5\l^!

'Vnswer to q Pairphlet entltuled Considerations on the propriety of requiring a Subscription to Articles of Faith.

By Thomas Randolph

r-:!C

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in 2007 witii funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

littp://www.arcli ive.org/details/answertopampliletOOrandiala

A N

ANSWER

T O A

PAMPHLET,

ENTITULED,

CONSIDERATIONS

ON THE

Propriety of Requiring a SUBSCRIPTION

T O

Articles of Faith. OXFORD.

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS.

Printed for J. and J. Fletcher, in the Turle; and fold by

Mefl*. RiviNGTON, in St. Paul's Church-yard, London.

M DCC cxxiv.

I

5/3^

A N

ANSWER, ^c.

WHEN I took thefe Conjideratlom on the Propriety of requiring a Sub- : fcription to Articles of Faith in

Hand, I found myfelf in the Entrance promifed great things. I was told that feveral able Writers, who had engaged in this ^ Cauje, were even yet hardly got in Jight of the Vi main !^eJiion, and that thofe original Maxims^ '^ which ought to direSl all fuch Enquiries, had cr lang been, and were Jlill, either too little un^ < derfood, or too much difregarded. And we are promifed to have thefe Maxims revived, and farther explained, and the whole fet in a proper Light, But in the fequel I found myfelf much difappointed ; I could find o nothing new advanced, but only old Objec- tions, which have been often anfwered, re- vived, with little or no Notice taken of thofe Anfwers,

A The

Ci

( * )

The Queftion propofed is the Propriety of requiring a Subfcription to Articles of Faith, The Affirmative Side of the Queftion has been maintained by feveral able Writers. Of thefe our Author takes no Notice : and very little has he to fay in Reply to their Arguments. The Argument indeed feems to lie in a narrow Compafs. If it is necef- fary that thofe who are to be ordained Teachers in the Church, fhould ht found in the Faithy and that they fhould give to thofe who ordain them fome Proof, and Aflurancc, that they are fo; and if it is more expedient, more eafy to the Perfon ordaining, more fair with regard to the Candidate for Orders, and more effectual to the Purpofe of keeping out of the Church falfe and erroneous Teach- ers, that the Method of this Proof fhould be fettled by publick Authority, then a Sub- fcription to fome Articles of Faith cannot be improper, or inexpedient. But, if this Author can fliew that Soundnefs in the Faith is no ncceffary Qualification in a Chrijlian Teacher ; or that a Bifhop ought to ordain all who offer themfelves, without any Enq^uiry into their religious Tenets : or, laftly, that this ought to be left to the arbi- trary Difcretion of the Bifhop, and that the

Church

( 3 )

Church has no Concern, nor Authority, tQ

interfere, then we muft own the Impropriety

of fuch Subfcription. But inftead of this he

feems towards the Clofe of this Pamphlet to

have in a manner given up this main Point".

In anfwer to a common Plea that all Sorts of

fejlilent Herefies might be taught in pubick,

if no fuch Rejiraint as this were laid upon the

Treacher Sy he replies — het thofe, who are en-

trujled with the Power of admitting Perfons to

he T'eacherst carefully enquire into their ^ali^

f cations, and, according to the bejl of their

fudgment, rejeSifuch as they find either grofsly

ignorant of the general Principles of Religion,

or whom they have jufi reafon tofufpe5t of ajuji

determined Refolution to contemn them,

I fliould look upon this as a fair Conceflion : but it is fo loofely, and ambiguoufly, worded, that I know not what to make of it. What does he mean by the general Principles of Religion ? and what Religion, Natural, or Revealed ? According to the moft obvious Senfe of the Words, every one is to be ad- mitted to the Office of a Teacher, but only an Atheiji, who is ignorant of, or difbelieves the Being, or Providence of God. But I hope our Author means the Chrijiian Religion, What then are we to underftand by the gene- * p. 25.

A 2 ral

( 4 )

ral Principlei of this Religion. Perh^ps^ only * a general ProfelTion of their Faith in Chrijly though they believe not one Doctrine which he taught. Or perhaps he means an Acknowledgement of the Truth of Scripture, And this again is a Teft that will admit Popifh Priefts, and all the wildefl: Sedlaries, into our Miniftry : for all thefc pretend to found their Doflrines on Scripture. An ex- cellent Method this of guarding againft pejii- lent Herejiesj by fuch an Enquiry, as will exclude none of them.

Our Author begins with an Account of the Rife and Progrefs of a Cufom, ivhicb, as he tells us, feems to place certain Explications of fuppofed Scriptures on the fctrne foot *with Scrip^ tures themfelvcs, viz. Creeds, and Confvffions, And for what he advahces we are to take his Word : for he has given us no Manner of Proof. It will appear that the Reverfe of what he has here advanced is true. Thelc Sublihics of metaphyfical Debate were not in- troduced by the Governors of the Church, but by the feveral Hereticks of thofc Times**,

■ See p. 12, 13.

*• This is th« Account givm us by /r/w<na, ]. i. c. i. f. 20. & c. 2. In him alfo vtc may fee a par;icular Account of thefc Hcreticks, and their Zubtkiiet, Amongft them we find Ctrin-

thus

( 5 )

And Creeds, arid Confejions of Faith, were from the Beginning found necelTary to guard

thus, and others, who denied our Bleffed Saviour'i Divinity. Sec alfo Binghnm\ Antiquities, 1. x. c. 3 & 4. 1. xvi. c. I . f. I. Cirtical Hift. of the Apoilles Creed, ch. 1.

We are told in a Note that a Creed ought to he very clear and inielllgihle to all Perfons : and that the Tcrtrts of Chrijiian Com' munioH Jhould likeivife he as general^ and comprehenfi've, as it it poffihle. But how we are to make a Creed, in which all Par- ties pall agree : ox frame a Liturgy, <v.'herein all Sells of Chrif tans might join, I cannot eafily comprehend : How ftiall they, who worlhlp fefus Chrift, and honour him as God, join in the lame Liturgy, witli thofe who deny his Divinity, and efteem his Worfhip no better than Idolatry ? The good Man might as well carry his Scheme of Comprehenfion a little farther. Mr Pope has given us an Univerfal Prayer. Might not we on the fame Plan frame an Univerfal Liturgy, ^wherein not only all SeSs of Clrifiians, but all Jeius, Turks, and Infdels, as well as Hereticksf might join ? And yet, I am afraid, even this would not take all in. The whole Body of our Difenters would ftill be excluded : for they all, I think, declare againft pre-conceived Forms of Prayer.

In the fame Note, though our Author had juft before told us that he had no Defg?t cf entering into the fubjeSl matter of cur Articles, he feeras to plead only iot fome Relaxation from the prefent Mode of Subjcribing, and complains of our ArticLs, as entailing a 'whole Syjiem on us at once. And then he proceeds to calculate how many Propofitions there are in thefe Articles, I wifh he would take the fame Pains to calculate how many Propoftions are contained in the Firft Chapter of St. Johii^s Gofpel. There are no lefs than three in the fixft Verfe. And yet they are all necelTary Truths.

againft

( 6 )

againft their Evafions : nor were any Pcrfons admitted to Baptifm without making Pro- fcflion of the primary Articles of the Chrijiian Faith. And, as Hereiies multiplied, and new, and unjcriptural Doctrines were in- vented, the Church judged it neccffary to guard againft their Mifconftrudtions of Scrip- ture *. This Writer has put us in mind that even in the Apojlks Times there were thofe who corrupted the Word of God, and bandied it deceitfully. Some fuch Provifion therefore fecms to have been neceflary to guard againft thefe deceitful Workers, So far indeed we are agreed that this Power of the Church may be, and has been, abufed. In Procefs of Time Corruptions ftole in, both in Prac- tice, and Faith. And as the Church of Rome thought fit to eftablifh thefe Corruptions, it became neceflary to feparate from her Com- munion. But how did the firft Reformers do this ? not by aboliftiing all Creeds, and Cojfcjfons. No, they found it necelTary to draw up ConfeJJions of their own. As fome, who fet up for Reformers, had broached many erroneous, and peftilent Do(5trines; the Lutherans firft, and after their Example other Protcjiant Churches, thought fit to draw up Confefjions of their Faith. And this

» p. 10.

they

( 7 )

they did, partly, to acquit themfelves of the Scandal of abetting wild and feditious £«- thufiajis, and declaring what were their real Dodrines : partly, to prevent fuch Enthu^ Jiafis on the one Hand, and Popijh Emiflaries on the other, from intruding themfelves into their Miniftry. Nor was there (as far as I can find) ever any Church, ever fince the j^pojVes Times, either before, or after, the Reformation, but what had fome Creed, or Confejjion of Faith, The Lutherans, the Cahinijis, the Remonjlrants, and even the Socinians, as well as our Church, had their Forms of Do6trine, and did not acknowledge fuch as their Brethren, who would not pre- fer their Belief of them. Nor is it eafy to con- ceive a Church under any other Notion, but as a Body of Men profeffing fome common Form of Dodlrine, and joining in fome com- mon form of Worfhip.

* But we are told that thefe good Men were not aware how little agreeable this part of their Condudl might prove to the Principles they frji, fet out upon : which were that the Holy Scripture was our only Standard both of Faith, and Pra£iice ; and that its Meaning was to be afcertained to us by our own Rea/on, But this

• p. 6.

Incon-

( 8 )

Inconfiflcncy (hould not only have been aflerted, but proved. They did not fet up their Confejfionsy as Standards of Faith, nor impofc ihem on Men's Confciences as fuch. They defircd every Man to fearch the Scrip- tures, and judge for himfelf. But though they did not aflume a Povi^er over Men's Confciences, nor deny them the Liberty of private Judgment, yet they thought that they had Authority to enjoin a publick ProfeiTion of what they judged to be neceffary Articles of Faith, as a Condition of external Com* munion.

But this, it feems, was one of the chief Caufes of tlje Divifon^ and Dijlrejfes, which we read of in ecclefiajlical Story. — Our Au- thor, I fuppofe, thinks that fuch Divifons, and Difturbances, were not owing to tbeper" verfe difputings of Hereticks, and Scbifmaticks^ but to the Governors of the Church, who held faji the Form of found Words, And pofllbly too he may think that Infurredions, and Rebellions in the State, are not owing to the Unrulinefs of faftious Subjects, but to Kings, and Rulers. But moft rcafonable Alcn, I believe, will think otherwife. Our Author refers us here for Proof to Curcellaus, and Limborch, Thefe Men might have but

too

( 9 )

too much Reafon to complain of the Impo- fltions of the Romijlo Churchy and thofe of their own Countrymen at home. But they were both HemonJlrantSi and had given their AiTent to, and wrote in Defence of, the Re- monji rants Confejjion of Faith. This Confejjlon was pubhfhed with a Preface, wherein are anfwered the Objedlions ufually urged againft fuch Confeffions. They are the fame with thofe brought here by our Author, — that they detra6i from the Authority of Scripture — that they offend Mens Confciences, and hinder the Liberty of Prophecying, — that they occafon Divijipns, and FaBions, — I refer him to this Preface for an Anfwer to every thing he has here alledged '.

After all, what is all this to the Purpofe ? The Queftion propofed is the Propriety of re- quiri?ig of Perfons to be ordained a Subfcription to Articles of Religion, But he has hitherto been arguing againft Creeds, and Confeffions of Faith, required of all Men as Terms of Communion. We are hardly yet got in fight of the main ^ejlioji. If we fhorte^n our Creeds, new frame our Liturgies, and make cur

" I beg leave alfo to refer him to Dr Rogers's Dircourfe of the Vifible and Inviuble Church of Chrljl, p. ii. ch, 6. and to his Review, p, ii. ch, 5.

B 'Terms

of Communion fo general, and compreben^ve, aS to take in ail Se£}s of Chrijliansy yet ftill it may be ncceffary to take Care that this mixed Multitude may be well taught, and for that Purpofe provided with proper Teachers % who may be able by found DoSirine, both to ex- hort, and to convince the Gainfayers,

But now we fcem to be coming to the main Point ''. We are told that all Kinds of Engagements declarative of our full and final Perfuq/ion in Matters of Faith — are wholly founded on Principles diredlly oppofite to thofe abovementionedj (I fuppofe) that Scripture is the Standard of. Faith, and that its Meaning is to be a/cert ained to us by our ownReafon.—" But we do not fet up our Articles as a Rule of Faith. Nay thcfe very Articles declare that ^ nothing is to be required of any Man to be believed as an Article of Faith, that is not read in Scripture, or may be proved there- by : and that ^ befides the fame the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for neceffity of Salvation. Nor do we deprive any one of his Right of private Judgment. The Candidate for Orders might judge for himfelf, before he offered himfelf, and fa he may after Ordination. It is a very uniair

» Tit. 1.9. * P. 8. « Art. vi. * Aru xx.

State

( " )

State of the Cafe to call our Subfcrlption a Declaration of our full, andfinaU Perfuafon, in Matters of Faith, No Man is hereby tied up from impartially examining the Word of Gody nor from altering his Opinion, if he finds Reafon fo to do. * We are told indeed (how truly I know not) that the Church of Scotland requires her Minifters to promife to adhere to the fame Ferfuafion to thier Life's End» I am fure our Church requires no fuch thing, ^ut I cannot fee what Obligation lies on a teacher, who on his Examination alters his Opinion, openly to maintain his new Opi- nion. Will this Writer fay that every Teacher of the Gofpel is bound to maintain all Truths, and combat all Errors, in all Cafes, and at all Seafons ? If he does, he muft allow the Governours of the Church the fame Right of Judgment, and the fame Zeal for Truth. And if fo, they may think themfelves obliged to forbid, and reftrain, fuch Perfon from venting his novel Opini- ons, as their Minifler,

But we are told that the Judgment of mofi thinking Men will be always in a progrejfive State. — So indeed we find. Thefe thinking Men will one Year preach up the Divinity of

• p. 14. •-

B z our

( 12 )

CTlr Bkjfed Saviour ', the next Year they will explain it away ; foon after, growing ftill wifbr, they will teach their Flock that he is a mere Man, and no Worfhip due to him : at laft, they will give them to underftand, that the Apojlles Creed is erroneous. I fear that while the Trenchers Undetjlanding is in a progrejjive State, his Congregation will be in a retro- grade State, with regard both to Faith, and Morals. And I humbly think that in fuch Cafes thefe thinking Men, if they choofe to retain their Preferments, fhould keep their Opinions to themfelves".

''What follows is mere Declamation. Our Church preacloes no other Gojpel than that which Jhe received^ nor propctmds any other Articles for Gofpely nor fixes any Standards or Cr iter ions of Faith fcparate from this Gcfpel : and fo /he has fully declared. She claims indeed Authority in Controvcrfies cf Faith : but only fo far as to judge for herfelf what fliall be her own Terms of Communion, and what Qualifi- cations fhe Ihall require in her own Minillers. Nor does our Church herein claim any other

• See this Point (latc^ by Dr "Randolph in his Vindication of the V^oclrinc of the Trinity, App. p. 13. --and more fully handled in Dr Rogers's Civil Eftablilhment of Religion, Chap, ii. ScA. 7, 8, 9. * p. 9, 10.

Au-

( '3 )

Authority (as has already been fhewn) than what all Chrijiian Churches, ancient and modern, Frotejlant as well as Popijh, have always claimed, and exercifed. Nor is this Claim any way inconfiftent with the Right of private Judgment, or Liberty of free En- quiry. But we are told that * this Spirit of impojingy Jliled the My fiery of Iniquity, began to work as early^ as the Apofles Times. But who were thefe Impofers ? Not the Governors of the Church ** : but vain talkers, and JD^- ceivers, who fet themfelves up in Oppofition thofe Governors. Thefe were the Perfons the Apojile forewarjies us againji, as " corrupting the Word of Gpd, and handling it deceitfully. If any fuch iliould arife amongfl us, I fhould think, and fo did St Pau^, ^ that it concerns the Governours of the Chnrch to Jlop their Mouths,

But we now feem to be coming to the main ^lejlion \ We are told that ivith regard to the Right of requiring Suhfcription deduced from the Nature of a Society, as fuch, which Writers on that fide generally ft out with, it refts entirely on this Argumoit, or Affertion, viz. that

^ P. lo. »• Tit, I. lo. "= 2 Cor. ii. 17. ^ iv. 2.

' P. 32,

the

( 14 )

the Cburcb, like other SocietieSy has a Power to frejcribe its own Terms of Admittance ^ &c. — To this it is anfvvered that this Society is fomething more than a mere human EflabJiJhment—2.T\^ that the Terms of Admittance into this Society are Jixed by the 'very Authority thai conjiituted the So^ ciety itfelf. And here three or four Texts of Scripture arc brought to prove that we are bound to receive all Pcrfons into this Society on a general ProJeJIion of their Faith in Chrifi. But here again the Qucftion is changed upon us. The thing to be proved was the Impropriety of requiring Subfcription of Perfons to be or- dained. And to prove this he tells us that the Apojiles admitted Perfons to Baptifm en a general Profefjion of their Faith in Chrift, ^een Candaces Eunuch and Cornelius the Cen- turion were indeed baptized : but they were not ordained Priefts, or Deacons. Nor do his Inflances prove even the Non-neceffity of Baptifmal Profejjiofis '. Philip y before he baptized the Eunuch y had preached unto him yefusy and taught him from If liii. the Dodrine of Redemption by Chrifi : and the Eunuch by his ProfefTion of Faith in fefus Chrifly mud be undcr/lood to give his Aflent to the Dodrines preached to him. Cornelius* ^

• Acls ix. 3 3, &-C.

Cafe

( IS )

Cafe was an extraordinary one '. While St Peter was preaching to him, the Holy Ghofl fell upon all them which heard the Word. Whereupon Feter anfwered — Can any Man forbid Water that thefe jl:)ould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoji as well as we. And he commanded him to be baptized in the Name of the Lord, — This can be no Rule what is to be done in ordinary Cafes. His laft Text of Scripture is ftill lefs to his Pur- pofe *. There arofe a Dijfejifwn, and Difpu- tation, among the Chrijlians at Antioch, about the Neceffity of the Mofaical Law. This ^ejlion was determined in a Council of the Apojiles and Elders at ferufalem, who gave Sentence that no greater Burden jhould be laid upon the Gejttile Converts than fome few neceffary Points of Pracftice. And what is this to the Cafe of Creeds, or Subfcriptions, This Paflage fhould rather feem to prove the Authority of the Church, both to prevent the teaching of falfe Dod:rines, and to ordain Rites, and Ceremonies.

I know that is has been alTerted by feme Writers of Note, that the only neceflary Article of Faith is that 'Jefus is the Mejjiah: and thefe Texts, which our Author has pro-

* Afls X. 44, &c. '^ Ad5 XV.

duced

( 16 )

duccd, and fame others, have been brought in proof of it. But 1 (hould be glad to know what they mean by this Term — Mejjiab.-*" If they mean only a Prophet fent by God^ then this Allcrtion amounts to this, that it is neccfTary to believe "Jejus to be a true Pro- phet, and yet not neceflary to believe any one Dodtrine which he taught. But if by — the MeJJiah—thty mean, as they lliould mean, the Only-begotten Son of God, anointed, and fent by the Father, to make Propitiation for the Sins of the World, this will include all the Fundamental Articles of the Chrijlian Vaitb. Nor can any Argument be drawn from the Pradice of the Apojlles, At the firft Publication of the Gofpel God bore Wit^ nefi to it ivith Signs and IVonders. Thofe who were convinced by thefe Miracles, and believed the divine Million of the Apojlles, and thereupon fubmitted to be taught by them, might perhaps be baptized, and re- ceived into the Church, without any farther Profefllon. But this would be no Rule to fuccecding Ages. And even in the Apojlles Days we find that Teaching generally pre- ceded Baptifm '. So it was in the Cafe of ^een Candace's Eunuch, It has been already Ihcwn that Creeds and ConJeJJions of Faith

• See alfo Adi viii. 12, x. 34. xvi. 14. 32, 33. xviii. 8.

were

( 17 )

were in Ufe in the firft Ages of the Chrif-^ tian Church, and were require^ of Perfons to be baptized ^. This Pra(flice is faid by the tnoft ancient Writers to be derived from the Apojiles themfelves. Tfoe Apojlles Creedy which we now have, though the whole of it was not compofed by the Apojiles themfelves, yet was formed upon their Plan ; and the greatefl Part of it either compofed, or authorized, by the Apojiles, as may be feen in the Writers cited underneath*. In the Primitive Church no adult Perfons were baptized without previous Inflrucflion. * They continued fome Time in the State of Catechumens, when they were inftru(fted in the Doxftrines of Chrijiianity , and taught their Creed 'y and when they were admitted to Baptifm, they made publick and folemn Profeflion of their Faithy in the Words of

y Iren. L i. c. 2. Tcrtull. de Praefcript, adv. Hasret. c. 13, 21. Adv. Prax. c. 2. See alio Binghamh Antiq. L. X. ch. 3. Critical Hift. of the ApoJlWs Creed, ch. i. Rogers^ Review, Part. ii. c. 5. Our Author, perhaps, may cry out. So early did this Myjiery of Iniquity begin to <work. No ; it v/as not the Myjlen of Iniquity, but the Myjiery of Godlinefs, which thefe Creeds fet forth — God manifeft in the Fief;/,

■* Bingham's Antiq. B. x.

« lb. B. xi, ch. 7. {.S, &c.

the

( i8 )

the Creed appointed by the Church ^ And M^hen Children baptized, they had Sponfors who anfwered for them.

The like Care was from the Beginning taken to keep falfe Teachers out of the Church. ' St. Paul dire(fts Timothy to com- mit thoje T'bings which he had heard to faith- ful Men, who Jl^ould be able to teach others alfo : ^ and to ordain fuch Deacons only as held the Myjlery of the Faith in a pure Con^ fcience, ' And he commiflions liitus to or^ dain fuch Elders in every City as held faji the faithful Wordy as they had been taught, that they might be able, by found Dodirine, both to exhort and to convince the Gainfayers. And he commands him to Jlop the Mouths of vain Italkers and Deceivers -, and to reje&t after the firfi and fecond Admonition, a Man that is an Heretick* * And in the Primitive Church the greateft Care was taken to pre- ferve the Unity of the Faith. Strift En- quiry was made into the Faith and Ortho- doxy of all Perfons to be ordained ; and they were required to give in a Form of

»» Ch. 8. f. 4. '2 Tim. ii. 2.	* I Tim. iii. 9,
= Tit. i. 5, &c. ' iii. 10.
' See Bingbam'i Anii^. B. xvi. ch. i .	lb. B. iv. ch. 3.

of

( 19 )

Confeffion of their Faith fubfcribed with own Hand ; and thofe who taught any he- retical Opinions were cenfured, and cail out out of the Church.

I am glad, however, that our Author aU lows the Church to be a Society. As to the Terms of Admittance, I refer him to the ori^ ginal Charter ^, which commiflions the Apojlles to receive jpifcipks into the Church, by baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoji, I think it may be from hence reafonably concluded, that Perfons baptized fhould make Profeflion of their Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoji -, and that Per- fons appointed to be Teachers fhould be found in this Faith, and able to inftru6t others in the Nature and Offices of thefe Three Divine Perfons,

But here we lofe Sight of the Queftion again -, ' and a new one is introduced in its ftead, with regard to the Civil Sanftions of Religion. It feems Men muft not only not be compelled, but muft not be tempted to de^

^ Matt xxvii. 1 9— ft^S-jjrJiKrftSTS /iXTTTt^tyTH.. ' Page 13, Sec.

C 2 dare

( 20 )

tlare their AJfent to what they cannot believe. The Magiftrate therefore muft not eftablifh what he thinks the true Rehgion ; muft annex no Rewards to it's Profeflbrs. There muft be no Tythes, no rich Benefices, no Dignities or Bi£hopricks ; for thefe are tempting Things, and may hazard the Probity of his Subjeds. Or, if he allots any Main- tenance to the Teachers of Religion, he muft admit all Pcrfons indifcriminately, Papijis, and all the wildeft Sedaries, who hold Principles fubverfive of the Foundation of what he thinks the true Religion ^. Whe- ther this will contribute to fecure either the Peace, or the Probity, of the People, let any reafonable Men judge. I muft defire to be excufed from following our Author any far- ther out of the Way. The Authority of the Magiftrate in Matters of Religion, the Reafonablenefs of Toleration, and under what Reftridions it may or may not be granted, are Points of forae Difficulty, and cannot be properly treated of in a narrow Compafs. And as they are foreign to the prefent Queftion, fo I have neither Inclina- tion, nor Leifure, to enter into the Difcuflion of them ; and therefore I refer to the ex-

* Sec Dr. Balguy^ Charge.

ccll^nt

( 21 )

cellent Dr. Rogers, who has fully handled thefe Subjects.

But I cannot forbear afking our Author what he means by ^ Pains and Penalties, and ivholefome Severities ? and what, and who he complains of? Does our Church or our Go- vernment " (to ufe the Words of the worthy Dean of Glocejier) inflid: any corporal Pu- nifhment, or levy any Fines and Penalties, on thofe who will not comply with the Terms of her Communion ? No. Doth it deny them the Right of Privilege of wor- shipping God in their own Way ? No : a Toleration is granted them on reafonable Terms. Are Men denied the Liberty of free Debate ? No ; nothing is punishable by pur Laws but open Blafphemy and Profane- nefs, and publickly impugning the moft fundamental Articles of our Rehgion ; and even thefe Laws are fcarce ever put in Exe- cution. Men fpeak, and write, juft what they pleafe, with Impunity. What then do they complain of ? Why, that they have node of thofe Emoluments allotted to the Teachers of the eftabliihed Religion, which

* Apology for the Church of England, p. 52. ' Page 16.

they

( 22

they wi{h to enjoy without complying with the Terms required ; and load the Church, and Government, with Abufe for not grati- fying them in their extravagant Demands.

I meet with nothing to the Purpofe till p. 21. where we are told, thzx/uch doBrinal Formularies exclude none hut confcientious Men from any particular Communion : they create no Difficulty to others, who fuhfcrihe them as Things of Courfe ; and in the like Circum- Jlances will fubfcribe any thing. — I would de- fire our Author, in fie ad of doBrinal Forma^ lities, to read Oaths, and then fee how his Argument would run. The Government muft require no Oaths of' Allegiance, or Supre- macy, of Perfons to be admitted to Pofts of Honour or Profit j for thefe will exclude none but confcientious Men : others will take them ds things of courfe, and will fwear to any thing. But who are thefe others, who fub- fcribe the Articles as Things of Courfe ? He would not, I hope, fuggeft that the Bulk of the Clergy do fo. I am well perfuadcd that the Generality of the Clergy, when they offer themfelves for Ordination, confi-^ der ferioufly what Ofiice they take upon them, and firmly believe what ihzy fubfcribe to. If by this means fome confcientious Per- fons

{ ^3 )

fins are excluded, we are forry for it : but we efteem thofe only fit to be admitted into the Minijlry, who hold the Faith, as well as a good Confcience. If unworthy Men, who know not, or care not, what they fubfcribe^ by this Means get into the Minijlry, they would not be excluded, if we were to abo- lifh all Subfcription. If others fubfcribe againft the Dictates of their Confcience, and afterwards think themfelves at Liberty to bear their T^ejiimony againft what they have thus folemnly declared their AiTent to, it is their Fault alone. If the beft Method which could be thought of to avoid Diverji^ ties of Opinions, and eJiabliJJj Confent touching true Religion, may, through the Perverfe- nefs and Corruption of Mankind, have had a contrary Effect ; furely not the Church, but fuch Men alone are to blame.

" But our Church, it is faid, at firji pro- ceeded on the mojl extenfive Plan. — And pray when has fhe altered it ? We have the fame Articles of Subfcription now as we had in Queen Elizabeth's Time. The royal De^ claration afterwards prefixed to it, added no- thing to them, but only approved and con-

•» Page 21.

firmed

( H )

firmed what had been always the true Intent of fubfcribing, I am no way concerned to vindicate every Expreffion in this Declara^ fion. It may be fufficient to obferve, that there arc fome Errors exprefsly condemned in our Articles, and fome Dodtrines clearly and pofitively aiTerted. In thefe it was the Intention of the Compilers to ejiablijh Con- fent ; nor were thefe to be drawn ajide to any new Senfe by forced Conftrudions. In other more curious Points they purpofely worded the Articles in general Terms, allowing Per- fons agreeing in the general Senfe to differ in the particular Explanation of it.

® Our Author comes now at laft to an- fwer the Pleas offered in Support of this Prac- tice of Subfcription. One of thefe, he fays, is drawn from the f acred Writings being capable offucb a Variety of Senfes, that Men of widely different Perfuafions fielter themfehes under the fame Forms of Expreffion. It would furely have been more fair to have given us the Words of fome of thefe Advocates for Sub- fcription. Let us then take their Plea in their own Terms. — ^ fVe acknowledge (fays one of them) the Scriptures to be fufficicnth

• Page 24.. ' A. D. of O's Charge, p. 13.

clear

( 25 )

clear in all Matters necejjary to Salvation: but what tf Men wreft thefe Scriptures f explain away the plainejl ^texts of Scripture y and pre-' tend to prove the mojl erroneous and pernicious Do6lrines from Scripture f Are fuch Men to be entrujied with the Minijiry of the Gofpel, and commijjioned to teach thefe erroneous Doc^ trines ? What then is to be done in this Cafe ? J know of no better Way of Security againji fuch Deceivers, than by drawing up Articles explaining fuch Scriptures as thefe Men have perverted, and guarding againji their Mifcon^ JlruSiions, If this is not allowed, we can have no Fence to prevent Popifi Emijaries, or any falfe 'Teachers whatfoever, from thrujling themfelves into the Mini/iry,

And what has our Author to fay in An- fwer to this ? Firft, he queries whether the Scriptures are in Reality fo differ eiitly interpre- ted in Feints of real Confequence. But the fame Writer has {hewn that they are, and inftanced in the firft Chapter of St. John's Gofpel. But we muft not take this for grant" ed, and make ouffehes Jole Judges of this Con- fequence, So far only does the Church make herfelf Judge, as to judge what Do(5trines are fit to be taught, and what Securities are to be required of thofe whom fhe admits into D her

( 26 i

ticT Minif^ry. And in this the Governors of the Church have the fame Right to judge as all other Perfons have to judge for them- felves, and to adt accordingly. But t^eir Ex f options, we are told, wi// at length be-" come equally difficult to be expounded. If they fhould, the Church has Power to alter and explain them when (he judges it neceffary or expedient.

' Another Plea our Author mentions of the

fame Kind is, that all Sorts of pejtilent Here*

fes might be taught in publick, if no fuch Re-

flraint as this were laid upon the Teachers.

' His Reply to this has been already confi-

dered. It is indeed a fair Conceffion that

pejiilent Herefes ought to be guarded againft,

and that to this End fome Enquiry ought

to be made into the Principles of thofe who

are to be appointed Teachers, What then

would he give us in the Room of Subfcrip^

tion ? — The Church may, if fje thinks ft,

fupply her Clergy with proper Comments on

Scripture y or Homilies properly adapted to their

own Time Sy and, ifyoupleafe, with Articles of

Religion alfo. — Very well. But of what

Authority are thefe Comments, Homilies and

' Pag« 25. < See above, p. 3.

Articles

( ^7 )

Articles to be ? Here we are rather in the Dark. It (hould feem by what follows, that they are only for the Edification of thefe her Sous, as meet Helps and DireSiions for the more effe^ual Di/charge of their Minifiry^ How then will you hinder pefiilent Herefies being taught in publick, if you admit Perfons into your Miniftry, who neither approve of your Comtnents, nor believe your Articles, and fuifer them afterwards to write and preach againft all or any of them ? But it feems, Preachers are to be made liable to Cenfure for Impieties ^ when uttered by them, hut not bound beforehand to Juch a Clog of Pre ^ cautions. But here again he fhelters himfelf under general Words. What does he mean by Impieties f And who is to be judge what are Impieties,- and what Cenfure is to be paf- fed upon them. You put Comments on Scripture, and Articles of Religion, into your Treacher s Hands. Is he obliged to explain the Scriptures in Conformity to thefe Comments^ and to teach fuch Dodlrines as are fet forth in thefe Articles, and no other ? If he is, how {hould we be in a better Cafe than we are at prefent ? It fhould feem rather worfe ; for we fhould be tied down by Comments a^ well as Articles, Suppofing then that any of thefe Preachers fliould preach different D 2 Dodfines,

( 28 )

Dodrincs, and that in the moil important and fundamental Points ; would you allow the Governors of the Church any Power to reftrain them, or fufpend them from their Office ? Or muft: they wait till they proceed to open Blafphemyy and may be convided before a Judge and Jury ? If fo, then all Sorts of pejlilent Herejies may and will be taught in publick, without any Reftraint. And I am humbly of Opinion, that it is much better to take proper Precaution before" hond, and more eligible, not to admit thofe into the Miniftry who hold thefe pernicious Doctrines, than to to cenfure them for it afterwards — But Mopeim reprejents the Me- thod here recommended to be the Cafe pre^ cifely with the Arminian Confefjion. But thefc Arminians are no national Church : they are, as the fame MoJJjeim tells us, a Medley of Perfons of different Principles, who, properly f peaking, have no fixed flable Form or Syfiem of Doctrine. And yet thefc will not look on the Papifis or the Cahinijls, who deny their five Articles as Brethren. They alfo thought it neceffary to draw up a Confefjion of their Faith, much larger than our Body of Articles. And ' (as I obferved before)

' Page 6.

their

( *9 )

in their Preface to this ConfeJ/ion, they an* fwer the fame Ohjedlions againft fuch CotI" JeJJions of Faith as are here revived by our Author.

I muft beg Leave to pafs by the follow- ing long-minded Periods of Declamation : I can find nothing in them but what has been already obviated ; and I am tired with repeating the fame Anfwers to the fame Objedlions, cloathed in different Expref- fions.

I pafs on to page 30, where our Author, in Anfwer to thofe who have urged that ««- fcriptural Words might as well be ufed in Confefjiom of Faith as in Preaching y fays, that the two Cafes are widely different. I can fee but little Difference in this Refpedt. They are both Explications of Scripture -, and therefore in both other Words muft be ufed befides Scripture. Nor does our Church claim any divine Authority ; nor does (he peremptorily decide Matters for us, or bind them upon usy as our Author mifreprefents the Cafe. But whereas falfe Teachers had ex- plained away the Senfe of Scripture by nevw and unfcriptural Diftindlions, it was judged peceffary to guard againft their Evafions, and

thereby

( 30 )

thereby exclude fuch falfe Teachers from our Miniftry, If we were on this Account forced to make Ufe of new Terms, the Novelty is chargeable, not on us, but on them. Nor is this (as I have often already obferved) any way inconfiftent with the Aflertion, that the Holy Scriptures contain all DoBrines re^uir^d of NeceJ/ity for eternal Sal^ vation -f-.

However, I cannot pafs by one of his long-winded laboured Sentences, though I

cannot eafily fix his Meaning. * Were

fame Perfons fenfble of this (though I can- not make out from the Context what this is) they would not furely be fo forward to fufpeB us of Hypocrijy and Prevarication, while we ejieem ourfehes bound to keep up allthefe Forms^ till relieved by proper Authority 3 nor impute it wholly to our private Intereji, when we mini" flerially comply with what we are not able to

t But we find the Tables now turned upon us. The Church is now charged with introducing imfcriptural Terms and mttaphv/ictd Debates ; whereas it was her Defign to guard 8gainft the metaphyfical Subtleties pf vain Deceivers. And it inay be, and often has been Ihewn, that thofe Things* which may now feem abftrufe in our Cruds and Articles^ were occafioned by the fubtle Evafions of the Hueucks of thofc Days.

• Page 33.

remove ;

( 3« )

refno've ', and patiently remain in Pojis, honv- ever invidioujly reprefented, where it is con^ ceived that we may do more good, and perform a more acceptable Service to our common Maf- ter, by continuing to labour on in his wajle Vineyard, and wait his own good 'Ti?nefor Op' portunities of ufing our little Influence [hereby prevented from growing fill lefs^ towards pruneing a few wild Branches in it, and root» ing outfome of the rankeft fFeeds.—Be pleafed. Sir, to come out of the Clouds. You have not yet thought fit to tell us who you are, nor what your Tenets are, nor what it is which you fo much diflike in our Forms, I conld wifh in particular that you had been more explicit with regard to the Dodlrine of the "frinity. This Doftrine has been lately abufed in very rude and grofs Terms. Permit me then to afk. Whether a Perfon, who dilbelieves this Doctrine, can, without Hypocrijy and Prevarication, fubfcribe to the Article, which afferts, that in the Unity of the Godhead there be three Perfojis of one Subflance, Power, and Eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofl. But perhaps there may be fome, who at firft fubfcribed to thefe Ar^ ticks as things of courfe -, but are improved in Knowledge fince. But have they never repeated their Siibfcription f and do they

think

( 3* )

ttiink themfelves at liberty to take upon them the Office of Teachers and Governors, in a Church whofe fundamental Dodlrines they difbelieve, and repeatedly declare their Affent to what they think falfe ? Again, can Perfons of thefe Principles ejleem tbeni' fehes bound, or even at Liberty, to keep up the Forms in our Creeds, and Liturgy f Can they, without Prevarication, repeat the Words of a Creed in a publick Congrega- tion, if they do not believe the Contents of it ? Can he who denies the Divinity of our Blejfed Saviour, folemnly proteft before God, and his Church, that he believes in our Lord Jefus Chriji — very God of very God— being of one Subjiance with the Father f Can he, who difbelieves the Dodrine of a T'rinity, declare it publickly to be his Belief, that the ivhole three Perfons are co-eternal together, and co» equal f Nor can fuch a Man join in the Ufe of our Prayers. Can he, without Prevari- cation, invoke ^ the holy, blejfed, and glorious T^rinity, as three Perfons, and one God ? Can he addrefs himfelf to "^ our Lord Jefus ChriJl, as one who liveth, and reigneth, with the Father, and , the Holy Spirit, ever one God,

• Litanj. " Colled for 3d Sunday in Advtnt.

World

( 33 ) *

World without End? "^ Can he pray to God to keep him fiedfajl in the true Faith, to ac- knowledge the Glory of the eternal T'rinity ? Whether thefe are our Author's Principles I know not : that he differs from the efta- blifhed Church in fome important Points, may, I think, fairly be gathered from his own Words. He fpeaks in the firft Perfori, — ff^e — and he reprefents our Church as a wa/le Vineyard ; and waits for an Opportunity of pruning the wild Branches in it, and rooting out fome ofit*s rankeji Weeds, But my Charge is not pcrfonal againft him -, but in general againft all who thus prevaricate, who, I fear, are too many, and whofe Caufe our Author here pleads. And I muft aik him what he means by. that equivocating Ex- preffion oi minijlerially complying ? — Does he think that the Minifter officiating in a pub- lick Congregation fpeaks only like a Puppet, or like an Adlor in a Play, who fpeaks not in his own Perfon, but that of another ? Or does he efteem Creeds and Publick Prayers to be only Matters of Form, " fpoken not from the

^ Colleft for Trinity Sunday.

* I fear that ConfeJJion will not be made nvith the Mouth unto Salvation^ unlefs nvith the Heart Man belie vith unto Right eouf- nefs, Rom. x. lo.

Such

( 34 )

Heart, but only from the Mouth ? Can he folemnly profefs in his own Perfon, faying— / believe— before God, in his Church, and at his Altar, in the Face of the Congrega- tion aflemblcd for Divine Service, and yet believe nothing of what he profeffes his Be* Uefoi} Is he the Mouth of the Congrega- tion ? but furcly he is one of the Congrega- tion, and muft be fuppofed to deciare his own Faith, as well as that of others. If he does not declare his own Faith, pray who does ? Again, if he folemnly addrcffes him- felf to God in Terms containing what he verily think* to be a FaKhood ; if he prays to him as Gtf</, whom he believes to be no Gody is there not a Lie in his Mouth ? Does he not hereby deceive his Congregation, and mock God ? But it feems that ive comply, and fat tent ly remain in Pojls (yes, and patiently enjoy the Profits of thofe Pojisy and patiently rife from one Pojl to another) that we may do more good, and perform a more acceptable

Such DiCimulation was held in Abonmce by the Heatbtns thcmfelvcs. When EuripiJti'i Xragedy was afled on the Theatre at Atbtns., where Hipfolytus fayj.—'H yKmar ifiLf.*^ i h ^)i» utieft.»r»(^-My Tttigut has Jiuom, but not my Heart—' Sarates was fo offended at this Prevarication, though only fpoke by an Aftor, out of a Play, that he left the Theatre.

Service

( 35 )

Service to our Majier—'thzt is, in Scripture Language — ^ Let us do Evil, that Good may come.— What would this Writer himfelf think of a Jefuit, who (hould talk, and adt thus ? who ihould apply for Orders, take the Oath of Supremacy, fubfcribe our Articles^ and declare his Aflent to our Common Prayer i (hould take upon him the Office of a Prieji in our Church, accept of Benefices, Dignities^ and a Bifioprick and on every new Promo- tion repeat his Subfcriptions and T)eclarations F Shold iuch a Man officiate in our Church, and declare that he did this in order to do more good, and perform a more acceptable Ser- vice to bis Majler ; that be continued to labour on in the wafie Vineyard, and waited a good ^ime, and a proper Opportunity of pruning the wild Branchds, and rooting out the rankejl Weeds in the Vineyard j that is, in more plain Englijh, of fubverting our Eftabliihment, and bringing us back to Popery. Would not our Author call this grofs Hypocrify and Prevarication ? Juftly he might without any invidious Mifreprefentation. And yet this Man would have more to fay for himfelf than thofe, whofe Caufe he pleads. He might fay that it was his Principle that no

y Rom. iii. S,

E 2 Faith

( 36 )

Faith was to be kept with Hereticks, and that he had a Difpenfation from the Pope, which quieted his Confcicnce. Nay, far- ther, a Popijh Prieji might more innocently officiate in our Churches, and join in our Creeds, and Liturgy, than a Socinian can.

* But our Author pleads the Example of Qurjirjl Reformers : and fo might our fup- pofed fejuit do with a better Grace. They, we are told, did not quit their Stations in the Church, but ufed all their Endeavours to amend it. — I am no way concerned to vin- dicate every Thing which thefe great and good Men did. It pleafed God to bring about the Reformation by human Means. Tht firjl Reformers yvere Men, and fubjedl to human Frailties. If they were guilty of any undue Compliances in King Henry the Eighth's Time, they had great Temptations to them. The King had begun a Reformat tion by denying the Popes Supremacy. But he was a Prince of a high Spirit ; and a zea- lous Aflertor of all the other Errors of Popery, The Truth indeed is, thefe Refor- mers themfelves were not weaned from

» Page 32.

thefe

( 37 )

thefe Errors but by Degrees. * Both Cran^ mer, and Ridley^ held the Doctrine of 'Tran^ fubjiantiation till the latter End of King Henrys Time. And therefore they might without Hypocrijy officiate in the Mafs. But they were not fuch minijlerial Compliers, as is here reprefented. ^ When Cranmer was confecrated Archbifhop of Canterbury^ he fcrupled taking the Oath to the Fope : and at laft, by the Advice of fome Cano- nifts, before he took the Oath he made a publick Proteftation, that he did not intend thereby to reftrain himfelf from any thing that he was bound to, either by his Duty to God, or the Kitig, or the Country : by which, fays Dr. Burnet, if he did not wholly Jave his Integrity, yet it was plain he intended no Cheat, but to aSf fairly, and above-board. *^ When the Jix Popijh Articles were efta- bliflied 1539, Shaxton Bifliop of Salijbury, and Latimer Bifhop of Worcefier, refigned their Billiopricks, thoug the former indeed afterwards recanted, and was a Perfecutor

* Strype\ Memorials of Crajmer, B. i. ch. 18. Tix.Ridleyh Life of Biihop Ridley, B. iii. f. 5.

* Strypis Memorials, B.i. ch. 4. Burneth Hiftcry of the Reformation, B. ii. p. 129,

'^ lb. B. iii. p. 266. Sirype\< Memorials, B. i. c. 19- Dr. Ne-ve\ Animadverfions on Philip, p. ^11-

( 38 )

of the Protejlants in Queen Mary'% Time. Cranmer was proteftcd by the King; and not only did not fubfcribe, but openly de- clared, and wrote againil them. In Queen Mary's Reign it is well known what a glo- rious Stand thefe great Men made j and how far from any Compliance all of them were, excepting only one, who fell, and rofe again to receive the Crown of Martyr- dom. We may therefore, upon the whole, admire their Spirit, and applaud their Con- duct. Be it our Care to avoid their Failings, and copy after their good Examples.

One of our Author's Aflbciates feems to be convinced of the Iniquity of fuch mini- Jierial Compliance. He has religned his Pre- ferment, and publifhcd an Apology for fo doing. I really think he needed no Apo- logy. I think he has adted an honeft Part in giving up his Benefice, rather than offi- ciate in a Service, which he could not join in without grofs Hypocrify. If he believed no Worship to be due to our Saviour, he was right not to offer up a Form of Prayer, wherein he is fo often invocated, and addref- fed to, as God. But for the fame Reafon he cannot join in our Communion, nor at- tend our publick Worlhip. Nor can he

join

( 39 )

join himfelf to any Church in Chrijlendom, Jefus Chrifl is worfhipped in every Chrijlian Church, and has been fo in all Ages from the very firft Propagation of Chrijiianity to this Day. We cannot call this Gentleman tithtv Arian, ox Socinian : he outftrips both. Both Arius, and Socmus, held Worfhip to be due to Chrijl, ^ Nay, when Francifcus Davides, following only the neceflary Con- fequenccs of Sodnus's own Doctrine, denied the Worlhip of Chriji, Socinus was greatly provoked, wrote againft him with great Bit- ternefs, and called him a Blafphemer, more than an Heretick, and unworthy the Name of' a Chrijiian. And this Davides was perfe- cuted by the Socinians, and caft into Prifon, where he died a miferable Death. And ac- cordingly in the Racovian Catechifm we find the Worfhip of Chriji defended on the fame Principles, as the Romanijis defend the Wor- fhip of Saints, and Angels. " And to the Queftion — PFhat think you of thofe who hold that Chriji is not to be worjljipped ? The An-

^ Socinus contra Vujek, c. 2. Mojheim Hift. Ecclef. Vol. ii. p. 280.

" ^id 'vero fentif de lis hominiiits, qui Chrijium non invocant^ Ticc adorandum cenfent ? Pror/us non effe Chrijiianos fentio, cum re ipia Chrijium non haheant, et licet -verbis id mgare non audeant^ re ipsa negmt tamen.

fwer

" ( 40 )

fwer is-—/ think they are by no means Chrif-* iians.

Another of this Fraternity, not quite fo honeft, is now under Profecution (I fup- pofe it will be called Perfecutton) for pub- lickly fpeaking, and preaching, againfl: the Do(ftrincs of our Church, calling her Articles profane, and her Worfhip idolatrous, and even the Apojiles Creed erroneous ; altering the Liturgy i and leaving out fuch Parts of the Service, as he does not like. And yet this Man keeps his Benefice, to which he was lately inAituted, when he fubfcribed our Articles, and declared them all to be agreeable to the Word of God, and folemnly in the Church promifed to conform to our Liturgy, which he now in that very Church abufes in the groficfl Terms. However extraordinary this may feem, I efteem him one Degree honefter than our minijlerial Com'^ fliers : he aBs fairly, and above board.

And thefe are the Men, who petition for Relief in Matters of Subfcription. What would they have ? and what will content them ? Moft of them have been backward to fpeak out. Our Author deals moftly in general Terms. But they have now, fomc of them at leaft, plainly fpoken out. Nay

we

( 4« )

we are here told that they patiently remain in their Fojls, and wait the Opportunity ef pruning our wild Branches, and rooting out out rankeji Weeds, Give them therefore the Relief i\\ty afk for, and they will overturn our Church, Root and Branch, Allow them the Liberty of Prophecying, which they con- tend for, and all Sorts of Do<5trines will be publickly taught in our Pulpits, and the moft important Articles of our Religion openly vilified. But neither will this fa- tisfy them. We muft part with all our Creeds, even the Apofiles Creed-, we muft abolifh, or new modify our Liturgy, and in ftiort give up our whole Eftablifhment, And what End will be ferved by thefeCon- ceffions ? Will it promote either Peace, or Edification, if all Men of all Perfuafions are allowed, and commiffioned, to teach in our Churches whatever Dodtrines they pleafe ? Thefe Men (it feems) keep to Forms at pre^ fent : but when relieved by proper Authority, they will foon fall to Work in our Vineyard, and root out all our rank Weeds, I fear, if we let thefe Weeders in, they will tear up the True Vine itfelf. But can thefe Weeds be rooted out, without ftirring the Ground ? What is it which makes them fo earneft to

F root

{ 42 )

root thctn but ? A Zeal for Truth, I fup* pofe. And would not others be as zealous to fupport what they call Truth ? Would there not be many who would e/lcem, what they call rank IVe^ds , as the faireft Flowers in the Garden ? Our Author may perhaps fancy that all but the confcientious Men of his own Way of thinking Jubfcribe the Articles as things of Courfe, and willfub' fcribe any thing. But he will moft certain- ly find himfelf miftaken. He will find the Bulk of the Clergy as zealous to main» tain, and as able to defend, the Do(f\rines of our Church, as he is to oppofe them. And many common Cbrijiians, I believe, will be greatly fcandalized, if you take away their Creeds, and Catechifniy and ftrike out of the Liturgy fuch Things as they have always efteemed eflential. Shall we gain any Dif- Jenters by thefe comprchenfive Schemes ? I am afraid but few, and we may create more. New Scfts of Dijfenters will arifc, who will be as much offended at our leav- ing out nctell'ary things, as others arc for enjoining things indifferent. If you aboliOi the Worrtiip of our BkJJ'ed Saviour, I de- clare that 1 will be myfelf a DIJfenter : nor will I join in Communion with any Church

which

( -13 )

which docs not in her publick Worfhip

*call on the Name of our Lord Jefus Chriji.^ Church did I fay ?— No, it is no Church-— the very Name implies the Worship of our LORD. But farther; would thefe Refor- mers agree among themfelves ? Thofe wha deny the Divinity of our Biefed Saviour, as they would fiercely contend with thofe who hold this Dodrine, fo they would differ from one another. ^ Some would maintain that ke was a Second Jehovah; others that he was a mere Man. Some would tell us that they who worfhipped not Chriji were no Chrijiians -, others would call this Worfhip idolatrous. This we fee was warmly con- tefted among the Sociniansi and they abufed, and perfecuted, one another. And in the blefled Times of Oliver Cromwell, when the Church of England was fub verted, the fevcral SeBaries divided, and quarrelled among them- felves. And how would the People be edi- fied by this Freedom of Debate ? The Pul- pit would be made a Stage of Controverfy : and while the different Teachers were dif-

« 2 Cor. i. 2.

f Bifhop of CIo^her\ Eflay on Spirit.

F z puting

( 44 )

puting, and wrangling with one another on the moft important Points, while one taught one Do<5lrine, and one another, and that with equal Authority, the People would not know what to believe ; and probably many of them would be of no Religion at all, while others would feek Refnge in Po- pery ^.

But why may not Perfons of different Per- fuafions be united by Charity, and mutual Forbearance ? And why may they not now under the prefent Eftabli£hment ? Why may not Perfons of different Communions live in Peace, and Charity, as well as thofe of dif- ferent Perfuafions under the fame Commu- nion ? We bear no Malice, or Hatred, to thofe who differ from us, nor do we defire to perfecute, or injure them. If they diilike the Terms of our Communion, we compel^ them not to come in : they may join them- felves to any Conventicle they like beft.

Jf they approve not the Dodrine of our Ar- ticles, they need viox Jubfcribe them. If after

« Sec Dr. Balgtt^\ Charge, p. 5, &c. Mr. ^/tiVs Appen- ds to his three Letters.

their

( 4J )

their Subfcription they fhould change their Opinion, yet, if they keep their Opinion to themfelves, no Man will, or can, hurt them. Inftead of this, the Prefs teems with the bittereft Invedtives againft our Eftablifhment in general : and the moft ef- fential Do<5brines of our Church are treated with the greateft Afpcrity. If thefe warm Zealots were admitted into our Church, and fufFered to teach what they would without Reftraint, will they be more quiet than they are now ? I think it has been already (hewn that fuch Comprehenfion would contribute neither to Charity, nor Peace, nor Edifica- tion.

^ But I may be aiked, perhaps, — Are there no Faults in our prefcnt Conftitution ? Is there nothing that I myfelf fhould be glad to fee altered ? — I fhall fpeak my Mind fairly and freely. There are fome things in our Artkles, and Liturgy, which I fhould be glad to fee amended (though, I believe, not the fame as thefe Gentlemen would objed to) in many other things I

* See Dean Tucier's Apology, p. 54, &c.

fhould

( 46 >

(hould be willing (though againft my own Opinion) to make all reafonable Concef- fions, if by that Means we might obviate Obje^ions, gain any confiderable Nunabcr of Diflcnters without maJking more, quiet weak ConJfciences, or promote Peace, and Unity> amongil Pfotejiant^. But when fuch bitter lavcx^ives are publi(hed againft our Churchj as the ConfeJknaU and feveral 9«iM^s of the faoftc Stamp; when we arc loaded with Reproaehesj when the moft fundamental Do^rines of Chriftiamty arc attacked, and Principles advanced, which are fubverfive of all Eftabliihmenta, I fear there is little Room to hope for Peace,, oc Accommodation with fuch Men. And therefore I humbly think, witli all due Sub^ mi0ion to my Superiors in Church, and

^ This Writer fecnis to tread in the fame Steps tho? — »♦»

pa-JJikut eequis. Witncfs his Conclufion, where our Church,

aiid it's Government, are compared to the Jenuijh Church»

and it's Rulers, in our Swviour^s Time. He had before

compared it to the Tmuer of Babel. Strange it is that he Ihould not fee the Folly, the Injuftice, the Indecency, of fuch invidious Coraparifoni* Sufficient it may be to anfwer that our Church reaches not for Dodrines the Commandments of Men: and that he has not wrought any Miracles, nor offered us any good Reafons for our Conviction.

iState,

( 4; )

State, that we had better wait for more peaceable Times, and be contented with our prefent Conftitution as it is, till a fairer Profpe(ft fhall appear of changing it for the better.

ADDENDA.

( 48 )

ADDENDA.

WHEN I wrote thefc Papers, I had not feen Mr. Lindfay% Apology : I have fince obtained a Sight oF it. I find he renders the Text i Cor. i. 2. which I have cited above, p. 43. — with all them that are called by the Name of our Lord Jefus Chrijl'" and refers us to Dr. Hammond for Proof. Dr. Hammond is a learned, and able. Com- mentator : but his Interpretation of this Text is fufficiently confuted by Dr. Whitby in his Annotations. One need indeed only turn to the Texts cited by Dr. Hammond, The Word — iynKctXiif^tvos — by itfelf indeed fignifies called, or named. The four firft Texts of Scripture produced by him amount to no more, as Matt. x. 3. Luke xxii. 3. ^^s i. 23. --iv, y-^'Lebbaus, whoje Surname

was

( 49 )

.was ^hadd^eus'- Judas furnamed Ifcariot, &c. The next Text he cites proves direftly a- gainft him. A5is vii. 58. the Word — i:T<xM¥j'^€voj'— there is plainly ufed, not in the J^ajjive, but the Middle Voice, and lign^fies calling upon, or invoking- -^nd is by the Doc*- tor himfelf rendered— he continued in Prayer to God, But the fame Y^ih-'iTriKcthiof^cti — with an Accufative Cafe following it, always fignifies calling upon in Prayer, or appealing to, as a Witnefs, or Judge. To call upon the Lord, or upon the Name of the Lord, is a com^ mon Phrafe ufed in the Old T!efiament to fig- nify the Worfiip of God : and is exprefled in the Septuagint by the Verb"g7r;>ccfcAgo^ct;— . in the Middle Voice. Thus we read Gen, xii. 8. that Abraham built an Altar unto the Lord, and called upon the Name of the Lord-'-

i7nx.c<,Ai<rctTo iirt too ovq^ti l^v^la, And fo a-

gain again xiii. 4. and xxi. 33. where 'tis exprelTed iT^nccLKic-cLTo ro my^ct Kv^m, — * I/dac alfo built an Altar, and called upon the Lord. ^ The fanie Phrafe of calling upon

* Gen. xxvi. 25,

i> I Kings xviii. 24. i Chron. xvi.8. Pfal. Ixxix. 6. Ixxx. 18. xcix. 6. cv. I. cxvi. 4, 14. If. Ixiv. 7. Jer. x. 35 |jam. iii. 54. Joel ii. 32. ZacU. xiii. 9.

G the

( so )

the Name of the Lord is ufed in many other Places— ETToatAew-^^cti rhv Kvpiov — or— toc &iov, &c. is alfo ufed in many Places in a ASihe Senfc for the JVorfiip of God, The fame Phrafe is ufed in the fame Senfe in many Places of the New 1'ejlament, and particu- larly in thofe cited by Dr. H. and fo he himfelf acknowledges. So he does in his Paraphrafe of ABs vii. 59. as we have al- ready feen. In A£ls ii. 21. St. Peter quotes the Prophecy of foel ii. 3. and applies it to the Times of the Goffe/"UAt 6i civ itti' jcetKicyiTAi to cvofjut Kvpm <ru^ri<nTAi — - JVhofoever fhall call on the Name of the Lord fmll be Javed. In the Prophet it plainly fignifies the JVorJhip of God : and therefore mufl: fig- nify the fame in the Citation. The fame Prophecy is alfo cited by St. Fault Rom. x. 13. another Text produced by Dr. H, which proves diredly againll: him. For St. Pau/ applies f this particularly to Chrijl. He was before fpeaking of Faith in our Lord Jefus ChriJ}, v. 9, &c. and then adds, v. 12. The fame Lord over ally is rich unto all that call upon him. Then follows this Quotation from foel. And in the next Verfe the Apollle adds— i/<?w Jloall they call on him, in 'whom they have not believed «*— The Apoftle

is

( 51 )

is fpeaking oiChriJi. To call upon ^/z« Is there- fore fomething different from, and fubfe- qucnt to, believing on him, and can fcarce lignify any thing elfe than worjhipping him. And Dr. H, renders it — they Jloall conjlantly confefs, pray, and adhere to Chriji, The Verb here is certainly ufed in an ABive Senfe. There is one more Text cited by the Dodtor : and that is ABs ix. 14. where Ananias fays to the Lord, who appeared to hitn i?t a Vijion. — Here he, viz. Saul, hath Authority from the Chief Priejis to bind all that call on thy Name — r^i i7nKAKiifA.i)/ii$ to ovofjiet a-a — which Dr. H. renders— all that public kly avow the Worfiip of Chrijl — and refers to the fame Phrafe ABs xxii. i6i. which he renders joining with the Church in Performance of all Chrijlian Duties of Devo- tion to God-At cannot indeed here, nor at V. 21. fignifies thoje who were called by the Name of Chrift : "" for the Difciples were not called Chrijlians till fome time after at An- tioch. And for the fame Reafon in the laft cited Text ABs xxii. 16. where Ananias bids Saul arife, and be baptized, and wafi

" Adls xi. 26.

G 2 ' away

( 52 )

away bis Sins, calling on the Name of the Lordr iTTiKccMTafjuvof TO ovcfML Ti^ Ku^ij^— muft ilgnifv In an ABive Senfe, i^orfiipping the Lord. Again, they that call on the Lprdout of a pure Hearts- is a Pbr*ie ufed by 3£. Paul 2 Tim* ii. 22, to fignify good Chrijtians, z Phrafe nearly fynonymous to th^'s 2 Cor. i. 2. The fame Verb alfo— i^'XfltA«<rS-£— is ufed i Pet. i. 17. in an A^ive Senfe, to fignify the Worfiip of Qod* In fome other Places both of the Old, and New Tefiament, the Name of God is faid to be called on P^rfons, or Things, devoted to his Service : but here the Phrafe is diiFe- rent ; the Word- -0^^*— is here a Nominative Cafe prefixed to the Verb. But where the Ferh-'i7rtKa,\iof4.aLi'-.is followed by an Accufa- live Cafe, it always fignifies to invoke, or worJJjipy excepting only wherp it fignifies to appeal to. And if fo, we want neither Pre^ cepty nor Example, for the Worfl:ip ofChriJl.

FINIS.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES

THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below

OUcli ^'^Ciy

Form I.-s »>ni-l.'41(llS>

U,«^• -- .CKUEB

5132 [Randolph] - L41cZr An answer to a pamphlet entltuled Consideration on *o Tgrle ty of

requiring! a sub-

scription to

articles of faith*

f^^ 000 093 726

BX

5132

L41cZr

-^/^-V^W^W"

irrt.i':

¥*r

3;.*

.a.'" V' **"

<i 11 i

%■ 1				i' "A *
rl»^ir.w. •«•,.%				X^
:_ Jl .1	i_i- »•._•■» ii	.»■!	fr.	t	M^M\

Ik &" I

m'W^mw^wwmrwrmwimmrwi^^

P.VA«,»,«#d»A^'AV/i*i»/*V:

:A-M.t,

mm

■Si#r' ■ . *s53fc

:«.«

II

I E

wM:mm.

'mti

j^J^^f m

.io6"