji fo confident." He fhould have
faid, a mud be made confident ;" for which edi-
fying purpofe, the Doctor has taken a great
deal of fruitlefs pains, to fhew that the Article
is in perfect agreement with Arminius upon the
fame fubjeft.

From thefe particulars it appears, that, in the
year 17 14, Dr. Bennet was intimately acquainted
with the fenfe of the church, upon the obfcured
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 condruction. And
where was the ufe or the pertinence of all his
labour, if his young dudent was not given to
underdand by it, that he mud fubfcribe the
Articles in thefe very fenfes, exclufive of all
others?

M 3 And

iSo THE CONFESSIONAL.

And yet, the very next year, viz. 17 15, the
very fame Dr. Bennet, in the $$& chapter of hi$
Effay on the thirty-nine Articles, in anfwer to
Priejicraft in Perfection, undertaking to enquire
(by what temptation infatuated does not appear)
iv hat liberty the church allows io the fubfcribers of
the Articles? anfwers, that" The Church does not
" retrain us to the belief of any one Article or
" Propofition, in any particular fenfe , farther than

iC we 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 interpreta-
tions in his Directions, where he over and over
exhibits the church's fenfe, againfl the confine-
ment of the words themfelves ; and contrary to
his Majefty's Declaration, which the Doctor hath
acknowledged for an authentic public act0; for,
ihould the Doctor have been afked, in what fenfe
men are allowed to fubfcribe ? muft he not, to
preferve his felf-confiftency, have anfwered, r in
** any fenfe of our own, which we believe to be true,
" and which the conftruction of the words will
f* admit of ?'?

(f When an Article, or Propofition," fays the
Doctor, " 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 Direclions, &c. he
thought he himfelf had this power ; upon the

0 Effiy on the thirty-nine Articles, p. 423.

iuppofitiqn,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 181

fuppofition, I imagine, that the church had left
no article or proportion capable of two different
fetifei. If indeed fuch articles or propofitions are
left ambiguous, and, particularly if (according to
Dr. Nicbolls) they are fo left of fet purpofe, I do
not know who has any power to determine that
the church, in fuch articles or propofitions, had
any fenfe at all.

Be it obferved, by the way, that Dr. Bennet
perfectly ridicules Dr. Nicholls's expedient of con-
futing 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
" books] 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
Doctor undertaking to prove, (and meaning to
prove no more than) that they who fubfcribe the
Articles, are obliged to believe them true mfcme
fenfe ; he hath brought arguments, which prove
(if they prove any thing) that fuch fubfcribers
are obliged to believe them not only true, but true
in one and the fame fenfe, exclufive of all others ;
or which prove, that no proportion in the Arti-
cles has more than one fenfe. And thus Dr. Bennet
is not only againft Dr. Nicbolls, as to the point of
M 4 a confent

182 THE CONFESSIONAL.

a confent of acquiefcence, but againfl himfelf in
the tenor of his whole 35th chapter.

1 . He argues from the title of the Articles,
fi which," he obferves, " ihews them to be de-
" figned to prevent dlverfities of opinions" But
if two or two hundred men fubfcribe the fame
propofition in different fenfes, the deftgn of the
Articles is, with refpecl: to thefe fubfcribers, ab-
folutely defeated.

2. He ariiues from the words of a canon made
in the Convocation of 15 71, viz. Jta tamen, ut
■prius fubfcr ibant Articulis Chriftiana Religionis,
pub lice in Sy?iodo approbates, jidemque dent,fe velle
tucri 6? aefendere doctrinam eam qua in illis
contineiur, ut consentientissimam veritati

VERBI DIVINI.

Now if the compofers of this canon, by doclri-
nam earn, meant more than one doclrine upon one
fubject, ihey exprefled themfelves very ill, both
, as to grammar and fenfe. If the wording of any
propofition admit of two or more do&rines or
fenfes different from each other, as Dr. Bennet
allows to be fairly poffible ; and more efpecially
if (as Bifhop Burnet contends) thofe do&rines
may be literally and grammatically contrary to
each other ; how could they both or all be de-
fended as mofi agreeable to the divine wordf The
church declares, (lie herfelf may not, and there-
fore certainly would not, fuffer her fons to inter-
pret fcripture in a manner repugnant to itfelf,

{Art. xx.]

THE CONFESSIONAL. 183

\Art. xx.] And what are fubfcriptions in differ-
ent fenfes, upon the principles of this canon,
more or lefs than this?

3. The Doctor argues from a judgement at
Common Law, reported by Lord Chief Juflice
Coke, the fubftance of which is, " that if any
" fubfcription is allowed which admits diverfity
" of opinions, (to avoid which was the fcope of
" the flatute 13 Eliz.) this Act touching fub-
" fcriptions would be rendered of no effect p."

2. The cafe upon which this judgement was given, was,
that " one Smith fubfcribed to the faid thirty-nine Articles
** with this addition, fo far forth as the fame were agreeable
" to the 'word of God. Whereupon it was refolved by Wrayy
'* Chief Juftice of the King's Bench, and all the Judges of
" England, that this fubfcription was not according to the
" Statute of 13 Eliz. becaufe the Statute required an abfolute
" fubfcription. and this fubfcription made it co7iditional ; and
" that this Act was made for avoiding diverfity of opinions,
" &c. and by this addition, the party might, by his ovjn
*' private opinion, take fome of them to be againft the word
" of God ; and by this means diverfity of opinions mould
" not be avoided, which ivas the fcope of the ftatute, and the
" very Act itfelf made, touching fubfcription, of none ef-
" fett." Bennetts EfTay, chap, xxxiii. p. 417. who cites
Coke's Inftit. 4. cap. 74. p. 324. If one fhould hereupon
afk, Does the church then, or the law, require fubfcription
fxc!u/i<ve of this condition, namely, whether thefe Articles
are agreeable to the word of God, or not ? I fuppofe, the
anfwer would be, " No ; there is a tacit condition, or pro-
" vifo, implied, by the principles of every Proteftant church,
" that the conformity required be agreeable to the word of
" God." But then what is the meaning of the word ahfolutet
in this judgement of Lord Chief Juftice Wraj ? What is

—The

1 84 THE CONFESSIONAL.

—The confequence is plain. Two fubfcribers to
the fame propofition in two different fenfes, are
of divers opinions. Admit this fubfcription to
pafs, and you render the Aft of none effecl.

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

the reafon that, for the avoiding diverfity of opinions, the
private opinion of the party fubfcribing is difalloiued? It is
plain, that the tacit condition admits of private opinion, as
much as if it were expreJJ'ed, But fo doth not the judgement.
On another hand, to fay, by way of falving this matter,
that it is taken for granted, that all the church's ordi-
nances are agreeable to the word of God, is to fay, that it is
taken for granted, that the church is infallible; for, if I
conform without examination, or interpofing my own pri-
vate opinion, whether my conformity is or is not agreeable
to the word of God, I have no other way of juftifying myfelf
againil thofe fcriptures which require examination, than
by the prefumption that the church cannot err. Is it not
high time for our refpe&able fuperiors in church and ftatc
to reconfider thefe matters, and to deliver honeft and think-
ing men, who are earneftly defirous of ferving the public to
the bell: of their abilities, from thefe mortifying perplexities ?
"Where would be the harm, or the inconvenience, or the im-
propriety, of allowing Proteftant minifters to fubferibe to
human forms nuith this condition? And how much good fo-
phiftry, which might be faved for better purpofes, is now
iquandered away in vain attempts to reconcile fubferiptions
without it, to the original principles of the Proteftant Refor-
mation ? — If the Smith here mentioned is the fame with one
of that name recorded by Mr. Strype, Life of Bifhop Aylmer,
p. 152. he appears, even through the fhades interpofed by
the honeft orthodox Hiftorian, to have been a worthy and a
valuable man.

fubferiber

THE CONFESSIONAL. 185

fubfcriber to be true in one and the fame 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. Bennet* s atehievements
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
JDo&or, 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 proportion 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 thole Articles, where the
words are capable of two different fenfes, or no
particular fenfe which can be difcovered ; and
confequently that the Articles may be fubferibed
in any fenfe the conftruclion of the words will
fairly admit of. Of which 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. Bennet afferts, " that, though we fubferibe
" the 35th Article, we don't fubferibe to the
ct Homilies. There is in reality," fays he, " no

" fuch

iS6 THE CONFESSIONAL.
•* fuch thing required of us, as a fubfcription to
" the Homilies. We mult fubfcribe the [35th]
*' Article, 'tis true ; but not the Homilies."

But, according to Dr. Nicholls, the very fame
is the cafe with refpect to the thirty-nine Articles
themfelves. (i The form of fubfcription," quoth
he, " is not a form of fubfcription to the thirty-
Ci nine Articles, but to the three Articles con-
" tained in the thirty-fixth Canon:" " Therefore,"
to borrow Dr. Sennet's words, " there is in reality
fC no fuch thing as a fubfcription to the thirty -
" nine Articles required of us." For the two cafes
are exactly alike ; and Dr. Bennefs reafons for
his affertion may, with equal force and propriety,
be applied to the fupport of Dr. Nicholls's pro-
pofition. And now, if the fcrupulous fubfcriber
is not made perfectly eafy, he mull: 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. Bennefs 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 ftudent, and perhaps
himfelf, with certain convenient quibbles, when
the occaiion Ihould call for them. However,
he had great authorities on his fide ; no lefs than
the eminent prelates Laud and Burnet.

The former fays, that, " Though we [have]
'* fubfcribed generally to the doctrine of the Ho-

" milks

THE CONFESSIONAL. 187

rt mi lies as good, yet we did not exprefs, or mean
ft thereby, to juftify or maintain every particular
" phrafe or fentence contained in them."

By this latitude, his Grace got fome ftielter
for the ufe of Images in churches ; and for his
diffent from the Calviniftical explanations of
Grace, Juflification, &c.

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

It is not improbable, that his Lordfhip had
fome objection (as well he might) to fome paffages
in the Homilies againft wilful rebellion.

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

But how, if the doctrine cannot be maintained

without the arguments ? Thus we fee one

difclaims an unwholefome phrafe or fentence, ano-
ther diflikes a poffage, a third an argument-, and
when every one has made his particular excep-
tion, what may become of the poor Homilies,
who can tell?

Dr. Bennet obferves, that Archbifhop Laud, Bi-
fhop Burnet, the above-mentioned Nonjuror, and

himfelf..

i&& THE CONFESSIONAL.

himfelf, do exactly agree in the fenfe of what the
Article fays, touching the Homilies.

Give me leave to add another to the groupe,
cventhe refpe&able MzVzori/? Francis Sinclair,
alias Davenport, who, upon this thirty-fifth
article, thus defcants :

Multa quidemfunt in Homiliis laude digna* Alia
#£f nobis {TPapiftisyh] i><?/ doctor ibus eorum arri-
dent. Nee tenentur Proteftantes ob h<zc verba in
Articulo, in fmgula verba vel fententias tiomilia-
rum jurare*

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

But what ! no advocate for the poor Homilies ?
Yes : here is one worth three dozen of Lauds,
Bennets, or Sinclair s ; the learned Bifhop Barlow.

" The church of England" fays this worthy
Bifhop, " has in her Homilies (confirmed by a£ls
" of Parliament and Convocation, and fubferibed
" by all the Clergy) declared the Pope to be An-
" tichrift. And then I defire to know, whether
" they be true and obedient fons of the church
" of England, who publicly deny her ejlablified

" doctrines,.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 189
" do&rines, which they had before publicly fub-
« fcribed p."

Would the reader know who the fons of the
church were, whofe truth and obedience are thus
called in queflion ? Even Gilbert Sheldon, Arch-
biihop of Canterbury ; and a much honefler man,
the painful and pious Dr. Henry Hammond.

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

Peter Heylin, having his objections to the Uriel
obfervance of the Lord's day, as taught in the
Irijh Articles of religion, argues thus : ' ' It is
" contrary to the book of Homilies ; and, if it
" be contrary to the book of Homilies, it mud be
" alfo contrary to the book of Articles, by which
<( thofe Homilies are approved and recommended
te to the ufe of the church 1."

And yet the fame Peter, (the ********* 0f
thofe times, who was never at a lofs, nor ever
incumbered with the leaft diffidence) being preffed
with a queflion from Archbifhop Ufier, 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

P Genuine Remains, p. 192.

* Heylin's Refrondet Petrus, p. 1 59.

"him

i9o THE CONFESSIONAL.
tc 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 do&rine, and
" neceflary for thofe times; that is to fay/' adds
the Do&or, " the times in which they werefrf
« publifhed r."

'That is to fay, The fecond book of Homilies,
confidered as a book publifhed to ferve a prefent
turn (as Bifhop Burnet has it), is a good fort of
book, and may be fubfcribed without a qualm.

This puts me in mind of a paffage, 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
u are good or bad, of undeniable authority, or
" of none, jufl as they themfelves (churchmen
" about the year 1724) pleafe. Thofe againfl
" rebel/ion are particularly good againfl all tu-
" mults, and diforders, and treafons, but their
" own ; and are to be urged home againfl the
" men whom they diflike. But thofe againfl your
" idolatry and antichriflianifm, and againfl many
" of your doctrines, I affure your Holinefs, are of
u no account among the fame men, but as the
*' warm, over-hafly efforts of ignorant zeal, in
" the firfl Reformers ; not fit to be urged againfl
w any true churchman (any more than thofe of

r Heylip's Refpondet Pttrus, p. 1,50.

«£the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 191

" the Cahiniflical drain) fince the time of Arch-
" bifhop Laud1."

I fhull now clifmifs Dr. Be?inet, with one parting
remark upon a finking paffage in the xxxvth
chapter of his EJfay.

" I can't but think," fays he, " that if a man
" doubts of the fenfc of his declaration, whether
" it is fuch as he may mean in the making of it,
" he ought, in the prefence of Gon, to alk his
" confeience this queilion, Do I verily think, that
if if I were to acquaint my fuperiors with if, they
" would allow me to underjiand my declaration
" thus f I dare fay, the aniwer of his confeience
" would be a true refolution of the doubt."

But, 1 dare fay, the anfwer of his fuperior's
confeience (which is one of the confeiences herein
concerned) would be a truer refolution of the

* The late excellent Bifhop Hoadley is now acknowledged
to have been the author of this fevere but juft reproof of the
high church clergy of his time. I wifh it could be faid of
his time only. But after a pretty long interval, wherein the
fruits of a better fpirit have appeared with no fmall advan-
tage to the caufe of the Proteflant Reformation, there feem
to be manifeir. tokens that the old leaven is beginning to
work again as brifldy as ever. Among other initance?, we
find the grave Mr. ProfefTor Rutberfortb going out of his way
to peck at this humourous Dedication; impotently enough
indeed, but what of that ? he (hews his good-will, and will be
fufficiently underftood by fuch readers as (in his own elegant
phrafc) he writes for, without a Frfcue. See Dr. Ruther-
forth's Vindication, &c p. 17. Second Vindication, p. 4.

N doubt.

j?2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

doubt. And why fhould he hefitate to acquaint
hlsftiperior with it ; fince he may do it, whenever
he is obliged to fubfcribe or declare, without go-
ing out of his way ? — Perhaps the Bifhop might
not approve of the meaning ; in which cafe, he
muft either go without his preferment, or declare
m a fenfe he does not mean. Whereas, the mat-
ter being tranfa&ed between the man and his-
confeience (which will bear to be debated with
more freely than a Bifhop might allow), the con-
feience may be brought over to the fide of the^
man, and the doubt commodioufly refolved to the
iatisfaction of both parties.

" A man," fays Dr* Water land, " muft have a
" very mean opinion of the underftanding or in-
f( tegrity of his fuperiors, to fuppofe that they
" ever can allow him to trifle at fuch a rate, in fo
" ferious a matter as fubfeription V — That is,
to prefume, upon their confent, to put a fenfe of
his own upon a difputable Article.

And this gives me an opportunity of intro-
ducing this learned Doctor's opinions upon this
important cafe, who, having treated the fubj eft-
ex ^rgfe^i?, in his well-known Cafe of Arian Sub-
fcription, and the Supplement he wrote in defence
©f it, will carry us into a new field of controverfy,.
as he exhibits much curious matter, which fell
-iOt within the notice of Drs. Nicbolls and Bennet*

1 Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 4^.

THE CONFESSIONAL. iog

Dr. Watcrland profeifes to fet out where Dr.
Stebbing and Dr. Rogers end. And thefe Do&ors
end, " in confirming our excellent church in her
*( full power of requiring fubfcription to her own
* fenfe of holy fcripture u."

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 1562. The fenfe, therefore, put upon the
holy fcriptures in thefe Articles by the compilers
of them, is the fenfe of the church.

ft But," fays Dr. Water/and, " the fenfe of the
<( compilers, barely confidered, is not always to be
di obferved, but fo far only as the natural and
" proper fignification of words, or the intention
'* of the impofers, binds it upon us w."

But the Doctor was told " that the Archbifhops
" and Bifhops, or even the legiflature itfelf (with-
" out a new declaratory law), cannot determine
" what lhall be the fenfe of the doctrines in the
<( Articles x." And he was fofar truly told. For
the fenfe of the Articles is already determined
Zo> be the fenfe of the compilers, and no other ;
the declaration and fubfcriptioii to the Articles
being enjoined by a law, which is nearly cosevat
with the compilers themfelves.

u Cafe of Arian Subscription, p. f.

w Ibid. p. 11.

* Cafe of Subfcription to the thirty-nine Articles, p. 3*.

N 2 Jfc

194 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In this the Doctor found hiinfelf obliged to ac-
quiefce ; and, in his reply, " would not take up-
u on him to determine what the Bifhops or the
s< Legiflature might do 7." — So that, by this ter-
giverfation, the natural and proper Jignification
of words, and the intention of the impofers, are
thrown quite out of the queftion ; and we are
once more brought back to the fmgle fenfe of the
compilers. For, if the Bifhops may not alter the
fenfe of the Articles, in virtue of any power given
them by the church, or even by the legiflature ;
neither may the fubfcriber, upon pretence of
giving a natural and proper iignification to the
words.

" The fenfe of the compilers and impofers,"
fays the Doctor, " where certainly known, muft
" be religioufly obferved, even though the words
" were capable of another fenfe V

The fenfe of the impofers may be always cer-
tainly known, and confequently, according to
the Doctor, mult always be religioufly obferved *.

y Supplement, p. 41.

z Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 1 1.

a " By impofers" fays Dr. Waterland, " I underftand the
" governors in church and ftate for the time being." But
how will it be poflible to know certainly the fenfe of our go-
vernors in church and ftate, upon any one article of the whole
xxxix? If we go t© them fparately, it is poflible they may
give us different fenfes. If ' collecli'uely, or in their legiflative
capacity, they would tell us, all that they impofe, is the ail of
fubjcribing, and that if we want to know any thing concern-
ing yky£; and intentions, we mull go to the minijierial impofers,

Which

THE CONFESSIONAL. 195

Which I mention (not that the fenfe of the im-
pofers has any thing to do in the affair, but)
to fhew how by this proposition the Doctor
abridged his own liberty, when it came to his
turn to plead for it. The cafe is this : The
Doctor fays, " that diversity of opinions is in-
" tended to be avoided with refpcct to points de-
" termined b." Among points determined, the
Doctor reckons the doctrine of the Trinity.
But, pleading for a liberty to fubferibe the
feventeenth and other Articles in an Arminian
fenfe, he confiders thefe points as undetermined.

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 Apoflles Creed, concern-
il ing ChrilVs defcent into Hell, 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. Waterland,
" one thing is certain, that our church hath left
" that article at large, intending a latitude ; and
'; indulging a liberty to fubferibers to abound in
" their own fenfe c."

appointed to take the Subfcription ; that is to fay, the bifhops,
whofe fenfe may always be certainly known.

b Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. II.

e Ibid. p. 35.

N 3 Here,

l96 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Here, if you leave out the intention of die
impofers, one thing is certain, that no latitude is
left to the fubfcriber of the Article; the words
hell and inferi never iignifying any thing in the
days of the compilers, but the place of torment.
If the intention of the impofers is taken into the
account, another thing is certain, that no liberty
is allowed to fubfcribers to abound in their own
fenfe, unlefc, having deferted the fenfe of the
compilers, they absolutely neglect the intention
of die impofers, which may always be certainly
known.

Dr. Waterland indeed tries to falve all this, by

faying, if that the fenfe of the compilers and im-

M pofers may generally be prefumed the fame

u (except in fome very rare and particular

7< cafes) d."

Well then, may the impofers, in any of thefe
rare and particular cafes, go againft the known,
or even the prefumed fenfe of the compilers ? If
rhey may, the Doctor fhonld have told us how
they came by their authority; and why the im-
pofers may not, upon equally good grounds, de-
iert the compilers, in cafes neither rare noi 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 j and fo a fourth

1 Cafe of Arum Subfcriptionj p, i it

i and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 197

and a fifth, till the fenfe of the compilers is thrown
quite out of doors in every cafe.

Dr. Waterland, in particular, had rare and
particular cafes of his own, upon which he a&s
the part of an impofer with no ill grace.

Of the articles relating to the Trinity, the
Doctor fays, " their fenfe is fixed, and bound
u upon the confcience of every fubfcriber, by the
<f plain, natural fignification of the words, and
•" by the known intent of the compilers and im-
M pofers e."

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 understand them in fuch
** fenfe as the words will bear, and fuch as beft
'-' anfwers the main intent and defign of that
" creed, and is mod agreeable to fcripture and
*' reafon f."

The fenfe of the articles, fays the Doctor,
concerning the Trinity, is fixed and . certain.
Who has fixed it? Not the compilers, otherwife
than by cxprefiing the propofitions relating to
the Trinity, in terms which accorded with their
own ideas. And has the compiler of the Atba-
nafian Creed done either more or lefs, with re-

e Cafe of Arian Subscription, p. 36,
1 1bid. p. 37.

N 4 fpeffc

i98 THE CONFESSIONAL.
fpeft to the damnatory claufes ? — On another
hand, the impofers have left thofe claufes without
any expcfition. And where, I pray, is their ex-
pofition of the articles relating to the Trinity to
be met with ?

" This inflance," continues the Doctor, *' is
<c nothing parallel to the cafe of the Articles
" concerning the Trinity ; whofe fenfe is fixed
<e and certain as before faid."

That is to fay, " The fubfcriber is not at
" liberty to underfland thefe Articles in fuch
" fenfe as the words will bear; or in fuch fenfe
tC as beft 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 Doctor,
confifts the fpecific difference, between the cafe
of fubfcribing the damnatory claufes in the Atha-
nqfian creed, and the cafe of fubfcribing the Ar-
ticles concerning the Trinity. — And thus, kind
reader, " is our excellent church confirmed in
" her full power of requiring fubfcription to her
" own sense of Holy Scripture."

The Doctor proceeds: " Fix, in like manner,
" the fenfe of the damnatory claufes ; and it
" fhall foon be proved that every fubfcriber
" ought to acquiefce in it."

Having fo good encouragement, let us try
what we can do.

o" Whofocver

THE CONFESSIONAL. 199

Whofoever will befaved, it is neceffary, before all
things, that he hold the catholic faith) which faith
except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he fliall pcrifh everlaflingly . And the ca-
tholic faith is this.

Then follows the doctrine of the Trinity, ex-
prefled in the articles of the creed, whofe fenfe,
the Doctor fays, is fixed and certain, &c. as
above. After which we have fome 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 faith-
fully, he cannot be faved.

Now what is the plain, natural fignification of
thefe words ? The common fenfe of the fubferiber
anfwers, " that you fhall perifh everlaftingly," if
you don't believe the Athanafian doctrine of the
Trinity, concept is verbis.

" No fuch thing," fays the Doctor : " the words
*' are not fixed and certain; this is an unreafon-
4< ably rigorous fenfe of them/' — Well, what
is then to be done ? Will the learned Doctor help
us to a more commodious fenfe? No, but he will
tell you how you may help yourfelf to one.

" Let any man mew," fays he, " what fenfe it
" is mod reafonable to underftand them in; and
" the fame reafons (if good) (hall ferve to mew
" that that was the fenfe of the compiler."

We

200 THE CONFESSIONAL.

We thank you, good Do&or ; and will now
make ufe of your expedient.

It is reafonable then to fuppofe, that a warm
dogmatical man, heated by controverfy and op-
pofition, who was prefumptuous enough to lay
■ down points of artificial Theology as articles of
faith, without any fupport from fcripture, might
have the afTurance to confign all men to damna-
tion, who did not believe his doctrines ; having
probably no other way to procure them to be
received.

" No," fays Dr. Water/and, " your reafons are
t( not good. The Creed was written and receiv-
<( ed in an enlightened and knowing age, and con-
il fequently by a perfon of great accuracy and
" folid judgement, who had his information from
11 fcripture; and to whom no paffion or preju-
" dice ought to be imputed."

Be it fo ; 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 difbelieve this fenfe, or put a fenfe of
his own upon the Creed or the Articles, and not
perifh everlaftingly ? — If yea, I doubt this fixed
fenfe, whatever it may be as to its catholicifm^
will not turn out to be the true Chriftian faith,
on the belief of which, the fcriptures fay, ever-
lafting life doth abfolurely depend.

Dr.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 201

Dr. Waterland might rail zgamft prevarication,
as long and as loudly as he pleafed ; but I am
very much miftaken, if he had not as much oc-
cafion for it as any of his opponents.

But Doctors differ; and even fome of the or-
thodox have refufed this gracious liberty of fub-
fcribing the damnatory claufes in a commodious
fcnfe.

Dr. Edmund Calamy had faid, in one of his De-
fences of moderate Nonconformity, " that though
u the 8th Article intimates, that the Athanafian
" Creed ought thoroughly to be received, yet it
<{ does not neceffarily follow, that it takes in the
" appendages •, and I may thoroughly receive the
" Jubilance of the Creed, /aid he, and yet abhor
" the damnatory Claufes."

" That is," replied Mr. J.obnpm of Cranbrook,
u by fubferibing the whole Creed, I meant only
" the middle, and not both ends. And, by parity •
" of reafon, other men may fubferibe to both ends,
" and not to the middle s."

" Strange, fays Mr. Jobnfon, that fuch men as
" thefe mould make confeience of fubferibm**
" the liturgy, when, upon fuch principles, they
" may fubferibe the Mafs-book !"

I am of opinion, that this reflection concerned
Dr. Waterland as much, within a trifle, as Dr.
pa/a my.

1 Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. ii. p. 121, 122.

" I know/*

202 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" I know," fays Dr. Water/and, * many have
" (trained the damnatory claufes to 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.
John/on is one of thefe ; but, had it been requir-
ed, I would have been Mr. Johnforfs compur-
gator, that he had no purpofe to difparage the
Creed.

To prove his do&rine of fixed and unfixed
fenfes, Dr. Waterland informs us, that (( a dif-
" tin&ion fhould be made, between fuch arti-
t( cles as, being formed in general terms, leave
" a latitude for private opinions, and fuch as,
'* being otherwife formed, leave no fuch lati-
" tude\"

Here the Do£tor was called upon for his crite-
ria, by which fuch different formations might be
diftinguUhed from each other ; " otherwife, his
" opponent infilled, the liberty might be ex-
" tended to every proportion in each Article,
" which is capable of feveral fenfes1."

To which the Do&or replied, " Any certain
" indication of the impofers meaning is a crite-
" vion to fix the fenfe of a propofition. When
" there are -neither plain words, nor any other

k Cafe of Arian Subfcr'ption, p. 39, 40.
1 Cafe of Subfcription, p.' 9.

u certain

THE CONFESSIONAL. 20;
" certain indication of the impofer's meaning, the
" Article, fo far, is left at large, and the point
" left undetermined11."

Surely this impofcr cannot be the Bifhop who
takes the fubfeription : for every man may have a
certain indication of the Bimop's meaning before
whom he fubferibes, if the Bifhop has the ufe of
fpcech to convey it. The Doctor too has ac-
knowledged in this very pamphlet, that Bifhops,
for aught he knows, may have no power to afcer-
tain the fenfe of the Articles. Who or what then
is this phantom of an impofcr? and whither mud
We go for his meaning ?

When Dr. Water land allows that there is a
latitude left for private opinion in fome cafes, and
when he fuppofes that fome Articles are left at
large, and fome points undetermined ; he fliould
feem to mean, fo left at large, and fo undeter-
mined, as to admit of different, and even contra-
diflory, opinions and fenfes.

For example ; the opinions of the Ar??iinians and
Cahinijls, concerning conditional and abfolute de-
crees, are contradictory opinions. If then both
fubferibe the feventeenth Article, and each in his
own fenfe, they mull give it two inconfiftent and
contradictory fenfes.

Again ; the opinions of Dr. Water land and Dr.
Bcnncty the one holding the proceffion of the Holy
k Supplement, p. 30.

Spirit

2o4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Spirit (propofed in the fifth Article) to be eternal 9<
the other only temporal1, feem to be opinions
flatly contradictory to each other. Wonld not
Logicians fay, that to predicate^mte and infinite
of one and the fame fubjec\ is a contradiction \
Moreover Dr. Waterland thought (and indeed fo
think I) that the church had determined the
point for him. Whereas Dr. Bennet would not
allow that the church had determined either
way.

Would any man now fufpect, that the Calvinijls
and Arminians fubfcribed the f event eenth Article,
and the Doctors Waterland and Bennet the fifth y
in one and the fame fenfe refpectively?

Yet this is what Dr. Waterland undertook to
prove. " Both, fays he, fubfcribe to the fame
" ^wr^/propofition, and both in the fame fenfe,.
" only they differ in the particulars relating to'
" it ; which is not differing (at least it need
** not be) about the fenfe of the Article, but
" about particulars not contained in k.w

He instances in the feventeenth Article: " Ima*

** gine the Article to be left in general terms.

*' Both fides may fubfcribe to the fame general

" proportion, and" both in the fame fenfe; which

" fenfe reaches not to the particulars in difpute.

** And if one believes predefti nation to be abfo-

" lute, and the other conditionate, that is not (on*

^Cafe of Arian Subfcrimion, pu'36!

* the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 205
M the prefent fuppofition) differing about the
" fenfe of the Article, but in their refpecYive
" additions to it."

To this I anfwer ;

1 . That in the prefent cafe thefe general terms
have particular ideas fixed to them by the respec-
tive fubfcribersr and confequently, if thefe are
different or oppofite ideas, the terms muft be fub-
fcribed, in different or oppofite fenfes : which, in
this prefent cafe, reaches fo materially to the par-
ticulars in difpute, that the Cahinijl has no idea
of any predeftination which is not abfolute.

2. Though this ingenious neutrality of the fe~
venteentb Article might ferve the turn of the Cal-
vi?iifls and Arminians, yet it cannot, upon Dr«
Waterland's principles, be applied to the differ-
ence between Dr. W. and Dr. Bennct. 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,.

•zo6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

■" terms, which contain the fame general fenfe.
" They differed indeed about their refpective ad-
" ditions to the fenfe of the Articles ; but not
" about the fenfe of the Article itfelf."

No fuch thing, fays Dr. W. " The propofitions
Xi 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 ; [t'/z.]
" confubftantiality, coequality, coeternity, &c.
i( and that in as clear and ftrong words as any
" can be devifed."

We (hall fee in the next chapter, that fome of
ihete fpecial and determinate propofitions concern-
ing the Trinity in our public forms, may be ta-
ken in, four different fenfes. In the mean time,
fnffice it to obferve, that the Calvinifts are as
pofitive for ihcfpecialand determinate fenfe of the
ieventeenth Article, as this Dottor is for that of
the Trinitarian forms. They tell you, that for the
defcription of the date of a man, configned by a
divine decree to an inevitable lot, excluiive of all
conditions, no ilronger, clearer, or more precife
word can be devifed than Vrcdeflination : and that
it is abfurd, and contradictory, 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 abfurdjty in qualifying the words confab-

flantialitji

THE CONFESSIONAL. 207
Jfa/itiality, coeqaality, &c. with fuch epithets as
fuppofe they need not be applied to different
Beings, fo as to imply that thofe Beings are iri-
all poflible refpects abfolutely fuch ? If fnch qua-
lification may be admitted in any one refpecl, the
proportions above-mentioned are notfpecial and
determinate, any more than the proportions con-
cerning Predefti nation.

Thus,wc fee^r.Wafcrland, by opening a door
for his own Arminian fubfcription, unwarily let
in the Arlans 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 ; it is the fame cafe on the
other. There muft be the fame latitude allowed
to bothy or to neither.

It is indeed furprizing that Dr. Wat ef land y who
very well knew that fubfcription to the Articles
is not st term of lay-communion, but of minifte-
rial acceptance; or, in other words, a condition
upon which minifterial trufts and privileges are
conferred ; fhould admit of the lead latitude in
fubfcriptions. For what are thcfe minifterial
trufts ? Is not one of them a truft to preach the
Word of God, according to the interpretation of
the church of England, 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 mall any maft be able to exe-
O cute

2e8 THE CONFESSIONAL;

cute his truit, till he mall be informed which of
thefe fenfes is the fpecific doctrine of the church
of England? If the compilers of the Articles, on
the other hand, intended, that two men might
raife two different doctrines from one and the
fame proportion in the Articles, of what ufe was
this teft \ or where was the common fenfe of
eftablifhing it? The truth of the cafe, then, is juft
as the Bifhop of Brijlol™ hath dated it, in his
noted fermon on fubfcriptions. " Every one,"
fays his Lordfhip, fi who fubfcribes the Articles
." of Religion, does thereby engage, not only
" not to difpute or contradict them ; but his
" fubfcription amounts to an approbation of,
" and an affent to, the truth of the doctrines
u therein contained, in the very fenfe [in] which
" the compilers are fuppofed to have underftood
" them." And accordingly his Lordfhip, very
confidently (with Vihaxfolidity is another queftion),
defends the church of England, in the exercife of
her right to obtrude her own interpretations of
fcripture upon her Miniflers, to the exclufion of
all others.

The ftaunch champions of the church of Eng-
land know perfectly well that this is a true re-
prefentation, both of the original intention of the
church, and the actual intention of the law. And

111 Dr. Conyhare,

accerd*

THE CONFESSIONAL. 209

accordingly, forefeeing that it irrtght be objected,
that this power of fixing and obtruding her own
interpretations of fcripture upon her ions is ra-
ther more than a Proteflant church ought to pre-
tend to, they have prepared an anfwer, which,
upon the fuppofition of fucli a latitude as is
contended for, would be utterly impertinent.

Here, fay they, is no iriquifition, no compulfion
in the cafe. The church of England compels no
man to fubfcribe. They may let it alone, if they
pleafe. " All the bufinefs is," fays the merciful
Dr. Stebbi?ig, " we cannot admit you to the office
" of public teachers"." And a bad bufmefs
enough of all confciencc, if, by this non-admijjlon
many an honed, pious, and learned man, is re-
duced to flarve : which has been the cafe with
fome, and, but for this happy invention of a
latitude, would have been the cafe with a great
many more.

But, by Dr. Stcbbhig'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 confeience
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 en him with a

n Rational Inquiry, p. 39.

O % tengeanoj.

ito THE CONFESSIONAL,

vengeance. For, by uttering an excufe to this ef-
fect, he incurs excommunication ipfo faclo ; that
is (according to Lyndwood) nullo homlnis minifterio
interveniente ; and is not to be reftored, but only
by the Archbifhop.

By this excommunication, the courteous reader
may be pleafed to know, that no more happens to
the unhappy mortal, than that he is deprived of
the communion, his perfon fequeftered from the
conversation and fociety of the faithful (meaning
all who are not excommunicate) ; and if his con-
fcience fhould not become more tractable within
forty days, he may be committed to prifon by the
King's writ de excommunicato capiendo, — where
he muft lie and rot till he recants ; for the Arch-
bifhop himfelf cannot abfolve him, till after re-
pentance and revocation of his wicked error*

All this while, the church of England compels no
man to fubferibe. That is to fay, fhe does not force
the pen into his hand, and oblige him to fign his
name a coups de baton. But — let us blefs God
for the lenity of the civil magiftrate ; " who, as
M the rev. Dr. Jar tin obferves, is of excellent ufe
" in preventing us from doing one another aay
" bodily harjn.'* For, that the church of England
is at all out of conceit with any part either of
her doctrine or difcipline, does by no means ap-
pear by fome late public indications of her judge-
ment herein.

Thus

THE CONFESSIONAL. 211

Thus (lands the real naked fact ; and pitiable
enough it is, to make men glad of any fubter-
fuges and expedients of latitude, even thofe nar-
row ones of Dr. Water land. But, alas ! we fee
by the conceflions the Do&or himfelf was obliged
to make, that we are of courfe brought back to
the fingle fenfe of the compilers ; the only fenfe
indeed efpoufed by, or legally authenticated in,
the church of England. An hard neceffity upon
lb 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.

?' If, inllead of excufing a fraudulent fubfcri-
" ption, fays the Doctor, 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 ; it con-
f* cerns every honelt man to look about him. For
" what is fo vile and fharaeful but may be fet
" off with falfe colours, and have a plauiible turn
" given it, by the help of quirks and fubtil-

I have the misfortune to think, that this wife
reflection concerned Dr. Watcrlandy no lefs than
thofe for whofe more immediate ule he intended
it. All of them were made fore by fubfeription.

f Cafe, &c. p. 4.

O3 AH

2i2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

All of them wanted, and all of them applied, the
plaifter of quirks and fubtilties, 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 clefire fuch
quirks and fubtilties fhould not be made ufe of,
ihould be careful, not to lay fnares, or dumbling
blocks, in the way of honeft men, that they may
be under no temptation to prevaricate.

A good and confcientious Chridian, in matters
pf practice, can do little harm by his miftaken
opinions. If they have no evil influence upon
his own life and converfation, others cannot be
far milled by them. And it is a very poffible
cafe, that fuch a one may be a more edifying
teacher, with refpect to thofe points which are of
the utmoit importance, and concerning which
few men are liable to err, than he who is warm-
ed with the mod fublimed fpirit of orthodoxy.

Let fuch a one alone to follow his confcience,
and he will be fmcere, faithful, and diligent in
difpenfmg the word of God, according to his bed
information. But if you have a mind to make
a knave of him, you cannot take a more effectual
method, than to contrive teds for his difputable
opinions, with which he cannot comply without
quirks and fubtilties ; and with which if he
does not comply, you deprive him of the means

THE CONFESSIONAL. 213

of getting his bread, in the only way he i9 quali-
fied to earn it.

Upon the whole; we have now feen that
every fyftem of latitude is, in fome particular
or other, exceptionable to every one, but the
particular perfon who invents it for his own ufe.
It is not poffible this fhould be the cafe, if the
compilers of the Articles had really intended any
latitude, or the laws concerning fubfeription had
left room for it. Bilhop Burnet plainly faw that
fubferibers were bound to the fmgle fenfe of the
compilers before His Majefiy's Declaration was if-
fued, which, by the faid Biihop, was underflood
to admit of fubfeription 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. Waterland, — " His [Majefiy's]
" order is, that every fubferiber fubmit to the
" Article in the plain and full meaning thereof, in
" the literal and grammatical fenfe. What X is
" the plain and full meaning, more than one mean-
" ing? or is the one plain and full meaning, tzvo
" contradictory meanings? Could it be for the
u Honour of the Article, or of the King, to fay
" this? No—."

And fo there's an end of Biihop Burnet's
fcheme of Latitude, as it refts upon this Decla-
ration. But then Dr. Waterland could work ano-
ther fcheme out of it for his own ufe, by making
the plain and full meaning, to fignify a general
O 4 meaningj

2i4 THE CONFESSIONAL,

meaning, exclufive of all particular fenfes;-r-{\\\%
wanting to plague and ftarve the Arians, he
found out, that the fenfe of the Articles relating
to the Trinity was not general, but Jpecial, parti-
cular, and determinate.

If the fubjecl: were not too ferious, one might
find abundant matter of mirthful enternainment,
in the quirks and fubtilties of thefe eminent Doc-
tors. But mould we laugh at them, no doubt
but we iliould be told, that we wounded the
church and religion through their fides. We
fhall therefore content ourfelves with recom*
mending to them to confider, how far this ridi-*
culous felf-contradifting cafuiitry may have been
inftrumental in giving diffenters a contemptible
Opinion of our church and her difcipline, and in
making our holy religion itfelf (though in reality
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 to know, how it was poffible for men fo fa-
mous in their generation, who were fo learned,
judicious, and penetrating in other things <3, and

i We fhall have the lefs reafon to be furprized at this, when
v/e duly weigh a reflection of the excellent Dr. Lardner's upon
fome paffages of Zojmus. " We have here," fays this re-
fpeclable writer, " another proof, that the change of religion
" was continually, upon all occajions, reprefented as hazard-
*.*, ous to the utate. And we may farther obferve, that no
'.' religion can be fo abfurd and unreafonable, efpecially
!4 nxben it has been ejlablifind, and of a long time, that will not

5 V&&

THE CONFESSIONAL. 215

who all thought they were driving the fame nail,
to be fo contradictory and inconfiftent, not only
with each other, but even with themfelves ? Let
fuch curious enquirers know then, that all thefe
experienced workmen were endeavouring to re-
pair, and daub with untempered mortar, certain
Jlrong-holds and partition-walls, which it was the
defign of the Gofpel to throw down and to level.
An attempt of this fort could hardly be more
agreeable to the Divine will, than the building at
Babel. And no marvel that the craft/men Ihould
meet with the like fuccefs. That is to fay, that
their language Ihould be confounded; and rea-

i* find men of good abilities, not only to palliate and excufet
" but alfo to approve and jujlify and recommend its greatefe
«' abfurdities." Colhclion of Je-wijh and Heathen Tejli monies,
Vol. iv. p. 274. Dr. Rutherfortb hath faid, Charge, p. {.
*' Take away the legal emoluments of the minitfry ; and
" though you leave iubfcriptions, thefe ufeful miniiters, as
** they are called, will make no complaint of their being un-
" der the dilemma of either fubferibing to our articles, or
u of not enjoying the liberty of preaching the gofpel." Legal
Emoluments have, I conjecture, as faft hold upon orthodox,
as heretical fpirits ; and one might fay with equal truth and
juftice, " Take away the legal emoluments from the mini-
" llry ; and though you leave fubferiptions, few would be
*' at the pains to defend them.'' Zo/mus indeed appears to
have been difintereiled, but he was a bigoted pagan, " a poor
" fuperllitious creature," as Dr. Bentley called him. It is
not unrcafonable to fuppofe. that legal emolument s\xl poffeffion,
and ttill greater in expectation, may fharpen a dullilh genius,
and give portions of apprehenlion and abilities, on/ome fub-*
jefts, even where nature has denied them on all others.

dered

2i6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

dered unintelligible, both to each other, and to all
who are otherwife concerned to underftand it.

It is true, thefe particular Doctors are all gone
off the ftage: but they have left plenty of dif-
ciples behind them, who affect to fpeak the jar-
gon of their refpe&ive mailers. And it is cer-
tain, that, while our fubfcriptions continue npon
the prefent footing, there will be no end of ac-
cujing on one fide, or of 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 Chriflian minifter 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 fanction of
law ; namely, that the affair of fubfcription fhould
henceforth be confidered in no other light, than
as An Office of infurance for our refpeclhe prefer"
ments.

CHAP.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 217

CHAP. VI.

J 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/lant Church
mujl act confidently with its prof effing to affert
and maintain Chrijlian Liberty,

I Am now entering, not without regret, upon
the raofl diiagreeable part of my undertaking,
namely, that of declaring, and giving reafons for
my diffatisfaclion with fuch arguments, as the
fons of truth and liberty have offered, by way of
j unifying their compliance with the church in
this demand of fubfcription to her Liturgy and
Articles.

When we confider the irrcfiftible force and
perfpicuity of that reafoning, by which fome of
thefe worthies (when debating the queftion con-
cerning church-power in the abftract) have de-
monftrated the unreafonablenefs of that demand,
as well as the inconfiftency of it with the pro-
feffions 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 cenfeffors to their own principles, and
pf rather declining the affluence of a plentiful

income,

218 THE CONFESSIONAL.

income, or the figure of a fuperior ftation, 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 confident with the rights
" of private judgement a." But they muft only
mean, of their own private judgement. For it is
well known, that others, who diifent from the
church of England ', are clearly juftified in fuch
diifent, upon thofe very principles which thefe
conforming 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
moll eminent and fuccefsful defenders of our
church-edabliihment, are they who have attacked
thefe principles of liberty, and have proceeded
upon the fuppofition that the private judgement
of individuals ought to give way to the authority
of the church ; being well aware that, if thefe
theories of Chriflian liberty are allowed to Hand
upon a firm foundation, it would be impoflible
to vindicate the church of England^ with reTpect
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

a Dr. Sykes's Anfwer to Rogeris Vifible and Invifibls
Church of Chrift, p. 6.

their

THE CONFESSIONAL. 219
their conformity confident with the enjoyment
of their rights of private judgement, otherwife
than by fuppofing that it might be reafonable for
them to fubmit to conditions, which it is nnrea-
Jonable in the church to impofe.

In the mean time, their adverfaries have long
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 conceffions the church would have
made them, rather than have wanted their fer-
vices, which, under all di Advantages, have been
fo great an honour and ornament to her.

What might not the firmnefs of an Hales and
a Cbillingworth formerly, or more lately of a
CL.rke 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 clai-
fes, would' have wiihed to have feen them in
another communion ? And who is he that will
affirm, the church cftabliihed has loft nothing by
depriving thefe champions of the power of add-
ing to their victories over the fpiritual tyranny

of

220 THE CONFESSIONAL.

of Rome, a complete and folid vindication of her
own dodtrine, difcipline, and worfhip ?

But that day is paft and gone beyond recall ;
with this cold comfort indeed, that thefe worthy
men have left their principles to thofe among us
who are inclined to profit by them. From thefe
principles, compared with their practice, we can-
not but judge they were under fome fmall con-
flraint, touching the fubjecl: now in hand. And
if it fhould be found, upon a fair examination,
that, for the fake of preferving the appearance of
confiflency, they have fet their apologies for fub-
fcribing in a light which has thrown back the real
truth into fhade and obfcurity ; it is but juflice
to bring it once more forward to public view; if
haply a circumftance in our difcipline, which has
more or lefs turned to our reproach with Diffen-
ters of all denominations, may at length be either
quite difcarded, or put into a condition fit to be
owned by every hone ft man and fmcere Proteftant
among us.

The controverfy with Dr. Watcrland, concern-
ing what he thought fit to call Arlan fubfcription,
took its rife, it feems, from fome paffages in Dr.
Clarke's Introduction to his Script ure-doffirine of
the Trinity, wherein that learned and excellent
perfon (confcious that the contents of his book
would hardly be thought to agree with the efta-
biifhed forms of the church) thought proper to
apprize his readers, that the church of England

did

THE CONFESSIONAL. 221

did not mean more by fubfcription, nor require
more of fubfcribers, rhan that they mould con-
form their opinions to the true fenfe of fcripture ;
the inveftigation of which fenfe, he fuppofes, was
by the church left to the fubfcriber himfelf;
otherwife, that the church muft be inconfiftent
with her own plain and repeated declarations.

With Dr. Clarke therefore we fhall begin, the
rather as Dr. Clarke's reafonings upon this fubject
have prevailed with fome to comply with the
church's fubfcription., who are now ready to own
that they think thofe reafonings infufHcient for
their juflification.

The Doctor's ft ate 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 doctrine of Chrift and his
" Apoftles was again declared to be the only rule
" of truth, in which were contained all things
" neceffary to faith and manners. And bad that
" declaration ccnjlantly been adhered to, and human
" authority in matters of faith been disclaimed in
" deeds as well as in words, there had been
" poflibly no more fchiims in the church of God,
" nor divifions of any confiderable moment a-
" mong Proteflants. — But, though contentions
" and uncharitablenefs have prevailed in practice,
Ct \ et (thanks be to God) the root of unity hath
" continued amongft us ; and the fcripture hath
" univerfally been declared to be th« only rule of

" truth,

222 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" 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; and
" men are required to receive things becaufe,
" and only becaufe, they are found (and confe-
u quently in no other fenfe than [that] wherein
" they are 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
"only b."

This is fpecious : And the time was, as I faid,
when, by this deduction of particulars, the DodTor
feemed to me to be fairly entitled to his confe-
quence ; which is, that a man may honellly fub-
fcribe the thirty-nine Articles of the church of
England, accommodated to the fenfe or 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 mofl eminent doctors, than is done
in the citations that follow this reprefentation.

But, upon having recourfe to thefe paffages
upon zfeccnd occafion, a fudden queftion forced
itfelf upon me, and would take no denial ; viz.

* Introjutt, to Script. Dodl. of the Trinity, Ed. 2. p. viii,

How

23

THE CONFESSIONAL. 2

How (land the deeds in the church of England?
Thefe words indeed are plain; but is there no-
thing in the acts and deeds of this church, which
implies that thefe are but words I And are there
no other words, which directly unfay what is faid
in thefe ? Why yes. It will be found, upon exa-
mination, that the deeds of the church of Eng-
land are very plain and ftrong on the fide of hu-
man authority, difclaiming in their turn thefe
verbal declarations of the Proteftant religion, by-
many formal acts and ordinances, and contraven-
ing them in fome inftances, where there feems to
be fome outward refpect paid to them.

Men, it is true, are required to receive things
for no other given caufe, and upon no other de-
clared authority, than becaufe they are found in
fcripture, and in no other fenfe but that in which
they are faid to be fo found. But, in facl, we
are allowed to receive thefe things in no other
fenfe, than that in which the church declares fie
hath found them herlelf ; which is fometimes a
fenle, that the perfon obliged to receive it is not
able to find, let him fearch for it with ever fo
much capacity and diligence. So drat, though
Proteftants are obliged by their original princi-
ples to adhere to no other authority whatever
than thatot the fcripture; yet, by coming under
pofterior engagements and flipulations with the
church of England by law eftablifhed, and parti-
cularly by acknowledging that this church bath
*■ authority

224 THE CONFESSIONAL.

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 mdeed fays, " that no man is

" required by the church to fubfcribe [that is, to

" receive things^ againft his confcience, or in a

" fenfe which he thinks not agreeable to fcrip-
« tureb#.»

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 punifh-
ment.

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 in fiance, 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 happen
to be his whole livelihood.

Dr. Waterland 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 iliewn
the contrary, efpecially where fuch fubfcriber
avows his own fenfe. And, with refpecl to other
cafes, the Doctor obferves very pertinently, that

b Cafe, p. 16.

" the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 225

" the connivance and toleration of fuperiors at
" offences does not take away the guilt of fuch
<c offences b." The prefcribed form of fubfcrip-
tion plainly fuppofes the man who fets his name
to it, to fubfcribe in the church's fenfe. And
what occafion or what room have fuperiors either
to exercife or declare any cenfures, when the
fubfcriber figns his name quietly and peaceably
to the prefcribed form, without faying a fy liable
againit it ?

Dr. Clarke fays, " If tradition, cuftom, careleff-
" nefs, or miftake, have put a fenfe upon human
" forms, difagreeable to fcripture, a man is indif-
" penfably bound not to underftand or receive
" them in that fenfe c."

That is, indifpenfably bound inconfcience. True.
But if that mljlakcn fenfe is not barely put there
by a private and miflaken man, but bound upon,
and incorporated with, the human form, by public
authority, this not underjlanding it, or not receiv-
ing it> will juft amount to not fubfcribing it.

" The church," faith the Doctor, " hath no
" legiflative authority e." We agree to this
likewife. Bifhop Hoadlcy, and, before him, St.
Paul, have proved it beyond the poffibility of
an anfwer. But, in this cafe of fubfcription, the

b Cafe, p. 44.

c Introduft. p. xr,Y\\,

e Jiud Cafe of Arian Subfcript'on, p. 21.

P 2 queffion

226 THE CONFESSIONAL.

queflion is not what power the church hath of
right, but what power fhe exercifes. It is very
poffible for a man to wave or to give up his
rights, whether civil or religious, to an itfurped
authority.

" Every man," faith Dr. Clarke, " that, for the
" fake of peace and order [let me add, or for a
" maintenance], affents to, or makes ufe of, hu-
(i man forms, is obliged to reconcile and underftand
" them in fuch a fenfe only as appears to him to
" be confident with the do&rineof fcripturejother-
" wife he parts with his Chriflianity, for the fake
" of a civil and political religion f."

The Doctor means, obliged in confcience, and as
a Proteftant. But, fuppofe he cannot reconcile
and underftand thefe human forms in fuch fenfe
onlyi or even at all (which is not an impoflible
cafe) ; what is he obliged to then ? — May not
fuch a man, as the cafe is here put, be obliged fo
to underftand, reconcile, and alfent 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
eftablifh religion upon civil and political princi-
ples, nor ought confcientious Chriftians to receive
their religion fo eftabliflied. But, if Proteftant
churches, fo called, have done this, and approved

1 Cafe of Art an Subfcription, p. 23.

by

THE CONFESSIONAL. 227
bv deeds what they have difclaimed in words, they
have left the conjtftent Chriftian no option, but
either to comply with thofe churches upon civil
and political principles, or to decline all doclrinal
connexion with them.

To what Dr. Clarke fays (Introducl, p. xvii.)
concerning the declarations of the church in the
fixth, twentieth, and twenty-firft Articles, as giv-
ing countenance to his fcheme of fubfeription ;
Dr. Water land anfwers, " That thefe declarations
u amount to no more, than that nothing is to be
" received, but what is agreeable to fcripture.
•' And for this very realbn the church requires
" fubfeription in her own fenfe, becaufe fhe judges
" no other fenfe to be agreeable to fcripture £."

This is indeed giving the church but a very

indifferent character, reprefenting her as injinuate-

ing one thing, and meaning another. But, if it is

a true character, who can help it ? The church,

perhaps, might fuppofe, that the fcripture could

never be more accurately interpreted, than ihe

had interpreted it in her Articles. Be that how

it would, her own interpretation of it in thefe

Articles is the' only one Ihe admits of, exclufive

of all other fenfes. And therefore Dr. Waterland

is fairly entitled to his conclufion, " If any judge

" that the church's own fenfe is not agreeable to

" fcripture, let them not fubferibe."

£ Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 25.

P 3 When

228 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" When in the public forms," fays Dr. Clarke,
" there be (as there generally are) expreffions
" which, atjirjl fight, look different ways, it can-
" not be but men muff be allowed to interpret
u what is obscure, by that which feems to them
" more plain and fcripturalh.,,

Another advocate on the fame fide expreffeth
this matter thus : "Unlefs this liberty be allowed,"
i, e. the liberty of fubfcribing the Articles in
any fenfe the words will bear, and in which they
may be reconciled to (the fubfcribers oivnfenfc of)
fcripture, and to the other authorized forms of
the church), " nobody can fubfcribe the Articles,
" Creeds, and Liturgy, of the church of England
Ci at all; there are feveral things in thefe forms,
" which, if taken in the mod obvious fenfe, con-
" tradicl one another '."

No matter for that ; if you fubfcribe them, they
mud be fo taken. For who can give you the
liberty you defire? Not the Biihops, 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 Phileleutherus,
" without this liberty can fubfcribe our public
" forms." Without what liberty? Why, the li-
berty of reconciling contradiclions. Did Phileleu-
therus confider to what this liberty may amount ?

h Cafe, p. 26.

» EfTay on impofing, &C. by Phikhutberus Cantalrigienfis,

What

THE CONFESSIONAL. 22?

What is there that, with this liberty, a man cannot
fubfcribe ? Might not the moft crude fyftem of
Paganifm be made good Chriftian divinity, by
putting a lefs obvious fenfe upon it ?

Let us fee how Dr. Water I and provides againfl
this inconvenience. " Sometimes) fays he, (in
" our public forms) the Father is ftiled orJy God;
" oftener all three. Sometimes two of the Perfons
" are introduced, in a fubord'mation of order to the
"Jirft. At other times, their perfect equality of
" nature" (which, by the way, excludes all forts
and degrees of fubordination, for fub ordination of
order is nonfenfe) " is as fully and clearly pro-
pelled'."

Thefe, I fuppofe, are the contradictions and
obfeurities, or fome of them, objected by Dr.
Clarke and Phileleutherus. But Dr. Water land
will have it, that all here is eafy and confident ; '
11 becaufe what goes before or after them, and
" other paffages in our public forms, require
" that they fhould be confijlent" In confequence
of which, Dr. Waterland is for putting a lefs
obvious fenfe upon thofe paffages which feem, at
firjl fight, to contravene a perfeel equality in the
Godhead.

"Would this ridiculous fophiftry of Waterland's
have gone down with Dr. Clarke and his party ?
By no means. And yet they proceed upon the

1 Waterland' s Cafe, &c. p. 30, 31.

P 4 fame

230 THE CONFESSIONAL,

fame principle, when they would put a lefs obvious
fenfe upon the paffages which affirm a perfect
equality ; namely, becaufe the plain fcriptural doc-
trine of a fubordination of nature requires this
lefs obvious fenfe to be put upon thofe paffages,
that all may be clear and confident.

But who fees not that all thefe feveral fenfes
are eftablifhed in otir public forms ? Who fees
not that, in the eye of the law, and in the inten-
tion of thechurch, every fubfcriber fubfcribes to
them all? And confequeritly, that in fubfcribing,
Dr. Waterland was an Arian, and Dr. Clarke an
Athanaftan, as often as they received thefe incon-
iiftent forms, refpe&ively, by fubfcribing them?

In one word, all Dr. Clarke's arguments, that I
have feen, tend only to prove, that in truth, and
reafon, and common juftice, and common fenfe,
fuch 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 mew, that fuch things are not
impofed. Dr. Clarke , indeed, has as good as con-
feffed the facl, in the long palfage I have cited
from his, Introduction ; and hath more than iup-
pofed it, in the fuggeitions at the end of his book,
concerning the expediency of a Review of our
ecclefiaflical forms. For if all thefe liberties in
affenting to and fubfcribing thefe forms are given,
, and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 231

and may be honeftly and confcientioufly taken, the
occafion for a Review, or, in other words, for al-
tering thefe forms, cannot be fo very prefling as
he would reprefent ir.

The next advocate for this liberty and latitude
in our fubfcriptions, is the acute writer of The
Cafe of Subfcription, &c. in anfwer to Dr. Water-
land's Cafe of Arian Subfcription m. But as this
Gentleman argues chiefly from Dr. Waterland's
conceffions, and from that in particular which
imports that fo?ne of the Articles are left indeter-
minate, there is not much in his pamphlet which
has not already fallen under our notice. Some
things, however, deferve our farther confider-
ation.

The firft. remarkable occurrence in this per-
formance, is the great ftrefs that is laid upon
King Charles I.'s Declaration, which gave the
latitudinarian fubfcribers the firft hint of general,
literal, and grammatical fenfes. It has been
proved before, that this refcript is of no manner
of validity. 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 IPs Declaration for liberty of Con-
fcience: which went upon the pretence, that there
was a power in the Crown to difpenfe with the
Statute-Law of the land. The doctrinal Articles
of Religion (concerning which we are now enqui-
ring) had, in the reigns of Jamcsl. and Charles I.
■ Commonly fuppofed to be Dr. Sykes,

as

232 THE CONFESSIONAL.

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 Act of the
1 3th of Elizabeth. And that title fet forth, that
they were agreed xnponfor the preventing diver-
fities of opinions, and confequently, for the pre-
venting of all general, literal, or grammatical
fenfes, which admitted diverfities of opinions.
King Charles's Declaration then, which is under-
flood to have introduced thefe fenfes, and thereby
to have allowed of diverfities of opinions, was jufl
as fubverfive of the ecclefiaftical, as King James's
was of the m;/7 conftitution. I have indeed faid
elfewhere, that I do not underftand the Declara-
tion before the Articles in this light. I offer this
therefore only as an argument ad hominem, which
might have put this ingenious perfon to fome
trouble to vindicate his Revolution-principles, of
which he was known to be a ftrenuous and fuc-
cefsful alfertor.

What he fays from Fidler's Church-Hiftory of
Britain, is fomething (and but very little) more
confiderable. It concerns Rogers's Expofition of
the xxxix Articles. u Some Proteftants, accord-
" ing to Fuller, conceived it prefumption for any
'* private minifter to make himfelf the mouth of
" the church, to render her fenfe in matters of
Cf fo high concernment. Others were offended,
" that he [Rogers'] confined the charitable lati-

" tude,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 233

" tude, formerly allowed in thefe Articles ; the
" compofers whereof, providently forefeeing dif-
<c ferences of opinions, purpofely couched the
" Articles in general terms, &c. n."

Now, I would defire to know what there is
in this cenfure extraordinary ? or what there is
in it that affects Rogers's Expofition, more than
the fentiments of particular readers affect any
other new book that is publifhed, and particu-
larly any expofition of thefe Articles I

Bifhop Burnet, in the Hiftory of his own times,
gives us an account of the ill reception bis Ex-
pofition met with among fome Owirc\\-of-Engla?id
men, and records an attempt to cenfure it even
in the Convocation, particularly becaufe of his
afferting, that men might fubfcribe the Articles
in any literal or grammatical fenfe the words
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 Majejlfs Declaration,
under the wing of which the Bifhop afferts this
latitude ?

n Cafe of Sulfa: occafioned, Sec. p. 14. See this fancy of
Dr. Fuller s effectually overthrown in a pamphlet, intituled,
Remarks on (be Rev. Dr. Powell's Sermon in Defence of Sub-
feriptiens, p. 46. e. q. f. printed for Millar, 175S.

S If

234 THE CONFESSIONAL.

If not, what proof can be drawn from Fuller s
hiftorical account of a matter of fact, 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' shock, living nearer the times of the com-
pofers than Bifhop Burnet's opponents, had a
better opportunity to know whether they in-
tended a latitude or not. But to this ic would
be fufficient to anfwer, that Rogers himfelf, li-
ving nearer thofe times than either Bifhop Bur-
net, or even Fuller himfelf, mufl be better ac-
quainted with the minds of the compofers than
either of thefe hiflorians ; and full as well as any
of his cenfurers. So that from this kind of pre-
fumptive 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 dedicated
to Archbifhop Bancroft, whofe chaplain he was ;
and bears in the front of it a teftimony, that it
was perufedy and, by the lawful authority of the
church ©/"England, allowed to be public °.

• Both they who faid in Fuller 's days, that Rogers made
himfelf the mouth of the church as a private minijler, and
they who, in thefe later times, have denied that the faid
Rogers 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 Archbifhop of Canterbury,
and the Bifhop of London, and fometimes of other Bifhops.

" That

THE CONFESSIONAL. 235
u That in our Articles, fays this. writer, a la-
" titude was defigned 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 P."

Rogers was chaplain to Archbifliop Bancroft, and as fuch
had (what was then efteemed a lawful) authority to give
books their paflport to the prefs. But to have given a for-
mal imprimatur, in his own name, to his own book, would j
have had an odd appearance. He therefore chofe to fignify
the approbation of his 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 himfelf the mouth of the church, as a pri-
vate minifter. On the other hand, Bifhop Burnet, who had
the private concurrence and encouragement of Archbifhop
Tennifon and feveral others of the bench, declares, that his
Expofition was not a work of authority ; nor do any of the reft
who have written upon the fubjeel pretend to it, except
Welchman, and he indeed brings an Impiimatur from a De-
puty Vicechancellor of Oxford, who certainly was not the
mouth of the church. This book of Rogers's then is the only
authoritative expofition we have of the Articles ; tho' Welch-
ma?i's is the book in vogue for the examination of candidates,
and hath paffed through no lefs than ten editions, fix Latin,
and four Englifh, and all with confiderable variations from
Rogers, particularly in the article of fcripture proofs, fome of
which, in Welchman, are fomething worfe than nothing to
the purpofe. And as to the other explanations and authori-
ties that Welchman brings, it is remarkable that he is ten
times more refiriSti-ve, with refpeft to a particular determi-
nate fenfe, than Rogers himfelf.
r Cafe occalioned, &c. p. 14.

That

z$6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

That the opinion is not new, is indeed evident
from Fuller, But opinion in one thing, and facl is
another. That fuch latitude was really defigned,
never has been, nor ever can be, proved. It was
Dr. Water land's opinion, with refpect to the Cal-
viniftical Articles. But this very Author of the
Cafe hath, in anfwer to Waterland's Supplement,
made it fufficiently evident, that the doctor's opi-
nion was groundlefs. And if fo, the Do&or might
effectually have turned the tables upon him, with
refpect to the Articles concerning the Trinity, in
fome of which the compilers of 1562 have taken
away the little appearance of latitude there was
in the Articles of K. Edward q.

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 of
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
reprefenting the cen lures upon Rogers, that there
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 hypothecs when he
was veering about to the Arminians*

Nothing is more evident, in the ecclefiaftical
hiflories of thofe times, than that Queen Eliza-

* See Remarks on Dr. Powell's Sermon, p. 5 1 .

beth's

THE CONFESSIONAL. 237

beth's Bifhops either had no notion that latitude
and toleration were Gofpel-privileges, or anutfer
averfion to fuch notion, as fchifmatical and puri-
tanical. Their own hardfhips under Queen Mary
had taught them very little compaflion for dif-
fenters, when the rod of correction came into
their own hands, though honeft Fuller would
have had it believed, that it was a confideration
of this fort that brought forth this difcreet
laxity in wording the Articles ; in which there is
j Lift as much truth, as there is common fenfe in
his fuppofing them to have predifcovered the dif-
fenfions 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,
" ei ther fo inaccurately, or fo defigncdly, as that the
M propofitions contained in them, in the ufual
" literal conftru&ion, may or do fignify different
" things, has no reafon to complain of prevarica-
" tion, if men of very different notions unite in
" fubfcribing fuch form."

But the church denies that this is her cafe.
She declares her Articles were nox.fi compofed,
either inaccurately or defignedly. The fallacy of
this reafoning confiits in the CafuijTs fuppofing,
that the ufual literal cooftruftion of words is not

always

238 THE CONFESSIONAL.

always the fame. When the church fet forth
thefe forms of words, the ufual literal conflruc-
tion of them was but one. If time, and the mu-
tability of language, have given room for ano-
ther ufual, literal construction of thefe words or
forms, the church cannot help that, becaufe ftie
could not forefee it. They who underftand both
conftruclions (as all fcholars do) know very well,
that the old one is the church's conftruclion ; and
therefore they who put the new conftruclion upon
the church's old words, or forms, — they, I fay,
and not the compilers of the Articles, are the in-
accurate perfons, and, as fuch, are juftly com-
plained of for prevaricating. And indeed all the
fubfequent fophiftry of this writer turns upon
what he calls, the natural and proper fgnification
of words. Natural and proper, with refpect to
the fignification of fuch words in modern ufagcy
were, he well knows, though he choofes to dif-
femble it, unnatural and improper in the year
1562.

Let us now take a view of another fincere
friend to religious liberty, who wrote a pam-
phlet, much efteemed, in the year 17 19, under
rhe name of PhiJdcutherus Cantabrigienjh> inti-
tuled, An Ejjay on impojing and fubfcribing Articles
cf Religion.

This very fenfible writer begins with making
allowances for an (humanly) eftablifhed autho-
rity in matters ecclefiaftical (and, by the way,

makes

THE CONFESSIONAL. 239

makes a great many more, allowances than he
taught to have mader); after which he infifb,
that " no Articles, as a Rule and Standard of
" doctrinal preaching, ought to be impofed, be-
" caufe of the great danger that the right of
" Chriftians to private judgement incurs by fucli
*' impofition \" notwithflanding which, he is of
opinion, that, "fir the fake of peace, a man may
" fubmit to an ufurpation upon this right, pro-
" vided he believes what is contained in the Ar-
u 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 fenfe the
" words will admit of.'* ' In confequence of
which, he takes fbrae pains to mew, that " thefe
" Articles may be fubferibed (and confequently
" believed) by a Sabellian, an orthodox Trinita-
ei rian (whofe opinion he calls nonfenfe), a Tn-
" theijl, and an Arian fo called/'

One would wonder what idea this writer had
of peace y when he fuppofed it might be kept by
the act of fubfeription, among men of thefe
different judgements. Why might not the fame
men, with equal fafety to the peace of the church,
fubfcribeyWr feveral forms of words, each ex-
prcfTinghis own fyftem clearly and explicitly, as

' See An Apology for a Proteflant D'JJhit, printed for Burne,

1795, p. 28, %g.

O fubferibe

240 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fubfcribe the fame form of words in four differ-
ent fenfes ?

But did this Gentleman, in good earned:, 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 above-mentioned are ex-
cluded, both in the intention of the compilers,
and by the tenor of the law which eftablifhes the
Articles, and enjoins fubfcription to them.

Let us now look back to his principles. Why
ought not fach Articles to be impofed upon
Chriftian Preachers, as a tefl ? He does not, in-
deed, anfwer this queflion in plain terms ; but
his principles lead us to a very juft and proper
anfwer to it; namely, becaufe the fubjecl of
preaching in a Chriftian Church, is the Gofpel of
Chrift, over which no human power can have
any controul, or exercife any, without incurring
the guilt of fetting up anoiher Gofpel, under
another authority, diftincl: from his, who hath de-
clared himfelf to be the one Matter to whom all
Chriftians ought to fubmit. Would this Gentle-
man have afferted totidem verbis, that we may
give up our Chriftian liberty to thole who ufurp

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 241

the province of Chrifl? He makes ufe, indeed, of
the word nfurpaiion, but he refers it only to the
right of private judgement ; and of this right, or //-
berty, he makes little doubt but a man may
abridge himfe/f, p. 33.

But upon what is this right founded ? Is it not
folely upon thofe principles of the Gofpel, that
Chrift: is King in his own Kingdom ? that he is
the only Lord and Mailer in matters pertaining
to confeience ? And can any man give way to
an ufurpation of that authority which Chrift
claims folely to himfelf, without revolting from
his allegiance, and fub'mitting to an ufurper of
his Kingdom ?

Here let us flop. There is no occafion to
proceed a flep further, or to enquire upon what
notions of latitude in the Articles the Effayer
could reconcile his fubfeription to them with his
obligations to fland fajl in the liberty ivhercwith
Chrift hath made him free. Upon which fubject
he hath indeed brought no more than hath been
anfwered already.

There is yet another writer upon this fubjeel,
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.

s In a pampMet intituled, The external Peace of the Church
only attainable by a Zeal for Scripture in itsjujl Latitude, 17 1 6,
printed for Bakir.

<±2 " If,"

242 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" If," fays he, " we confider ourfelves as mem-
" bers 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 doclrine ; which, whatever
the matter of fact may be, the church, I appre-
hend, will not take for a compliment. But this
idle notion being built entirely on His Majejlfs
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
" mall give his affent, it is very poffible 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 not, then, hath the legiflature deter-
mined any thing about articles and fubfcriptions ?
Yes, it hath determined that the Articles fhall be
fubfcribed, for the purpofe of avoiding diverfities
of opinions. The legiflature tnen hath deter-
mined that the Articles (hall be fubfcribed only
in one fenfe refpe&ively ; and that is, in the mod
obvious fenfe of each Article.

*' The fenfe/' faith this author, " which fuch
" as require fubfcriptions accept and tolerate, is
" to be the rule of fubfcription."

This matter is put in a wrong light. It is the

Law, and the Law only, which requireth fub-

1 fcription j

THE CONFESSIONAL. 243

fcription ; and " requiretb that it mould be made
before the Ordinary, that is, in the prefence
of the perfon who inflitutes. 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 fubfcribe
without any referve, exception, or qualifica-
tion t."

The canonical fubfcription is indeed another
affair, of which there is no prefent occafion to fay
anything, as the queilion here is only concerning
fubfcription as enjoined by the legiflature. 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
M therefore accepts and tolerates contrary opini-
tl ons, 'tis plain the church does not conceive
" identity of opinion neceffary to her tran-
" quillity."

The church, as we have feen, 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
the church. If the church accepts and tolerates,
me Iikewife efpoufes and maintains, contrary opi-
nions. For the perfons, whofe contrary opinions
{he accepts and tolerates , do, by this very act of

* Vade Mecum, p. 79. under Injtitution.

(^3 fubfcription,

244 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fubfcription, become part of the body of the
church herfelf, and mofr. commonly are the very
mouth of the church ; and retail their contrary
opinions 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 i$
it not to own the juftice of that reproach, " That
" the church of England, properly fo called, is
" not now exifting u r"

There were feveral others of this way of think-
ing, who bore a part in this controyerfy ; but, as
they all went into the church at the fame door
which T)r.CIar fohzd opened for them, and be-
lieved, or pretended to believe, the proteftations

» See a pamphlet intituled, Oh/ervations upon the ConduSi
tf the Clergy in relation to the thirty-nine Articles. " Thefe
f* ftri&ures of Religion," fays this excellent writer, (mean-
ing 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 constitutes the church of England ? If they be a
4f rule and a flandard, where mud be grounded the authority
*' of modern teaching, which is not only not agreeable to
f* thefe Articles, but abfoliuely a contrary fyftem ? In cafe,
" by any after-lights, a clergyman finds caufe to change
ft his fubfcribing opinion (a right I fhall not difpute), and
" goes into different fchemes, why is not fuch difagreemeni
f with his rule publicly acknowledged, and the people ad-
" vertifed of the difference ? This myftery of the pulpit
?' appears to me unfair with refpecl to the people. They
t* have no fixed fight of their minifler's fcheme. They can
ti have no fecurity, no dependence upon him, in any doftrinal
ft point v/hatfoever." Pag. 2, 3.

of

THE CONFESSIONAL. 245

of the church, againft the mutter of fa&, we
meet with nothing in their refpeclive fyftems of
latitude, which hath not already been obviated.
And, the matter of fact being fo plain and in-
difputable, it is to little purpofe to argue the
point of right, upon the original Proteftant prin-
ciple ; as if that principle was ftill allowed to
have its uncontrouled operation in the matter of
fubfeription to the Articles. We frankly allow
that every Proteflant, as fuch, has a right to deny
his afTent to, or approbation of, any doctrine,
which he himfelf conceives to be contrary to the
fcriptures. But the moment he fits down to
fubferibe the xxxix Articles, circumftanced and
conditioned as that fubfeription now is, he fits
down to fign away this right (as much as in him
lies), and to transfer it to the church. The
church, indeed, does not in fo many words re-
quire him to fubferibe to any thing which is con-
trary or even difagrccablc to the fcripture. But
the church, by obtaining that fubfeription from
him, takes the interpretation of fcripture out of
his hands. It is the church, and the church only,
\\\2.x.jinds therein, and proves thereby, the propo-
rtions to be fubferibed. And if a man fhould
after that pretend to interpofe his own judgement
in contradiction to the church's findings and prov-
ing*, the church, with the help of the date, would
foon ihew him his miftake; by virtue of that
Alliance, the original inftrument of which hath
(^4 been

246 THE CONFESSIONAL.

been fo happily difcovered and commented upon
by a great Genius of our own times. The
church of England i( tells mankind indeed, they
" {hall judge for themfelves. But if they who
f* take her word, do not think and judge as fhe
" does, they fhall fuffer for it, and be turned out
" of the houfe." To prove the equity of
which proceeding (equity and utility, in
this author's idea, be'fhg the fame thing) is the
laudable puFpofe 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 red. The writer I mean is Dr. Clayton, the
late worthy Bifhop of Clogher in Ireland, and au-
thor of the Effay on Spirit, who, in his Dedica-
tion of that learned work, hath taken this matter
of fubfcription into particular confideration.

Bilhop Conybeare had obferved, in his fermon
on the Cafe of fubfcription, that the xxxix Articles
are not to be confidered as Articles of Peace, but
of Doctrine, as the very title denotes, which is,
for avoiding diver/if ies of opinions, and for efa-
blifloing confent touching trite religion. And from
this circumitance his Lordftiip inferred, and very
juftly, u that every man's fubfcription amounts
i( to an approbation of, and an aflent to, the
\* truth of the doctrine therein contained, in the

'? very

THE CONFESSIONAL. 247

^c very fenie in which the compilers thereof are
& fuppofed to have underftood them."

Now, the right reverend Effayift tells us, his
.cafe was this : " Being a clergyman, he had fub-
u fcribed the Articles pretty early in life, and
" probably in the fenfe in which the compilers
" underftood them. But, finding reafons after-
" wards to difagree with his former opinions, he
" laboured under fome difficulties how to direct
" himfelf in thefe circumftances."

Had Bifhop Conybeare been confulted upon
thefe difficulties, there is little doubt but he
would have anfwered, that this change of opi-
nions in the Effayifl: was virtually difclaiming his
fubfcription, which let him into his function ;
and, as he now no longer complied with the con-
ditions required by the church of all her minifters,
an obligation ieemed' to lay upon him to refign
his preferments in the church.

To avoid this confequence, Bifhop Clayton was
inclined to confider thefe Articles not as Articles
of doctrine, but as Articles of peace. " As I ap-
" prehend," fays he, u that the church of Ire*
i( land does not fet up for infallibility, I do not
" think fhe requireth any other kind of fubfcrip-
" tion than fuch as is neceffary for peace-
«'fake.M

What the laws of fubfcription are in Ireland,
I know not ; but if his Lordfhip formed his

judgement

248 THE CONFESSIONAL.

judgement only on the circumftance of the church
of Ireland's difclaiming infallibility, I fancy the
cafe may be much the fame there as in our own
country ; where, though we are not infallible, we
are always in the right. His apprehenfions, there-
fore, of ecclefmftical moderation, in the one coun-
try or the other, will go but a little way towards
fettling the debatable point between the Effayifl
and Bilhop Conybeare, which, reding upon a mat-
ter of fact, mufl 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, butan impracticable
" fcheme." In which I entirely agree with him.
But what then ? It actually was the attempt of
our firft Reformers, and is (till the fcheme of the
churches of England and Ireland.

u I do not only doubt," continues he, u whe-
" ther the compilers of the Articles, but even
" whether any two thinking men, ever agreed
" exactly 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 corrections of
1562 are well known to be in Parker's hand,
who, though he might make a mew of confult-
-ing his brethren, moll probably gave them to

underftanc}

THE CONFESSIONAL. 249

underftand at the fame time, that the Articles
were to pafs as they were then fettled w . Think-
ers in thofe days, any more than in our own,
were not very common ; and perhaps not half a
dozen of thofe to whom they were communi-
cated, or who fubferibed them,confidered how far
they differed from each other, or fufpe&ed that
they differed at all. They received them impli-
citly, as hundreds do to this hour ; and, confe-
quently, 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
pofterity by law. The inutility, therefore, and
the impracticability of an uniformity of opinion,
where men are difpofed to think for themfelves,
is indeed an unanfwerable argument why fuch
Articles JJmdd 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
Effay 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

w The Irijb Articles were different from thofe of the church
of England, till the year 1634, " when, by the power of the
41 Lord Deputy V/entwortb, and the dexterity of Bifliop Bram-
" hal, the Irijb articles were repealed in a full convocation,
" and thofe of England authorized in the place thereof." Hey-
Ih's Hiitcry of thePrefbyterians, p. 595.

frofefon.

250 THE CONFESSIONAL.

profejfion. I fay, he feems to think fo. But let
the reader judge from his own words.

" An uniformity of profeffion," fays he, " may
u indeed be both practicable and ufeful ; and
<f feems, in fome degree, to be neceffary, not only
" for the prefervation of peace, but alfo for the
f( general good and welfare of fociety."

His Lordfhip muft mean, an uniformity of pro-
feffion with refpect to thofe things, concerning
which the belief or perfuafion of the feveral pro-
f effort may be different and multiform. Otherwife
the proportion 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 I

By religion, I mean the Chriftian religion. But
to believe one thing, and to profefs another, the
Chriftian religion calls hypocrify^ and under that
name feverely cenfures and condemns it. Hypo-
crify, indeed, may ferve the turn of a particular
chzfs of men in fociety, who have views and in-
terefts diftincl from the general good and welfare
of the whole. But how this grand enemy to
truth and virtue fhould contribute either to the
peace of, or be otherwife ufeful or wholefome to,
fociety in general, is a myflery that will require
fome elucidation.

(s T do

THE CONFESSIONAL. 251

u I do not conceive," fays this ingenious Pre-
late, (t how any fociety or commonwealth can
" fubfift, unlefs fome form of religion or other
" be eftablimed therein, as well with regard to
" doctrine asdifcipline; which [points of doctrine]
" however ought to be as plain, few, and funda-
" mental, as poffible."

Forms of difcipline are not, indeed, now at if-
fue ; but are however neceffary to be taken into
the account. And as St. Paul thought, that men
might lead quiet and peaceable lives , in all godlinefs
and honejiy^ under proper fubjeclion to, and co-
ercion of, the civil magi (Irate, I do not fee that I
fhould be afhamed to think fo too. And this
point being fettled, how the fubfiflence of any
fociety or republic fhould depend upon the efta-
blifhment of doclr'mal forms of religion, is juft as
difficult for me to conceive, as it was to the learn-
ed Prelate to conceive the contrary1.

x " 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 teft can be found, of a fecular kind, adequate to
" that purpofe, as certainly there may, to draw religious con-
" troverfies into the queftion, is altogether foreign. This
" latter makes the fafety propofed by it (if I am not mif-
" taken) not fo properly the fafety of the Prince or Monar-
" chy [one may add likewife, of the State], as the fafety of the
" Clergy and Hierarchy, in their authority and acquifitions.
" Otherwife the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance would be
" fufficicnt. It is the only teft the occafion naturally calls

' That

252 THE CONFESSIONAL.

That his Lordfhip meant fome human form of
religion, is evident from his adding, that the
points of doctrine in fuch form fhould be as plain,
few, and fundamental, as pojfible. But, for my
part, I cannot fee why eftablifning the fcriptures
mould not anfwer all the ends of civil fociety, in
this refpetl, as well as any other forms. When
you have made a proper provifion for the exter-
nal deportment of men, as fubj ech to the flate, by
a wholefome and righteous civil inftitute, it re-
mains only that their religious manners, fenti-
ments, and difpofitions, mould be formed by the
rules, precepts, and doctrines, of the word of God.
But this, being a matter rather of perfonal than
of public concern, muff be left to the men them-
felves, if we would have the work done with its
proper influence and effect. Whatever appear-
ances of fanclity, devotion, and Chriflian 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 mould
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 Chriitian doc-
trine cannot be made plainer in them, than they

" for." Seagrave's Ohfervatiom on the Conduct of 'fht Clergy
in relation to the thirty-nine Artkle$y p. 45, 46.

are

THE CONFESSIONAL. 253

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 exactly in
" opinion with regard to any one of our xxxix
" Articles." And he who doubts this, can hardly
fuppofe that any form of doctrine can be drawn
up in human language, confiding of points fo
plain, few, and fundamental, as that all, or even
a majority, of thofe for whofe ufe they are in-
tended, mall perfectly agree in them. The Bi-
fhop will fay, there is no occafion they fhould,
becaufe uniformity of profejjion is all that he wants
to have eftablifhed. But, if fo, why will not our
prefent Articles, why indeed will not the Articles
of Trent , do as well as any other for the purpofe ?
He that profeffes to believe points of doctrine
which he does not believe, be they ever fo plain,
few, or fundamental, in the apprehenfion of the
eftablifhers, is juft as much an hypocrite, as if
fuch forms were fluffed with ever fo many imper-
tinencies, or even faliities.

The ufe of religion to fociety, I apprehend to
be, that men, having in their hearts the fear of
God, and of his judgements, may be reftrained
from evil, and encouraged to be virtuous, in fuch
inftanees as are beyond the reach of human laws.
Points of doctrine, therefore, eftablifhed for the

public

254 THE CONFESSIONAL.

public good of fociety, muft have this ufe of reli~
gion for their object. But if a man dijbelieves in
his hearty what he frofeffes with his tongue or
With his pen, religion, as fuch, has no hold of
him in that inftance ; and fociety has no more be-
nefit from his prof effion, than if fuch points of doc-
trine had not been eftablifhed.

Again. To make uniformity of religious pro-
feffion neceffary, in any degree, for the fubfiftence
of the commonwealth, it mull: be neceffary that
the points to be profeffed be eftablifhed upon
exclufi-ve conditions. And this extending, in our
author's plan, both to do&rine and difcipline, will
leave no room for diffenters in either. For every
diffenter breaks in upon the fcheme of uniformity,
and confequently on the peace and welfare which
this uniformity is intended to maintain. This,
at once, demolifhes all thofe fyflems of Govern-
ment, which tolerate do&rines and difciplines
contrary to the eftablifhed forms. Whereas
experience has taught us, that thofe common-
wealths have always been either the freeft from
religious feuds, or the lead incommoded by them,
which have tolerated different fefts with the
greateft latitude, and appropriated the feweft
emoluments to one.

If the queftion mould be afked, why a com-
monwealth, or a ftate, cannot fubfift in peace and
welfare without fome eftablifhed form of reli-
gion I

THE CONFESSIONAL. 255
gion ? the anfwer to be expected from his Lord-
Ihip would be, that except men were uniform in
their profefiion of religion, there could be no-
thing in a (late but difcord and confufion. And
yet hisLordfhip fays, " if men were not to fpcak
" their minds in fpite of eftablifhments (that is
" to fay, openly profefs things contrary to eflablijh-
" mcnts) truth would foon be banifhed from
" the earth."

Does not this' plainly imply, that eftablifh-
ments banim 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 wete under no reftraints from efta-
blifhments, than now, when they take that liberty
in fpite of them ?

The Defender of the Effay on fpirit is difpleafed
With fomebody for fuggefting that his client ought
to have been againft all religious eftablifhments ;
which however is true enough, if thefe above-
mentioned are the effects of them. True Religion
never can fubfift, whatever may become of civil
communities, upon the bafis of hypocrify ; or,
where men are obliged to profefs one thing, and
allowed \o believe another. And if the rule of true
religion be taken from the Chriftian fcriptures,
the temporal peace and fafety of any Chriftian,
in civil fociety, is but a fecondary confideration,

R to

2$6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

to the obligation he is under to hold fad his inte-
grity, in truth ixAfincerity.

The reafon given, why human eflabliftiments
with regard to religion are neceffary, is, " that
** the welfare and fupport of fociety isfo founded,
" by the great Author of Nature, on the bafis of
"" religion, that it is impoffible to feparate the one
" from the other; and, of confequence, the efta-
" blifhment of the one will neceffarily require the
ft eftablifhment of the other 7."

The meaning of which, at the bottom, is only
this: that human laws reach the exigencies of ci-
vil fociety fo imperfectly, that, unlefs the influence
of religion is connected with them, the welfare
and peace of civil fociety cannot be fupported.
Which, I apprehend, nobody will deny.

But then, as this plan of civil Government is
delineated by the great Author of Nature, it will
be neceffary to take his directions in the execution
of it ; if any fuch directions may be come at. And
if no fuch directions are to be found, it is doubt-
ful, whether the plan itfelf, authorized by the
great Author of Nature, may be found.

The fophifm here turns upon the word ejta-
bViflment '. Religion may be faid to be ejfablifoed>
when it is received and profeffed by individuals*
upon the fole authority of divine revelation. Civil

y Defence of the EJay onfptiit, p. z.

fbciety

THE CONFESSIONAL. 257

fociety can only be eitablifhed by human laws
and ordinances, at leaft as this author conceives,
and as, for the prefent, I am willing to grant. If
then the eftabliiliment of religion by divine reve-
lation is fufficient to anfwcr the purpofes of civil
fociety, the purpofes of the great Author of Na-
ture, in creating this connection, are anfwered at
the fame time ; and with any farther eftabliihrnent
of religion, human laws have nothing to do.
Whether they have or not? is the queftion. And
hereupon, the writer of the Letter to the Bijhop
vf Clogher very pertinently aiks, Who is the
judge ? that is to fay, who is the judge, how far
it may be neceflary to eftablifh religion by hu-
man laws ?

To this the Defender anfwers, without hefita«»
tion, " The fame legislative powers, which efta-
'* blifh the one, have a right to eftablifh the
" other ; and to chufe that religion Which they
« think to be bed z."

Where it muft be fuppofed, that the great
Author of Nature hath left it as free for Magi-
ftrates, and Legiflators, to eftablifh by human
Taws what doctrines or modes of religion they
chufe, or find expedient for fecular utility ; as it
is for them to chufe what modes of civil fociety
they find convenient; Which indeed is to fiap*

z Defence of the Etfay on fpirit, p. j.

R 2 pofe,

258 THE CONFESSIONAL.

pofe, that there never was any authentic revela-
tion of true religion in the world. For as furely
as God hath revealed true religion, fo furely has
he inhibited Magiftrates, and all others, from
eftablifning any thing contrary to it, or deviating
from it.

But by what is faid in the Dedication prefixed
to the EJfay an fpirit, the Defender, molt likely,
would confine this right of the legiflative powers,
to the inforcing of an Uniformity of ProfeJJion
only.

But it has been fhewn above, that in this view,
the eftablifhment of religion will afford no aid to
civil laws ; inafmuch as he who profeffes one
thing, and believes another, will derive none of
that influence from his profejfion, which is necef-
fary to fuppl-y the unavoidable defe&s of civil
ordinances. And, if the great Author of Nature
founded the welfare and fupport of fociety on no
furer bafis of religion than this, it hardly feems.
worthy of his infinite wifdom to have interpofed
in this matter at all.

Upon the principles of this author, whatever
right Chriflian Legiflators have to eftablifli what
religion they chufe for the heft, the fame had the
Pagan Legiflators3. Suppofe then thefe latter to

a The author of the EJay on Ejlablifinmits, &c. having
afferted this right to Pagan Legiflators in its full extent, and
without referve, it may not be unentcrtaining at leaft to take

4 have

THE CONFESSIONAL. 259

have extended their eftablifliment no farther than
to an uniformity of prof effort, what were St. Paul's

a view of the fort of right which may be fuppofed to refult
from the fentiments of one of the wifeft among them ; pre-
mising, that even Pagan Legiflators in general feem to have
been ienfible, that a right to eflablifh religion upon the foot
of civil authority only, was too precarious to be depended
upon, without the fanclion of a divine revelation, which,
therefore, they took care to forge for the purpefe. I can
hardly think the Effayifl on Efab/i/hments (politician as he is)
will fay, that the Pagan Legiflators had a right to forge thefe
revelations. And yet this he muft fay, if lie will vindicate
to the Pagan Legiflators an unlimited right of eilablifliino-
what religion they pleafed ; as it might be, in'fome cafes at
lead, impoffible for them to eflablifh any popular or national
religion without fuch forged revelations. Let us pitch upon
Cicero for our guide in this difquilition, and try what infor-
mation we can gain from his fpeculations upon this interefling
fubjeft. According to Dr. Middlcton, " Cicero never harboured
" a thought of the truth or divinity of fo abfurd a vvorfhip, as
" that of the religion of his country ; and yet always recom-
" mends it as a wife inflitution, contrived for the ufes of
" Government, and to keep the people in order, Angularly
•' adapted to the genius of Rome ; and conflantly inculcates
** an adherence to it^rites, as the duty of all good citizens.'*
Life of Cicero, vol. iii. oclavo, p. 345. One of the citations
the ingenious Biographer brings to verify this reprefentation,
is taken from the lafl feclion of Tally s fecond book on Divi-
nation ; where in the context we find, to our great furprize,
the Roman Patriot turning downright Confcffonalifl, explod-
ing one fort of Divination after another, lamenting, that
" Superflition had fpread every where, oppreffed the minds
" of almoft all, and had feized upon human weaknefs in
" general ; that it had been his view, both in thefe books on
*' Divination, and in thofe on the Nature of the Gods, to fet
f* this forth ; and that he fhould eflecm it a confiderable

R 3 converts

tfo THE CONFESSIONAL.

converts to do? were they to comply with the
modes of the times, and profefs themfelves idola-

i( fervice done to himfeif and his friends, if he could rooc
" up this fuperftition efteclually." He then goes on, in the
true (tile of a Reformer, to fay, that " religion mould not
f* be taken away along with fuperitition, nor did he mean
f* it." Nam a majorum injiituta tueri Jacns caremoniifeue reti-
vendis Japientis eji (which is the -xbole of Dr. Middietou's ci-
tation from this feclion) ; upon this principle, ejje prajlan-
tern aliquam alernamque naturam et earn J'ufpicicndam admi-
randamque bcminum gcneri, pulchritude mundi, ordoque rerurj.
calejiium cogit confiteri. And he concludes thus : Quamobrcm,
ut rebgio propaganda etiam eft, qv m. est jukcta cum cog-
nittone natures, jlc Juperjtitionis Jlirpes cmnes ejicienda :
ftiftat enim et urget, et quo te cumque <verteris perfequilur ; Jive tu
ruattm, five tu omen audieris ; five immolaris, Jive avem ajpex-
eris, &£. fcc. But how Ihall we feparate the ejfcils of fuper-
ilition here enumerated, from the injiituta majorum, which
were undoubtedly the caufe of it ? If at the root of thefe fu-
periritious terror^ we find the injiituta majorum, they mult go
along with the hock, or no remedy is to be had for the evil
we, would totally eradicate ; and undoubtedly there we (hall
find them. Apud antiques, fays Valerius JVIaximus, non
Jolum publice, Jed etiam privatim, nihil gercbatur, niji aujpicio
priusjuwp'.o. II. i. It is true, in Cicero's time, public authority
was interpofed. Private perfons, as it (hould feem, were not
left to interpret omens and prodigies for themfelves. Qua:
Augur isjujla, ncfajla, vitiofa, dira deflxerit, irrita, infejlaque

[f. infeSafue] Junto. Prodigia, portent a, ad Etrujcos et

Hanjpices,' fi Senatus jufferit, defa-unto. De Legibus, II, 8, 9.
But would this imerpofition of public authority prevent the
generality from applying omens taken from cafualties falling
within their notice, to their own private affairs ? We fee
from the inftances above enumerated, that it would not.
And would it not rather authorize and encourage the private
fuperftuiori of particular perfons ? Let the Augurs, Hanjpices,
and Etrufci, keep their rules of judging as fecret as you will,

r.ers ?

THE CONFESSIONAL. 261

ters ? This the Apoftle prohibits in exprefs terras ;
and herein ventures to counteract this right of

the omen cr the prodigy would be vifible, and the interpre-
tation of it, with whatever grimace or folemnity it was given,
mnft be known to the confulter, and would ferve him for a
precedent, whenever the like fhould occur to him, upon the
molt ordinary occafion. The refult is, that to eradicate fu-
perftition effectually, that religion only mufl: be cultivated
and propagated, quee junSla eft cum cogtiitione natura. Of this
religion Cicero gives a noble description elfewhere, [De Le-
gibus, I. 23.] and concludes, that the man who underftood
it, and pradlifed accordingly, " would deSpife the precepts
"of the Pythian Apollo, and would eileem thofe things as
" nothing which were held by the populace as moil con-
" fiderable." And yet, it is certain, that thefe precepts of
the Pythian Apollo were among the irftituta majorum, which,
according to Dr. Middlemen, the Reman Patriot would have
every good citizen bound in duly to maintain, though nothing
more clear than that they were the implements of that very
fuperltition which he wanted to extirpate, and which pre-
vented mankind from arriving at that pitch of wifdom, piety,
and public virtue, that proceeded from the knowledge of
nature, and of the true religion thence refulting. Bearing
in mind thefe doctrines of Cicero concerning religion, let us
next take a Ihort furvey of his principles of legislation, of
which this is his capital maxim j — Nos ad juftitiam effe natos,
tuque opinionc, fed natura conftitutum rjjc, Jus. \De Lcgibus,
1. 10.] Afterwards he fays, Stultijjimum exijiimare cmniajifta
effe qu-e j'cita fmt in populorum injlitutis aut legibus ; and he in-
llances in an old law made by the Roman L:/crrcx, import-
ing, that the Dictator might put to death any citizen he
pleafed, without a trial; obfervir.g, that neither if a whole,
people Should be Satisfied with tyrannical laws, would their
approbation make them juft. Upon Cipro's principles, then,
ro Legislator could have a right to enact fuch laws as this :
that is to fay, laws encroaching on the public welfare, or the

U 4 the

2^2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

the civil legiflative powers. And no .doubt upon
good authority.

natural rights of mankind. For if the approbation of a mis-
taken people, who were to be governed by them, could
not give the Legislator a right to enact them, he could
have no right from any other consideration, namely, from
his own opinion, cr from political purpofes, which had no
refpeft to the welfare of the public. And if this limitation
upon the right of Legiflators was neceffary in civil ordi-
nances, 1 would defire to know what it was that took off the
reftraint with refpect. to the eitablifhment of religion ; and
whence the Legislator mould have a right to enacT: fuch laws
as tended to enfarje the ?nind of man, and took the advantage
of human iveaknefs, to fubjeft it to the moji abjeil fuperfiition ?
One of the ancient laws relating to religion recited by Tully
[De Legibus, II. 8.] is this : Separatim nemo habejjit Deos,
ne-xe r.ovos : fed ne advenas, nifi publice adfcitos, priuatim cc-
lunto. Suppofe a private citizen, full of the fublirne idea of
natural religion given by Cicero as above-mentioned, mould
adopt for his private worfhip an object fuitable to that idea :
and fuppofe farther, that the circumstances of his private
worfhip Strongly marked his contempt for the precepts of
the Pythian Apollo ; he would, by this intolerant law, be li-
able to punifhment. Upon what principle of juftice could
Cicero aflfert to the Magiltrate a right to inflicl fuch punish-
ment? Even that flagitious principle, which Middleton Seems
to afcribe to him, namely, that, public utility Jbould take place
of truth, would not enable him to vindicate the magistrate
in this cafe. For the reafons he gives for extirpating fuper-
fiition, and the noble effects of that religion, qua junfia ejt
turn ccgniticne natura, enumerated by him, are fuch as mew,
^ven to demonstration, that public utility would be pro-
moted more out of all proportion, upon his plan of natu-
ral religion, than by that of the eftablifhed fyflem. The
impcffibility indeed of reforming the public religion in face

When

THE CONFESSIONAL. 263

When we apply this theory of religious efta-
blifhments to our own circumftances, the cafe

famuli, might flrikejhim with the ftrongeft impreffions,
and occafion the declaration, retinere, et tueri, fafientis eji
(the [art of a ivife man, or a politician ; not, as Dr. Middle-
r;// gives it — the bounden duty of a good citizen) but all the
fophiflry upon earth can never, upon Cicero's principles, de-
rive upon the Pagan Magiitrate a right to ejlablijh what reli-
gion he pleafes. The maxim indeed, that public utility Jhould
take place of truth (whether Cicero efpoufed it or not), is nei-
ther better nor worfe than that of the Mountebank, fi papa-
ins decipi t'ult, decipiatnr. And yet, furnifhed with the upper
garment of church-authority, thrown over the party-coloured
jerkin of the politician, we have feen it make iis way from
the fchools of Paganifm to a cordial reception in Chrijlian
fchemes of Alliance, Chriilian Effays on EJlabliJhments, and
other curiofities defcriptive of the tatte and temper of the
times, which often make impreffions upon afpiring geniufes,
that as effectually hinder them from perceiving the impof-
ture, even with the contents of the Chriltian Revelation be-
fore them, as the injlituta majorum prevented the Roman au-
gurs from comprehending the benefits of adopting Cicero's
benevolent expedients of eradicating the popular fuperfti-
tion. This once upon a time happened to be the unhappy-
cafe of our renowned Tillotson, as appears by fome
paffages in a fermon by him preached before King Charles
II. ; a curious and full account of which may be feen in the
Life of this great man, written by the late Dr. Birch, ed.
Svo. 1752, from p. 61, to p. yo. The Archbifhop's no-
tion is, that " a magiftrate may exercife the fame power
* over his fubje£ts in matters of religion, which every
" mailer of a family challengeth to himfelf in his own
*' family ; that is, to eflablijh the true wo/flip of God,
11 in fitch manner, and with fuch circumjlances, as he
" tliiihs beft, and to permit none to affront it, or to feduce
" from it thofe that are under his care.'* But how lhall thofc

will

264 THE CONFESSIONAL.

will ftand thus. Our legiflative powers have a

right to eftablifh human forms of religion, fo far

under the care of the magiftrate, know whether what is efta-
blifhed, be the true nuorfhip of God or not ? how if they
who affront the eftablifhed worfhip, or endeavour to frduce
others from it, do it upon a perfuafion, that the eftablifhed
worfhip is not the true ivorfbip of God? who fhall be the
judge? for that a judge will here be wanted, is plain from
what follows : " I do not," fays the good man, " hereby
*' afcribe any thing to the magiftrate that can poffibly give
" him any pretence of right to reject God's true religion,
" or to declare wjhat he pleafes to be fo., and what books he
" pleafes to be canonical and the ivordofGod, and confequently
" to make a falfe religion fo current by the ftamp of his au-
11 thority, as to oblige his fubjefts to the profeffion of it."
Now if the magiftrate, on the one hand, declares for the
fvftem that pleafes him befl, and the feducers declare againft it,
the one, on the pretence that it is, the other, that it /'/ not,
fupported by the word of God; and if the magiftrate has no
pretence of right to eftablifh his fyftem, merely becaufe it
pleafes him, there muft either lie an appeal to fome third au-
thority, or the difpute muft be endlefs. To fay, as the
preacher does, that " he who acknowledged himfelf to de-
" rive all his authority from God, can pretend to none
•* againft him," is to put an impoffible cafe. The acknow-
ledgement, and the pretence, can never be found together, ex-
cept in the brain of a lunatic. This, I apprehend, the wor-
thy preacher perceived ; and therefore, not finding it would
anfwer his analogical inftance, drawn from the authority of
the mailer of a family, to confine the authority of the ma-
gistrate to the efiablifhment of true religion only, he goes on
thus : " But if a falfe religion be eftablifhed by law, the
" cafe here is the fame as in all other laws that are fmful in
*■' the matter of them, but yet made by a lawful authority."
f»y the way, a lawful authority to make laws which are fmful
y the matter of them, is no yery-comprehenfible idea. But

THE CONFESSIONAL. 265

at leaft as to require uniformity of profeffion.
This right they have exercifed, and this right

w,e mufc take things as they happen to fall out. The law,
we will fuppofe, is made, and by lawful authority; what is
the fcrupulous fubject to do ? The anfwer is, " In this cafe
.'.' the fubjeci is not bound to profefs a falfe religion, but pa-
f* tiently to fulFer for the conitant profeffion of the true."
That is to fay, the fubject. is not bound to obey lawful au-
thority. For the falfe religion is, by the ftate of the cafe,
eftablilhed by lawful authority ; and conjlantly to profefs the
true religion in oppofition to it, is as great an affront to the
(fabhjhed religion, as can well be imagined. And this the
Magiilrate mult not permit ; and the reafon the preacher af-
terwards gives, is, that " no pretence of confcience will
'' warrant any man that is not extraordinarily commiffioned,
" as the Apoftles and firft publishers of the Gofpel were,
■" and cannot juftify that commiffion by miracles as they
f*. did, to affront the eftablilhed religion of a nation
■" (though it be false), and openly to draw men off
ff from the profeffion of it, in contempt of the Magiftrate
ff and the law." By this time, all notion of a difference be-
tween eilablifhing a true and a falfe religion is totally va»
nifhed. The authority of the magiilrate, in either cafe,
is lawful authority ; and after all the falvos you can devife,
the ccnfar.t profjjion of a religion, contrary to the religion,
eftablilhed, as well as an endeavour to draw men off from
the profeffion of it, are equally affronts to the religion etla-
bliffied, and equally imply a contempt of the magiftrate and
the law. — No fooner was thisfermon in print, than Tillotfon
was awakened from this dream of the power of the magif-
trate in mauers of religion, by various noifes from different
quarters. The high Ecclefiallics clamoured loudly againft,
this abafement of church authority. The DiilVnters com-
plained, that, by the doctrine of this fermon, their enemies
of the eftublifhment were let loole upon them with a ven-
geance, and that all they and their forefathers had fuffered

they

266 THE CONFESSIONAL.

they have from the great Author of Nature. The
confequence is, that all Diffenters from thefe efta-

for conference fake, was now juftified, as the inflidtion of
lawful authority. Others, who on the one hand, were lefs
concerned for the exorbitant claims of the church, and, on,
the other, only felt the cruel opprefllon of the Proteftant
Diffenters by a charitable fympathy, confidered Tillotfcns
do&rine as injurious to the firft Protefiant Reformers, and a
difparagement even to the Chriflian Religion, which, being
fufficiently confirmed and authenticated by the miracles of
Chrilt and his Apoftles, would juftify the preachers of it in
all fucceeding times, in their endeavours to propagate it,
maugre the powers of this world, without exhibiting the mi-
raculous gifts of the primitive times. It is faid, that fome
remonftrances to this effecl:, made to Tillotfon himfelf, by his
friend Mr. John Howe, brought the preacher to tears of re-
pentance, and to a confeffion that what he had offered upon the
jubjecl nu as vot to be maintained. See Dr. Birch, u. f. p. 66.
and Calamfs Life of Howe, p. 77. I own, I am a little
doubtful of the truth of this account ; not only becaufe Ca-
lamy had this fiory only at fecond hand, but becaufe, accord-
ing to Dr. Birch, p. 70. the fame remonftrances from another
hand did not feem to Tillotfon to be 'very considerable ; and all
the forrow he expreffed on this occafion, in a letter to Mr.
Nelon, was, that any thing of his Jhould occajicn fo much talk
and noife. However, from fome motive or other, Tillotfon
thought fit to add, in the later editions, a healing paragraph,
to this eSt€t : " Not but that every man hath a right to pub-
'** I if and propagate the true religion, and to declare it again f a
" fdlfe one. But there is no obligation upon any man to at-
" tempt this to no purpofe ; and when, without a miracle,
" i: can have no other effect but the lofs of his own life,
" unlefs he have an immediate command from God to this
" purpofe, and be endued with a power of [working] mi-
" racks, as a public feal and teltimony of that commiffion ;
" which was the cafe of the Apoftles, &c." This is truly

biilbed

THE CONFESSIONAL. i67

blifhed forms, that is, all who difclaim the pro-
feffion, as well as the belief of them, are not only-
piteous. If every man hath the right here fpecified, he is fuf-
ficiently warranted (whether upon pretence of conference, or
from other confiderations) openly to draw men olF from the
profeifion of vl falfe religion. The apprehenfion of " affront-
" ing the eftablifhed religion, in contempt of the magiftrate
" and the law," can lay. no reftraint upon him in this re-
fpccL They are but bugbear-words, contrived for the
convenience of thofe whofe intereft it is to perpetuate er-
ror. If a man hath " a right to propagate the true religion,
•' and to declare it againft a falfe one," the natural confe-
quence of his exercifqg that right will be, the drawing men
off from the profeffion of falfe religion. Preclude him from
exercifing his right, and you effectually take away the right
itfelf; with which indeed the magiftrate and the laws
ejlablijhing a falfe religion can have no authority to inter-
fere, as the Profeffor of the true religion derives his right to
propagate and declare it againft the falfe religion, from quite
another fource. To Ihift the queftion, as Tillotfon here does,
from the right to the obligation, is hardly ingenuous. The
queftion before him, was, not what a man was obliged to do,
but what he was warranted to do ; and to fall on canvaffing
the obligation on the foot of prudence and perfonal fafcty, im-
mediately after he had allowed the right in its fulleft ex-
tent, was leading his readers off to a very different confide-
ration, namely, to the mere power of the Magijlrate, as diftin-
guifhed from his right. For no magiftrate can have the right
to take away any man's life for doing what the man has a
right to do, independent of the Magiftrate. Tillotfon, there-
fore, to be confiftent with himfelf, mould have cancelled the
foregoing paragraph, and have fairly owned, that he was at
length better informed ; that he had found that the Profeffor
of the true religion had a right fuperior to the authority
the magiftrate had to ejlallifj a falfe religion ; and that what

offenders

263 THE CONFESSIONAL.

offenders againft civil peace and order, but wicked
oppofers of the authority of God himfelf. This
indeed has been charged upon them by our zea-
lous church-memorialifts with all freedom. The
civil powers have however granted them a tolera-
tion ; which we may be fure they would not have
done, unlefs they had entertained more qualified
fentiments concerning their own rights, as well
as more accurate conceptions of the welfare and
fupport of fociety, than this Defender of the EJfay
on Spirit exhibits.

But to conclude this chapter. There is one
particular weaknefs and want of forecaft, com-
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 reasonable than to comply with
the terms prefcribed by the church ; and then,
perfectly confijient is the reafonablenefs of confor-
mity ^ with the rights of private judge?nent. But
go back to their principles of Chriflian Li-
berty, on which they oppofe the Advocates for
Church-authority ; and you will find there is no-*
thing more inconfiftent with thofe principles,
than the Authority which the Church of England
actually claims and exercifes*

he offered in the foregoing part of his fermon, could not be
maintained*

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 269

The high Churchmen, Rogers, Stebbing, Hare,
Waterland, Potter, Snape, and their retainers,
claim no privileges for the Church of England,
which fhe does not actually enjoy ; nor any
powers which fhe does not actually exercife.
Their proofs are accordingly directed to fhew,
that (he rightly enjoys and exercifes thefe privi-
leges and powers.

When therefore their opponents had (hewn,
that the church had no fuch privileges or powers
of right ; confiftency required that they ftiould
have withdrawn from a church which ufurped
an authority that did not belong to her, and to
have borne their teflimony againflher in deeds,
as well as words.

CHAP.

27o THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. VII.

An attempt to dif cover whence thepraclice cffub~

fcribing the xxxix Articles in different fenfes

was derived; and by what fort of cafuifts, and

what fort of reafoning, it was frf propagated,

and has been ft 'nee efpoufed.

IT is a fact in which our hiftorical writers of
all parties agree, that, during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, and for fome part of the reign
of King James I. there was no difference be-
tween the epifcopal churchmen and the puritans,
in matters of doclrine. The contends between the
Bifhops and the Puritans of thofe times concern-
ing fubfeription, arofe from thofe articles which
afferted 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 objections; and therefore would ne-
ver fubferibe thofe articles, which approved
them^ without exceptions and limitations.

The Parliament of 1572 feems to have thought
thefe objections of the Puritans reafonable ; and
accordingly, in the Act of that year, injoining fub-
fcription, thofe Articles are required to be fub-
fcribed, which only concerji the confeffion of the
true faith, and the facr anient s. And when Arch-
bifliop Parker took upon him to expoftulate with

fome

THE CONFESSIONAL. 271
fome members of the Houfe of Commons, for
leaving out the reft, he was anfwered, " that they
f( were not fatisfied concerning their agreement
" with the Word of God V

The Bifhops, however, who were the perfons
appointed by law to take the fectirity of fub-
fcription from the candidates for. the mini ft ry,
artfully found the means of evading this mode-
ration of the Parliament, by making certain ca-
nons, in confequence of which, fubfcription was
exacted to all the Articles without exception.
Thefe canons are to be found in Sparrow's col-
lection, under the title of Liber auorundam cano-
?ium, anno 1571 b .

The Queen, it feems, (for what reafon does
not appear) could not be prevailed with to rati-
fy thefe canons in form ; and they were framed

a Sttype'sLife of Parker, p. 394. See alfo Se/den's Table talk.

b That is, according to the ecclefiaftical computation ;
but they were not published till after the act was paffed. In
the firft of thefe Canons, fubfcription is injoined in thefe
words, ita tamen ut fuhfcribant articulis Cbrifliante religionis,
publice in fynodo approbatis, fidemque dent, fe ve/Ie tueri et defen-
dere Doctrinam eam, qu-ffi in illis coxtinetur, ut
confentientijjimam weritati verbi di<vir.i ; which feems to be
much the fame with the fubfcription injoined by the Aft.
But, under the tide Concionatores, the Candidate is to con-
firm, by his fubfcription, the Book of Common prayer, and the
Bock of Ordination, &c. And upon this injunction were mo-
delled four articles, called in thofe days, The Bijhofs Articles,
the three firir. of which were much the fame with thole in our
36th Canon.

S likewife,

i72 THE CONFESSIONAL.

likewife, and made public, without the royal //-
cenfe, requiiite in fuch cafes. They had, how-
ever, her Majefty's verbal approbation, or ra-
ther perhaps her connivance ; with which, by the
way, Grindal, then Archbiihop 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, re-
filled to fubfcribe according to Act of Parlia-
ment ; that is to lay, to fubfcribe the doftrinal
and fa cr anient al articles d. They, among them,

c See S/rj^e'j Life of Parker, p. 322.

d " Let us come to the thing itfelf. Lo, it is a lawful
*' depriving of m'nvjlers for not fubferibing. A lawful! how
" that ? the common law exprefleth a fubfcription to the
" doctrine of the church of Engla?id. This is not refufed.
" But the Archbifhop \Whitgift\ further requireth a fub-
" fcription ex officio. A dangerous thing. Is it not limited r
*' Yes; it mull be without prejudice to her Majefty's preroga-
" tive, by the law of the realm. It muft be from her Majefty's
" authority, and not from their own ; confirmed by the laws
" of the land, and not againft them; without difquieting
" the peace of the churches, even by the canon-law itfelf;
'* the greateft part whereof being Anticbrijlian, and juftling
" with her crown, ought to have no force amongft us. It
" ftarideth not with her Majefty's prerogative, that any
" iubjccl fhould take away the livings of her minifters that
" are in the number of her painfullell and bell fubjec~ls, at
4* his own pleafure, like a Pope, without exprefs law.
" Wherefore it agreeth not with the law of the realm, and
*• that may appear of fundry well learned in the laws,

who

THE CONFESSIONAL. 273

who fubfcribed them all, never omitted to make
fome exception, or proteftation, with refpecl to
the articles which concerned church-government
or difcipline. Where this was not allowed, they
refufed to fubfcribe at all, and chole rather to
undergo what the Bifhops thought jit to inflict
upon them. I fay thought Jit ; for, certain it is*
that the faid Bifhops had then no legal autho-
rity to filence, imprifon, or deprive, as they did,
great numbers of thofe who refufed to fubfcribe
their articles.

" whofe opinions in this cafe have been fhewed and de-
" clared." Part of a Regi/ter contayninge fundrie ?ne?norable
natters, p. 284. The trad from which this is taken , is
called, The unlawful Practices of Prelates agamfi Godly Minif-
ters, the maintainers of the difcipline of God, mentioned by
Strype [L. of Whitgift, p. 1 2 1 , 122.], who gives fome extra&s
from it, but not any thing touching the illegality of the fub-
fcription required. However, the extracts in Strype do no
difcredit to the author of the tract, who itates the cafe be-
tween the Archbifhop and the non-fubferibers, truly and
fairly, upon notorious and undeniable facts. Among other
things to our prefent purpofe (too long to be tranferibed)
he fpeaks of the artifice ufed by the Bifhops of thofe times,
to draw in fcrupulous men to fubfcribe, " by the example
'* of others, whom they greatly efieemed, who had fub-
" fcribed already ;" namely, ** (hewing only the fabftrip-
" tions in one paper, and retaining the protellation in ano-
" ther," which, as he had faid above, " made their fub-
" fcriptions no fubferiptions at all;" by which infamous
trick, M many were drawn alfo, as unwary birds, into the
" net, by the chirping of the birds, tirlt taken." Ibid.

p. 297.

S 2 Thefe

274 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Thefe fads are fufficiently proved by Mr.
Fierce, in his Vindication of the Difenters. For
the prefent, however, I chufe to appeal to a tefti-
mony lefs exceptionable to churchmen, I mean
Thomas Rogers, in the dedication of his expofi-
tion of the xxxix Articles to Archbifhop Ban-
croft, publifhed 1607. "Where, though he ex-
tolls the Bifhops, and reviles the Puritans, with
the mod abject fycophantry, he hath neverthe-
lefs reprefented the matter fo, as to (hew, with
fufficient perfpicuity, that the Puritans might,
with great truth and propriety, have faid to Eli-
zabeth, what the Hebrew officers pleaded to
Pharaoh, Exod. v. 16. Behold thy fervants are
beaten, but the fault is in thine own people.

Upon the accefiion of James, things went on
pretty much in the fame way, till after the Hamp-
ton-Court-Conference, and the publication of the
Canons of 1 604 ; when, as we are informed by
Rogers, certain of the brethren, meaning the Pu-
ritans, refufed to fubfcribe, not only to the Hier-
archical Articles, but to the reft likewife, " be-
" caufe the purpofe or intention of the church,
•* if not her do&rine, were fomewhat varied [from
" what they were in the time of Queen Eliza-
" beth~\ ; in proof of which they alledged the late
" book of Canons, the book of Conference
" (meaning Bifhop Barlow's account of the Con-

" ference

THE CONFESSIONAL. 275

" ference at Hampton-Court), and fome fpeeches
" of men in great place, and other**/'

I do not remember to have feen any mention
made of this fcruple of the Puritans, in any other
hiftory or account of thofe times ; and as it is the
firfl inftanceof their openly refufing to fubfcribe
the doftrinal 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 f.

o See Rogers's Dedication, feci. 34, 35.
f f have lately feen a fmall pamphlet of fix pages, bound
up with that copy of Part of a Regifer, Sec. which I ufe,
written, as it is faid, about the year 1583, and intituled, A
brief e aunfwere to the principall point es in the Archbijhsp' 's Arti-
cles. Alfo cert ay ne reafons againjl fubfeription to the book of
common prayers, and book of articles > as followetb. In this lit-
tle piece there is this objection to the 16th Article : *.* They
" affirm, that a man, after he hath receyved the Holy Ghoft,
*' may fall from Grace, contrarie unto the certayntie of God
*' his election." There islikewife an objection to the 35th
Article, concerning the Homily on the Nativity, as contain-
ing a double error. But that is a mere cavil, unworthy of
farther notice. With refpeft to the 16th Article, as we have
no account of this objection from thofe who were called be-
fore the Bifhops for refufing to fubfcribe, we may be fure
they thought the doctrine of the fnal perjeverqnee of the elecl,
fufficiently fecured in the Article, by its leaving room for
arifing again by the Grace of God ; and we may conclude
that this was only the fcruple of a private man, not fuffici-
ently verfed in the theology of thofe times, which made a
confiderable difference between a departing from Grace
(which is the expreffion in the Article) and the filling from
Grace (as the obje&or reprefents it) • the one admitting a pof-
S 3 Rogers

276 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Rogers wifely fays nothing to the particulars
of this objection; that is, nothing of the Canons ,
or the paffages in the book of conference, which
had given offence. He was writing a fulfome
dedication 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 juflice to acknowledge, that he hath ac-
quitted himfelf of the difficulty upon his hands
by a very dextrous quibble, viz. " that the
lt words of the articles being flill the fame, the
f doctrine, 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
xvas none of his fault.

But to come to the point. The regal fupre-
rnacy, as extended to ecclefiadical 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 Parker, in re-;

Ability of arip.ng again, or returning, the other not. The va-
riation of the doftrine of the church, complained of in King
James's time, was a different thing, and meant, the putting a
tievj fenfe upon the words of the Article ; and it was proba-
bly from an apprehenfion of the evil tendency of that prac-
tice, that Dr. .Reynolds propofed, at the Hampton- court Confe-
rence, to add the reftridlive words, not totally, or finally, to
this Article, that it might not feem to crofs the doftrine of
Predeftlriation,

viewing

THE CONFESSIONAL. 277

viewing Edward's Articles in 1562, to add a
pretty long explanation, to the article concern-
ing the Civil Magi/irate, importing, " that the
" miniflxing 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;" meaning the
godly Princes of Judah and Ifratl. Art. 37.

With this explanation the Puritans had realbn
to be (and probably were) fatisfied. When the
Kings of Jfrael 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 otherwife, the Puritans had no
objection to the doctrine of refinance; or the
lawfulnefs ot transferring dominion from ungodly
Princes to the pious and elecl.

But thefe doctrines James could by no means
relifh. He knew not in what light he might
Hand 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 in
Jcripture, that of the Cbriftian Emperors in the
S ^ primitive

278 THE CONFESSIONAL.

primitive church, godly or ungodly ; and at the
fame time verting James with the fupremacy in
all caufes ecclefiaftical and civil s.

This alteration put matters upon a very differ-
ent footing, and made no fmall variation in the
doctrine of the church. It is but dipping into
the imperial law, where-ever it opens at an eccle-
fiaflical cafe, to be convinced, that the Chrijlian
Emperors far outftripped the Jewiflo Kings, in
the powers they claimed and exercifed over the
church h. But,

2. The paffage in the Bock 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 Ghofl we may fall from grace.
Dr. Reynolds imagined this might feem to crofs
the doctrine of Predeflination, unlefs fome fuch
words were added as, yet neither totally nor finally,
which he defired might be done by way of ex-
planation. He likewife defired that the nine
»

s See Canon ii. xxxvi. and lv. The Article to be fub-
fcribed to, concerningthe Queen's [Eli%abetfjs~\ fupremacy, in
the injunction appealed to in our thirty- feventh Article, was
thus worded : J? The Queen's Majefty is the chief Governour,
f* next under Chrifr, of this Church of England, as well in
f ecclefiaflical as civil caufes."' Which may be compared with
the nritcfthe three Articles enjoined to be fubferibed by
pur thirty-fixth Canon.

h They who choofe not to turn over voluminous codes of the
imperial law, may find what is here advanced tolerably well
[ made out in Father Paul's Hillory of Beneficiary Matters.

l/imbetb

THE CONFESSIONAL. 279

Lambeth Articles, 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-
" letting holinefs of life, prefumed too much on
" perfifting in grace ; laying all their religion on
" Predeftination ; if I Jhall be faved, I Jhall be
" faved: which he termed a dcfperate doctrine,
" fhewing it to be contrary to good divinity, and
i( the true dodlrine of Predeflination; wherein we
" fliould rather reafon afcendendot than defcen-
u dendo, thus, / live in obedience to God, in love
*' with my neighbour ; I follow my vocation, &c.
" therefore I trujl God hath elected me, and pre-
tc dejlinated me to falvation. Not thus, which is
" the ufual courfe of argument, God hath prede-
" Jlinated me to life ; therefore, though I fin never
" f° grievoujly, yet I Jhall not be damned ; for whom
<l he loveth, he loveth to the end. Whereupon,
" he lhewed his Majefty, out of the next Article,
" what was the doctrine of the church of England
" touching Predeftination, in the very laft para-
" graph ; namely, we mud receive God's pro-
" mifes 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 exprcfsly declared unto us in
" the word of God \"

* Pbccnix, vol.1, p- I.JI.

The

28o THE CONFESSIONAL.

The Bifliop was much in the right, to Jhew
his Majefty only the 'very lajl paragraph of the
feventeenth Article. Had he turned the King's
attention to the foregoing paragraphs, his Ma-
jefty would have feen, that his learned harangue
was rank Arminianifm, and a flat contradiclion to
the faid Article ; which actually argues, as the
Bifhop termed it, defcendendo ; inferring the walk-
ing reliqioujly in good zvorks, and attaining to ever-
Lifting felicity, from previous predestination k.

When it came to the royal moderator's turn to
determine this matter between the two parties,
he contented himfelf with ihuffling it off as well
as he could. He chofe not to difoblige the Bi-
ihops ; and yet in his own opinion was a rigid
Calviniit, at this period at lead:. But however,
as he began with approving very well what Ban-

k A certain pamphleteer having obje&ed to the Englijb
Clergy, that they fubfcribed Articles which they did not be-
lieve ; Dr. George Fothergill of Oxford undertook their defence
in the poftfcript or appendix to a Faji -\e.rmox\ preached be-
fore that univerfity, February 17, 1758. His aim is to mew,
that the Articles are not Calviniltical ; and one of his argu-
ments is the " non-acquiefcence of the Calvinifb in the pre-
" fent fet of Articles, and their repeated attempts either to
il get them worded more itri&ly, or to have others fuperad-
" added more determinate in their favour." It is plain, he
had this motion of Dr. Reynolds in his eye, and probably
took the hint from Heylin and Montague, whom he refers tq,
without knowing, or perhaps caring to know, how thefe wri-
ters have been refuted by Carleton, Hickman, and others. It
appears, however, that the feventeejith Article aflerts Cal-

crofi

THE CONFESSIONAL. 281

croft fhewed him in the lafl; paragraph of the
Article, it is probable that this, and his refuting
to admit the Lambeth Articles into the public
confeffion, might be among the fpeeches of feme
great ones, from which the Puritans concluded,
that the purpofe and intention, if not the doclrine
of the church, had varied from what it had
been.

And let me remark, that thefe fame Puritans,
in refufing to fubfcribe the doclrinal Articles,
when they faw this inclination in the Bifhops to
put a new conftrudlion 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 fuccelfors have
fince accomplished), 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 againft thofe which related to difciplinc.
And thefe exceptions the Bifhops, in fome cafes
at lead:, admitted. The doclrinal Articles were
fubfcribed by all parties without referve; becaufe
the opinions of all parties were tolerably uniform
with refpeft to the fubj eel-matter of them. But

viniftical Predefli nation defcendendo in pofitive terms, and is fo
far, according to Bancroft, falfe divinity. And, if the
yery lait paragraph is Arminian, what will Dr. Fothergill
get by fhewing that he and his brethren fubfcribe ex animo
to contradictions }

now

282 THE CONFESSIONAL.

now the cafe was altered. This variation in the
purpofe and intention of the church, made it
unfafe for the Puritans to fubfcribe rhe doctrinal
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. They knew
that the Bifhops, taking upon them to interpret
the Articles in the manner Bancroft had done at
the Conference, would put what conflruclion they
pleafed upon their fubfcription, againfl which they
had found by experience, all their fubfequent re-
monftrances would fignify nothing. They knew,
in fhort, the Bifhops had fupprelfed the protefla-
tions they had made with refpect to the difcipli-
narian Articles, and proceeded againfl them as
revolters, and a", though they had fubfcribed all
the Articles implicitly. And therefore they wifely
avoided the fnare, and kept themfelves out of
their power K

It does not appear, however, that Archbifhop
Bancroft made any farther attempt to introduce
Arminianifm into the church. And one pretty
clear proof that he did not, is that he authorifed
Rogers's Exposition in the year 1607; which, as
a very competent judge obferves, went upon the

'See Pierce's Vindication, p. 109, 110.

Calvimjlicnl

THE CONFESSIONAL. 283

Calviniflical frame m. The reafon, probably,
was, that he found the King not fufEciently pli-
able to come into his notions. Doctrinal matters,
therefore, continued ftill upon the old founda-
tion, notwithftanding the fufpicions of the Puri-
tans, till Bancroft's death, which happened in the
year 1610.

He was fucceded by George Abbot, a man of a
very different character in all refpects.

The next year, idu, happened the ruffle be-
tween James I. and the States of Holland, con-
cerning Vorftius, who was called by the Univer-
fity of Ley den to fucceed Armlnius, as their Divi-
nity-profeffor. The King's remonflrances againfl
this promotion proving ineffectual, his Majefty
thought proper to attempt the confutation of
Vorjlius's book de Deo, in a formal controverfial
writing ; in which he calls " Arminius a feditious
" and heretical preacher, an infector of Ley den
" with herefy, and an enemy of God; and withal,
" he complains of his hard hap, not to hear of
" him before he was dead ; and that all the Re-
" formed churches in Germany had with open
" mouth complained of him n."

I cite this paffage only to fhew, that King
fames at this period, was no friend to the Armi-
mans.

m Hickman s Animadverfions on Heylin's Quinq. Hifh
p. 218.

ft See Harriet Hift. and Critical Account of the Life and
7 la

284 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In the year 1613, James, indeed, feems to have
had more qualified fentiments concerning the

Writings of James I. p. 124. Dr. Harris fays, " James is
" faid to have been excited to declare againft Vorjiius by
" Abbot, Archbifhop of Canterbury ; and it is not unlikely.
" Moft of the ecclefiaftics of that time abounded with a fiery
'• zeal, which frequently hurried them into a&ions not to be

*« juftified." p. 119. This information comes, it feems,

from La Roche, Abridgement, vol. I. p. 318. but, I appre-
hend, without the leaft good authority. Fuller fays not a
word of Abbot's being concerned in this matter. And Heylin
makes no remark upon his filence, which, attached as he was
to the opinions of Vorjiius, and rancoroufly difaffefted to
Abbot, he would certainly have done, had he known of any
juft grounds for the flory. Heylin himfelf fays indeed (hav-
ing juft mentioned the King's declaration againft Vorjiius,
and his Majelty's animofity againft the Remonftrants) —
" Some think, he [James] was drawn into it by the pow-
" eiful perfuafions of Archbifhop Abbot and Bifhop Montague^
'• who then much governed his counfels in all church-con -
" cernments." Hijl. Prejb. p. 402. But, befides that this
relates to the King's general difpofition towards the Remon-
ftrants, he immediately fubjoins three other conjeclures, and
adopts the laft as mojl rational, viz. reafon of ftate. If Sir
Ralph IVinwood had mentioned the King's being inftigated
againft Vorjiius by Abbot, I take it for granted, Dr. Harris
would have cited him, inftead of La Roche. In the mean
time, the compilers of Abbot's life, in the Biographia Britan-
nica, tell us, that, " When it was found difficult to obtain
" from the States that fatisfaftion [in the matter of Vorjiius]
ff which the King defired, his Grace, in conjunction with
" the Lord Treafurer Salijbury, framed an expedient for con-
** tenting both parties." And for this they cite Win*wooa"s
Memorials. This does not look like the fery zeal of an in-
Jligator. Not to mention that Abbot was too wife and too
good a man, to approve of King James's weak and licentious

Armin'ian

THE CONFESSIONAL. 285

Arminian fyftem. He tells the States, in a letter,
dated March 6th that year, that, " having feen,

manner of writing againft Vorfiius. That Abbot had no cor-
dial affection for the Arminians, is very credible and very
accountable, inafmuch as it was the univerfal opinion of the
wifeft and beft of men in thole times, that Arminiawfm was
a back-door to Popery ; and certain events in our own coun-
try have not at all contributed to difcredit that opinion, as I
obferve below. The Archbishop's difaffection to Grotius was
owing to the endeavours and propofals of the latter towards
a coalition of the Proteftants and Papifts, which every
wife and confident Proteftant, in every period fince the
Reformation, as well as Abbot, has confidered as afuare, and
treated accordingly. In the famous letter of Abbot's againft
Grotius, preferved in Winvcood, the worft part of that great
man's character is taken from the report of others, and
might make the worfe impreffions upon the Archbifhop's
mind, as his Grace was aware of the pernicious tendency of
Grotius'' s negotiations with "James and his Artninianizing pre-
lates, particularly by his joining with the latter in advanc-
ing maxims in favour of arbitrary power. For the reft,
there never was a prelate freer from the fiery zeal of an ec-
clefiaftic, perhaps hardly ever a private clergyman, than
George Abbot. It was reckoned his difgrace in the next
reign, that he did not tread in the fteps of the fiery Ban-
croft. " Had Laud fucceeded Bancroft," faid they, " and
" the project of conformity been followed without interrup-
" tion, the enfuing fchifm might have been prevented."

Fuller's Worthies, Surry, p. 83. " He was flack and

" negligent," fays the firebrand Heylin, ** in '.he courfe of his
" government, and too indulgent to that party, which Ban-
" croft had kept under with fuch juft feverity." Eijl. Prefi.
p. 389.— If to this we add, the noble ftand he made againft
the Spanijb match ; his unwearied endeavours and vigilance
againft popery; his fpirited letter to James I. on that fub-
jeft ; and his not only refufing to licenfe, but confuting the

" in

2S6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" in a letter fent to him by the Sieur Caron, their
" Ambaffador, the opinions of both parties, and
" the arguments by which they are fupported,
" difcuiled at large, it did not appear to him,
" that either of them were inconfiflent with the
" truth of the Chriftian faith, and the falvation
" of fouls.'* [La Roche, Abridgement, vol. I.
p. 325.] Dr. Harris likewife quotes Sir Ralph
Winwood for the fame fact: °.

The two Hiftorians laft cited, Meflieurs La
Roche and Harris, call this a contradiction in
James ; and a contradiction, the latter obferves,
was nothing to him. But, I apprehend, the mod
inconflant 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. Grotius
was very fond of a fcheme he had projected and
entertained, of uniting the Roman Catholics and
Proteftants, wherein he Was for making concef-
fions to the Papifts, which the Proteftants abroad

pofitions in Silthorp's fermon j — thefe particulars, and his
uniform adherence to the fame principles during his whole
life, oblige me to think, that Mr. La Roche, or rather, per-
haps, Brandt, was mifinformed with refpeft to Abbot"1* ex-
citing K. James to declare againft Vorjiius ; and that, taking
the whole of that Archbimop's character together, no eccle-
fiaftic of that time, and very few of any other time, have
lefs abounded with a fiery unjuftifiable zeal, than Archbi-
fhop Abbot.

0 Life of James I. p. 1 24.

WOUld

THE CONFESSIONAL. 287
would never come into. It appears by a letter
of Cafaubon to Grotius, which bears date January
27, 1 612-13, that Grotius had fent ibme papers
to Cafaubon upon this fubject, which the latter
had communicated to James, who greatly ap-
proved them; and he tells Grotius, that " he had
" found nuny Englifj Bifhops, eminent for their
" piety and learning, who revolved in their
u minds night and day the fame thoughts with
" himfelf 1." Which was to fay, that thefe
Bifhops would have made the fame conceffions
to the Papifts, that Grotius contended for. That
James was in the fame way of thinking, is noto-
rious from other documents ; particularly, his
fpeech to his fir ft Parliament1-. Probably he
had not confidered how far he mud depart from
the Confejfion of Faith in which he had been edu-
cated, before the healing meafures of Grotius could
take place, till Monfieur Carcn put into his hands
the refcript he mentions in his letter to the States.
At this time too the Arminians bid fair for being
the triumphant party in the Low Countries ; Gro-
tius and Bamevelt being employed by the States
to draw up the edift intended to reftore tranquil-
lity between the Go?narijh and Arminians* , which

1 Cafaaboris Epiflles, 655, Edit. Eruvfvjick, 1556.

r See the fpeech in Rap in Tboyras, and that hiiiorian's rs-
marks upon it.

J Burigr.i's Life of Grotius, p. 47.

T editf,

188 THE CONFESSIONAL.

edict, according to Cafaubon, was highly approv-
ed of by James and his Bifliops '.

1 Cafaubon. Epift. 963. edit. Almtloween. In this Epiftle
Cafaubon informs Grotius, that " he had difcourfed very
" particularly with the King, the Lord Archbilhop, and
" other Prelates of eminent learning, concerning the Edict
" of the States ; that the King, and all who read it, very
" much approved and applauded the dejign ; — that the King,
w and other moft confiderable men, approved not only the
*' dejign, but the formulary of the Edict, on account of its
" keeping clear of Manichaeifm on the one hand, and of
" Pelagianifm on the other, and confirming that doftrine
" which afcribes the beginning, the progrefs, and the end,
" of our falvation to God alone, without introducing a
'.' contempt for good works." After Grotius had received
this letter from Cafaubon, the Edict was printed ; which was
no fooner done, than it was brifkly attacked and cenfured
by the Contra-remonftrants. Grotius thought himfelf obliged
to defend it (as it was probably his own manufacture) ; and,
among other things, lays great ftrefs on the approbation of
Yang James, Archbifhop ^£<tf, and other Englijh divines ; re-
ferring for his authority to this Epiftle of Cafaubon [vide
Grotii Opera Theolog. torn. iii. Lond. 1679. p. l97-l ^n a
note fubjoined to this paflage in the fecond edition o\~Tbe
ConfeJJional, fome furprize was expreiied, that Archbifhop
Abbot mould be found among the approvers of the Edict, as
he had no great affection either for the projects or opinions
of Grotius; and it now appears to be a debateable point, hovv
far the Archbifhop approved this edict, or whether at all,
and that on the evidence of Cafaubon himfelf. Mr. he Faffor,
at the end of the fourth book of his Hiftory of Lewis XIII.
informs us, that " the Contra-remonftrants produced letters
" from England, importing, that neither the King, nor the
" perfons of the higheft dignity in the church of England,
«' did approve of the edict and conduct of the States of
" Holland-" that is, neither of the formulary , nor of the

• , 2 With

THE CONFESSIONAL. 2S9

Whh thefe impreffions upon his mind, James
wrote the abovementioncd letter to the States.

defign. Mr. Le Vaffor indeed determines for the Remon-
flrants, upon the prefumption, that " the teftimony of Ca-
" faubon, who had himfelf difcourfed the King and the Pre-
" lates upon the fubjecV' (and nabofe integrity, he fays, ivas
" equal to his confummate knowledge) was preferable to the
" anonymous letters alledged by the Contra-rcmonftrants."
I own, I am one among others who do not rate Cafaubons
integrity fo high as his knowledge. Obferve, I am only con-
cerned for Archbifhop Jbbot's fincerity and confiftency,
without inquiring into the fentiments of the others concern-
ing this edict. And what fays C.a faubon of the Archbifhop .?
why, that he difcourfed with him very particularly on the
fubject, but he does not fay what was the refult of that con-
vocation. He fays moreover, that they who read the edict,
highly approved and applauded the deftgn. But he does not
fay, that the Archbifhop fo much as read it. But, however,
it is not improbable, that the Archbifhop might approve
the defgn, confidered merely as a defgnXo promote peace and
union among the contending parties, without any confider-
ation had of the terms of the edict, or the Formulary, which
it i^impoffible the Archbifhop fhould approve, confidently
/-with the principles he was known to efpoufe all his life.
Nor indeed do Cafaubon's words necefTarily imply that he did.
Neque i'ero, fays the epiftlc, conflium duntaxat rex, et alii niiri
gra<vijfimi probavere, fed ct formula?/: quoque ipfam. But that
the Archbifhop was one of thefe other molt confiderable men,
does not appear. I have faid above, that the Archbifhop's
approbation of the Edict is a queilionable point, even on the
evidence of Cafaubon himfelf; and I think even thus far we
fee enough to make that good. What follows is ltill more
to the purpofe. The latter part of this epiltle of Caft
as exhibited in Ahaefowen't edition of 1709 (which I had but
very lately an opportunity of confulting), fpecifies three ex-
ceptions taken to the Edict in its prefent form, in England.
The firil of thefe exceptions was to a doctrinal point, The

T 2 jn

2?o THE CONFESSIONAL.

In the interval between this time and the af-
fembling of the fynod of Dort^ our hiftories af-

Gontra-remonflrants held, that there were fome perfons vchom
Xlod invited to falvation, to whom he had decreed not to give Jal~
vation. The Edicl reprobated this do&rine, and eltablifhed
the contrary propofition. To which Cafaubon fays, Atqui Ji
multi vocati, pauci ?/ft?/,Matth. xx. 16. Ji, ut toties r epet it P au-
las, certus ejl fervandorum numerus, quos ah aterno Deus elegit J
fequiiur nee Jj'ario, non eodem propojito, neque pari ejficacia adja-
lutetn omnes homines vocari. Hoc igiturji auftores Edicii negare
voluerint, multi Jiue-dubio exiftent, qui eorum fententia fefe Jint oppo-
fituri. The fecond offenhve matter was, that in this Edid,
•' the right to decide concerning Articles of faith is given to
" the civil magiflrate," to which the King himfelf objected.
And the third exception was taken to the word educamus,
which was ufed in theEdift, to defcribe the care taken by the
States of the Reformed churches within their jurifdittion, and
feemed to encroach on the province of teaching and intrud-
ing, which the clergy claimed as their own peculiar. That
thefe objections were made by King James and his Divines,
is clear from Cafaubon 's words in the 933d Epiftle of the
HJ'and edition, viz. '* Mire enim illius Majeftati placuit,
** illuilriffimorum Ordinum Confilium ; ipfa quoque For-
** mula omnibus HIG probata, prater admodum pauca, de
" quibus ea libertate ad te fcripfi quam poftulabat fides
'* mea*" It is true, the points objected to were not many ;
but they were of the la(t importance among the Divines of
thofe days, and, in my apprehenfion,affecT:ed the whole Edict
as given by Grctius, who, notwithstanding Cafauboti's exte-
nuation, would well undetftand the force of them ; and that,
no doubt, was the occafion of fuppreffing the latter part of the
Epiftle in the two editions of thefe Epiftles preceding Alme-
loveen's. How that Editor came by this additional part of
the 9^3d Epiftle, he does not inform us. Wherever it lay
hid, the reafons for concealing it might be fuppofed to have
ceafed, and it might be given as a matter of mere curiofity

ford

THE CONFESSIONAL. 291

ford no interefting accounts of King James's
theological fentiments. Cafaubon, in one of his
letters to Grotius, then in England, tells him, that
the Bifhop of Bath and Wells was never from
the King's fide u. And that the Arminian clergy
were not wanting in improving their confidence
with the King, appears from the following paf-

on a point of Hiftory, no longer interefting to the parties
concerned in the tranfa&ion. But what (hall we fay for Mr.
La Roche, who, in his Abridgement of Brandt's Hiftory, gives
us only the frjl part of the Letter, without taking the leafl
notice of thefe exceptions to the formula of the Edict, though
dlmelovecii 's Edition of Cafaubon' s Epiftles had been extant
fixteen years before his faid Abridgement? It is poflible, in-
deed, he might not know the F.piftle was mutilated, and
therefore gave it juft as he found it in Brandt. But it is alfb
poflible that fome Remonftrants contemporary with Mr. La
Roche might think it for the honour of their predeceifors,
that this Edict of the States fhould have the full app robation
of the civil and ecclefiaftical powers in England. It is to be
lamented that thefe little frauds fhould fo frequently occur
in the works even of the moil eminent writers. There is
nothing fo mean, to which they will not defcend to ferve
their party. Had Grotius, in his defence of the Edict, taken
notice of thefe exceptions of which Cafaubon had apprifed
him in the latter part of his letter, the teltimony of the King
cf England and his Divines in favour of the Edict, exhibited
by Cafaubon in the beginning of it, would have been of no
ufe to him. Indeed thefe exceptions fairly decide the dis-
pute mentioned by Le Vaffor, and (hew, that the intelligence
received by the Contra-remonltrants, concerning the fenti-
ments of the EngUJh, with refpect to the Edict, was the moft
authentic.

*■ Epiflf SSS. ed. Aim.

T 5 fage ;

292 THE CONFESSIONAL.

{^c : " It was infinuated to the King, what dan-
" gers would proceed by training up of young
" ftudents in the grounds of Cah'mifm ; — that
" there was no readier way to advance the pref-
4: byterial Government in this Kingdom, than by
" fuffering young fcholars to be feafoned with
" Calvinian doctrines : that it was very hard to
li fay, whether of the two, either the Puritan or
" the Papift, were more deftructive of Monar-
" chical Government w."

This was touching James in a tender part,
and procured fome injunctions to be fent to Ox-
ford, concerning fubfcription to the three Arti-
cles in the 36th Canon, concerning the method
of fludy, and fome other regulations relative to
the demeanour of fcholars, and their fchool-
exercifes x ; but nothing to the difparagement of
doctrinal Calvinifm, anfwerable to the expecta-
tions of the injinuators.

For, by this time, matters had taken a very
different turn in Holland. Some cities did not
approve the Edict abovementioned. The Prince
of Orange had declared againfl the Armenians,
and had a large majority both of the magiftrates
and divines on his fide. And the common
cry was, to have thefe difputes fettled in a na-
tional fynod. Thefe things (which may be feen
in La Roche and other Hiftories) could not

w Hcyllns Life of Laud, p. jl./ub anno 1616.
* Ibid. p. 72.

fail

THE CONFESSIONAL. 293

fail of making impreffions upon James, and
would reftrain him from declaring in favour of
Arminianifm, to which he was, moft probably,
averfe in his heart J.

Accordingly, he chofe fix Divines to affift at
the Synod of Dort, who were well known to
be zealous Cahinijis. Thefe, among other
things, had it in their in ft ructions, " to advife
" thofe Churches to ule no innovation in doc-
" trine — to teach the fame things which were
" taught twenty or thirty years pad in their own
" churches — and nothing which contradicted
6( their own confeffions — to confult, at all times,
" his Majefty's AmbaiTador [Sir Dudley Carleton\
" who, fays the King, underftandeth well the
'• queftions and differences among them z."

Thefe Divines concurred with the Synod in
approving and ratifying the Bclgic Confeffion a,
and confequently in condemning the Remon-
flrants ; and when they returned home, were re-

y~Dr.Feat!y, according to Mr. Hickman, affirmed, that King
James, not many weeks before his death, called the Arminians
Heretics. Animadnjerjions, 2d edit. p. 251.

z " Grotius," fays Mr. La Roche, " found oat [while he
" was in England) that the Englijh Ambaffador at the Hague
" [the fame Sir Dudley €arleton] had reprefented to the Arch-
" bifliop of Canterbury, the ecclefiaftical affairs of Holland
" to the prejudice of the Remonllrants." Abridgement,
vol. I. p. 326.

a In all doclrinal points : entering a proteft, that the church
of England difapproved fome of the difciplinarian Canons.
Fuller, X. p. 81, 82.

T 4 ceived

294 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ceived by James with approbation, and courte-
ous entertainment. Three of thefe he after-
wards preferred to Bifhopricks, viz. Hall, Carle-
ton, and Davenant ; and Balcanqnal was made
Matter of the Savoy. Thefe particulars may be
found in Fuller's Church-Hiftory, and other me-
morials of thofe times ; and are fufficient to fhew,
that at this period, and for fome time after, James
was no favourer of the Armmian Theology.

Perhaps indeed there never was a period, from
his firft accefSon to the Englijh Crown, till the
day of his death, when he would not have made
his divinity bend to his politics. He hated the
Puritans, not for their doctrines, but for their
diflike to a Prelacy. He thought a Monarchy as
neceflary for the church as for the flate ; and
had much the fame idea of Prefbyterian Gaffes
and Conjijlcriesy that he had of Parliaments. He
imagined, that whoever was not a friend to epil-
copal power, mud have the fame objections to
that of Kings. And perhaps he was not much
miftaken, with refpect to his own contempo-
raries.

The Calvinijls in Holland flrenuoufly infiited,
that the Church, conftituted, as theirs was, upon
a republican model, had the fole power of de-
fining matters of faith, and of diftinguifhing be-
tween points neceffary and unneceffary ; and they
held, that the civil magi (Irate *was bound to in-
i'orce the church's decifions, and to difcourage

an4

THE CONFESSIONAL. 295

and fupprefs all fe£ts and herefies contrary there-
unto. They went farther (till. They held that
the civil magiftrate who did not his duty in this
province, ceafed to be a child of God, and might
be depoled from his office. And fome of them
carried this matter fo far, that, upon fome re-
miflhefs in the States to fupprefs what they
called the enemies of God, a deputation had been
lent from the clergy, to offer the fovereignty of
fix of the feven united Provinces to Queen Eli-
zabeth b .

It cannot be denied, that many of the EngliJI)
Puritans entertained the fame notions. Perhaps
the greater part of them in fecret. When any
extraordinary countenance was (hewn to papifts,
either by James, or indeed, before him, by Eli-
zabeth, the Puritans gave no obfcure intimations
of what they thought of the Government ; and
the lefs difcreet among them openly avowed the
lawfulnefs of refilling ungodly Princes, both in
the reigns of Elizabeth and James c.

The King, however, was not fo weak, but
that he faw plainly, Popery was at no great dis-
tance from Arminianifm. The bent of the nation
lay againft both. And probably Abbot's in-

b La Roche, vol. I. p. 229.

c See Strypis Life of tybitgift, p. 291. And Puckering' s
Speech in Fu/Jer's Worthies, Tit. Ttrkfijire, p. 201. Puckering,
yviihout doubt, exaggerated. But his word may be taken
vyith refpeel to the point of the Qneen's Supremacy in eccle-
ftatlical caufes,

fluence

296 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fluence with him, while it lafted, added to the
principles (or, if you pleafe, the prejudices) of his
own education in Scotland, kept him in thefe fen-
timents, the rather perhaps as he did not fee, how
what were called the factious attempts of the Pu-
ritans, were countenanced by the Divinity of
Calvin.

It mud be confeffed, that with fuch a Prince

♦ the Arminian Bifhops had but a difficult game to

play : but they managed it like workmen j and

in the end, turned even the moll unfavourable

circumftances to their own account.

Grotius, and the Remonftrants in Holland,
pleaded for Toleration d ; and, from their holding
this principle, artfully enough fuggefted their
fuperior refpect 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 place in
matters of do&rine, it might, upon equally good
grounds, be claimed for opinions and pracTices
relating to difcipline. And perhaps his objection
to the edift of the States General, mentioned be-
fore, might be founded upon the tolerating
powers veiled by it in the civil magiftrate.

d Qulnquarticulanam litem tanti non facerem, nifi conr
jun&am fibi haberet earn, qux eft de difcretione neceffario-
rum degmatum a non neceilariis, five de mutua Chriftiano-
riiiTi tolerantia. Epifcopius,- apud Hickman, Animadverf.

p. 122.

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 297

The Arminian Bifhops detefted toleration as
much as James could do, and for the fame rea-
fons : but went much farther than their bre-
thren in Holland, in their conceffions to the civil
power ; alledging> that fovereignty, particularly
in Monarch s, was jure divino, and uncontroulable.
They knew this principle could do them no
harm, qualified as it was, by James's 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&able
for the quality, as well as the numbers, of its ad-
herents. And it would not be fo eafily compre-
hended by the people, how they, who were fo
perfectly right in their divinity, could be fo far
wrong in their politics. The next flep then was
to call forne flur upon the doctrines, of the Puri-
tans, and, if poilible, 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 do&rinal, in the EngViJh church. u For-
" merly," fays he, " the word was only taken to
" denote fuch asdifTented from the Hierarchy in
" dilcipline and church-government, which was

" now

298 THE CONFESSIONAL.

(f now extended to brand fuch as were Anti-ar-
(t minimi in their judgements." And he confeifes,
that the word, in this extenfive fignification, was
afterwards improved to afperfe the mod orthodox
in doctrine, and religious in converfation e.

Thefe improvers were the ^r/?z/>z/Vz7z Bifhops and
their adherents. We have feen above, ivbat
they insinuated to James , upon occafion of obtain-
ing from him certain injunctions fent to Oxford,
anno 1616. But dill the eftabliflied Articles of
religion were on the fide of the doclrinal Puri-
tans. The writers againft Arminianifm made that
appear beyond difpute: and Laud himfelf durit,
not deny it.

The next ftep, therefore, was to get the Puri-
tan party filenced, from preaching or printing
any thing upon the fubjecl, Abbofs influence
with King James had been broke, by his untrac-
eable firmnefs in the matter of the Earl of Efex's
divorce; as well as by other accidents : and a
misfortune in his private conduct had afforded
room for the full effect: of Laud's intrigues, who
loft no opportunity of recommending himfelf and
his fyftem to James.

The firft-fruits of Laud's power over the Kinjr
appeared in thofe injunctions, or directions, bear-
ing date Augujl 4th, 1622, wherein, among other
things, it was enjoined, that " no Preacher, un-

e Fuller, Ch. Htft. B. x. p. 99, 100.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 299

u der the degree of a Bifhop or a Dean,— .mould
" from thenceforth prefume to preach — the deep
" points of Prcdc/li nation, Eleflion, Reprobation,
" or of the univerfality , efficacity, refiftibility, or
l( irrcfijlibility, of God's Grace , &c f."

One might afk, how James could reconcile
himfelf to a meafure, which, in the cafe of the
edict of the States- General, had given him pain ?
That is to fay, how he could, as a civil magif-
(rate, alTume a right of making decrees in mat-
ters of religion ?

His Divines would have told us, upon this oc-
cafion, 1. That he was a civil magistrate jure di-
vino ; which was not the cafe with republican ma-
gistrates. 2. That, by a faving claufe in the end
of the direclions, this was only a kind of interim,
till the next Convocation mould. aiTemble.

This, 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 folve; nor. is it very ma-
terial.

r Heylins Hiftory of Laud, p. 97. who confeflcs that his
Hero had a hand in digeiting and drawing up thefe injunc-
tions. What cenfures were parted upon them, may be Teen
in Wilfon and Fuller, fub anno 1622, who both give the in-
iuniftions at large. Thefe cenfures are acknowledged by
Heylin himfelf with great indignation, who, as a lefs fuf-
perted witnefs thun the others in thefe points, may be con-
futed, p. 99.

In

goo THE CONFESSIONAL.

In his fucceffor, Laud found a King more to
his mind. James had no perfonal eiteem for
Laudy and gave him a Bifhoprick with much re-
luctance. His bufy fpirit was accordingly, during
James's reign, obliged to operate in fubordina-
tion to fome Prelates, who had more of the
King's confidence.

But Charles I. was wholly at Laud's devotion.
Hitherto the Cahini/is were barely filenced, and
perhaps hardly that. Wilfon tells us, iC the i\.rch-
e* bifhop recommended it to his Diocefans, that
" thefe directions might be put in execution
" with caution V And Fuller fays, " Thefe
<c instructions were not prefTed with equal rigour
" in #// places, and that fome over-active officials
" were more bufy than their Bifliops, c5V.h ."
However, it is natural to fuppofe thefe injunc-
tions had fome effect ; efpecially among thofe
who expe&ed to rife in the Church.

It was not, however, fufficient for Laud's pur-
pofes, barely to filence Calvin. He wanted to
have Arminius take the chair, and to dictate to
the church of England, inflead of the other.

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

s Life and Reign of King James, p. 201.
h Ch. Hiil. X.Book, p. m.

1 Se/dett, de diis Syris, p. 361. allows that Montague was
Grace Jimul et Latin} dodus.

avow

THE CONFESSIONAL. 301

avow the political, as well as the theological, creed
of Arminius, in the mod pofitive and explicit
terms. Take the ftory from an unqueftionable
authority :

" Mr. Richard Montague, in the one and twen-
" ticth of King James, had published a book,
" which he named, A new Gag for an old Goofe,
" in anfwer to a Popifli book, intituled, A Gag
"for the new Go/pel. The bufinefs was then
" questioned in Parliament k, and committed- to
" the Archbifhop of Canterbury [Abbot], and
" ended in an admonition to Montague,

f( Afterwards, the Bifhops of the Arminian
" party, confulted [confulting] th& propagation
" of the five articles condemned in the fynod of
" Dort, concluded that Mr. Montague, being al-
" ready engaged in the quarrel, fhould publifh
" this latter book \_Appelh Cafareni], at firft at-
u tefted by their joint authorities, which after-
" wards they withdrew by fubtilty, having pro-
" cured the fubfeription of Dr. Francis White
" [Dean of Carli/Jc], whom they left to appear
M alone in the teftimony,as himfelf oft-times com-
w plained publickly. The Archbifhop difallow-
" ed the book, and fought to fupprefs it ; never-
" thelefs it was printed, and dedicated unto

k Upon the complaint of two Divines of the Diocefe of
Norwich, Mr. 7'ates and Mr. Ward. " They accufed him of
" dangerous errors of Arminianifm and Popery, deferring our
" caufe, inilead of defending it." Fuller, Ch. Hilh B. XT.
p. 119. Tata afterwards wrote againii Montague.

« Kine

302 THE CONFESSIONAL.

** King Charles, whereby that party did endea-
te vour to engage him in the beginning of his reign.
" The houfe appointed -a Committee to examine
" the errors therein, and gave the Archbifhop
u thanks for the admonition given to the author,
" whofe books they voted to be contrary to the
" articles eftablifhed by the Parliament, to tend
" to the King's diftionour, and disturbance of
" church and ftate, and took bond for his ap-
" pearance l ."

Charles at firft attempted to take Montague out
of 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 Buckingham, " he \Laud~\ thought it a
" matter of iuch ominous concernment," fays
Fuller, <c that he entered the fame in his Diary,
11 in thefe words : Ifeem to fee a cloud arife, and
" threatening the church o/*England ; God for his
" mercy dijjipate ;Vm.

But this little-fpirited champion was not fo to
be baffled. He knew the Duke's power with the
King, and, in conjunction with the Bifhops of
Rochejler and Oxford, recommended Mr. Mont a*
nitc's caufe to him, as the caufe of the church of
England.

1 Rujbworth, vol. I. p. 173.
m Church Hijl. Book xi. p. 121..

Ruflnvorth

THE CONFESSIONAL. 303

Rujhworth hath given us the topics they infill-
ed on in this recommendation, which I mail here
transcribe ; taking leave to intermix ilich re-
marks as occur upon the fevcral particulars of it.

" They mew, thatfdme of the opinions which
M offended many, were no other than the refolvcd
u doctrine of this church."

The opinions here meant, were the opinions of
thofe who maintained the divine right of Kings,
which was underflood to be afferted in our efla-
bliihed formularies both of doctrine and difci-
pline. When our churchmen refolved thefe
points in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King
James, they were oppofing the king-killing doc-
trines of the Papifts. But, not confining them-
felves to the confutation of arguments merely
Popifh} they made the right of Kings abfolutely
indefcafvble 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
u liberty of learned men to abound in their own
« fenfe iw

Thefe were t\\t five points of doctrine, difputed
between the Calvinijls and Arminians. Could
I. and have found the means to frame and eitablifh,
a new fet of Articles, I am perfuaded, he would
have left little room for the Calvinijls to abound
in their own fehfe. As things were circum-
U {lanced,

304 THE CONFESSIONAL,

ftanced, he was to make the belt of the prefent
fet, which was, by pleading in words for a latitude
of fenfes, and by infinuating that thefe difputed
points were matters of no great confequence, and
might be innocently held either way. We mall
fee by and by how his aclions eon trailed thefe
verbal pretences.

" It being the great fault of the council

" of Trent to require fubfcription to fchool-opi-
11 nions, and the approved moderation of the
" church of England, to refufe [perhaps refute}
** the apparent dangers and errors of the church
6{ of Rome ; but not to be overbufy with fchola-
" flieal 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 England
did not, require fubfcription to thefe fchool-opi-
nions in a determinate fenfe \ the very reverfe
of which is the honeft truth. " MelanSlhon, as
" may be feen above, accufed the council of
" Trent of making crafty decrees, that they might
*' defend their errors by things ambigimtfly fpo-
f( ken." That is to fay, by fach ambiguities, as
permitted the Jefuits and Dominicans to abound
in their own fenfe refpe&ively, upon thefe very
fchool-points *. And when Grotius came to

1 See above, chap. iv. See likewife, ILylins Quinquarti-
€ular Hitf. p. 26. an&-Hiekimn''i Aflimac!.,p. 42. *

■ . tl » pea<i

THE CONFESSIONAL. 305

plead the caufe of the Arminians before the Ma-
giftrates of Amflerdam, he alledged among other
things, " that the doctrines difputed in Holland
" had not been decided by the church of Rome
(t (and confequently not by the council of Trent),
" though fhe is extremely fond of decifions."
Which doctrines were the very fame with the
fchool-opinions difputed in England™. On the
other harid, the apparent dangers and errors of the
church of Rome, were doctrines and practices,
fo founded upon the Arminianfide of thefe fchool-
niceties, that the church of Engla?id did not think
the apparent errors or dangers could be refufed
or refuted, without determining xhtkfchbol niceties
the other way. Which was accordingly done in
the xxx ix Articles. Was Laud ignorant of all
this, or was he playing the Jefnit ? And, of all
things, that he fhould talk of the moderation of
the church of England!

9- " Moreover, in the prcfent cafe, they al-

" ledge, that in the time of Henry VIII. when the
" clergy fubmitted to the King's fupremacy, the
" fubmifhon was fo refolved, that, in cafe of any
M difference in the church, the King and the Bi-
ff fhops were to determine the matter, "in a na-
«< rional fynod."

But who made the difference in the church in
the prefent cafe? Thefe vCry Bifhops. And was
it not moft reafonable, that they fhould be both

01 LaRecbc, Ahiidgcm«nt, voj. I. p. 544.

U 2 Judges

3o6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Judges and Parties ? But this was calculated for
the meridian of Charles's apprehenfion ; and to
furnifh him with an argument for taking Monta-
gue's caufe out of the hands of the Parliament.

" And if any other judge in matters of

fC do&rine be now allowed, we depart from the
" ordinance of Chriit, and the continual practice
" of the church."

Had the Parliament called for this ordinance of
Cbrijf, where would fhefe prelates have found it ?
Had they forgot, that K. Henry VIII. fo lately
quoted, pafiing by the Bifhops, and the national
Synod, made the Univerfities of Europe judges m
a very important point of doctrine ?

" Herewithal they intimated, that, if the .

" church be once brought down below herfelf,
*' even Majefly itfelf would foonbe impeached.'*

No Bifhop, no King.

" They fay farther, that K. James, m

" his rare wifdom, approved all the opinions i^
" this book/'

Perhaps fome tolerably juft notion may be,
formed, from what goes before, what opinions,
concerning the five points, James approved. It
is highly probable he continued a Calvinifl in
judgement, even to the very laft. No doubt but
he approved Montague's political principles.

« -And

THE CONFESSIONAL. 307

c< And that mofl of the contrary opi-

ft nions were debated at Lambeth, and ready to
" be publiflied, but were fuppreffed by Q^ Eli-
" zabeth."

And were thefe opinions only debated at Lam-
beth ? or only ready to be publifhed ? Surely Ban-
croft gave a different account of them at the
Hampton Court Conference. Thefe Bifhops would
have it believed, that Queen Elizabeth fupprefled
thefe Articles, out of a diflike to the fubj eel-
matter of them. Whereas the diflike was to the
method ufed in the procuring of them, and to the
Archbifhop's fending them to Cambridge, to be
difputed in the fchools. She was certainly dii-
pleafed with Peter Baro, for efpoufmg the con-
trary doftrines, which indeed gave the firfb occa-
fion of framing thefe Articles. And Baro being
profecuted in the Vice-Chancellor's court at Cam-
bridge, for contradicTing thefe Articles, after
Whitgift had received orders to fufpend them,
the Queen's fupprcjjion could amount to a very
fmall matter, fince it is plain they ftill continued
to have their currency in Cambridge, as much as
.before".

- — And fo continued p. <?. to be fuppreffed]
" till of late they received countenance at the
" Synod of Dort. which was a fynod of another

n Stnpe's Life of 'Whitgift, book iv. chap. xvii. xviii. See
Jikcwifc Sykes's Reply to Waterland's Supplement.

U 3 t* nation,

3c8 THE CQNFESSIONAL.

ft natron, 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 doctrine of the church
pf England ; and to Ireland, where they were in-
corporated with their Articles of Religion. And
Mr. Pym, in his fpeech in Parliament, Jan. 27,
1 628, fays exprefsly, They were avowed by us and
cur Jlate°. On the other hand, one would
wonder, what, in the opinion of thejfe Bifhops,
amounted to f receiving the Synod of Dort 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, concerning
all doctrinal matters. The King approved what
they had done, and no churchmen in the king-
dom were more favoured by him. This puts me
in mind of Mr. Le CJerc's . obfervatipn upon the
conduct of the French Divines, in regard to the
council of Trent. In their public fcholaftic dif-
putations, they cite the canons of that council, as
decifive againfl the hetorodox fide of theological
queftions. But, being preffed with the abfurdity
of fome of thofe canons, by their Proteftant ad-
verfaries, their cant is, that the council of Trent
was never received in France p.

0 Rufhwcrth, vol. I. p. 647.

f Defenfe des Sentimens, £sY. fur l'Hift. Critique. Lett.
xui.

" — • — And

THE CONFESSIONAL. 309

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 opi-
" nions, as fome are, which are oppofite to thofe
" delivered by Mr. Montague, be publicly taught
rt 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 refpect to religion or politics, could
poflibly be right.

il Such," fays Rujhiuortb, " was the opinion
" of thefe forenamed Bifliops ; but others, of
" eminent learning, were of a different judge-
" ment<i."

And no wonder. It would be no eafy matter
to mew lb much prevarication in reafoning, or
fo much falfhood and mifreprefentation of fa£ts,
in any other refcript of the fame length.

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 hs
would.

Lrtz/<i,accordingly,got the prohibition to preach
upon thefe controverted points, extended to Deans

•» RuJJ:v:orth, vol. L p. 177,

U 4 and

3io THE CONFESSIONAL.

"and Bifhops ; in confequence of which, Bilhop
Davenant was convened' before the council, where
he was reprimanded by Harfnet, Archbifhop of
York, for tranfgrefling his Majefty's Declaration,
in a Lent-fermon at Court, 1626 (the crafty
Laud walking by the while, without fpeaking one
word). Davsnant infilled, that he had not
broken the Declaration ; and they could not
contradict him, but were forced to fly to his Ma-
jefty's intention, which turned out %o be, " that
" he Would not have this }>igh point [of Prede-
v ftinationj meddled withal, or debated, either;
" the one way, or the other r." It was but a
very little before that Laud had faid, et thefe cu-
41 rious points fhould be left to the liberty of
li learned men, to abound in their otvnfenfe." But
the Parliament, which differed from him on this
head, was now difTolved ; and mod probablyLtfz/J
never expected to fee another.

I hope, the foregoing particulars, may be fufH-
cient to fhew, that fubferibing with a latitude, or
taking, particular Articles in different fenfes, was
an artifice of Archbifhop Laud's, to open a way
£or his own Arminian opinions.

He hath been followed, however, by many io
this practice, who have neither had his views,
ror approved his example, in other things; and
tvho therefore muff, be fuppofed to have fome
realbns of their own, to determine them in a

» fuller's Church Hill, h. xi. p. 138—141.

practice,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 311

practice, which, at firft fight, is hardly defenfible.
Let us confider what thefe reafons may be.

1. Then, it is generally underftood, rhat the
points in diipute between the Arminians and the
Calvinijh are points of no confequence, and may
•be held either way, withour any derriment to the
true faith.

Dr. Nicholls calls them, * Theological points,
" which do not affect the main of religion." So
did Hey/in before him ; and he had it undoubt-
edly from his mailer Laud. King James too,
once upon a time, thought fit to fay, " that, if
" the fubjecl of Vorjlius's Herefies [in his book de
i{ Deo] had not been grounded upon questions of
" higher quality, than touching the number and
u nature of the facraments, the points of meritt
" of jiiJ}{ficationy of purgatory, of the vifible head
f* of the church, or any fuch matters, we fhould
" never have troubled ourfelves with the bufi-»
kt nefs."

Upon which, Mr. Tindal, the rranflatorof Ra-
pin T/joyras, thus defcants : " As if wrong no-
** tions or errors concerning the effence of God
" were more pernicious than fuch corrupt no-
fs tions and principles, as are dcftrucTive of mo-
" rality, and repugnant to God's moral chara-
" cter l ." Such, I fupp ofe, as Mr. Tindal takes
the notions and principles of the Cahinijh (among
others) to be ; and confequcntly efteems them

' Tindal' f Rupin, 8vo» 1730. vol. ix. p. 353,

points

3i2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

points of great importance. It is much, however,
if Vorjllus orhis followers did not draw fome con-
ditions of the moral kind, from their fpeculations
on the ejfence of God,

Bifhop Burnet^ in his travels, met with an emi-
nent divine among the Lutherans in Germany,
upon whom he preffed an union with the Cahin-
ijls, as neceffary upon many accounts. To which
the faid Divine anfwered, that, " He wondered
" much to fee a Divine of the church of Eng-
u land prefs that fo much on him, when we,
" notwithftanding the dangers we were then in,
" could not agree our differences. They differed
" about important matters, concerning the attri-
" butes of God and his providence ; concerning
•* the guilt of fin, whether it was to be charged
" on God, or the finner ; and whether men
" ought to make good ufe of their faculties, of
*' if they ought to trufi entirely to an irrefiflible
" grace. Thefe were matters of great moment.
" But, he faid, we in England differed only
i( about forms of government and worfhip, and
" things which were in their own nature indif-
" ferent, &&*?'

It would be a very flrange thing, if the fcri-
ptures, rightly underflood, mould give any real
occafion to the queflion, whether the guilt of fin
is to be charged on God or the finner ? But if

1 Preface to Burnet's E.xpof. at the end.

occafion

THE CONFESSIONAL. 3r5

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 fupreme God into judge-
ment, as a party, with one of his creatures, and
fubjecting him to the fentence of another of
them. The fcriptures, in truth, give no jufl oc-
cafion for any fuch controverfy. But if occafion
is taken for fuch difputes from Creeds, Confef-
iions, and Articles of religion of human device ;
and if, in particular, fuch a difpute may be railed
from the exprefs terms of our own Articles, mould
not a ferious and confiderate man be cautious
how he fubfcribes them ? Would it not be inex-
cufeably rafh to take it for granted, that they
contain matters of no confequence ?

Perhaps o.urprefent fubfcribers are generally,
tho' not univerfally, of the Arminian perfuafionu.

u Mr. La Roche indeed fays, " The Doctrine of Arminius,
" whom that Prince [James J.] called an enemy to GoJ, has
*' been long ago the dodrine of the church of England.'"
Abridgement, vol. i. p. 319. I fhould be glad to know what
the church reprefentative would fay to this, and whether
they would allow of this reprefentation of La Roche, or adopt
that of another foreign Divine, who argues thus, " Though-
" the Annir.iam are particularly favoured by the church of
" England; though Arminianifm may be faid to have become
" predominant among the members of that church, or at lcaft
*' to have lent its injluence in mitigating feme of its articles in
V the private fentiments of thofc who fubferibe them ; yet

J. mean,

3i4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

I mean, fuch of them as are of any perfuafion at
all. For, I doubt, few of them confider (if in-
deed they know) the difference between that and
the perfuallon of the Calvinijls. Surely it con-

*'• the Thirty-nine Articles of the church of England dill main-
" tain their authority, and when we judge of the doctrine
** and difcipline of any church, it is more natural to form
*• tnis judgement from its eftablifhed Creeds and Confefionct
" Faith, than from the fentiments and principles of particu-
*i lar perfons." See Mr. Madame" s note [a] on Mojheim,
Ecclef. Hift. vol. ii. p. 574, ed. 410. By which it mould
ieem, that the doctrine of the church of England 'is not, nor
iince the enablifhmcnt of the xxxix Articles ever was, Ar-
minian. Both ihefe writers fpeak with great rcfpecl of the
church of England on all occafions ; and, I dare fay,
nothing was farther from the thoughts of either of them,
when they made thefe obfcrvations, than to do the leaft dis-
honour to that church. Thereafon of their refpective judge-
ments, which foever of them you agree with, is obvious ;
namely, the apparent difagreement of the doctrine of many
cf the molt, eminent divines of the church of England, with
the doctrine of the Articles. And, after this, is it not a jeft
to talk of the xxxix Articles as a Confeffion of Faith and Doc-
trines, to the truth of which the Governors of the church cf Eng-
land have a right to require all th of e to fubfcribe nvho are admit-
ted to the office of public teachers in it, by way of giving the go-
vernors of the church fufHcient afTurance of the foitndnefs of their
Fuiih and Doclrines ? This is Dr. Rutherforth's language in
his Vindication ; not indeed with refpe*?c to the xxxix Arti-
cles of his own church, for the fame confeffion of faith and
doclrines to which his Vindication is applied, may be a very
d'ffcrcnt confeffion of faith and doctrines from that contained
in the faid Articles. And yet, as the learned Profeflbr takes
the Governors of the church of England, among others, into
his patronage, one would think, he would hardly walte his
precious time in vindicating to them a right which ihey do
pot exeiciie.

cerni

THE CONFESSIONAL. 315

cerns fuch fublcribers not a little, to be fatisfied
whether our prefcnt Articles are truly and pro-
perly capable of an Arminian fenfe or not. But
of this more by and by.

2. Another thing which draws in fubfcribera
of the prefent generation is, that, whereas Armi-
nianifm was heretofore efteemed 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.

" Rapin" fays Mr. Tindal in a note, <c as well
*' as mod of our writers, efpecially thofe of the
" Puritan party, feem to confound two things,
" which have no manner of relation to each
" other, viz, Arminianifm, and High-church
" principles." He then puts down five propo-
rtions, which, according to him, contain the
Arminian do&rine, which the Synod of Dort,
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,
<c friend to popery, or arbitrary power w."

Mr. Tindal mould 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

v Tindtfi Ripin, utfufra, vol. X. p. l6.

rl*»

3i6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

the proportions Mr. T. hath exhibited, with the
genuine ones in La Roche's Abridgement of
Brandt.

The Calvinijls too, certainly inferred the law-
fulness of refitting wicked and unrighteous
Princes, from their theological principles of
Eleclion and Grace.

Heylin fays, that Calvin called the contrary
do&rine civil idolatry*. And Grotius, artfully
enough, improved the prejudices which Magi-
strates would entertain againft thefe unprincely
notions, to the advantage of his own party, by
infmuating the infinite reverence which the prin-
ciples of the Arminians obliged them to have for
the civil powers. The Englifh Arminians went
ftili farther. By excluding Eleclion from any
fhare in the foundation of Dominion, and fubfii-
tuting indefeafible hereditary right jure divino in
its place, refinance, even to a Nero or a Caligula,
became a damnable fin. Laud, as we have ieen,<
affirmed boldly, that civil Government would be
tifelefs, if fome fatal opinions, oppofite to thofe
of Montague, were to prevail. And Mr. Tinda!
himfelf confelfes, that Laud, Neile^ and Montague,
were for fetting the King above the Laws. And
I know fome very worthy and eminent perfons,
Warm and faft friends to the civil and religious
lights of mankind, who are of opinion to this

x Hiftory of the PrelbyterianA, in the beginning.

hour.

THE CONFESSIONAL: 317

hour, that refinance, even to wicked princes, can-
not be juftified upon religious principles, without
having rccourfe to the theological doctrines of the
ancient Puritans and Independents.

If the Avminians have learned to feparate the
divinity of their forefathers from their politics, it
is (o much the better for the public. But, I fear,
they have not been altogether fo fuccefsful in
weeding their doctrine from the feeds of Popery.

That cafe (lands thus : The fcandalous traffick
of Indulgences gave the firft occafion to Luther
to difcover the corruptions of Popery, and af-
forded him the firft grounds of his oppofition to
to them. But Indulgences were founded on the
Merit of Good-words, and that again on Freewill ;
and, what is more, were {o founded by St. Paul's
own reafoning : To him that worketh is the reward
not of grace ', but of debt -v.

The Reformers univerfally, in a greater or lefs
degree, purfuedL^/^r'-r fcheme of interpretation.
They thought they had very good grounds in
fcripture for excluding Freewill from any ihare
*in the work ofj unification. And therefore, when
the Arminians arofe, the Puritans apprehended,
with great reafon, that, by opening a door to
Free-agency, it would be impofhble to prevent
Purgatory, Saint-worfhip, Indulgences, &c. from
breaking in along with it. And they who will

J Rom. iv. 4.

take

3i8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

take the pains to read Montague's Appeal, and
HeylirCs Introduction 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
oecafion at lead, to offend or difturb no man
with my private opinions. One thing, however,
I beg leave jufl: to mention, in favour of the
Cahini/is ; namely, that fome very eminent men
of the prefent generation have gone a great way
in their phllofophical difquifitions , towards vindi-
cating the predeftinarian theology of thefe our
forefathers \ And, when it is confidered, that

2 See Dr. Hartley's dbfervations on Man, pafltth ; but
particularly his Remarks on the Mecbanifm of the human mind,
at the end of the firft volume. Thournfeyor's Letters in the
Magafin Francois, publifhed 1750, 1 7^1 . In a former edi-
tion, I inadvertently added to thefe citations, The Preface to
Bifhop Law's Translation of King's Origin of Evil; for which
I afk his pardon. The book was not then at hand ; and I
cited from my memory. But what I meant to cite was A
Preliminary DiJJertation concerning the Fundamental Principle
of Virtue or Morality, prefixed to Bifhop Lav/: Tranflation
abovementioned, but the work of another hand. Perhaps it
may be thought that I had no right to join this author to the
other two ; and to thofe who think fo, I readily give up the
point, after obferving, that Dr. Hartley makes the Mechar.ijm
of the Human M'uid one confequence flowing from the doc-
trine of Jjfcciations, which was undeniably held, and puihed

fo

THE -CONFESSIONAL. 319
fo able a writer as Dr. Clayton, the late Bifhop of
Glogher, could find no other way of eflablifhing
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
nattily conclude, that the Cafoinifts have nothing
material to fay for themfelves*.

pretty far by the author of the Preliminary Dijjertalion, whoj
as I have been informed upon good authority, was the late
reverend and ingenious Mr. Gay, Fellow of Sidney-coWege,
in Cambridge.

"Thoughts on Self-Love, Innate Ideas, &c. Lond. 1753.
The Apoftle Paul hath faid, There mtt/l be herefas, 1 Cor.
xi. 9. not ex mcejfnate rei ab inius, but from the perverfe
nature of man, fay his interpreters. Perhaps, if men had
been candid, capable, and upright throughout, all their con-
troverfies, from Paul's time to this hour, might have been
avoided, fave one, that concerning Predejliriaiion, which mud
probably have arifen at all events. — lam told, this note hath
given offence, as it fuppofes the fcriptures to give fome
countenance to the Predeftinarian hypothefis, as if it were
capable of making impreifions upon the judgement of the
moft enlightened minds. " Whereas," it is faid, " the
" errors and abfurdities of that hypothefis have been as
" eafily detected and confuted, fince the revival of Letters
" and Philofophy, as any other theological dream of the
" darker ages." The objectors, I hope, will excufe me for
faying, that I think this means no more than that A>mi;iia~
*<>/>» has been for a great part of the lafi: century, and as
much of theprcfent as hath run off, the ruling fyllem of the
times, though perhaps rather taken fcr granted by the ge-
nerality, than efpoufed upon reafonable conviction. As far
as I can judge, many of thole who have cenfured the tenets
of the Cal-jimjls, have been little beholden either to Utters
or philofophy for the arguments thfv have brought 2gainfl

X But,

32o THE CONFESSIONAL.

But, to leave the theoretical part of this pro-
blem for the prefent : Thofe old worthies who

them, and have feemed to me, amidft all the afperity with,
which they have cenfured them, almoft utter Grangers, ei-
ther to the ftrength of their own eaufe, or the weaknefs of that
of their adverfaries. Some of them have treated the fubjeft
in fo fuperficial a way, adorned indeed with all the pleafing
elegancies of language, as hardly to touch the material
obje&ions either of the ancient or modern Predefiinarians.
Will not thefe good people be a little furprized, that in
the year 1769, a warm, but fenfible writer, and no very
contemptible reafoner, fhould arife,. and call upon them to
vindicate " their loofe Arminian principles from the charge
" of tending to the rankejl Atheifm?" [See the Preface to a
late tradt, intituled, The doBrine of abfolute Pr-edefinati on fated
and ajferted; printed for J. Gurney, 1769, p. xvi.] They
who have read another trad by the fame hand, intituled.
The Church of England 'vindicated from the charge o/Ar»
mini an ism, will difcern how unequal even the Public Ora-
tor of Oxford was to the tafk he had taken upon himfelf,
and how pitiably he falls under the difcipline of this fhrewd
and mailerly Cahinif. Think not, gentle reader, there is
any undue partiality in this commendation. The Devon/hire
Calvinijl appears, by fome flirts thrown out in the laft-
mentioned pamphlet, to have no greater predileftion for
The Confejjtonal, than the Oxford Arminian ; and from thence
I once conjectured, that they were equally indifpofed to-
wards any relaxation of our prefent fubfcriptions j hoping,
however, for the honour of their penetration, not with a
common view of avoiding di<verjtty of opinions touching true
religion. I was however miftaken in my conjecture, and, in
juftice to the ingenious writer, as well as myfelf, I tranf-
cribe the following pallage from the Account of the Life of
Jerom Zanqhius, prefixed to The DoSlrine of abfolute
Predf/linaiion Jlatsd and ajferted, &c. p. xxiii. " I (hall here

predicted

THE CONFESSIONAL. pi

predi&ed the return of Popery, in confequence
of the introduction of Arminianifm, were not fo

" beg leave to intcrpofe one queftion, naturally arifing
" from the fubjedt. What good purpofe do the impofition
" and the multiplication of unneceflary fubfcriptions to forms
" of human compofition, tend to promote ? 'Tis a fence
" far too low, to keep out men of little or no principle ;
•* and too high, fometimes, for men of real integrity to
" furmount. It often opens a door of ready admiffion to
•■ the abandoned i who, oftrich-like, care not what they fwal-
" low, fo they can but make fubfeription a bridge to fecu-
** lar intereft ; and for the truly honejl, it, frequently, either
" excludes them from a fphere of aftion, wherein they
" might be eminently ufeful ; or obliges them to teftify
" their aflent in fuch terms, and with fuch open profefTed
*' reftriftions, as render fubfeription a mere nothing." And
now it may be aflced, what is the offence that the author of
The CcnfcJJional hath given to this Biographer of Zancbius ?
Do they not feem to be fellow-labourers in the fame
laudable caufe ? Let us examine. " The reverend and dig-
V nified author of The Confejfional is a Saint, when fet in com-
" petition with fuch divines." That is, with divines who
endeavour to twift and torture Calviniftic articles into a
fenfe they are incapable of bearing. [Cb of ' Eng. wind, from
the Charge of Jrminianifm, p. 26.] True, a Saint, when
compared with thefe men ; but the fneer would have no
fting, if it did not imply, that the faid author is a mod
grievous finner, when fet in competition with this reverend,
but undignified, Vindicator. And for what ? Even for plead-
ing for alterations, and crying out with the naughty Monthly
Reviewers, M Our eftabliihed forms are not fuch as mi:;ht
•' be wiftied, and ought to be re-modeled." Ibid. p. 25. But
if our eltablifhed forms, confidered as human cotnpofttiens,
ought r.st to be re-modeled, they ought $,0 be profefTed, ufed,

X 2 widely

322 THE CONFESSIONAL.

widely miftaken, as to the event, as may be ima-
gined. They had good reafons to expect it, from

and taught, as they now Hand in our authorized books.
And if fo, I would defire to know, why they ought not to
be fubfcribed ? Is the man who profeffes and teaches doctrines
which he doth not approve, ever the more a Saint, becaufe
he doth not fubfcrihe them ? And, in this cafe, what will you
gain by taking away fubferiptions ? The door will open and
Jhut, jufl as it did before. Men of integrity will no more
profefs and teach according to formularies they do not ap-
prove, than they will fubfcribe to them ; and the abandoned
will profefs and teach whatever the authorized book you lay
open before them appears to prefcribe. But perhaps we
are all this while miftaken ; and the learned Vindicator,
with all his perfuafion of the no good purpofe anfwered by
impofing fabfcriptions in general, may make a referve in
favour of our xxxix Articles and Homilies ; fo at leafl I
conjecture from the profound refpect he pays them in the
following paflage : " Not the fermons and private writings
" even of our Reformers themlelves are to be taken for au-
" thentic tells of our eilablifhed doctrines as a church, but
" thofe stubborn things, called Articles and Homi-
" lies, which have received the fandtion of la<w, and the
" flamp of public authority. Thefe fubborn things (for fuch
"they are) ftill remain, blessed be God, to flare fome
•' certain folks in the face, and to demonftrate the glaring
•■' apoftacy of fuch as fay they are Jews, and are not, but are
" found liars. To thefe Jtubborn things we are to appeal,
** by thefe every fubferiber is bound, and from thefe our
*' doctrines mull be learnt." Find. p. 41. Does not this
read as if thefe Articles and Homilies were fomething more
than human compofiions, even as fubborn and authentic things
as the fcriptures themfelves ? Would a man of common
charity blefs God that thefe fubborn things remain only as
Humbling blocks to weak brethren, to fare them out of
countenance, and to make men liars, who perhaps very

the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 323

the whole conduft of Laud and his fellows. And,
though thefe were feafonably ftopp'd in their ca-

honeftly think that fome parts of them are in no agree-
ment with the word of God. If this be the only .ufe of
their ftubbsmnefs, away with them, let them be no longer
found among the furniture of a Chriftian church ; and ra-
ther let God be glorified, that his word hath its free courfe,
unincumbered and unadulterated with the fallible and pre-
carious doftrines and commandments of men. Had it not
been for this ftubbom dignity afcribed to our Articles and
Homilies, I ihould have concluded that this ingenious
writer had a more generous view in condemning impofed
fubfcriptions, than merely to accommodate his friend Zan-
ckius with an apology for fubfcribing firft the Augsburgh
Confeflion with a mo do, and afcerwards the articles pro-
pofed by the AfTembly convened by the Senate of Strafburgh,
without one. Zanchius'* fecondfubfcription was in thefe words,
Hanc doSlrina formulam ut piam agnofco, ita etiam recipio.
The Divines, who required it, underftood it to be zjimple and
abfolute acknowledgment of the orthodoxy of the fubfcribed
Articles, and treated it accordingly. And fo I believe
would any plain man have done, had not Hofpinian informed
us, that Zanchius meant, Quatenus ipse formam piam judi-
cabat. Hiji. Sacrament, pars II. p. 543. which might
poflibly reprobate nine-tenths of thefe Articles in the judge-
ment of Zancbius. Mr. Bayle calls this a mental refer-vation,
and, I own, I cannot but be of his mind. Much more wil-
lingly do I mention another thing recorded by Hfpinian,
greatly for the honour of Zanchius. Upon his coming to
Strajburgh in the year 1553, being required to fubferibe to
the Augsburgh Confeflion, he alledged, among other reafons
why he could not fubferibe to it Jimply and abfolutely, that,
That honour was due to the /acred Jcriptures alone, becaufe they
alone are, and ought to be, the Rule and Standard of all Chriftian
iottrine. Ibid. p. 535. If Zanchius was in the right in this

X 3 reer,

324 THE CONFESSIONAL.

reer, their principles have been efpoufed and pur-
iued by their fucceflbrs, in fuch fort, as to give

inftance, and if his late Biographer and Tranflator does not
fet the xxxix Articles of the Church of England upon a level
with the facred fcriptures (concerning which, it is hoped, he
will, at fome time,- explain himfelf), cannot he conceive it
pojjille that fome perfons may be as honeftly fcrupulous about
the Predeftinarian Articles in our collection, as Zancbius was
about the facramental ones in the Augnjlan Confeffion ? and
may not fuch perfons fubferibe the one with a. previous limi-
tation, as innocently and uprightly as Zancbius fubferibed the
other? Obferve, I do not bring the Nowellists within
this cafe, who, having firfl vurefted the Predeftinarian Articles
to an A minian fenfe, pretend to fubferibe them Jimply and
abfolutely. They ftill lie at the mercy of the Vindicator. In-
deed 1 hsve no fufpicion that it was Arminianijm which un-
fainted the author of The ConfeJJional in the opinion of the
faid Vindicator. So much is faid in that virulent pamphlet (as
Dr. Novell has it), on the fide of Calviaifm, that fome of
the wife heads of Oxford have, without any modification, re-
prefented the Author as in the very bonds of that iniquity ;
and had the Confeffionaliil confined himfelf to that difqui-
f:tion, it is probable he might have kept his place, though
en inferior one, jn the ingenious Vindicators Calendar. But
having had the effrontery to folicit a Review of our Trini-
tarian formularies, he could hardly efcape the wrath of the
Vindicator, who chufes to connecT: the reputation of the
Church of England fo clofely with that of Jerom Zancbius,
This fame Zancbius, it feems, wrote a book, De tribus Elo-
him una eodemque Jehova, " fraught" as his Biographer
allures us, " with the molt folid learning and argument."
Every one, however, has not been of this mind, as appears
by the teilimony of old Thomas Rogers, who, in a note on the
3th Article, gives us the following anecdote : " Myfelf,
" (ome ;8 years ago, heard a great learned man, whofe
" name upon another occafion afore is exprefied (to whofe

more

THE CONFESSIONAL. 325
more than a fufpicion to fome competent obferv-
ers, that the church of England has been, and ftill

" acquaintance I was artificially brought), which, in private
" converfation betwixt him and myfelf, termed worthy Zan-
" chius a Fool and an Afs for his book de tribtts Elohim,
" which refuteth the new Arians, againft whofe Founders the
" Creeds of Athanajius and the Nicene were devifed."
Hence it appears, that to flur Athanajius, is to reflect upon
Zancbius ; and hence undoubtedly, the original Sin of the au-
thor of The Confejfional ' ; who will think himfelf in luck if
he fares no worfe in the hands of the Vindicator, than his
great learned man did in thofe of our primitive Expofitor,
who concludes his melancholy tale thus : " Him I atten-
" tively heard," [I wifti he had told us all he heard] " but
" could never fince abide him, and indeed, I never faw him
" fince." An edifying inftance how the odium tbeologicum
operates upon the orthodox ! — But the Vindicator hath difco-
vered another of the unfaintly qualities of the Author of The
Conftjfional. He is a Scoffer. One of Dr. Nonvell'j objec-
tions to the Lambeth Articles is, that " they are urged
*i againft himfelf and his fellows, by the Author of The Con-
*' fejjional." To which the learned Vindicator replies,
" What if they are ? does that in the lead impair their va-
" lue ? I am only concerned that any, who now call them-
'• felves members of our Church, fhould, by deferting her
*' principles, lay themfelves open to the scoffs of fuch
" Authors."/. 54. A ftrange reflection, from a man who
condefcends to fupport the authority of the Lambeth Articles
by fome of the fame reafons and evidence which the Author
o(The Confejfional had, very Jcrioujly, and without the leaft
fhadow of a feoff, made ufe of before him ! A ftrange re-
buke, from a man who, before he difmiifes thefe Articles,
relates the merriment of Queen Elizabeth upon the manner in
which they were procured, which is neither more nor lefs
than a bitter farcafm on Archbifhop Whitgift, who called
himfelf at leaft a member of the church of England! — A
X 4 is,

%z6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

is, tho' by degrees imperceptible to vulgar eyes,
fdging. back once more towards Popery.

Aran ere rebuke from a man who, rather than Dr. Noivell
lhould not be fufficiendy expofed for relying upon Lord
Burleigh's difapprobation of thefe Lambeth Articles, can in-
dulge himfelf in an ill-natured fneer on Mr. Wilkes's non-
proficiency in Theology ! In one word, a ftrange rebuke from
a man who, from one end cf his pamphlet to the other, hath
made the poor public Orator fo fore, that it may be quef-
tioned whether all the plainer in Oxford will fain over the
/cratches in feven years ! But to be ferious. The Vindicator
is " only concerned for the reputation of thofe who call them-
" felves members of the Church of England, and defert her
■"principles." I can affure him, the Author of The Confef-
fonal, scoffer as he is, is concerned for fomething more,
even for the reputation of the Church herfelf, who plants
thefe principles in the manner of a fence, " far too low to
*' keep out men of little or no principle, and Jometimes too
er high for men of real integrity to furmount," and thereby
lays a temptation in the way of frail mortals of a certain
clafs, to call themfelves by her name, even while they defert
her principles. One cannot help, indeed, being a little con-
cerned for the men themfelves (confidering the hard necef-
iity under which fome of them find themfelves), provided
they make no very high preteniions to real integrity. When
they do, and Mill continue deferters, a little fcofing is but a
very gentle corrective. It may new and then take off a lit-
tle fkin, but it breaks no bones, it flops no breath ; and if I
am not miflaken, the cenfure of the Vindicator upon the
planters of fiiz fence juft mentioned, will end in fomething in-
finitely more fevere ih&nfcojing. He tells us, p. 24. that
the late Dr. Hijlin (not the profligate Peter of the Laud&an
age) is reported to have faid, that " our Reformers, who
" drew up fuch Articles, defer-ved to be hanged" For my
part, I am inclined to flievv more mercy to our Reformers,

?« From

THE CONFESSIONAL. 327

ft From the beginning of Charles If* fays a
fenfible writer, " the pulpit took up a new
" fcheme, under the particular influence of
" Archbifhop Laud. A fcheme fo entirely new,
te that it was remonftrated againft by the Parlia-
" ment, as contrary to the Articles, and as what
" had a tendency to carry back the nation into
"Popery. Perhaps, in fomemeafure, the appre-
" hen/ion of that Parliament has been verified.
•" And from Charles I. the new fyflem hath
" chiefly prevailed, down to the prefent pe-
" riod b." And, he might have added, " has
f< been attended with fnitable effects."

If any one isdefirous to fee thefe apprehenjions
verified in particular inftances, he may fatisfy
himfelf by confulting a pamphlet written by Dr.
Du Moulin, fome time Hi (lory -Prof elfor in Ox-
ford, printed in 1680 % which might be conti-

on account of many good things (exclufive of the Articles)
for which we are beholden to them. But I will be free to
declare (and I make myfelf Aire of being fupported by the
Vindicator's fufFrage) that they, " who are for keeping open a
" door of ready admiflion to the abandoned, and for Jhut ting it
" upon men of real integrity" deferve to be hanged as high as
the Monument. And if this defcription fhould happen here-
after to be applied to the ilrenuous endeavours of the
Nowe lusts to keep up the fence of fubfcription ; I dare
fay they will think themfelves tenderly dealt with by the
flripes of a little railhry on their conduct, in comparifon of
the conditions which would reduce them to their neck-<verfg.

b Seagraws True Proteltant, p. 25.

c Intituled, AJhort and true Account of the federal Advances
{he Church of England hath made towards Rome.

nued

328 THE CONFESSIONAL.

nued even to the prefent times, by the addition
of examples (till more Ariking than thofe of Du
Moulin. The effect of which cannot be more
convincingly proved, than by the great and alarm-
ing increafe of Popery in thefe kingdoms d.

The clergy of the church of 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 Janfcnius published his fyftem of Grace,
the good Catholics taxed him with Cahinifm. In
vain did he endeavour to wipe off the afperfion.
In vain did he write mod 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 mewing both the
origin and tendency of his doftrines e.

d See Dr. Stebbing's two little Tratts againft Popery, juft
publifhed. Whoever will be at the pains to confult this
Doftor's Polemical Trails, and compare fome pafTages in them
(particularly in his Rational Inquiry, &c.) with fome things
in thefe little books, will fee how he ia obliged to lower his
high church notions, to battle the papifts ; confcious, as it
ihould feem, that his old principles had too much of a popifh
complexion.

• $>uin in Galliis, quod benrfieii loco fine dubio numeravit, mag-
num adeptns erat librorumCalvinianorum-copiam, quorum de font i-

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 329

The Papifts have common fenfe; and Can fee,
no doubt, into the tendency of certain opinions, as
well as Luther or Calvin did. And, whatever
Janfenius could fay for himfelf, the orthodox
Catholics faw, that, in the next generation, his
followers, if they adhered to his opinions, would,
very probably, leave their church : to prevent
which, they procured the condemnation of his
book, anno 1 65 3 .

The fame fufpicions procured the famous Bull
Unigenitus, condemning the doctrines of Father
Pafquier Qiiefncl, in the year 17 13. Was this
man fo treated, becaufe his conduct: gave any
offence as a Papifl: I No ; he died not only a fin-
cere, but a bigoted fon of that church : and,
what is more, he fo died in a Proteftant country,
where he was under no neceffity to diflemble ;
namely, at Amflerdamy December 2, 17 19.

bus hauftt Auguflini interpretationem, iff in<venerat homines a
Calvini difciplind non ahenos, quibus liberiores de Gratia fermones
contulerat. Bayle's Ditt. Jansenius, remark [F], cited
from a book, intituled, "Janfenius Sufpcttus, afcribed to the Je-
fuit Va<vaJJbr. The Jarfenijis, as may well be fuppofed, en-
deavoured, by all poflible means, to rid themfelves of this
imputation. Mr. Bayle reports their fuccefs in the follow-
ing words: "The Janfeni/ts have maintained, with equal
*'* heat, that, upon the point of Liberty, they were not Calvi-
41 nijls. There are no artifices, or ill-grounded diitin&ions,
" but what have been made ufe of to colour that pretence ;
" and all this, to avoid the dangerous confequences they fore-
*' faw would follow their confefiing any conformity with the
" Cahinifts." Ibid, Rem. [#].

" He

33o THE CONFESSIONAL.

" He received extreme unction, extended on a
" matt ; he took the holy viaticum on his knees;
tc — he made his profeffion of faith in the pre-
*c fence of two apoftolical prothonotaries, — im-
*c porting, that he believed all the truths, which
" Jefus Chriji taught his church ; that he will
" die within the bofom of it ; and condemns all
*' errors which it condemns, or mall condemn.
(i He acknowledges the Pope the firft Vicar of
ic Jefus Chrift, and the apoftolic fee the centre
" of union. — But, withal, ftill believes 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 catholiciftn.

But go to the propofitions, extracted from his
book for condemnation ; and you will prefently
fee, that was not only of Calvin's mind in the ar-
ticles of Grace, J ujlif cation, &c. but had built
upon thofe principles fome other doctrines, which
are in little agreement with the faith he profeffes
to repofe in the church f .

I forbear to mention the more recent diftur-
bances that have been in France, about the fame
doctrines ; concerning which it has been imagined,
that if the church and ftate could not find the

f Thefe propofitions maybe feen in The prefent State of the
Republic of Letters, for July, 1733. From whence alfo the
account above of ^j;.efnel'i death is taken.

means,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 33*

means, by their united powers, totally to fup-
prefs the Janfenifts ; Janfenifm would infallibly
produce a Reformation of Religion, upon the
true Proteftant plan.

The relult is, that our firft Reformers framed
and placed the xxxix Articles, and more parti-
cularly thofe called Cah'mijiical, as the fureft and
ftrongeft barriers to keep out Popery. A Pro-
teftant Divine may poffibly have his objections
againft: the plain fenfe of thofe Articles ; but, in
this cafe, he ought not to fubfcribe them at all.
For if he can bring himfelf to afTent to, and
fubfcribe them in a catholic fenfe, I 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
Articles which concern Tranfubftantiation and
Purgatory ?

In anfwer to this, we are told, that thefe doc-
trinal Articles, concerning Grace, Free-will, Pre-
deftination, &c. are fufceptible of an Arminian
fenfe ; and this is the

■ Third Inducement our modern fubfcribers
have to plead.

Archbifhop Laud, as we have feen, was the
earlieft patron of this device. However, 1 cannot
think the practice 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 Englijh Clergy, particularly with thofe

who

33* THE CONFESSIONAL.

who are the mofl ftrenuous advocates for a lati-
tude in fubfcribing. And, by an unaccountable
reverfe of things, the men who are enamoured
the molt of Laud's political and hierarchical
principles, have contended with the utmoft zeal
againfl putting a double fenfe upon any of the
Articles.

It feems to me, indeed, that thefe two parties
have not perfectly underftood each other con-
cerning this double fe?ifei of which one affirms, and
the other denies, the Articles to be capable. Let
us confider this matter, with refpedt (till to the
doctrinal Articles called Cahinijlkal.

When the controverfy between xhtCahinifis
and Armlnians firft appeared in form, the latter
were told in plain terms, S( that whofoever op-
4€ pofed the abfolute decree of Predeftination,
<e croffed the doctrine of the church of England;
" and that the Englifo Univerfities and Bifhops
" had always condemned them as contradictory to

" abfolute decrees E."

This has been often denied, and as often res
aiferted. Dr. Waterland, in his Supplement,-
labours ftrenuoufly, with old Hey tin's tools, to?
prove that our Articles in particular are Antical-
•uiniJiicaL

But the author of the Reply to the Supplement^
who is faid to be Dr. Sykes, hath fo effectually

e Biftiop Davenant, Animadverfions on a treatife, intituled/

Gtd's Love to Mankind, p. 6,

confuted

THE CONFESSIONAL. 333

confuted him, that it is not likely that pretence
will ever be revived any more.

After Dr. Sykes hath proved his point againlr.
the Supplement, he fubjoins the following inge-
nuous acknowledgement:

n But, without entering into any farther hifto-
" rical diiquifitions, 1 think it is evident that the
" Articles were made by men who were tho-
" roughly in St. Aujlin's Scheme, and that they
i( meant to exprefs that. They chofe to exprefs
" themfelves with great moderation and tem-
'* per ; in confequence of which, men of dif-
M ferent opinions have thought themfelves at li-
" berty to take a latitude, in order to come in.
li Accordingly men of very different opinions
" can, and do fubferibe ; and, fince the words
fi are capable of fuch meaning, an Arminian ho-
" neftly fubferibestothe general words; whereas,
" were the fenfe of the compiler, and not his
" words only, the dandard, none but a Cafoinift
" could honeftly fubferibe h."

I think it very evident, that Dr. Waterland
and his Antagonifr. meant, by a latitude in fub-
fcribing, two very different things. Dr. Water-
land could never mean to exclude a Cahiniji
from fublcribing the feventeenth Article : fince
the utmofl: he ventures to fay of it is, " I am
*f rather of opinion, that the Article leans to the

h Reply, p. 39.

u Ami-

334 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" Anti-calvinian perfuafion." Dr. Waterland^
therefore, was of opinion, that the compilers
left room both for the Calvinijl and the Arminian
to fubfcribe. And that both the Calvinijl and
Arminian may honeftly fubfcribe, that is, con-
fidently with the fenfe or the intention of the
compiler.

On the contrary, Dr. Sykes is of opinion, that,
with refpect to the fenfe or intention of the com-
pilers, the Arminian fenfe is quite excluded ; and
accordingly derives the allowance of a Latitude
to the Armhiian, from the fenfe the general words
will receive. And this, as I take it, is the lati-
tude, or the literal and grammatical fenfe, for
which Bifhop Burnet, Dr. Clarke, and perhaps
the Doctors Nicholls and Bennet, contend.

I apprehend, that, if Dr. W.'s hypothefis could
be fupported by proper evidence, every one will
allow, that he exhibits much the honejler fcheme
of latitude, of the two. But that is impoflible ;
and Dr. Sykes1 s premiffes, that the Calvinijlical
fenfe of the Articles, exclufive of the Arminiaii
fenfe, was the fenfe of the compilers, (land in-
difputable.

But how could honed 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 inquefHon,
is a public writing ; and no public authority is
pretended for taking this liberty, but His Ma-
i je/ly's

THE CONFESSIONAL. 335

jejlfs Declaration, which, 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
lead flrefs fhould be laid upon this Declaration,
is, that Dr. Sykcs allows, that * fuppofing the
" Legiflature itfelf, confide red as fuch, were
'* (without a new declaratory law) to intermeddle
" in determining what is the proper fenfe and ex-
" tent o( the Articles, and what fhall be judged
" agreeable or difagreeable to them, — this would
<l be determining what they had no right to de~
" termine '."

Is this Declaration then a new declaratory
Law ? Nobody, I fuppofe, will pretend that. So
far, therefore, as it intermeddles in determining
what is the proper fenfe 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 ftrange doctrine in the ears of Dr.
Sykts himfclf, to fay, that King Charles , in the
finglc capacity of a monarch, had a right to do
that, which the legiflature in its collective capa.-
city had no right to do.

When Dr. Sykcs firfl undertook to oppofeDr.
Water/and in this matter, it is probable he did
not forefee, that he fhould be obliged to own,
that the Articles in queltion were evidently Cal-

y vinSJlica1..

33<S THE CONFESSIONAL.

isinifticah His arguments, in his firft pamphlet,
go upon the fuppofition, that the fenfe of the
Articles is not fixed ; which is only faying in
other 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 King's
Declaration.

But theDoclor, by acknowledging the fenfe of
certain Articles to be originally Calvinijiical, has,
with refpecl: to thofe Articles, deprived himfelf of
the prvilege he might otherwife pretend to de-
rive from the Declaration ; namely, of fubfcribing
them in an Ar mini 'an fenfe. The Declaration
fuppofes the Articles to be drawn up in general
words, which favour no fide. Allow that the
Articles were originally drawn up to favour one
fide, and what ufe can you make of the Declara-
tion ? or what refuge for various fenfes can you
find under that f

For my own part, I cannot but think that an
honefl man mufl 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 alTenting to them.

And yet certain it is, that fome very good and
j worthy men, by virtue of a certain fort of ca-
fuiitry, Ijiave reconciled themfelves to this prac-
tice,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 337
ticc, to avoid fome prefent inconveniences griev-
ous to fleih and blood. And, having met with a
remarkable inftance of this in the courfe of my
inquiries into this fubject, I fhall now lay it be-
fore the reader, the rather as, from a certain re-
femblance in the features, I am perfuaded that
our modern Cafuiftry is, in a great meafure, de-
rived from this great exemplar.

It has been already obferved, that fome of the
ancient Puritans in King James's time refufed to
fubfcribe the Articles, upon the fuppofition that
the purpofe, if not the doclrine of the church, was
changed from what it had been. When Armi-
nianifm came to be more openly avowed by the
Bifhops, and fupported by King Charles's In-
junctions, &c. the fame people were in £1111
greater diftrefs, not knowing what ufe might be
made of their fubfcriptions, as they were taken
in the canonical form, which admitted of no re-
ferve or limitation whatever ; and it does not ap*
pear, that the fubtleties of our modern cafuiftry
had then been found out.

But thefe fame Puritans having, by oppofing
thefe attempts of their adverfaries with fpirit and
vigour, got the upper hand, it came to their turn
to impofe terms and conditions upon thofe who
had formerly put the like hardGiips upon them.

This occafioned a great demand among the.
Royalifts for cafuiftical Divinity, and fahoes of
feveral kinds ; in which myftical fcience, the
Yz mod

338 THE CONFESSIONAL,

moil eminent adept was Dr. Robert Sanderfortx
afterwards Bifhop of Lincoln ; a venerable cha-
racter, which has defcended, with much eftima-
tion, even to the prefent times ; infomuch that,
I fuppofe, few people, who fhould fall into any
of thofe dilemmas from which he provided ways
to efcape, would fcruple to abide by his judge?
ment. ■

Among other cafes of different kinds, a queftion
was put to this able Cafuift, whether a Royaliit,
who had taken the oath of allegiance to King
Charles I. might confcientioufly take the Engage-
ment, injoined by the Parliament in the year
1650, which ran in thefe words:

/ A. B. do p-omife, that I will be true and
faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is
now ejiablifbed without King or Lords f

But, before we take a view of this learned
Doctor's fentiments on this fubjecl, it will be
proper to look back a few years, to another tranf-
action, wherein this fame Dr. Sanderfon had a
principal {hare.

In the year 1646-47, the Parliament deter-
mined to vilit 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 j],
*' wherein it was agreed, not to fubmit to the
" Paiiiament-vifitors. A paper of reafons agamft
*.*, i\)p Covenant^ the Negaiive-eath, and the Di-

Ci rccloryi

THE CONFESSIONAL. 339

u reftory, drawn up chiefly by Dr. Sander/on,
" was alfo conferred to, and ordered to be pub-
fi lifhed to the world, both in Latin and Englilh,
" — under the title of Reafons of the preferit
" Judgement of the Univerjity of Oxford, S:c. k"

Under the head, Of the Salvoes for taking the
Covenant , Dr. Sanderfon exprefles the fenfe of the
univcrfity, and confequently 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 end of an
" oath ; contrary to the end of fpeech ; contrary
*e to the defign of the covenant ; and contrary
<c to the folemn confeffion at theconclulion of it,
M (viz.) that we fhall take it with a true inten-
" lion to perform the fame, as we fhall anfwer it
u 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
" ftrcngthen the objection of thole who fay,
" there is no faith to be given to Proteftants.

(2.) u It has been faid, we may take the cove-
" nant with thefe falvoes exprefTed, So far as
,( lawfully I may : — As it is agreeable to the word
" of God, and the laws of the land; — Saving all
u oaths by me formerly taken, &c. which is no bet-
" ter than vile hypocrify ; for, by the fame rule,

fc Jfaift'/fixft. of the Puritans, 8vc, vol. III. p. 434.

Y 2 « one

34o THE CONFESSIONAL.

" one may fubfcribe to the council of Trent, or

" the Turkifh Alcoran"

Thus judged the learned Dr. Sanderfon in the
year 1647. There are fome other qualifying
particulars mentioned in this refcript, which may
be feen at full length in Neale's Hiftory. Thefe
are fufficient for my prefent purpofe ; and very
naturally fuggefl the following remarks.

Either the Parliament vifitors would have al-
lowed 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 fo far they are right, for this was no better,
than downright prevarication.

If the Parliament would have allowed of, or
connived at, thefe falvoes (as I think the Oxford-
men took it for granted) ; we fee here was the
mens imponentis, the tacit confent, at leaft, of the
impofers, on the lide 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 delign, of the covenant. They ac-
cordingly condemn the practice as jefuitical, full
of vile hypocrify, perverting the nature and end
of an oath, abufing the end of fpeech, and highly
fcandalous to the Proteftant name.

Let us now fee how the fame Dr. Sanderfon fa-
tisfied his queriit3 concerning taking the E?igage-

inent^

THE CONFESSIONAL. 34e

merit, in the year 1650, and how confident he
Was with his own judgement four years before.

He begins with laying it down as a fatt, ,c that
*' all expreffions by words are fubjeet to fuch
" ambiguities, that fcarce any thing can be faid
*' or expreffed in any Words, how cautelouQy fo-
" ever chofen, which will not render the whole
" fubject capable of more conflruclions than
"one1."

According to this maxim, the Covenant, which
was ten times as long, at leaf!:, as the Engage-
ment, mud be capable of flill more CbnftrucYions.
And yet Dr. Sander/on could fee plainly and
clearly into the Defign of that.—' He lays it
down,

2. l( Where one conftru&ion binds to more, an-
" other to lefs, the true fenfe is to be fixed by the
" intention of the impofer. For that all pro-
" mifes and aflurances, wherein faith is required
" to be given to another, ought to be Underftood
" ad mcntem imponcntis, according to the mind
" and meaning of him to whom the faith is

1 Nine Cafes of Confcience, p. 94.. Archbifhop Tillotfon hath
faid much the fame thing. " Jt is plainly impoffible, that
" any thing fhould be delivered in fuch clear and certain
" words, as to be abfolutely incapable of any other fenfe." — :
But then he adds, — " And yet, notwithllanding this, the
*' meaning of them may be fo plain, that any unprejudiced
" and reafonahle man may certainly underftand them." Pre-
face to his fermons, o&avo, 1743, p- 15. Which feems to
have been fufficiently the cafe with the Engagement, to have
excufed Dr. Sandetfcn :hi pains he hath takea with it.

Y 4. ** give^w

342 THE CONFESSIONAL.

,c given, fo far forth as the meaning may reafon-
" ably appear."

Now furely no man's mind and meaning may
more reafonably, or fo reafonably, appear in any
other way, as by his own perfonal pofitive ex-
planation of it. The fhort and true anfwer then
to the queflion had been, " If you are under
" any uncertainty concerning the meaning of
" any expreflions in the Engagement, confult the
" Impofers, and govern yourfelf by their inter-
" pretation." Cafes might have happened, where
the intention of the Impofer was doubtful, and
where the Impofer himfelf could not be come at.
In the prefent inltance the Impofers were living,
eafily found, and capable of explaining their own
meaning with the greateft precifion.

But probably thefe Impofers would not have
anfwered the Quer'iJVs end fo well as Dr. Sander-
fon ; who goes on,

3. • " Reafonably appear, I mean, by

" the nature of the matter about which it is con-
" verfant, and fuch fignification of the words
" Wherein it is exprefled, as, according to the
" ordinary me of fpeech among men, agreeth
"''bed thereto."

But if the mind and meaning of the Impofer
reafonably appears by the nature of the fnbje&,
and by the ordinary fignification of the words
wherein it is expreffed, then it fujjiciently appears*
There is no pretence left, in fuch a cafe, for
2 doubt

THE CONFESSIONAL. 343
doubt or ambiguity. The queftion does not con-
cern fuch a cafe; but thofe cafes only, wherein
the mind of the Impofer does not fufEciently ap-
pear. And here, confcience and good faith re-
quire, that you fhould confult the Impofer him-
felf, if he may be found. — •* You are miftaken,"
fays the Cafuift, " for,

4. "If the intention of the impofer be not (o
ff fully declared by the words and the nature of
c< the bufinefs, but that the fame words may, in
u fair conftruction, be (till capable of a double
" meaning, fo as, taken in one fenfe, they fhall
" bind to ?norey and in another to lefs, I conceive
u it is not necelfary, nor always expedient (but
" rather, for the moft part, otherwife) for the
u promifer, before he give [his] faith, to demand
" of the Impofer, whether of the two is his
" meaning ? But he may, by the rule of -prudence ',
" and that (for aught I fee) without the viola-
i( tion of any law of his confcience, make his jufl
" advantage of that ambiguity, and take it in
" fame fenfe which {hall bind him to the lefs."

This looks extremely like a contradiction to
what went before, namely, that " all promifes,
u &c. ought to be underftood ad mentem imponen-
" t'n ." But dextrous cafuiih can extricate them*
felvcs out of much more conliderable difficul-
ties. Obfervc how nimbly the Doctor comes oit
here.

M Since

344 THE CONFESSIONAL.

<c 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
" exprefTed in fuch words as will fufficiently
*' manifeil the fame to the underflanding of a
" reafonable man. Which if he neglect to do,
" no law of equity or prudence bindeth the pro-
■* mifer, by an over-fcrupulous diligence, to make
" it out, whereby to lay a greater obligation
" upon himfelf than he need to do."

But here the Doctor is met full in the face by
another of his principles, which is, that " fcarce
" any thing can be exprefTed in any words, hoit)
il cauteloufly foevcr cbofen, which will not admit

" of more conftruclions than one." So that,

after the utmofl care and caution the impofer
could poflibly take, his meaning might be dubi-
ous to a reafonable man, and much more to a
prejudiced Querift, and a willing Cafuift, as will
more particularly appear, now that we attend the
learned Doctor in the application of his prin-
ciples to the Engagement.

" In which, our Cafuift fays, there are fundry
<; ambiguities.

i. " The words true and faithful may intend,
" either fidelity and allegiance to be performed to
" the powers in pofleffion, as their right and
" due ; or fuch a kind of fidelity as captives taken
u in war promife to their enemies, &c.

3 2. " By

THE CONFESSIONAL. 345

2. "By the word Commonwealth, may either
** be meant — the prevalent party — now poflefTed
" of, and exerciiing, fupreme power in this King-

u dom : or elfe the whole entire body of the Eng-
M lijh nation , as it is a civil fociety, or Mate
" within itfelf, diftinguifhed from all other fo
" reign dates.

3. M The word ejlablijhed, may fignify the
*' eftablijhment of the prefent form of Govern-
" ment, either de jure, or de faclo, &c."

Out of thefe diftinctions he works the two fol-
lowing fenfes of the engagement:

" I acknowledge the fovereign power in this
" nation, whereunto I owe allegiance and fub-
st je£tion, 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 fubjection thereunto ;
" and maintain the fame with my fortunes and
u my life, to the utmolt 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 fecurity, and will therein fee a manifeft rea-
fon why Dr. Sander/on would not fend his Qiie-
rift to the Impofers for a refolution of his
doubts; efpecially as, by his quibbles, he could,
for his fatisfa&ion, fqueeze the following fenfe
out of the fame words of the Engagement :

•' Whereas,

S46 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" Whereas,/?/' theprefent, the fupreme power
" in England is aclually poffeffed and exercifed by
" the Houfe of Commons, without either King
il or Lords; Ipromife that,yo long as I live under
" that power and protection, I will not contrive or
(f attempt any act of hoftility againft them; but,
" living quietly and peaceably under them, will
'■' endeavour myfelf, faithfully, in my place and
" calling, to do what every good member of a com*
u monwealth ought to do, for the fafety of my
u country, and prefervation of civil fociety therein.1*

After which follow fome arguments tending
to prove, that this latter was more probably the
fenfe of the Impofers, than the other; which can
be looked upon in no better light than of an
attempt to infult the common fenfe of all man-
kind.

In the beginning of this cafe of confcience,
the learned Doctor offers fomething, by way of
{hewing, that the Solemn League and Covenant,
being exprefsly contrary to the oaths of allegi-
ance, was not lawfully to be taken by any man
who had taken fuch oaths, or was perfuaded
fuch allegiance was due. Which he feems to
have mentioned, left his Oxford divinity upon the
Covenant ihould 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 intended this lower fenfe, which no

doubt

THE CONFESStONAL. $tf
doubt he thought to be confident with the Que-
rift's allegiance to K. Charles. And indeed not
without reafon ; fince, without all difpute, both
the Cafuijis and the £>uerijls principles led them
to believe, that every good member of the common*
wealth ought, in his place and calling, to contri-
bute all in his power to the reftoration of K»
Charles, and that for the fafcty 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.

But did Dr. Sanderfon really think that the
powers then in being v/cre 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 traft,
that he did not. For he intreats his correfpon-
dent to take care that no copies of his paper
(h'ould get abroad, " left the potent party,'*
i<\y?, he, " in confidcration of fome things therein
" hinted, might think the words of the Engage-
" ment too light, and mlghC rhence take occailon
" to lay fome heavier obligation upon the Royal-
M ids, in words that would oblige to more"

Could the Cafuifl have entertained any fufpU
cions of this fort, had he really and lincerely
thought the lower conjlruclion was the fenfe in-
tended by the pqj^nt party ?

Y 7 ' He

34S THE CONFESSIONAL.

He concludes his cafe thus : M If any man,
f out of thefe confiderations, rather than fufTer
M extreme prejudice to his perfon, eft ate, or ne-
f* ceffary relations, fhall fubfcribe the Engage*
** merit [in that fenfe which binds to /<?/}], fitice
il his own heart condemneth him not" [and
that it might nor, he, good man, had taken no
ordinary pains], ft* neither do I."

Who fhall now be faucy enough to fay, there
Js no faith to be given to Proteftants I

" Many, without doubt," fays Dr. Waterland,
11 have been guilty of prevaricating with ftate
" oaths ; but nobody has yet been found fan-
•' guine enough to undertake the defence of it
»* in print m."

This cafe of confeience was in print before
'Dr. Wctcrland was born ; and it would hardly
be doing juflice to his great learning to fuppofe
he had never feen it. Shall we fay it did not
come up to his idea of defending prevarica-
tion ? or might his veneration for Bjfliop San-?
derfon make him tender of pronouncing upon
jit ? " If, inftead of excufing a fraudulent fub-
M fcription, on the foot .of human infirmity,''
fays the Dcclor, " endeavours be ufed to de-
M fend it upon principle, and to fupport it by
tf rides of art, it concerns every honed: man to
?.* look about him." Subflitute in this fentence,
fate oaths in the place of chitrch-fubfcriptions}

w Cafe of Avian Sub fcriptign, /• 4*

4 . and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 349

and you have a true character of Sander/on* s per-
formance.

I cannot avoid remarking in this place the
Similarity of the two cafes for which His Majejly's
Declaration and this Difpcnfation of Sanderfon's
were refpecYively contrived.

James I. (or, if you will, Charles I.) wanted
the afiiftance 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 accommo-
dated to their notions. This was effected by the
Declaration.

Charles II. then in exile, wanted the aid of the
Cavaliers and Preflbyterians, and this he could
not have, till they had equipped themfelves for
ports of trufl and power; and to thefe they mud
pafs through the Engagement, which, in its obvi-
ous meaning, would not go down with numbers
of them n. Dr. Sander/on himfelf infmuates,

" The Prefbyterians, if we may believe Dr. Calamy, were
more fcrupulous about taking the Engagement, than the Epif-
copalians. The famous Mr. Richard Fines was, for refufmg
that fecurity, put out of the Headfhip of Pembroke Hall, in
Cambridge, as was Dr .Rainbow at another college in the fame
univerfity. Dr. Reynolds forfeited the Deanry of Chrift-
Church, Oxford, on the fame account. Abridgement, 62, 63.
Mr. Baxter, we are told, ib. p. 104. difiuaded men from
taking it, wrote againlt the taking of it, and declared to thofe
who were for putting quibbling conitru&ions on jr, that,

that

35o THE CONFESSIONAL.

that this temporizing was neither unknown to, nor
difapproved by, the King. And, to encourage
it the more, tells the Querifl, that, (f whenfoever
<e the prefent force was fo removed from the ta-
il ker [of the Engagement^, or he from under it,
" as that he fhould have power to aft according
*f to his allegiance, the obligation would of itfelf
" determine and expire." A fort of doctrine
that feems rather to have been born and bred at
Liege or 5/. Omer's than at Oxford.

One word with the Doctors Sykes and Sander-
Jon together, and I have done.

Dr. Sykes lays great ftrefs upon this circum-
ftance, viz. that the church of England, being a
Proteftant church, cannot confidently obtrude
her own interpretations of fcripture upon her
members, fo as to fuperfede or over-rule the

" the fubjedVs allegiance, or fidelity to his rulers, could not
" be acknowledged and given in plainer words." Bifliop
Sander/on hints at thefe fcruples of the Prefbyterians, in this
very tracl, p. 94. concluding however, that, *' for his own
" part, when we fpeak of learning and confcience, he holds
" moil: of the Prefbyterians to be very little conliderable."
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.
Jfaac Barrow on this cccafion, who, " when the Engagement
" was impofed, fubfcribed it ; but, upon fecond thoughts,
" repenting of what he had done, he applied himfelf to the
V commissioners, declared his diiTatisfaclion, and prevailed ■
" to have hi.s name razed out of the lift." Biogr. Brit, in

article Barrow, Text. Moll people will think Barrow as^

good a Cafuift a? Samia-fon.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 35:
right of private judgement, or the liberty every
one has to interpret for himfelf. " Whatever
<{ authority," fays he, " the church may claim,
" [he fhould have added, or cxercife~] it muft dill
" be fubfervient to the right of interpreting fcrip*
" ture for one's felf ; or elfe the exhorting men
** to ftudy the fcriptures, is juft fuch a banter and
" ridicule, as it would be ferioufly to command
" one to fee clearly and diftin&ly any object, and
u at the fame time to put falfe fpe&acles before
" our eyes0."

Let us put this into political language. " We
" mud (till preferve our allegiance to the y2rz-
11 pttires, notwithstanding our fubmitting to the
tl claims of the church de faclo, which feem to be
" inconfiftent With it. The church herfelf ac-
" knowledges the right of the fcriptures de jure ;
" and therefore, if fhe challenges fuch an alle-
" giance from Us de fado, as contravenes our alle-
" giance to the fcriptures" — what then ? — The
premifTes certainly lead us to conclude — u We
" mud not comply with her, notwithstanding her
11 pretences of acknowledging the fovereign aU-
" thority of the fcriptures." — Inftcad of that,
Dr. Sy£es only concludes — " She mull then be
*' inconfiftent with herfeif." — As if it was impof-
fible for the church of England to be inconfiftent
with herfelf! The queftion is, whether the church
of England does not, by her authority de faclo9

c Reply to Waterland'i Supplement, p. 26.

2 tuper-

552 th£ confessional,

fuperfede the allegiance which Hie profeffes to be
due to the fcriptures de jure, by requiring fub-
fcriptions to her own interpretations I And, if Ihe
does, what ought a conic re ntiotis man to do in
fuch a cafe ? — As little as I am m love with Bi-
fhop Sander/oil's Theology, I will venture to leave
this point to his decifion, who, in a cafe exactly
parallel, determines as follows:

te The taking of the late Solemn League and.
4f Covenant by any fubjeft of England (notwith-
iX (landing the proteftation m the preface, that
" therein he had the honour of the King before his
€{ eyes ; and that exprefs elaufe in one of the ar-
" tides of it, wherein he fwore the prefervation
" of the King's pcrfon and honour) was an aft as-
" clear contrary to the oath of allegiance , and the
cc' natural duty of every fubjeft of England, as
" the off fling of the King to the utmofl of one's
a power (which is a branch of the oaths), and the
<( aMft'mZ c*Zamft any -perfon whatfocver, with his:
u utmofl power ^ thofe who were actually in arms
{t againfi the King (which was the very end for
si which that Covenant was fet on foot),, are con-
" trary the one to the other p."

The Doftor has exprcifed himfelf aukwanlly
enough; bur his fentiment is plain, and his infer-
ence unavoidable. " Therefore, no fubjeft of
" England, who cfefired to preferve his allegiance
** to Kimi Charles I. could confeiemioufly taket-he

P Kise Cafes y p. Q'y Q? ■

" Solemn

THE CONFESSIONAL; 353

" Solemn League and Covenant, notwithftanding
" the fa ving claufes therein exprefled." Let the
freader make the application.

I am heartily forry that I cannot derive the
practice of oar fubferibing the xxxix Articles
with a latitude from a more refpe£table origin thari
thefe foregoing precedents. Every man, however,
has the fame right that I have of judging for him-
felf. And I pretend to no more; in this collection
of fa&s, than to affifl: thofe to whom the fubjecl
Is of importance, to form their own fentiments
upon it with precifion and impartiality. There
will (till be numbers among us, who Will continue
to fubferibe, and continue likewife to care for
none of thefe things. Such as thefe, perhaps, care
not for matters of more confequence ; which, in-
deed, I mould apprehend to be the cafe with the
mod of thofe who can bring themfelves to give
a fecurity of this kind to the church and to the
publick, Without a previous examination, to what
the nature and circumftanccs of fo fokmn an aft
do in reality amount

1 1 C II A fc,

354 THE CONFESSIONAL.

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the Conditions that arife from the fore-
going Difquifitions*

IT is now time to fum up the account, and to
confider to what it amounts. A detail of
facts, exhibiting all this contrariety of fentiments,
all this confufion and uncertainty with refpecl
to the cafe of fubfcribing our eftablifhed 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 Hating the feveral cafes that
have come under confideration. I have cited
authorities fairly and candidly, and have not, to
my knowledge, fupprelfed any thing that might
fhew 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 pafTages,
I will readily give them up, upon competent
proof of fuch obliquity, and abide by the con-
clufions which any man of common honefty and
common fenfe fliall think fit to draw from this
perplexity and contradiction among fo many
learned writers, who, on other occafions, acquit

therafelves

THE CONFESSIONAL. 355
themfelves with fufficient clearnefs and confift-
cncy.

Such a one, I prefume, will make no difficulty
to acknowledge, that, in this matter of fubfcrip-
tion at leafl, a reformation is devoutly to be
wifhed. The Bifhops Burnet and Clayton, the
Doctors Clarke, Sykes, and others, confefs it, and
call for it. And though fuch writers as Bifhop
Conybeare, and the Doctors Nicholls, Bennct, Wa-
terlandy Stebb'mg, &c. the heroes of our fifth
chapter, neither allow the expedience of fuch
reformation, nor would have endured any propo-
fals of that kind without a ftrenuous oppofition,
yet their own writings .on the fubject, when com-
pared together, are more than a thoufand advo-
cates for it; if it were only for the fake of taking
away the offence and fcandal arifmg from the
fuppofed 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 abound
in his own fenfe, tends, in a great meafure, to fu-
perfede the neceffity 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,
furnifh their adverfaries with an anfwer out of
their own mouths, whenever they plead for a re-
formation ; a term which fuppofes and implies,
Y 3 that

ss6 THE CONFESSIONAL.

that things are in fuch a Mate, as honeft and con?
fcientious fubfcribers cannot acquiefce in.

Of late, indeed, the necefiity for a reformation
in this, as well as in other articles of our ecclefi-
aftical eflabliihment, has been acknowledged by
unprejudiced and conscientious men of different
perfuafions. And even they who dread it on-
private and perfonal coniiderations, when they
think fit to appear in oppcfition to any propofals
tending that way, betray the mofl manifeft tokens
of conviction, that a reformation would be a right
meafure in itfelf ; ancl therefore fet themfelves to,
fhew, that a reformation is rather impratlicable%
than unneceflary ; of which I fhall prefently give
fome remarkable inflances.

Let us then proceed to confider the force of the
arguments againft a reformation, drawn from the
impracticability of it ; taking along with us the
conceffion, that a reformation is expedient and
de fir able.

The queflipn, with which this inquiry naturally
opens, is, By whom Ihould a reformation in our
ecclefiaftical affairs be firft attempted ?

And here I take it for granted, that all fides
will be unanimous in their anfwer ; namely, By
the Bimops, and other pious and learned divines?
who, by the courfe of their education and iludies,-
and their intercourfe with clergymen of all capa-
cities and difpofitions, may well be fuppofed to
have the cleareft conception bath of what is

amifs,,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 357

amifs, and of the molt effectual methods to bring
things into order-
Here the only difficulty to be apprehended is,
that, the Bilhops having no authority to under-
take any thing of this fort of thcmfelves, recoarfe
111 u it be had to the civil powers, firit for leave or
iicenfe to make a proper examination into the
particulars that may want to b^ reformed, and
afterwards to give a legal fancKon to fnch altera-
tions as may be found neceifary. And there jaaj
perhaps be fbme doubt made, whether mv Lords
the Bifhops would fuccced in applying to the
Crown for the powers neccifary for fuch an un-
dertaking, or to the Legiflature for their author-
ing fuch a reform, as their Lordiliips and their
aflKtants might think requiiitc.

Now for any fuch objection as this I apprehend
there is not the leaft room, till fuch application
has actually been made and rejected. Have our
Bilhops and great churchmen ever made the
trial ? Have they been difappointed in the event
of it?

I will venture to anfwer both thefe questions
in the negative: and will ftipport my opinion by
a witnefs worthy of all credit :

" I have been credibly informed, fays this de-
•' ponent, his Majefty a has fometimes faid to a
" late great prelate, when paying his duty at
fl court, — h there any thing} my Lord, you would

' £iri£ Ghqrgk II.

% 4 u haw

558 THE CONFESSIONAL.

M have me do for the church ©/"England? If there
cf is, let me know it. And he, continues this
* writer, who of his own motion will fay this,
te Cannot receive ofherwife than gracioufly any
^ petition for leave and opportunity to his clergy,
V to corifuli together for its good, [Qu. ivhofe
?f good, or the good of what, the church ' or the
ft clergy ?] if it be made witji decency and prq-
ff priety b."<

Upon this fact I reft the evidence, that no ap-
plication has been made to the throne, on the be-
half of reforming the church of England ; and
that, if our Biihops had applied, their petition
would' not have been rejected.

The patrons of the prefent ecclefiaftical fyftem,
therefore, put the impraclicability of a reforma-
tion upon the people, with whom they can ufe
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 free and impartial confiderer
I have jufi: now quoted, fets forth the unripenefs
of the prefent times in this refpeft :

" The grofs body of tjie people are weak, ig-
ie norant, injudicious, capricious, factious, head-
?? ftrong, felf-willed/and felf-fufHcient, and never

b Free and Impartial Confederations on the free and Can-
did Oi/iuifithns, &c. p. 46. printed for Baldwin, 1 75 1. The
author of which is now known to be the Reverend John
Whit*, B.D. . '

H kf5

THE CONFESSIONAL. 359

" lefs difpofed than at this time to acquiefce in
lt the wifdom, and fubmit themfelves to the deci-
" fions, of their fuperiors, nor ever more impa-
" tient to be driven from their old habits, and put
f*. out of their way in the offices, or any other mat-
" ters of religion; efpecially thofe which they
fe themfelves are to pra&ife, and have a perfonal
te concern in. This is now grown to be the general
" temper of the people. I don't call it their bigotry.
" No-; 'tis a fpirit of mutiny and independence,
" And this, I think you mud allow, is (till in-
f creafing, as much as you or I can pretend the
'.' other is decreafmg among usr."

I would not have cited this paffage in proof of
what I have advanced, but that the author of it
gives broad hints that he wrote permiffu fuperio-
rum. " Some things he omitted by the advice of
" thofe whofe judgement he greatly reverences ,
" and cannot allow himfelf in any thing to differ
" from." Thefe muft be his ecclefiaftical fuperi-
ors ; fince, in fome or other of his books, he hath
allowed himfelf to differ from men of almoft all
other denominations, who pretend to be judges of
fuch things. He fpeaks as if he had conferred
upon the iubjec't of alterations " with a perfon in
" high flation," p. 63. In another place he fays,
" nay, I am fatisfied we fhaU not ftand with
" them [the Diffenters] for.hal-f a dozen things of
f* the like nature [as the crofs in baptifm] upon

J Free and Impartial Confiderations, &c. p. 7, 8.

"fo

tfo THE CONFESSIONAL.

" fo good arid valuable a confiderarion, as their
fi coming in and embracing the communion of
ts the church "v No man, one would think, ar
lead no fuch man as Mr. White, would venture
to anfwer for my Lords the Bifhops, in fo public
a manner, and upon fo nice a point, without
fome affurance that they would not difown him,
fhould the matter be brought to a trial. I con-
clude, therefore, that this paragraph is agreeable
to the fentiments of ihofe great churchmen who
fupervifed Mr. Whitens pamphlet ; otherwife it
certainly fhould have been omitted, as fome other
things were, by the advice of his friend or friends
in high fiation. But let us now proceed to con-
fider the cafe it exhibits.

We have here the general temper of the grofs
body of a Christian people defcribed in terms,
which, with the addition of one or two epithets,
would perfectly characterize the inhabitants of a
Pandamonium. Bigotry, or a blind attachment to
religious prejudices, would have afforded fome
e'xcufe for thefe wretches. Mifled by the fuper-
ftition 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. White did not want to have it
thrown. They are therefore deprived of the be-

d Free arfd impartial Confiderations, &c. p. 7, 8.

neik

THE C0NF£SSl6ttAt. $4t

jiefit of this plea, and their depravity afcribed to
a factious hcadilrong fpirit of theif own ; an in-
born malignity of heart, One would think, near
akin to that of the fpirit s ivhc kept not their ftrjl
efiate, and equally incurable.

And yet, when this free and impartial Confi-
derer comes to be crofs-examined upon this accu-
sation, we fhall find fuch evident tokens of dif-
ingenuity, as difcover that his tcftimony was not
founded merely on the love of truth. For, in the
firft place, who can ihetefuperiors be, in whofc
wifdom this mutinous people refufe to acquiefce,
a'nd to whofe judgement they will not fubmit?
Isfot their ecc/efiaftical {uyeYiois, we may be fure;
tfnee Mr. White has told us in this fame pam-
phlet, that this very people, capricious, factious,
Jieadftrongj&.c. as he has reprefented them, have
fome refpeel for theif fpiritual guides and gover-
nors ; and fenfe enough, with all their weaknefs,
ignorance, and want of judgement, " to perceive
" that thofe who are led by their office to think
" continually on thofe things which concern re-
u ligion, are more likely to judge rightly of them,
" than any /rfy-affembly whatever.'* P. 2.

The refult is then, that this fpirit of mutiny
Would only be exerted againft the /^-fuperiors
of this headflrong people. But how does this
appear, or what foundation in the prefent cafe, is
there for any fuch apprehenfion ? When have
pur lay-fuperiors attempted, within Mr. White's
memory, " to drive us from our old habits, or

" put

362 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" put us out of our way, in the offices, or any
" other matters of religion, efpecially thofe which
" we ourfelves are to pra&ife, and have aperfonal
" concern in ?" For my own part, I can recoiled
but one inflance, the late alteration of the ftyle,
which gave offence, as I have heard, to fome el-
derly females, by difplacing, as they thought,
fome of their darling feflivals, particularly Chrift-
mas-day. For the reft, fo far as this inflance 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 pamphlet
was publifhed. And the general acquiefcence of
our people in this new law (hews fufficiently, that
they are not fo very tenacious of their old habits
againfl fenfe and reafon, as he would have it be-
lieved, and that he had rafhly and unreasonably
calumniated his countrymen.

The plain truth is, this gentleman was only
dreffing up a fcarecrow, to deter a certain lay-
affembly from taking matters of reformation out
of the hands of the clergy into their own, of
which he every-where betrays the mofl abjecl:

fears.

•

In the paroxyfms of fuch panics, it is ufual for
the party affected to catch up the firfl weapon
that falls in his way, and to deal his blows with
fo unfleady 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

THE CONFESSIONAL. 363

He hath drawn fo dcteftable a pi&ure of the
common people, that it may very well frighten
any alTembly of men in their wits, from meddling
with them in any province, civil or religious. But
it is not natural to ail:, how came our countrymen
into this degenerate Hate ? There have been
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 re-
flection on thofe who fhould have taught them
better? And who mould thefe be, but the ap-
pointed teachers of religion ? The Bifhops and
Pallors of the church, who receive fome millions
annually as a confideration for their watching
for the fouls of the"people, and particularly for
inftilling into them Chriftian knowledge, and
Chriftian principles?

Take the matter as Mr. White hath exhibited
it, and you can perceive no trace of any due pains
taken with them this way. If there is any ap-
pearance in his book that their ecclefiaftical fupe-
riors have taught them any thing, it is only that
fort oifenfe which leads to fome refpeft for them-
felves, while they have fuffered them to aft and
think, with refpeft to their civil governors, what-
ever their unruly headflrong wills and affections
may lugged to them ; and will it not be faid, that
the clergy may perhaps foment this fpirit of fac-
tion

36*4 THE CONFESSIONAL,
tion and independence towards their lay-fuperi-
ors, the better to fecure the dependence of this
headftrong multitude upon themfelves ?

In my opinion, Mr. White's friends in high
flat ions 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 cannor
be fuppofed to have been contra&ed in the com-
pafs of a few years — that our prefent Bifhops
and Pallors were obliged to take the people as
they found them — but that they were ufmg their
utmofl: endeavours to correft 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 is JIM increafing, leaves
room to believe, that the prefent generation of
religious pallors are juft as negligent of thei?
charge as their predeceffors.

But, to leave this gentleman a while to himfelf,
I could never perfuade myfelf that the argument:
in defence of the Chriftran clergy, drawn from
the nature of the times they lived in, however
it may have been managed, is of any fort of
weight. An enterprifing genius of the prefent-
age feems to have made the mod of ft, in a late
attempt to reftore the Fathers, fo called,, to feme
part of the credit they had loft under the exa-
* mi nation!

THE CONFESSIONAL. 365

mination of Daille, Whitby, Barbeyrac, Middleton,
and others e. And how has he fucceeded. ? Has
he (hewn, in oppofition to the charges brought
againft them by thefe writers, that they were
judicious critics and interpreters of holy writ ;
accurate reafoners ; found moralifls; confident and
confcientious cafuifts ; or even credible witneffes
to matters of fact ? By no means. His defence of
them is founded upon the conceffion, that they
were defective in all thefe articles, not through
their own fault, but the error of the times. On
this head this ingenious writer takes great pains
to (hew, by a long induction of particulars, how
learning and fcience were abufed, corrupted, and
diverted from the purpofe, either of difcovering
or maintaining the truth, in the different fchools
and feels of pagan orators, fophifts, and philofo-
phcrs. Among thefe, it fcems, the Fathers had
their firft rudiments, and the fafhion of the time*
keeping up the reputation of thefe depraved me-
thods of reafoning, &c. the Fathers were obliged
to deal with their pagan rivals in their own way,
and to play their own fophiftry and prevarication
upon them in their turn.

Is it poffible this acute writer mould irnpofc
this ftate of the cafe upon himfelf, or hope to
i'mpofe it upon his readers, for a full purification
of the Fathers ? For to what does all this learned
harangue amount, but to this, that the Fathers,

« Warbur ton's Julian, Introduction.

inftead

$66 THE CONFESSIONAL.

inftead of reforming, were themfelves corrupted
by the men and the times they lived in?

If the times had not been faulty, there had
been no 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
of it. Thefe means and expedients, they them-
felves confefs, were the holy fcriptures, from
whence they might have been furnifhed with all
necelTary truths, as well as with the methods of
inculcating them in fimplicity and godly fincerity,
without having recourfe to the inticing words of
man's wifdom. Who gave them a commiifion to
model the truths of the Gofpel to the tafte of a
licentious and corrupt world ? or to fubtilize the
plain doctrines of Chrift arid his Apoftles, by the
chemiflry 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 commiflion they
had to teach, and the exemplification of it in the
pra&ice of the Apoftles, have no occafion to
believe them.

The memorable Mr. Bales of Eton, who faw
as much of the right ufe of the Fathers , and as
foon, as Mr. Daille himfelf, and perhaps had full
as much candor with refpect to the allowances
that ought to be made on account of their fitu-
ation in the world, was well aware of the apo-
i logy

THE CONFESSIONAL. 367
logy that this learned Dc&or has made for them ;
but however feems to have paid little regard to
its merit.

Archbimop Laud, offended at the freedoms
Hales had taken with church -authority and tra-
dition, in his traft concerning Scbif?n, put the
honed man to his purgation, which he underwent
with a degree of courage, decency, and good
fenfc, that would have done him honour, had
he left nothing behind him but that (ingle letter
to Laud.

" I am thought," fays this excellent perfon,
" to have been too fharp in cenfuring antiquity,
" beyond the good refpeel which is due unto it.
tl In this point, my error, if any be, fprang from
" this, that, taking aclions to be the fruit by which
(t men are to be judged, I judged of the pcrfons
et by their anions, and not of aclions by the^;--
" Jons from whom they proceeded. For to judge
" of aclions by persons and times, I have al*-
" ways taken to be most unnatural'"."

e See Mr. Hales'1 's Letter to Archbifhop Laud, ufually printed
at the end of Bifhop Hare' 's Difficulties and pifcouragjmetft 's , S-:c.
The Trait concerning Scbifm was written in the year 1656,
and this apologetical Letter very foon after j which I men-
tion on account of a paflage in it, that carries with it a very
ftrong preemption, that the fir ft claqfe in our twentieth
Article, concerning Church- Authority, was net at that
held for authentic. The paffage I mean is this: '• 1 count
«« in point of decifum of Cburcb-qurfiions, if J lay of the /■ -
4t thority of the Church, that it was none ; I know no advei*
" fary I have, :he church of Horn; only excepted; For this

A a Whether

368 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Whether the authority of Mr. Hales, with To
fenfible a confideration to fupport it, ihould not

" cannot be true, except we make the church judge of con-
c: tro-verfes ; the contrary to which we generally maintain
"■ againft that church.'' Would Hales have {"aid this, and
faid it too to fuch a man as Land, if he might have been
confronted with an authentic book of Articles ? About three
years before, viz. in 1635, the authenticity of this firtT.
claufe of the 20th Article had been publicly debated in the
Divinity-fchools at Oxford, upon occafion of Peter Heylin's
difputing for his Do&or's degree. Prideaux, the ProfefTor,
read the Latin Article out of the Ccrpus Cenfefiionum, pub-
lifhed at Geneva, 1612, without the claufe. Heylin objecl-
iny to this authority, fent a Friend [one Wejlly] to a neigh-
bouring bookfeller's, who furnifhed him with an E;;glijb-
copy of the Articles, nuith the difputed claufe, which he
read aloud, and then delivered to the by-ftanders to fatisfy
themfelves. This, it feems, had the defired effeft. But, as
the author of the Hijiorical and Critical Ejfay on the thirty-
vine Articles obferves, with very little reafon : *' For," faith
" he, the EngHJh edition produced, which was, in all pro-
" bability, the late edition fet forth with the King's Decla-
■* ration, feems very improper to determine the controverfy
" by, when the quellion related to the Latin Articles. If
" any Latin copy of the Articles, printed by authority, had
<c been brought into the fchools, the auditory mull have
" been fatisfied of the contrary, if they had judged of the
" authority of the claufe by a printed copy of the Articles."
Introd. p. 28. Upon this faft, I mail take the liberty to
make a few remarks, i. There is no evidence of this vic-
tory but Heylin s own. Examen Hijloricv.m, id Appendix,
p. 217 ; unlefs you will beiieve the compiler of Heylin s
article in the Bi agraphia Britannka, who hath added to the
original hiitorion's account, that, '.' by this ocular demonjlra-
fC iion, Pridtaux, as ivell as his far'.izans, naas Jilenced." It
Appears, by the fequel, related by Heylin himfeJf, that Vrt-
dtavxand. his partisans were not hienced, but remained con-

be

THE CONFESSIONAL. 369

be of luperior weight to Dr. W- *s3 backed on-
ly with a large quantity of precarious fpeculation

vinced after, as well as before, this event, that the claufe was
fpurious. 2. As Heylin read the claufe in Latin, he was
bound to verify it by an authentic Latin copy. This he
knew he could not do, and therefore gave the cue to IFefily,
to bring him fuch a copy as would ferve the turn ; and
Wefly would have been highly to blame to bring him a
copy without the claufe, if there was a copy of any fort to be
had with the claufe, 3. Heylin himfelf tells us, that the
very next year, 'viz. 1634, Latin copies of the Articles
were printed at Oxford without the claufe, as fuppofed by
the encouragement of Prideaux (fo far was Prideaux or his
partizans from being either jatisfied or filciiced by Heylin's
Englijh copy). For this, Heylin tells us, Prideaux received
a check from Laud, then Chancellor of the Univerfity ;
" fo, continues Heylin, the printers were conftrained to re-
" print the book, or that part of it at the leaft, according
" to the genuine and ancient copies." Ibid. p. 218. Mr.
Collins calls this a forgery, and furely not without reafon, if,
before that conftraint, there were no Latin copies which had
the claufe. But all this management on the fide of the
claufe would not do. The Latin Articles were il ill printed
ivithcut the claufe. And I have now before me a Latin edi-
dition of the Articles without the claufe, printed at Oxford)
by Leonard Litchfield, printer to the Univerfity, in the year
1636. And this brings us down to the date of Halcs's Let-
ter to Laud, the expreffion in which Letter is equal to a
thoufand witneifes, that the firft claufe of the twentieth Ar-
ticle, as it now (lands in our prefent editions, was not lreld,
by the moil learned and judicious Divines of thole days, to
be of the leaft authority, whether it was found in Latin or
EngliJJj copies. But here rifes a new advocate, who will
needs have Church-authority to be equally afterted by the
twentieth Article, whether you admit the difputed claufe or
no. This is no other than the compiler of Dr. HevJin's Life
in the Biograpbia Briian-.ica, who, having cited the paflage

A a 2 upon

370 THE CONFESSIONAL.

upon very doubtful fa&s, muft be left to their

refpe&ive readers. For my own part, I am in-

which I have put down above, from the Introduclion to the
Hifiorical and Critical EJfay on the thirty-nine Articles, thus
proceeds : " But, after all, what is there in the Latin Ar*
" tide, as read by Prideaux, any more than in the Englijh
" one produced by Heylin, that contradicts the pofition of
*' this latter, which gave (o much offence ? Where is the
" difference in fenfe between Nan licet eeclefia quicquam inftitu-
*' ere quod verbo Dei fcripto ad-verfetur ; and The church hath-
** power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in contro-
" 'verjies of faith ; yet not fo as to ordain any thing contrary to
" God's nvritten word. Here is no real, but a feeming diver-
" fity only. For though the Latin is negatively, and the
" EngHjb affirmatively, exprelFed, yet the affirmation of the
" one is implied in the negation of the other ; for is it not
" an abfurdity to talk of limiting a power which does not
*' exiil ? If the church then had not, generally, a power of
" decreeing, it would be nonfenfe to fay, fhe might not de-
" cree contrary to God's word. The faying, fhe may not
" ordain any thing contrary to the fcriptures, infers, fhe
" may ordain any thing, relating to her province, that
*' is confident with them. Whether the church always con-
«' fines herfelf within due bounds, or may not fometimes
" mifufe her authority ? whether fhe has any authority in
" fuch things at all ? or, finally, whether there is fuch a
" thing as a church, according to Heylin's acceptation of
•' that term ? are other points ; but moft certainly the twen-
" tieth Article of the church of England, whether Latin or
" Englijh, feems as favourable as need be wiihed to the
" caufe Heylin defended." Thus far the Biographer ;
who attempts, we fee, to flip in church-authority upon us
at a back-doorr which, he would have us believe, flands
open to receive it. But, had he looked up to the text upon
which he is commenting, he would have feen, that, without
the firft claufe of the Article, Beylin could by no means have

dined

THE CONFESSIONAL. 371

dined to think, the fafer apology for the Fathers
would have been that observation which the fame

eftablMhed any one of his three pofitions. The fecond of thefe
pofitions is, that The church hath authority of interpreting the
facred Jhiptures. Hey/in confiders the church under two ideas,
1. The church representative, meaning the Clergy ; and, 2.
The church diffufive, meaning the aggregate of Head and
Members together. Fid. Examen Hiiloricum, u. f. p. 218.
In thefe pofitions he means the church reprefcntati=ve, exclu-
five of the church diffufive. Now, if the church reprefenta-
ti<ve hath authority to interpret the facred fcriptures, the church
diffufi<ve is precluded from judging, whether the ordinances
and decrees of the church rcprefentatwe are contrary to God's
word, or not. But this authority of interpreting the fcrip-
tures depends entirely on the affirmance of the churches autho-
rity in ccntro-verfies of faith. It is true, there is a negative
upon the church's authority to ordain any thing contrary
to God's written word, in the fubfequent part of the Englifo
Article. Cut Hill the church reprefentative (in modern lan-
guage, the governors of the church) having an exclufiue autho-
rity to interpret the fcriptures, is the fole judge of the agreement
or contrariety of her ordinances, when compared with the
word of God. Let us now confider the terms of the Latin
Article, as read by Dr. Prideaux : Ecclefiee mm licet quicquam in-
f.itv.ere quod verbo Dei adverfttur, neque unum fcriptura: locum fie
exponere potefi, ut alteri contradicat. The Biographer under-
stands this, I fuppofe, of the church reprefntati-ve, and, for
the prefent, we will underftand it fo too. Now, where-ever
there is a Non licet, there is a Law implied, and likewife a
judge of tranfgreflion? againfi that Law. Who then is the
judge of thefe infitutions, with refpeel to their agreement
with the word of God ? Not the church reprcfentati-ve, for
here is no authority given her, in that capacity, in controvcrfis
if faith ; no exclufive power of interpreting the friptures. The
conlcquence is, that the power of judgement devolves upon
:'.i'.- church diffiijh'e, the c&tus fidelium, as it is called in the

A a 3 learned

372 THE CONFESSIONAL.

learned Do£lor mentions elfewhere to have been
made upon Amoblus and Lacfantius, namely, that
they undertook the defence of Chrijiianiiy before
they underftood it. This is a cafe which was per-
haps common to all the Fathers, and admitted of
a reasonable excufe ; the fame which the Appftle
Paul allows in a fimilar one, they had a zeal for
Cod, but not according to knoiulcdge £."

foregoing Article. But if you bring in the afjir7nasi=ve
claufe, veiling the church- reprefentative with authority in
conirc<vsrJies of faith >, and if upon it you build an exdufi-ve
authority to interpret the fcripturcs, the church diftfroe will be
obliged to receive implicitly whatever the church reprefentative
fees fit to obtrude upon her. The diversity then between
the Latin and Englijh Article, is a mr/diverfity. According
to the Latin Article, the church reprefentative has a power of
infiituting or ordaining, fubjec~t neverthelefs to the judgement
and controul of the church dffifve. According to the Eng-
Articls, the church reprefentative is veiled with authority
in cor.tr ove;j:cs of faith, which implies an exclufive authority
cf interpreting the fcriftures, and confequently is the file judge
cf thofe limitations mentioned in the fubfequent parts of the
Article ; and confequently, again, her authority is bcundlefs ;
nor has the church diffufve any right, upon this flate of tne
cafe, to judge whether the church reprefentati've mifufes her
authority , or not,

f Perhaps the moft blameable part of the conduct of the
Fathers fo called, was their introducing^^ injtituiions into
Chriftian worihip. And this might be called the faint of the
times. But Cafaubon thought they were well juftified in this
practice, by the example of the Apo?i\e Paul. His words are
thefe : In ed dfputatione [he is fpeaking of his Excercitaiions']
de nominibus Eucharifia, unum eji caput de nomine Mylleriuin.
Qb/ervavi Jingularem Fattian prxdeuiiam, qui paganorutn mult a

a Whether

THE CONFESSIONAL. 373
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 advocate who
fhould offer it on their behalf, would meet with

' inflituta ad pios ufus retuhrunt. Ego non nego pofleriorum culpa,
mul.'a mala ir.de provcnijfe ; fed piorum illorum voter urn failutn
mordicus defendo exemplo Pauli. Epift. 931. Jac. Aug. Thuano.
edit. Aim. Here then is no fault either of the men, or of
the times. The example of an Apollle precludes all blame
of courfe ; nor can we afcribe this inftance of Jingular pru-
dence to a zeal without knowledge. As to the fhare the Fathers
had in introducing thefe pagan inftitutions, there is no reafon
to think Cafaubon was miitaken in the fact. What the evils
were, of which this introduction was the occafion, every
one knows who is acquainted with the flate of Popery in the
fubfequent ages. Thefe evils are here put to the account of
pofterity. But if the Fathers were fingidarly prudent in in-
troducing thefe inftitutions, why mould not poflerity be as
well jullified by the example of the Fathers, as the Fathers
were by the example of St Paul? For will not posterity fay,
they introduced thefe additional inltitutions for the fame^j-
ous ufes for which the Fathers firft adopted the others ? We
have here, however, a; confirmation from matter of fact,
that Dr. Middleton was right in deriving the idolatry and
fupcrftition of the church of Rome from the rites ofPagan-
ifm. The doctor, however, was to be oppofed upon this
head, right or wrong ; for, as fome of the ritual cufloms
and fuperftitious devotions of Popery had found their way
into fome Proteftant churches, it would not have looked well
on the fide of reformed church-rulers to have referred to a
Pagan institute for the origin of fuch cuflorns and devotions.
1 could indeed point out one liturgic champion, who, being
unwilling that certain forms of devotion iq the fervice of
the church of England, to which objections had beta

A a 4 no

374 THE CONFESSIONAL.

no thanks at their hands. They fay, they fee as
well as others, that things are out of order in
the church ; but alledge the unfeafonablenefs of
theie times for any attempt to fet them right. In
the mean time, others fee that the infection of
the times has, in fome degree, laid hold even of
thefe venerable perfonages, and produced ap-
pearances of fecularity, which, whenever a refor-
mation fhall be happily brought about, we may
be fure will not be fuffered to difparage their fa-
cred characters, nor to give offence any longer to
thofe weak and fhort-fighted brethren, who can-
not comprehend chat fuch conformity to the world
can contribute to bring the times to maturity
for planting and bringing forth more evangelical
fruits.

But let us do all fides juflice, and now proceed
to examine how this plea of impracticability has
been elucidated and enforced by certain writers,
who were a little more prudent and cautious than
the above-mentioned Mr. White.

" In all propcfals and fchemes to be reduced
" to practice," (fays a very dextrous champion

made, mould reft upon the authority of Popifri precedents
alone, thought fit to fetch a parallel cafe from Homer. Dr.
Middle ton' s opponent, however, if he ftill abides by his hy-
pothecs, mult of neceflky change the poflure of his defence
of the Fathers. If the fuperffitions they introduced arofe
tco late to be derived from Paganifai, either the introduction
of them was no fault, or, mt the f cult of the times, but or
hjiman nature, a fort of fault, which may be incident to Fa-j
then of more modern times.

of

THE CONFESSIONAL. 37^

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 we know, and are fure to be among
" uss."

To this doclrine a very eminent name is fub-
fcribed, which is likewife fubfcribed to fome other
doctrines utterly inconfiftent with it, at leaft in
my apprehenfion, unlefs conforming to what the
world is, and conforming to the fovereignty of
Chrift in his own kingdom, is precifely one and
the fame thing h.

Be this as it may, the docTrine 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.

(i It is reprefented, that the world was never
lefs difpofed to be ferious and reafonable, than at
fhis period. Religious reflexion, we are informed,
is not the humour of the times ; nor can men of

e Bifliop Hoadltfs Reafonablenefs of Conformity, apud
Phi!. Cantab, p. 17.

h Sermon on the Nnture of the Kingdom of Chxift, and
t!.'. Bifh:>p's Defences of it,

any

376 THE CONFESSIONAL.

any fort be brought to examine their own opinions,
and popular fafliions, 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-
miniftering 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
difpofitions ; gently and gradually correcting
their foolifh and erroneous notions and habits ;
but (till taking care not to offend them with un-
feafonable 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 it is, and
not as it ought to be"

This is the common cant of thofe, both in
higher and lower flations, who defire to put a
negative upon a review of onr ecclefiaftical
fyflem. It is fomething, indeed, that, with re-
fpe£t to our prefent fyflem, they will own that
the body of the people fit in darknefs ; which
implies, that, if they were more enlightened,
they would have no inconfiderable objections to
the forms in which they now acquiefce. But
when it is conhdered from whence this light and
truth are to come, namely, from thofe records
which have prcferved to us the Gofpel as it was

preached

THE CONFESSIONAL. 377

preached by Chritl and his Apoftles, is it not a
little 11 range, that this truth fhould be unfeafona-
ble, and this light intolerable, after the Gofpel
lias been taught, received, and profeffed, in a
fucceffion of generations, for near eighteen hun-
dred years ?

But to examine his Lordfhip's doctrine a little
more narrowly. What the Bifhop calls the pre-
judices, tempers, and conflitutions of men, are
known to be much oftener, and in much greater
abundance, on the fide of folly, falfehood, and
vice, than of truth, virtue, and good fenfe. Pre-
judice and partial affection carry their point
every day, againft the loudeft remonftrances of
reafon, and the cleareit light of revelation. If
this were a new, or an incidental cafe, peculiar
to the prefent, and unknown to former times, we
might be at a lofs for directions how to deal with
it, and excufeable enough for taking up with the
bed expedients that human prudence fhould fug-
ged. But thefe, in fact, are the very fame cir-
cumftanccs in which our bleffed Saviour found
the world at his firft appearance. The preju-
dices, tempers, and conflitutions of the men of
thofe days, had in them the very fame perverfe-
nefs and obliquity, of which we complain at this
hour ; and from the fatal cffxte of which J ejus
came to fave fuch as would hear his voice.

According to the Bimop's maxim, our Saviour
fhuuld have ordered his propofdls with a view to

the

373 THE CONFESSIONAL.

the prejudices and tempers of the Scribes and
Pharifees, the leading men among the people to
whom he made his firfl overtures of reformation,
and from whom the people derived their own
prejudices and tempers.

Infteadof this, Jefus feems to have formed what
this right reverend author calls an ecclefiajlical
Utopia. He paid little refpecr. to the eftablifhed
church, as it was then modelled. He openly
reproved, and by his teaching oppofed, the tra-
ditionary religion of the rulers of the Jewifh
church, both as to their forms of worfhip and
points of doctrine ; and taught many things on
thofe occafions, which fhew he never intended
his religion mould be fhut up in a national
church, or eftablifhed upon exclufivc conditions.
The confequence was, that he was purfued by
the great churchmen of thofe times with their
litmofl vengeance, even to the death.

This he knew from the beginning would be
his fate ; neverthelefs, what is (till more ftrange!
he commanded his Apoftles, and in them, as it
ihould 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
world. It feems, he committed the event to the
providence of God, who favoured the plan fo far
at lead, as to make it probable in the highefl.de-*
gree, that if any other had been fubftiluted in
§ its

THE CONFESSIONAL. 379

its place, there would not have been one
Chriftian this day in the world K

1 Among the great variety of critics who have fat upon
The ConfeJJional, there is one who hath honoured it with his
notice in a French publication, intituled, Memoires Lite-
r aires de la Grande Bretagne, pour Van 1767, who, having
garbled and mangled to his tajic, or perhaps to his under-
Jianding, the anfwer given above to Bifhop Hoadley's plea for
accommodating all propofals for reformation, to what the
nvor/d is, not to tuhat it ought to he, adds in the margin the
following curious annotation, which he calls the JoiirnaliJVs
Remark : " The author mould not have fuffered himfelf
•' here to ramble into one of thofe digreffions fo common in
" controverfy, by dragging into his fyfrem a comparifon
" neither juft nor decent. What refemblance is there be-
'* tween a divine Legiflator, who, by working miracles, gives
" authority to a new religion, which he comes to teach
" mankind, and a private perfon, who delivers fome fenti-
" ments which appear to him to be reafonable, but which
" are not fupported by indifputable evidence ?" After
which he adds, from the plenitude of his critical authority,
" One may hurt the belt caufc by defending it with feeble
" weapons." Now, if by a private perfon [un particulier\
be here meant the author of The ConfeJJional, the Journalift
fhould have taxed him, not with injujiice and indecency, but
with downright impiety, in comparing himfelf and his
fentimcnts, to the divine Legiflator and his heavenly doc-
trines ; an accufation, which, had there been any the leaft
colour for it, the adverfaries of The Confefponal ^ would have
eagerly adopted, carefully foflered, and pompoufly exhibited
with every horrible grace of their calumniating Rhetoriclc,
long before it appeared in thf fc idle Memoirs. That the mif-
reprefentation was the handy-work either of a Frenchman
who did not undcrfland Engliflj, or of an Engliflitnan who did
not underiland French, appears from this inltance. In ftating
the arguments of the anti-reformers above, againft underta-
king any review or amendment of our public forms, it is

In

380 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In anfwer to this, it hath been fuggefted, that
the circumftances of both clergy and people are

mentioned as one allegation on the part of the adverfaries,
that religious refcxion is not the humour of the titnes ; which is
thus tranflated by the Journaliit, Que des reflexions religieufes
ne font point faites pour le terns oil nous <vi>vons, i.e. Religious
reflections are not made [or defgned] for the time in which
we live. Now, whatever opinion the author under the
hands of the Journalifl might form of the anti-reformers, he
never thought any one of them either fo ftupid or fo
wicked, as to alledge, that reflections of which religion is
the fubject were not made or deflgned for all times, as much
as religion itfelf, which, without fuch reflexions, could have
no effect upon any times. Nor indeed could the faid author
ever have imagined, before he faw it upon paper, that any
man could be fo amazingly blockifh, as not to be able to
diffinguifh between the general obligation upon all men at
all times to exercife religious reflexion ; and the general
temper and difpofltion of men at particular times, and in
particular places, to be difajfecled to it. Again, according to
this translator, The ConfeJfio?zal reprefents Jefus as deiiring to
change the Jewifli ConfeJJion of Faith [dupeuple dont il vou-
loit changer la ConfeJJion de Foi], of which there is not one
word to be found in the whole book. The Jewifli Confeffion
of Faith, depending upon the Law and the Prophets, our
Lord acknowledged in common with the Jews themfelves ;
and it was from thefe common principles efpou fed on all fides,
that Jefus argued againff. the prejudices and tempers of the
people, and againft the traditions of the Scribes and Phari-
rifees, by which they had corrupted the religion delivered by
Mofes, both as to forms of worfhip, and points of doctrine.
And a very fmall lhare of common fenfe would have in-
formed the Journalift, that the author of The Confcfjlonal is
here arguing, after this grand and venerable exemplar, from
the common principle of all Proteftants, <viz. the suffici-
ency OF THE SCRIPTURES AS A RULE, BOTH OF FAITH

very

THE CONFESSIONAL. 3§r

very different now, from what they were in the
■Apoftles days. The manners and opinions of
mankind, it is faid, have undergone great altera-
tions, infomuch that, if miniflers were to infill
either upon the fevere perfonal difcipline, or the
unadorned fimplicity of faith and worfhip preached
and pra&ifed by the Apoftles, men would rather
be prejudiced againfr., than converted to the
practice and profeffion of, the Gofpel.

But is not this to fuppofe that, upon every
change of public manners, upon every fluctua-
tion of popular opinions, the teachers of religion
have a power of varying their rule ? that is to
fay, to fuppofe what is utterly falfe ? Can they
fhew any other authentic rule of teaching reli-
gion, befides that in the New Teftament? Does
the N. T. mention any powers given to preachers
to judge of fitnefs and expediency in refpect of
events, and, in confequence of that forefight, to

and practice (and not from the fentiments or ideas of
any private individual ') , that the precepts of Chrifl ought to
be oppofed to the tempers and prejudices of a corrupted or
mifled people at all times, and in all places, and his genuine
dottrines fubftituted in the place of the artificial and tradi-
tionary forms of their fallible guides in religion, at all ad-
ventures. Faults of mere inattention may be excufed, cs
when this Journalifl calls Dr. Carters, divine of Ireland ; but
miftranflations and interpolations, which are manifestly in-
jurious to the party criticifed, and mult be fabricated with
fome degree of deliberation, imply either ao ignorance or a
perverfenefs, that mould be totally excluded from the pro-
vince of a literary as well as a municif .v/ judge.

vary

382 THE CONFESSIONAL.

vary their do&rine, and acommodate it to fup-
pofed exigencies ? If they have no fuch powers,
and yet a£t as if they had, what are they doing
but fuperfeding the authority of Chrift in his
own kingdom, and fetting themfelves up in his
place I

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 miniitry, as to fuppofe that a dif-
cretionary power in the Clergy to accommodate
themfelves and their dodlrines to the times, mud
arife from the nature of the cafe ; which they
endeavour to juflify by various arguments, par-
ticularly the example of St. Paul, who became all
things to all men.

In anfwer to this, I mall, 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 each other, than either of them were with
the Gofpel. The Gofpel was neverthelefs
preached to them both, as a common meafure of
believing and obeying unto falvation, and that
without any of thofe accommodations and allow-
ances which are now pleaded for ; fo that all

arguments

THE CONFESSIONAL. 385

arguments for fuch accommodation from the rea~
fon of the thing, are abfolutely excluded by the
practice of our Saviour himfelf.

As to the example of St. Paul, 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? — Why to the profefilon and
practice of Chriflianity. We may be fure, then,
that he neither indulged them, nor complied
with them, in any thing which was a difparage-
ment to the profeffion, or incoiifiitent with the
practice, to which he laboured to gain them. Dr.
Middleion hath infinuated that this faying of St.
Paul is hyperbolical k, or, in his own language,
had in it fame degree officlion. And it is proba-
ble the Apoflle meant no more than that fort of
accommodation to the humours of men, which is
implied in the Son of man's coining eating and
drinking, by way of mewing, that the auflerer
difcipline of John was not effential to the faith
and duties ot the gofpel. Let our modern ac-
commodators keep within the fame bounds, and
we (hall willingly allow them the benefit of thefe
precedents.

2. But this is not all. St. Paul and his compa-
nion 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

k Miscellaneous Tracts, p. 306.

B b Chriflians

384 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Christians to feaft or eat with the Gentiles, is
plainly qualified by feveral cautions. His ac-
commodation to Jewifh cuftoms turned out, in
fome inftances, very unhappily ; and I have
fometimes thought that there are fome, no very
obfcure marks, difcernible in his epiftle to the
Galatians, that he thought he had formerly gone
too far in thefe compliances. He plainly con-
demns the practice of circumcifion as destructive
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 extraction by the father's fide, for no
other reafon affigned, but becaufe of the Jews
who were in thofe quarters l .

Thefe matters of fact, then, are neceffary to
be taken in, to illuftrate the Apoftle's meaning in
thefe large expreffions. And it is no lefs expe-
dient for us to look at matters of fact nearer
home, to fet bounds to the fancies which we are
too apt to build upon them.

It is now about fifty years fince the venerable
Bifhop of Winchester advanced this maxim of con-
sidering the world as it is, rather than as it ought
to be ; and as the maxim itfelf has been almoft

1 Afts xvi. i — -3. Some commentators feem willing to ac-
count for the Apoftle's conduct on this occafion, by a maxim
of the imperial law, Partus fequitur <ventrem, and by fome
Rabbinical determinations to the fame efFedt. See Wetjlein
in loc. What weight fuch confiderations had with St. Paul
in fuch cafes, would be hard to judge.

univerfally

1*HE CONFESSIONAL. 583

uhiverfally adopted by the clergy, it is but rea-
fonable to expect it fhould, by this time, have
been juftified by better fruits, than would have
been brought forth by our endeavouring to re-
form the world by the ftricter precepts of the
Gofpel. Are then the men, or the times, upon
whom thefe accommodating methods have been
tried, in any better difpofition than they were
before they were introduced ? Are their preju-
dices rooted out, their tempers foftened, their
conflitutions refined, or their manners purified,
by thefe prudential expedients of reformation ?
We have feen what Mr. White thought of the
matter : and we are told from other hands, that
it is the fame fort of prejudice, &c. which over-
awes our fuperiors from attempting to reform,
what they are very fenfible greatly wants re-
forming, in more refpects than one.

The Bifhop of Winchcjier s maxim is, however^
in as much repute as ever. And no wonder.
Doctrines, which have in them fo much eafe and
convenience with refpecl 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 fafhion, let them be confronted with ever
fo many plain facts, 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 conduct of the clergy makes a part,
B b 2 difquilitors,

386 THE CONFESSIONAL.

difquifitors, diffenters, infidels, or heretics, the
apology is always drawn from the nature and ne-
ceffity of the times.

Thus in a late anfwer to Lord Bolingbroke, we
are informed, that il There are times and occa-
" fions when politenefs, civil-prudence, and the
" private motives of friendfhip, ought to deter-
" mine a man who is to live in the world to com-
" ply with the flate and condition of the times,
u and even to chufe the worfe inftead of the bet-
" ter method of doing good k ."

How good things may be improved by keep-
ing ! In the beginning of the century, compli-
ance with the times was only a matter of pru-
dence and expedience ; it is now become a duty.

The adverfaries of the doctrine heretofore were
only harmlefs theoretical Utopians. They are now
fanaticsy enthufia/is, and bigots. — Juitice however
muft be done to this laft writer ; who tells us,
that a there are times and occalions when the
<{ fobereft thinker (i. e. he who is neither fanatic,
" enthufiaft, nor bigot) will confefs, that the in-
" terefts of particulars fhould give way to thofe
" of the public." And one of thefe occafions,
it feems, is this on which he writes ; and where
he thinks it would be wrong to admit thefe con-
fiderations of politenefs, civil-prudence, &c— .
How fo ? Becaufe the noble author laid the au-

k Apology prefixed to the third Letter of a View of Lord
Bolingbrokis philofophy, p. xlix. firftedit. 1755.

thor

THE CONFESSIONAL. 387
thor of the View under a neceffity to reprefent
him both a,s deteflable and ridiculous, on account
of the freedoms he had taken with Mofes, Paul,
&c. ; and fo far his reafon is good. But Lord Bo-
lingbroke had taken great freedoms (greater than
with Mofcs and Paid) with the modern clergy of
our own eftabliihrnent. Had the author of the
View, therefore, been able to have prevailed upon
his own politenefs and civil-prudence to have de-
fended Mofes and Paul with fobriety and feriouf-
nefs, and to have chofen, on this occafion, what
he calls the worfe method of doing good, fome
people will be of opinion, that his arguments
would have loft nothing by it, either of their
flrength or perfpicuity ; and he would certainly
have avoided one evil fufpicion, which has (luck to
him, and of which his friendly monitor forgot to
apprize him ; namely, that his free treatment of
Lord Bolingbrohe did not arife fo much from his
zeal for true religion, as from his fenfibility of
the affront offered to the modern clergy ; in
which, it is but too vifible, the author of the
View is pcrfonally concerned.

But what are thofe times and occafions which
call for this flrain of good-breeding? The learned
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 ihould make it a duty to chufe a worfe
B b 3 method

338 THE CONFESSIONAL,

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 before him, and yet ought to poftpone the
better, and chufe the worfe, the obligation mould
feem to arife from fome Law, or to refer to fome
rule of moral practice, which hath no connexion
with the Chriftian religion.

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 exprefhon \ If, in-
deed, by a man who is to live in the world, is
meant a man who kfo to live in it as never io
give offence (" the thing, lays this writer, of all to
u be mod dreaded by thofe who know the world"),
it is well if, in the gofpel-account, this politenels,
civil-prudence, and private friendihip, turn out
to beany better than hypocrify, partiality, worldly
wifdom, and refpecl of perfons.

The plain truth is juft this. The prejudices,
tempers, constitutions, &c. of mankind, with re-
ipeft to the expedients of reformation propofed in
the Chrilb'an fcriptures, have been much the
fame in all ages i'ince the heavenly Preacher of
rhem firll appeared. Senfual, worldly-minded,
and incorrigible men, bated him, becaufe he re-
proved their pride, their avarice, their hypocrify,
and other vices, without reierve. And fuch men
hate fuch preachers to this hour, and will hate

them

THE CONFESSIONAL. 389

them to the end of the world. And yet fuch
doctrines mud be preached, with the fame un-
referved freedom, if the men who are appointed
to the office would difcharge it faithfully. Un-
lefs our prudent and polite reformers can produce
a new revelation, exhibiting new fanctions, and
new terms of falvation ; or unlefs they can fhew
(what indeed fome of them have more than half
infinuated) that the fame occafions which the men
of that generation gave to our Saviour, exift no
longer, and that pride, avarice, hypocrify, fuper-
ftition, and fenfuality, are baniihed from the face
of the earth. When they have made either of
thefe appear, then, but not till then, we can al-
low 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 exami-
nation of thefe commodious maxims. What con-
fequences do thefe cautious reformers apprehend,
from propofing to the 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 know of, have been made upon
this plan; nor does it appear by any repeated
experiments, what it is that would difappoint
them.

On this occafion we are told, " that factions

" would be created, dangerous to civil govern-

f1 ment itfelf, and productive of evils in fociety,

Bb 4 "which

390 THE CONFESSIONAL,

il which all the good that could pofliblv refult
<c from fuch endeavours to reform the world,
*' would not counterbalance."

I cannot reprefent this argument in any terms
(o well adapted to give it its full weight and luftre,
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
ft the truth of any point, or the certainty of any
fl matter of fact, can never be determined by the
il confequences that flow from it; yet I think it a
" part which virtue, as well as prudence, pre-
i( fcribes, to be more referved, and cautious of
*' meddling, where little or no advantage can be
" gained to fociety ; but where confequences may
*' poffibly prove hurtful ; and efpecially where
£c the point in queftion is only fpeculative. For
" fpeculative truth, though it greatly contri-
" butes to the perfection of human nature, may
i( yet be recovered, in fome cafes, at too dear a
li rate. Whatever unfettles the foundations of
il government, affects the well-being of fociety,
4 ' or any way dijlurbs the peace and quiet of
f( the world, is of very deftructive confequence ;
fi and the man who mould retrieve fifty fuch
44 truths, at the expence of one faction, would,
" in my opinion, be a very pernicious member
if of fociety * ."

♦ Remarks on Dr. Chapman's Charge, C3Y, p. 9, 10.

Either

THE CONFESSIONAL. 39i

Either this ingenious perfon hath written him-
felf quite out of light of his own principles, or I
am not clearfighted enough to difcover his mean-
ing. Let me firft confefs my own ignorance.

i. I cannot comprehend, how any truth that
is merely fpeculative can contribute to the per-
fection of human nature. Human nature has
always appeared to me to advance the neareft to
perfection, by the means of moral habits, form-
ed and invigorated by principles of truth, and of
religious truth in particular. Whatever difcove-
ries may be made by the way of J peculation , if
they may not be turned to fome practical ufe, or
improvement of the moral many they will pafs
with me for little better than the groundlefs vi-
fions of imagination.

2. It is equally myfterious to me, how truths
that are merely fpeculative fhould unfettle the
foundations of government.

3 . Nor can I poffibly conceive, how fuch truths
as greatly contribute to the perfection of human
nature mould affect the well-being of ibciety. I
mean, as I fuppofe he does, affect it with an evil
influence.

4. In the lafl place, I mould have apprehended,
that the recovery of fifty truths, which greatly
contribute to the perfection of human nature, would
pay the expence of one faction at leaft, even
though the peace and quiet of the world mould
be, in fome meafure, diftnrbed by it ; unlefs we

mud:

392 THE CONFESSIONAL.

mu ft fay, that little or no advantage is gained to
fociety, by the recovery of fo many fuch truths,
as greatly contribute to the perfection of human
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 as-
certain his meaning. I imagine it, however, to
be this. That where fpeculative errors are efta-
blifhed by public authority, it is better to let
them reft, than to attempt to remove them at the
hazard of a faction, or by any fuch oppofition or
remonftrance as any way difturbs the peace and
quiet of the world.

Now to this doctrine I would readily fubfcribe,
if I knew of any truth or error of the religious
kind (and of fuch truth and error this author is
here treating) that could be called merely fpecula-
tive ; that is to fay, fuch truth or error as hath
no influence or tendency to improve or debafe
the religious conduct of thofe who entertain or
reject it refpectively m. With refpect to fuch

m The French Journalift above-mentioned reprefents this
pailage thus : t£ Jl admet l'obje&ion, s'il s'agit d'erreurs
" abfolument theoretiques, c'elt-a-dire, qui n'ayent aucune
" influence fur les moeurs et la conduite religieufe de ceux
" qui les adoptent. On peut negliger celles de ce genre ;
*' mais il n'en connoit point d'abfolument indifFerentes aux
" mceurs, ou au bien de PEtat." p. 117. and then refers to
a marginal note to this efled : «« One might here require
" sheauthorto develope and prove this affertion by reafon-

truth.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 393

truth, or fuch error, it is of little confequence
what becomes of them. But few are the truths
or errors that I have met with of this com-
plexion.

It fhould feem indeed, that this remarker does
not reflrain this prudence and caution to thefe
infignificant truths and errors. For he fays,
" Whatever unfettles the foundations of go-
" vernment, &c. is of very definitive confe-
" quence."

Can this be admitted, without condemning the
practice of the Apoftles, and firil preachers of
Christianity ?

Thefe, faid their Theffalonian adverfaries, that
have turned the world upfide down, are come hither

" ings and fads." In the firft place, the author hath here
no fuch aflertion as is afcribed to him. He meddles not
with the effects that errors abfolutely theoretic may or may not
have upon the ■public manners or the State. He is fpeaking
" only of truths and errors of the religious kind ; and fays, he
" knows of no fuch truth or error, which hath not fome in-
" flue nee or tendency to improve or debafe the religious con-
" duel; of thofe who entertain or reject it refpeftively."
Does the Journalift know of any religious truth, which hath
not this influence or tendency ? Let him produce it, and then
he may reafonably require the developement and prooflhe calls
for. In the mean time, be it fufficient, in the fecond place,
for the author to appeal to the readers of any controverfy,
upon any religious point, though ever fofpeculati've or theo-
retic, whether the difputants on both fides do not conftantly
endeavour to fhevv the moral tendency of the fuppofed truth
they would fupporr, and the immoral tendency of the fup-
pofed error they would refute. Let the Journalilt try his
hand upon l\\c(c proofs and dei elopements.

alfo,

394 THE CONFESSIONAL.

alfoj whom Jafon hath received ; and thefe all do
contrary to the decrees of Ccefar, faying, There :s
another king, one Jesus n.

I expert here to be told, that the Apoftles were
falfely accufed, and that they made no attempt to
unfettle Cafars government. I acknowledge i&
But the faclion was formed upon that iuppofition,
and operated on the well-being of fociety, upon
that occalion at leail, 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 instances, that pious and zeal-
ous reformers have been accufed of disturbing the
public peace, when they were as innocent as the
Apoflles themfelves of any fuch intention?

Befides, no fenfible man can doubt but the
immediate eftablimment of Christianity in thofe
early days, would have made great alterations in
the Gentile as well as the Jcwifh civil and religi-
ous polity. The total abolition of the latter was
the inevitable confequence of the Kingfhip of Je-
fus ; and what druggies and tumults were occa-
sioned by attempting to introduce it, the facred
history has fairly informed us. And yet, I pre-
fume, our Lord imagined, the truths that would
thus be recovered to mankind, would more than
atone for thefe temporary inconveniencies.
Otherwife he would certainly have taken and
y-refcribed other meafures.

R Afts xvii. 6, 7.

The

THE CONFESSIONAL. 395
The learned writer, with whom I am making
fo free, was a fecond to Dr. Middlcton in the con-
trovcrfy concerning the continuance of miraculous
powers in the Chrljl'ian church, and a very able
one; and. I the rather hope I have not mifunder-
ftood or mifreprefented his meaning in the fore-
going citation, as he immediately fubjoins to it
the following apology for meddling in that con-
troverfy :

" But, in the prefent debate [concerning mi-
" raculous powers, &o], all fuch fears are vain
" and chimerical. Where we may difpute for
u ever, without unfettling or difturbing 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 de-
<: fend as abfolutely neeffary to fupport it."

That is to fay, " The miraculous powers of the
11 poft-apoftolic church are not affirmed in an
" eftablifhed Article, or Homily." Had that been
the cale, the point could not have been dilputed
without unfettling, or at lead difturbing, fome-
thing more than a fanciful fyftem of our prefent
churchmen. Something with a more fubftan-
tial fupport, than the political reafons above-
mentioned.

I am of opinion, that, if fome of our ancient

churchmen in former times had forefeen this con-

troverfy, or if fome of our modern dodors had

1 even

396 THE CONFESSIONAL*

even yet the power to bring it about, the quef-
tion, fo far as legal decKion could give it a fane*1
tion, would not be found fo naked of this kind
of fupport. Had this point been fecured in due
time, the Doctors Chapman, Stebbing, Churchy
and Dodzvell, who, for the general, have been fo
tame in the controverfy that you might Jlroak
them, Would have thundered about Dr. Middle'
ton's ears from the artillery of an eftablifhment,
the moment he had made his appearance in that
province ; and have plied him with their great
and fmall mot, as long as ever he was in a con-
dition to be galled by it.

I fhould be glad to know, what, in fnch cir-
cumftances, would have been the conduct of
this his ingenious advocate ? He will hardly fay,
that little or no advantage could be gained to fo-
ciety by this debate, after it has been demon-
flrated, by Dr. Middleton, Mr. Toll, and himfelf
how much the Proteftant caufe is interefted in
the determination of fo important a fact. He
calls the fyftem, contrary to that he efpoufes, a
fanciful one, unfupported by any thing but the
dirty politics of interefted churchmen. Would
the circumftance of being ejlablifhed have added
any truth or folidity to the fyftem, or given it
any more merit with refpect to the Proteftant
caufe ? If not, what would there be in the one
cafe, that ought to hinder a reafonable and con-
fcienrious Proteftant from expofing and confuting

it,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 397
it, more than in the other ? Would it be fufficient
to excufe a man fo perfuaded, that a faction
might be occafioned by the difpute, and fome-
thing unfettled and difturbed, which might af-
fecT: the peace and quiet or welfare of fociety ?

Now, it is very poffible that fome other perfon,
equally difcerning, able, and confcientious as the
Remarker, may think fome other fyflem of thefe
fanciful divines jufl 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 protection of an efla-
blifhment. What is to be done ? Is this man to
fit down and acquiefce with the herd, under the
apprehenfion of caufmg zfaflion, and unfettling,
in fome degree at lead, 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 Proteflant, or indeed of the Chriflian, world
at this inflant ?

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 great Athanafms
has been attacked by a fuccefhon of eminent

men,

39S THE CONFESSIONAL.

men, who could not be brought to think his fy-
flem lefs fanciful, for being inclofed in the'
fortrefs of an eftablimed Creed.

Mr. Whifton led the way. A faction 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 faction : and what would have come of
it in the end, if an effectual interpolition from
the higher powers had not over-ruled thofe of the
lower t none can tell. More lately, a learned and
eminent prelate, in a neighbouring kingdom,
opened the trenches once more before the formi-
dable Athanafnts, with all his myrmidons and
fortifications about him. Faclion was again the
confequence ; and, had not death fnatch'd him
off the flage in a lucky moment (of which I am
informed as I am writing this), he might proba-
bly have been lent, whither his mitre and his
rochet would not have followed him. There
were feveral others of lefs note, who had their
facTwns as well as thefe more eminent leaders ;:
but thefe are enough to explain the cafe in
hand.

Let the next queflion be concerning thefe
faclions. 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

THE CONFESSIONAL. 399

lity and fuccefs ; nor did I ever hear, that the
well-being of fociety was at all affected, at any of
thofe periods of time when the Trinitarian con-
troverfy was on the anvil. Hence it fhould
feem, that no faclions either arofe or fpread
among the common people on thefe occafions ;
and yet faclions there were, as appears both by
the offence given by, and the moleffation re-
turned to, the culprits above-mentioned. We
muff look for them then among the clergy.

Who expelled Mr. Wbijlonf The churchmen
of Cambridge. Who attempted to profcribe Dr.
Clarke f the churchmen of the Lower Koufe of
Convocation. Who took counfel againff the
Bifhop of Clogherf the great churchmen of
Ireland. Who profecuted Dr. Carter in the ec-
clefiaffical court? the church-officers of Deal,
at thes inff igation, as it is faid, of a churchman
of that place. Who profecuted Mr. Emtyn in
Ire land y and Meffieurs Pierce, Withers, and Ha I let,
in England' the diffenting clergy, abetted, as
appeared openly in the fird* cafe °, and as
was ffrongly fufpecled in the latter p, by fome
great churchmen of the effablifhed church. In
one word, what layman, who was not the in-
flrument of fome one or more churchmen, was
concerned in thefe faclions f

° See Emljn's Works, vol. I. p. 26.
p tindaP.i Tranfl. o£Ropi«, 8vo, 1746, vol. XXVII. p. 344.
C c Let

4oo THE CONFESSIONAL.

Let it then no longer be faid, that the times,
but that the churchmen, are not ripe for a refor-
mation. The impracticability, as far as yet ap-
pears, arifes wholly from that quarter. Let the
churchmen of the eftabliihment mew themfelves
defirous of, and fmcere in foliciting, a reforma-
tion of our ecclefiaflical conftitution ; and, if they
mifcarry in their endeavours, it is but equitable
that the impracticability ihould no longer be put
to their account.

Here, methinks, I perceive a fly orthodox bro-
ther, who has all this while hung his ears in a
corner, begin now to prick them up, and come
forward with this expoftulation in his mouth :
"What! reform according to the deferable
" fyftems oi'Arius or Socinus ! Is it not that you
<£ are pleading for ? And does not this confirm
" the fufpicions of thofe who imputed thefe views
<l to the free and candid Difquifitors f"

Soft and fair. Let the Difquifitors anfwer
for themfelves and their own views and princi-
ples ; but do not prejudice them beforehand.
They have laid before you a great many parti-
culars, which perhaps give more open and imme-
diate offence to the common people, than the
doctrines of the Trinity ; about which, I am apt
to think, few of them form any ideas. Had you
(hewn a difpofition to reform thefe necejfary mat*
Ursy and had you let about it with alacrity, time
and credit would have been given you for the

reft.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 401

reft. This I prefume to fay on the part of the
Difquifitors.

On my own part, I am neither afraid nor
afhamed to call for a review of our Trinitarian
forms, as what, 1 think, ic quite neceffary for the
honour of the church herfelf. Confider how
the cafe flands on the very face of our prefent
forms.

(i So that in all things (x«7a vouflx) fays the
" Athanafian Creed, the Unity in Trinity, and
*' the Trinity in Unity, is [or ought'] to be wor-
" fhiped." Is this the cafe in all our forms of
worfhip? Turnback to the Lit any , and you will
fee three diftincl invocations of the three Ferfons,
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. Inflances,
equally remarkable and notorious, of our devia-
tion from the Athanafian maxim, might be given
in great abundance. What miferable fophiftry
Dr. Watcrland 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 inconfift-
encies remain, I cannot fee how a defender of
our forms of worfliip fhould be in much better
agreement with Atbanafus, than WhiJiony Clarke,
or Clayton. To make thefe matters conjijlent, is
certainly the proper object of a review, on which
C c 2 fide

402 THE CONFESSIONAL,

fide foever of the contradi&ion the truth may
lie.

One of the lafl pieces publifhed on the fub-
jetl; of the Trinity, was, An Appeal to the Common
fenfe of all Chrijlian "People, &c. which book has
panned through two editions without any fort of
reply that I have heard of q. This looks as if
able writers were not willing to meddle with the
fubjeft, or that willing writers were not able to
manage it. Many of the wifer and more think-
ing part of the clergy have been long fick of the
Athanafian Creed, and have, by degrees, difufed
it in their churches. And many of the congrega-
tions, where it has been fo difufed, if by accident
an officiating flranger {hould read it to them in its

i When this was written, I did not know of Dr. Macdonel's
Anfwer to the Appeal, and much lefs of the Appellant's replica-
tion, intitnled, The Trinitarian Ccmtro<verfy reviewed, printed
for Millar, 1760. It is fomething, however, tomypurpofe,
that no Englijhman of any name has oiFered to confute the Ap-
peal, and that the Athanafian doctrine feems to be consigned
to the fole protection of our Ir'tjh champion, who makes fo
indifferent a figure in the hands of the Appellant, that pro-
bably we fhall hear no more of him ; the faid Appellant
having faid enough to deter wife men of both fides from
meddling farther in the controverfy, unlefs in the way of a
Review. — More lately indeed, (as I am informed) one Mr.
'Jones, provoked, it feems, by fomething in The Confefiional,
hath buckled on his armour, and brandifhed his bulrufh
Bgainft the able and impregnable Appellant ; but with fo
much indilcreet fury, that even the late grand patron of the
Anti'ConfeJJlonalijls, it is. faid, refufed to inlift him among his
retainers.

courfe,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 403

courfe, have been known to fignifv their furprize
and cliQike by very manifeft tokens r.

From thefe particulars I conclude, and venture
to repeat it, that, when our leading churchmen
tell us of the impracticability of an ecclefialtical
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 reformation
that fhould reach to the extent of our deviations
from the fcriptures (and, when the door is once
opened, who knows how far a reformation might
extend?) would not flop at a few liturgical forms
and ceremonies. The condu&ors of it might
probably proceed to inquire, how far the prefent
polity of the church flood upon a fcriptural foun-
dation ? And, fhould fuch inquiry be purfued to
good effect, the confequence might be, that the
repofe of fome great churchmen would be griev-
oufly diflurbed, their labours increafed, the na-
ture and tendency of their prefent occupations
greatly altered, and their temporalities reduced to
a due proportion to their duties and fervices *.

r See A ftrious and difpaffionate Enquiry, Sic. concerning
fome pafiages in the public Liturgy, Atkanaf.an Creed, &c.
p. 80 — 95,96. Of this I have been an eye-vvitnefs more
than once.

5 " Nothing has mifled people more in their notions and
" defires of Reformation, than their not being able to diitin-
" guifh between fome abufes, and the Tunfliom corrupted by
" them ; fo that, inftead of taking away abufes, they have
" gone to change ancient and excellent conftitutions. On
f'\ the other hand, nothing has perhaps heightened il.r

Cc : Th

ao4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

The worthy friend who fent me the firft no-
tice of the demife of Biihop Clayton, and an ac-
count of the clerical machinations againft him,
inclofed in the fame packet a fmall manufcript,
intituled, The Bifhop of Clogher's Speech, made
in the Houfe of Lords in Ireland, Febr. 2, 1756 l.
J will not anfwer for the authenticity of this lit-
tle refcript, though it feems to have pafled for
genuine in that country ; and it is certain that
the Biihop moved in Parliament for fuch a Bill
as is there mentioned- In this Speech I find the
following pailage : et I am perfuaded, that if my

<£ weaknefs more, than that fome have been fo zealous for
'* the defence of thefe abufes, that one would think they
" love the Function chiefly for the fake of the abufes, and
*' would be little concerned for it, if thefe were Separated
" from it. Others, that diflike the abufes, yet know not
** how to part with them, fearing that the making of fome
'* changes may draw more after it; and that the humour of
" making alterations, bting thus put in fermentation, may
14 grow fo violent, that it will not be eafily retrained or
" governed." Preface to Biihop Burnet's Hill, of the Rights
cf Princes, &c. p. 9. But what if the Functions and the
abufes are by length of time, and the remiffnefs of indolent
authority, become fo intimately incorporated, that there is
no feparating them? Do not the latter fort of Anti-reformers
here mentioned plainly fee this ? And is not this the ground
of their apprehenfton r And if, through the perverienefs of
the former fort (who make up by much the greateil number
and flrength of And reformers), we cannot have the Funclions
without the abufes, may there not be other Fun&jons found
out, which would equally anfwer the end of an effectual
Reformation ?

1 It has finge been printed at London, for Baldwin and
Cmptr, 1757.

" Lords

THE CONFESSIONAL. 405

" Lords the Bilhops will but fhew themfelves
" inclined to amend what they cannot but ac-
" knowledge to be amifs, they will find the laity
" ready to affifl and fupport tliem, rather than
" otherwife."

No man knew the world better than the late
Bifhop of Clogher. His adverlaries objected it to
him, after they had ranfacked all the obfcure
corners of the kingdom for fcandal, that he knew
it. but too well* Even they therefore might take
his word on this head. But indeed the thing
fpeaks for itfelf. Whenever the people lhall fee
this impracticability fubdued on the part of the
clergy, it is impoflible they ihould not be con-
vinced both of the utility of the meafure, and of
the integrity of thofe who undertake and promote
it. Such inftances of felf-denial, and fo many
circumftances of eafe and profit facrificed to the
public welfare and edification, cannot but give
them the higheft cfleem and affection for fo faith-
ful and difinterefted Paftors.

I am willing, however, that our fpiritual fa-
thers, among whom are fome perfons of diflin-
guiihed merit, fhould have the benefit of every
plea that can poflibly be offered for their inacti-
vity and acquiefcence in our prefent inconvenient
and unedifying fyftem. And if any of them can
derive any confolation to themfelves, or any apo-
logy to the world, for their conduct, from the
following conceffion, I fliall not defire to deprive
them of it.

C c 4 " Though

406 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" Though the church of Chrift/7 faith a pious
and learned writer, " has been thus corrupted
" [was. by copying the church of Rome more or
" lefs] in all ages and nations, yet there have
<{ been, and will be, in all, many who receive the
" feal of God, and worfhip him in fpirit and in
" truth. And of thefe, as many have filled high
I' ilations as low ones. Such perfons, though
" they have concurred in the fupport of what is
f{ contrary to the pure religion, have, however,
" done it innocently with refpecl to themfelves,
" being led thereto by invincible prejudices"."

What particular examples this good nun had
in his eve, would be hard to fay. Perhaps, fome
of the lirll Bifhops of the Chriilian church, com-
monly called the Fathers, as well as Pallors of
more modern times. Let us pitch upon a few
of the moil eminent of thefe., and begin with the
upper claffes firff .

The Fathers, fo called, have ever been ef-
teemed the lights of the Chriilian church, and
have been jullly revered for their piety and
fanclity of manners. But no one will deny, that
they were deeply prejudiced in favour or fome
things, which greatly disfigured and corrupted
true religion. The queflion is, how far thefe
prejudices were invincible?

Jerom is one who hath figured in all ages, both
on account of the aufterity of his difcipline, and
the fuperiority of his learning. Both popifh and

u Dr. David Hartley's Obfervations on Man, vol. II. p. 371.
5 prote(h'.nr.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 407

proteftant writers have, by turns, put their caufe
under his patronage ; till the Proteftants found
they were lofers upon the balance, and from
thenceforward began to look a little more nar-
rowly into the character and merits of the man ;
and then they found his genius was wholly turned
to bragging and dijfimidation w, that he frequently
contradicted himfelfx, and paid little regard to
truth, when he had'acontroverfial point to carry,
for which Le Clerc gives a very probable reafon,
namely, his reading and admiring Cicero. " For
" Cicero," fays this excellent Critic, ^ provided
f{ what he fays fuits his prefent purpofe, and
" may make an impreffion on his audience,
" takes no thought whether it be true, nor cares
■' at all whether he hath contradicted it elfe-
" where*."

w Internum Hieronymi toturnfuit ad jatlationem & dij/j/nula-
tionem compcjirum,. Le Clerc, Qutfjiiones Hieronymianee, III.
p. 62.

* Le Clerc, Sentiment de quelques Theolegicns d' Holland?, &c.
Lettre xiii. p. 307.

y J. Clerici Qua;fliones Hiercnymianas, VIII. § xiii. p. .24.8.
He gives feveral inftances of this conduct of Cicero, and ob-
ferves after Quintilian, and after Cicero himfelf, that the defi-
nition of an Orator fhould not be what it ufually was, <vir
bonus dicendi peri I us, but <vir callidus meutiendi pro re nata, C3*
dijfimu'andi peritus. Le Clerc (hews, that Jerom was deeply
tinctured with this oratorical craft, and had his orationes cau-
farum Cif temporum, non judicii, as well as Tidly ; which is like-
wife acknowledged by Era///, us, his great advocate. But
what fhall we fay to a certain Chrillian divine and critic,
who will have it " that in all this Cicero acted no unfair part,
" becaufe forfooth he acted it no; in his real, but his per-
\\ fonated character." Pcjifcript to Dr. Warburton's Vif.ta-

Anothcr

4o8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

Another excellent pen hath proved thefe con-
tradictions upon more of the Fathers, particu-
larly in one in fiance which ihews a diflngenuitv,

tation-fermon, printed for Fletcher Gyles, 1 738. p. 3 I . A per-
fonated character is afclitious one, and whoever puts on fuch
a character with intent to deceive, feems to me not only to act
an unfair, hut an immoral part. " Hold," fays the nimble
cafuift ; " unfair is an expreflion that relates to a man's
" breeding, to a point of civility, in not impofing on good
" company, rather than his morals" The reader will be
plea led to take notice, that this good company was often a
bench of judges, aflembled to try caufes of the greateit im-
portance to the peace and welfare of the community. Had
Cicero appeared on the ftage in the chara&er of Agamejnnm,
and fpoke nothing but what Euripides put into his mouth,
the good company would have had no reafon to complain, ei-
ther of his rudenefs or his di/honejly. But when he appears in
the naked character of Cicero the advocate, and endeavours
to impofe upon a folemn tribunal, by afalfe reprefentation of
fads in a cijminal caufe, he forfeits all pretentions to the
character of a good patriot or an honelt man. And, what-
ever becomes of his breeding, in fo far as he lays claim to
thefe titles, is every way unfair. There is, however, one in-
itance upon ' record, which impeaches Tullfs breeding.
Qiintilian informs us, that he boalted,y£ tenelras ojfudijfe judi-
cibui in caufd Ouentii. Inllit. Orat. lib. ii. cap 17. What
would be thought of an Attorney General that (hould loafi, he
had abufed and milled the Judges of the court of King's-
Bench ? Certainly not that he was a polite man But what is
this to Jejrom? A great deal to Jerom, and to the relt of the
Fathers defended by the Prefacer to Julian. The Apology
for Cicero extends to the phikfoihical, as well as rhetorical
difcipline of thefc times. If that was blamekfs, the Fathers
who purfued it were ib too. Their faults were therefore
neither faults of the times nor cf the men ; that is, the Fa-
thers had no faults at all.

of

THE CONFESSIONAL. 409

of which the raofl invincibly prejudiced among
them muft have been confcious. Hehasftiewn,
from the words of above a dozen of them, that
when the queftion was concerning conformity to
any particular religion, they all had the cleared
conception of the iniquity as wrell as impiety of
intolerance. Neverthelefs, his adverfary chal-
lenged him to (hew a tingle inflance, 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 eftablifhed faith and opinions.
The other knew better than to undertake fo
hopelefs a tafk ; and therefore contented himfelf
with (hewing, that thefe fathers contradicted in
their praftice, what they had folemnly laid down
for their i neon tellable principles z. On which
fide of fuch a contradiction can the invincible
prejudice be fuppofed to lie ?

To draw nearer to our own times, and to
mention one of the moft illuftrious characters in
all hiflory. Erafmus faw, complained of,cenfured,
and expofed, the corruptions of Popery with all
freedom. It is hardly poflible he ftiould not
perceive, that all thefe corruptions arofe from
the fpurious authority to which the Popes laid
claim. Many paffagcs, in his comments and
paraphrafcs on the New Teflamenr, mew his
jdifcernment in this matter beyond difpute. One,

* Barievrac, Traite de la Morale des Peres, Chap. xii.

$ xi. p- i"a5.

I have

410 THE CONFESSIONAL.

1 have pointed out in the note \ And to thefe

an hundred more might be added. He well

* Jam vero de Romani Pontifidt potejlate pene negotiofius
difputatur, quam de potejlate Dei, dum queeri?nus de duplici illins
potejlate, et anpojjit abrogare quodfcriptis apojlolicis decretum eft P
An pojjit ali quid flat uere quod pugnet cum doilrina evangelic a ?
An pojjit novum articulum condere in fidei fymholo ? Utrum ma-
jorem habeat potcjlatem quam Petrus, an parem ? An pojjit praci-
pere angelis ? Utrutn Jimplex homo Jit, an quafi Deus, an part: ci-
pet utramque naturam cum Cbrijlo ? An dementi cr Jit quamfuerit
Chrifius, cum is non legatur quemquam a purgatcriis pcenis revo-
cqjje ? Anfolus omnium non pojjit err are ? Sexcenta id genus dif-
putantur, magnis ediiis voluminibus, idque a magnis Tbeologis,
prafertim frofeffione religionis infignibus. Atque btec fiunt non
Jine manfejla fufpicione adulationis, nee Jifie injuria Cbrijli, ad
quern collati principes, quantumvis magni, quid aliud funt quam
vermicidi ? An put ant hac placere Leon i nojlro, germano, vcro-
que Cbrijli vicar io ', qui tanquam verus paj'tor, nihil habct anti-
quiusfalute gregis chrijliani ; ut verus Cbrijli vicar i us, nihil babet
carius gloria principis fui Cbrijli ? Erasm. Annotat. in i Tim.
i. 6. Upon this pafTage, I would obferve, i. That Erafmus
very well knew that the Tranjalpine divines held all thefe
queilions in the affirmative. 2. That he was little lefs guilty
of the adulation wherewith he reproaches them, in calling
Leo X. the true vicar of Chrijl, nvbo had nothing more at heart
than the glory of his prince, and the falvation of the Chrifiian
Jlnck. Erasmus could be no ftranger to what all the world
knew, namely, that neither the perfonal, nor papal character
of Leo, intitled him to any fuch encomium. 3. He infinu-
ates, that thefe firains of adulation weredifagreeableto Leo;
ahd yet it is certain that Leo never difcouraged them, as
Eraj'mus very well knew. Palavicini, defending this pope
againit the cenfures of Father Paul, who had faid, " that he
" was better acquainted with profane letters, than with fa-
*' cred or religious learning," allows the fact ; but in alte-
ration of it fays, " that he favoured fcholajlic divinity, and
*' that he honoured three divines of this complexion wi^h

knew

THE CONFESSIONAL. 411

knew that the fcandalous traffick of indulgences
was grounded on the papal power, and upon no
more of it than the moil moderate doctors averted
to belong to it. If Erafmus was of a different opi-
nion, he might be retained in the church by a pre-
judice, but certainly not an invincible one b.

Come we now to fome doftors of our own,
reformed church. I do not know of any of our
Bifhops, fince the Reformation, who has had
more incenfe offered up to him than Archbifhop
Whitgifty and that by the very hiftorian from
whom I take the following fact.

In the year 1572, a pamphlet was publifhed
in defence of the famous Admonition to parlia-
ment, intituled, An Exhortation to the Bifhops,
wherein their Lordfhips were reminded, " how

V the purple, and made a fourth mailer of the facrcd pa-
" lace." See Bayle's Dictionary, Art. Leo X. Rem. [H],
Thefe divines then above all others were Leo's favourites.
Was this, do you fuppofe, becaufe thefe doctors had deter-
mined the quellions above-mentioned in the negative r Was
Erafmus a ilranger to the promotion of three cardinals ? or
to the characters and ftudies of the men ? Erafmus, 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 wrote his Annota-
tions. Tope Leo X died before Erafmus publifhed the
third of his five editions of the N. T. and the fame anno-
tation is found in them jaU. Can it be faid, with the leait
probability, that Erafmus' s prejudices on this head were in-
vincible.

b See what Bayle fays of this fubjeft. Dicl. Art. Agri-
coxa George, Rem. [/?].

" har4

4i2 THE CONFESSIONAL.

" hard it was to punifh the favourers and abet-
ft tors of the Admonition , becaufe they did but
" difclofe the diforders of the church of Etivland% "
" 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
M abroad, printed not only without reprehenfion,
(( but cum privilegio ."

Archbifhop Whitgift condefcended to anfwer
this pamphlet, and to this objection thought fit
to fay, t( it was a fault to fuffer lewd books and
u ballads touching manners , but it was a greater
(i fault to fuffer books and libels, difturbing
" the peace of the church t and defacing true re-
" figion. e"

Which was to fay, i . That lewd books and
ballads, printed with privilege, neither difturbed
the peace of the church, nor defaced true reli-
gion. 2. That provided the church might quietly
enjoy and practife her forms, rites, and ceremo-
nies, titles, and emoluments, it was the lefs
material what were the manners of her members.
3. That true religion confided in thofe forms,
rites, ceremonies, titles, and powers, which the
Puritans were for defacing.

Thefe were prejudices with a witnefs, and, if
they were invincible, what was this man doing fo

c Strypis life of Archbifhop Whitgift, p. 40. who honeftly
tells us, p. 50. that he took the account of Cart-wright's Re-
ply from Whitgift himfelf.

long,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 413

long, in two divinity chairs in Cambridge? Shall
we fay, that men's prejudices become invincible
as foon as ever you name diforders in the church,
and talk of reforming them?

I make a tranfition from this prelate to Arch-
bifhop Wakey though the ftep is a pretty long
one. But it is not for want of matter in the in*
terval of time, or of prejudices in the intermedin
ate occupiers of the fee of Canterbury, but through
a willingnefs to fave the reader's time and my
own.

Dr. Wake, then Bifhop of Lincoln, at the trial
of Sachevercil, fpoke with great force and propri-
ety in defence of the Toleration-aft, and in vin-
dication of thofe who, under a commiflion from
K.William, 1689, were appointed to review the
liturgy, and other parts of our ecclefiaftical con-
ftitution, for which, according to the faid Dr.
Wake, there was great occafion* When the Schifm-
bill was in agitation, Dr, Wake, {till Bifhop of
Lincoln, oppofed it in its progrefs through the
Houfe of Lords, and, when palfed, protefted
againft it. But when, in the year 1718, this
fame Schifm-bill was attacked, Dr. Wake, then
Archbifhop of Canterbury, oppofed the repeal of
it with all his might, alledging, that it was one
of the main bulwarks and fupporters of the ejla-
blijljcd church; whereas, in his fpeech above-men-
tioned, he infided, that the eflablifhed church
neither loft nor fuflfered any thing by the tolera-
tion

4i4 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tion of difTenters. On which fide lay the invin-
cible prejudice in this cafed?

This is the farthefl I chufe 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 flirring an inch themfelves
from the centre of the crofs lanes. Peace be with
thofe of them that are gone. To fuch of them
as remain, I would recommend the feiious con-
fideration of what follows that conceflion lafl: cited
from Dr. Hartley :

fC Neverthelefs, when it fo happens, that per-
" fons in high ftations in the church have their
" eyes enlightened, and fee the corruptions and
" deficiencies of it, they mull: incur the prophe-
" tical cenfures in the higheft degree, if they ftill

d " A very ancient and worthy gentleman, now living
" [viz. 1758], fpeaking occafionally of Archbifhop Wake,
" in a company where I lately was, faid, he well remem-
" bered to have feen his grace returning from court, on the
" day that he had been there to kifs his Majefty's hand^
" upon his advancement to the fee of Canterbury. Dining
" that day at a friend's houfe, where Dr. S. Clarke was one of
•' the guefts, he mentioned this incident ; upon which the
" company, as is common, made their feveral remarks upon
'.* that promotion. Dr. Clarke continued nlent for fome
*' time ; but faid at laft, We have noiv an Archbilhop iubo is
" Prieft enough.'" Memoir communicated to the author by
a learned friend. It feems, Dr. Clarke knew the man better
than fome others did.

" concur,.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 4t5

i( concur, nay, if they do not endeavour to re-
" form, and purge out thefe defilements ; and
" though they cannot, according to this propofi-
" tion, expect entire fuccefs, yet they may be blef-
4C fed with fuch a degree, as will abundantly com-
u penfate their utmofl endeavours, and rank them
" with the Prophets and Apoftlesc."

Nothing can poffibly expofe the futility of any
pretences to defer reformation upon account of
the unripcncfs of the times, more effectually, than
the folemn truths contained in thefe few words.
Dr. Hartley, indeed, proceeds to obferve, that
" this corruption and degeneracy of the Chriilian
4t church — has, all other things being fuppofed
" to remain the fame, fuited our circumftances
" in the bed manner poffible, and will continue
M to do, as long as it fubfids. God," fays he,
u brings good out of evil, and draws men to
" himfclf in fuch manner as their natures will
" admit of, by external pomp and power, by
" things not good in themfcives, and by fome that
" are profane and unholy. The impurity of ttian-
" kind is too grofs, to unite at once with the flridt
11 purity of the Gofpel." Hence he takes occa-
fion to infer, that good men ought to fubmit to
the ecclefiallical pozvers that ha, for confeience
fake, as well as to the civil ones. .And hence, I
do not doubt, but the et / . ..'.rs that le7

c Obfervations on Man, u. f.

D d will

4itf THE CONFESSIONAL,

will infer the no neceffity of altering any thing in
their prefent fyftems : and fo we get rid of thefe
prophetical cenfares at once.

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 ?ne?td.
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 juffc
as applicable to this period of the Jewijh church,
as to any posterior ftate of the Chrijlian. It was
upon thefe confiderations, that our Saviour and
his Apoftles obferved the law, and prefcribed obe-
dience to thofe who fat in Mofes's feat.

But did thefe confiderations exculpate the wife
and prudent men of Ifaiah* s time, or the Scribes
and Pharifees of ChrifTs days, who taught for
doclr'mes the commandments of men ? By no means.
The prophetical cenfures fell heavily on them
both. And if our enlightened churchmen in high
ftations would avoid them, let them go and learn
what that meaneth, Except your righteoufnefs ex-
ceed the righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Phari-
fees, ye fhall in no wife enter into the kingdom of
heaven.

A Chap. xxix. 13.

They

THE CONFESSIONAL. 417
They will tell us, perhaps, that, fenfible as
they are of thefe corruptions, they are equally
fenfible of the impoffibility that their endeavours
or remonftrances ihould overcome the prejudices
or perverfenefs of their brethren, efpecially as
they would be likely to Hand alone and unfup-
ported in the conflict j and confequently that
there is not the lead hope that reformation would
be advanced, in whole or in part, by the utmoft
efforts they could make.

But let them try their flrength, and then they
will have a better right to this apology. Men's
endeavours in this, as well as in other cafes, are
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. T/je kingdom of God
cometb not ivith obfervation. The light of our te-
stimony may appear to be wholly extinguished,
and the feed we fow totally buried and corrupt-
ed; and yet the one may blaze out, and the other
fpringup and flourifh, in its due feafon, how, an
where, and when, we are unable to forefee of
even to conceive.

I believe, no book of equal importance ever
funk fo fuddenly into oblivion as the Free and
Candid Difquifitions ; nor was any other ever treat-
ed with more contempt and fcorn by thofe who
ought to have paid the greateit regard to the fub-
Dd 2 jett

4i8 THE CONFESSIONAL.

jeft of it. In fhort, its pernicious tendency was
echoed in the converfation of every expectant of
church-preferment, whofe fuccefs depended, in
any degree, upon the favour of his eccleliaflical
fupenors.

But, in fpite of all thefe arts, and all this con-
tumely, the book has had no inconfiderable effects
among particular perfons. It has caufed the
forms of the church to be weighed in the balance
of the fan&uary, 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 inferen-
ces and conclufions by no means in their favour.
Thefe impreflions may poflibly be working fi-
lently and imperceptibly to a good end ; and they
who wifli well to the profperity of our Ifrael, may
reap the good fruit of them, either in the prefent
or a future generation. In the mean time, others
may Jleep on, and take their reft, perhaps, for many
years to come, fecure in their numbers and in-
fluence, againfl the importunity of clamorous Dif-
quifitors. The Almighty works thofe things which
are well-pleafmg to him, in his own way, and in
his own time, by methods to us infcrutable, and
out of the reach of human proje&s. Methods
of violence feldom advance the interefts of peace
and truth. The wrath of man worketh not the

righteoufnefs of God. And tho' the fpirit of fl. am-
ber

THE CONFESSIONAL. 419

her fhould have feized the public for the prefent,
the drowfmefs will in time be fhaken off, and the
hearts and understandings of paftors and 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 blefling of God,
have found the means of emancipaiing themfelves
from the bondage of fear, the idolatry of lucre,
and the enchantments of worldly wifdom, and
who, having borne their teftimony in due feafon,
though without effect: for the prefent, will be
found to have delivered their own fouls in the
folemn hour of vifitation.

Having now examined the pleas that have been
OiTered againft a reformation of our ecclefiaftical
iyftem, it may poffibly be expected I fhould de-
fcend to particulars, and point out fome of the
principal objects, at leaft, of the reform I may be.
fuppofed to folicit.

The equitable reader, however, will recollect,,
that my fubject leads me only to one particular,
the cafe of fubfcription to human creeds and con-
feflions, and other ecclefiaftical forms, which are
required to be afTented 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. Neverthclefs,
as fomcthing is due to the ignorance and preju-
dices of well-meaning people, it may be allowed
not to be expedient to difconvinuc the ufe of them
D d 3 all

42o THE CONFESSIONAL.

all at once, provided proper endeavours are ufed
to prepare the people for their removal at a fea-
fonable time, by informing them wherein their
difagreement with the Chriflian fcripturesconfifts.
But nothing can be more cruel, nothing more
inequitable, than to infift, that candidates for the
miniftry mould give their folemn affent and con-
fent to articles of faith, and modes of difcipline
and worfhip, which it is certain many of them
muff think to be inconfiflent with the word of
God, and which, for that reafon, they are obliged
to wreft and diftort from their natural original
meaning, before they can reconcile themfelves to
this article of conformity.

I am not now looking into any man's heart,
I have given indifputable proofs of what I am
here advancing, from the writings of men of great
eminence in the church of England, by the fy-
ilems of fome or other of whom, it is reafonable
to fuppofe, the common run of fubfcribers form
their fentiments, or quiet their fcruples.

This ftumblingrblock fhould therefore be re-
moved out of the way, with the utmolt expedi-
tion. As a teft of opinions, it is utterly ufelefs.
It is an affair in which the prejudices of the people
have nothing to do. The candidates for the
miniftry are fuppofed to be perfons of learning,
capable of judging of fuch things ; and liable to
be hurt and difquieted by fo difagreeable a dilem-

5 m

f HE CONFESSIONAL. 421

ma as they are brought into by this piece of dii-
cipline. If there are any of this clafs weak enough
to be offended with the removal of this barrier
of orthodoxy, why let them be gratified too. The
restoration of their fenfible and confcientious bre-
thren to their chriftian liberty, need not preclude
them from exprefling their belief of, and their
veneration for, every thing eftabliftied in the
church of England, in as high terms as they can
invent6.

e With all alacrity would I turn this clafs over to Dr. Ru~
therfortlfs church-governors, upon the principle which in-
duced Bifhop Andrews to give up his brother Neale's purfe
to King James I. The ftory is in point, and not unedify-
ing. "The Bifhops of ' Winchejler and Durham (Andrews
" and Neak) were Handing behind the King's chair, while
" his Majefy was at dinner. His Majefty afked theBifhops,
" My Lords t" cannot I take my fubjecls money, when I want it,
" without all this formality in parliament ? The Bilhop of
" Durham readily anfwered -; God forbid. Sir, but you Jhould;
"you are the breath of our nojlrils. Whereupon the King
" turned, and faid to the Bifhop of Winchejier ; Well, my
•■ Lord, what fay you ? Sir, replied the Bifhop, / bate no
'* fill to judge of parliamentary cafes. The King anfwered,
" No put-offs, my Lord; anfwer me prefcntly. Then, Sir, faid
" he, / think it lawful for you to take my brother Neale's money,
" for he offers it." Biog. Brit. Andrews. Remark [E]. It
has been very common with obnoxious churchmen under
the gentle correction of a laugh, to complain, that religion
was ridiculed in their perfons. Left any fuch imputation
fhould, upon this occafion, be glanced at me, I think pro-
per to declare, that, in my opinion, this little anecdote is
capable of a very ferious application to the cafe in hand.
The property that every Proteftant has in his religious opi-

D d 4 But

422 THE CONFESSIONAL.

But it may be demanded, would you have tke
church to authorize and (end forth miniflers and

nions is, or ought to be, as valuable to him, as the property
he has in his purfe. Why fhould he, therefore, give up the
former to the commands of church-governors, any more than
the other to the arbitrary will of his prince ? Perhaps the
force and tendency of this quellion will be more fenfibly
felt, if we fuppofe a cafe, which, {{Laud's canons in 1641
Lad taken effect, was by no means an impoffible one. Let:
us fuppofe then Nettle's axiom to have be,en falhioned into
an article of religion to the following purpofe : The King's
Majefly is the breath of our ncftrils ; therefore, by the lanv of
God, cur ivbcle temporal fuhftance is at his rcyal a'ifpcfal, with-
out the intervention of any grant from an inferior authority.
Suppcfe this article to have been efablifped, and I will ven-
tuie to fay, that Rogerses and Welchmans would readily have
been found to prove it from fcripture. For example. There
fivent put a decree from Coifar Augullus, that all the <voorld
fhculd be taxed. Here we have a tax, but not one word of
a Parliament. And then, to clinch it, throw in the text,
Raider therefore itr.fo Cffifar the things that are C^far's ; and
1 will be bound tQ fh.ew, that you have as good a fcriptural
proof for this article, as fome commentators have brought to
authorize fome others that I could name. And can it be
fuppofed thar, this article having thus gained a fettlement
among the reft, Dodlors and Profeffors would have been
wanting to plead for its everlafling poii'efiion, on the bare
prttev.ce, " that it would be a weaknefs and levity in church
" governors, unheccming their ofice, and incovjljlent ivi/b the
" trufl committed to them, — to change their church-confeflion,
" as often as any are found, who diflike the faith and doc-
" trires contained in it." I fay the bare pretence; for the
prcmiifes from which this iveaknefs and levity are inferred,
have no more in them than a pretended Vindication of a ge-
neral right church governors are fuppofed to have to require
the clergy to fubferibe and affent to some confefiion of faith
2nd doctrines, without faying a {y liable in defence of any

pallors

THE CONFESSIONAL. 423

pallors among the people, without taking any
fecurity of them for the faithful difcharge of

particular confeflion, whofe articles may be fufficiently ex-
ceptionable in point of fcripture authority, to make it un-
becoming the office, and inconfiftent with the trull commit-
[ ted to Protejlant church governors not to change it. The
article being thus eftablifhed, proved, and fortified, let us
farther fuppofe, th2t Bancroft or Laud had enjoined it to be
fubferibed by every Lyman worth one hundred pounds in
land, money, or flock (as indeed without that circumftance
fuch an article would have done nothing for a James or a
Charles), on the pain of being refufed to trade, bear office,
or acquire an increafe of property any other way ; what, I
defire to know, would have been the fentiments of any libe-
ral-minded layman upon fuch an impofition ? Would he,
without reluctance, have facrificed his temporal property to
the doftrine of a church-governor, by an explicit declara-
tion under his hand, that the article was agreeable to the
word of God ? Would the fophiilical Vindication of a general
right in church-governors to require a fubferibed declaration
of the truth of/ome confeffion of faith and doctrines, have
convinced him of the equity, the propriety, the reafonable-
riefs, of requiring him to fubferibe to the truth of this par-
ticular article?— rl urge thefe confiderations no farther. I
perceive indignation arifing in the generous fpirits of my
countrymen at the very fuggeftion. All the ufe I would
make of it is this. Let but the fenfible benevolent layman
allow it to be probable, that there are ferious and confeien-
tious proteftants, who value the property they have in their
religious opinions, as much as others do their temporal
rights and poiTeffions, an-d he will want no other argument.
to pity, and, to his power, to affift them to get quit of
the yoke ; and, as he himfelf is happily free from one of
thefe burthens, to join his brethren who find themfelves ag-
grieved and oppreifcd by the ether, in a decent but earndl
and ardent folicitation to the legiflature that they may be
deliyered from it.

their

THE CONFESSIONAL.

their office, and particularly, without guarding
againft their preaching falfe and erroneous doc-
trines ? *

Anfwer: In our office of ordination, there are
eight queftions put to every pried ; the anfwers
to the fecond, fourth, fifth, fixth, and feventh of
which, feeni to me to contain as ample fecurity
in this behalf, as any Chriftian church can defire
or can be authorized to demand.

Here the prieft declares, and declares it at the
altar, '• That he is perfuaded that the holy fcri-
** ptures contain fufficiently all doctrine required
" of neceffity for eternal falvation, through faith
" in Jefus Chrifl ; that he has determined, by
fC God's grace, out of the faid fcriptures, to in-
*f (tract, the people committed to his charge, and
11 to teach nothing (as required of neceffity to
" eternal falvation) but that which he ffiall be
li 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 baniffi and drive away all
" erroneous and ftrange doctrines, contrary to
" God's wordf; — that he will ufe both public

f Upon a fecond confideration, this promife might, per-
haps, be better omitted. One honeft man may hold do£trines
upon a perfuafion that they are agreeable to the word of God,
which doclrines another honeft man may think to be erro-
neous and itrange, and contrary to God's word. It may too
be difficult to ban ifh and drive away the dodlrines, without
banifhing and driving away the man who holds them. This
is therefore a promife which cannot be kept confidently with

" and

THE CONFESSIONAL. 425

w and private monitions, as well to the fick as to
" the whole, within his cure, as need fhall re-
" quire, and occafion fhall be given ; — that he
*'' will be diligent in prayers, and in reading of
" the holy fcriptures, and in fuch fludies as help
" to the knowledge of the fame, laying afide
" the ftudy of the world and the flefh ; — that
" he will be diligent to frame and fafliion his
(i own felf and his family according to the doc-
" trine of Chrift, and to make both himfelf and
" them, as much as in him lieth,wholefome exam-
" pies and patterns to the flock of Chrift ;— that
fl he will maintain and fet forwards, as much as
" in him lieth, quietnefs, peace, and love,
f( among all Chriftian people, and efpecially
" among thofe that are or fhall be committed to
H his charge."

I omit the firji, third, and eighth of thefe que-
(lions, and the.anfvvers to them, without any re-
mark, becaufe, whatever I or any other perfon
may think of them, thefe declarations, in my
opinion, are what no confeientious minifter would

the principles of the Proteftant religion, fuppofmg the doc*
trincs here meant to be doctrines merely religious ; and fup-
pofing farther, that, by bar.ifoivg and driving away, any kind
of legal profecution is intended. Lut if, by banijking and
driving eAuay, no more is meant than oppofing to them argu-
ment, exhortation, or inllruftion, undoubtedly every man
fafely may promife, and every clergyman ought to perform,
in this way, as much as he is able.

refufe

426 THE CONFESSIONAL.

refufe to make, and are as good fecurity as any
Proteftant church can in reafon demand, for the
due discharge of the palloral office ; and, I be-
lieve, I fliould have few opponents, if I fhould
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 ftri&er
obligation. I will go one ftep farther ftill. There
is nothing in this declaration, but what the dif-
fering clergy themfelves might declare ; and,
being laid down as a common meafure for all //'-
cenfed or tolerated m'miftcrs, one complaint would
be effectually removed, namely, that the diffent-
ing clergy are entitled to their privileges and
emoluments upon eafier terms, than thofe of the
eftablifhed church 2.

s I nm juft now, May 29, 1770, informed, that the late
Dr. Clarke hath left behind him fome MS. corrections of the
Liturgy, which his Son has depofited in the Britijh Mu-
feum ; where, when he comes to the Articles, he has
inferted the following query — " Would it not be of fervice
" to Religion, if all Clergymen, inftead of fubferibing to the
«' thirty-nine Articles, were required to fubferibeonly to the
li matters contained in the queftions put by the Bifliop (in
" the office for ordaining Priefts) to every perfon to be or-
" dained Prielt r" The author of The CoufeJJional may be
borne with, for thinking himfelf highly credited, in falling
in unwittingly with an expedient propofed by fo excellent a
perfon ; and the difcovery he hopes may have a good effecT:,
if ever it fhould come to be the fubject of public and ferious
cifquifition, what would, or would not, he of fervice to Reli-
£ioh ? as Dr. Clarke's authority, in this inilance at leait,
wcujd fuence the prejudices conceived again.il a writer

Bur,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 427

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 are general and indeterminate : and,
after all, they are but words. Here is no fub -
Jcription ; and confequently nothing whereby the
declarer may be convicted of falfehood or preva-
rication, in cafe he mould break his engagements
with the church.

I anfwer to fome of thefe objections by afking
fome queftions. What evidence have you of the
opinions of him who fubferibes to the xxxix Ar-
ticles ? Do not the very champions of the church
infill, that the words of thefe articles are general
and indeterminate , and fufceptible of different
fenfes ? Has not this been lately afferted from
the pulpit, in the face of the univerfity of Cam-
bridge, at the folemn time of commencement, in
a fermon afterwards printed, and difperfed all over
the nation h ?

For the red, I take it for granted, that who-
ever has no objection to the making this decla-
ration, ore tenits, in public, will have none to the
fnbfcribing his name to it. And, if that will
latisfy, it is a circumllance which will readily be
given up.

much inferior to that great m.in, audio much more ob-
noxious to the bigots of the day.

h 17,-7, by Dr. ?<melU

There

42g THE CONFESSIONAL.

There is, indeed, fomething in this declaration,
that amounts to an acknowledgement of the divine
authority of the fcriptures ; and Dr. Hartley, hav-
ing firft reprobated all other fubfcriptions, hath
feen fit to add, " That it feems needlefs, or in-
" fnaring, to fuhfcribe, even to the fcriptures
" themfelves. If to any particular canon, copy,
" &c. infnaring, becaule of the many real doubts
" in thefe things. If not, it is quite fupernuous,
tt from the latitude allowed1."

1 Obfervations, vol. II. p. 353. The learned Dr. Kennicot
hath informed us, in the Introduclion to his Second Differtation
on the State of the Hebrew Text of the Old Teftament,
p. 9. that " fubfcription to an article affirming the integrity
" of the printed Hebrew Text, is {till rigidly required from
" the Candidates for holy Orders in fome countries." One
might have hoped, that his own ufeful labours would, in no
long time, put an end to this abfurd practice every-where.
One might, I fay, have hoped this, had he not told us, that
" the denial of it has been lately reprefented, in this our
*' land of light and liberty, as a crime fo replete with public
*' evil, as to call loudly for public cenfure." I have had the
fatisfaftion however of hearing from divers quarters, that,
for the honour of this land of light and liberty, there is but one
man in it, pretending to be a fcholar, who would venture
his credit upon fo crude a judgement. Be that as it may,
the man who is capable of giving this opinion, would have
very little fcruple in inferring fubfcription to it. And in-
deed why mould he have any, if nineteen in twenty of
thofe who condemn his judgement in this matter, have no
objection to the fubfcribing an article affirming, that the
Athanaiian Creed may be proved by mnji certain warrants of
fcripture? Why mall I not believe Arias Montanus, who pre-
tended he could demonfiraie the integrity of the common

I will

THE CONFESSIONAL. 429

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 paf-
fage, let us coniider, what may be inferred from
fo much of it, as may be fafely allowed ; and that
is, that to require fubfeription to any particular
copy or canon of fcripture, is infnar'ing.

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 thofe Who have read and confidered what the
writers among the Reformed have offered concern-
ing the fuperior refpect paid to the Vulgate by

Hebrew Text, or the man who condemns Dr. Kennicot for
denying it j as foon as John Calvin or Daniel Waterland,
who offer me their warrants for the other propofition ?
Will Dr. Kennicot, or any other man, fay, that the one is a
greater extravagance than the other ? What reafon will they
give for it, but that the one propofition is rftablijhed, and
the other is not ? And if this is a good reafon, the foreign-
ers, who infift upon candidates for orders attefting their be-
lief of the integrity of the printed Hebrew Text, are not at
all more extravagant than the Waterlands and Cal-vins of our
own country. But indeed it is poflible the two proportions
may be more nearly related than we are aware. If I mif-
take not, the very man who imputed this high crime to Dr.
Kennicot, infulted old Wbijlon for not being able to find,
evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Telta-
ment. Who knows what may become of thefe proofs, if
they fhould fall into Dr. Kmnicot's hands ? Let thofe who
applaud Dr. Kennicot' 's undertaking, but cannot Uar The
Cunfejfional, learn what that meaneth — ^uam tcmcre in nofm.t
legem fancimni iniquam ?

the

o THE CONFESSIONAL,
the council of Trent. Even the cooler fort of the
Roman catholic writers themfelves have found
this fo reafonable and evident, that, to fave the
honour of the council, they have been obliged to
hunt for a more commodious fenfe of the canon,
than the plain words import ; that is to fay, a
fenfe which does not imply, that the Fathers of
Trent intended to authenticate the Latin verfion
in preference to any other k .

Llence arifes an argument a fortiori, againfl
requiring fubfeription to creeds, articles, or fy-
flems, 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 who 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, was 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 inflict
" punifhment upon fuch as difobey, and to confine

k Le Clerc, Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Ho/lanJe
fur I'Hiftoire Critique du Vieux Teftament, par Mr. Simon.
Lettre xiv. p. 311, 312, &c. ^WDefenfe des Sentimens^ &c.
Lettre xiii. p. 327. e. q. f.

" the

THE CONFESSIONAL. 431
" the natural liberty of acting within. certain
" bounds, for the common good of their fubjecls,
u is of a nature very foreign to the pretences for
" confining opinions by difcouragements and pu-
" nimments1."

I cannot, however, come into this worthy per-
fon's fentiments, with refpect to the inutility of
fiibfcribing to the fcriptures with more latitude,
let the fubfcriber pitch upon (for his own ule)
what copy or canon you wrill.

It has been obferved over and over, that, not-
withstanding the Variations of fo many MSS. of
the New Teftament, " there is not one various
'* reading, chufe it as aukwardly as you can,
M by which one article of faith or moral pre-

" cept is either perverted, or loft; < — ^-or in

" which the various readihg is of any confe-
" quence to th8 main of religion ; nay, perhaps,
" is not wholly fynonymous in the view of com-
" mon readers, and quite infenlible in any mo-
u dern verfion"1."

Again, with refpeft to the canon; thofe bcoks
which have been among the afl^tyountz, are al-
lowed to be perfectly confident, in point of doc-
trine and precept, with thofe whofe authority is
more indifputable, by reafon of their univerfai

1 Obfcrvations, vol. II. p. 551.

m Bendj s Remarks on a difcourie cf Free-thlnliing, 6t!i
tc.ir. part 1. p. C 9 — 7 ^ .

E e recep-

43* THE CONFESSIONAL*

reception ; which latter, however, of themfelves,-
contain all things neceffary to be believed, of
known, in the Chriftian religion. So that, whe-
ther you admit or reject the doubtful books, it
is the fame rule of faith and manners, by which
you are guided*

This being admitted* it is fufely a fufficient
defcription of the fcriptures, to call them the
books of the Old and New Tejiament, generally re-
ceived among Chrifliam ; and fof a public paftor
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 connected
may with reafon expect*

I have, indeed, met with fome gentlemen, fuf-
ficiently difgufted with the prefent forms and
objects of our fubferiptions, who would propofe,
that the candidate fhould deliver in an account of
his belief of the fcriptures, and of the principal
articles of faith he draws from thence, in fome
form of his own. " The man himfelf," fay thefe
worthy perfons, " beft knows his own conceptions
M concerning the authority, as well as the con-
" tents, of the fcriptures ; and, by expreffing
;( thofe conceptions in his own language, he will
u. convey to whom it may concern, a much clearer
*; idea of his reverence for thofe facred oracles,
" and of the weight and authority he afcribes to1
" them, than can poffibly be gathered from his

" aflent

THE CONFESSIONAL. 433

" afTeiit to any other form compofed by others.
" Not to mention the abfurdity of obliging men
" to confefs their own faith in the words of
" others, who have no more authority, or any
" better pretence, to interpret the fcriptures than
" themfelves.

" They," continue thefe gentlemen, " who are
" fond of deriving our rituals, and other eccle-
f< fiaftical apparatus, from primitive antiquity,
" will find, that this was the ancient method
" taken to prove the orthodoxy of Chriftian
" Bifliops ; 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 to de-
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 judgement on thefe matters, as they are not
likely to retract. Many of thefe take inftitution
to new preferments in an advanced age, and may
be fuppofed to have clofed their fludies, or, as a
certain author has it, made up their minds, with
refpett to all theological opinions, when they
offer themfelves to the trial.

But, I believe, the certain confcquence would

be, that they who fhould be appointed to receive

thefe formularies, perceiving a wide difference in

die fentiTienrs of thefe veterans, manv of whom

Y. e 2 would

4j4 THE confessional.

would be found to be men of the founded learn-
ing and brighten: capacities, would think it much
better, thefe candidates {hould be left to the en-
joyment of their own opinions in fecret, than that
they, or the church they belong to, mould, by
fuch refcripts under their hands, be expofed to the
perverfe reflections that might be made upon their
refpe&ive 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,
when, in the courfe of their ftudies, 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 Ordi-
nation-office, is not liable. There the candidate is
ftippofed to be ftill carrying on the ftudy of the
fcriptures, " along with fuch [other] ftudies, as
" help to the [farther] knowledge of the fame ;"
a fuppofition, which feems tome to be abfolutely-
inconfiftent with any -peremptory aflent to the. Ar-
ticles, as agreeable to the word of God, at his firfh
entrance upon his miniftry.

There is another circumftance which recom-
mends thefe forms of declaration extremely, and
that is the modefty with which the anfwers to the
feveral queflions are exprefled, agreeable to that
ftate of probation, in which the compilers of the
a, office

THE CONFESSIONAL. 435

office knew voung candidates mufl remain, at leafr.
for lbme confiderable time.

il Are you pcrfuaded? fays the fecond queftion,
" that the holy fcriptures contain fufficiently all
" doctrine required of neceflity for eternal falva-
w tion, through faith in Jefus Chrifl ?" — The
candidate anfwers, " I am fo perfuaded." And
fo he very well may be, without having examined
the fcriptures with that application and accuracy,
which are neceffary to form a judgement upon
their whole contents. The obje& of this perfua-
fion lies within a fmall compafs ; and the know-
ledge neceffary to produce it, may be obtained
with a thoufandth part of the pains neceffary to
perfuade an ingenuous mind, that our xxxix Arti-
cles of religion are in perfect agreement with the
word of God.

When we confider the cafe of candidates for or-
ders in general, it may well be questioned, whe-
ther the perfuafion above-mentioned is not as far
as the majority of them can fafely go.

Many of them, in the northern diccefes efpe-
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 firft four years, is to qualify themfelves
for their firft degree, which they may take with
j:he inmofl honour and credit, without ever hav-
E e 3 ing

436 THE CONFESSIONAL.

ing feen the infide of a Bible". And it fhould
feem, by an anecdote in the Life of Dr. Humphrey
Prideaux, as if it were determined, that, during
that interval, it is better they mould not.

That anecdote is as follows : " Dr. Bufby of-
" fered to found two catechiftical lectures, with
" an endowment of ioo /. per annum each, for
" inftructing the under-graduates in the rudi-
" ments of the Chriftian religion, provided all
" the faid under-graduates fhould be obliged to
" attend the faid lectures, and none of them be
(i admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts,
" till after having been examined by the cate-
" chifl as to their knowledge in the doctrines and
f* precepts of the Chriflian religion, and by him
*' approved of.— -But this condition being re-
" jetted by both univerfities, the benefaction was

n " Young men," faid Dr. Prideaitx, " frequently come to
" the univerfity, without any knowledge or tintture of reli*
" gion at all ; and haye little opportunity of improving
*' themfelves therein, whilft under-graduates, becaufe the
w courfe of their ftudies inclines them to philofophy, and
*' other kinds of learning ; and they are ufually admitted to
*' their firft degree of Bachelors of Arts, with the fame ig-
** norance, as to all facred learning, as when firft admitted
" into the univerfity ; and many of them, as foon as
" they have taken that degree, offering themfelves for or-
f • ders, are too often admitted to be teachers in the church, when
f they are only fit to be catechumens therein." Life of Dr>
#. Prideaux, printed for Knafton, 1748. p. 91,

?5 rejected

THE CONFESSIONAL. 437

iC reje&ed therewith, and the church hath ever
" fince fuffered for the want of it °."

Our univerfities are generally efteemed to be
fo far out of the reach of all reprehenfion, that I
mould not have ventured to have retailed this
little piece of hiflory upon the credit of a left
refponfible voucher than Dr. Prideaux, But, as
the fact (lands upon fo good authority, I hope I
may be indulged in a few reflections upon it,
without being accufed of outraging thefe refpect-
able bodies, for which I have the utmoft. vene-
ration p.

0 Ibid. p. 92. Dr. Bujby was not ignorant, with what
tinfture of religion thefe youngflers either came to him, or
went from him.

9 They who will be at the pains to look into the end of
the Preface to the fecond edition of the Divine Legation,
published in the year 1 742, will find enough to frighten any
man from ever hinting at any blemifhes in our univerfities.
By the facred fence with which they are there inclofed, one
would think every gremjal as fafe from impugners, as an ar-
ticle of faith is, when it hath once got into an ejlablijbed
confrjfion. The Prefacer, perhaps, did not then know that
they had been attacked by any more considerable perfon
than the addle-headed Dr. Webjler ; much lefs that the
eminent Dr. Prideaux had propofed, among other neceffary
regulations in thefe feats of learning, to have a new college
eredbed in each by the name of Drone-hall, for reafons
there fpecified, by no means honourable to the academical
bodies. If I miftake not, tivo editions of the Divine Lega-
tion have fince appeared without that Preface, which indeed
would with a very ill grace have introduced to our notice a
book, wherein fuch freedoms are taken wi;h the Kite's

Ee4 In.

433 THE CONFESSIONAL.

In my humble opinion, the mofl reafonable
account that could be given of the motives of
thefe learned bodies for rejecting a benefaction
of this fort, would be, that funicient care is al-
ready taken for the Chriftian inftruclion of tjiefe
younger ftudents, without the aid of a fupernu-
merary catechift. if fo, both thefe doctors muil
Jiave been mi (taken, the one in defcribing the
diftemper, the other in indicating the method of
cure.

The rejection, indeed, is in the narrative put to
the account of the condition, perhaps becaufe the
catechift, after the candidate had fatisfied his ex-
aminers in philofophv, might have it in his power
to put a negative upon him, for deficiency in
Chriftian knowledge, which would look like an
hardfhip ; and the rather, as there feems to be an
expedient already in the hands of both univer-
fities, calculated to anfwer all the ends of ap-
pointing a particular cafuift.

Professor of Divinity in one of the univerfni.es, an4
matter of ridicule and contempt raifed from circumstances
of the office, common to all profejjors in the fame chair. I
have feen a lift of the co?np!ime?its paid to the learned and
worthy ProfefFor in the performance above mentioned, drawn
out into one view, for which, according to the opinion of
very competent judges, the Profe/Tor might have made his
toncurrent a legal return, in a way, however, which would
have fhewn the little propriety of dedicating a thing, with
\\\t title the lawyers gave it, to the Lord Chilf Jus tick
or England,

For,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 439

For, if I am not mifinformed, in both univerfi-
ties, every Matter of Arts hath a right to exa-
mine every candidate for a Bachelor's degree,
and a power of putting a negative upon him,
and as much for a deficiency in Chriftian know*
ledge, as for any other default. Upon inquiry,
however, I am told, that few if any candidates
have their degree poftponed on that account.
Perhaps fome may think it is, becaufe they are
fcldom or never examined in that branch, for a
reafon which the univerfities think very fuffi-
cient, and which operates equally to the exclufion
of an appointed catechift.

Let us fnppofe this reafon to be the impro-
priety of intermixing catechiflical examinations
with thofe which afcertain the candidate's quali-
fications for a degree in arts, and of a catechifl's
interfering in the conferring fuch degree ; yet
might not the condition be modcl'd by a fmall
alteration, fo as to render fuch a benefaction eli-
gible both to the univerfities and the public ?

Suppofe, for example, no academical candi-
date mould be promoted to the office of deacon \
without exhibiting to the bifhop, among the reft
of his papers, a teftimonial from the academical
catechift. of his proficiency in Chriflian know-
ledge I It does not feem at fir ft: fight at all more
proper, that the arts which qualify a man for a
bachelor's degree fhould of themfelves qualify
fiim for the Chriftian miniftry, than that Chriflian

knowledge

44o THE CONFESSIONAL.

knowledge alone fliould qualify a man for a de-
gree in arts.

But here I mall certainly be told, that this is
the affair of the Bifliops, and not of the Univer-
fities ; and that it is an unwarrantable reflexion
upon their Lordfhips to fuppofe, they mould
want to be informed by a catechift, of the abili-
ties of a candidate in that branch of knowledge,
which is the particular object of their own exa-
minations.

To this I can only anfwer in the words of Dr.
Prideaux above- cited: " Many who have taken
t( their firft degree, are too often admitted
(t to be teachers in /A? 'church, when they are
" only fit to be catechumens." Perhaps, matters
may have mended fince the days of Dr. Prideaux ;
or, if not, the whole fault may not belong to the
Bifhops and their Examiners. For if> as the
worthy Dean of Norwich hath obferved, " Bi-
" fhops are often deceived by falfe teJli?nonials"
the Univerfities may come in for a fhare of the
blame, fince they give as ample teflimonials,
and often upon as flender grounds (particularly
with refpecl to Chrijlian knowledge), as country
miniilers.

In the mean time, thefe confiderations, as
matters now frand, make it frill more neceffary,
that the church (to fave the credit of all parties)
fhould content herfelf with the declaration,
framed from the Ordination-officej, fet forth,

^hpyye.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 441

above. This declaration not only admits of im»
provemcnts in theological learning, but exhibits
the candidate as determined to make them ; and
furely the profeffing fuch .determination fliould
be no trifling 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
interpretations of fcriptures eftablifhed in perpe*
tuity, and which he may not gainfay at any future
period (notwithftanding what he may find in the
fcripture to the contrary) on the peril of being
excommunicated ipfofafto, is not only abfolutely
to preclude him from all future improvement^
but likewife difabling him from performing his
promife to any good purpofe, viz, " to be dili-
" gent in reading the holy fpriptures, and in
ft fuch fludies as help to the knowledge of the
" fame."

" No," fays a late notable Cafuift, " young
fi people may give a general affent to the Articles,
" on the authority of others ; more cannot be ex-
" peeled or underftood to be done by thofe who
f1 are juft beginning to exercife their reafon, —
ic by which means room is left for improvements
tc m theology V

Which, as I take it, implies a fuppofition thai
thefe young fubferibers are left at liberty to re~

1 See Dr. Powell's Sermon, on Commencement-Sunday,
17S7-

7 tracl

442 THE CONFESSIONAL.

trad their aifent to the Articles, if, in the pro-
grefs of their ftudies, they find what the)' affented
to inconfiftent with their farther difcoveries and
improvements in theology. And, if this is
really the cafe, why would not the preacher fpeak
out?

This fermori, fo far as I know, is the lafl: for-
mal Defence of the fabfcriptions required in the
church of England ', that hath yet appeared ; and
is fo well calculated to make all ends ?neet, that it
is a thoufand pities it fhould ever be fuperfeded
by any new production upon the fiibject, which
fhould change the poflare of Defence r; particu-

" Facher Baron 's maxim, Malum bene pofetum ne ?no<vetoy
mould never be out of the eye of him who takes upon him
to contend for the perpetuity of psrticular human forms and
fyttems of religion. The fermon mentioned above had
placed and left fubfcriptions in the moil commodious pofi-
tion imaginable, namely, upon the broad bottom of a lati-
tude of which no man could fee the extent or limits ; a lati-
tude calculated '.' pn purpofe to admit within the pale of the
" church, men of various, and even oppojtte principles."
There was no fear, that the honefiy of any fubfcriber mould,
upon this plan, be called in queition ; for, " the larger its
u compafs is, the more howft men will it comprehend ; and
" perhaps there is no danger, even in times of the greateft
** freedom and candor, that it mould become too wide." It
would be hard to fav what religious principles a man mult
entertain, who could not, upon this footing, bcnejlly fubfcribe
any confeffion. Even they, " who are advanced a little far-
*' ther into life than children," might upon the Doctor's
plan fafely fubfcribe the xxxix Articles ; " for no man would
■" conceive any thinp- farther to be meant by their fubferip-
" tions, than that thev acknowledged themfelves members of

Jarly,

THE CONFESSIONAL. 443
larly, as (in conjunction with two or three other

" the church of England j and declared that they had no ob-
** jeclion to her Articles, but a general belief of them, grounded
44 upon the authority of others ; and all this, notwith Handing
every fubfcriber, " acknowledges, by his fubfcription, <will-
" ingly and ex animo, all and every the faid Articles to be
" agreeable to the word of God." See Dr. Powell's Com-
mencement-Sermon, 1757, p. 13 & 17. and Canon xxxvi.
Now, every man of common fenfe fees that nothing; can be
more ridiculous than to join the idea of a Tef, to fubfcrip-
tions allowed in-this, or indeed in any, latitude, where the
fubfcription required is to a Confeffion agreed upon for the
avoiding diverfities of opinions, and for the ejlablifliitig of confent
touching true religion. And yet, no doubt but this reverend
Doctor's expedient has been flioft thankfully accepted by a
great many fubferibers, within the lail ten years, and the ra-
ther, as in all that time the church hath not declared againft
it. — And now, in oft unfeafonably, fteps in the learned Dr.
Rutherforth ; and he, by reviving the notion that eftablifhed
Confeffions, even in Proteftant churches, " aredefigned to be
" TeJJs, by which the Governors of the church may find out,
44 whether they who defire to be appointed paftors and
44 teachers, affent to the faith and doctrines contained in
44 them, or not," impounds all fubferibers, once more,
within the ancient pale of church-authority, and confines
them to the uniform fenfe of church-governors. Upon Dr.
Powell's plan, church-governors cznfnd out nothing by fub-
fcriptions, but that the fubferibers are, or, for any thing they
c&wfnd out to the contrary, may be, of different judgements,
various principles, and oppofite opinions, even with refpedfc
to every one of the xxxix Articles. To fay, that the Go-
vernors of the church can find out by fubferiptions, taken in
the latitude allowed by Dr. Powell, that the fubferibers af-
fent to the faith and doctrines contained in the eftablifhed
Confeffion, is to fuppofe, that the eitablifhed Confeflion
containeth various Faiths, and eppoftt Duffrines', a luppo-
fuion for which Dr. Rutherforth'' s fyilem leaves no room, for

ira*5tej

444 THE CONFESSIONAL.

tracts, lately publilhed) it will greatly affift our

he declares, that " whoever fubfcribes to the faith and doc-
'" trine's contained in the eftablilhed Confeflion, when he does
" not aflent to them, fruftrates the purpofe for which fuch
u Confeflions were eftablifhed." Charge, f> . 1 3. And what
the ProfefTor means by affenting to them, he explains elfe-
where, namely, the giving Church-governofs fuffieient af-
" furance of the foundnefs of their faith and doftrines," p. 3.
But of two or more oppojite dottrines, one Or more muft be un-
found ; and the mere aft of fubfcribing, where the uniform
fenfe of Church-governors, with refpeft to the faith and doc-
trines to be fubfcribed to, is not firft eftablifhedj will not give
Church -governors fuffieient, or indeed any aflurance, which
of the oppofite doctrines the fubfcriber aflents to. To do
t)r. Powell juflice, however, his fcheme has much more of a
Protefiant air, than that of the learned ProfefTor. The great
and leading Proteftant principle is, that the fcriptures are
the only Rule of Faith to every Chriftian, whether he is a
clergyman or a layman. But whoever is required to aflent
to human interpretations of fcripture, as a Tefi of the found-
nefs of his Faith, is required to adopt dnother Rule of Faith,
fubftituted in the place of the fcriptures ; and is fo far re-
quired to defert the only Proteftant Rule of Faith, or, at the
beft, to abide by it under fuch reftriftions as exclude his
right of judging for himfelf. But this, Dr. Rutherforth af-
ferts, Church-governors have a right to require of the
Clergy ; and if it is not required of the Laity, it is not, it
feems, for want of the good-will of the Church-governors,
for they M underftand the' Laity to be as much bound in cori-
" fcience to believe what is contained in thefe human inter-
** pretations of fcripture, as the Clergy who declare their af-
•* fent to them." The Profeffor fays indeed, that" nochurch
" has a right to make ufe of its Confeflion [/'. e. its inter-
** pretations of fcripture] as a Law, to compel the candi-
«* dates for holy Orders to aflent to the propofitions con-
•' tained in it, but only as a Tefl to difcover whether they do
*• aflent to them or not." Eat what if they do not aflent to

pofterity

THE CONFESSIONAL. 445

poflerity in forming a true judgement of the libe-

them ? Why then the Confeflion immediately operates as a
Teji-lavj, and excludes them from certain privileges, from
which, had the fcriptures been allowed to be their only Rule
of Fait b, they would not have been excluded. And wherein,
after all this quibbling, does the learned ProfefTor's plan of
church-authority differ from that of Popery, but in this cir-
cumftance, that his Proteftant Church-governors have all the
benefits of infallibility, vjiihout the abfurdity x>f pretending to it ?
See Dedication to Pope Clement XL p. iii. ed. 8vo. 17 15.
But Dr. PovittTs fcheme has indeed, as I faid, a little more
of a Proteftant afpedt. For though he does not explain him-
ielf on the right of private judgement, claimed by Proteftants,
of interpreting the fcripture for themfelves, being wholly
filenton that head, yet he makes as much room for private
judgement in interpreting eftabliftied Confeflions as heart can
wifh : and is fo far from fuppofing Church-governors to be
always in the right, that he fays, " Every fincere man who
" makes a public declaration, will confider it as meaning
*' what it is ufually conceived to mean. I will not add, by
tl thofe who require this declaration ; not [whatitisconceived
" to mean] by the Governors of the church, becaufe they
" cannot properly be faid to require that which they have no
'* authority to difpenfe with, or alter." Obfcurity is one of
the EJfentials of CafuiJJry. But, fo far as I underftand thii
paflage, it imports, " that the declarer may very Jincerely
*' conceive his declaration to mean, what the Governors of
*' the church do not conceive it to mean ;" and this mud be
as true of an hundred declarers as of one. Sermon, p. 12.
Whereas Dr. Rutherforth fays, that " the church requires
•* evidence of the candidates for the miniftry, that their faith
" and dodlrines are fuch, as it judges to be ag reeable
" to the true religion of Cbrijl." And again : " The church
" claims a right tofecure the teaching of fuch doctrines to
H its members, as it judges, upon the best informa-
c' TION IT can GET, to It agreeable to the truth of the Gof-
"/<•/." Charge, p. 5. 18. This fecurity depends upon the

44* THE CONFESSIONAL.

ral fentiments of the* prefent age on the article
of moral honejly, as well as give them a jufl idea

evidence above-mentioned. But it is impoflible the church
or [what is the fame thing, in the prefent cafe] church-go-
vernors mould ever have this evidence, if they who declare
their affent to the Confeflion, may fincerely conceive their
declaration to mean, what the church or church-governors
do not conceive it to mean. It appears then, upon the
whole, that it had been Dr. Rutherfortb's wifeft way to have
left fubfcriptions upon that ample foundation upon which Dr.
Powell had placed them. By pinning down fubfcribers to
the judgement of the church or church-governors, as he has
done, he hath only given occafion to obferve, that Popijh
equally with Proteftant churches fall within his Vindication j
and his feeble endeavours throughout his Second Vindication
to rid himfelf of that imputation, only ferve to fix it the
fafter upon him. For my part, I fee only one hope he has
left us. The next adventurer in the caufe may probably do
as much for him as he hath done for Dr. Powell, and leave us
juft where we were. In which cafe, I dare fay, they whom
he writes for will approve of his acquiefcence, without
with-holding the reward of his by-paft labours. It is indeed
ferioufly to be lamented, that, after all the lights and advan-
tages that have been vouchfafed to this happy country, and
the many deliverances and efcapes we have had from civil
and ecclefiaftical tyranny, there ihould 1H11 be found among
us Divines, who would once more fhackle us in the fetters of
Church-authority, and particularly, that fuch Divines Ihould
be found in thofe feats of learning and liberal fcience, where
every poffible encouragement ought to be given to freedom
of enquiry, and the purfuit of truth, unincumbered with the
ligatures of fyftem, and perfectly tfript of thei vizard of
fcholaitic fophiftry. With what fpirit can a youth of inge-
nuous probity of mind purfuehis fcriptural ftudies, when he
reflects, that whatever difcoveries he may make, upon what-
ever conviction he may form his religious principles, he bath

of

THE CONFESSIONAL, 44?

of our improvements in theology, and how far we
go beyond the zeal and dexterity of our fore-*

already given the chiirch fecurity to be determined by her
Confeflion, upen the authority of others, in terms which could
not have been ftronger or more exprefs, had he done it after
the moil minute examination of its contents ? With what ala-
crity can he"go forward in quell of religious knowledge, in
order to qualify himfelf for a faithful minifter of the Gofpel*
under anxieties and fufpicions that the word of God may
difagree with the eftablifhed Confeflion, to which, however,
if he does not fubferibe in the fame pofitive and abfolute
terms, he is told, he muft apply himfelf to fame other way cf
getting a livelihood ; and over and befides have the mord loca-
tion to be upbraided as a re-volter from the aiient he had
given, though it was merely upon tru/I, by a hundred mean*
narrow-minded men, who have taken the hint from their
own fubferiptions, never to think for themfelves ? The nine
was, when the moderation of the church of England gave her
fome advantage over the eftablifhed church of Scot/and,
which at that period was the more rigorous of the two, in ad-
hering to her doclrinal fyftem. Were Dr. Rutherforth's Vin-
dication to be the ftandard of orthodoxy among us, wer
mould foon be in a fair way of loflng this advantage, t'iie
language of the mod refpectable of the clergy of the church
of Scotland is become the language of truth, reafon, peace,
and Chrillian liberty. And it is with pleafure I can now
elofe my additions with a fpecimen of it, delivered in a pub-
lic difcourfe, about three months after Dr. Rutberfbrth's
Charge, and on a fimilar occafion. — " The minifters of reli-
•' gion," fays this truly Chriftian preacher, <; are bound to
** lead the way to union, by keeping at the titmoft diftance
** from fpiritual dominion over the faith and confeiences of
•• their brethren. Neither, fays the Apofilc Peter, I Ep.
•f v. 3. as being lords cntr GotTs heritage, but being c?ifampU: to
" the flock. And his beloved brother Raul to the fame pur-
" pole ; 2 Cor. i. 24. Not for that we ha-ve dominion over your

F f fathers,

448 THE CONFESSIONAL.

fathers, in accommodating plain, fimple, naked
Chriilianity, with the arts, ornaments, opulence,

«' faith , but are helpers of your joy ;for by faith, that is, by fin-
'* cere, private, perfonal convidlion, ye Jland. After fuch
" declarations as thefe from thofe who were divinely in-
" fpired, to claim the dominion of peoples faith and con-
" fcience, is highly unreafonable ; and to comply with it, is
*'/hothfooliJh and wided. It is, in effecl:, to fet afide real
*' infallible authority, and to fubititute that which is weak
** and fallible in the room of it. From thence, too, come
" divifions, herefies, ftrifes very calamitous. Our bleffed
" Lord forefaw this, and therefore exprefly enjoined, Mctth.
■S( xxiii. g, 10. that we mould call no man father upon earthy
if becaufe one is our Father, who is in heaven : neither to be
*' called mafiers, becaufe one is our Mafier, even Chrijl. Jefus
•* the Son of God, he is Lord of all ; Lord of our confcience,
"Lord of our faith; and now he adminifters his govern-
" ment, by the written rule of his word. This rule is open
" and free to all; even the teachers of it themfelves are not,
" under a pretence of interpreting" what it contains, to in-
" troduce their own authority, to ufurp maflery and domi-
" nion. No ; they are, in all humility and diligence, to
44 affift their brethren, but not to impofe their interpretations
'« upon them. The hurt which has been done to truth and
" love, by affeflingfpiritual dominion, is fcarce to be imagined
44 by thofe who are ignorant of the hiftory of the church ;
•' and thofe who are in any tolerable ipeafure acquainted
" with that hiftory, will need no other argument to fall in
44 with the counfel of union and peace which I now propofe.
44 They will rejoice in the liberty wherewith Jefus Chrift
44 has made them free; they will ftedfaftly adhere to it in their
44 own practice, and they will publiQi far and wide, as their
44 influence can reach, that T'hefupreme Judge, by which all
" controverjies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of
44 councils, opinions of ancient Writers, doclrines of men, and pri-
44 <vate Jpirits, are to be examined, and in whofe fentence we are

power.

THE CONFESSIONAL. 44?

power, and policy, of the kingdoms of this
world.

' to rejl, can be no other but the Holy Spirit ffeaking in the
1 fcriptures ; that in regard all Councils and Synods, whether
" general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore
*' they are not to be made a rule of faith or practice, but to bi
1 ufed as an help in both. Thus we fee the wifdom and mo-
" defty of our own church ; and by this, no doubt, the wifeff.
'* and belt of her teachers ivill e-ver think it their duty, to pr'o-
" pofe their own interpretations, and likewife to explain all
" the other acts, decrees, and rules, which, from the time of
** adopting that confjjtonal help, have, or may yet proceed
" from her *." Chrijlian Unity illujl rated and recommended
from the Example of the primitive Church. A Sermon preached
before the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, at Glasgow,
October 14th, 1766. By William Dalrymple, A. M.
one of the Minillers of Ayr. Printed at Ola/sow, by
R. and A. Foulis, p. 16, 17, 18.

* The former, part of the above-cited paflage is taken from chap. 1.
feci, x. and the latter part from chap. XXXI. fe9. iv. of the Confejfior.
of Faith agreed upon by the AfTembly of Divines at Wejtm'inflcr, 1647.
which (after what Mr. Dalrymple has faid above), one would think, is a
fufficient proof, that the Wty?w/K/?frConferI)on muft be the cftablifhed Con-
feflion of the church of Scotland at this day. It is true, the church of
Scotland had another Confeflion at the beginning of its Reformation,
which, I apprehend, is now totally laid afide ; and perhaps this is the
only inftance of a national church's changing its eftabliflied Confdfion
fince the Reformation} and had the church of Scotland adopted the above-
cited paflages only, in lieu of the original fyftem which was fuperfeded,
omitting all the reft of the Confeflion from which they are taken, /he
wodld have been the wifeft church in Europe : and h, if I conjecture
right, thinks the judicious author of this extract, whatever may be his
opinion of the helps tc be had from Councils and Confeflions.

Ff2 POSTSCRIPT.

[ 45° 3

POSTSCRIPT.

I Did not expeft that what I mentioned as only
probable^ would fo very foon come to pafs ; I
mean, that " the learned Profeflbr Rutherforth's
" plan of Vindication would be fuperfeded by
et fome future advocate for fubfcriptions, and that
" we fhould be happily brought back to Dr.
" Powell's more enlarged and expanded Hypo^
" thefis, under which every honeft fubfcriber
" might pleafe himfelf with whatever interpreta-
" tion of the Articles would bed fuit his pecu-
" liar notions." But, fince I fent the lafl: note
to the prefs, I find this confiderable fervice hath
been done for thofe whofe minds The ConfeJJional
may have difturbed, by the ingenious author of
a little piece, intituled, A Plea for the Subscrip-
tion of the Clergy to the thirty -nine Articles of Re- '
ligion ; who hath once more placed fubfcriptions
upon the ample bafis of an indefinite latitude. I
am not indeed quite fatisfied as to the propriety
of his title-page. It would, in my opinion, have
agreed better with the contents, had he called
his performance, A Plea for political Chrijiia?iityt
as he feems to refolvc all the ends and ufes of

religion

POSTSCRIPT. 451

religion partly into the power, and partly into the
convenience, of the civil magiftrate ; fo far, if I
underftand his glofs upon John xviii. 36. as to
make it a queftion, whether Chrifl had any fub-
jecls upon earth? And upon this footing, what
can be his quarrel with the Clerks of St. Igna-
tius f Surely he does not miftake them for his ad-
verfaries. Hath not. Father Philips told us
very lately, that the Smithfield-fires were lighted
up by the laws' of the Hate, and plainly infinu-
ated that thofe executions were no more than
fv.ch fclf-defcr.ee as was neceffary with regard to
the tempers and difpofitions of thofe opponents of the
eftabliflment who fullered in tfiem ? Was not the
plea of the Star-chamber the very fame, for flit-
ting the nofes and cropping the ears of the oppo-
nents of thofe days ? And has not every defender,
whether of Pole or of Laud, infilled that thefe
were lawful means of fe If- defence f And why law-
ful, but becaufe they were means eftablifhed by
law? If the lawfulnefs of the means of felf-defence
in matters of religion is put upon any other iflue,
we muft go to the written word, and drop the
Powers of this world. But then, alas ! our ora-
tor's Plea muft drop with them ; and that were a
thoufand pities, as it might infer the lofs of the
fee. It is indeed a little unfortunate for the
particular fyftem on the behalf of which our ad-
vocate is retained, that he hath not been able to
find any other authority for thofe Articles which
F f 3 ciQ

452 POSTSCRIPT.

do not concern the ConfeJJion of the true Faith, and
the dodrine of the Sacraments, but of the canoni-
cal (on. But let us not be difcouraged. Who
knows but, notwithstanding what the late Lord
Chancellor Hardwicke hath laid upon the fub-
jecl, there may be fome dormant ftatute, or fome
lurking claufe in a ftatute not quite obfolete,
which may be made to eftablifh the Canons
of 1603? Why not indeed the Act of Unifor-
mity, 13 Car. W. A very fliort and clear fyllo-
gifm feems to do the bufinefs to a nicety. The
Canons of 1603 are always bound up with our
Folio Common-prayer-book, as well as the De-
claration at the head of the xxxix Articles.
Ergo, they are part of the book. Ergo, they are
eflabliihed by the faid Act of Uniformity. And
let no man be furprized at the novelty of the ar-
gument. It was found out about fifteen years
ago, that Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions of 1559,
were in as full force at that time as they were
the firft hour of their publication. For why,
fays the learned pleader for them, they are found
in Bifliop Sparrow's Collection, along with the
xxxix Articles, the Office of Ordination, &c.
which are in full force. I do not fee why this
reafoning Ihould not do for our Advocate. Dr.
Anthony Ellys was as certainly a Bifhop, and knew
what was right and jujl, as well as Dr. Anthony
Sparrow. — The ingenious Pleader hath been,
I underlland, particularly civil to The Confejfionah

Hf

POSTSCRIPT. 453

He hath enriched his copy of it with his own va-
luable manufcript-notes, and hath repeatedly dig-
nified it with kind and candid notice in his printed
Plea ; on which account it gives me concern that
I am prevented, for the prefent, from paying my
refpe&s to him in a more particular manner. In-
deed, I ihould hardly know how to fet about it,
if I were more at leifure. He appears, by
turns, on both fides of the true queftion, and by
turns, on neither; and it might perhaps be diffi-
cult to find him without a loop-hole whereat
to efcape.

On thefe confederations, I am inclined to repofe
myfelf in an opinion, which it feems is become
pretty general, that The ConfeJ/ional, in its pre-
fent ftate, is fomewhat a better anfwer to the Plea,
than the Plea is to The ConfeJJionaL This mud
be my excufe for letting this Performance pafs
with the public at its full value, without any
farther remarks. But if the learned writer of
the Plea meant no more than a little indulgence
of his Genius in the Province of Controverfy, he
may now have an opportunity of difplaying his
Talent to good purpofe, by attempting the relief
of Dr. Rutherforth, whom the fecond Letter of
his very able and ingenious Examiner hath re-
duced to a very pitiable diftrefs, from which
there feems no way to difengage him, but by
claiming him from thofe Catholic Cantons, where
the aforefaid Examiner hath obliged him to take
F f 4 flicker,

454 POSTSCRIPT.

fhelter a, as a fubjeft of thofe civil Powers, la
behalf of whofe rights over confcience, this,
accomplilhed Pleader hath retained hirafelf,

* See The incomparable Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rutherforth,
&c. occajioned by his Second Vindication of the Right of Pro-
teftant Churches to require the Clergy to fubfcribe to an efablijhed
Confejjion of Faith and Doclrines. From the Examiner of the
F'wjt. Printed for Johnfin, Davenport, and Cadell.

A ^ A R D.

[ 455 ]

A CARD.

TH E Author of The Confeffional prefents
his compliments to the reverend William
Jones, A. B. late oiUniverfity College in Oxford,
and Rector of Plucklcy in Kent, with his cordial
thanks to his Reverence for taking fo much pains
to convince the public that the Principles and
Spirit of the faid Author, are not the Principles
and Spirit of the faid reverend William Jones.
It would greatly add to the obligation, if his Re-
verence would pleafe to fignify to the public, the
true reafon why a teftimony fo honourable to the
Author of The Confeffional, which hath been fo
many years upon paper, did not appear in print
before. The faid Author takes this opportu-
nity to exprefs his hopes, that his Reverence's old
acquaintance at Oxford, will be no lefs grateful
to his Reverence for exculpating their common
mother from an opprobious reflection of old
John Fox the martyrologift, thrown out in the
following terms : Fuit aliquando Oxonia veftra
religionis parens, nunc videndum vobis ne degeneret

in

456 A C A R 1).

in novercam. Audio enim nuper a vobis Oxonien-
fibus fubfcriptum ejfe obfoleto Mi, ac jam dudum
explofo, articulo de Tr ansubstantiatione.
Upon the Principles, and in the Spirit, of the
reverend William "Jones, it may fafely be af-
firmed, that John Fox was an old Ignoramus,
who knew not, the extent of Church-authority,
or of the powers and privileges of an orthodox
Univerfitv. <

I N D E X,

C 457 ]

I N D EX.

A.

ABBOT, Archbp. vindicated from the charge of irrigating
king James to oppofe Vorftius, 284, note. Apology for
his conduct with regard to Grotius, 285, note. Inquiry into
his fentiments with refpect to the edict of the States, relating
to tht Gomariits and Arminians, 288. note.

Andrews, Bifhop of Wincheiler, his retort on Neale Bifhop of
Durham, 421, note.

Aptborp, Mr. observations on a paflage in his Review of Dr.
Mayhem's Remarks^ 6cc. relating to the ConfeJJional, Preface to
I ed. xl.

Armbiianifm, tends to lefTcn the differences between Proteltants
and Papifts, Preface to 1 ed. lxxii. gains ground in the
church of England, 297.313. llavifh tendency of, 316.

Articles or the church or England. How far fubicription to them
is required by 13 Eliz. c. 12. Preface to 2 ed. v. The
limiting claufe in that ftatute, not abrogated by the Act of
Uniformity, 14 Car. II. Ditto, x, note. Bp. Burnet's motives
for expounding them, 82. The propriety of eltablifhing, as
a ftandard of doctrine, objected to by Bp. Burnet, 94. The
ufe of, according to Bp. Burnet, 124. Hiilory or King James's
Declaration prefixed to them, 133. Are accepted by a iblemn
vow of the Houle of Commons in the reign of King Charles I.
141. Objections to Bp. Burnet's account of the firlt publi-
cation ot them, 146. No latitude of general terms employed
in them, 232. The form of fubicription required to them,
243. The. clergy charged with departing from them, 244,
v . Subfcription to, a total resignation of the right of pri-
vate judgement, 245. How eltabliflied in Ireland, 249, note.
Arminianifra the general perfuafion of the prefent fubferibers,
313. Dr. Heylin's opinion of the compilers of them, 326,
note. The Calviniftical articles confidered as the frrongeit bar-
rier? again 11 popery, 331.- A reform of them, neceflary, 3^^.
Tht: firft claule of the twentieth article, of fufpicious autho-
rity.

458 I N D E X.

rity, 367, note. Subfcription agreeable to the office cf oidinat;on
fufficient iecurity tor the principles of churchmen, without
the additional fubfcriprion to thefe, 4.24.

Articles, bifhop's, upon what occasion compiled, 271, note,

Athanafian Creed, Dr. Waterfand's fentiments on the damnatory
clauies in, 197. An account of thoie who have oppofed this
creed fince the commencement of the prefent century, -98.

Atigslmr$h\*t\\& confesjoo of, the precedent for other Pros ant
ilates in forming confeffions of faith, 8.

Authority^ church, a difcretionary exercife of if, not justified by
expedience, 41. Its right of deciding in points of faith, in-
terferes with the right or private judgement, 50.

B.

Balgrty, Dr. confefles that church authority is not to be found in
the Scriptures, Advertifement, ix.

Bancroft, Archbp. his amendment of Archbp. Parker's explana-
tion of the regal lupremacy over the church, 277. Oppofes the
alterations in the articles propoied by Dr. Reynolds, at Hamp-
ton-court conference, 279.

Barbevrac, his character of the Fathers of the Chriftian church,
408.

Baretti, his character of the learned men of Italy, Preface to
1 ed. lxxix, note. His own fuperftition, Ditto, lxxx, note.

Barlnv, Bp. h's opinion of the Homilies of the church of
England, 188.

Baron, a Jacobine friar, his defence of St. Thomas Aquinas,
ncjainit [ohn de Launois, Preface to 1 cd. vi.

Barrotv. Dr. Haae, fubferibes the Engagement, and afterward
prevails to have his name itruck out, 350, note.

Baxle, his remarks on the controveriy between Baron and }ohn
de Launois, concerning the merits of St. Thomas Aquinas,
Pnfacc to 1 ed. vii. Gives inllances of the bad fuccefs of
reformcis, Ditto, ix.

Sennet, Dr. an examination of his exposition of the articles of
the church of England, 177. Compared with that of Dr.
Nicholls, 185.

B'mcfos, Dr. fome account of his attack on Bp. Burnet's Expo-
fition of the Thirty-nine Articles, 153.

Biftops, how they loll their epifcopal authority in the reign of
Charles I. Preface to 1 ed. xxviii.

Brown, his exhortation to worldly conformity, examined, 386.

Bum, Dr. remarks on his opinion concerning the limiting elaufe
in the itatute 13 Elis. c. 12. enjoining fubfeription to the

Articles

INDEX. 459

Articles of the church of England, Preface to 2 ed. vii,
7iote.

Burnet, Bp. his character of De Marca, as a writer, Preface
to 1 cd. liii, note. Examination of the Introduction to his
Expofition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the church of Eng-
land, 82. was the means ot releafing the clergy of Geneva
from fubfeription to their conlhifus doclrina, 83. Proofs that
he undertook his Expofition with reluctance, 84. His fenti-
ments of this work deduced from his Defence of it, 91. En-
tertained hopes of a farther reformation, on the aceeilion of
king George I. 92, note. Objects to the propriety ot the
church of England citablifhing thefe articles as a itandard of
doctrine, 94. Inquiry after his alleged apoftolic tc .r miliary of
Christian doctrines, 95. How he accounts lor the copious
form of doctrine in the church of England, 107. His idea
of the life of the Articles, 1 24. His account of the reaibn
for prefixing King James's Declaration to the Articles, 139.
Objections to his account of the firlt publication of the Ar-
ticles, 146. His Exjx>fition attacked by the lower Houfe of
Convocation, 152. His remark on the twenty-third Article,
176. His opinion of the Homilies, 187. How replied to by
a Lutheran divine; on his recommending an union between
Lutherans and Calviniifs, 312.

Btijby, Dr. his offer of founding catechiftical lectures for the
religious inih uction of under-graduates, rejected by both Uni-
verlkies, 436.

C.

Calamv, Dr. Edmund, his fentiments on the eighth Article of
the church ot England, refpecting the Athanalian creed, 201,

Calvlmjh in Holland, an account ot their notions of church
government, 294.

Cart-,vr/g,(>t, rejects the authority of the Fathers, in determining
religious controverlies, 23.

Cafauhoti) his account ot the fentiments of King James and his
bifhops, concerning the edict of the States relating to the
Gomariits and Arminians, 288, note. Jultifies the Fathers,
in introducing Pagan inllitutions into Chriilian worfhip, 372,
noti ■

Claries I. ltate of the contefl: between him and the Scots pro-
teftefc on renewing confeilions of faith fuited to circumllances,
68, note. Was a profound Arminian, and why, 140.

0 arJt 1 II. his declaration to the prelbyterians from Breda, Pre*
t to 1 ed, xxix.

CbiUingivertbt

4&0

1 N D E X.

Cbillingtvortb, his account of the origin of fchifms in the chufch,-
$2. note.

Chrijl, his kingdom not capable of alliance with civil commu-
nities, on the authority of Bp. Warburton, Preface to i ed. lv.

Cbriftian Religion, is corrupted and cramped by human eftablifti-
ments, Advertifemcnt, xvi.

Church, a definition of, from Mr. Locke. Preface to i ed. xviii.

Church of England, Dr. Mofheim's character of, Preface to i
ed. xxi. How this character might be made good, Ditto, xxiij
Review of the fteps taken for the farther reformation of, Ditto,
xxiii. Remarks on the Hampton-court conference, . Ditto,
xxiv. The Savoy conference, Ditto, xxix. A reform in it, how
defeated in the reign of William III. Ditto, xxxvii. Obferva-
tions on the conduct of, in profeffing a difpofition toward re-
formation, Ditto, xliii. The civil power not averfe to a refor-
mation in it, Ditto, xlvi. Remarks on Archbp, Wake's fcheme
for a union of it, with the Gallican church, Ditto, xci. Not fo
well difpofed to treat of a union with diilenters, Ditto, xcii.
The zeal of both pallors and people againit the church of
Rome vifibly declined, xcvii. The authority of it fubmitted to
the teft of Scripture, by Bp. Jewel, 73. Why a farther re-
formation in it, did not rake place on the acceifion of king.
George I. 93, note. The eftablifhment of the Articles of it, as
a itandard of doctrine, objected to by Bp. Burnet, 94. The
copious form of doctrine in it, how accounted tor byBp. Bur-
ned 107. Why the pafiage in king Edward's Articles againit
the real prefence was ftruck out, on the review of them, in
queen Elizabeth's reign, 1 1 7. The ufe of the thirty-nine
Articles according to Bp. Burnet, 124. The Articles of it fo-
lemnly accepted by a refolution of the Kouie of Commons
in the reign of king Charles I. 141. In what fenfe it has
been always Xinarnmo us, in points of dodlrine, 156. Inquiry
whether the reaibnablenefs of conformity to it, is confiffent
with the rights of private judgement, 218. The mode of fub-
icription required to the Articles of it, 243. The clergy of it,
charged with departing in practice from their Articles, 244.
note. Subfcription to the Articles of it, a total relignation of
the right of private judgement, 24^. The firif occafion of
difference between it and the Puritans, 270. Archbp. Parker's
expofition of the regal fupremacy over it, 277. Is agitated
by the Cornells between Arminians and the Puritan defenders
of the dortrinal articles, 297. Arminianilin prevalent at pre-
fent among the fubfcribers,3 1 3. A reformation in it, necellary,
355. By whom a reformation of it mould be undertaken, 357.-

The'

INDEX. 461

The firit claufe of the twentieth Article, of fufpicious autho-
rity, 367, nole. Examination of the alleged uniitnefs of the
prefent times f< r atterhpting a farther reformation, 376. Ex-
pediency of a review of the forms of it relating to the Trinity,
401. Proper tefl of the doctrines of it, by which a reform
fhould be conducted, 119. See Articles, Liturgy, and
Ordination.
Cicero, examination of his religious opinions, 259, note. His
observations on fuperftition, 260,. note. His principles of
legislation, 261, note. Le Gere's character of him, 407.
Bp. Warburton's apology tor him, ibid. note.
Civil Magijfrate, his great ufe in affairs of religion, according
to Dr. Jortin, 210. According to Archbp. Tillotfon, 263,
note.
Clarendon, Lord, his conduct in the Savoy conference. Preface

to I ed. xx ix.
Clarke, Dr. his defence of the fcripture as the only authority in
religion, 221. Deduction from his arguments, 230. Sup-
poled a fubfeription agreeable to the office of ordination, ful-
ficient, without fubfeription to the thirty-nine Articles, 426.
?wte.
Clayton, Bp. his plea for latitude in fubfeription to the Articles
of the church of England, examined, 247. His notion of
the dependence of civil fociety on doctrinal points in religion,
inquired into, 2 cr. Admits the advantages of religious free-
dom, 25c. Was in danger for oppoling the Athanaiian creed,
398. His difpofition toward a farther religious reform, 404.
Colbatcb, Dr. remarks on his Inquiry into the antiquity and an-

tbority of the Apojiles Creed, 102. note.
Commons, Houfe of, its folemn avowal of the xxxix Articles of
the church of England, in the reign of King Charles I. 141.
Comprehcnfion. See Church of England, J^uritans, Hamp-

ton-couut, Savoy, Tillotson, &c.
Concord, book of, the intolerant fpirit of, 1 3. note.
Confejfvvu of faith, the natural confequences of impofing them"
on the clergy, Preface to 1 ed. ci. The origin of them among
the fitft reformers, 7. The diffractions occalioned by them, 18*
The right of eitablifhing them inquired into,30. A rigorous in-
forcement of them y • exclude diligent fearchcrs of

the fcripturcs from every communion where fueh power is ex-
ercilcl, 3 £. Inquiry into ihc confequences of non-fubferiprion
after acated to the miniftry, 4S. note. The requhed

fubfeription to them not to be aflerted without interfering with
the rtghtof private judgement, e o. Examination of" the Apology
ot the Remonftrants in Holland, 61. The apoliclic tounda-
tion of them inquired into" 95.

1 Coriftancty

462 I N D E X.

Confiance, the council of, admits the decretals as of equal au-
thority with the epiftles of the Apoftles, 114, note.

Conftitution, ecclefiaftical, definition of a defirable one, Adver-
tijcmcnt, xix.

Controverjies, their life in religion. Preface to 1 ed. lxxiv.

Con-viBion, the fmall fhare it lias in influencing the conduct of
mankind, Preface to 1 ed. lxxi.

Convocation, a reformation of the church of England how ob-
ftructed by it, in the Reign of William III. Preface to 1 ed.
xxxvii. The lower Ho ufe of, attacks Bp. Burnet's Expofition
of the thirty-nine Articles, 152.

Conybeare, Bp. remarks on his iermon, intituled, Tie Cafe of
Subfcription, Pr face to zed. id, note. 32, note. 208.

Corpus ConfeJJionum, the intention of that work, 14. Remarks
on the Synopfis in it, 16.

Cranmer, Archbp. negociates with Melancthon for a commorf
confeflion of faith, to unite Proteftant churches, 146. Was
concerned in compofing King Edward's Articles, 148. Was
the principal compiler of themt 1 64.

Creed, Apoftles, remarks on Dr. Colbatch's manufcript treatife of
it, 102, note. For that of St. Athanaiius, fee Athanasiax.

D.

Dahymple, Mr. extract from his fernu n before the fynod of

Glafgow, in lavour or Chriftian liberty, 447, ?wte.
Damvilliers, his reflections on the l'ubfcription required in France"

to the condemnation of Janienius, Advertifement, xiii.
Davenant, Bp. is reprimanded in council for preaching on pre*

deftination, 310. Afierts predeftinatian to be the doctrine of

the church of England, ^^2.
Davenport. See Sinclair.
D'Alcmbert, inquiry into the juitnefs of the fuperiority he at-

tributes to the Prbteitant univerfities in Germany over thofe

of the Romifh perfuafion. Preface to 1 ed. lxxvii, note. His

account of the motives which led to the expulfion of the

Jefuits, Ditto, lxxxii, note.
Daivfon, Dr. Benjamin, his character as a defender of religious

liberty, Advcrt:fcu:eut, vi.
De Marca, his character as a writer, by Bp. Burnet, Preface to

I ed. liii, note.
De Trautjbbn, John Jofeph, Archbp. of Vienna, obfervations on

his pa floral Letter, Preface to 1 ed, bixviii, note.
Declaration, of King James I. prefixed to the xxxix Articles

of the church of England, the hiftory of it inquired into, 133.
5 Decretals,

INDEX; 463

Ibecretals, are admitted by the Council of Conftance, as of equal

authority with the epiftles of the apollles, 1 14, note.
Difciplinc, church, 'an expreflion of loofe fignification, Preface

to 1 ed; lxi$ note.
Do&rinet, Chriftian, examination whether any fixed formulary

of them is to be juftified from the writings of St. Paul, 95.

Inquiry after this formulary itfelf, 98.
Du Pin, M. L'Avocat's apology for his negociating with Archbp.

Wake for a union between the Englifh and Gallican churche?,

Preface to I ed. xci, note.

E.

Elizabeth, Queen, indications of her having temporized with
the Papifts in conducting the Reformation, 1 1 7. Foundation
of orthodoxy during her reign, 122. Ofborne's account ot
her afluming the fupremacy, 1 36. Connives at the Bifhops^
oppreifing the Puritans, 271. Was offered the fovereignty of
Six of the Seven United Provinces, 295.

Encyclopedic, a remark on the religious freedoms in that work,
being wrote by profefled catholics, Preface to 1 ed. lxxiii,
note. ■

Engagement, Dr. Sanderfon's ingenious falvoes for taking it, after
oppoling the Covenant^ 341. Is fubferibed by Dr. Barrow, who
afterward prevails to have his name itruck out, 350, note.

Epijiopius, his controverfy in defence of the conrellion ot raith,
publithed by the Remonftrants in Holland, 74.

Erafmus, De/iderius, his account ot the precedence given by
catholics to the papal relcripts, above the epiitles ot St. Peter
and St. Paul, 1 1 5, note . His remarks on the corruptions of
the Romilh church, 410, note.

Erafmus, Johamics, rejects the authority of Fathers and councils
in religious doctrines, and is forced to fly his country tor it,

2 3'

Ejiabliflh-ncnts, religious, truth not to be preferred under them,
unlels counteracted by the exercife of religious treedom, 255.
The meaning of the terms inquired into, 256. See Con-
fessions of Faith, ARTICLES of the Church of England,
Protestants, &c.

Expedience, no fuffieient foundation for a difcretionary exercife
ot church authority, 41.

G g E-:tlh

4<% INDEX.

F.

Fathers, the confequences of their introducing Pagan inftitutions
into Chriftian worfhip, 373, note. Their diiingenuity in-
flanced, 406. 408.

Fofter, Dr. his difintereited oppofition to fubfcriptions, 47,
note.

Fothcrgil, Dr. undertakes to prove the Articles of the church of
England not to be CalvinifHcal, 280, note.

Fox, the martyrologilt, his reflection on the univerflty ef Ox-
ford, 4££.

Free and Candid Difqiafitiom, the probable effects of that pub-
lication, Preface to 1 ed. xv.

Fuller, Dr. examination of his fuppofed latitude of general
terms employed in the Articles of the church of England,
2$z. His account of the origin of the term Puritan, 297.

G.

Geneva, the clergy of, releafed from fubfeription to their con-
fenfus declrhwv, by the means of Bifhop Burnet, 83.

Germanv, the Protertant and Popifli univerfities of, compared,
Ixxvii, '?wte.

Government, Civil, the fubfiftence of it not dependent on doc-
trinal forms of religion, 2$i. The true ufeof religion to it,
2^3. The advantages of religious toleration to it, 2 54.

Grenada, a warning of the encouragement now given to Ca-
tholics in that ifland, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxix.

Grotius, his explanation of the grammatical fenfe of doctrinal
propolitions, 168. Forms a fcheme for a union between Pro-
tectants and Catholics, 287. Jointly with Bamvelt, draws
up the edisl of the States refpecling the Gomariils and Ar-
sninians, 288.

B.

Hales, Mr. of Eton, remarks on his letter to Archbp. Laud,
367. Furnifhes evidence of the fufpicious authority of the
firft claufe of the twentieth Article of the church of England^
ibid. note.

Hampton-cowt conference, remarks on it, Preface to 1 ed. xxiv.
278.

Harmony of the Confeffions, publifiied by the Belgic and Gal-
lican churches, 1 \. Objections againll this work, 12.

1 Harris,

IN D E X. 465

Harris, Dr. ftri&ures on his account of King James's contelt.
with Vorltius, 284, ?w(e.

Hartley, Dr. David, remarks on his character of the Chriftian
Church, in his Objcrvations on Man, 406. 414. His objec-
tions to fubferibing to the divine authority of the fcriptures,
428.

Hire/j, the origin of, among the firft reformers, 5. Is per-
petuated and multiplied by church cenfures, 69.

Heylin, Dr. his opinion of the firit Englifh reformers who com-''
piled the church Articles, 326, note.

Heylin, Peter, an interpolation in King James's Declaration
prefixed to the Articles of the church of England, detected j
as it appears in his Bibliotheca Regia, 134, note. Hiseha-,
racier, 16^. Afferts the authority of the Homilies, 189.
Afterwards, abides by the fecond book only, 100. His tefti-
inony in lavour ot the authenticity of the firit claufe of the
twentieth article of the church of England, unfatisfaCtory,
368, 7iote.

Hoadly, Bp. his fentiments on church government, Preface to 1
cd. liv. His opinion of the Homilies of the church of Eng-
land, 190. Propoles a temporiling plan of reformation, 375V
Alleges an unfitneis in the prefent times for undertaking a re-
formation, 376.

Homilies, Archbp. Laud's conditional fubfeription to them, 1 S6.
Bp. Burnet's declared opinion of them, 187. Sinclair's ac-
count of them, 188. Bp. Barlow's account of them, ibid. The
fentiments of Peter Heylin concerning them, 189. Bp-
Hoadly's opinion of them, 190.

Hypocrify, deltruftive to true Religion, 255.

J-
James I, his threat to the Puritans, Preface to r ed. xxiv.
His former fentiments, and how altered, Ditto, xxv. Account
of his Declaration prefixed to the Articles ot the church of
England, 133. How induced to favour the Arminians, 139.
Was dilfatisfied with Archbifhop Parker's limitation of the:
regal fupremacy over the church, 277. His conduct at the
Hampton-court conference, 280. Attempts to confute Voi-
itius's book De Deo, 283. Favours Grotius's fcheme for a
coalition between the Proteftants and Catholics, 287. His in-
ftruiftions to the fix Divines fent by him to the fynod of Do:t,
293. Account of his religious and political opinions, 294.
His objections to religious toleration, 296. Enjoins all un-
dignified clergymen to forbear preaching on certain doctrinal
G g 2 points,

4^6 INDEX*

points, 299> Anecdote of him, and the Bifliops Andrews

and Neale, 422, note.
Janjenijls, their tenets prejudicial to the intereits of the church

of Rome, lxxxiv, note.
Janjemus\ remarks on his Syitem of Grace, 328. His book

condemned, 329. His dodtrmes fuppreiTed in France, as

tending to a Proteilant reformation, 330.
Jennings, Mr. his character of Popery, Advertifement, vii.
Jerom, St. a character of, 406.
Jefuks, the motives that operated to their expulfion, Preface to

1 ed. lxxxii, note. Probability of their reiteration, Ditto,

lxxxiii, note.
jeufely Bp. iubmits all church authority to the tell of fcripture,

78. Character of his Apology for the church of England, 1 10.
Jobnfin, Mr. of Cranbrook, his cenfure of Dr, Calamy's Remark

on the eighth Article ot the church of England, refpeifing

the Athanafian Creed, 201.
Jones, Mr. a card to him, -\.^.
JortiH, Dr. his acknowledgment of the great ufe of the civil

magiflrate, in religious concerns, 210.
Ireland, the Articles of religion there, repealed by the convoca-

tioiij and thofe of the church of England fubitituted, 249,

note.

L.

La Roche, charges Armiinianifm on the church of England, 313,
note.

Lardner, Dr. his reflections on the council of Nice, ofFenfivc
to Archbp. Seeker, Advertifement, x. His remark on altera-
tions ol religion, 214, note.

Land, Archbp. admits the limitation of fubfeription to the
Articles of the church of England, in the ftatute 13 Eliz.
c. 1 2. Preface to 2 ed. ix, notd His conduct toward the Pu-
ritans, Preface to 1 ed. xxv. His conditional fubfeription to
the Homilies, 186. Procures an injunction, forbidding un-
dignified clergymen preaching on certain doctrinal points, 298.
'fhe reafon of his patronizing Mr. Montague, 300. Gets
the prohibition of preaching on controverted points extended
to Deans and Bifliops, 309. Impofed an Arminiai> fenfe on
the church Articles, 331. Remarks on Mr. Hale's letter to
him, 367.

Launoi, John de, attempts to reduce the calendar of popifh
faints, Preface to 1 ed. vi.

L.e Cxrc, his character of St. Jerom, 407.

z JjEftr<mge%

INDEX. 467

VFJlrange, Sir Roger, his opinion of the extent of fubfcripiion
required to the Articles or the church ot England, by the
ftatute 13 Eliz. c. 12. Preface to 2 ed. xii, note.

Legi/lation, an examination of Cicero's principles of it, 261,
note .

Lejlie, remarks on his intended accommodation between the
church of England and that of France, Preface to 1 ed. xcv,
note.

T.iha-ty, Religious, evidences that a warm love of it is {till ex-
iiHng, Preface to 2 ed. i. Encroachments on it, not to be
defended on Proteftant principles. Ditto, ii. Its friends, how
kept under in Queen Anne's reign, Pre/ace to 1 ed. xlix. The
advantages of it admitted by Bp. Clayton, 2$$.

Liturgy, expediency ot a review of the forms in it relating to
the Trinity, 401. See Articles, Church of England, and
Ordi.v ATIOX.

Locke, Mr. his definition of a church, Pnface to 2 ed. xviii. His
idea of church government, Ditto, xxx. The tendency of
his Letters on Toleration, Preface to 1 ed, xlvjii.

M.
Macdonel, a character of his Anfiuer to An Appeal to the Com-
mon Senfe of all Chriilian People, 402, note.
Machine, Dr. ilrictures on his translation of Mofheim's Eccle-
fialtical Hiftory, Preface to 1 ed. xxi. ?wte. lxv. Replv to
fome of his remarks on the Confcjjional, Ditto, lxxv, note. Re-
marks on his approbation of Archbp. Wake's intended ac-
commodation between the Englilh and Gallican churches,
Ditto, xciv. Charges the members of the church of England
with Arminianifm, 313, note.
Magdalen- hovfc, fuperlHtious circumllance relating to that eila-

blifhment, Advcrtijhnent, xv, note.
ftfaybevi. Dr. his reafons for not replying to Mr. Apthorp, Pre-

face to 1 ed. xliv, note.
Mcaux, Bp. of, remark on his writings, Preface to 1 ed. Ixix,

note,
MclaiiHhon. his negotiation with Archbp. Cranmer, for a com-
mon contellion of faith, to unite Prcteitant churches, 146.
His eontroveriy relating to the Interim, 1 48.
Mtbodfn, whether inclined to popery, as aliened by Dr. Mac-
hine, Preface to \ ed. lxxxvi, note.
Middleton, Dr. his reprefentation of Cicero's religious opinions
examined, 261, note. His derivation of the idolatry of the
church ot Rome, from the rites of paganifm, jutlified, 373,
G g 3 n,tc.

4_68 INDEX.

note. His expofition of St. Paul's becoming ail things to a
men, 383.

Montague, Mr. is engaged by Laud as a champion for Arminian
principles, 300. Incurs the cenfure of the Houfe of Com-
mons, 301. His caufe recommended to King Charles I. 302.
Obtains a pardon trom the King, 309.

Mrrky, Bp. his charafter, by Calamy, Preface to 1 cd. xxxiv.

Mojbeim, Dr. his character or the church of England, Preface to,
1 ed. xxi. Remark on Dr. I\laclaine?s tranflation of that paf-
fage, ibid. ?ioie.

Mvftics, Seckendorf 's account of that feci, 1 1 2, note.

N.

Weak, Biihop of Durham, anecdote of him and Andrews Bp,
bf ' Wincbefter, 421, note. Subfcriptions defended on his prin-
ciples, in the itile of churchmen, 422, note.

Nee'dbam, Dr. Turbervilie, his dextrous efcape from the inqui-
fition in Portugal, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxiii, note.

Nicholas, Pope, is unjuitly charged with admitting the decretals
as of equal authority with the fcriptures, 114, note.

Nicbolls, Dr. remarks on Ids Commentary on the xxxix Articles,
162. His expositions compared with thofe ot Dr. Bennet,

,8i- . ; .

\ci\i Scotia, the great encouragement faid to be given to popery
there, Preface to 1 cd. lxxxvii, note.

O.

Occasional Conformity, why oppofed, and the A3: againff. it, how

repealed, Preface to 1 cd. 1.
Ordination, the queitions propofed to priefts, by the office of,

a Sufficient Security for their principles, without farther fub-

fcriptions, 424.
Ordination, epifcopal, not an indifpenfable qualification for the

miniftry, by 13th of Eliz. ijc.
Ofoornc, his account of the motives or Queen Elizabeth's

affirming the fupremacy over the church ot England, 136,

note,
hfird, remarks^on Mr. Jones's defence of that univerfity, from

?, reflexion call on it by Fox the martyrologiit, 455.

Patht\

INDEX. 469

p.

Parker, Archbp. converfation between him and Sir Thomas
Wentworth, 1 efpecting the Bill for efiablifhing the Articles
or the church of England, Preface to 2 cd. vi. Inferences
from this converfation, ibid. Altered the Articles of the
church of England, 248. His explanation of the regal fu-
* premacy over the church, 277.

Paid, St. expofition ot his becoming all things to all men, 383.
Altered his. fentiments with regard to the expediency of cir-
cumcifion, 384.

Pbilcleuthcms Cantabrigioijis, his character of the Articles of the
church of England, 22S. His plea for fublcription to them,

238-
Pope of Rome, his authority difputed in Catholic countries as

well before the Reformation as fince, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxi,
note.

Popery, the confummation ot religious tyranny, Advertifement,\\\.

Po:vel, Dr. afierts the indeterminate ienfe of the Articles of
the church, before the univerfity of Cambridge, 427. Sup-
pofes the general fubfeription of young pcrfons to the Articles
leaves them room to improve in theology afterward, 441.
Remarks on this fermon, 442, note.

Prcdcjlination, and the final perfeverance of the elect, the fubject
of a contelt between Archbp. Bancroft and Dr. Reynolds at
the Hampton-court conference, 278. Undignified clergymen
forbid to preach on it, 298. This prohibition extended to
Deans and Biihops, 309. Bp. Davenant reprimanded in coun-
cil tor preaching on it, 310. The doctrine of it favoured by
lbme late philofophcrs, 318.

Prideaux, Dr. his account ot the religious ignorance of candi-
dates for holy orders, after univerfity education, 436, note.
Propofes erecting a new college in each univerfity, under the
name ot Drone Hall, 437. note,

Proteftants, their firit principles of feparation from the church
of Rome, 1. Relapfe into the error of eftablifinng uniformity
of opinion, £. This the parent ot fectaries, 6. Their de-
fence againlr the charge ot wantot unity brought againft them
by the Papifis, 10. The tendency of eftablifhed confeifions,
18. All the perfuafions ot them upon an equal footing of
independence, £4. How faj- this equality has been obferved
by different parties exilting in one ftate, 57. An examina-
tion of the Apology of the Remonftrants in Holland, 61.
G g 4 Herefie3

470 INDEX.

Herefies arc perpetuated and multiplied by church cenfures,
69. The tenor of the fubfcription required to the Articles of
the church of England, 243. The interefb of civil fociety
not dependent oh do&rinal points in religion, 251.
Puritans^ how treated by the eftablifhed church, Preface to 1 ed.
xxiv. No difference in matters of doctrine between them and
epifcopal churchmen in the early time of the Reformation, 270.
Cornells between them and the Bifhops, on their refuling to
fubfcribe to the epifcopal hierarchy, 271, Their objection
to the 1 6th Article ot the church, 275, note. ObjecT: to fub-
Icription of doclrinals, after the Hampton-court conference,
a8ii Origin of the term, 297. Their tenets compared
jvith Arminianifm, in a political view, 316.

<^

£>uejnel, Father Pafquier, his doctrines condemned by the bull
Umgenitus, 329. His dying declarations, 330. "

R.

Heal Prefence, why the pafTage in King Edward's articles againft
it was ftruck out, on the review of them in Queen Eliza-
beth's reign» 117-

Reformatio)!, public,' the hazards of attempting, Preface to 1 ed.
i. Conduct of thofe who are deterred from profecuting it,
and acquiefce under public errors, Ditto, iv. The adver-
faries or it pointed out, Ditto, v. The obftacles to it, Ditto,
xiii. Inducements to attempt it, Ditto, xvii. See Church
of England.

Reformed Churches, examination of Dr. Machine's pofition, " that
they were never at mch a diitance from the fpirit and doctrine
of the church of Roriie, as at this day," Preface, is 1 ed. lxxv,
note. "Agree With the church of Rome in the doctrine of the
feparate exigence of the foul, lxxxv, note.

Reformers, remarks oh their conduct in defending themfelves
againit popifh calumnies, 108. The conferences of their
intolerant 'fpirit, 112.

Religion, the etymology and true fenfe of the word, Preface to
I ed. xxxviii.

Remonjlrarits in Holland, how treated in confequence of the
lynod at Dorr, fa. Inconfiltency of their own conduct after-
ward, ibid. Their apology, 60. An examination of ' this
apology, 61. Admit the right of private judgement in com-
paring -confeffions with Icripture, 76. Their motive in this
concelfion, 77.

1 ■ Reynolds*

INDEX. 47r

Reynolds, Dr. Alterations in the Articles of the Church of
England, propofed by him at the Hampton-court conference

Richlieu, cardinal, his fcientific knowledge not able to free him
from fuperlHtion, Pre/ace to i ed. lxxiii, note.

Rogers, his Expofition of the thirty-nine Articles, the only one
publifhed by authority of the church of England, 234. His
account of the difputes between the Bifhops and the Puritans
on the fubjedf. of epifcopal authority, 274. Anecdote related
by him, concerning Zanchius, 324, note.

Rome, the church of7 an inquiry by what means it has intitled
itfelf to the favour of the reformed churches, Preface to 1 ed.
xcviii. Avails itfelf of the rife of feftaries among the re-
formers, 9. Inquiry when it began to admit traditions as of
equal authority with the fcriptures, 114, note. The idolatry
of, derivable from Pagan inftitutions, 373, note.

Rujbzvorth, his account of Montague's being recommended to
King Charles I. by Laud and other Bifhops, 303.

Rujl, Bp. his opinion of the clergy of the church of England,
46, note.

Rutherforih, Dr. remarks on his Vindication of the Right of Pro-
tefiant Churches to require Subfcription, &c. Preface to 2 ed. iii.
Remarks on the Defence of his Charge, Ditto, x, note. His idea
of a Chriitian church compared with Mr. Locke, from whom
it is quoted, Ditto, xvii. Compared with Bp. Warburton,
Ditto, xxiv. Examination ot his fyftem of church govern-
ment, Ditto, xxvii. This compared with Mr. Locke, Ditto,
xxx. Examination of his account of the duty of church go-
vernors, Ditto, xxxi. Does not think a reception of the
fcriptures as the word of God, fufficient fecurity for faith and
a pure confcience, 19. Teaches that fubfcription is not re-
quired ot laymen, who are left to the exercife of private
judgement, 40, note. His uncharitable reflection on diflenting
minilters, 47, note. His defence ot fubfcriptions inquired
into, 48, note. Examination of his account of the Apoftles
method ot condemning falfe doctrines, 109, note. His con-
tradictory pofitions refpecling lay-aflent to the Articles of the
church of England, as a qualification for communion, 125,
note.

Sacramental

472

N D E X.

Sacramental Te/i, as a qualification for holding civil offices, ob-

fervatious on it, Preface to i ed. xlviii.
Sanderfon, Dr. his objections to lalvoes for taking the Covenant,
339. His falvoes for taking the Engagement, 341. His dex-
trous equivocations applied to ambiguous exprerlions in the
Engagement, 344. Teaches that the obligation to obferve it,
after lubferibing, depends upon the continuance of the power
that impofed it, 350.
Savoy conference, account of, Preface to 1 ed. xxix. Compared

to the Council of Trent, Ditto, xlvii.
Scepticifm, has a tendency to lead to Popery, Preface to 1 ed.

lxxii.
Science, how far the improvements in it fecure mankind from

relapfing into Romifh fuperfHtion, Preface to 1 cd. lxvii.
Scriptures, Dr. Hartley's objections to fubferibing to their divine
authority, 428. Remarks on the various copies of them,
429. No variations in them affect the eflential points of
religion, 431.
Seegrave, his remarks on the church of England clergy de-*
parting from their Articles, 244, note. Teaches that the
Prince only is concerned in fecuring government againft
Nonconforming, 251, note.
Scckendorf, his account of a Popifh feet of Fanatics, fuppofed t©

be the Myftics, 1 1 2, note.
Seeker, Archbp. his plea for church authority, and unneceflary

doctrines, Advertifement, ix.
Sectaries, the occafion of them among the fitft Reformers, $.
Are perpetuated and multiplied by church cenfures, 69.
How accounted for by the firll: Reformers, 113.
Selden, Mr. his opinion of fubfeription to the Articles of the

church of England, Preface to 2 ed. xii, note.
Sinclair, Francis, his account of the Homilies of the church of

England, 188.
Smith, fubferibes the Articles of the church of England con-.

ditionally, 183, note.
Society, its fubfiitence not dependent on doctrinal forms of re-
ligion, 2^1. The true uie of leligion to it, 2$$. The ad-
vantages of toleration to it, 254.
Soul, its ieparate exiftence, a tenet common to the church of
Rome and Reformers, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxv, note. The
(ioctrine of the lleep of it condemned by King Edward's
Articles, and refuted by Bp. Law, J 1 .

Stebbiflr,

INDEX. 473

Stebbing, Dr. his j unification of the decifions of fynods ex-
amined, 63, note. 67. 80. His defence of a ilricCt fub-
fcription to the Articles of the church of England, for ad-
miifion to the miniftry, 209.

Sttypc, his opinion of fyftematical tefts in religion, 154, note.

Superjlition, Cicero's obfervations on it, 259, note.

Sykes, Dr. an examination of his anfwer to Dr. Waterland's
Cafe of Arian J'ubfcription, 231. Acknowledges an equivocal
fenfe in the words of the Articles of the Church of England,
333-

Yillotfon, Dr. his account of a conference toward a comprehenfion
with the diflenters, Preface to 1 ed. xxxvi. Prevailed on Bp.
Burnet to undertake an Expofition of the Articles of the
church of England, 85. An examination of his fentiments
with regard to church authority and fubfcriptions, 87. Is
injurioutly treated by his biographer Dr. Birch, 94, note. His
principle, averting the civil magiitrate's fuperintending power
over religion, examined, 263, note. His conceffion with re-
gard to this pofition, 266, note.

Tindal, remark on a ftricture made by him on Rapin the hilto-
rian, 31$.

Toleration, religious, its advantages to civil communities, 2^4.
King James's objections to it, 296.

Toplady, Mr. his reflections on the tendency of fubfcriptions to
confeffions of faith, 321, note. Inquiry into his quarrel with
the author of the ConfeJJional, idem, ibid. His inconfiftency
in defending the Articles and Homilies, 322, note.

Traditions, inquiry when the church of Rome fail began to
admit them as of equal authority with the fcriptures, 114,
?wte.

Trimming in religious matters, remarks on it,. 91.

Trinity, the doctrine of it eminently defended by the Doctors
Waterland and Bennet, without agreeing between themfelves,
161. Dr. Waterland's notions ot the damnatory claufes in
the Athanalian creed concerning it, 197. Expediency of a
reform in the church liturgy, refpefting it, 401.

Truth, the preiervation of it admitted by Bp. Clayton to de-
pend on the exiftence and exercife of religious freedom,

Uniformity,

474 INDEX.

v.

Uniformity, Act of, 14 Car. II. how far it affects the ftatute 13
ILliz. c. 1 2. requiring fubfcription to the Articles of the
church of England, Preface to z ed. x, note.

Unigenitus, the famous bull fo called,on what occailon publilhed,

329-
Univerjities, Englilh, reject Dr. Bufby's offer of founding cate-

chiltical lectures in them, 436. Dr. Prideaux's remarks on

the religious ignorance of candidates tor holy orders, after

being educated in them, ibid. note. Obfervations on their

refufal of Dr. Bufby's otFer, 438. See War burton.

Vindication of the Right of Protcjlant Churches to require
Subfcription, &c. Remarks on that publication, Preface to z ed.
ii. See Rutherforth.

VorftiuS) his book De Deo, written againft by King James I. 283.

W.

Wake, Archbp. his plan for a union between the Englifh and
Gallican churches, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxvi. Reflections on his
conduct in this negociation, Ditto, xci. xciv, note. Remarks,
on his conduct with refpect to Dr. Sacheverell, Ditto, xcvi.
His inconfiftency with regard to the Schifm-bill, 413.

Warburton, Bp. his idea ot a Chriitian church, Preface to 2 ed.
xxiv. Remarks on his Alliance between Church and State, Pre-,
face to 1 ed. Hi. 245. Strictures on his defence of the Fathers
in his Julian, 365. His apology for Cicero's oratorical craft
analyfed, 407, note. His defence of the universities, in the
Pretoce to the fecond edition of his Divine Legation, omitted
in the fubfequent editions, 437, note.

Ward, Bp. his conduct in refpect ot the comprehenfion fcheme,
Preface to 1 ed. xxxii.

Waterland, Dr. his notions of fubfcription to the Articles of
the church of England, examined, 793. His fentiments on
the damnatory dailies in the Athanaiian creed, 197, How he
reconciles the obligation to fubfcription with the right ot
private judgement, 227. Endeavours to prove the Articles
anti-calviriiilical, t,$z.

Wcntzvortb, Sir Peter, his converfation with Archbp. Parker,
reipecting the bill for eftablilhing the Articles of the church
ot England, Preface to 2 ed. vi. Inferences trom this conver-
fation, ibid. Is lent to the Tower on this occafion, Ditto, ix,
note.

Whitby

INDEX. 475

UVithy, Dr. his opinion of church government by apoftolid
fucceflion, Preface to z cd. xxix.

iVbite, Mr. remarks on his reply to Dr. Chandler's advice to
the church of England, on the fubject of fubferiptions, i$8.
His telKmony of the willingnefs of the late King to admit
of a reformation in the chinch, 3^7. But alleges an indif-
pofition of the people to admit of a reform, 358.

Wbitgift, Archbp. iupprefles the publication of the Harmony of
the Confeffions, in England, 12. Pronounces books to dif-
turb the church, more pernicious than lewd books, 412.

Williams, Bp. confidered the xxxix Articles of the church of
England only as articles of peace, 89.

Wortbington, Dr. remarks on his account of the prefent prin-
ciples and practices ot the Roman Catholics, Preface to 1 ed.
lxxix, note.

z.

Zancbiiis, remarks on his fubfeription to the Axgfbv.rgb con"
fellion, and Strafburgh articles, 323, note.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PREFACE to the FIRST EDITION.

Page Line

xliii. 2. for connection, read conviction,
lii. 3. fir was, read were.

lxi. noic x, 1. 4. from the bottom, for prevents confufiou,

read prevents this confufion.
lxvi. between the third and fourth paragraph add, Dr. Machine's
remark upon the foregoing paflage, as then tranflated
by himfelf, was as follows.
Ixxvii. note, 1. 4. for religion, read region.

Ixxviii. TtctCf 1. 8. from the bottom, for has, read had.

CONFESSIONAL.

Page Line

1 o. 4. for it, read in.
.64. 20. for open, read opened.
71. 16. for our firit reformers, read the compilers of this

Article.
11C. note, 1. 23. for precipitant, read pracipiant.

J69. 9. for DARE GENERALLY USE NOW, read ARE GE-
NERALLY USED NOW.

2. from the bottom, for confent or acqu'efcence, read confent
of acquiefcence.
189. 9. for lofe, read loofe.
363. 5. for it is not, nW is it not.

^^

The Purchafers of Occajional Remarks uponfome late Strictures on
THE CONFESSIONAL are defired to correct the
following Errata.

Part I.
Page. Line
ii. 6. for colt, read wit.
40. 9. from the bottom, for reafons, read reafon.

48. 3. from the bottom, read confequential.

49. penult, for are only at liberty, read are at liberty.
$2. 14. fir extremely knack, read extremely ingenious knack*

22. for prelate lamenting, read prelate was lamenting.
$9. 10. read produced this good, that

Part II.
Page Line

2. 22. for True Inquiry, read Free Inquiry.
ik 7. from the bottom, for infbru&ions, read inftruc~tion.
Ii. ?wte, 1. 9. from the bottom, for feemed, read feem,

^5. 1 1. for thofe read thefe.
74. 1 2. for obfervatur, read obverfatur.
11$. 18. read, in the beft fenfe of Spvcxucc.
146. 12. for ecelefiaftical church, ;vWepifcopaI church.
206. noter 1. 6. read de hominibus, nomine faltem,

chriftianis.
228. u* for fufpicions, read fufpicious, &c. and dele the
comma.