fix 5137 .W548 177. 
 Wilton, Samuel 
 A review of some of the 
 articles of the Church of 
 
 :sct 
 

 REVIEW 
 
 OF S 0M£ OF T H fi 
 
 ARTICLES 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 
 [Price Four Sh^lings.] 
 
XJ V 
 
/ 
 
 A 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OF SOME OF THE 
 
 ARTICLES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 TO WHICH 
 
 A Subscription is required 
 o F 
 
 Proteftant Diflenting Minifters. 
 
 By S AM UE L 'WILTO N. 
 
 To the Lanv and to the Tejllmony ; if they /peak not according 
 to this ivord, it is hecaufe there is no light in them. Isaiah. 
 
 Eripe turpi 
 
 Colla jugo. Liber, liber fum, die age. 
 
 Horatius. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Buckland, in Pater-noftcr Row; 
 J. Robs ON, in New Bond-Street; V/. Harris, 
 in St. Paul's Church-yard ; and S. Gardner, 
 ift Gracechurch-Street. 
 
 MDCCLXXIV. 
 

 PREFACE. 
 
 THOSE who are prejudiced In favour 
 of all opinions, which have the 
 jfandion of publick authority, will natu- 
 rally be led to entertain a very unfavour- 
 able idea of the deiign of this publication. 
 And though I am very little concerned 
 about the cenfures which may be pafTed 
 iipoii the Author, for venturing fo freely 
 to examine eftablifhed opinions ; I am by 
 iio means equally indifferent to the great 
 and important caufe, which this publica- 
 tion is intended to ferve; 
 
 If the requifition of a fubfcription to 
 the Thirty-nine Articles, was limited to 
 thofe who feek the emoluments and pre-* 
 ferments of the Church by Law efla- 
 bliflied, there would be fome Jaint jhadow 
 of juftice in the charge of indecency upon 
 Proteftant Diflenters, in calling in queftion 
 A 3 the 
 
vl PREFACE. 
 
 the tiitth and propriety of the national 
 Creed. But the cafe is far different, when 
 a fubfcription to ahiiaft all of the Articles, 
 is made the indifpenfable condition of 
 a legal Toleration, to thofe who have 
 not the leafl: inclination or defire, to 
 reap the worldly advantages of a national 
 Eftablifhment. 
 
 Yet it is probable thefe obje(3:ions had 
 never feen the light, if none but the 
 Minifters or Members of the Eflabliflied 
 Church, had pleaded againft the abolition 
 of the prefent Tell of qualification. But 
 fome few perfons who are feparated from 
 the Communion of the Church of England, 
 appear to be not only fully fatisiied with 
 the authority of the Magiftrate, to impofe 
 a fubfcription to human explanatory 
 Articles upon the confciences of Chrif- 
 tians j but alfo to be perfed:ly enamoured 
 with all thofe Articles, to which a fub- 
 fcription is now required of Proteftant 
 DilTenting Minifi:ers. Hence ' they vehe- 
 mently oppofed the relief of more fcru- 
 pulous cojifciences, upon the apparent 
 prefumption, that however any propofed 
 3 alte- 
 
P R E F A C E» Vli 
 
 alteration might favour the majority of 
 DifTenring MiniflerSj it would have fome 
 very injurious influence upon their hopes, 
 their comfort, and their obedience. Chrif- 
 tian charity would therefore forbid an 
 attempt, which, if crowned with fuccefs, 
 would be productive of fuch unhappy 
 confequences to any of our Fellow- 
 chriftians. But as I was firmly perfuaded, 
 that the facred Scriptures, without the 
 aid of eflabliihed Creeds, are fufficient to 
 anfwer every purpofe necellary to Chrifliaii 
 edification and confolation ; fo it alfo 
 appeared to me, that many of the Articles 
 to which our fubfcription is required, 
 were very far from having the mofl re- 
 mote tendency to thefe ends -, and that 
 fome of them feemed to wear a very 
 contrary afpedt. This apprehenfion led 
 tne in a former publication, to intimate 
 my fufpicions, that the high opinion fome 
 Diflenters entertained of the Articles, 
 was grounded upon a very imperfedt exa- 
 jnination into their true meaning ; and 
 tfiat a voluntary fubfcription to them, 
 had in all probability frequently refulted, 
 frorn a general apprehenfion ox their or- 
 ' A 4 thodoxy. 
 
viii PREFACE, 
 thodoxy, without entering into a critical 
 inquiry into the fenfe of each. The 
 Expofition here attempted, is defigned 
 more fully to juftify the reprefentation 
 therein given. Upon this account, I have 
 frequently brought into view, the high 
 encomium paffed upon the Articles by 
 our protefting Brethren, that the propriety 
 of my conclufion may be more eafily 
 determined. To this end, I have endea- 
 voured to inveftigate the genuine fenfe 
 of fome of the Articles, and to point out 
 the difficulties of fubfcription thence re- 
 fulting, to Proteflant Diflenters of every 
 denomination. I have confined my at- 
 tention to objedions of this general nature. 
 The authorities produced in fupport of 
 the feveral explications, will, I hope, be 
 thought unexceptionable by every candid 
 and impartial Reader. It has been my 
 ftudy that they fhould be fo. And if the 
 teftimony of Divines of the Church of 
 'Englandy and the decifions of the Canon 
 Law are called in queftion, it will be 
 impoflible to find any authority which 
 will not be difputed.' 
 
 7 The 
 
PREFACE. k 
 
 The affiftance I have derived from 
 former Expolitors, has, I confefs, been 
 much lefs than might have been expeded 
 or wifhed. But the truth is, that there 
 never yet has appeared any Expofitor, 
 v^ho has entered thoroughly into the dif- 
 cuflion of all the do<5trines of the Articles. 
 I was long fmce convinced of the propriety 
 of an obfervation, lately made by a learned 
 Prelate, w^ho has moft honourably diftin- 
 guifhed himfelf, by writing againft fub- 
 fcription to Articles of Faith : That the 
 Thirty-nine Articles are not to be con- 
 lidered as only Thirty-nine Propofitions. 
 But in fa(5t, they have been too frequently 
 confidered in this light ; and Expofitors 
 feem to have imagined, that when thev 
 had treated upon the general fubjecft of 
 an Article, they had expounded the whole 
 of it. 
 
 It is the farthefl from my intention, 
 to infmuate that any of my Brethren, do 
 really hold all thofe opinions, which 
 I have pointed out as juftly exceptionable 
 in the Articles ; however naturally fuch 
 a conclufion may feem to follow, from 
 
 the 
 
^ PREFACE. 
 
 the manner in which they have exprefTed 
 their approbation of them. I am much 
 rather inclined to think, that they werd 
 not aware, or did not believe that fuch 
 was the real fenfe of the Articles ; or at 
 leaft, that they did not attend to it^ when 
 they fo highly extolled the national 
 Creed. And if any of them fliouM be 
 convinced of the propriety of my explica- 
 tion, I doubt not, their veneration for 
 the Articles will in no fmall degree be 
 lefTened. But if any fhould yet thinks 
 that a very different interpretation is 
 equally favoured by the literal fenfe, I 
 cannot but hope they will allow, that 
 the authorities produced are, at leaft, 
 fufficient to juftify the doubts of others, 
 without involving them in the guilt of 
 unpardonable herefy. This concefliont 
 will be fufficient to my purpofe. 
 
 It was not poffible to avoid occafionaliy 
 touching upon fome of the points in 
 difpute, between the Church of 'England 
 and the Diflenters ; but I have faid much 
 the lefs upon them, as they have been ^o 
 largely treated by others. Nor '\% it the 
 
 defigri 
 
PREFACE. jti 
 
 defign of the following Sheets, fo much . 
 to inquire into the truth of our diflin- 
 guifliing Tenets ; as to point out the 
 inconfiftenjcy of fome of the Articles with 
 thofe principles, w^hich, ds Frotejlant 
 Dijfentersy it muft be fuppofed we hold to 
 be true. Indeed to have attempted a 
 defence of them at large, would in me 
 have been only agere melius aBum. For 
 fo long as the DilTenting Gentleman's 
 Letters remain unanfwered, it will be a 
 needlefs attempt. And without pre- 
 tending to the gift of prophecy, one may 
 venture to foretell, that the men of this 
 generation will not live to fee them 
 refuted. 
 
 In the clofe of this Review, I have 
 infifted more largely upon fome things, 
 than may be thought abfolutely neceffary 
 to the fcope of the Argument. But as 
 they have a natural relation, to fome of 
 the profefled grounds of oppofition to the 
 Application of the DilTenters ; an Ad- 
 vocate for Chriftian Liberty, may hope to 
 be pardoned for taking fuch an opportu- 
 nity, of bearing his tellimony againfl a 
 
 moft 
 
xii 
 
 P R E P A C fi. 
 
 moft unrighteous perfecution -, which ap- 
 pears fo evidently to have taken it's rife^ 
 from an irreconcilable averfion to certain 
 dodtrines of the Articles* 
 
 There is ho reafoh to expert that any 
 thing here advanced, will be ©ifecflual to 
 convince thofe, whofe zeal and pre- 
 pofTeffions, or party-views and conned;ions 
 determine their minds againft all evidence ; 
 and will not fo much as allow them to 
 fufpeB the truth of any thing they have 
 profeffed to believe, or have formerly 
 fubfcribedi 
 
 Perhaps however fome of our Brethren 
 of the Epifcopal Perfuafion, who ard 
 utterly averfe to the diftiilguiiliing tenets 
 of Proteftant DifTenters ; may be hereby 
 led to difapprove the requifition of our 
 fubfcription, to fome of the Articles here 
 reviewed ; as difcerning the great and 
 manifed impropx-iety, of making a fub- 
 fcription to any Articles, totally incon- 
 iiftent with the principles common to all 
 Diflenters, the indifpenfable condition of 
 
 their Toleration. For it Is prefumed> 
 
 that 
 
PREFACE. xiii 
 
 that Epifcopalians, who are confcientioufly 
 attached to their principles as fuch, would 
 think themfelves hardly treated, if under 
 a Prelbyterian Eftablifhment, a fubfcrip- 
 tion to the truth of an Article, denying any 
 diJlinBion between Bifiops and PreJbyterSy 
 fhould be made the parallel condition, of 
 tolerating the Minifters of an Epifcopal 
 Church. 
 
 It is alfo hoped that fuch as are by 
 profeflion Proteflant DilTenters, but are 
 unhappily fo bialTed by various prejudices, 
 as to be wholly uninfluenced by a jufl: 
 regard to the common rights of confcience, 
 and the true principles of Toleration ; 
 may be brought to approve an Applica- 
 tion, grounded upon more liberal prin- 
 ciples than their own, if they fhould 
 difcover any reafon to queftion the perfed: 
 conformity of the Articles of the Church, 
 to what they themfehes believe to be true. 
 And if this Expcfition fhould happily 
 contribute, to produce fuch an alteration 
 in their views and condudl, I fhall efteem 
 piyfelf amply recompenfed. 
 
 I have 
 
xiV PREFACE. 
 
 I have no finifter or party- views in 
 this publication. My fole intention is 
 to ferve the common caufe of Chriftian 
 truth and liberty ; and to promote that 
 efteem and veneration for the facred 
 Scriptures, which as Proteftants we ought 
 ever zealoufly to maintain ; but vvhich 
 have been greatly and fatally lefTened, by 
 that undue reverence which has been paid^ 
 to eflabliihed human decifions. 
 
 I am confcious of many defedis in the 
 execution of this work, over which, I hope, 
 the friends of the caufe will generoufly 
 caft the veil of candour. 
 
 That the God of Truth may fucceed 
 this feeble and imperfed attempt, for the 
 advancement of his own glory, and pro- 
 moting the unity, peace, and profperity 
 of the Church of Chrift, is the fervent 
 prayer of the Author, 
 
 S. W. 
 
 Ltnuer Teotzng^ 
 ^larch 8, 1774. 
 
 INTRO- 
 

 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE application of the Proteftant Diflent- 
 ing Minifters to Parliament, to be releafed 
 from the obligation to fubfcribe the articles of 
 the church of England, as the condition of le- 
 gal toleration, has been varioudy reprefcrnted 
 and underftood. The adverfaries of the Dif- 
 fenters bill have not fcrupled to alTert, that our 
 objedions to the prefent eftablifhed rftode of 
 qualification, were merely the offspring of in- 
 fidelity. The principal argument, by which 
 fuch a gtofs mifrcprefentation has been fupport- 
 ed, is drawn from the fuppofed perfeft con- 
 formity of the articles of the church of En- 
 glandy to the facred fcriptures. Upon this oc- 
 calion the moft extravagant encomiums have 
 been paiTed upon the eftablifhed formula of 
 faith. The articles of the Church have fomc- 
 times been dignified with the appellation of the 
 very articles of Chriftianity, aind at other times, 
 yet more modejily, fet far above the Scriptures in' 
 point of ufc and importance. I fhall however 
 leave the propriety of fuch decifions to the 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 judgment of the impartial reader, when he has 
 peruled the following flieets; at prefent only 
 obferving, that the truth or falfhood of the 
 articles, was but a fecondary confideration with 
 us in the late application to Parliament. The 
 firft and general objeftion of the Diffenters, to 
 the prefent requifition of the toleration- aft, is 
 grounded upon the opinion they entertain, of 
 the fupreme and fole authority of the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, as Head and Lawgiver of his 
 church — of the right of private judgment — and 
 the fufficiency and perfedion of the Scriptures. 
 Thefe are opinions which they cannot poflibly 
 reconcile to the claim of the ftate, to impofe 
 any explanatory articles upon the confciences 
 of Chriftians, as a condition of toleration. 
 They look upon human authority to be an 
 incompetent one in all matters of religion, 
 which is a perfonal concern between God and 
 a man's own confcience •, and that every exertioa 
 of it, in this cafe, is an infringement upon the 
 natural and unalienable rights of confcience* 
 However agreeable therefore the articles might 
 be to their own private opinions, this objedions 
 would ftill be left in its full force. 
 
 But we do not wifh it to be concealed, that 
 
 a great number among us, do not apprehend, 
 
 there is that itrid conformity between the fa- 
 
 cred fcriptures and the articles of the church 
 
 .5 of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 of England which others contend for. Where- 
 in they differ, is a qii^ilion varioufly deter- 
 mined by men of various opinions. Ail the 
 writers againfc the articles^ which have ever 
 fallen in my way, have particularly oppofed 
 thofe doctrines contained in them, which are 
 tommonly known by the name of Orthodoxy. 
 Why they fuffered others to enjoy an undiflurb- 
 ed repofe, I take not upon me to determine. 
 Hence however it feems to have been generally, 
 but, as I hope to fhew, very erroneoufly con- 
 cluded, that none but Socinicjis, Avians, and 
 Arminians, can have any objeflion to the doc- 
 trines of thofe articles, whicli we arc required 
 to fubfcribe, 
 
 I profefs, in common with many of my bre- 
 thren, that I can neither intirely agree with 
 thofe, who, on the one hand, reprefent the ar- 
 ticles as perfc6tly confonant to the Scriptures; 
 nor with thofe on the other, who have objected 
 to dodtrines contained in them, which upon the 
 authority of Scripture I receive; but which, in 
 my opinion, are much better expreflcd in feme 
 Other human fyftems, than in the articles of the 
 church of England, and belt of all in the Bible 
 itfelf. 
 
 I mean no refledion upon the character of the 
 Reformers, whofe memory I greatly revere, 
 
 B 2 In- 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Indeed whoever confiders their fituation, will^ 
 I am fure, commend their wifdom and prudence 
 in condufting that important and glorious re- 
 volution, which took place in conrequence of 
 their noble proteft againft the corruptions of the 
 church of Rome. To have attempted a com- 
 plete reformation at once, even fo far as they 
 faw it wanting, would have been a vifionary 
 fcheme. It is eafy to difcern, that it was the 
 wifdom of the firft Reformers to proceed with 
 great caution and deliberation— to make that a 
 work of time, which, if it was ever done ef- 
 feflually, mufl" be done by flow degrees ; for 
 we have had many inftances of nniilar dcfigns 
 being totally defeated, by too great a precipi- 
 tance in the meafures adopted, and too quick 
 advances even in the good work of reformation. 
 Prejudices which have been long eftablifhed, 
 and are deeply riveted in the human mind, 
 are neither eafily nor fpeedily to be eradicated; 
 efpecially when they are favoured by having 
 worldly intereft on their fide, and penalties and 
 perfecutions {land in the way of oppofing and 
 renouncing them. It was therefore wifely or- 
 dered by a fuperintending Providence, that the 
 Reformation fliould be begun by aiming the firft 
 blow againfl thofe corruptions, v/hich were both 
 moft notorious in themfelves, and had at the 
 fame time the leaft intereft in the prejudices 
 of the vulgar. Indeed, ftridly fpeaking, thofe 
 
 who 
 
INTRODUCTION. ^ 
 
 who firft diftinguiflied themfelves in this good 
 work, were too ftrongly attached to many of 
 the grofs corruptions of the idolatrous church 
 of Rome, to carry the Reformation to any great 
 length. It is well known, that "Joh'ii Hus, and 
 Jerome of Prague, fuffered martyrdom only for 
 their " oppofition to the pomp, pride, avaricCj 
 " and other wicked enormities of the Pope, 
 *' Cardinals, and Prelates of the church ; and 
 " becaufc they could not abide the high digni- 
 " ties and livings of the church-, while they 
 " were themfelves believers in the doftrines of 
 *' tranfubftantiation, the feven facraments, and 
 *' other diftinguifliing tenets of the church of 
 " Rome*'* Nor did the Leaders of the Re- 
 formation in our own country, intirely renounce 
 all her erroneous doftrines and fuperftitions. 
 But without entering minutely into the hiftory 
 of the period in which the church of England 
 was eftabliflied, I would only obfervc, that, 
 after the Reformers had gradually purged the 
 profefllon of Chriftianity, from many corruptions 
 both of faith and worfhip, human authority un- 
 happily interpofed, to put a period to the pro- 
 grels of reformation, by eftablifhing, together 
 with a partial reformation, Ibme confiderable 
 remains of antichriflian error and fuperftition f . 
 
 To 
 
 * Fox's Acls and Monuments, Edit. g. 16S4. large pa- 
 per. Vol. I. p. 718, 722, & feq. 
 
 \ The opinion of the firft Reformers and Martyrs, has 
 B 3 been 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 To the moft heroic exercife of a freedom of 
 inquiry, and the moft laudable oppofition to 
 
 human 
 
 been frequently urged as a reafon againft objefting to any 
 fentiments, which had the fanftion of their judgment and 
 approbation. The language, ufed by fome perfons on this 
 head, feems to intimate, that it is eflential to being true 
 Proteftants, to maintain all the opinions held by thofe, 
 who firftdiflinguiflied themfelves as friends to the Reforma- 
 tion. But fuch perfons forget, that, according to the 
 fundamental principle of Proteftantifm, we mull bring the 
 fentiments of the Reformers to the fajne teft with all otherso 
 It more cfpecially becomes Proteftant Diflenters to recoUeft, 
 that Puritanifm owed its rife to the perfuafion cur fore- 
 fathers had, that there was a neceffity for a much farther 
 reformation in fome points both of doftrine and difcipline. 
 The moft zealous aflertors of the opinion I am now contro- 
 verting, are not, I apprehend, aware of the conclufions 
 which will follow from their own principles ; and are pro- 
 bably ignorant of many of the tenets of the Reformers. 
 For otherwife, it cannot without a breach of charity be 
 fuppofed, that they would prefs upon any the obligation 
 of believing and approving, whatever the firft Reformers 
 believed and approved. Of this the Reader may judge 
 from the following fpecimens. 
 
 There is no inconfiderable taint of the dodrines and fu- 
 perftitions of the church of Rome, in the Injundlion which 
 made exprefs provifion, «' that fuch images as the clergy 
 " knew in any of their cures to be or to have been abufed 
 *' with pilgrimage or offering of any thing made thcre- 
 •♦ unto, or that Ihould be afterwards cenfed unto, they (and 
 <' none other private perfons) fliould, for the avoiding of 
 " that moft deteftable oiFence of idolatry, forthwith take 
 f down, or caufe to be taken down, and deftroy the fame; 
 Y and 0)ould fuffpr from thenceforth no torches or can- 
 dles. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 human authority in matters of religion, wc are 
 indebted, under God, for the rife and progrefs 
 
 of 
 
 *' dies, tapers or images of wax to be fet afore any image 
 ** or pidture, iuf only t^joo lights upon the high altar, before 
 ** /^^ SACRAMENT, which, for the figiiifi cation that Chrift 
 *• is the very true light of the world, they {hould fuffer to 
 ** remain ftill: admonishing their parifhioners, that images 
 •' ferve for no other purpofe but to be a remembrance, 
 ** whereby men may be admonifhed of the holy lives and 
 '• converfation of them that the faid images do reprefent." 
 This cuftom of placing two lights upon the akar, is ftill 
 retained in all Cathedral and Collegiate churches, and alfo 
 in fome others. 
 
 The fame may be obferved concerning the Injundion, 
 ivhich warranted the continuance of feveral other fuperftiti- 
 ous cuftoms under certain limitations, in the following words : 
 *• Alfo that they ftiall inftruft and teach in their cures, that 
 " no man ought obllinately and malicioully to break and 
 *' violate the laudable ceremonies of the Church, by the 
 *' King commanded to be obferved, and as yet not abro- 
 ♦' gated. And, on the other fide, that whofoever doth 
 *' fuperftitioufly abufe them, doth the fame to the great 
 *' peril and danger of his foul's health: as in calling holy 
 " water upon his bed, upon images, and other dead things; 
 <« or bearing about him holy bread, or St. John's gofpel; 
 »« or making of croffes of wood upon Palm-Sunday, in time 
 «* of reading of the paffion, or keeping of private holy days, 
 ♦* as bakers, brewers, fmiths, fhoemakers, and fuch other 
 *' do ; or ringing of Holy bells, or bleffing with the Holy 
 ** candle, to the intent thereby to be dijcharged of the burden cf 
 *^ fin, or to drinje a^way devils, or to put aavay dreams and phan- 
 *' tafes, or in putting trujl and confidence of health and fal-ua- 
 *' tioTt in the fame ceremonies, when they be only ordained, in- 
 ♦* ftituted and made, to put us in remembrance of the benefits 
 *' VJhich n<je -have received by Chrifi. And if he ufe them 
 
 B 4 " for 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the Reformation ; and to the controul of both 
 by the penal ftatutes, v/e may juftly afcribe its 
 prefent imperfeftion. 
 
 This kads me to take a review of fome of 
 thofe articles of the church of England^ which 
 favour ftrongly of the fuperftition and ignorance 
 of the times preceding the Reformation. One 
 queftion is however necelTary to be pnopofed 
 and determined, previoufly to the examination 
 of the articles themfelves — a queftion which has 
 indeed been frequently agitated, and very warm- 
 ly debated, as if it had been one of the moft 
 difficult queltjons in the world: ^nd yet I hard- 
 ly know any queftion which will admit of a 
 more eafy and plain folution. The apparent 
 difficulty has never arifen out of the queftion 
 itfelf, but from a painful apprehenfion of the 
 refledions and reproaches, which would natu- 
 
 f for uny other purpofe, he grievoufly ofFendcOi God.'* 
 K. Edw. yi. Injunaions, A. D. 1547. Injundl. 4, 28. 
 
 The doftrine of Purgatory feems to be maintained in the 
 laft claufe of the bidding prayer, eftablifhed at the fame 
 pme, and by the fame authority. " Ye fhall pray for all 
 " them that be departed out of this world in the faith of 
 •' Chrift, that they with us, and we with them at the day 
 " of judgment may reft both body and foul, with Abraham, 
 ** Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." This 
 form continued in ufe till the year 1 559, when it was altered 
 by the authority of Queen Elizabeth^ Injundlions ; and, 
 jnftead of praying, the clergy were, with more propriety, 
 pommanded to *^ prai/e God for all thofg departed out <J 
 ♦♦ this life in the faith of Chrift." 
 
 rally 
 
INTRODUCTION, 9 
 
 rally follow the true folution of it. The que- 
 llion is this: In what fenfe are we required to 
 fubicribe the articles of the church of England? 
 I anfwer, in the plain, literal, grammatical fenfe, 
 as underftood when the articles were fct forth 
 by publick authority. 
 
 In confirmation of tlie propriety of this fo^ 
 Union, we need only attend to the language of 
 the Royal declaration * ; a declaration, which 
 will by no means admit of the fubterfuges, to 
 which many ingenious writers have had recourfe, 
 Xo juftify a fubfcription to articles which they do 
 not believe. It is the declared end cf the re- 
 quifition, *' to avoid diverfities of opinions, and 
 *' to eftablifii conTent touching true religion." 
 In reference to this end, the Royal declaration 
 prohibits the lead difference from the faid arti- 
 cles. What terms can be more explicit than the 
 following, made ufe of therein ? " We will that 
 ^' no man hereafter fhall either print or preach 
 ^' to draw the Article afide any laay^ but fhall 
 U fubmit to it in the ■plain and full meaning 
 
 * The controverfy, concerning the date of the Royal 
 declaration, is not at all material to the purport of my 
 inquiry ; as it is on all hands agreed, that it was in force 
 long before the Toleration-Ad took place. That it was 
 firft publifhed by authority of King Charles the Firft in 
 ^628 Is, I think, very fatisfaftorily proved by Dr. Win- 
 ebefler, in a trad annexed to his D:J/irtation on the \-jtb 
 urtick of the Church of England, 
 
 *' thereof; 
 
JO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ^' thereof; and Ihall not put his own fenfe or 
 ^* comment to be the meaning of the Article, 
 *' but fhall take it in the literal and gramma- 
 ^' tkalknk:* 
 
 How then is it pofllble, to reconcile a fub- 
 fcription to them only fo far as 'we think them 
 agreeable to the word of God, with obedience 
 !to this Royal mandate ? Or how will fuch a fub- 
 fcription anfwer the end of the requifition ; 
 "while men differ fo much in their opinions, re- 
 fpedling the meafure of agreement, or difagree- 
 ment, between the articles of the Church, and 
 the doftrines of chriftianity ? Nor has the 
 flux of time created any change in the literal 
 grammatical fenfe of the article, whatever revo- 
 lutions have taken place in the fentiments of 
 mankind, refpeding any of the dodrines con- 
 tained in thofe articles. So that the plea which 
 has been adopted for vindicating a fubfcription 
 to them, in that fenfe which the flux of time 
 has given them, will by no means apply to 
 the terms and conditions, in and upon which 
 alone fubfcription is allowed. To fubfcribing 
 them in the fenfe of the -prefent Impofers, there 
 are infuperable objections ; for not to fay, that 
 the prefent Impofers ought neither themfelves 
 to have fubfcribed, nor to admit fubfcription 
 from others, in a fenfe different from the literal 
 and grammatical one ; I would add, that it is 
 
 more 
 
INTRODUCTION, ji 
 
 more than probable, all the Impofers are not 
 agreed among themfelves in their judgment 
 jupon thefe points. 
 
 Can it be imagined that the whole bench of 
 Bifliops, all the Heads of Houfes in the two 
 yniverfities, and all the Juftices prcfidino- in 
 the quarterly fefiions throughout the Kingdom, 
 are happily united in opinion upon the doftrines 
 of the Thirty-nine Articles ? Yet theie are all, 
 within their refpeftive jurifdiftions, Impofers 
 of the Subfcription on Candidates for holy- 
 orders, on Students at Colleges, and Diflenting 
 jMinifters, who apply for a legal toleration. 
 
 In many inftances we know there is a great 
 diverfity of opinions among them. And hence 
 another difficult queftion will arife. Whofe 
 opinion fhall be binding in preference to all 
 the reft ? Befides, on this fuppofition it would 
 be juftly cenfureable to fubfcribe, without 
 knowing the fenfe of the Impofers ; and it is 
 no impertinent inquiry upon this topick. How 
 ihall we attain that knowledge ? Would not a 
 candidate for holy orders, be thought greatly 
 wanting in modefty and refped, if previoudy to 
 his fubfcription, he fhould interrogate his Dio- 
 cefan upon each of the Thirty-nine Articles, and 
 defire to have a full and free confeffion of his 
 
 faith? 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 faith ? Would not the fame imputation be 
 fattened upon Students at the Univerfity ? And 
 above all how curious is the conceit, of a Pro- 
 teftant Diflenting Minifter requefling the fenfe 
 of a bench of Juftices, upon the controverted 
 points of religion ? I would not willingly^ or in* 
 decently refleft upon the piety and learning of 
 their Worfhips ; but yet I greatly queftion, 
 whether in many cafes, they could honeftly 
 affix any fenfe at all to the articles, as properly 
 fpeaking their own •, having moft probably never 
 ftudied, if perchance they may have occafionally 
 read them. And if no fenfe is given by them, 
 or if they cannot affix any, it will follow that 
 the perfon qualifying, is to fubfcribe them in no 
 fenfe whatever -, his fubfcription muft be a ridi- 
 culous unmeaning form. This cannot indeed 
 comport with the defign of the Legiflature, 
 otherwife it might afford relief to fome men of 
 fcrupulous confciences, thus happily freed from 
 thofe difficulties ^bout fubfcription, which the 
 literal., or any given fenfe of the Lnpofers might 
 have created. That they are to be fubfcribed 
 as articles of Peace, is a mere political fuggef- 
 ^ion ; totally inconfiftent with the titles, and 
 fubjcfts of the articles, and grounded folely up- 
 on the miftaken view, which the Compilers 
 might entertain of a neceffary connexion, be- 
 »v,'een an entire uniformity of fentiment among 
 7 aU 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 all publick teachers, and the peace of the ftate. 
 They had indeed a refpefl to peace, but then it 
 is to be remembered, that they had a prior re- 
 gard to fuch an agreement in opinion, as the 
 cnly means of efiahlijhing and maintaining that 
 peace. A fubfcription to them in this view, 
 cannot therefore be juftified by thofe who dif- 
 believe the truth of the articles. A late zealous 
 advocate for fubfcription, has however told us 
 for our relief, that fome of them were not in- 
 tended as Credenda \ i. e. that fome of the Thir- 
 ty-nine Articles, all of which the Clergy are 
 bound to fubfcribe ex animo^ in teftimony of 
 their aflfent to them as agreeable to the ijoord of 
 God *, were yet never intended to be believed. 
 But till he, or fome other Divine, equally (kil- 
 led in Logic, and equally learned in political 
 and ecclefiaftical diftindions, fhall condefcend to 
 produce fome better authority for his aflertion, 
 than his own mere i-pfe dixit, and to draw the line 
 between thofe of the one clafs and of the other, 
 I doubt his dillinflion will do little honour to 
 himfelf, and no fervice at all to us f . 
 
 * See Canon ■^6 of 1603— which clearly fhews how much 
 advantage may be honejlly taken of this diftindtion. 
 
 t See a pamphlet, intitled, A Letter to the Protejfant 
 DiJJinting Minijiers ii-ho lately follcited Parliament for further 
 Relief, p. 7. which is generally, and I believe juftly, a- 
 fcrihed to the Rev. Dr. Butler, Archdeacon in the Dio- 
 cefe of Winchejler for the parts of ^urry. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The late Dr. Bennei }u&\y obferves, that " tho* 
 " the title page of the articles would not aflford 
 *' us any light with refpeft to the fenfe of our 
 '* fubfcription to them ; yet thofe Laws, eccle- 
 " fiaftical and civil, which injoin the fubfcrip- 
 " tion, do put the matter beyond all queftion 5 
 " and evidently demonftrate, that no fubfcrip- 
 •' tion could be meant or allowed, but fuch 
 " as imported a belief of the articles fubfcri- 
 " bed." In confirmation of this affertion, he re- 
 fers to feveral claufes in the flat. 1 3 Eliz. chap. 12; 
 and to feveral canons of the Church. He far- 
 ther obferves to the fame end, that " what the 
 *' Engirfh^ -ZQ^Y of the canons of 1 603 called 
 " fubfcribing unto the Articles, is in the LatiH 
 *' exprefled by fubfcribing in eorum veritatem^ 
 " that is, fubfcribing to the truth of the Articles. 
 " Can. 5. And fubfcribing to the Articles in the 
 «' EnglifJj copy of the 127 Can. of the fame 
 *' year, is in the Latin expreffed by fubfcriptione 
 " fud cotnprobare. So little (adds he,) did our 
 «' Fore-fathers dream of men's fubfcribing fuch 
 *' articles as they did not believe true." To' 
 this evidence is annexed the determination of all 
 the Judges of England as extradled from Lord 
 chief Juftice Coke* who fays " I heard TVray 
 « chief Juftice in the King's Bench -pafch 23 
 " Eliz. report, that where one Smith fubfcribed 
 " to the faid Thii-ty-nine Articles of Religion^ 
 
 • Inllit. 4. Cap. 74. p. 324. 
 
 " with 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 •< with this addition (fo far forth as the fame 
 " were agreeable to the word of God) it was re- 
 " folved by him and all the Judges of England, 
 •' that this fubfcription was not according to 
 *' the ftatute of 13th Eliz. Becaufe the fta- 
 *' tute required an ahfolute fubfcription, and 
 *' this fubfcription made it conditional', and 
 *' that this Act was made for avoidino- of di- 
 *' verfity of opinions, &c. and by this addi- 
 ** tion the party might by his own private opi- 
 '* nion take fome of them to be againft the 
 *' word of God, and by this means diverfity 
 *' of opinions (hould not be avoided, which 
 " was the fcope of the flatute, and the very 
 " Aft itfelf made touching fubfcription hereby 
 " of none effeft." The Do6lor alfo maintained 
 upon good authority, that it was " the conftant 
 *' fenfe and opinion of thofe, who had the beft 
 •' opportunities of knowing the extent and force 
 " of their fubfcription to the Articles, that fuch 
 " fubfcription obliged them to, and adlually 
 " imported a belief of the truth of the Articles' 
 « fubfcribed *." 
 
 It is not a little aftonifl:iing, to find the fame 
 Divine afterwards in the fame Eflay, pleading 
 for fuch a latitude in fubfcription, as is equally 
 inconliftent with the end of fubfcription, with 
 
 • Bennet's Eflay on tbe Thirty-nine Articles, gh, xxxlii. 
 P'4'3> 4' 7. 4'9- 
 
 that 
 
r6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that latitude he had before oppofed. For he 
 tells us that " the Church requires only thfe 
 " belief of the Articles in general ; and does 
 " not reftrain us to the belief of any one arti- 
 " cle or propofition in any particular fenfe, 
 " farther than we are confined and determined 
 " by the words themfelves." Upon this appre- 
 henfion, as the Dotflor fuppoles the tuords of 
 the Articles, to be fairly capable of different 
 and contrary interpretations, he thinks any 
 man's fubfcription to them may be fully juf- 
 tified, " who believes them to be true in any 
 " fuch fenfe, as they will rcafonably admit with- 
 ** out doing violence to the words*." The 
 inferences drawn by the Doctor from this gene- 
 ral principle, if allowed to be juft, would pro- 
 duce and warrant as great a diverlity of opini- 
 ons, as if no fubfcription were iiijoined to a- 
 void it. And there is juft the fame evidence, to 
 fupport the obligation of all fubfcribers to be- 
 lieve every particular u^rticky and every particular 
 propofition contained in it, as can be alleged in 
 fupport of the obligation to a general belief of 
 them. And nothing feems more abfurd than to 
 fuppofe, that Articles drawn up for the purpofe 
 of avoiding diverfity of opinions, fliould be pur- 
 pofely fo conftruded, that they might reafon- 
 ably admit a variety of interpretations cppojite to 
 each other. 
 
 * JBennet, ubi fupra, ch, xxxv. p. 439. 
 
 Anothe? 
 
INTRODUGTIONi if 
 
 Another expedient has been adopted by fome 
 perfons, to evade the obligation of believing cer- 
 tain particular doftrines contained in the Arti- 
 cles ; which is, to confider them only as fo many 
 definitions of terms .^ and not as affirming the doc- 
 trines fo defined. By the help of fuch a jefui- 
 tical evafion, as has been juftly obferved, nei' 
 ther a Jew nor a Turk^ nor a Papijl^ would fcru- 
 ple to fubfcribe the Articles, on account of thd 
 doctrines contained in them *. 
 
 Upon the whole, it appears clearly tome, thaC 
 the hypothefis of a latitude intended by the Com- 
 pilers, and allowed to the Subfcribers,. is total- 
 ly indefenfible in itfelf; nor would fo many 
 able pens have been drawn in its fupport, if it 
 had not been the derjiicr refcurce of men, who 
 wilhed to juftify themfelves from the heinous 
 charge of hypoerify and prevarication, in fub- 
 fcribing to Articles which they were confcious 
 to themfelves, they did not believe in the plain 
 and literal fenfe^ 
 
 The preceding review of this fubjed, is but 
 a very partial and incomplete reprefentation of 
 the different principles, which have in different 
 <legrees been applied, to juftify a conduct which 
 is a reproach to the preachers of the chriltian 
 
 * See Mr. Toplady's Church of England vindicated fro/Tt 
 iht charts of Arminiani/m, p. 17, 
 
 G fdigion. 
 
i8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 religion. But the flame confiderations which 
 have been urged in the preceding pages, will 
 equally operate againft every other fcheme, 
 which has been adopted by the numerous pa- 
 trons of an ujihelieving Subfcription. However, 
 fuch as would fee this fubjed profefTedly treat- 
 ed, and purfued thro' all the arts of fephiftry, 
 may receive ample fatisfadion by reading the 
 Confejfiond \ in which the caufe of integrity and 
 uprightnefs is pleaded in a moft mafterly manner, 
 and the infufficiency of every plea for prevari- 
 cation, is clearly detededj and jullly cxpofed. 
 
 I have only to add upon this point, that it 
 is unqueftionably evident, that fo far as Pro- 
 teftant Diflenting Minifters are concerned in 
 fubfcription to the Thirty-nine Articles, they are 
 required to fubfcribe them in iht fame fenfe, and 
 under the fame refiri^ions, with the minifters of 
 the church of England. With this idea then 
 immoveably fixed in our minds, that the plain, 
 literal, grammatical fenfe, is the only fenfe in 
 which we are to fubfcribe them, let us fee how 
 fuch a fubfcription will accord, with the opi- 
 nions of Proteftant Diffenters of different deno- 
 minations, on the feveral points of the follow^ 
 ing Articles. 
 
 ARTI- 
 
0/ Chriji's Defcent into Hell. ; ] 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 ^S Chrijl died for us^ and was buried : fo alfa 
 is it to he believed, that he went down into 
 Hell. 
 
 By Hell we commonly underftand the place 
 of torment, prepared for the wicked in the fu- 
 ture and invifible world. The plain, literal, 
 grammatical fenfe of this Article ieems there- 
 fore to be, that Chrifl went down into the re- 
 gions of the Damned. But this is no where the 
 do(ftrine of Scripture, nor is it, I believe, at 
 this day, an Article in the creed of any Protef- 
 tant whatfoever. Some Writers, fenfible of the 
 difficulties attending the literal interpretatioji, 
 have beftowed no fmall pains, to reconcile the 
 doftrine of this Article, with the language of 
 fcripture •, and many have taken the liberty to 
 put their own fcnfe upon it, without carefully 
 examining the knk of the Compilers. I (hall 
 endeavour to inveftigate that fenfe, and impar- 
 tially weigh the evidence of the different inter- 
 pretations, given of this much controverted 
 claufe. And fince it is on all hands confefled, 
 that the Art.cle is grounded upon that formula, 
 which is commonly called the Apofiles creeds 
 it's true meaning may in part be derived, from 
 the beft evidence we can colled of the fenfe, in 
 
 C 2 which 
 
?^S Cpimom of the Schoolmenl Art, III; 
 
 which the controverted phrafe, was therein ufed, 
 or underftood. 
 
 The conceit of the Schoolmen, that it refers 
 to a partition in Hell, called Limbus patriim^ or 
 (if you pleafe) Purgatory^ where all the good, 
 men of the old difpenfation that died be- 
 fore Chrift, were detained; does not deferve the 
 leaft confideration. I would not follow a popifi 
 fcent in explaining the Article of a protejlant 
 Church, any farther than neceflity conftrains 
 me. : 
 
 Others imagine, that as this Article in the 
 creed is mentioned by no writer before Riiffimis^ 
 and was adopted by him from the creed of the 
 Church at Aq^iiileia^ in which no mention is 
 made of Chrift's burial ; that this claufe was 
 probably fubftituted as an equivalent expreffion. 
 But it is ridiculous to fuppofe, that can be its 
 meaning in the Article before us, fmce the pre- 
 ceding claufe alTerts that he was buried^ or in- 
 forms us, how his body was difpofed of. This 
 feems plainly intended to fliew us what became 
 of his feparated fpirit. If we admit this fenfe 
 of the phrafe, the nonfenfical tautology it will 
 introduce, will confute all that has been, or 
 can be faid in fupport of it. Let us only read 
 the Article with this amendment and explica- 
 tion. As Chrift died for us, and was buried ; 
 7 ' io 
 
Art. III. Ruffinus, Durandus, ^;/i Calvin. 21 
 
 fo alfo is it to be believed, that he went down 
 into the Grave, or was buried. 
 
 The opinion of Dtirandus, that this phrafe 
 fignifies nothing more, than the efficacious pre- 
 fence of the Soul of Chrift in Hell, includino- 
 a virtual motion, by which defcent, the effedls 
 of the death of Chrift were wrought upon the 
 fouls in Hell * ; is fo foreign to the moft obvi- 
 ous fcope of the words, and fo entirely deftitute of 
 the lead countenance from any of the Ancients, 
 that I wonder it ihould ever have been adopted 
 by any writer of learning or judgment. 
 
 The metaphorical fenfe in which Cahin un- 
 derftands this phrafe, as alluding to the agonies 
 of Chrift upon tlie crofs, when he endured the 
 wrath and curfe of God in the room and ftead 
 of finners, can by no means be admitted to be 
 the true fenfe of the Article in queftion j be- 
 caufe it relates to fomething fubfequent to his 
 death, and is expreficd in terms which intimate 
 a removal from one place to another, but which 
 are not at all defcriptive of any particular ftate 
 of mind. Calvin indeed treats this as a frivo- 
 lous objeflion, but his anfwer to it is very un- 
 fatisfadory f . 
 
 * Durandus Lib. 3. Dift, 22. (^3. 
 
 t Calvini Inftit. Lib. II. Cap. xvi. § 10. E(Jit. Lug. 
 Bat. 1654.. 
 
 C 3 Upon 
 
22 ^he Lord Chancellor Yimd's Art.IIL 
 
 Upon this fubjeft, I am particularly led to 
 confider the late Lord Chancellor King's criti- 
 cal hiftory of the Apoftles creed. His Lord- 
 fhip is not only an able and zealous advocate, 
 for what I conceive to be the true fenfe of 
 Scripture *, but likewife endeavours to prove 
 that the moll natural, eafy, and unconftrained 
 interpretation of this perplexed and obfcure 
 Article, is confonant to that fenfe. Herein \ 
 think his Lordfhip's proof materially defective. 
 Tojuftify this conclufion, I beg the reader's 
 attention to the following obfervations, ground- 
 ed partly on what he offers in fupporc of his 
 opinion, and principally on the conceflions he 
 makes in favour of the contrary opinion. 
 
 With rcfpe6t to Lord King's opinion, it is 
 firft to be obferved, that we have no contro- 
 verfy with him about the fenfe of the word 
 Hades as ufed in the Scriptures, nor is that the 
 proper ftate of the queftion in this inquiry j 
 but in what fenfe, thofe paflages on which the 
 Article in the creed is founded, appear to have 
 been generally underftood. In like manner it 
 may be farther premifed, that whatever ambi- 
 guity there might be in the Saxon original of 
 the Englijh word Hell^ fmce it is allowed to have 
 been moft generally ufed to fignify the infernal 
 regions -, and fince it is not fo much as quefti- 
 9ned that it included that idea, no advantage 
 
 can 
 
Art. III. Hijiory of the Creed confidered. 2^ 
 
 can be taken of the original ambiguity of the 
 word, if there is any pofitive evidence, that it 
 was underftood and ufed in any limited fenfe 
 by the Compilers of the Articles. Of this we 
 may be able to judge hereafter. 
 
 To return to his Lordfliip's hiftory. He ac- 
 knowledges that we have not any one word in 
 the Englijio dialecSl, nor by what he could ever 
 underftand, in any other of the prefent Europe' 
 m tongues, to exprefs the Greek word Hades— ^ 
 that the French word VEnfer^ and the Englijh 
 and Dutch words Hell and Helle, are always 
 taken in an evil fenfe -, but obferves that in the 
 ancient Englijh dialeft, it was taken in a larger 
 fenfe, and has recourfe to the Saxon original of 
 the word, to juftify this larger interpretation. 
 -It is derived, he fays, from the old Saxon word 
 i^//*, or from the participle thereof Helled, i.e. 
 hidden or covered. And from the ufe of the 
 word Hele in his time, and I believe at prefent, 
 in the Weftern parrs of England^ fignifying to 
 cover, whence a man that covers a Houfe with 
 tile or fiate, is called an Helliar, he thinks this 
 word is equivalent with the Greek word Hadesy 
 as denoting an unfeen -place -f, 
 
 * Lye in his Anglo-Saxon Didionary xnalces the verb 
 - Htlati. 
 
 t See Critical Hiftory of the Apoftles Creed, Chap. iv. 
 
 paff.m. 
 
 C 4 But 
 
24 ^he Lord Chancellor King*j Art. Ill, 
 
 But to the application of this meaning in the 
 preient cafe, I think there are fome folid objec- 
 tions. It is remarkable, that we do not find 
 any theological writers, at or about the time 
 when the Articles were compiled, who ever 
 fpeak of good men as going down into Hell 
 upon their removal out of this world ; but 
 they appropriated the word Hell in their fer- 
 mons, and other writings, to fignify the place 
 of torment. As to the inftance produced by 
 his Lordfliip, it may rather favour the opinion 
 of the phrafe referring to Chrift's burial, than 
 of the Soul's being in the feparate itatc. For 
 it is very queftionable, whether this larger 
 fenfe of the word Helh where it prevails as a 
 provincial dialeft, is ever applied to the de- 
 parted fpirit. They might fay perhaps of the 
 interment of the body, that jt was Heled^ but 
 I much doubt, whether they would ufe the 
 fame language m reference to the foul. 
 
 With refpecfl to the tefti monies alleged frorn 
 the Greek and Latin heathens, to prove that 
 Hades and hiferi were underftood to fignify thp 
 common receptacle of departed fouls, both 
 good and bad ; it is proper to obferve, we rea- 
 dily allow that fuch was the conftant ^Qr\k of 
 the former, and the frequent fcnfe of the latter 
 word in the pureft clafTical ages ; but whether 
 they were always, or generally underftood in 
 
 this 
 
Art- III. Hijiory of the Creed confidertd. 25 
 
 this fenfe, as adopted by Chriftian authors into 
 their theological writings, is quite a different 
 queftion •, and no fair inference can be drawn 
 in proof of the affirmative from the heathen 
 writers : efpecially as he acknowledges, that in the 
 declenfion of the Greek and Latin tongues, both 
 the words Hades and Inferi came to be chiefly 
 underfcood in an evil fenfe. 
 
 It is farther to be obferved, when he treats of 
 the opinions of the Fathers, he confefles that fo 
 early as OrigerU^ time, that ancient writer would 
 TiOt allow the Souls of the godly to go to Hell, 
 fince the refurredion of Chrift, as he acknow- 
 ledged they did before; but fent them to para-r 
 dife^ which he affigned to be a different place 
 from Hell, not in //<?//, as others believed it 
 to be. His Lordfliip allows farther, that Ori- 
 gen's opinion was followed by feveral in the TVef- 
 fern Church, where it prevailed to the exclu- 
 fion of the ancient doclrine, and at length came 
 to be appropriated tp fignify a place of tor- 
 ment, or mifery and obfcurity. I will venture 
 add, that we are moft likely to find the true 
 original fenfe of this Article, in the opinion of 
 the IVeJiern Church, v/hich has been moi*t ge- 
 nerally foUov/ed in this part of the world. 
 Among thofe who held Origen\ opinion, he 
 reckons St. Amhrofe, and St. Jerom \ and repre- 
 fents Aiijiin as fometimcs wavering and uncer- 
 tain 
 
2$ ^he Lord Chancellor KingV Art. III. 
 
 tain in his apprehenfions of this point. Of the 
 fame fentiment, he fays, were Petrus Chryfologus^ 
 Gennadius Maffilienfts^ Gregory the Great, and 
 feveral others of the fucceeding writers. But 
 to fave himfelf the trouble of a diflinft enu- 
 meration of them all, he allows that the gene- 
 rality of the Latin Fathers embraced this 
 potion. Now it fhould be remembered, that 
 this creed came to us through the channel of 
 the Latin Church. I will only add with refped 
 to fome paflages, produced by his Lordlhip to 
 prove, that the ancient Chriltian writers iin- 
 derftood the words Hades and Inferi in the 
 fenfe he contends for, that they feem ftrongly 
 to favour of the doftrine of purgatory, which 
 accounts for the mode of expreffion. And we 
 readily grant, that there are many paflages in 
 the Writings of the earlier Chriftian Fathers, 
 in which the words will not only admit, but 
 require a general conflruftion. But fmce there 
 are many others, particularly referring to the 
 local motion of the foul of Chrifl after his 
 death, which cannot pofTibly be taken in fo 
 large a fenfe, — pafTages which do not only ex- 
 prefsly aflert the defcent of Chrifl into the re- 
 gions of the Damned, but point out the feveral 
 purpofes efFedled by it, in terms which will 
 admit of no difpute ; the evidence from the 
 latter, ought furely to be confidered as by far 
 the mod decifive. 
 
 From 
 
Art. III. Hijiory of the Creed conftdered. 2^ 
 
 From the preceding review of the evidence 
 as flared by his Lordfhip, I conclude that there 
 is very little weight in urging the true fenfe 
 of Atfs II. 27, upon which this Article is 
 founded ; to prove that the fenfe of the Com- 
 pilers of the creed, much lefs of the Compilers 
 of the Articles, was agreeable thereto. For it 
 feems that the latter rather made ufe of the 
 judgment of the Fathers, to explain the fenfe of 
 the Scriptures -, than of the Scriptures to cor- 
 refl the opinions of the Fathers. 
 
 Upon. the whole, though his Lordfhip was 
 led to expound many paflages in the ancient 
 Chriftian writers, in favour of the opinion, that 
 what he accounted the true fenfe of Scripture, 
 was exadlly the fame with the true fenfe of the 
 Creed ; yet it is very evident, as will hereafter 
 appear, that they were differently underftood 
 by the writers of the Church of England be- 
 fore him. So that his explication of the creed, 
 cannot pofTibly be admitted as a rule, whereby 
 to determine the fenfe of the Article. 
 
 We fliall next examine the fentiments of the 
 learned Bifhop Pearfon, in his expofition of this 
 Article of the creed*. He has entered very mi- 
 nutely into the confideration of all the different 
 
 * Pear/oTis Expofition, Edit. 12. p. 238 — 252. 
 
 fenfes, 
 
z3 Bp. Pe ARSON V Expofition Art. III. 
 
 fenfes, which have been put upon it •, and if 
 the reader has not too fcrupulous a regard to 
 his own edification, he may make himfelf maf- 
 ter of all the various conjedlures about the ends 
 and efie^fts of Chrift's going down into Hell, 
 together with the Bilhop's full and particular 
 confutation, of fome of the moft fuperftitious 
 fancies of the Fathers. The impartial reader 
 will not hefitate to conclude from his Lord- 
 fhip's authorities, that the moft natural and pro- 
 bable interpretation of the creed, is in favour of 
 Chrift's real defcent into the place of torment. 
 And yet it is very remarkable, his Lordfhip has 
 been frequently quoted by the moderns, as an au- 
 thority for a different interpretation. This muft 
 either be ov/ing to a ftrange inattention, to the 
 ftate of the evidence as given by that learned 
 Prelate ; or to taking the matter upon truft, 
 from what his Lordfliip has advanced concern- 
 ing the general fignification of the words. But 
 the propriety of the inference, I fhall readily 
 fubmit to the judgment of every intelligent 
 Reader. 
 
 He has indeed obferved, that fome of the an- 
 cient Fathers underftood the word Hades to 
 have the fame comprehenfive fignification, 
 which it had among the Greeks. The Bifliop 
 does not however fo much as hint, that the 
 word was underftood in their fenfe of it by the 
 Compilers j much lefs as importing nothing 
 
 mor© 
 
Art. III. cf the Creed examined, . 29 
 
 more than fimply the removal of the foul of 
 Chrift into the intermediate State. From fome 
 of his quotations from thofe ancient Fathers, 
 it plainly appears, that the idea they had of 
 the ftate of the departed fouls even of good men, 
 before the coming of Chrift, was that of a ftate of 
 mifery, rather than a ftate of happinefs — the pro- 
 per Purgatory of the Papijls. Comparatively 
 taken, in oppofition to the ftate of the wicked, 
 they fometimes called this an happy ftate j but 
 much more generally defcribed it, as a ftate of 
 expectation of that releafe and deliverance, 
 which they fuppofed was cffefled by Chrift's 
 defcent into this territory of Hades. This fenfe 
 is therefore very little diftant from the notion of 
 Chrift's going down into Hell ; nor did they mean 
 to exclude that idea. So far from it, that the 
 Biftiop fays, " They who thought that Chrift 
 "delivered tht Patriarchs from their infernal 
 " Manfions, did not think fo exclufively, or 
 *' in oppofition to the difobedient and damn- 
 " ed Spirits ; but conceived many of them to 
 " be faved, as well as the Patriarchs were, and 
 " doubted whether all were not fo faved, or no. 
 " Indeed I think, fays he, there were very 
 " few, if any, for above five hundred years 
 " after Chrift, which did fo believe Chrift deli- 
 " vered the Saints out of Hell, as to leave all 
 " the damned there." 
 
 IIQ 
 
30 Bp, Pearson'j Expqfition Art. tlf. 
 
 He obferves that St. Augujlin began to quef- 
 tion whether the fouls of the Patriarchs and 
 Prophets were apud Inferos, and confequently 
 to queftion Chrift's going there after them ; be- 
 caufe he thought the word Infernus was never 
 taken in a good iti\(z in the Scriptures. But this is 
 very different from afferting, that he was the 
 firft, or the only Chriilian Father who held the 
 opinion of Ghrift's going to the Damned. On 
 the contrary, he exprefsly afferts, that Chrift's 
 fhewing himfelf to the fouls of the departed 
 after his death, and preaching the gofpel to 
 them, in order, that whofoever of them would 
 yet accept of and acknowledge him, fliould pafs 
 from death to life, was the general opinion of 
 the Fathers, as the end of his defcent. 
 
 • 
 
 He fums up the judgment of all the Fathers 
 in thefe words. " Thus did they think the 
 " foul of Chrift defcended into Hell, to preach 
 *' the gofpel to the fpirits there -, that they 
 " might receive Him, who before believed in 
 " Him; or that they might believe in Him, 
 " who before rejeded Him.'* He confirms 
 the truth of thefe reprefentations, by many tef- 
 timonies from their Writings. 
 
 Let it alfo be obferved, that he delivers it as 
 an opinion which did efpecially obtain in the 
 Church of England^ that the end for which our 
 
 Saviour 
 
Art. in. of the Creed examined, %i 
 
 Saviour defcended into Hell, was to triumph 
 over Satan, and all the powers below, withia 
 their own dominions. And though he profef- 
 fedly combats this notion, he does not once 
 urge the third Article of the Church againft 
 the Advocates for it ; which would have been 
 much to his purpofe, if he had thought it did 
 not refer to the place of torment, or Hell^ pro- 
 perly \ci called. 
 
 But then it will be faid perhaps by fomc. 
 Does not the Bifhop's own expofition of this 
 article of the Creed, warrant the inference that 
 it refers folely to the pafling of the foul of 
 Chrift into the feparate ftate, allotted to the 
 fouls of the righteous ? Now in anfwer to 
 this queftion, I beg leave to remark, that 
 Bilhop Pearfon intended, and endeavoured to 
 give the world fuch an expofition, as he 
 thought conformable to the Scriptures ; ra- 
 ther than profeiTedly to cftabliih the generally 
 received dodlrine. He does not therefore give 
 us the leaft intimation, nor attempt to pro- 
 duce any evidence, that his own interpreta- 
 tion, fo far as it differs from the opinions he 
 condemned, was the fenfe of the Compilers. 
 His own account of the principles on which 
 he proceeded in expounding this Article, de- 
 ferves our attention in this view. " Our pre- 
 *^ fent defign, fays he, is an expofition of the 
 >> « Creed 
 
'^i lipi PearsonV Expofihon Art. IIL 
 
 Creed as now it (lands ; and our endeavoiir 
 is, to expound it according to the Scriptures 
 in which it is contained. I muft therefore 
 look for fuch an explication, as may confitl 
 with the other parts of the Creed, and may 
 withal be conformable unto that fcripture, 
 upon which the truth of the Article doth 
 rely. And confequently vvhatfoever inter- 
 pretation is either not true in itfelf, or not 
 confident with the body of the Creed, or not 
 conformable to the doftrine of the ApOftle 
 in this particular, the expofitor of that Creed, 
 by the dodrine of the Apoflle, mud rejed.'* 
 Accordingly upon this ground his Lordlhip re- 
 je(5ls the notion of Chrift's lufFering the tor- 
 ments of the damned — of his defcending into 
 Hell to conquer Satan, fpcil Hell, and lead cap- 
 tivity captive — and feveral other of the opinions 
 before referred to. 
 
 But after all, this learned Prelate feems rather 
 to differ in judgment from the generality of 
 the advocates for Chrift's real defcent into Hell, 
 about the ends and effects of that defcent ; than 
 as to the place into which He defcended. The 
 following extracts feem fully to juftify this af* 
 fertion. 
 
 '' We have already fliewn the fubftance of 
 " the Article, fays he, to confift in this •, that 
 
 " ths 
 
Art. III. of the Creed examined. . 33 
 
 " the foul of Chrift, really feparated f^'om his 
 *' body by death, did truly pals unto the places 
 "^ below, where the fouls of men departed were. 
 " And I conceive the end, for which He did fo, 
 " was, that He might undergo the condition 
 " of a dead man, as well as of a living. He 
 *' appeared here in the fimilitude oi finful flejh^ 
 " and went into the other world in the Jimilitude 
 " of a finner.^* 
 
 " Secondly, By the defcent of Chrift int6 
 " HelU all thofe which believe in Him. are fe- 
 " cured from defcending thither \ He went into 
 " thofe regions of darhiefs^ that our fouls might 
 *' never come into thofe torments which are 
 " there. By his defcent He freed us from our 
 " fears, as by his afcenfion He fecured us of 
 *' our hopes. He pafTed to thofe habitations, 
 " where Satan hath taken up fcffeffion., and exer- 
 " cifeth his dominion^ that, having no power 
 " over Him, we might be afiured, that he 
 " fhould never exercife any over our fouls de- 
 *' parted, as belonging unto him. Through 
 " death He deftroyed him that had the powet 
 " of death, that is, the devil; and, by his 
 " actual defcent into the dominions of him fo de- 
 " firoyed^ fecured all which have an interefb in 
 *' Him, of the fame freedom which He had." 
 
 Having thus examined the feveral 
 
 interpretations of this part of the article, 
 D " we 
 
34 ^p' PearsonV Expofition Art. IIL 
 
 we may now give a brief and fafe account 
 thereof i and teach every one, how they 
 may exprefs their faith, without any danger 
 of miftake-, faying, I give a full and un- 
 doubting aflent unto this, as to a certain 
 truth, that when all the fufferings of Chrift 
 ware finilhed on the crofs, and his foul was 
 feparated from his body, though his body 
 were dead, yet his foul died not ; and though 
 it died not, yet it underwent the condition of 
 the fouls of fuch as die ; and being He died 
 in the firiulitude of a f inner ^ his foul went to 
 the place where the fouls of men are kept 
 who die for their fins, and fo did wholly un- 
 dergo the law of death. But becaufe there 
 was no fin in Him, and He had fully fatis- 
 fied ^or the fins of others which He took up- 
 on Him, therefore as God fufFered not his 
 Holy One to fee corruption, fo He left not 
 his foul in Hell; and thereby gave fufficient 
 fccurity to all thofe who belong to Chrift, 
 of never coming under the power of Satan, 
 or fuffering in the flames prepared for the 
 devil and his angels. And thus, and for 
 thefe purpofes, may every Chriftian fay, I be- 
 lieve that Chrift defcended into Hell." 
 
 And thus, if I miftake not, the principal 
 point of difference between this learned Prelate, 
 and thofe writers whofe opinions he had refuted. 
 
Art. lit. cf the Creed examined, ^^ 
 
 is this ; that whereas they confidefed Chrift's 
 defcent into Hell as refpedling the fouls of the 
 Patriarchs, or of the damned which Hq found in 
 the infernal regions ; he confiders it as operating 
 preventively to the advantage of fuch as believe 
 in Chrifl:. I perfectly agree with his Lordihip^ 
 in the pious ufe he makes of the do6lrinej and 
 the confolatory inferences he draws from the 
 defcent of Chrift into Hell; but my conclufion 
 follows from different premifes. I fee no ne-» 
 Gcfiity for fuppofing that He went down into 
 Hell, in order to obtain thofe defirable and 
 highly beneficial ends. Me fpoiled principali- 
 ties and powers when He hung upon the ac- 
 curfed tree ; and obtained a compleat deliver- 
 ance for all his followers, from t!.e guilt and 
 punifliment due to fin, by his atoning facrifice^ 
 and propitiatory death. How elfe are we to 
 underftand'' Him, v/hen He bowed his facred 
 head upon the crofs, and in the language of a 
 triumphant conqueror, faid, " It is finiflied/' 
 
 The judicious Dr. Barrow * in»his expofition 
 of the creed, feems fully convinced that the 
 moft probable fenfe of the Compilers, is utterly 
 irreconcileable both with what he conceives to 
 be the true lenfe of the original words, and 
 with the more general opinion cf the dodlrine 
 of Scripture upon this head. In treating on 
 
 * See JJarrcw's Works, Vol, I. p. 442 — 44.8. Edit. 1722. 
 
 D 2 this 
 
3 6 Br. B A R R o w'j Expoftlion Art. III. 
 
 this article he propofes a threefold inquiry -, 
 *' either concerning the meaning of the words 
 " (here fet down) intended by thofe who in- 
 *' ferted them -, or concerning the moft proper 
 " fignification of the words themfelves; or con- 
 " cerning the meaning they are with truth ca- 
 " pable of in the cafe, to which they here are 
 " applied." The difculTion of the firft of thefe 
 inquiries is that which alone concerns me ; and 
 on this point the Dodtor exprefTes himfelf thus. 
 
 " The firft I refolve, fays he, (or rather re- 
 *' move) by faying ; that it feems needlefs and 
 *' endlefs to difpute what meaning they (which 
 " placed thefe words here) did intend •, fince, 
 *' (i) it is poOible (and might be declared fo 
 *' by many like inftances) and perhaps not un- 
 " likely, that they might both themfelves up- 
 *' on probable grounds believe, and for plau- 
 *' fibie ends propound to the belief of others 
 " this propofition, without apprehending any 
 *' diftinft fenfe thereof; as we believe all the 
 " fcriptures, and commend them to the faith 
 " of others, without underftanding the fenfe of ^ 
 *•'- many paflagcs therein. And fince, (2) per- 
 *• haps they might by them intend fome notion 
 *' not certain^ or not true, following fome con- 
 " ce'tts then prevalent, but not built upon any 
 *' fure foundations. And fmce, (3) to fpeak 
 *' roundlyy their bare authority, whoever they 
 
 " were 
 
Art. III. of the Creed confidered. '37 
 
 " were (for that doth not appear^ could not be 
 *' fuch as to oblige us to be of their minds, 
 " whatever they did mean or intend. We may 
 *' ov/e much reverence^ but no entire credence 
 " to their opinions. Yet (4) if I were bound 
 " to fpeak my thought, 1 muft confefs •, fup- 
 " pofing they had any diftindl meaning, they 
 " did mean to fay, that our Saviour's foul did. 
 " by a true and proper kind of motion, defcend 
 " into the regions infernal, or beneath the earth; 
 " where they conceived the fouls of men were 
 " detained; for this appears to have been the 
 " more general and current opinion of thofe 
 ** times, which it is probable they did comply 
 '* with herein, whencefoever fetched, however 
 '^ grounded." 
 
 It is plain from the Doftor's expofuion, that 
 he did not underftand the Compilers of the 
 creed, as intending by the defcent of Chrift in- 
 to Hell, merely his being in the ftate of death, 
 or fimply the pafling of his foul into any place 
 allotted to be the common receptacle of the fouls 
 both of o;ood and bad; fince he confiders both 
 thefe opinions diftinclly, as belonging not to his 
 firjl^ but to th^fccond and third inquiries he had 
 propofed. What he means by the conceits tbcji 
 prevalent, and by the defcent of Chrift's foul 
 into the regions infernal, where the fouls of men 
 were detained, is farther illuftrated by him at 
 
 D 3 the 
 
38^ 'Dr. BarrowV Expofttkn Art. III. 
 
 die clofe of his expofition-, where he mentions 
 thofe conceits again, as referring to the old ex-. 
 ploded doftrine, on which he pafTes a general 
 cenfure. 
 
 Great credit is due to t-he opinion of Dr. 5^r- 
 rO'W upon this head; for all who are converfanc 
 \vith his writings muft allow, that he was ex* 
 ceeded by few, if any, authors in folid good 
 fenfe % and that his judgment upon ancient opi- 
 nions always appears to be the refult of diligent 
 and accurate inquiry. Indeed the nature and 
 turn of his genius would not allow him to treat 
 any fubjed fuperficially. It may not be amifs 
 juft to add, that the Doclor's interpretation of 
 the original words, as ufed in thofe fcriptures 
 on which the article is founded, is in favour 
 of the fuppofition that they refpeft the body 
 rather than the foul of Chrift-, and import no 
 more than his being laid in the grave, or com- 
 ing under the law, condition, and ftate of death. 
 The reader mav fee the mod folid arguments 
 in favour of this opinion, very judicioufly hand- 
 led by this learned Divine. 
 
 But before I difmifs the confideration of the 
 Doctor's expofition, I fhall beg leave to fubjoin 
 a few additional remarks upon the refolutioHy 
 (or as he himfelf rather terms it the removal) 
 Qf his firit inquiry. 
 
 I, I 
 
Art. III. vf the Cted CG7iftdered. 3^ 
 
 1. I can by no means approve fubfcribing an 
 afifent, ex animo, to any human creed intended 
 to hold forth a compendious view of the truths 
 of Chfiftianity, without apprehending any di- 
 flinft fenfe of the doftrine it contains. 
 
 2. When it is granted, that thofe conceits 
 were prevalent at the time ivhen this article was 
 inferted in the creeds there was no need to fay, 
 " perhaps'^ they were intended by the Compilers. 
 The prevalence of fuch opinions at that time^ 
 is demG'fffiration that they wefe intended. For 
 if the creed had been dcf32;ned to hold forth 
 any dodlrine inconfiftent with thofe conceits, it 
 would not iiave been accounted orthodox, nor 
 have been received into the church. 1 will ven- 
 ture the juftice of this inference upon an appeal 
 to the general tenor of ecclefiaftical hiftory. 
 The popular idea of herefy hath always been, 
 that it is an opinion contrary to the generally 
 received doctrine-, and whatever opinion was fo, 
 whether right or wrong in itfelf, was equallj^ 
 cenfured as heretical, upon that much admired 
 Ijrefumption in all ages, that the public judg- 
 ment has the better chance to be right. 
 
 3. Though 1 readily allow, upon the grand 
 principle of Proteftantifm, that the bare autho- 
 rity of the Compilers cannot oblige us to be 
 of their minds j yet, through an unhappy in- 
 attention to this principle, the Church of Eng- 
 land does require, not only much reverence, but, 
 
 D 4 an 
 
4.0 \Abp. S E c K E R*j Ophiicn of Art. III. . 
 
 <?« entire credence to her opinion of this do6lrine, 
 ^s ftated in the creed, and adopted into her 
 articles. And therefore the appiehenfion, that 
 the fenfe of the creed differs from the fenfe 
 of the Scripture, is an infuperable objedion to 
 fubfcribing to the truth of the article. 
 
 Many writers v/ho difapprove the notion of 
 Chrift's defcent into the place of torment, al- 
 ways interpret the creed in favour of that fenfe 
 which they take to be mofl: agreeable to Scrip- 
 ture ; but upon no other authority than the un- 
 warrantable prefumption, that the creed and the 
 fcriptures muft neceffarily agree. Hence they 
 intirely overlook, or totally difregard the abun- 
 dant evidence in favour of a contrary fup- 
 pofition. Of the generality of fuch writers. 
 1 have taken no notice-, for the mere ^flertion 
 of moderns, unfupported by the teftimonies of 
 antiquity, are no jufV rule of interpretation*, 
 and deferve no regard in determining the ori- 
 ginal meaning of the Compilers. It might per-, 
 haps however be thought dilVefpecftful, not to pay 
 fome little attention to what a late Metropolitan 
 pf the Church of England, has advanced upon 
 this fubjeft. After having rejefted the different 
 exploded opinions of the fenfe of this Article, 
 he adds; " And indeed the mpft common mean- 
 ** ing not only among Heathens, but Jews, 
 \\ and the firft Chriftians, of the word Hades^ 
 
 " here 
 
Art. III. the Meaning of this Claufe. 41 
 
 " here tranflated Hell, was in general, that in- 
 
 " vifible world, one part or another of which, 
 
 " the fouls of the deceafed, whether good or 
 
 " bad, inhabit. And this how ftrange foever 
 
 *' it may feem to the unlearned, yet is by others 
 
 '^ acknowledged." — He then refers to Bp. Pear- 
 fon on this Article. It follows, " Probably 
 
 " therefore, all that was intended to be taught 
 
 " by the expreifion now before us, is, that 
 
 *' when our Saviour died, as his body was laid 
 
 *' in the grave, fo his fpirit went where other 
 
 '* feparate fpirits are. And we Ihould remem- 
 
 " ber in repeating thefe words of the creed, 
 
 " that this is the ivhole of what we are bound 
 
 " to profefs by them *.'* 
 
 Here are pofitive conclufions, from at beft 
 very doubtful premifes. The reference to Bi- 
 Ihop Pearfon will not countenance or warrant 
 his Grace's inferences. That learned cxpofitor, 
 as we have already feen, does not reprefent the 
 primitive fenfe or acceptation of the original 
 words, as a fufficient authority for interpreting 
 the creed in confiftency with it; but on the 
 contrary, produces numerous authorities for fup- 
 pofing this Article to have a very different mean- 
 ing. There was therefore no foundation for his 
 Grace's probability ; and the inference drawn 
 
 * See Abp. Seeder'' i Lc(5lures on the Church Catechifm, 
 Edit. 3. p. 7c, 71. 
 
 from 
 
42 Sum of the Evidence. Art. III. 
 
 from that fuppofed probability, falls intirely to 
 the ground. There is much more reafon to 
 believe and remember, in repeating thefe words 
 of the creed, that thofe who would hold this 
 Article in the fenfe of the Compilers, are bound 
 to profefs a belief in much more than his Grace 
 will allow. 
 
 To fum up the evidence derived from that 
 formula which is commonly called the Apoflles 
 creed. When I confider the abundant proof 
 which the remains of Chriftian antiquity afford, 
 that it was the opinion of the Fathers that Chrift 
 
 aftually defcended into a place of torment 
 
 when I confider the curious controverfies among 
 
 them about his errand to Hell and refle6t 
 
 on the reverence which the Church of Rome, and 
 the Church of England have ever paid to the 
 decifions of the Fathers, I have not the leafl 
 doubt remaining, that this was the meaning 
 intended to be handed down from age to age, 
 by the original Compiler or Compilers of the 
 creed i and by thofe who have continued the 
 ftanding ufe of it in the Church. Though 
 I muft obferve by the way, that it therefore 
 forfeits the honourable appellation it now bears; 
 for furely this was no part of the Apoftles creed. 
 
 I fhall now proceed to examine the fentiments 
 of fome of the moft confiderable writers of the 
 
 Church 
 
Aft. lir. Bp. Burnet'j Expcjttion. 43 
 
 Church of England^ who have written upon the 
 thirfy^nine Articles themfelves. 
 
 The learned Bifhop Burnet re)e(5ls the literal 
 ferife of the Article as falie in itfelf-, but has 
 no evidence to produce that this was not the 
 fenfc of the Compilers. So far from it, that 
 he fays concerning the opinion of Chrifl's local 
 defcent into Hell, " This has one great advan- 
 " rage on its fide, that thofe v/ho firft prepared 
 " the Articles in King Edzvnrd's time were 
 " of this opinion; for they made it a part of it, 
 *' by adding in the Article, thofe words of St. 
 " Pdfer^ I Pet. iii. 18, 19. as the proof or ex- 
 *' planation of it. Now though that period was 
 " left out in Queen Elizabeth's time, yet no de- 
 " claration was made againft it; fo that this fenfe 
 ** was once in pofTciTion, and was never exprefs- 
 " ly reje(5ted : Befides that, it has great fupport 
 *' from the authority of many Fathers, who 
 " underftood the defcent into Hell according to 
 " this explanation *." Of the true fcripture 
 fehfe he thinks the words barely " capable." And 
 how ? Becaufe the Greek word Hades was ufed 
 in that large fenfe at the time of writing the 
 New Teftament, without giving the Icaft inti- 
 mation, that the Englijh word Hell was ufed in 
 the fame eompt-ehenfive fenfe by the Compilers 
 
 * See Bp. Burnet' % Introduftion to his Expofition of the 
 Articles, p. 10. Edit. 6, 8vo. 
 
 of 
 
44 Bp' ^vrket's Expojtion Art. III. 
 
 of the Articles, which was furely neceflary to 
 the proof. When he fays at the clofe, " It is 
 " a good fenfe that may be well put on the 
 " words," he plainly means, merely becaufe it 
 is a good one in itfelf. Indeed fo fenfible is he 
 of a defeftive proof that it is the real fenfe 
 of the Article, that he takes occafion from 
 the omifTion of the claufe refpefling Chrift's 
 Burial^ in the firft creeds wherein this Article 
 was inferred, to allege tJiat circumllance, toge- 
 ther with Ruffinus's, interpretation, for giving 
 credit to the opinion, that it was fubftituted in 
 the room of that claufe ; and originally under- 
 llood to refer only to the interment of the body 
 of Chrift *. The idea of a latitude of inter- 
 pretation of every controvertible Article, was a 
 favourite idea v/ith good Bp. Burnet. The faft 
 feems to be, that this was the only expedient left, 
 by which he could ferve the purpofe of that 
 great Prelate, who firft moved him to undertake 
 his Expofition, confiftently with what he had 
 before advanced in his Hijiory of the Reforma- 
 tion^ concerning the purport of Subfcription -f. 
 In this critical fituation, it was no wonder the 
 work (hould turn out one of the moft unfatis- 
 faftory produ6ls of learned labour, which the 
 world ever faw. Infomuch that there was fome 
 truth as well as vj'it in Dr. South'^ remark, 
 
 * Burnetts Expofition, p. 72. f Hift. of Reform, 
 
 Vol. II. p. 169. 
 
 That 
 
Aft. III. of the Article examined, ,45 
 
 That by this Expofition of the Thirty-nine Ar- 
 ticles, the Bifhop had given the Church forty 
 ftripes fave one. Whether the Right Reverend 
 Author was himfelf perfedly fatisfied with the 
 principles on which he proceeded, is rather un- 
 certain: but it is unqueftionably certain^ that 
 he tried the utmoft force of them for the ac- 
 commodation of fome fcrupulous confciencesi 
 For this idea of a latitude of interpretation, per- 
 fectly labours in its operation throughout the 
 v/hole Expofition, in order to reconcile men of 
 different fentiments to a fubfcription to the Ar- 
 ticles. And he brings this Article in particular, 
 now under confideration, as a fpecimen of that 
 latitude which the Church intended to allow. 
 I have already given my fentiments in general 
 upon this point; but think it necefiary to con- 
 fider what has been pleaded in favour of this 
 Article, diftinftly from the general ground of 
 tliat prefumption : which is this. That the al- 
 teration of the Article, as it now flands, from 
 what it was in the Articles of Edward the Sixth, 
 was dejignedly made to render it ambiguouSy and 
 to leave every man at liberty to put a different 
 interpretation upon it, if more agreeable to his 
 judgment. 
 
 I am indeed no competent judge of the good 
 
 intentions of the Compilers ; but the aflertion 
 
 appears to be rather the ofspring of groundlefs 
 
 3 con- 
 
46 Whether any Amhiguiti^ Art. Ill* 
 
 conjedure, than the teftimony of a fafl fup- 
 ported by authority. Such intentions howeverj 
 if any fuch there were, were effcdually fruftrated 
 by exprefling the Article in the manner they 
 have done; for fince the word Hell had, as I con- 
 ceive, undoubtedly a determinate fignification in 
 common ufe, and the declaration now binds toa fub- 
 fcription in the plain, literal, grammatical fenfej 
 no advantage can be taken, by an honeft fub-* 
 fcriber, of any defigned ambiguity not exprej'ed in 
 the terms and phrafeology of the Article. Nor is 
 it eafy to conceive, it would have been faid, upon 
 that fuppofition, that He ivej^i down into hell-, 
 for this feems plainly to mark the diftincftion 
 between the ftate of the righteous and the wicked. 
 Since of the former it was, at lead, much more 
 vifual, if not the conftant mode of exprefiion 
 at that time, to fay, that their feparate fpirits 
 tifctnded to dwell where Jefus dwells-, who told 
 his difciples, that He afcended unto his God and 
 their God, and to his Father and their Father. 
 If the opinion of Archbifhop UJJoer'^ht admitted, 
 that the Greek word xal^'XOsv, tranflated de.fcended^ 
 fignifies in fome paflages in the A^s^ not a de- 
 fcent from an higher to a lower place, but a re^ 
 moving fimply from one place to another; thi? 
 cannot be faid of the EngliJIj word defcended^ or 
 of the phrafe. He went down -, which always de- 
 note fuch a defcent, eMherftri^ly or figuratively. 
 
 * V/her'^ Anfwer to the Jefuit's Challenge, p. 390. 
 
 3 And 
 
Art. III. was intended by the Compilers'. 47 
 
 And though it was the ancient opinion of Hea* 
 thens, thac the common receptacles of departed 
 fouls were under the earth, or in the heart or 
 bowels thereof i yet Chnftians were very early 
 taught to ufe a very different language. 
 
 But the whole of the fuppofition, feems to be 
 founded on a miilaken view of the real fad:. 
 The Article of 1552 not only aflferted that Chrift 
 went down into Hell^ but alfo fpecified the ends 
 
 of his defcent * Now the Compilers of the 
 
 prefent Articles thought proper to leave us at 
 liberty to determine for ourfelves, about the ends 
 for which He went down into Hell ; (a contro- 
 verted point among the Chriftian Fathers, and 
 probably among themfelves,) and retained only 
 the more general afiertion that He did go there, 
 without fpecifying for what particular purpofe. 
 They abridged the Article it is allowed ; but it 
 is no fair inference, that therefore they altered 
 the fenfe of what they retaijied. The more na- 
 tural and probable conclufion lies the other way. 
 And thus the inquiry turns out in favour of my 
 hypothefis, inftead of making any thing againft 
 it. It may not be improper here to obferve, 
 
 * As Chrift died and was buried for us, fo alfo it is to be 
 believed, that He went down into Hell; for the body lay in 
 the fepulchre until the refurreftion, but his ghoft, depart- 
 ing from him, was with the ghofts that were in prifon or 
 in hell, and did preach to the fame, as the place of St. Peter 
 doth tellilie. Art. 3, A.D. 1552, 
 
 that 
 
48 R c E R s*j Opinion Jlated. Art. \\\i 
 
 that a celebrated champion of the Church of 
 England^ defcribing the ftate of ecclefiaftical 
 affairs under Queen Elizabeth, thus exprefles 
 himfelf : " About the fame time a review wad 
 " made of the thirty-nine Articles, and fome 
 *' little variations made therein, to render the 
 " fenfe of them more determinate and clepr *." 
 This account does not confift with the fup-' 
 pofition above confidered. 
 
 To proceed to the confideration of fome other 
 commentators on the Articles. 
 
 Rogers, after producing feveral pafiages from 
 Scripture, in proof of the propofition raifed 
 from the Article, " That Chrift went down in- 
 " to Hell" — thus proceeds. " Alfo that Chrift 
 " went down into Hell, all found Chriftians 
 " both in former days, and now living, do ac- 
 *' knowledge-, howbeit in the interpretation of 
 " the Article there is not that confent as were 
 " to be wiihed : fome holding, that Chrift de-^ 
 •*' fcended into Hell as God only, and not man 
 *' — fome as man only, and that, as fome think, 
 *' in body only, as others deem, in foul only — ' 
 *' and others as God and man in one perion." 
 His references are to Athanafius, Bofil, Augufiirii 
 and Suevica. However, among this variety of 
 
 * See Dr. Nicholses Defence of the Church of Englandi 
 Edit. 1715. p. 23. 
 
 opi- 
 
Art, III. Dr. EllisV Interpretation'. 49 
 
 opinions as to the manner and ends, his aflual 
 defcent into the place of torment for one pur- 
 pofe or another, is generally allowed. And fo 
 far is he from acknowledging the opinion now 
 more commonly received, to be the doctrine of 
 the Article ; that he ranks thofe who held ir, 
 among the Adverfaries to its truth *. 
 
 Dr. Ellis vindicates the opinion, that the Ar- 
 ticle now under confideration refers to Chrift's 
 real defcent into Hell \ which he thinks alfo to 
 be the fenle of Scripture. He ftates four ob- 
 jedlions to this dodtrine, and returns fuch an** 
 fwers to them, as might be expe6led in defence 
 of fo abfurd a fuppofition. His anfwer to the 
 laft, that, " It did not become Chrift to honour 
 " thofe with his prefence, who had been un- 
 ** worthy of his favour, and were eternally 
 " damned •," contains the fulled account of his 
 own view of this fubjecfl. " It did, fays he, 
 *' become Chrift, and for the demonftration of 
 " his juftice and glory it was fitting, that he 
 " fliould prefent himfelf a conqueror to infernal 
 " fpirits i that he might ftrike terror into De- 
 '* vils, and reproach the damned with their 
 " wickednefs and folly. However it be, let us 
 " believe that Chrift went down into Hell, 
 
 * Sec Rogers's Faith, Doclrine, and Religion profefTed 
 and protefled in the Realm of England, p. i^, i6. Edit. 
 Camb. 1691. 
 
 f E " though 
 
50 The Opinicfis of Ford, Art. III. 
 
 " though we are not plainly and fully fatisfied 
 " concerning the fcnle and manner of it *. 
 
 In the fame fenfe is this Article interpreted 
 by Ford-]'-) Chaplain to the late T)\.\kt oi Whar- 
 ton ; in confirmation of which he urges leveral 
 pafTages from the Chriftian Fathers, fomc few 
 texts of Scripture, and Dr. Ellts\ folution of 
 the objetflions to this dodrine. 
 
 Dr. Bennei allows that the " majority of the 
 " Compilers were plainly of an opinion, which 
 " is now generally exploded •," though he would 
 fain perfuade us, " the Church fo contrived the 
 " Article on purpofe, as that it might receive 
 " different fenfes ;t^." Of fucii a contrivance 
 however, no other evidence appears from the 
 Doftor's writings, but his own defire to make a 
 fuppofcd ambiguity in this Article, a warrant 
 for the fame latitude in interpreting any of the 
 reft:, as convenience might require. 
 
 * Decuit Chriftum, atque, ad demonflratiojiem juftitia; 
 &^ gloria; fus, ssquum fuit, le vidlorem apud inferos exhi- 
 bere, ut diabolis terrorem incureret, & dnmnatis nequitiam 
 & infipientiam objedlaret. Utcunqiie fe res liabeat, cre- 
 damus nos Chriftum ad inferos defcendifle, licet de fenfii 
 & mode non tam plane & plene conflet. Vide Ellis Arti- 
 cul. defenfionejn. Edit. Amllel. ijco, p. 14. 
 
 f Vide Ford in Articulos Chriftianas Religionis five 
 Ecclefia; Anglicanx, p. 14. Edit. Lend. 1720. 
 X Benmt ubi fupra, Chap. 35. p. 44.1. 
 
 7 - Tht 
 
Art.III. Jbr. Brnn'Et and Dr. V^ATERL AND. 51 
 
 The late Dr. Waterland once obferved, that 
 *' The lenfe of the Compilers and Impofers 
 " where certainly known mull be religioufly 
 *' obferved, even chough the words were capa- 
 ** ble of another fenfe *." But when this af- 
 fertion was prefled upon the Docftor in its fuU 
 and juft extent, it fecmed likely to have de- 
 prived him of that privilege, which he wiflicd 
 to enjoy himfelf, but denied to others. This 
 obliged him to take Dielter in his enemies quar- 
 ters. For he v;as Angularly happy in thinking, 
 all the points contained in the Articles ^-duhich he 
 believed, were fully determined by the Compilers v 
 and that jiijl as many as he di/helieved, were left 
 undetermined by them. Upon this principle, 
 when the fenfe of the Compilers concerning 
 Chrift's defcent into Hell was urged againft 
 him, this was his reply, " One thing is certain, 
 ** that our Church has left that Article at large, 
 " intending a latitude •, and indulging a liberty 
 " to fubfcribers to abound in their own fenfe ■}■.'* 
 
 Upon which Mr. Archdeacon B e makes 
 
 the following pertinent aud judicious remarks. 
 
 " Here if you leave out the intention of the 
 '' Impofers one thing is certain, that no lati- 
 " tude is left to the fubfcriber of the Article ; 
 *' the words Hell and Inferi .nev^er Hgnifying 
 
 * Cafe of Arian Subfcrlption, p, 11* 
 f ffuferlafiJ ubl fupra, p- 35. 
 
 E 2 " ^ny- 
 
52 An dnonymous JVrher's V'lciv Art. III. 
 
 " any thing in the days of the Compilers, but 
 ** the place of torment. If the intention of 
 " the Impofers is taken into the account, ano- 
 *' ther thing is certain, that no liberty is allow- 
 " ed to fubfcribers to abound in tlieirown fenfe, 
 " unlefs having deferted the fenfe of the Com- 
 " pilers, they abfolutely neglect the intention 
 " of the Impofers, which may always be cer- 
 " tainly known *.'* 
 
 A very fenfible however heterodox Writer, 
 tvho has lately oppofed miany of the Articles 
 with great freedom, has taken notice of this,' 
 among others. He fays he is " fometimes 
 " inclined to believe, that the original Com- 
 " pofer had not quite got rid of the Roman 
 *' Catholic ideas of a purgatory." So far 
 I believe he is right. But he objects to the 
 interpretation of the word Hell in the Article, as 
 referring to the final ftate of punifliment of the 
 ■wicked, (which he accounts one proper fignifi- 
 cation of the word,) becaufe he fuppofes no 
 fuch ftate hath as yet exifted. The doftrine 
 more generally received of an intermediate ftate 
 of confcious exiitence, he fays, the Church has 
 no where authoritatively aflerted, and that the 
 Holy Scriptures are quite filent about it. The 
 only other fenfe of the word, befides that of 
 
 • Confeffional, p. 152. Edit, 1766. 
 
 7 the 
 
Art. III. of this Article confidered. 53 
 
 ih^ final (late of punifhment, he fuppofes to be 
 the Grave •, and therefore concludes " the pro- 
 *' pofition in queftion, to be a mere foolidi 
 *' unmeaning repetition of the burial of Jefus 
 " Chrift : becaufe, fays he, I had much ra- 
 " ther our Article-makers iliould be found to 
 " be ridiculous only, than criminally prefump- 
 " tuous *." 
 
 This conclufion has fo much the appearance 
 of an ironical fatire, that it is hardly neceflary 
 to fhew on what a fandy foundation it is built. 
 Otherwife it might be properly fuggefted, that 
 the Compilers faith is not to be determined 
 either by the faith, or by the unbelief of this 
 Author. That they did not ufe the word Hell 
 to fignify the flate of torment, can never be 
 proved by his faying, he does not believe any 
 fuch ftate hath as yet exiftcd. It is on the con- 
 trary certain, that they did believe in the doc- 
 trine of an intermediate ftate. And farther, the 
 Church did once authoritatively ajfert that doc- 
 trine, in the fortieth of K. Edzzjard's Articles, 
 which is thus exprefled. " They which fay 
 " that the fouls of fuch as depart hence do fleep, 
 *' being without all fenfe, feeling, or perceiving 
 " until the day of judgment •, or affirm that 
 " the fouls die with the bodies, and at the lalt 
 ♦* day fliall be raifed up with the fame, d® ut- 
 
 • See Doftrine of a Trinity, &c. p. 108. 
 
 E 3 ^' terly 
 
54 Bp. EeveridceV Judgnunt Art. III. 
 
 *' terly difTent from the right belief declared 
 *' unto us in holy Scripture." Nor do I think 
 we have any juft reafon to conclude, that the 
 Church has renounced the belief of every thing 
 which was omitted, at the revifal of the Arti- 
 cles in Q^ Elizaheih''s reign. 
 
 I fhall clofe my inquiry into the fcnfe of this 
 Article, by taking the evidence of Bifliop Be- 
 veridge •, a very learned and pious man, and be- ' 
 yond all controverfy, a true Son of the Church. 
 His Lordfnip thus introduces his Comment *. 
 " Though this Article be in itfelf as clear and 
 *' certain as any of the reft, yet men having ex- 
 " ercifed their fancies fo varioufly- upon it, have 
 " drawn, as it were, a veil over it, and fo eclipf- 
 " ed the light of it j and hence it is, that fome 
 " do not righly underftand it, others fcruple it, 
 *' yea and others, do in plain terms contradi6t 
 ** and gainfay it. That the firft of thefe may 
 " be taught the truth concerning it, the fecond 
 *' rcfolved about it, and the third convinced 
 "• of their error in denying it, I fhall firft lay 
 *' down fome propofitions to clear it, and then 
 " proceed to the confirmation of it." 
 
 After making many conceflions, ** that the 
 ♦' Greek and Latin words which we tranflate, He 
 ♦* defcended into Hell, may" in thewfelves " admit; 
 ** of another interpretation than what in this 
 
 * §gc ^^,^e'v(ni/ge'& Expofition, p. 69—86. Edit. 1711, 
 
 " tr^nllsi- 
 
Art. III. on the Senfe of this Artick', ^^ 
 
 " tranflation of them we put upon them •," he 
 enters upon the proof that " the word Hades'" 
 as it fiands in the Creeds " cannot by any means 
 " admit of any other fignification than what is 
 " put upon it when it is tranilated Hell.''* But 
 " however, fays he, fuch an interpretation 
 *' (i. e. taking the word in a general fenfe,) may 
 " be forced upon this Article as it (lands in the 
 " Apoftles Creed •, yet we are fure there can be 
 ** no fuch' fenfe put upon it, as it is here deliver- 
 " cd as the doftrine of the Church of England** 
 He not only takes the literal to be the true 
 fenfe of the Article., but alfo the true doflrine 
 of Scripture. With all the pomp of literature 
 he fights for this exploded notion. He appeals 
 to Scripture, to E^eafon, and to Church authority 
 for the proof. In reference to the teftimony 
 from Scripture., he obferves upon the paffbge in 
 St. Peter., that the interpretation he contends for, 
 " was fo generally received in the primitive 
 " Church, that they did not in that fincere age 
 " feek out for any other, but took this to be 
 *' the undoubted meaning of the place •, fo 
 " that to name the place to them was a fuffi- 
 " cient proof of the thing." He afcribes it 
 to the degeneracy and greater infidelity of the 
 times, that it was not thought fo by later 
 ages.- " I am fure, fays he, the ancient 
 " Syriack, Arabick, and AEthiopick tranflation 
 *' feem clearly to carry the fenfe that way." 
 E 4 In 
 
^6 Bp. BeveridgeV Judgment Art. 111. 
 
 In fupport of the fame do6lrine he intro- 
 duces, and comments on many other paflages *. 
 From Scripture he proceeds to Reafon^ and ar- 
 gues thus, *' The foul of Chrifl: after its fcpa- 
 *' ration from the body, and before his refiirrec-r 
 " tion from the dead, was either in Heaven or 
 " in Hell ^ but it was not in Heaven, therefore 
 *' it muft needs have been in Hell. That the 
 *' foul of Chrift, when feparated from the body, 
 *' did not immediately go up to Heaven," he 
 proves thus. Firft, 
 
 " That the Lord Chrift, both while living, 
 
 <' and when dying, was ftill accounted as a fin- 
 
 ^' ner." — " And he thus dying as a finner, can- 
 
 *' not in reafon be thought to go whither faints, 
 
 *' but whither finners go when dead. His body 
 
 " that v.?as laid where the bodies of finners are, 
 
 " in the grave ; and fo his foul, it is fitting, 
 
 " that fnould go whither the fouls of finners go, 
 
 " to Hell." — ^' The ends to be anfwcred by 
 
 ^' his defcent were, (i) That he might undergo 
 
 " the fcate and condition of a dead, as well as 
 
 *' of a living finner. (2.) That he might give 
 
 "^ us fecurity for our pardon and redemption 
 
 " from Hell, And (3) his foul did princi- 
 
 " pally go to Hell, and remained there whilft 
 
 " his body was in the grave, that fo it might 
 
 * A<^s ii. 24. Eph. iv. 9. Rom. x. 6. Pralm xvi. 10. 
 Aifls ii. 3!. 
 
 *' be 
 
Art. III. on the Senfe of this Article. 57 
 
 *' be in a ftate of humiliation, as well and as 
 " long as his body." 
 
 Hence he derives his fecond reafon, '* Why 
 " vv^e are not to think the Soul of Chrift went 
 " to Heaven, but to Hell ; becaufe, if his 
 " foul had afcended to Heaven, as his body de- 
 " fcended into the grave, then one part of his 
 " human nature had been exalted, whilft the 
 " other was debafed." 
 
 A third reafon he derives from a declaration 
 of our Saviour himfelf, " who beft knew when 
 " he firft afcended up to Heaven, and tells 
 " us plainly, the third day after his death, be- 
 " ing tlie day of his refurredion, that he was 
 ♦' not then afcended up to Heaven, faying to 
 " Mary^ T'cuch me noty for I am not yet afcended 
 *' to my Father *.'* 
 
 *' Whence, fays he, we cannot but judge, 
 ^' that if we weigh things in the equal balance 
 *• of unbiafled reafon, we muft needs believe, 
 " That the foul of Chrift when breathed from 
 *' his body upon his crofs on earth, went not 
 *' up to his crown in Heaven, but ftaid in Hell 
 *' until the time it was to be united to its body 
 " again." 
 
 His Lordfhip then briefly confiders the ob- 
 .je(5|:ioris to this fenfe, and afterwards proceeds 
 
 * John XX. 1 7. 
 
 to 
 
58 Bp. Beveridge'j Judgment Art. III. 
 
 to fliew, how confident this interpretation of the 
 Article is, with the judgment of the Ancient 
 Chriftian writers. 
 
 " Neither, fays he, is this a truth of yefler- 
 " day's growth, but almoft all the Fathers of 
 " the primitive Church have acknowledged 
 " and received it as an article of their faith. 
 " Though they much differ about the end of 
 *' his going, yet that he did go thither they 
 " all agree. Some faid he went to preach there, 
 " others to loofe fuch as himfelf thought fir, 
 " others to triumph over his conquered enemy 
 *' the Devil ; but all affirm, that he did go to 
 " Hell. But paffing by many others, I fhall 
 " only impanncl one Jury of them, that bring 
 *' in their verdidl for this truth.'* 
 
 " And the Foreman is Ignatius. Then fol- 
 *' low Clemens Alexandrinus^ Tcrtuilian, Athana- 
 " fiuSy St. Hilary^ St. Jmhrofe^ St. Bafil^ St. Je- 
 " rome^ Macarhis^ Fulgentius^ Anajiqfius Sinaita^ 
 " and St. Augujifi.'* 
 
 " Seeing therefore th^t Scripture is fo clear 
 " for it, feeing Reafon alfo fubfcribeth to it, 
 '* feeing fo little or nothing can be brought 
 " againll: it, and feeing a whole Jury of Fathers, 
 " befides others, give their verdi(5l for it, we 
 " cannot but conclude, That as Qhriji died for 
 
 ** us 
 
Art. III. on the Scnfe of this Article. 59 
 
 " us and was buried^ fo alfo is it to be believed 
 
 '' that He went down into Hell'^ 
 
 * 
 
 I (hall only remark, that, if thefe Jurymen 
 had been now living, and lummoned to give 
 their opinion, v/hether this was the lenfe ot the 
 third Article of the Church of England, I Ihoiild 
 have been perfecftly fatisfied with their verdi61: ; 
 for I think this matter is now put beyond all 
 reafonable doubt. But confidered as a proof 
 that it is the dotftrine of the Bible, I make no 
 fcruple to add,, that Judge and Jury are all in 
 the wrong. To conclude •, on this account the 
 mofl; orthodox Proteftant Diffenter may reafon- 
 ably objed to fubfcribing this article. And 
 though fome of my Brethren * may not dare to 
 indulge any doubts about its truth, nor at all 
 to hefitate about its importance j I leave doubt- 
 ing and hefitation far behind me here. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 r^H RT ST did truly rife again from death -^ 
 and took again his body, with ficfj, bones, and 
 nil things appertaining to the perfeolion of man's 
 nature, wherewith He afcended into Heaven, 
 and there fitteth until He return to judge all 
 men at the laft day, 
 
 * See the Apology for the Renewal of an Application, 
 
 &?. f • 45- 
 
 Ac- 
 
$0 The literal Senfe of this Art. IV. 
 
 According to the literal fenfe, and plain gram- 
 matical conftruflion of this Article, it (hould 
 feem that our exalted Saviour afcendcd into 
 Heaven, and there fitteth with that body of flefh 
 and bones, ui.a all things appertaining to the 
 perfeftion of man's nature, in precifely the fame 
 ftate, in which He reafilimed his body upon his 
 refurreftion from the dead. 
 
 But this literal fenfe is not confident with the 
 dodrine of Scripture. 
 
 It is indeed admitted that in forae refpecfts, 
 and in a true and proper fenfe, the glorified body 
 of Chrift is the fame in which He tabernacled 
 among men. But whatever it is which confti- 
 tutes the identity, we are fure it is fuch a fame- 
 ' iiefs as is confiftent with many great and advan- 
 tageous alterations. The famenefs of the hu- 
 man body in the prefent life, is not founded 
 upon an unchangeable permanency in its ftate, 
 during all the diilerent flages of life •, but rather 
 \ipon the fame invariable relation and unior^ 
 which we have with it, under all the changes 
 arifing from the perpetual flux in the animal 
 fyftem. And we are taught to expe6t much 
 greater alterations in the bodies we fliall receive 
 in the morning of the refurre(51:ion — fuch altera- 
 tions as are fuited to the different nature and 
 cifcumllances of the future ftate — and as to true 
 
 Chriftians,. 
 
A r t . I V. Article inconftftent with Scripture. 6 1 
 
 Chriftians, fuch as Ihall manifell: that the bodied 
 of the faints were a part of the purchaled pof- 
 fefiion, and lliall have a fhare in the benefits of 
 redemption through the blood of Jefus. The 
 apoftle Pdul has given us a beautiful defcription 
 of this change, and of the confiftency of it with 
 the individual famenefs of the body laid in the 
 dufl, with that which fliall be raifed in the laft 
 day *. This he illuftrates by various meta- 
 phors, and particularly by that of the feed fown 
 in the ground ; which, after being duly mace- 
 rated, fprings up out of the earth in a different 
 form from the bare grain, but preferves at the 
 fame time a conflant relation and affinity to its 
 own particular fpecies. He then draws the ana- 
 logous contrail between the body as laid in the 
 grave, and raifed up in the great day. " It is 
 " fown in corruption^ it is raifed in incomiption ; 
 " it is fown in dijljcnoiir^ it is raifed \n glory \ it is 
 *' fown mweaknefs, it is raifed in -po-jver •, it is fown 
 " a natural body, it is raifed a fpiritual body." 
 
 With refped to fuch as (hall not fall afleep 
 or fee death, he aflerts the neccfTity of an equal 
 change ; laying it down as an unqueftionable 
 truth, that " flefli and blood cannot inherit the 
 *' kingdom of God •, neither, fays he, doth 
 *' corruption inherit incorruption." Where- 
 fore he afTures the Corinthians, that " in a mo- 
 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 36 & feq. 
 •' " ment, 
 
62 The literal Senje cf this Art. IV. 
 
 " ment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the 
 " found of the laft trumpet, they ihall all be 
 " changed.'* 
 
 Now it is obfervable, that v^hile the Apoflle 
 reprefents the mortality of the body, as the efledt 
 of our relation to the firft Adajn, and as bcar- 
 ino- his image ; he alfo reprefents this glorious 
 change taking place in a rcfurredlion from the 
 dead, dr by a momentary exertion of divine 
 power, upon thofe who fhall be alive at the 
 comino- of the Lord, as the cffecfl of a relation 
 to Chrift the fecond Adcvn, and as bearing his 
 image. In like manner he clfewhere defcribcs 
 true Chriftians, as looking " for a Saviour, the 
 " Lord Jefus Chrift, who fliail change our vile 
 *' body, that it may be fafhioned like, or be 
 " conformable unto his own glorious body *.'* 
 
 Thus it appears, that Chrift's glorified body 
 is both the pledge ^nd patlern of the glorification 
 of the bodies of the faints. And fince we are 
 exprefsly taught to conceive ©f this alteration 
 in their bodies, as preceding the admiffion of 
 them into Heaven : it is reafonable to fuppofe, 
 that the body of our blefied Saviour underwent 
 the fame glorious change in a moment, in the 
 courfe of his afcenfion, after that He was re- 
 ceived up into the clouds out of the fight of his 
 
 ** Phil. iii. 21, 
 
 difci- 
 
Art. IV. Article inconftjient with Scripture. 63 
 
 difciples •, but before He entered on the right 
 hand of the Majefty on high. Confcquently it 
 cannot be true, neither does it ccnfilt with the 
 Apoftle's afTcrtion, that " flefh and blood can- 
 " not inherit the kingdom of God," to fay that 
 Chrift afcended into Heaven with his flefh and 
 bones, and all things appertaining to the per- 
 fedion (or rather the prefent imperfeftion) of 
 man's nature. Much Icfs can we allow, that He 
 now therewith fitteth until He fhall return to 
 judge all men at the lad day •, to which idea 
 the mod natural conftrudlion of the Article 
 would alfo lead us. 
 
 A Writer, to whom I have before referred *, 
 imagines it is not only the do<51:rine of the Church, 
 that our Saviour^ body did not undergo a change 
 before his afccnfion into Heaven ; but likewife 
 that the bodies of the Saints fhall be prccifely 
 the fame at the rcfurrcdion, which they were 
 before. The literal lem'e of the Article (in 
 v/hich we are bound to fubfcribe it) undoubt- 
 ly holds forth the firfl of thefe erroneous tenets ; 
 but I conceive his authorities are infufficient to 
 fupport the latter afTertion. I would do no wrong 
 to the judgment of the Church, and will be an 
 advocate for her againft every unjuft reflecflion 
 caft upon her doflrines. The phrafe in the 
 creed, teaching us to believe in the refurreflion 
 
 * Vide fupra, pr 52, 
 
 of 
 
^4- ^^<? Opimon of Bp. Burnet. Art. IV. 
 
 of the l>odyy does not militate againft the fup- 
 pofition of a change produced in it •, neither does 
 that in the baptifmal office, which calls it the 
 refurredlion of thefe/h^ and which he deems an 
 explication of the former. In both thefe places^ 
 the l?ody and the Jle/b only (land oppofcd to the 
 foulj and intimate a refurrecflion of the mortal 
 part, as diftinguifhed from that which is im- 
 mortaL That Gentleman might have recolle6l- 
 ed, that his own private opinion of the deep 
 of the foul in the grave, and the refurreftion of it 
 in the great day, is not the avowed do<rcrine 
 of the Church of England. But his predileftion 
 for that fentiment, feems to have given rife to 
 an uncandid interpretation of the creed and 
 baptifmal office. 
 
 Bp. Burnet was aware of the impropriety in the 
 expreffion of this Article, and therefore Ipeaks 
 of it as a thing queftioned, whether the body 
 of Chrift was changed, or whether it retains ftill 
 the fame form in heaven which it had on earth. 
 He inclines to the former opinion as molt pro- 
 bable and fcriptural, but not as being the plain 
 literal fenfe of the Article *. 
 
 I have only one obfervation more to make 
 upon this Article, in favour of thofe who believe 
 in the dodrine of the Millennium, or exped 
 the perfonal reign of Chrift on the earth. I ffiall 
 
 * Burnet's Expofitiou, p. 82. 
 
 • not 
 
Aff.IV; Beh''ruers in thMillenn'ium cMdered. 6§ 
 
 not enter into the inquiry whether this is, or is 
 not the dciftrine of Scripture. Let it only be re- 
 membered, that it is an opinion which has been 
 held by many Calvinifts, as well as by perfons 
 fufpedled of herefy on other controverted points. 
 It is certainly a tenet perfeftly innocent in it- 
 felf, and pregnant with no injurious confequences 
 to civil Ibciety ; and therefore it mayjultly be 
 accounted a hardlhip, that a man fhould be de- 
 jiied the benefit of a legal toleration on account 
 of believing it. But every honed man of this 
 pcrfuafion, however cordially he may approve 
 of fubfcription to human creeds in general, and 
 of all the reft of the doctrines contained in the 
 thirty-nine Articles, muft be deprived of that 
 benefit, if he carefully attends to the laft claufe 
 of this Article, which aflerts Chrift's continu- 
 ance in Heaven, Until He return to judge all 
 men at the laft day. Whereas the advocates 
 -for the Millennium, look for his defcent from 
 Heaven a thoufand years before the arrival of 
 that important period. I am inclined to think, 
 fome zealous opponents of relief in the matter 
 of fubfcription, are confiderably interefted in this 
 difficulty. 
 
 ART I- 
 
€6 The Difficulties attending tte Art. Vf, 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 •In the name of the Holy Scripture tae 
 
 do underfiand thofe canonical books of the Old and 
 New Tejlament^ of whofe authority was never any 
 doubt in the Church. 
 
 This remarkable definition of Holy Scripture 
 brings the Subfcriber into a difficult dilemma. 
 For he muft either declare he believes this af- 
 fertion to be true, of all the books received as 
 canonical, and inferted in the lift affixed to this 
 Article, which was the evident defign of the 
 Compilers ; and fo offend againft the cleareft 
 evidence of ecclefiaftical hiftory to the contrary* 
 Or, if he ftridlly adheres to the Church's defini- 
 tion of Holy Scripture, and confequently ad- 
 mits no other books to be canonical, than thofe 
 of whafe authority was never any doubt in the 
 Church, he cannot confcientioufly fubfcribe to 
 the canonical authority of all the books enume- 
 rated in the catalogue, which is fubjoined to 
 the Article -, and which it was alfo the evideirt 
 defign of the Compilers Ihould be received as 
 fuch. For it is impoffible it can be true, that 
 all the books contained in that lift: are to be 
 efteemed canonical, and yet none but thofe of 
 which there never was any doubt. For my own 
 
 part. 
 
Art. VI. 'Definition of Canonical Authority. 6j 
 
 part, I both admire and adore the wifdom of 
 Providence, which hath often over-ruled the 
 doubts of men about the truth of revelation 
 in general, of particular books of Scripture^ 
 and of particular do£lrines contained in thofe 
 books, fo as to become the occafion of the 
 more effeflually eftablifhing their divine autho- 
 rity. And although it is undeniable, that the 
 authority of feveral of the books of Scripture 
 has been doubted and difputed ; yet the ob- 
 jeftions to that authority have been fufficientiy 
 and folidly anfwered. Not to mention any par- 
 ticular books of the Old Teftament, the general 
 authority of which is eftablifhed by the New; 
 it is well known, the epiftle to the Hebrews 
 (that mod excellent and evangelical cornment 
 upon the Levitical priefthood) was early called 
 in queftion, as were alfo the epiftle of St. James^ 
 the 2d of St. Petet^ the 2d and 3d of St. John^ 
 that of St. Jude^ and the Revelation. Hence 
 the diftinflion of the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment by ancient ecclefiaftical hiftorians, into 
 fl/aoXoy8juc€vci and avIjXsyo/iiJvot ^ the former de- 
 noting fuch as had been univerfally received ; 
 and the latter thofe^ the authority of Vv'hich had 
 been difputed •, though they were at length in- 
 troduced into the canon, after the moft careful 
 examination of their genuinenefs, and upon the 
 moft fatisfacflory evidence of their divine original. 
 But if we allow the definition of Holy Scripture 
 
6S Obfervations on Bp. Bornet, and Art. V(. 
 
 given in this Article, to be a juft and accurate 
 one -, we muft yet conclude they are not canoni- 
 cal, and were not written under the fame divine 
 infpiration with the reft. Bifliop Burnet had 
 furely forgotten his Logick, when he urged as 
 a didindt particular in his proof, that all the 
 books of the New Teftament now received are 
 canonical, according to the Church's definition 
 of canonical authority ; " That fome queftion 
 " was made touching fome of them, becaufe 
 " there was not that clear or general knowledge 
 " concerning them, that there was concerning 
 *' the others ; yet upon fuller inquiry all ac- 
 " quiefced in themf." As if a fatisfadion re- 
 fulring from a fuller inquiry, occafioned by 
 previous doubts^ proved that no fuch doubts 
 ever exijied. Bifhop Beveridge has kept this dif- 
 iiculty out of fight, by expounding the Article 
 as it was framed 1552; for the claufe I have- 
 confidered, was firft inferted in 1562, at the 
 time of the rcvifal of the Articles. 
 
 It is remarkable, that the canonical Books 
 are named and numbered in this Article, ac- 
 cording to the divifion of the Vulgate Bible ; 
 which includes the Book oi Lamentations in the 
 Prophecy of Jeremiah^ and calls the Books of 
 Ezra^ znd Nehemiabf the i ft and 2d of Efdras. 
 The abfurdity of fuffering the Lift to continue 
 in this form, when another divifion of the Bible 
 t Biirntt, ubi fupra, p. 99. 
 
 3 came 
 
Art. VIII. on the Names of the Canonical Books. 6g 
 
 came into common ufe, muft be obvious to 
 every Reader. — But it was ejlablijhed ; and alte- 
 rations in eftablifhments are dangerous. It is 
 hardly to be doubted however, that in confe- 
 quence of this unaltered Eftablilhment, many 
 perfons have ignorantly fubfcribed to the cano- 
 nical authority of two Afocrypkal Books — the 
 only Books which now pafs under the title of the 
 I ft and 2d of Efdras. 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 cr'HE three Creeds^ Nice Creed, Atlianafius'j 
 Creed, and that which is commonly called the 
 Apoftles Creed, ought thoroughly to be received 
 and believed •, for they may be proved by moft 
 certain warrants of Scripture. 
 
 Now with fubmifllon to the judgment of the 
 Church, I conceive there is no neceffuy that any 
 one of them fhould be thoroughly received and 
 
 believed that it is impolTible that they can 
 
 all be fo received by the fame perfon and 
 
 that the Creed of Athanafius with its damnatory 
 claufe, ought to be rejeded by every believer 
 in the dodrine of the Holy Trinity. Nor is it 
 any great offence againft the Church to fay fo, 
 if we confider the latter claufe of the Article. 
 She therein confeffes, that the reafon why they 
 jliouid be fo received, is, becaufe they may be 
 F 3 proved 
 
70 The Dsfign and Proceedings Art.VIII, 
 
 proved by moft certain warrants of Scripture. 
 Now if the reafon urged for injoining fucli be- 
 lief cannot be fupported, (he ought upon her 
 own principles, to renounce this claim upor\ 
 the confciences of Chriftians. 
 
 What has already been alleged in the preced- 
 ing review of the third Article, is fufficient to 
 fhew why I think that the creed commonly, 
 bun falfely called the Apoftles, need not and 
 ought not . to be thoroughly received. Many 
 writers, and among them feme Dignitaries of 
 the Church of England, have agreed with Dif- 
 fenters in believing, that Chrift's real defcent 
 into Hell, cannot be proved by any certain war-, 
 rant of Scripture. 
 
 In the beginning of the fourth century, 
 A.D. 325. Conjlantim the Great fummoned a. 
 general council to meet at Nice^ a city in Bithy- 
 nia, to fettle the difputes about the proper time 
 for the obfervation of Eajier, and to prevent 
 the propagation of the principles of Arius^ 
 At this council three hundred and eighteen 
 Bifhops and Prefbyters aflembled, who at length 
 agreed upon a certain explication of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, called from the place of 
 their meeting, the Nicene Creed. This was 
 afterwards confiderably enlarged, as it now 
 jfands, by the council of Conftantinople. Some 
 2 of 
 
Art. VIII. cf the Council of Nice. 7 1 
 
 of the more wile and moderate members of the 
 council of ]>lice perceived the great difliculty 
 likely to arife, from the multitude of queftions 
 which were ftarted in the debate, and the variety 
 of judgments concerning the mod proper phrafes 
 to be adopted, in explaining fo fublime a doc- 
 trine. They therefore gave it as their opinion, 
 " that no innovation fliould be made in matters 
 " ofFiiith; but that it fhould be ftill entertained 
 " with the fame naked fimplicity, wherewith 
 *' from the beginning it had been delivered to 
 *' the Church j men of fimple and honeft minds, 
 *' fays Dr. Cave*, not thinking it fit, that art;- 
 /' cles concerning God fliould be made the fub- 
 .*' jedb of fubtle, and over-curious difputes." 
 But this prudent advice was over-ruled by fome 
 other members of the Council, and principally 
 through the influence of Athanaftus, whofe own 
 private ends (cloaked under the fpecious difguife 
 of a zeal for the truth) would have been cfFedu- 
 ally fruflrated, if the fcriptural phrafes had been 
 determined to be preferable to the words of 
 mens invention. By whom the Creed was drawn 
 up may perhaps admit of difpute; but fome 
 writers have afcribed it without the lead hefita- 
 tion to Bofius Bifhop of Corduba, and I fhall not 
 call in queftion his title to this honour. It may 
 however be juftly queftioned, whether this Creed 
 
 * Ca-ve's Adls and Proceedings of the Council of Nice, 
 . in his Life oi Athanafius, % 3, 
 
 F 4 jnay 
 
f 2 The Language of the Nicene Art. VIII* 
 
 may not with more propriety be fubfcribed by 
 Arians, than by fuch as are now called Atha- 
 iiafiam. The phrafe made nfe of in the de- 
 fcription of the divinity of our Lord, has been 
 thought by fome Trinitarians, to be totally in- 
 confiftent with the idea of his true and proper 
 Deity. It profefles a belief in Him as ©fov 
 Ix. 0fa, God of God, one God derived from^ 
 and dependent upon another God for his exift- 
 
 ence. The phrafe is not ufed in refpefl to 
 
 any fubordination of office, but in reference to 
 his Being and divine nature. But fince one of 
 the firft ideas of the Deity, is, that of an 
 unoriginated^ uncaufed^ felf-exijient^ and independ- 
 ent Being -, many advocates for the Deity of our 
 Lord, are of opinion, that if the unity of the 
 Godhead be maintained, there can be no fuch 
 thing as a very God of very God. And that 
 to fpeak of a God by derivatkn, is confefledly 
 denying that felf-exiftence to the Son, which 
 is one of the diftinguifliing attributes of fu- 
 preme Deity *, If I was an Arian in judgment, 
 
 I lliould 
 
 * A learned Advocate for the Nicene faith, reprefents it 
 as the opinion of that council, and as the unanimous judg- 
 ment of the ^nte and Po^ Nicene Fathers, that the Son was 
 jiot ;jj7zd 11' But on the contrary, that they held the fub- 
 ordination of the Soij to the Father, u( ad fui originsm ac 
 priacipum — that the Son did not pofTefs the divine nature 
 and perfedtions of the Father collateraliter, aut coorcTitiatCt 
 
 ftd fub ordinate that the Fath^pr vi^^fom, erigo, tic princi- 
 
 pium^ 
 
Art. VIII. Creed favourahk to Arianijh* 73 
 
 I fhould have no objeiflion to the phrafeology 
 ol this Creed. It is therefore to me no wonder, 
 that the followers of Arius fo readily fybfcribed 
 it. The only objection which they had at firft 
 to that fubfcription, arofe from the ufe of the 
 word confuhjlantial, which they thought un- 
 fcriptural, and feemed to convey to their niinds 
 the idea of corporeal affeftions, " as if the Son 
 ^' did lubfiit of his Father by fome kind of 
 
 piutn, di-uinitatis quee in Filio eft — that He alone was iVatp- 
 yOr — that He was to the Sou oItiov <?« Hva/y the caufe of 
 
 his exilL-nce. That it was cuftomary with them to call 
 
 the Father J\/.-^/^.p'T;xJ<, fometimes " God abfolutcly," 
 fometimes '' That one God," and at other times, '* The 
 *' God and Father of all;" becaufe the Father only was 
 God of Himftif, the Son God of God. — Hence, they faid, 
 the Son was only called God, in the fame manner as a Ray, 
 confidered apart from the Sun, is called the Sun. The 
 Bifhop feemed apprehenfive of fomp inconfiftcncy between 
 feveral of thefe expreffions, and the dodrine of the Co- 
 eternity of the Son, which he had before laboured to prove 
 was the doJlrine of the Nicene Council. But he was relieved 
 from his difhcu'ty by fome curious extrafts from the Fathers, 
 the purport of which is to prove, that the Son's having a 
 beginning, is very confident with his having no beginning. 
 — One of them fays, li uiv eivcL^yov x^ di^iov ri /t diJ^iov 
 X 'O-tt.i'rc'Ji eiva^-xoi. And who, upon the principles of Scrip- 
 ture or common fetife, (hall dare to difpute the authority 
 of Gregory Naz anxen? Vide BuUi Defen|ionem Fidei Ni- 
 C.en;e, Sett. 4. Cap. i. Edit. Oxen. 1685. 
 
 From the paflages above quoted, it is fully evident, that 
 thofe who believe Self- exigence to be an effential attribute 
 of Deity, cannot imagine true Deity to be afcribed to our 
 Bleffed JLord in the ^7Vf«f Creed. 
 
 " fedion 
 
74 EvsEBius's Accouni of tbe Creed. Art. VIII. 
 
 " fefUon or divifion; whereas they thought it 
 •* impofllble that an immaterial, intelledual, 
 " and incorporeal nature fhould admit any cor- 
 " poreal pafTion. But they thought it very juft 
 *' and reafonable to aflent to it, when the epi- 
 *' thet was explained to fignify no more, than 
 " that the Son of God had no kind of fimilitude 
 " with any creatures, but was only, and in all 
 *' things like unto this Father that begat Him, 
 " nor of any other fubfiftence or eflence, but 
 *' of the Father *." When the Emperor's re- 
 fentment againft Arius, was moderated by the 
 interceflion of fome of his friends, he was recalled 
 from his banifhment into Illyricum^ upon con- 
 dition of his fubfcription to the Faith eftabliihed 
 in the Nicene Council. The Emperor's Let- 
 ter to him upon this occafion, was both very 
 refpedful and very affe(5lionate. Arius com- 
 plied with the invitation to court, and prefented 
 to the Emperor a confefTion of his faith, in the 
 name of himfelf, and his fellow-fufFerer Euzoius, 
 in which he declares — " We believe in one God 
 " the Father Almighty, and in our Lord Jefus 
 " Chrift his Son, begotten of Him before all 
 *' ages, being God the Word, by whom all things 
 
 ♦ See Eufelius'% (BifTiop of C a/area) Letter to the people 
 of Ca/area ; written to convince thofe who inclined to 
 Jrius^s principles, that nothing had bqen determined by 
 the Council contrary to them ; and that he had not betrayed 
 their caufe by fubfcribing the Nicene Creed. 
 
 ** were 
 
Art.VIlI. Arius pronounced Orthodox. 75 
 
 " were made both in Heaven and Earth *." 
 The Emperor was perfeftly fatisfted •, but Atha- 
 nafius was irreconcileable to the reftoration of 
 A.rius. The reafon of his inflexible oppofition, 
 fprang, I fear, from the ambition of obtaining 
 the Bifhoprick of Alexandria^ rather than from 
 a difinterefted zeal for the truth. When the 
 Emperor found his mediation with Athanafiui 
 proved unfuccefsful, he referred Arius^s confef- 
 fion of Faith, to the judgment of the Synod at 7^- 
 rufalem. They decreed that Arius and his adhe- 
 rents fliould be received into communion ; and 
 perfuaded the Church o^ Alexandria kindly to en- 
 tertain them, whofe Faith the Emperor had pro- 
 nounced to ho. found and orthodox. As to the charge 
 of hypocrify upon Arius, it does not appear to be 
 well lupported by any authentick teftimony j 
 and it is to be prefumed, that he would have 
 adled a very different part, if he had been ad- 
 difled to the arts of diffimulation. But it is too 
 common among mankind, to fuppofe every 
 thing that is bad, of a man that is branded 
 with herefy, 
 
 It may indeed feem flrangc, that a Creed pro^ 
 feffedly drawn up with a view of preventing 
 the propagation of Arianifm, {hould be ex-r 
 prefTed in kich terms, that Arians could con^ 
 fcientioufly fubfcribe it. But it fhould be re^ 
 
 • Socrat. I. 2$. Soz. II. 27. 
 
 mem' 
 
y6 7'he Heterodoxy of the Creed Art. VIII, 
 
 membered, not only that the Creed itfelf a- 
 bundantly juftifies their fubfcription ; but alfo 
 that the members of the Council, appear to 
 have been totally unqualified by their heats and 
 anirpofities, for attending to the propriety of 
 their expreflions, Their attention was wholly 
 diverted from the point in difpute, by the bit- 
 ternefs and warmth of perfonal altercations. 
 I can afTure the reader, there is nothing tin- 
 cahinijiical in this aflertion, for Calvin himlelf 
 has exprefled the fame fentiment in the ftiongeft 
 terms ; apd drawn a pi6lure of the Council, 
 which better anfwers the defcription of a law- 
 lefs mob of brutal Ruffians, than of an aflem- 
 bly of Chriftian Divines. He fpeaks of their 
 conduct as almofl warranting the fuppofition, 
 that it was ordained for the gratification of 
 ^rius, by their giving way to his opinions *. 
 
 la 
 
 • He reckons up four caufes or occafions of the errors 
 and miftakes of the pureft Councils ; and illuftrates the 
 influence of the laft, by the conduft of the Council qf 
 Nice, in the following words. 
 
 Vel quod nimio afFedlu nonnunquam pr?ecipites fere- 
 bantur. Hujus poftremi (quod omnium duriffimum vide- 
 tur) exemplum illuftre extitit in Nicena Synodo : cujus 
 dignitas omnium confenfu fumma veneratione, ut mere- 
 batur, excepta eft. Nam quum primarium fidei noftraj 
 caput illic periclitaretur, adeflit hoflis Arrius in procinc- 
 tu, quo cum manus conferendae eflent, fummum vero mo- 
 mentum in eorum concordl^ effet qui ad oppugnandun» 
 Arrii errorexn parate venerant : ipfi nihilominus tantorum 
 
 difcri- 
 
Art. VIII. accomudfor^ and farther illufirated, j'j 
 
 In farther proof of the heterodoxy of the Ni- 
 cene Creed, I cannot but remark, that all the 
 orthodox writers of the Church oi England^ with 
 Dr. Waterland at their Head, have not fcrupled 
 to cenfure the late celebrated Dr. Clarke of 
 St. James's as an Arian, and heterodox mem- 
 ber of the Church of England. And yet his 
 fcheme is perfedly confonant with the Nicene 
 Creed, and founded on the idea therein deliver- 
 ed of the derivation and dependance of the Son* 
 When therefore rccourfe was had to Church au- 
 thority, the Do(5lor found a fecure and inpreg^ 
 nable retreat in the judgment of the Nicene Fa* 
 thers. Nor can I fee why a clergyman who be- 
 lieved in the Nicene Creed, and rejedled the 
 
 difcriminum fecuri, imo velut gra'vitati/, modeftieet Sc om- 
 nis humajiitalis obliti, omijfo quod \n manibus erat certamint 
 (quaji ex dejiinato, Arrio gratifitaturi^ eo concejjsjfent J in- 
 iejiinis dijpdiis fefe profcindere caperunt : l^ Jiylum qui in 
 Arrium Jiringendus erat, in feipfos dirigere. Fajdas crimi- 
 nationes audiebantur : libelli accufatorii volitabant: nee 
 contentionum finis ullus fadlus eflbt, donee mutuis vul^ 
 neribus fe confodijfent, nifi Imperaior Conllantinus occur- 
 riffet, qui inquifitionem in eorum vitam, rem e/Te fupra 
 fuam cognitionem profefTus, talem intemperiem laud« 
 magis quam objurgatione calligavit. Quam multis par- 
 tibus & alia quas deinde fequuta funt Concilia lapfa fu- 
 ifTe veriflimile eft ? Nee longa demonftratione opus ha;c 
 res habet : fiquis enim adla perlegat, multas illic infir- 
 mitates animadvertet : nequid dicam gravius. Calvin. 
 Inftit. Lib. iv. Cap. ix. § lo. Edit. Lug. Bat. 1654. 
 
 Atha- 
 
78 'The Opinion of Le Clerc. Art.VllI* 
 
 Athanafian, had not as much reafon to confider 
 himfelf as a true Son of the Church ; as ano-^ 
 ther who believed in the Athanafian, and rejec- 
 ted the Nicene Creed-, feeing the Church of 
 England injoins the belief of the one, as well as 
 of the other. Indeed of the two the fornner 
 has the better claim, if the calculation of an 
 anonymous writer may be depended on, who 
 afierts, that **" there are one hundred and eighty 
 *' fix places in the Liturgy, where the phrafes 
 *' favour the Nicene doftrine •, and but twenty 
 " feven places where they lean to the doc- 
 " trine of the Athanafian Creed *.'* 
 
 A learned foreigner is of the fame mind with 
 myfelf. " Dr. Clarke's doftrine, fays he, feems 
 " to be the fame wdth that of the Nicene Coun- 
 " oil, excepting that he ufes not the word con- 
 '* fuhjiantial. It is not therefore to be wondered^ 
 *' that he fhould have produced fo many paf- 
 •* fages from the ancient Fathers in favour of 
 *' his hypothefis. They who pretend that the 
 " Nicene Council (hould be the rule of our 
 " Faith, ought by no means to cenfure Dr. 
 *' Clarke^ if they underftand what that Coun- 
 ♦' cil meant f." 
 
 • Impartial accoant of the Rife both of Arianifitt an<i 
 
 Athanafianifm, P. 56. Note. 
 
 ■\ Le Clerc. Bibl. Chois. xxvi. 419. 
 
 I fliall 
 
Art. VI II. TheAthznsiCun Creed conJIdereJ. yg 
 
 I (hall now enter on the confideraiion of the 
 Arhanafian Creed, which this Article alfo re- 
 quires us thoroughly to receive and believe. This 
 Creed has been held equally facred with the 
 Scriptures, partly from its fuppofed high anti- 
 tiquity, partly on account of the name of its re- 
 puted Author i but principally on account of its 
 incomprehenfible darknefs, and the danger of 
 incurrring the penalty of eternal damnation, by 
 entertaining any doubts about it. So that the 
 moft zealous Trinitarian, who would rather 
 take his Bible than this Creed for an infallible 
 guide, had need to deprecate the refentments of 
 angry Bigots, infatuated with a fuperftitious at- 
 tachment to Church authority. But notwith- 
 ftanding the pretenfions of its former Advocates 
 for a very high antiquity, the learned criticifms 
 of fucceeding writers have detefted the forgery, 
 fully proved it to be of a much later date, and 
 not imiprobably the compofition of the Orthodox 
 Church oi Rome^ many (if not fome hundred) 
 years after the death of Athanajius. Though it 
 ftill continues to bear his name, and is yet im- 
 pofed upon the Church as the Creed oi Athana- 
 fius ; Cardinal Bona^ Dr. Comber, and Bifhop 
 Beveridge, are the only writers of any note who 
 can be called modern, that have ventured to af- 
 cribe it to him. Even Dr. IVaterland, who 
 contended for every tittle of it as if it was di- 
 vine, was forced to give up this point, and af- 
 
 cribed 
 
^o Remarks on it*s Tiile. Art. Vlli 
 
 Cribed it to Hilary of Arks. Nor did he at- 
 tempt to carry its date any farther back, than 
 the beginning of the fifth century*. It would 
 be a fruitlefs inquiry to examine how far there 
 is any certainty as to the Author. Our btifi- 
 nefs is wich the Creed itfelf, rather than its 
 Compiler. But it is fufficiently clear that Atha- 
 nafius' was not. The impofition of his name 
 upon it, was probably one of the pious frauds 
 of the Church of Rome, in order to fecure the 
 greater credit and reputation to it in the world. 
 And fmce it is a fa£b that by bearing his name, 
 and being confidered at lead as conformable to 
 the views he had of the dodrine of the Trinity, 
 it has been held in much the greater venera- 
 tion i I think this a proper place for the in- 
 quiry, how far his opinion ought to have pre- 
 judiced our minds in its favour. He has been 
 ufually honoured as an Apoftle, and ftyled a 
 Saint. But it is a fcruple of confcience with me 
 to call a man fo, who appears to have been only 
 deferving of fuch an appellation, in the Roman 
 Calendar. How well founded this opinion is, 
 I fhall fubmit to the determination of the impar- 
 tial reader, when he has perufed the charader 
 Qi Athanafuis, as drawn by a learned Prelate-^ 
 a charatler too well fupported by the hiftory of 
 
 • See IVaterland's Critical HiHory of the Athanafiaa 
 Creed Chap. 7, 8. 
 
 the 
 
Art. VIII. 'the Chara^cr of Athanafiug. 8 r 
 
 the times, to admit any fufpicion of injuftice 
 done to the memory af the reputed Saint *. 
 
 To 
 
 * The charaiEler is thus introduced, in a fpeech before a 
 great AfTembly on the fubjeft of the Athanafjan Greed. 
 
 •• But then it may pfobably be aflied. How comes it to 
 *' bear the name o^ Athanajius? The anfwer to which is, 
 " becaufe it agrees perfedlly with the Athanafian doftrinej 
 •' and had the name ol Athanaftus affixed to it by the Church 
 •• of Rome, becaufe he was a perfon much efleemed by that 
 ** Church, and whofe principles, as well political as reli- 
 " gious, the members of that Church have long laboured 
 *• to propagate among mankind: But, as the true chara£ler 
 *' of this Athanajius is not commonly known ; and there- 
 *• fore fome of your Lordfhips may poffibly be unacquainted 
 *• with itj I fhall beg leave to inform you who, and what 
 •' he was. 
 
 " Athanajius was a young, forward, petulant Deacon in 
 *' the Church o{ Alexandria, of an ambitious fpirir, with 
 ** a talent fitted for difputation : and as he could have no 
 *• hopes of getting into that Bifhoprick, unlefs he could 
 *' drive Arius out of Alexandria, who' was the principal 
 " Prefbyter in that Church next to the Biiliop ; this he 
 "~ efFefled, by fomenting this difpute about the Trinity, 
 •• between Arius and the Bifhop ; on which account, hav- 
 ** if'gg^^ .<^;-///j excommunicated, he had him then banlflied 
 ** out oi Alexandria: Which when done, no fooner was the 
 *• old Bilhop Alexander dead, but Athanajius, though then 
 ♦' only a young man, of about 27 or 28 years of age, by 
 «' the afliftance of a fet of murdering ^c/zVj, forced himfelf 
 •* at once into that high Archbifhoprick, without ever paffing 
 " through any of the intermediate degrees: And having 
 " gotten himfelf illegally confecrated, contrary to all the 
 *• rules and canons of the Church, he prevailed on the 
 •' Emperor Conjiantine to confirm him therein, by the 
 ** power of bribes, that were given to one of the Emperor's 
 
 G " fa- 
 
S 2 Additional Evidence that Athanafms Art. VIIT. 
 
 To return to the Creed itfelf. There is one 
 
 remarkable prefumptive proof that Athanafms 
 
 was 
 
 ** favourites : and no fooner was he thoroughly eftabliftied 
 " in it, but he immediately flew in the Emperor's face. 
 •« And when the Emperor Conjiantinc the Great was dead, 
 *' treated his fon and fuccefTor Conjlantiusy with more con- 
 *' tempt and infolence than could have been borne from an 
 " equal. And when he was difpofTefred of his Bifhoprick 
 " for other irregularities, by a numerous Council of Bi- 
 ** fhops, regularly fummoned and aflembled, he forced his 
 •' way into that See again, raore than once or twice, over 
 •• the murdered ccrpfes of his antagonifls ; and waded into 
 " his Cathedral through feas of blood. 
 
 •' But it may perhaps be farther afkedj Why fhould this 
 *' recommend him to the See of Rome? The reafon of 
 " which is, becaufe this was all done by the connivance, 
 " and with the concurrence of that See: Athauajiui, while 
 *' he treated all the reft of mankind, and even his owa 
 " Royal Mailer, with the utmoft infolence, having paid a 
 *' fervile court to the Papal Chair. Infomuch that in the 
 ** books of the Canon Law, the firft precedent that is, or 
 *' can be produced in fupport of the Papal Supremacy, is 
 *' this inflance of the fervile fubjet^icn that was paid by 
 *" AthanaJiHi to Pope 'Julius. And therefore, I Ihould ap- 
 " prehend, that all Proteftants, who have renounced the 
 ** fupremacy of the Pope, and the independency of the 
 *' Church upon the State, ought to be for obliterating the 
 *' name of Athanajius out of their Liturgy, into which it 
 *' was probably inferted, only with a view of recoramend- 
 ** ing his political principles, under the fhelter and in- 
 " fluence of his religious dcdtrines.'" Bilhop of Cloghers 
 Speech made in the Houfe of Lords in Ireland, Feb. z, 
 1756. 
 
 The irregularities for which Athanajius was depofed, and 
 to which this learned Prelate alludes, were not of a trivial 
 
 natuie- 
 
Art. VIII. was not the Author cf the Creed. 8j| 
 ivas not the author of it, which the writers in 
 defence of the Creed and the Article have not 
 thought proper to mention, though it has been 
 fuggefted by others *. This is derived from 
 the confideration, that Athanafius was a mem- 
 ber of the council of Nice^ and from the in- 
 confiftency of the language of the Athanafian 
 Creed, with the cxprefllohs made ufe of both 
 in the Nicene Creed, and by Athanafius him- 
 felf in feme of his known and acknov/ledged 
 writings. The Nicene Creed elofes with pro- 
 nouncing the anathema of the Catholick and 
 Apoftolick Church, upon fuch as Ihould hold 
 certain errors rerpe<fting the perfon of Chrift ; 
 and among others, upon " fuch as fhould fay 
 
 ftature. For among other charges brought againft him^ 
 he was accufed of ravif'jing a profe£'ed Virgin — of fending 
 Plujianusi a Bi(hop of his party, to fire the hoafe of Jr/mius, 
 a Bifhop of the Meletian party; and of tying him to a polT^ 
 and whipping him, arid then calling him into prifon. And 
 though he demurred at firft to the competency of his Judges, 
 and afterwards finding his demur was not admitted, denied 
 fhe fevefal charges; yet when he perceived that the Council 
 -were refolved to delegate fome of their number, to inquire 
 into the true flate of the cafe, he thought it beft to taktf 
 his flight, to avoid confronting the evidence v.hich he 
 knew they could procure; and upon the authority of which, 
 2fter the return of the Delegates from Egypt, they pafled 
 fcntence againft him. 
 
 * Seeparticularly Bifhop C/^/on'sEflay on Spirit, §133, 
 \4f\i 142. p. 135 & fcq. 
 
 G 2 •* that 
 
84 !r/jtf Nicene rt;/i Athanafian Cr^^if Art.VIIK 
 
 " that He was of another Hypojiafts or UJia * i'* 
 plainly ufing thefe words as equivalent in their 
 ienfe. And Athanaftus in a treatife on the Synods 
 of Ariminum and Seleucia pofitively alTerts, that 
 *' the Hypojiafts is the fame with the Ufia^ and 
 ♦' has no other fignification f." But if v;e 
 examine the language of the Athanafian Creed, 
 we fhall find the orthodox Faith defcribed by 
 " neither confounding the Hypojiafes, nor di- 
 '* viding the UJia. For there is one Hypojiafts of 
 *' the Father, another of the Son, and another 
 " of the Holy Ghoft J." And the damnatory 
 claufe declares this to be " that orthodox Faith, 
 *' which except a man keep undefiled, he can- 
 " not poiTibly be faved." Now this is alfo an 
 additional objeflion againfl; fubfciibing the Arti- 
 cle. For fince there is not an axiom in Euclid 
 
 * Nicene Creed. 
 'H i^ ETEPA2 -vJarecci- 
 fiu( ''H jjVirtf ^*<r>tofTrf< 
 £veu raTKf «ti'ttS«^aTi- 
 
 %KK}\»<Tia. Socrat. Ecclef. 
 Hift. Lib. I. Cap. 5. 
 
 1 Athanafian Creed. 
 
 J'lcufa'.TU'- ''AAAH y6 \isn- 
 Taffii -tS ^ci]f»(, "AAAH <n 
 iffc, AAAH 7» dyin 'srveo'- 
 
 fj.eiTOi Ai/t« Toir^y €S"/V 
 
 ij op96/o^of 'ai'^iiy riv o fj.n- 
 T^YKTdLi d^JLCciJ-TmoVt ffefi^nveu 
 K J^vvetTeu. Diflert. de trr- 
 bas Symbolis ad iinem U^^ 
 rii Annal. Geneva: 1722. 
 
 iX'"*. Athanafii Opera, Torn, I. p. 934. 
 
 3 more 
 
Art. VIII. contradifiory to each other. 85 
 
 more felf-evident than this, that two explana- 
 tions of one do(5lrine, fo direflly contrary the 
 oncj to the other, cannot both be true^ no man 
 can beheve the Creed of the Council of NicCy 
 and that which bears the name of Athanafius^ 
 to be both agreeable to the Scriptures. It 
 would, in my judgment, be a very indecent re- 
 fledlion upon Revelation, to fuppofe that ex- 
 prefs contradiflions can be proved by " moft 
 *' certain warrants of Scripture." 
 
 Thus taking the plain literal fenfe of the two 
 Creeds and the Article, an ignorant and honeft 
 fubfcriber is brought into a very critical and 
 dangerous fituation. By the Nicene Creed he 
 is fentenced to everlafting damnation, if he be- 
 lieves the doctrine of the Athanafian Creed— 
 by the Athanafian Creed he is anathematized, 
 if he believes the dodtrine of the Nicene Creed 
 — to render his damnation meyrtable he is re- 
 quired by the Church oi England to belie ve chem fcctr\. 
 hothy upon pain of being devoted to the Devil, 
 for his rejection of either — and by fubfcribing 
 ex anirno to the truth of the Article, he fets his 
 own Amen to the complicated curfe. So that 
 let him believe what he will upon this point, 
 it may truly be faid, if he is faved at all, it mull „^ ^^^ c^^c^ / 
 be fo as by fire. 
 
 The origin of this remarkable contradiiflion 
 
 in the phrafeology oi the two Creeds, is to be 
 
 G 2 fought 
 
86 The Origin of the Contradi^ions. Art.YlIL 
 fought in the tiifpiues which firft arofe among 
 the Confubftantialifts, in the clofe of the fourth 
 century, upon this queftion \ Whether there v/ere 
 three H;:poJiafes cr but one H^-poJlafis in the 
 Trinity ? 
 
 Each opinion had its patrons : and each party 
 yras well difpofed to anathematize the other. An4 
 though it has been faid that the difpute was merely 
 verbal, and that they were reconciled, as foon as 
 they underftood one another, this confideration 
 will not remove the difficulty in the prefent cafe, 
 I feel no reluftance in granting, that they di(^ 
 not underftand one another •, fpr it does not ap- 
 pear that they underftood themfelves. Idea^ 
 and words, efpecially in metaphyfical contro- 
 verfies, do not always go together. They ha4 
 fixed upon a phrafe to be the Shibboleth of a 
 party, but probably left it to others to find out 
 the diilind idea it exprelTed. But thus much 
 is certain •, that the latter Creed was framed 
 with a rcfpeft to a fuppofed difference — that it 
 y/'as defigned to hold forth that difference — 
 ?ind cannot therefore be ihcronghly. received and 
 believed, without becoming a partizan in that 
 ■ difpute, on the fide of the Compilers. If a re-: 
 conciliation between the Difputants afterwards 
 took place, the Church ftiould not have per-r 
 petuated the memorial of their verbal firitc, 
 and have kept up, that difference and contra- 
 ^iifiion of expreffion, which the original partie.*^ 
 
 3 i>4 
 
Art.VIII. T!he 'Damnatory Claufe confidered. S*; 
 had dropped. Befides, the literal fenfe of Hypo- 
 Jiafts and U/ia as applied to the fame fubjccb, 
 will always be the fame. 
 
 Though the damnatory claufe of the Nicene 
 Creed is not continued in ufe, in the publick 
 fervice of the Church •, {"he has thought proper 
 to retain that which is annexed to the Athana- 
 fian Creed, of which I mufc take fome farther 
 notice. 
 
 To prevent any groundlefs fufpicions, I think 
 It proper here to premife, that upon the autho- 
 rity of divine revelation, I mod firmly believe 
 the true and proper Deity of the Son and Spirit, 
 as elTcntially partakers of the Divine nature. 
 The do(ftrine of the Trinity, I receive as the 
 dodlrine of Scripture. It appears to me to be 
 clearly taught in the Bible ; but the mode of 
 this incomprchenfible union and relation, is no 
 where that I can find, the fubjed of Divine 
 revelation. And probably the limited extent 
 of human comprchenfion in the prefcnt ftate, 
 might be the reafon why it is not revealed. 
 But there is furely a wide difference betv/een 
 believing upon the authority of the word of God, 
 that the Son and the Holy Ghoft are together 
 with the Father the one only living and true 
 Jehovah; and crediting upon no other evidence, 
 than the threatened penalty of damnation by a 
 G 4 mere 
 
88 The Damnatory Claufe no Parallel Art. VI II, 
 
 mere fellow mortal, any human explanation of 
 the mode of their diflinfl fubfiftence in the God- 
 head. As all our inquiries into the Divine Ef- 
 fence mu(l necefTarily be clogged with many 
 difficulties, in attempting explications of this 
 kind, the bed of men have but darkened coun-. 
 fel by words without knowledge. One fhould 
 imagine however that no man would fcruple to 
 grant, that an explanation ought to be intelligi- 
 ble. An unintelligible explication is a perfe6t 
 folecifm. But he that can underftand th& Atha- 
 nafian explication, pOileiTes a degree of fagacity 
 which I dcfpairof ever attaining, unlefs Mr. i^<7- 
 theram could transfer to me his amazing power^ 
 of penetration *. But I fliould be extremely forry 
 to be convinced, that fuch an incapacity or weak- 
 nefs of intelledl is a damnable fm An anxious 
 folicicude for my own falvation, naturally fug- 
 gefcs the queftion, Who ever gave the Compiler 
 of this Creed authority to fay fo.'' Yet according 
 to him every man who does not perfecftly believe 
 in it, muft without doubt perifli everkftingly. 
 
 * See Rotherham's Apology for the Athanajian deed., 
 who has reprefexiLed it as a ptrlea. model of the moll clofe, 
 <:onclur]ve, and perfpicuous reafoning. But the injudicious 
 exrravr;_'anc<: of this Gentleman's enc' miums upon it, is 
 very clearly uemoiillratcd by the ingenious Author of aa 
 anonymous patr.phlet, intitled. An AnJ--wcr to Dr. Rother- 
 ham's Afolpgy for the Athanafian Creed; in a Letter tg a 
 Friend. So much I think muil be allowed by thofe, who 
 do not approve the Author's own particular view of the doc- 
 trine of ti;e Trinity. 
 
 Soma 
 
Art.-VIII; with the ^hreatmings of the Gofpel 8^ 
 
 Sorne perfons * would juftify this uncharitable 
 cenfure, as being no more than a plain paraphrafe 
 on the words of Scripture j delivered by One, 
 whofe authority I am no more inclined to dif- 
 pute, than the warmeft Advocates for thi^ 
 Creed. But it is aftonilhing that any intelli- 
 gent writer, fhould not difcern the manifeft 
 difference between our Bleffed Lord's denounce 
 ^ng everlafting condemnation, upon thole who 
 believe not in him, notwithftanding the mira- 
 culous evidence he produced of his divine 
 million •, and a fimilar fentencc being pafled upon 
 fuch, as only difapprove a metaphydcal explica-r 
 tion of a fublime dodlrine of Chriftianity, by a 
 fallible Man, who neither did nor could produce 
 any evidence of his divine infpiration. Others 
 have endeavoured to abate the force of the dam- 
 natory claufe, by applying it to the doftrine in 
 general, rather than to the particular explanation 
 contained in the Creed. But the Compiler ha?, 
 taken fufficient pains to prevent fuch a con- 
 (Iruclion. The introdudlion, connedlion, repe- 
 tition, and phrafeology of the claufe, abundantly 
 
 • See Seed's Sermons Vol. in. Scr. 5. Ani. ^\(o ui prac- 
 tical and explanatory Coynmentary on the Liturgy of the Church 
 of England, p. 215. written by my learned and honoured 
 Friend Peter Waldo, Efq;— a Book, which however ex- 
 ceptionable in fome p:iirages to a Dijfenter, is neverthelefs 
 excellently adapted to promote a fpirit'of true pradical d^'o- 
 tion, in the Members of the Church of England. 
 
 confirm 
 
90 The Eattnt of the Sentence, Art. VIII. 
 
 confirm this aflertion. The Compiler begins 
 with faying, " Whofjever will be faved, before 
 " all things it is necelTary, that he hold the 
 " Cathoiick Faith : Which Faith, except every 
 •* one do keep whole and undefiled, without 
 " doubt he {ball perifli everlaftingly. And the 
 " Cathoiick Faith is this." He then proceeds 
 to a part of the explanation, delivered in terms 
 fuperintelligible to many, and in fome inflances, 
 I conceive equally inconfiftent with itfelf, and 
 with the language in common ufe and efteem 
 among Athanafians. Then apparently appre- 
 henfive that the reader's Faith would fail before 
 he got to the end, the Compiler quickens his 
 belief, by a repetition of the Sentence of damna- 
 tion in the body of the Creed ; wherein he ex- 
 prefTes himfelf in terms, which do immediately 
 refped the preceding explanations. " He there- 
 ** fore that will be faved, muft thus think of 
 ** the Trinity." And left this (hould not be 
 fufficient to fupprefs all doubts, the Creed clofes 
 with the fame peremptory decifion, and pofitive 
 denunciation. " This is the Cathoiick Faith, 
 *' which except a man believe faithfully he can- 
 " not be faved." Bifliop Burnet acknowledges, 
 that thefe claufes muft be referred not merely to 
 the doftrine of the Trinity, but to the explication 
 given in the Creed *. And all which the learned 
 Prelate offers by way of feeming apology, rather 
 
 • ^Kr«f/'s Expofuion, p. 133-4. 
 
 than 
 
Art. VIII. and it^sincomparahk Severity. gi 
 
 than in flrift vindication of its feverity, moft 
 evidently tends to eftablifh, what at the fame 
 time he feems heartily to wifh, he could have 
 overthrown. 
 
 Bifiiop Beveridge flyles the Athanafian, an in- 
 comparable Creed * •, and I do moil cordially fub- 
 fcribe to the truth of the aflertion. For of all 
 the monuments in human nature of prefumption, 
 ?irrogance, and conceit, which the hiftory of pad 
 ages has lert on record, I know of none which 
 may be fitly compared to this. If I give a mo- 
 mentary credit to the juftice of this dreadful 
 fpntence, what numerous infernal fpedtres pre- 
 fent themfelves to my imagination — the departed 
 ghofts of illuftrious men, of whom I have been 
 wont to conceive as fallen afleep in Jefus, and 
 joined to the fpirits bf the juft made perfeft 
 above 1 Shall I mention many diftinguifhed 
 Worthies in the Eftabliflied Church ? Or recall 
 to the remembrance of Proteftant Diflenters, the 
 rnore familiar names of Ozven^ Baxter^ Howe^ 
 Ridgley, Watts, Doddridge, Jennings, &c. fome 
 of whom wrote in defence of the doflrine of 
 the Trinity, but upon different views from thofe 
 given in this celebrated Creed ; and the reft it is 
 well known, highly difapproved it ^ But let me 
 feek relief from this horrid imagination, in that 
 piemorable maxim of the Jewifh Sage, " As the 
 
 * ^<'x'm<!^f's Expofition, p. 163. 
 
 *♦ bird 
 
92 Of a qualified Subfcription to this Claufe. Art.viii. 
 
 " bird by wandering, as the fwallow by flying, 
 " fo the curfc caufelefs fliall not come *." 
 
 It may probably be objefted by fome, that 
 whatever was the fenfe of the Compiler, they 
 fuhfcrihed the damnatory claufe, only fo far as it 
 is intended to declare a belief in the Trinity, 
 and the importance of that Doctrine. Eut give 
 me leave to fuggeft, that this is departing from 
 the principle on which we fet out. Tiiis is not to 
 fubfcribe in the plain, full, literal, grammatical 
 fenfe. This is not thoroughly to receive and 
 believe it. Befides, it niuft be allowed that 
 there is no inconfiflency between the belief of 
 the Trinity, and a difapprobation of this Creed, 
 in which divine and eternal vengeance, is mofb 
 prophanely hurled upon the heads of all, who 
 fcruple affent to any of it's terms which they do 
 not underftand. Blefled be God ! tho* bigoted 
 zealots may thus wantonly fport with damnation, 
 they are not the authorized minifters of the 
 wrath of Heaven. For my own part, I never 
 read this favourite fymbol of the Church, with- 
 out an equal mixture of contempt and indig- 
 nation. I can never think of impofing fubfcrip- 
 tion to it, as a condition of toleration, without 
 both lamenting and detefting the fatal influence 
 pf ignorance and fuperfl:ition. 
 
 * Prov. xxvi. 3. 
 
 But 
 
Art. vlii. Remarks on ifs moral Influence, 93 
 But I forget myfelf. Though it is a dodrine 
 of the Church to which our fubfcription is re- 
 quired, that, Whofoever does not thoroughly re- 
 ceive the Athanafian Creed, mult without doubt 
 perifh everlaltingly -, fome of my Brethren have 
 reprefented all the doflrines of the Articles, to 
 which our fubfcription is required, as " the bafis 
 " of their Hope, the fource of their Comfort, 
 ** and the moft powerful incentive to a courfe 
 ** of fincere ftedtaft chearful obedience *." 
 However fuch as can apply that encomium to 
 this uncharitable dodtrine, mud pardon me for 
 faying, I am aftoniflied at their feelings ; at the 
 fame time that I cannot forbear complimenting 
 them upon the height of their attainments, in 
 the art of extradting good out of evil. I chear- 
 fully acknowledge that the dignity of the perfon 
 of the Saviour, is all this in my account. But the 
 doflrine contained in the damnatory claufe of 
 the Athanafian Creed, never operated on my 
 mind fo as to be the parent of one hope, the 
 fource of one comfort, or the incentive to one 
 duty. I mofl- firmly believe, that " God fo loved 
 " the World as to give his only begotten Son, 
 " that luhofoever believeth on him," (though 
 fcntenced to everlafting damnation by a Creed 
 of human invention,) " might not perifti, but 
 " might have everlafting life f ." Yet if the 
 
 • See An Apology for the Renewal of an ApplUatiintf l^c, 
 p. 45. t John'iii^ 16. 
 
 intire 
 
94 '^^-''^^ Defiukion of a lawful Calling Art. xxiin 
 intire approbation of this Creed, be indeed an in- 
 difpenfable condition of falvation •, the promife 
 muft fail in it's accomplifliment, and many 
 fincere difciples of our BlelTed Lord, would be 
 conftrained, though in the language of deep 
 defpair, to adopt the words of Conjiantine to a 
 Novatian Bifhop, " If fo, then Acefms you mufl; 
 " fet up your ladder, and go to Heaven by 
 " yourfelf." 
 
 ARTICLE XXIII. 
 
 JT^ is not lawful for any man to take upon him 
 the Office of ■puhlick preaching, or minifring the 
 Sacraments in the congregation, before he be law- 
 fully called, and fent to execute the fame. And 
 thofe we ought to judge lawfully called and fent^ 
 which be chofen and called to this work by men 
 who have publick authority given unto them in 
 the congregation, to call and fend Minifters into 
 the Lord*s vineyard. 
 
 If I am not greatly miftaken, it will plainly 
 appear upon an impartial inquiry, that every 
 Proteftant Diflenting Minifler who fubfcribes 
 this Article, declares it to be the matter of his 
 belief, that it is not lawful for himfelf, nor for any 
 one of his Brethren, of whatever denomination, to 
 take upon him the office of publick preaching, 
 or miniftring the Sacraments. 
 
 k 
 
Art. xxiii. not applicable to Bijfentiug Minifters. 95 
 It is not fufficient to evade the force of this 
 conclufion, for any Proteltant Diflenter to fay, that 
 in his own opinion^ he is lawfully called and fent. 
 It is confefled, that we have all vanity enough 
 to think that we are as lawfully called, and as 
 fully authorized to take upon us the charader 
 of Chriflian Minifters, and of Chriftian Bifhops, 
 as his Grace of Tork^ or Canterbury. But let 
 us take heed how we draw the church into this 
 concefTion, to which we have reafon to believe, 
 fhe has very material and infuperable objedions. 
 Will our calling agree with the Church's defini- 
 tion of a lawful calling ? And it is to Her 
 Judgment we are required to fubfcribe. ^For my 
 own part, I am utterly at a lofs to find out any 
 plaufible pretence for the fuppofition -, fmce there 
 are fo many decifive evidences, that we are not in 
 the judgment of the Church lawfully called and 
 fent. 
 
 If we examine the language of the Toleration 
 Aft itfelf, which feems the befl plea in favour 
 of our being accounted duly authorized for the 
 difcharge of minifterial functions, it will con- 
 firm, in my opinion, the contrary fuppofition^ 
 Let us attend to the terms and exprefTions made 
 ufe of as defcriptive of our Charader ; and they 
 will be found to be expreflive of the different 
 views, which we ourfelves on the one part, and 
 the Church of England and the State on the 
 
 other. 
 
96 Of the Language of the toleration AB, Art. xxiii. 
 
 other, entertain of our title to the minifterial 
 Office. We are therein defcribed as " pcribns 
 " diflenting from the Cliurch of England in 
 *' holy Orders,'* under which charafler we are 
 fuppoled to apply for relief ; but then it is 
 added, " or pretended holy Orfers, or pretending 
 to holy Order? *", as the light in which the State 
 and the Church confider us. In one fedlion the 
 former part of the defcription is dropped, and 
 the latter only retained f. Now I cannot 
 conceive that this language would have been 
 adopted, if it had been the judgment of the 
 Church, that we were lawfully called and fent ; 
 for it is never ufed in reference to any who 
 have had epifcopal ordination. And however 
 favourable that Ad may juftly be thought in 
 other refpefls, to a legal eftimation of us under 
 the charader of Chriftian Minifters -, it is worthy 
 of obfervation, that an Ad pafled ii the Reign 
 oi William zx\^ Maiy^ could not pofiibly operate 
 on the original literal fenfe of an Article, com^ 
 pofcd in the reign of King Edward the Sixth, 
 who lived fo many years before. Stridly fpeak- 
 ing, it could have np immediate refped to us, 
 who at that time only exifted in the loins of our 
 Fore-fathers the Puritans ; a very venerable, 
 but at the fame time a defpifed and perfecuted 
 fct of men. It was not therefore likely to have 
 
 * I W^HU in<iMar^, cap, r8. ^7. f § 9* 
 
 a f*- 
 
ArtiXxlii. OfRe-GrdinntiondfBiJfenthgMiniJlers. 97* 
 
 a favourable afpeft upon them ; but feems to 
 have had fome prophetic kind of reference to 
 the claims of their fucceffors, which were here- 
 by, when in embryo^ declared to be unlawful. 
 Nor is it by any means the defign of the Tolera- 
 tion A61, to determine any thing in favour of the 
 Validity of our calling ; but to proteil our 
 jDcrfons and property, and eftablifh the cxercife 
 of our Worfliip upon certain conditions. With- 
 out allowing the validity of our claims to the 
 miniftcrial charadter, it grants us, under thofe 
 feftri(ftions, the liberty of rniniftering to our 
 deluded hearers, whole erroneous confciences 
 lead them to differ and difient from the Church. 
 
 As a farther evidence of the difference of 
 opinion, between the Church and lis on the 
 point in queftiori ; it is proper to remark, that 
 Upon the apprehenfion of our having no lawful 
 iiuthority to preach or adminifler the Sacraments, 
 in cafe a DifTeriting Miniftcr conforms to the 
 eftablifhed Church, it is an indifpenfable condi- 
 tion of his taking upon him a cure of Souls, 
 that he be re-ordaiHed ; and that not merely as 
 hecelfary to conflitiite him a Minifter of the 
 Church of England^ but in order to make him 
 a Minifler at all. For this is not required of 
 a Popifh Prieft under the like circumftances. 
 Innumerable teflimoriies might be produced, to 
 prove that the validity of diflenting ordination, 
 
 H has 
 
58 OpmioHSofDr.KichohandDr.WcWs Art.xxiil 
 
 has ever been called in qiicftion by the writers of 
 
 the Church. Dr. Nichols in one of his cxpoftu- 
 
 lations, thus interrogates the reader on this 
 
 fubjeift, " Is there juft ground for their applying 
 
 " to Prefbyterian affemblies for holy orders, 
 
 *' when not only the moft venerable antiquity, 
 
 " but even St, Jerom, leaft inclinable of all the 
 
 *' Ancients to favour Bilhops, confefles that this 
 
 " is an Office ftridly epifcopal * ?" In another 
 
 part of his Defence of the Church of England., 
 
 he delivers the judgment of that Church upon 
 
 a congregational mijfion, in terms not a little re- 
 
 inarkable upon fcveral accounts. " Another 
 
 ** fault, fays he, which Arminians are charged 
 
 " with, is heartily detefted by us, viz. Deprefling 
 
 " the venerable orders of the Miniftry down to 
 
 " the meaneft of the people, and efteeming that 
 
 '* a fufficient mifllon, when the Congregation 
 
 ** chufe a man out of themfclves, who hath a 
 
 •' good faculty at fpeaking, and is well read in 
 
 " the Holy Scriptures, and appoint him for their 
 
 *' Paftor. This extravagant way of calling 
 
 " Minifters we utterly condemn, as opening the 
 
 " door to thieves and robbers, and tending to 
 
 " the deftrudion of men's fouls •, becaufe by 
 
 " this means prophane men would intrude 
 
 *' themfelves into the Church of Chrift without 
 
 •* any lawful authority ; and being deftitutc of 
 
 " all good learning, and commonly armed with 
 
 • Mf^p/Zs Defence of the Church of England, p. 245. 
 3 *^ monftrovis 
 
Art.xxiii. mtheOrdinntioncfDiJfentin^MiniJieri. 951 
 
 " monftrous afllirance and prefumption, they 
 *' would have opportNnity to abule their flocksj 
 ** and pafs any frantick notion upon them for 
 ** the word of God. This v/e take to be an 
 •• innovation, repugnant noi: only to the autho- 
 " rity of the New Teftament, but likewife to 
 ** the precepts of the Old *." 
 
 There is fo miich of High ChUrch' prejudice, 
 ignorance, mifreprefcntation, and (lander in this 
 flaming paragraph, that every intelligent readei* 
 will cafily difcern how little regard it deferves 5 
 and therefore I (hall fpare myfelf the trouble of 
 making any remarks upon it. I only quote iC 
 in evidence of the judgment of the Church. 
 
 Dr. IVells publidied fome curious Thefes 
 againft the validity of Prefbytcrian ordination, and 
 told Mr. Pierce, that '^ this was the chief point of 
 ** controverfy between the Church of England 
 ^' and the Diflentcrs i".** In the fame contro- 
 verfy he attempted to convince us, " That our 
 *' Miniftets have hot a true milTion, or, (which 
 " is the fame,) that (which is now a-days called) 
 *' a Prefbyterian Ordination, is not valid or 
 '' fuf^cient to autliorize the perfon fo ordained, 
 *' to teach or to perform any other part of the 
 " Minifterial Office J." He alfo fays, '' That 
 
 • Nichols ubi fupra, p. 218. 
 
 t ^///j's Controverfial Treatifes, p. ^06. Lond. 1716, 
 t See Pierce'i Remarks on JVelh^s Letters, p, 26. Lond 
 ijii. 
 
 H 2 «« th« 
 
100 The Opinion of Mr. Wuirt. Art. xxilL 
 
 " the do6trine of the Church of England^ con- 
 *' cerning the power of Ordination, belonging 
 " (not to a community of Prefbyters, but) to 
 *' fmgle perfons, by us called Bifhops, is agree- 
 ** able to the direction and pra<5lice of the great 
 " Apoftle St. Paul, and confequently of Apofto- 
 *' lical conftitution *." In confequence of this 
 perfuafion, his confcience was fo exceedingly 
 fcrupulous, that it would not fuffer him, though 
 in a quotation^ " to fay the Lancajhire Minijlers, 
 " or London Mifiijiers, but inftead of Minifters, 
 *' he took the liberty to put in Teachers -^ \^ 
 left he fhould fecm to acknowledge the validity 
 of their Ordination. 
 
 Upon the fame principle Mr. White reprefents 
 the Diffenting Laity, as leaving the communion 
 of their lawful Bifhops and Priefts, duly or- 
 dained to their Office j to put thsmfelves under 
 the guidance and adminiftrations of others, not 
 duly ordained to it. Hence he takes occafion to 
 call in queftion, even the efficacy of the Or- 
 dinances adminiftered by Diffenting Teachers J. 
 
 Now it is not to be imagined, that the Cham- 
 pions of the Church of England would talk in 
 this ftyle, if the Article under confideration had 
 allowed us to be lauofully called and fent. Nor is 
 
 * Pierce nbi fupra, p. 38. 
 
 \ Pierce iibi fupra, p. 43. 
 
 I White's Letters. Let. I. p. 85, Edit.. 4. 
 
 3 • it 
 
Art. xxiii. 'The Tejiimony of Fa5ls conftdered. i o i 
 
 it cafy to be conceived, that fo judicious and 
 acute a difputant as the learned Mr. Pierce^ 
 fhould not then have prefTed this article upon his 
 adverfary, to have fhewn the inconfiftency of 
 Dr. WeUs\ cenfures, with the publick ftandard 
 of the faith of the Church of England. But to 
 the heft of my recolle6lion, neither he, nor our 
 unanfwerable advocate Mr. '/(ja^co^, ever thought 
 of fucrgeftins: fuch an argument in favour of 
 
 DO O C 
 
 diffenting Ordination. 
 
 Again, fome Clergymen abiding by the terms 
 of the Article, and the doflrine of the Church 
 refpecling ordination ; and alfo apprehending 
 that the validity of all facramental adminiftra- 
 tions, depends upon the validity of the ordina- 
 tion of the Adminiltrator i have refufed, what 
 the Church calls, Chriftian Burial to perfons 
 baptiz-ed by Diflenting Minifters. The reafon 
 alleged for the refufal has always been this — 
 That the Baptifm Vv^hether of Infants or Adults 
 by fuch perfons, was no Baptifm at all, becaufe 
 they had not a competent authority to admi- 
 nifter it \ and confequently, as in the judgment 
 of the Church the Baptifm of Water makes 
 a man a Chriftian, and is eflential to his being 
 fuch, Chriftian burial muft be refufed in thofe 
 cafes. I could produce feveral inftances to 
 prove, that this has been the condudl of fome 
 Clergymen, and thefethe principles upon which 
 H 3 they 
 
J02 Ohje^ions to theBaptifmofDijfenierSy Art.xxiil. 
 
 they have vindicated their conduft. But I (ball 
 
 only felc(5l one inft^nce in fupport of my 
 
 aflertion *. 
 
 However 
 
 • Uppo occafion of the death of an Infant, which hap- 
 pened Qclober 26, 1 730, in the Parifli of C -r. — > ii^ ^^P 
 
 County of S ; the Uncle of the deceafed fent his 
 
 Servant to the Vicar, to give him notice of the intended 
 burial of the Child on the 28th inftant. The Vicar afked 
 ibme queftions about the ^^aptifm of the Child ; and faid he 
 
 would not bury it, if it was baptized by Mr. M— r» 
 
 then Diffenting Minifter at K . When the Servant 
 
 returned, and made this report to his Mafier, he was fent 
 back again to inform the Vicar, that the Child was baptized 
 
 by Mr, M , and that Efq; V was prefent 
 
 at the Baptifm, The Corpfe was carried to the Church- 
 yard at the time appointed ; but though the Vicar buried 
 another Corple that afternoon, and was earneftly intreated 
 to bury this, particularly on account of the Mother's anxiety, 
 who was a Church Woman, and almofl. diflrafted with the 
 ^bought of ',♦ ber Child being buried like a Dog;" yet he 
 ^bfolute'y refufed it, faying, it \\c.% not b^ pti^ed by a laiuful 
 Minijier, and theref.'re had iio right to be buried by one 
 that was ; and that he was accountable to none but the 
 iifhop. The Uncle of the Chil ' next made his application 
 to a neighbouring Clergyman, who was in the place on a 
 vifit, but he made the fame objeftion. He then went t.o 
 
 the Redor of S , who faid that Mr. B was in 
 
 the wrong, but as fvlr. B v^as at home, he durft not 
 
 come and bury the Child. He advifcd however that the 
 Corpfe (hould be put in the ground, which was accordingly 
 done. The Vicar aftej-wards confulted the Bifhop, and 
 upon his return gave a written promifTory engagement, not 
 to offend in like manner again. I have before me an attefted 
 copy of the original paper, figned with the Vicar's own 
 
 band'. 
 
 «• Whereas 
 
inconjjpnt with the Do^lrine of the Church, to 3 
 
 However it mud be acknowledged, that there 
 was as much ignoraiice as bigotry in all thofe 
 inftances, which have rcfpeaed the interment of 
 Children-, for the conftitiition of the Church 
 of England does not warrant a refufal in thofe 
 cafes. The adminiftration of the ordinance of 
 Baptifm has been adjudged to be valid, by feveral 
 publick A6ls and Canons of the Church, al- 
 though the Adminiftrator is not in holy orders, 
 or lawfully called and fent to the work of the 
 Miniftry. So early as the time of EcgHht, who 
 
 «« Whereas I did lately rcfufe to adminifter Chriflian Bu- 
 
 " rial to D , Son of D C , of C , 
 
 «' in the County of 6— , I do hereby declare, that 
 
 *' upon confultation had with the Bifhop of this Diocefe, 
 •« who did allow the Baptifm of a Child by a Diffenting 
 «' Miniller to be valid ; and confidering that the general 
 '» pradice in this matter is againft me, that I will for the 
 •* future, conform to his Lordlhip's judgment and determi- 
 «* nation in this cafe, by ufing the aforefaid office to all 
 
 «« perfons, although fo baptized." -Signed 
 
 y B , Vicar of C . 
 
 Dated No-v. 13, 1730. 
 
 Mr. M , the Diffenting Minifter who had baptiped 
 
 the Child, was fatisfied with this acknowledgment ; but the 
 Uncle of the Child, in order to pacify the Mother, infifled 
 
 that befides this acknowledgment, Mr. B- Ihould read 
 
 the form over the Corpfe in the Grave ; and accordingly on 
 the 18th of Nonjimber following, the Grave was opened, and 
 the Vicar complied with the requifition, to his no fmall 
 mortification , as fome Women prefent upon the occafiori, 
 rallied him pretty freely. It is remarkable that the Living 
 
 was given to Mr. B by a Diffenter, 
 
 H 4 was 
 
I04 ^he Validity of Lay Baptijin Art. xxiii. 
 
 was confecrated to the See of I'ork^ A. D. 734, 
 it appears from his ecclefiaftical Inftitutions 
 (Anfwer to Queft. 5.) that it was then the opi- 
 nion of the Church, that Baptifm, though per- 
 formed by a perfon unordained, who had ufurped 
 the priejihood^ ought not to he repeated •, though 
 Other miniftrations performed by an unworthy 
 man were not thought valid. It was alfo granted 
 by one of the Canons (Can. 3.) oi Huh ert Walter 
 at Wefiminfier^ A. D. 1200, which was publilhed 
 to alcertain and preferve all the prerogatives of 
 the facerdotal fundion ♦, that a Layman might 
 neverthelefs baptize a Child in cafe of neceffity. 
 And it was determined that even a Father or 
 Mother might do it, without impeachment of 
 Matrimony. — This decifion was intended to 
 abolifli fome older Canons, which difTolved 
 Matrimony on account of the Father's or 
 Mother's baptizing one of their children. For it 
 was pretended, fays Johnfon^ " that by the 
 " Father's b;iptizing the Child a fpiritual rela- 
 " tion was contradled, which made any future 
 ** conjun6lion with his own Wife incejluous." 
 In the time of neceffity, fays another Popifh 
 Author, the " Minifter of Baptifm is every Man, 
 " both male and female. A Woman, be fhe 
 " young or old, facred or wicked. Every Male, 
 " that hath his wits, and is neither dumb, nor 
 " fo drunken, but that he can utter the words ; 
 " as well Pagan^ Infidel, and Heretickj the bad 
 
 " as 
 
Art,xxiii. a Do^rine of the Church of England. 105 
 
 ^* as the good -, the Schifmatick^ as the Catholick^ 
 ♦' may baptize *." It is well known that 
 Baptifm adminiftered by Midwives, was both 
 allowed and praftifed in the Church ofRomey and 
 in the Church of England. As the profeflion of 
 Midwifry was (by an odd connedlion of ideas) 
 accounted a fpiritual employment, the giving 
 a licence for it formerly belonged to the Arch- 
 bilhop of Canterbury, And Mr. Strype has exr 
 traded from Archbifhop Parker*& Regifter, the 
 Oath which was taken by one Eleanor Pead 
 when admitted to this profeflion. After feveral 
 engagements not to lay fuppofititious children to 
 the Mothers, in the place of the true natural 
 ones, not to ufe iorceries, enchantments, &c. 
 and not to hurt or difmember the Child, the 
 following words are inferted. " Alfo that in 
 " the miniftration of the Sacrament of Baptifm, 
 " in the time of neceflky, I will ufe apt and the 
 *' accuftomed words of the fame Sacrament, that 
 " is to fay, thefe words following, or the like in 
 " effeft. ICbriJien thee in the name of the Father y 
 ** the Son, and the Holy Ghojl : and none other 
 " prophane words. And that in fuch time of 
 ^' necefiity, in baptizing any Infant born, and 
 " pouring water upon the head of the fame 
 " Infant, I will ufe pure and clean water, and 
 t^ not any Role or Damafk water, or water made 
 
 * 7^ w/ Phil. Ch. Par. 5. p.. 559. 
 
 « of 
 
io6 Difiin5lion between the Validity of Art.xxiii. 
 
 " of any confeflion or mixture *." The admi- 
 niftration of Baptifm was not limited to Perfons 
 in holy Orders, 'till after the Conference at 
 Hamptorir Court. 
 
 The diftindion between the validity of Ordi- 
 nation, and the validity of Baptifm, as the avowed 
 dodrine of the Church oi England^ is yet farther 
 apparent from the proceedings of the Convoca- 
 tion' in the Year 1712 ; when the Bifhops fent 
 down the following paper to the Lower Houfe, 
 in confequence of the dilputes which then pre- 
 vailed upon this point. 
 
 " Forafmuch as fundry perfons have of late 
 •* by preaching, writing, and difcourfes, pofTefled 
 •* the minds of many people in the communion 
 •* of our Church, with doubts and fcruples about 
 ** the validity of their Baptifm, to their great 
 '' trouble and difquiet : We the Prefidenc, 
 ** Bifhops, &c. have thought it incumbent on us 
 " to declare, in conformity with the judgment 
 *' and pradice of the Catholick Church of 
 ♦* Chrift, and of the Church oi England in parti- 
 •* ticular. That fuch perfons as have been already 
 ** baptized in or with water, in the name of the 
 *' Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, though their 
 " Baptifm was irregular for want of a proper 
 " Adminijlrator, ought not to be baptized again. 
 
 ^irypt'i Annals, Vol. I. p, 501, 2d Edit. 170;, 
 
 '« This 
 
Art.xxiii. Baptifm^ and Validity of Ordination. 107 
 
 ^* This we do to prevent, and (to ufe the words 
 " of Archbifl)op Whitgift on this very point,) 
 *♦ not to bring confufion into the Church ; for 
 ** let men take heed, that they ufurp not an 
 >' office whereunto they he not called ; for God will 
 ♦' call them to an account for fo doing : but to 
 ^' teach a truth, to take a yoke of doubtfulnefj 
 ?^ from men's confciences, and to refill an error 
 *' not much differing from Donatifm and Ana- 
 ?' baptifm/* 
 
 Hence it is apparent, that their Lordfhips 
 confidered the application of water, and the ufe 
 of the words of the Inftituiion, as the only efTen- 
 tials to the validity of the adminiftration of 
 Baptifm. Bqt it is equally evident that they did 
 not allow the validity of Diflcnting ordination, 
 nor give it as the judgment of the Church, that 
 other perfons befides thofe epifcopally ordained, 
 were lawfully called and fcnt to take upon them 
 the ofBce of miniftering the Sacraments in the 
 Congregation.. If they had granted this, it would 
 have effeftually removed the grounds of the 
 fcruples j and if they had thought the twenty- 
 third Article of the Church of England would 
 have warranted fuch a conceflion, they would no 
 doubt have urged it or^ that particular occafion. 
 
 The above Declaration " was agreed to in the 
 V. Upper Houfe, the Bilhop of Rochejler onl]^ 
 
 *> diffent- 
 
io8 OhfervatioHS of Bp. Burnet and Art.xxiii. 
 
 " diflenting. But when it was fent to the Lower 
 *' Houfe, they would not fo niuch as take it into 
 ** confideration, but laid it afide •, thinking that 
 *' it would encourage thofe, who ftruck at the 
 " Dignity of the Priefihood*.'* This objedtion 
 came from the Popifli fpawn of Archbifhop 
 Laud ; which is the more remarkable, when we 
 reflect that the validity of Lay Baptifm was 
 orignally an High Church principle, grounded 
 upon the opinion of the indifpenfable neceffity 
 of the baptifm of water, to the falvation of the 
 foul. But when this provifion for the falvation 
 of Infants, was likely to encroach upon the 
 prieftly Prerogatives, the Clergy of this (lamp 
 thought it mod advifable to fecure the credit 
 of the latter, though it fhould be at the expencc 
 of the former. How much to the honour of 
 their benevolence and charity, I leave to others 
 to determine. 
 
 About the fame time, to prevent the fprcad of 
 Mr. DodwcWs principles, feveral of the dignified 
 Clergy, and particularly Bifhop Burnet, and 
 Bilhop Talbot, laboured by other means to re* 
 move all doubts about the validity of Baptifm, 
 adminiftered by perfons not epifcopally ordained. 
 The former in a Sermon preached at Salifhury -, 
 and the latter in a charge to the Clergy of the 
 
 • Burnet\ Hillory of his own Times, Vol. II. p. 60 j. 
 Edit. 1734^ 
 
 dioccfc 
 
Art.Jcxiii. Bp. Ta\bot on VodvfcWsOpimon. 109 
 
 diocefe of Oxford, which does great honour to 
 the moderation and candour of the Bilhop. The 
 general principles upon which they both pro- 
 ceed, are the fame with thofe urged in the decla- 
 ration of the upper Houfe of Convovation. 
 EiO.op Burnei feemed very felicitous, to prevent 
 the conceit of Mr. Dodwell from gaining credit 
 in the Church. For as he elfewhere fays, " the 
 « Difpute was not a trifling one, fmce by this 
 " Notion, the Teachers among the DifTenters 
 " P^f^^g fo^ Laymen, this went to the rebaptizing 
 " them and their Congregations*." BiOiop 
 '■Talbot fuo-cyefted upon this occafion an additional 
 confideration, which was likely to operate with 
 great weight upon the minds of the High Church 
 party, who favoured the fpreading notion of 
 the invalidity of Baptifm,adminiftered by perfons 
 not epifcopally ordained. He reminded his 
 Clergy, that the Children of King James the 
 firfl, were baptized by Minifters who had only 
 had Prelbyterian orders in Scotland, and were 
 never ordered to be rebaptized. Hence it would 
 cafily be inferred,' that according to the notion 
 then adopted, the Bkjed Martyr would at lad 
 turn out to be no Chrifiian. This was both 
 Argumsntum ad rem 6? Argummtum ad homines. 
 There were fome other arguments which his 
 Lordfhip drew from certain irregularities, which 
 took place in times of publick confufion, which 
 
 * Burnet ubi fupra, p. 604. 
 
 he 
 
iio H6id\y eeH/ured By tbi CoHvdcaiidn. Art.xxii), 
 
 he thought equally conclufive •, and he ftrongly 
 urges the uncharitablcnefs of the do6trine he 
 oppofed. 
 
 The preceding teftimonies appear fufficient td 
 me to prove, that no argument can be drawn 
 from the general acknowledgment of the vali- 
 dity of Baptifm, adminiftered by Diflenting 
 Minifters, which will conclude any thing in 
 favour of this Article's allowing the validity of 
 Diflenting Ordination* 
 
 Nor is it foreign to rtiy purpofe on the fubjefb 
 of this Article to obferve, that among the 
 feveral dangerous pofitions charged upon art 
 illuflrious Prelate, this appears to be one. That 
 his Lordfhip's opinion was, that a man might 
 lawfully, or according to God's appointment, be 
 called to the Miniftry, though his commiflion 
 be not derived to him through an uninterrupted 
 fuccefllon in the epifcopal order* This is a 
 plain demonft ration \yhat was the judgment of 
 the Convocation Committee *. 
 
 Let us now proceed to examine the f«ntiments 
 of feveral Commentators upon this Article. 
 
 Rogers ranks among the adverfaries to the 
 truth of this article, all who run before they be 
 
 • See Stehhing's Defence of the firft Head of the Report 
 of the Committee, p. i. § 3, ch. 2* in his Polemical Tradls, 
 Edit. Camb. I727< 
 
 fent? 
 
ArtjXxiii. Opinions of Rogers andBp.Bcvendgc. i i i 
 
 fent ; and among thefe he reckonsthe y^nabapti^j^ 
 or Anabaptijlical SwarmerSy Family -Elders, and 
 law-defpifing Brownijls. Thefe, he fays, " arc 
 •* fent of Men not authorized thereunto by the 
 ** word of God, and that to the difturbance of 
 ** the peace of the Church *.'* 
 
 Bifhop Beveridge after fpeaking of the fuc- 
 cefTion from the Apoftles, fays, " So that none 
 •' are now lawful Minifters but fuch as are 
 ** called by him, (i. e. Chrift) and all that arc 
 ** thus called by him are lawful Minifters ; I 
 " mean all fuch as are called by fuch as fucceed 
 ** them in the Miniftry, who were called imme- 
 " diately from Chrift himfelf. For thefe arc 
 " they which certainly we are to underftand by 
 " thofe mentioned in this article. Who havt 
 *' publick authority given unto them in the Congre- 
 ** gation or Church to call ajtd fend Minijiers int§ 
 *' the Lord's vineyard. But of this we fhali 
 •* fpeak more by the blefling of God, in the 
 " 36th Article, where we fliall treat of the con- 
 •* fccration of Biftiops and Minifters -f." I am 
 heartily forry his Lordfliip's expofition upon 
 that Article is not extant -, but the Bookfeller, 
 it fecms, was defrauded of the manufcript which 
 contained the expofition of the laft nine articles. 
 However from the nature of the reference, wc 
 
 • Rogers ubi fupra, p. 141, 2, 3, 
 f Btvtridgt ubi fupra, p. 272. 
 
 may 
 
112 Bp.'^wrntt^sExpo/iiion of the Article. Art.Xxliii 
 
 may eafily guefs the general purport of its appli- 
 cation, to the point in queftion. 
 
 Bifliop Burnet gives us the judgment of the 
 Church, on the fubjedl of this lawful authority 
 mentioned in the Article, in the following words. 
 
 *' That which we believe to be lawful Autho- 
 *' n/y, is that Rule which the body of the 
 " Paftors, or Bifhops and Clefgy of a Church 
 *' ftiall fettle^ being met in a body under the 
 " due refpeft to the powers that God fhall i^i 
 *' over them : Rules thus made, being in no- 
 *' thing contrary to the word of God, and duly 
 *' executed by the particular perfons to whom 
 *' that care belongs, are certainly the lawful 
 " Authority. Thofe are the Paftors of the 
 ** Church, to whom the care and watching over 
 " -the Souls of the People is committed ; and 
 *' the Prince, or Supreme Power^ comprehends 
 ** virtually the whole body of the people in 
 " him : Since according to the conftitution of 
 *' the civil Government, the wills of the people 
 ** are underftood to be concluded by the 
 *' Supreme, and fuch as are the fubjefl of thd 
 •* Legiflative Authority *." 
 
 Since we are bound to fubfcribe to the judg- 
 ment of the Church of England^ this is the idea 
 
 • Burtfef'9 Expofition, p. 319. 
 
Art.xxiii. Bp. Bu Rnei^'j Expojltion confidered. 1 1 3 
 we ought to entertain of lawful authority, in 
 declaring our unfeigned allenc to the truth of 
 this Article. 
 
 But his Lordfliip was well aware of the afpeft 
 this definition had upon the foreign Proteflant 
 Churches. And as he was both too wife and too 
 good a man, to unchurch all thofe Congrega- 
 tions which were not modelled upon the plan of 
 diocefan epifcopacy, he fought for fome healing 
 expedient, to preferve the foreign Proteftant 
 Churches from falling vi(5lims to the preceding 
 definition. He has therefore recourfe to fuch 
 a latitude of interpretation, as would bring 
 them within the bounds of a lawful Authority. 
 
 " If, fays he, a company of Chriftians find 
 " the publick Worfhip where they live to be 
 *' fo defiled that they cannot with a good con- 
 " fcience join in it, and if they do not know of 
 ** any place to which they can conveniently go, 
 " where they may worfhip God purely, and in 
 " a regular way •, if, I fay, fuch a body finding 
 *' fome that have been ordained, though to the 
 *' lower functions, fhould fubmit itfelf entirely 
 " to their conduct, or finding none of thofe, 
 *' riiould by a common confent, defire fome of 
 " their own number to minifter to them in holy 
 " things, and fhould upon that beginning grow 
 " up to a regulated conflitutiony though we are 
 I *< very 
 
1 1 4 Bf, Burn etV Expafuicn corfidered. Ar t.xxii'i. 
 
 *• very fure that this is quite cut of all rule, and 
 " could not be done without a very great fin, 
 " unlefs the neceffity were great and apparent •, 
 " yet if the necelTity is real and not feigned, 
 *' this is not condemned or annulled by the 
 " article." Becaufe he thinks, " when this 
 *' grows to a conftitution, and when it was begun 
 *' by the confent of a body, who were fuppofed 
 *' to have an authority in fuch an extraordinary 
 *' cafe," it is confiflent with the judgment of 
 the Compilers, and of their fucceflbrs *. 
 
 Thus the Right Reverend Author provided 
 for the eftimation of foreign Churches fo confti- 
 tuted, as true Churches with refpeft to all ejjm- 
 tials i though he accounts them to have been 
 " irregularly formed at firft, and flill to be con- 
 " tinued in an imperfeft ftate." Whether this 
 conceffion is found doftrine, confidered as the 
 language of an Englifli Prelate ; or how far it is 
 conformable to the opinions and cenfures of 
 other writers of the Church of England, I ITiall 
 not here inquire. But I have ftrong fufpicions 
 of the contrary. 
 
 Here however the good Bifhop himfelf waS 
 aground. His latitudinarian principles could 
 not extend the idea of lawful authority fo far, 
 as to comprehend the Englifli DifTenting Mi- 
 niftcrs within the number of thofe, who are called 
 
 * ^//ryrf/ ubi fupra, p. 320, 321. 
 
 7 by 
 
Art. xxiii. The Opinion of Ford. n^ 
 
 by a lawful authority ; or our Congregations 
 within the pale of the true Church. The very 
 principles upon which he proceeds for the vin- 
 dication of the foreign Proteftants, are calculated 
 for the annihilation of all our claims. For we 
 cannot fuppofc, that the Church will allow her 
 publick worfliip to be defiled at all, while 
 fhe claims the charader of a truly Apoftolick 
 Church ; much lefs to be fo defiled, that we 
 cannot with a good confcience join in it, or 
 worfhip God in a regular way in her communion. 
 She Cannot therefore admit that real^ apparent^ 
 and great necejjity for defiring fome of our own 
 number to minifter to us in holy things, with- 
 out which, it would not only in his Lordfhip's 
 judgment be very irregular ^ but alfo a very great 
 fin to fcek any other, than the eftablifhed 
 Teachers and Pallors. 
 
 Ford in his comment upon this Article, contends 
 for what I conceive to be the true interpretation 
 of it, by producing numerous quotations ; in 
 one of which this is the account given of a lawful 
 calling to the Miniftry, in a kind of paraphrafe 
 upon 2 Cor. v. 20. " Moreover, fince God 
 from the time he called the Apoftlesj calleth 
 no man immediately to the Miniftry j it re« 
 mains that they who are called to the Mi- 
 niftry, fliould be called by thofe, to whom ic 
 belongs to call others. So the Apoftles have 
 I 2 *t ordained 
 
Ji6 'Wdchma,n''s Expq/iiion of the Jriicle. Art.xxiu. 
 
 •* ordained Prefhyters and Bifhops, and thofe 
 " ordained by th£ Apoftles have afterwards 
 " ordained others*." He alfo alleg-es feveral 
 
 o 
 
 teftimonies from the Fathers, and clofes his 
 proof with the pafiage from Dr. Nichols, which 
 I have before quoted f. 
 
 JVelchman in his expofition of the Articles, 
 inferts the fame paraphrafe on 2 Cor. v. 2Q. 
 which I have mentioned above. And he thus 
 expounds the claufe concerning the perfons to 
 whom publick authority is given, to call and 
 fend Minifters into the Lord's vineyard. " We 
 " know that this power from the age of the 
 " Apoftles to the time of our Anceftors, was 
 " granted to Bifliops alone. But fmce then 
 " certain Churches (in other rclpefts rightly 
 " reformed) will have it that this power fhould 
 *' alfo be granted to Prefhyters \ whether right 
 " or wrong let them fee to that. We neither 
 " judge nor contemn them. But the cafe is far 
 " different as to our own Seftaries, who rebel- 
 " ling againft the beft conftituted Church, have 
 *' arrogated this epifcopal authority to them- 
 *' felves. Therefore we juftly and defervedly 
 *' account thefe guilty of fchifm and diforder J.*' 
 
 In 
 
 * Vide Ford ubi fopra, p. 210. 
 f See page gS. 
 
 X Poteftatem hanc ab Apoftolorum sevo ufque ad Avorum 
 fioftrorum tempora Epifcopij folis conceffam novimus : 
 
 Exind^ 
 
An.xx In. Air. Archdeacon B V Opinion. 1 1 y 
 
 \a fupport of this opinion, as the judgment of 
 the Church oi England upon this Article, he 
 produces the authorities of Bilfon^ Hall^ Hookery 
 Lioydy Burf cough y Scott., and Fields in their diffe- 
 rent treatifes upon the nature and government 
 of a Church. 
 
 From the confideration of what has been 
 advanced upon this Article by the expofitors 
 above referred to, I cannot think it is capable ' 
 of any fair interpretation in favour of Proteftant 
 DifTenters •, nor that the liberal explication of 
 
 it given by Mr. Archdeacon B , will 
 
 juftly admit of an application to us. 
 
 " The plain, fays he, and if you will, the;. 
 " grammatical meaning of which words (i. e. the 
 *' words of the Article) is, that there is a publick 
 " authority in every Chriftian Church, to ap- 
 " point the particular perfons who are to mi- 
 " nifter in that Church, exclufive of all others •, 
 " and that they, and they only, who are lb 
 '* appointed, are lawfully called and fent. §.*' 
 
 Exinde autem qusdam Ecclefiae (ctetera eciam rite refor- 
 matse) Prefbyteris quoque conceffam volunt ; re£lene an 
 fecus ipfa; viderint. Nos eas neque judicamus, neque fper- 
 nimus, Noflratium vero, qui in Ecclefiam optime ccuiili- 
 tutam rebelles, Epifcopalem hanc poteftatem fibi arrogarunt, 
 Jonge difpar eft ratio. Proinde Hos Schifmatis atque etTeL^'m? 
 reos jure ac merito habemus. IFtkhman in Articulos, 
 Edit. 4. Oxon. 1724. p. 25, 6. 
 
 ^ Confeflional, p. 132. 
 
 I J This 
 
irS Mr. Archdeacon^ 'sOpidon. Art.xx'm. 
 
 This explication, the learned Author of the 
 Confeflional gives us in oppofition to the afTer- 
 tion of Dr. Nichols ; who fays, " There can be 
 '* no doubt made, but that by puhlick authority 
 *' the Compilers meant the authority of Billiops/* 
 I think Dr. Nichols is right. But if Mr. Arch- 
 deacon B *s interpretation be juft in 
 
 itfelf, it fiill bears hard upon us. For the mis- 
 fortune is, that however fairly it may be ap- 
 plied to vindicate foreign EJfahlifiments^ it can- 
 pot be juftly extended to the cafe of a Separation 
 from any, which is founded upon an oppofition 
 to the publick authority of the Church. And 
 the feparate alTemblies of Puritans and Noncon- 
 formifts v/ere never honoured fo far, as to be 
 confidered as conftituting any true Chriftian 
 Church. It is very irrational to fuppofe, that 
 what in the judgment both of the Law, and of 
 the Church of England were deemed illicit ccn- 
 z'enticks^ for fo many years after the Articles 
 were compiled -, fliould yet be allowed by one 
 of thofe Articles, to poflefs a lawful authority 
 for calling and fending Minifters into the Lord's 
 vineyard. 
 
 Dr. Nowell to ferve a favourite point, grafped 
 at this fhadow of an argument for a proof, that 
 perfons of very different perfuafions might very 
 confcientioL fly fubfcribe the Articles ; and has 
 rccourfe to the old trimming expedient, of affert- 
 ing (hat the Compilers gnly meant to avoid 
 
 divert 
 
Art.xxiii. Remarks on Dr. Noweirj Opinion. 1 19 
 
 ^iverfity of opinions, about opinions exprefTtd 
 and decided in the Articles. This Article, in 
 his account, decides nothing on the point who 
 were lawfully called -, though one half of the 
 Article confifts, in defcribing who they are that 
 can give a man a lawful calling *. Indeed 
 the Heads of Houfes are greatly indebted to 
 certain Writers, for having helped them to 
 fomething to fay in defence of themfelves, for 
 perfecuting thofe who held the doflrines of the 
 Articles in the literal fenfe. But like fome others, 
 they chofe to enjoy and exercife that latitude as 
 their own exclufive privilege, while it proved 
 no (helter to the unhappy young men from the 
 rage and refentment of their tyrannical judges. 
 As Dr. Nowell has no better proof than the reft 
 of his latitudinarian Brethren, I difmifs all far- 
 ther confideration of him, for the reafons afligned 
 in the Introdudion to this Review. 
 
 I conclude then, that by publick authority the 
 Article intends the authority of the State j or in 
 other words, an authority communicated from 
 the King or Qiieen as Head of the Church, and 
 fupreme over all perfons, in all caufcs as well 
 ecclefiaftical as temporal. This authority is 
 communicated to Diocefan Bifhops, and to them 
 alone, as their exclufive right and prerogative. 
 
 * See Nowc/Ps Anfwer to Pieias Oxonienjisy p. 95. 
 
 I 4 '^^-^^ 
 
120 I'he true Senfe of the Article Art. xxiii. 
 
 The Kings of England at the Reformation, 
 afTutned to themfelves that ecclefiaftical jurif- 
 diclion, which the Pope of Rome had before 
 exercifed over thefe Kingdoms. The Arch- 
 bifhop, Bifhops, &c. have no manner of jurif- 
 di<5tion ecclefiaftical but by and under the 
 King's Majefty *. Their original commiiTions 
 for the exercife of tlieir fpiritual jurifdiflion, 
 were ifflicd from the Crov/n during the King's 
 pleafure only. And among other peculiar pre- 
 rogatives of the epifcopal office, the power of 
 Ordination itfelf was delegated from the King, 
 and the Billiops were confidered only as his 
 reprefentatives and fubjlitutes in ordaining can- 
 didates for the Miniftry f. That this power is 
 delegated to thern alone needs no proof. It is 
 well known, that no man can officiate as a 
 Reader in the Church, till he has received 
 Deacon's orders from the Bifliop, And a fecond 
 ordination is requifite to qualify him for the 
 full difcharge of the minifterial office. This is 
 called taking Pricft's orders J. The Bilhop, 
 
 who, 
 
 * 26Hen,V]II, cap. i. 37 Hen. VIIT, cap. 17, i EH?i, 
 cap. I. 
 
 t See Examination of the Codex Juris, &c. p. 32, 33. 
 
 X There feems to be a great impropriety in the applica- 
 tion of the term Priejis^ to any Pvlinifters under the Chriftian 
 difpenfation. For this charader had always a fpecial re- 
 ference to the flaying and offering up of Sacrifices, which 
 was the proper and diftinguilhing bufinefs of the Priefts 
 
 under 
 
Art. xxlli. Jlated and illujirated. 121 
 
 who, as it appears from the Ordination fervice, 
 has the Holy Gholt at his difpofal, then com- 
 municates lilm by the impofition of hands to 
 tlie Candidate •, and along with this mylterioiis 
 communication, he transfers the additional power 
 of abfolving from fm. PrcviouQy therefore to 
 this communication, a Clergyman muft not pre^ 
 fume to read the Abfolotion in the common 
 prayer, or in the o/Tice for the vifitation of the 
 fick. Would to God he never prefumed to do 
 it afterwards, unlefs the forms were qualified by 
 
 under the Law. The Office they fufiained, and the Sacrifices 
 they prefented, were merely typical of the prieftly Office and. 
 expiatory Sacrifice of jefiisChrift. Since therefore He has now 
 adually once offered up himfelf without fpot to God, as the 
 great Antitype of all the Jewiflj Sacrifices, and ftill fuitains 
 the charadler in Heaven, of the great High Priefl of our pro- 
 feffion ; there rcmaincth no farther occafion for any other 
 Sacrifices, and the office of Priells among Men, is no longer 
 to be confidered as a divine Inftitution. The New Teftament 
 never fpeaks of Minifters under this charafter, as dillin- 
 guifhed from other Clirillians ; and it is derogatory to the 
 honour of cur Lord for any to afTume it. When indeed the 
 confecrated Wafer came to be confidered as a real Sacrifice, 
 by being tranfubllantiated into the real Body and Blood of 
 Chrift, the deluded Confecrator might with fome plaufibility 
 fancy himfelf a Prieft. But fince the doclrine of the Sacrifice 
 of the Mafs, and of a real Sacrifice in the Eucharift, are both 
 now generally rejedled by Protellants ; we may well be con- 
 tent to refign the facerdotal charafter to others, neither any 
 longer calling our Minifters, Priejis; nor our Communion- 
 Tables, Altars. May God in infinite mercy haften the 
 deliverance of every Proteftant Church, from the reproach 
 of 9II fuch RcUcks of Popilh Idolatry and Superftition. 
 
 expreflions ■ 
 
122 'The Inconjijiency of this Article Art.xxiii. 
 
 cxpreflions more agreeable to the dodrines of 
 Chriftianity, and the principles of Proteftantifm I 
 
 Thus alone in the judgment of the Church is 
 a man lawfully called, and fent forth to minifter 
 in the Lord's vineyard. 
 
 A Diocefan Bifhop only, by virtue of his 
 epifcopal authority, can truly make a man a 
 Minifter of Chriil, and inveft him with facer- 
 dotal powers. Prefbyters are not allowed any 
 fuch authority. Much lefs is any fuch power 
 allowed to exift in congregations, as that of 
 calling, eleding, and ordaining from among 
 themfelves, fuch as fhall appear qualified by the 
 gifts and graces of the Spirit, and competent 
 meafures of human literature, for the work of 
 the Miniftry, to the exercife of the paftoral 
 office. To filence all objedions to this ex- 
 clufive claim, we read in the Canons of the 
 Church, that " Whofoever fhall affirm or teach, 
 " that they who are made Priefts, or Deacons 
 " in this form, are not lawfully made, nor 
 *' ought to be accounted either by themfelves 
 " or others, to be truly either Priefls, or Deacons, 
 *' until they have fame other calling to thofe 
 " Divine offices, is to be excommunicated ipfo 
 "■ fa£io *." Yet how conceivable is it, that a 
 man may pafs through all thefe forms, and flill 
 
 * Canon VIII. 1603. 
 
 be 
 
A rt.xxiii. "Lvith the Principles of the Bijfenters. 1 2 3 
 
 be utterly deftitiue of the more important call 
 and qualification, requifite to the Divine ac- 
 ceptance in the folcmn and important charader 
 of a Chriilian Miniiler ? 
 
 But are none befides thefe lawfully called to 
 be Minifters of Chrift ? Is this do(5trine agree- 
 able to the facred oracles ? Does it correfpond 
 with the opinion of the Prefbyterian aflembly of 
 Divines*? Is this confonant to the Savoy con- 
 feflion-{-? Or is it held by modern Difienters 
 of any denomination ? Surely not. Is not all 
 fpiritual authority derived from Cririft, the one 
 only fpiritualHead of the Church? Have Prelates 
 or Prefbyters any power of conveying gifts or 
 graces, to qualify others for the work of the 
 
 ♦ Ordination is the a*^ of a Prefbytcry. AfTembly's form 
 of Church Government. Edinb. Edit. 1756, p, 534, & feq. 
 
 t A particular Church gathered and compleated accord- 
 ing to the mind of Chrift, confifts of officers and members : 
 The Lord Chrift having given to fuch as he has called, who 
 are united according to his appointment, in Church order, 
 liberty and power to choofe perfcns fitted by the Holy 
 Ghoft for that purpofe, to be over them, and to minifter to 
 them in the Lord. 
 
 The way appointed by Chrift for the calling of any 
 perfon, fitted and gifted by the Holy Ghoft, to the office of 
 Paftor, Teacher or Elder in a Church, is, that he be chofe 
 thereto by the common fuffrage of the Church itfelf, and 
 folemnly fet apart by fafting and prayer, with impofition of 
 hands of the Slderftiip of that Church, if there be any before 
 conftituted therein. Savoy Declaration. Edit. 1729, p. 85. 
 §7, p. 87. § II. 
 
 Miniftry ? 
 
124- l^e Tmpropriely of a Suhfcription Art.xxiii. 
 
 Miniftry ? Nor do thofe of us who are of the 
 congregational perfuafion, apprehend that we 
 derive any minifterial authority whatever, from 
 our brethren who engage in the work of fepa- 
 rating us to the Paftoral office, in our refpedive 
 congregations. We rather confider that folemn 
 fervice, as the publick ratification of the ad of 
 the Church, which has eledted, and thereby 
 ordained us to the paftoral overfight of them in 
 the Lord. In confequence of this, our brethren 
 unite in folemnly devoting and recommending 
 us to the blefllng of Almighty God, and no 
 farther inveft- us with our office, than as minifte- 
 rially declaring, owning, and approving the 
 Church's prior eleflion. 
 
 It is therefore to me a difficulty which I can- 
 not folve, how any perfons confcious that they 
 themfelves, are not in the judgment of the 
 Church called to the Miniftry by a lawful autho- 
 rity ; or that thofe who are peculiarly tender of 
 the claims of the mofi irregular, to the title and 
 eftimation of Minifters of Chrift, lawfully called 
 to that facred work •, fliould at the fame time be 
 zealous for fubfcription to an Article, which 
 annihilates all thofe claims. I am far from deny- 
 ing the validity of the miffion of any, who are 
 duly qualified for the facred office, and have 
 been called to it by the Churches to which they 
 belonged j but upon this principle, muft necefla- 
 
 rily 
 
Art.xxiii. to it hy Dijfcnting Minijlers. 125 
 
 rily difapprove this Article of the Church. And 
 indeed I think it a hard and grievous condition 
 of Toleration, in the exercife of the Chriflian 
 Miniflry» that 1 muft firft fubfcribe my aflent 
 and confent to the Church's declaration, that 
 neither myfelf, nor any of my Brethren are law- 
 fully called and fent thereunto. 
 
 To fum up all. It appears to me, to be but 
 a Tandy bafis for the hope of acceptance from the 
 Supreme Pallor, to recolleft that we have 
 ufurped a claim to the chara(5ler of his Under 
 
 Shepherds, to which we had no righr but a 
 
 miferable fource of comfort, to refieft that in all 
 our minifterial fervices, we have no lawful autho- 
 rity for what we do and but a very weak 
 
 incentive to a courfe of fincere, ftedfafl:, chearful 
 obedience to the commands given by Chrift to 
 his Minillers, to believe that they have not the 
 moll diltant refpefl to us. Yet fuch I am fully 
 perfuaded from the authorities above^ produced, 
 is the doftrine of this Article of the Church of 
 England, with refpefl to Proteftant DilTenting 
 -Minifters. 
 
 In the procefs of our examination of the 
 cftablilhed ftandard of doflrines, a dilbelief of 
 which is not to be even tolerated \ I find another 
 Article which deferves a very ferious confidera- 
 tion by Proteftant Diflenters. 
 
 7 ART!- 
 
126 Of Excommunication^ Art. xxxiiii. 
 
 ARTICLE XXXIII. 
 
 cj^HAT perfon "Jjhich by open denunciation of 
 the Church is rightly cut off from the unity 
 of the Churchy and excommunicated^ ought to he 
 taken^ of the 'whole multitude of the Faithful^ as 
 an Heathen and Publican^ until he be openly re- 
 conciled by Penance, and received into the Church 
 by a judge that hath authority thereunto. 
 
 The right of a Chriflian Church to excommu- 
 nicate all fcandalous and diforderly Members I 
 readily grant, and the wife and judicious cxercife 
 of this right, conduces not a little, in my opinion, 
 to the honour of our religion, and the well-being: 
 of our Churches. Would to God that rhe 
 primitive difcipline was more generally main- 
 tained among us all. But yet methinks there 
 arc many weighty objedtions to this Article, if 
 we thoroughly examine the doctrines it contains. 
 In order to a more accurate and comprehenfive 
 view of the fubjeft, it will be proper to have re- 
 courfe to fome of the ancient Canons and Con- 
 flitutions of the Church of England^ made in 
 "the darkcft days of ignorance and fuperflition. 
 Perhaps fome perfons may apprehend, that 
 thele were utterly aboliflied at the time of the 
 Reformaiion i but this is fo far from being the 
 truth, that many of them yet abide in full force, 
 
 and 
 
Art. xxxiii. it's Nature and Kinds. J27 
 
 and have had their authority confirmed, under 
 certain reflriflions, by the exprefs provifion of 
 a Statute in the reign of Henry the eighth. 
 " Provided always that fuch Canons, Conftitu- 
 *' tions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial 
 '* being already made, which be not contrariant, 
 " nor repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and 
 *' Cuftoms of this Realm, nor to the damage 
 " or hurt of the King's Prerogative Royal, fliall 
 *' now Hill be ufed, and executed, as they were 
 " afore the making of this A6t *." Plence it 
 appears, that as many as have not either in 
 whole, or in part, been annulled by this, or by 
 any A<5ls of Parliament of fubfequent date, re- 
 main to tnis day in their full original authority. 
 And indeed no Canons made fmce this Acfl, 
 liave fo dire6l and exprefs a ratification given 
 them by Statute, as thofe which were made and 
 executed before that time. 
 
 I fliall begin with obferving as to the nature 
 of Excommunication, that it is diftinguiflied 
 into two kinds, the Greater and the Lefs. By 
 the former a man is denounced accurfed, de- 
 voted to the Devil, feparated from Chrift, and 
 his Church's communion f. The latter only 
 
 difqua- 
 
 • 25 Hen. Vlir. cap. 19. 
 
 f The light in which this Sentence is to be underftood, 
 may be learnt from fcveral references to it in the Canons 
 
 and 
 
128 The Greater Exmnmunicaticn. Att.xxxiii. 
 
 difqualifies him from receiving the Sacraments, 
 The Article now under confideration relates to 
 
 the 
 
 and Injunftions of the Church ; but from none more fully, 
 than from the following Inftrudions given to the Clergy, in 
 what manner they fhouid explain it to the people. 
 
 Populum condocefaciant, Excommunicationis fulmine per- 
 firiSlam ferfonam ex Eccleftd quafi cadwver ejid dcbcre, ntc 
 Ccena domini participem^ nee divinorum officiorum, necChriJliantv 
 focietatiSf fed k Jinu com?nunis Chrijlianorum matris ecdejia 
 revulfam, l^ abrupt am a cor pore ChriJIi, ccelo fimiil l£ terrd 
 ejje. exturbatam,diabolo 13 ejus confceleratis mhiijiris maiicipatam, 
 ifS fempiternis fiammartim cruciatibus addi£lam. Vide Refor- 
 matio Legum, Edit. Lond. 1640, p. 163. 
 
 And when this fentence is folemnly denounced by the 
 Bifliop himfelf, he is to be accompanied with twelve Prieils 
 that have burning Tapers in their hands ; who when the 
 dreadful fentence is denounced, extinguifh their lights, and 
 tread them under their feet. 
 
 Befides the dreadful efFedl which the fentence of Excom- 
 munication has upon the Soul, and the feveral Civil difabi- 
 licies to which it expofes us in this life ; if we may credit the 
 tellimony of fome of the Canonifls, it has alfo a miraculous 
 effcifl upon the bodies of fuch as die under it's power. For 
 we are told not only how much this fentence was ever 
 dreaded by our Anceftors, and how much it is now feared in 
 the Greek Church ; but are alfo referred to an opinion held by 
 the latter, that the body of an excommunicated perfon ecmnot 
 rtturn to Dujl and Ajhes, till the eenfure be releafed. Of which, 
 fays my Author, there is a ftrange relation in Mart, Crujiuf 
 Hijl. Polit. Turcograei.-e. And another parallel Story to this, 
 related by Sir Paul Ricaut in his State of the Greek Church. 
 This fabulous fcarecrow is hung out by a grave Dodor, to 
 terrify the Fanatick and Non-conforming Party, and warn 
 them of their danger, in making light of the cenfures of the 
 
 C«uon Law:. 
 
 It 
 
Art. xxxiii* T'he Greater EiccofMnunication. 129 
 
 the foritier. When the lefler Excommunication 
 is intended, it is always particularly fpecifico. 
 But the Canonifts are agreed, that v<thcn the 
 fentence of Excommunication is fpoken of, 
 without any diftinclion of greater or kfs, it is 
 always to be underftood of the former. It is a 
 maxim in the Canon Law, Excommunicatio Jim- 
 fliciter frolata intelligttur de majori -f. And the 
 view in which the perfon defcribed in the 
 
 It i$ however obvious to remark, that the opinion here 
 referred to, took it's rife from the dillempered imagination 
 of fome notorious Liar for the Church, who had more zeal 
 than wit. Before he fet up in his Profeflion, he ftiould at I?aft 
 have learned how to give an air of greater plaufibility to his 
 pious Hi5lions. For when it is confidered, that it was a part 
 of the original Curfe pronounced by God upon fallen Man, 
 *• Duji thou art, and unto Dufi Jhalt thou return','" whatever 
 fhould feeJn to deliver from the fulfillment of this threat- 
 ening, would moft probably be confidered. as a Blejjingt 
 rather than as a Cur/e. Ycthere we fee fuch an admirable 
 virtue attributed to an Anathema of the Church, that it 
 embalms the body of the deceafed, and preferves it from 
 corruption more effedlually than all the fpices of the Eaft. 
 Befides, theDoftor was furely very unhappy in urging upon 
 us, fuch a proof of the dreadful nature of the fentence of 
 Excommunication, denounced by the Church. For as we 
 have abundant evidence, that our anathematized Anceftors 
 have long fince fecn corruption, the only inferences we could 
 fairly draw from thefe legendary tales, mult be, either that 
 the EngUjh Church could never curfe fo powerfully as the 
 Greek Church ; or that by length of time, the curfe has loll 
 its efficacy. See Go^u^/&/«'s Rep. Can. Append. §51. 
 
 t L^nd'vjood iti Coiifk. J. Peckham. De Procuratoribus, 
 Lib. J. Tit, 1 3. Gloir. (b) in verb. Excommunicationi. j 
 
 >Hjo ^ Article 
 
130 0/ the Nature of Art, xxxi«. 
 
 Article is to be confidered by true Chriftians, 
 plainly fhews that the greater Excommunication 
 \% therein intended. 
 
 This fentence of Excommunication in mofl 
 cafes does not take efFecH:, until the ecclefiaftical 
 Judge has gone through a certain procefs pre- 
 fcribed in the Canon Law, which requires that 
 a fummons, or previous citation fliould be iffued 
 to the delinquent, before fentence of Excommu- 
 nication be pronounced againft him. But in the 
 cafe of what the Church accounts more heinous - 
 and horrible offences, the delinquent is excom- 
 municated ipfo fa5lo!'' "Th« Canons, which are] 
 the open denujtciations of the Churchy and thunder 
 out thefe anathemas, are to^be confidered in thefc 
 cafes, as fuperfeding the neceffity of any previous • 
 citation, or procefs of any ecclefiaftkal Judge. • 
 An Excommunication z^;/^ fa5io^ imports in the 
 opinion of Lyndivood, Go.dplphin^ Archbifhop 
 JVake, and other Canonifts, that " there is no 
 " need of any admonition, nor of any fentence ' 
 " to be pronounced, which the Gainon itfelf 
 *' hath paffed, and which is by that ifieans al- 
 •' ready prcmulged upon every one, as foon as 
 " he comes under the obligation of it. The • 
 " perfon defcribed ftandS exeommunicated fiiiUo 
 '* hominis minijierio interveniente *." As all 
 
 • Zjw/j'wW De officio Archidiaconi, Lib. I. Tit. lo. 
 GlofT. (i) in verb, ipfo fafto, -Godpljfhm Rcp. Canon. 
 Cap. 4.2. § 4. //«^/j App«al,)). 2a. 
 ji.;ii»A - • Other 
 
Art. xxxiii. Excommunications i^^o fdiEio. 13 1 
 
 other Excommumcations take their penal efFedt 
 from the time of their being decreed in Court, 
 in cafe the conditions be not fubmitted to within 
 the time limited j fo the ipfo faHo excommuni- 
 cation takes the fame effe<5l, from the moment 
 that the faft is committed. If this be riot the 
 true fenfe and conftrudlion of an i-pfo fa£fo Ex- 
 communication, there is no diftinftion at all 
 between fuch an Excommunication, and that 
 which requires a procefs in the ecclefiaflical 
 Court i for the fad committed is the ground of 
 the Excommunication in the latter cafe, equally 
 as in the former. But this difference of Excom- 
 munication ipfo fa£io, and of Excommunication 
 to be paflfed after the faft, is very apparent from 
 the judgment given by the Canonifts, in cafes of 
 facrilege. He who committed facrilege on an 
 ccclefiaftical Perfon, was ipfo fa5lo excommuni- 
 cate, while he who was guilty of it in relation 
 to ecclefiaftical things, wsls to ^i? excommunicated. 
 But if he who fteals an ecclefiaftical thing, does 
 at the fame time burn the Church, or break it 
 open, then he is ipfo fa^o excommunicated *. 
 And that this is the true conftrudion, is farther 
 evident from many of the provincial Conftitu- 
 tions, in which various Offenders are declared to 
 be aflually excommunicated, as by the authority 
 of God the Father Almighty, of the bleffed 
 Virgin, of all the Saints, and of the Councils 
 
 • Johtt/cni Note en Abp. Boniface's Conftit. Conft. 8. 
 
 K 2 then 
 
132 htjiances of this Kindk Art; xxxiit. 
 
 then aflembled, without any other monition or 
 procefs. Thefe general fentences of Excommu- 
 nication were ordered to be publifhed by every 
 Parifh Prieft, on the four greater feftivals, 
 viz. Chrijimas, Eajler, IVhitfuntide, and Jll 
 Saints day, in his Holy Veftments, with Bclh. 
 tolHng, and Candles lighted, before the whole 
 Congregation in the Mother tongue *. The 
 more frequent publication of them was after- 
 wards decreed, with the merciful intention of 
 preventing men from falling under the curie, 
 through ignorance. The Conftitution is intro- 
 duced in this manner : " Since an unknown 
 *' evil cannot be avoided, and there are n>any 
 ** fentences in the councils of the Holy Fathers, 
 ** by which wicked men are fmitten -, left 
 *' through ignorance they fliould fall into lo 
 ** dangerous a pit, we charge all the Priefts of 
 *' the province of Canterbury., that on every 
 " Lord's day immediately after the celebration 
 " of a rural Chapter, they openly expound to 
 *' their refpedive charges, the following fen- 
 " tences of Excommunication f.'* The lan- 
 guage of the Conftitution throughout, clearly 
 evinces^ that thofe fevcral fentences were to be 
 confidtred as taking efFeft, immediately upon the 
 
 '-* Vide Conftit. Concil. Provlnc. Oxon. celeb, edit, per 
 Stephanum Langton. Introd. et Conftit, 4. 
 
 t Vide Conft. Jo. Paccha'm Condi. Provinc. de Riod- 
 in^, Conft. 3. 
 
 com- 
 
Art. xxxiii. Remarks on Bp. Gibsov. 1^3 
 
 commilTion of the crimes, to which they fcverally 
 refer. I cannot therefore acquit Bifliop Gibfon 
 of the charge of a wilful niifreprefentation, in 
 faying, that " where the Canonifts fpeak of 
 " Excommunications ipfo faolo, they are, he 
 " thinks, unanimous that a declaratory fentencc 
 " is neceflary*-" /. e. as the final iflue of a 
 procefs for the convi(5lion of the Offender, after 
 the commiflion of the fa<5t. For excepting his 
 Lordfhip, and Dr. Bur7i his Copyift -f, I cannot 
 find any one authority for this opinion. And 
 his Lordfhip feems to have been fo converfant 
 with Lyndijoood^ and other writers of this clufs, 
 that one cannot fuppofe him to have been 
 ignorant of the different judgment given by 
 them. 
 
 ^;The phrafe in the Article, rightly cut offy 
 ineans nothing more, than that the offences for 
 which the members of the Church Ihould be 
 excommunicated, (hould be no other than what 
 are declared to be cxcommunicable by the 
 Church ; and that the fentence fliould take 
 effe(fi: in no other way, and by no other in- 
 ftruments, than what are prefcribed in the Canon 
 Law. 
 
 It is natural to inquire in the next place, by 
 
 whom this fentence is incurred according to the 
 ♦- '» 
 
 • Gib/on's Codex Jur. Ecclef. Angl. Tom. 2. Tit. 46. 
 Cap. IV. Not. d. 
 
 t Burn's Ecclefiaftical Law, Vol. II. p. 201. 
 
 K 3 Canons 
 
1^4 ^^^ Tcrfons on whom the Art.xxxiii. 
 
 Canons of the Church. For it cannot be doubted, 
 that they are confidered in the Article as rightly 
 cut off from the unity of the Church, and 
 rightly excommunicated, who are declared fo to 
 be in the Canon Law. And it is a very material 
 requifite to the proof of the rectitude of an 
 Excommunication, that the crime of which the 
 Offender is convided, is deferving of fo fevere 
 a cenfure. The profecution of this inquiry will 
 furnifti many more infuperable objedions to a 
 Proteftant Diffenter, againft fubfcribing the 
 Article I am now expounding. 
 
 As the Church of England has herfelf given 
 us a comment on this part of the Article, we 
 can be in no danger of miftaking her meaning. 
 But it is difficult to conceive, how any Proteftant 
 Diffenters can confiftently accord with her in 
 judgment. Can it in our account be a crime 
 deferving of fuch a cenfure, to aiBrm that the 
 Church of England by law eftablifhed, is not 
 a true and Apoftolick Church, teaching and 
 maintaining the doftrine of the Apoftles * ? For 
 notwithftanding the moft affedlionate efteem for 
 many of her members, as members of the true 
 Church of Chrift •, and the moft'zealous attach- 
 ment to many of the doftrines of the Church of 
 England ; we may yet imagine fuch a definition 
 oi the Church, as eftahlijhed by Law, implies 
 
 * Canon III. of I6o^ 
 7. ' that 
 
Art, xxxiii. Sentence is pajfed by the Church. 1^5 
 
 that fhe teaches and maintains no other dodrines 
 than thofe of the Apoftles, and that her frame, 
 conftitution, and government are entirely con- 
 fonant to the Scripture model. And if fuch 
 were our fentiments, we could not confcientioufly 
 diflent from her communion. Is a man in our 
 account juftly accurfcd, for affirming that the 
 form of worfhip contained in the book of 
 Common Prayer, and adminiftration of the 
 Sacraments, contains /cw^ things in it repugnant 
 to the fcriptures * ? Would Proteftant Diflenters 
 devote a man to the Devil, for faying that feme 
 of the thirty-nine Articles, are in feme part 
 fuperftitious or erroneous, and luch as he can- 
 not with a good confcience fubfcribe unrof? 
 Or if he thinks that the rites and ceremonies of 
 the Church of England are fuperititious, and 
 fuch as he cannot with a good confcience ap- 
 prove J ? What think we of the crofs in Baptifm, 
 of worfiiipping to the Eafl in repeating the 
 Creed, or bowing at the name of Jefus, &c. ? 
 Should we efteem a man feparated from Chrift, 
 for entertaining an opinion that the government 
 of the Church by Archbifhops, Diocefan Bifhops, 
 Deans, Archdeacons, and the reft that bear office 
 in the fame, is Antichriftian, or repugnant to the 
 word of God § ? For notwithftanding the moft 
 accurate and diligent ftudy of the New Tefta- 
 
 • Canon IV. t Canon V. J Canon VI. 
 
 % CanoD VII. 
 
 K 4 ment, 
 
136 'The Perfons on whom the Art.xxxiii.. 
 
 ment, neither our Forefathers, nor We, have ever 
 yet been able to find out fo much as the names 
 of many of thefe Officers, nor the moft diftant 
 hints of the diftindl chara(5ters they furtain in the 
 government of that Church. Should we banilh 
 a man from the communion of the Church* for 
 thinking that the form and manner of making 
 and confecrating Bifhops, Priefts, or Deacons, 
 contains fame things in it which are alfo repug- 
 nant to the word of God * ? Should we excom- 
 municate any for feparating from that Church, 
 and combining themfelves together in a new 
 brotherhood -f ? Does this tremendoos fentence 
 juftly fall upon all thofe, who fay, that fuch as 
 are Schifi-naticks, in the judgment of the Church, 
 may truly take unto them the name of another 
 Church, not eftabliihed by Law J ? Is the fame 
 cenfure in our opinion due to faying, that other 
 meetings than thofe which were held and allowed 
 by the laws of the Land as fuch, when the 
 Canons were drawn up, may rightly challenge 
 CO themfelves the name of true and lawful 
 Churches §? Or is it juftly incurred in the 
 judgment of Proteftant Difienters, by believing 
 that Minifters and Lay perfons may join together, 
 and make rules and orders in caufesecclefiaftical, 
 snd lawfully fubmit themfelves to be ruled and 
 governed by them |] ? 
 
 - * Canon VLIL \ C.inon IX, | Canon X. 
 
 ^ Canon XI. || Ca^un XI/. 
 
 Yet 
 
Art. xxxiii. Sentence is pajfed by the Church. 137 
 
 Yet in all, or any of thefe cafes, the Church 
 has given it as her judgment, that the perfons fo 
 offending, are rightly cut off and excommuni- 
 cated. Nay in many of the cafes (he pronounces 
 them adlually excommunicated ipfo faSlo. And 
 if they do not recant within forty days, they may 
 be committed to prifon by a Writ Di? excommunir 
 cato capiendo \ where they muft lie till they 
 perifli, if they do not retrad. For without 
 fuch a retraflation, not even the Archbifhop 
 himfelf can reftore them •, and in fcveral of the 
 inftances above recited, fuppofing a retrafbation 
 takes place, none but the Archhijhop can cancel 
 the guilt, reverfe the fentence, or reftore the 
 Offender *. 
 
 Befides 
 
 * When tlie feveral limitstioRs of the power of reftoring 
 Offenders, to the Archiepifcopal fundion, are ferioufly 
 confidered ; one cannot help thinking, that the Archbifhops 
 of the Realm have peculiar occafion, to adopt the words of 
 the Apoftle, " Brethren pray for us." For how tremendous 
 muft be their fituation, fhould they happen to fall under the 
 cenfure of any of thofe Canons. Tliey cannot help or reftore 
 one another, as their Archiepifcopal powers are circura- 
 fcribed within the bounds of their refpeftive Provinces. 
 It is laid down as a maxim in the Canon Law, Nullus 
 yudex potejl excommimicare, -vel abfolvere extra fuam Pro'vin- 
 ciavi. So that the cafe of either would be defperatc— 
 abfolutely remedilefs and hopelefs — far beyond the reach 
 of the mercy of God, or the efficacy of the Blood of Jefus, 
 for want of the indifpenfable requifite of an Archiepifcopal 
 Mediator. We:? I 4 Clergyman of thi Church of ^ngland^ 
 
 an4 
 
i$% The Perfons on whom the Art.xxxiii. 
 
 Befides the above exceptionable cafes, more 
 particularly afFe6ting Proteftant DifTenters, every 
 benevolent mind, one fhould imagine, muft 
 difient from the dodrine of this Article, when 
 we confider how much farther the curfe of the 
 greater Excommunication has been extended, by 
 the more ancient and equally authentick Canons 
 of the Church. 
 
 The Clergy wifely provident of their own 
 fecurity, improved the dread of this tremendous 
 fentence, to ferve the purpofes of their own 
 worldly advantage ; and to render their parilhi- 
 oners fcrupuloufly exaft in tithing Mint, Annife, 
 and Cummin. So that were it not for the pre- 
 vailing cuftom of compounding for the Tithe, 
 the Church of England^ it is to be feared, would 
 have comparatively very few members left. 
 -I refer particularly to the Conftitutions of 
 Stephen Langton, Axz\\h\^OT^ oi Canterbury y 
 now in full force ; in which this fentence is pro- 
 nounced upon all " that do not pay Tithe of 
 " the fruits of the Earth, and of Trees, of Hay 
 " wherever it grew, of Acorns f , Garden Herbs, 
 
 " Bees, 
 
 and could perfuade myfelf that the Canons were agreeable 
 to the word of God, I would not be an Archbilhop for 
 ten thoufand Worlds. 
 
 t The words of the Conftitutlon are, De Pannagio for- 
 ccrum, which fome Englilh Canonifts have rendered, " Thf 
 ♦« Fanna^e of Swine." But this tranflatlon is as unintelli- 
 gible 
 
Art. xxxiii. Sentence is pajfed hy the Church. 139 
 
 *' Bees, Food of Animals, and their Young, 
 ** Woo), Milk, Cheefes however made, and all 
 *' things yearly renewing, Fifhings, Huntings, 
 " Mills, Trade, Handicrafts, and^other honeft 
 '* LabourSj and of all things due by Law or 
 " Cuftom J." The ftrifteil Pharifee would be 
 in danger of falling (hort, in fome or other of 
 thefe inftances. 
 
 At another provincial Council it was urged, 
 '" That fome degenerate fons of Holy Mother 
 " Church, not confidering the Heavenly favour 
 " in giving them nine parts, do obllrudl the 
 *' Miniflers of Chrift in divers manners, by 
 " exquifite malicious inventions, in the free 
 " taking of the tenth part. Some permit them 
 " freely to take the Tithes, but not to carry 
 " them by the accuftomable ways and roads ; 
 " but malicioufiy compel them to be carried by 
 " long round about windings and turnincrs, &c. 
 " &c. &c. To make wholefome provifion 
 
 giblc to a common reader, as the obfolete original. The 
 tranflation above given, is founded upon the Glofs of Lynd' 
 •wocd on the fimilar phrafe Panna^iis J\lvarHrr., which occurs 
 m one of the Conftitutions of Robert Winchel/ea, Arch- 
 bilhopof Canterbury, and is thus explained by him, •* Id eft. 
 ♦^' Paftu per cor urn in ncnoribus l5 in Jylvis, utj>uta de glandibuSp 
 * ' y aiiis fru£libu5 arborum fyl'vejlrium quarum fru£ius aliter 
 '^ non /dent colli^i.^^ Vide Lyndv;ood Provinciale, Lib. 3. 
 Tit. 16. p. 200. Gloff. f. 
 
 t Conftir. 4, 
 
 « againft 
 
1 4® It's unreafonahle Extent. Art. xxxiii. 
 
 " againfl: fuch malice and wrong, wickedly 
 ** committed in contempt of God and the 
 " Church, by the Oracle of thefe prefents," fays 
 the Conftitytion, " we firmly forbid," all fuch 
 offences " under pain of the greater Excommu- 
 <' nication, which we will that all and every 
 *' tranfgrelTor do incur ipfo faElo *." 
 
 Some have thought, that however fevere the 
 Church might judge it proper to be upon her 
 own members, it is neverthelefs very unreafon- 
 able, that fhe fliould claim the power of curfing 
 and excortimunicating fuch, as never belonged 
 to her Communion. But this praftice feems to 
 be derived from the fimilar exercife of the fame 
 pretended authority, in the. Church of Rome. 
 Nor am I much aftonifhed at the claim, when 
 I confider, that the fentence of Excommunication 
 has heretofore been pafled by a very refpeftable 
 authority in fome Churches, even upon fuch 
 creatures, as are not the fubjefts of God*s moral 
 government. For we are told that ^t. Bernard 
 folemnly denounced it againfl the Flie^ f. I am 
 forry I cannot inform the reader, what was 
 the offence which they committed againft the 
 Church i but as it is moft probable, they never 
 
 • Vide Conftit. Provinc. Cullehu La Zeuche Arcluep. 
 iborae. Conft. 3. 
 
 t Pet. de Natal, in vita Bernardi. 
 
 performed 
 
Art.xxxiii. The Mode of Reconciliation. 141 
 
 performed any voluntary penance in order to 
 their reconciliation •, I take it for granted they 
 all die under the fentence, and in the judgment 
 of the Holy Father, go to the Devil. ^ 
 
 Another objedion to the Article now under 
 coT>fideration, is derived from the prefcribed con- 
 dition of reftoration to the Church, after having 
 been rightly cut off and excommunicated. The 
 excommunicated perfon is " to be taken of the 
 ** whole multitude of the Faithful, as an Heathen 
 ," and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by 
 " Penanced 
 
 Now it appears to me that Penance and 
 Repentance are two very different things ; the 
 latter of which is eflentially requifite, to the 
 reitoration of an excluded offender to the fellov/- 
 fliip of the Church •, and that the former is by 
 no means a proper fubftitute or equivalent. The 
 very found of Penance is ungrateful to the ear 
 of a Proteftant ; and though it may be a very 
 proper condition of abfolution in the Church 
 of Rome, yet furely it ought to be difcarded by 
 every Proteftant cftablilhment. 
 
 In order to the better underftanding this claufc 
 of the Article, it will be necelTary diftinclly to 
 confider the dodtrine of Penance, as held by the 
 Church of England. 
 
 The 
 
142 ^^^ Do^rine of Penance-, An.xx^iYi. 
 
 The original idea of doing Penance, is to 
 fuffer the inflicftion of fome corporal puniihmenc 
 ©r difgrace ; fiich, fays Lyndwcod, as thrufting 
 into a Monaftery, Imprifonment, Scourging, 
 Beating with a Cndgel, Branding with a Mark *, 
 &c. Ei talis ■poena corporalis, fays the fame 
 Author, major debet imponi -jili, quam Nobili \, 
 It was anciently diftinguifhed into three kinds, 
 \\z. fokmn., piihlick^ znd private. The firft was 
 attended with many very ridiculous and fuper- 
 ftitious rites J. The fecond is that which is 
 V don« 
 
 • i>Wwoa^Provmciale, Lib. V. Tit. 15. 
 
 ; t LyndiMood Prov. Lib. III. Tit. 2S. Glofs (b) in verb. 
 fanitentias corporaks. 
 
 X Solennis efl»,qu2e fit in Capite QuatlragefinnE, quando 
 ©mnes Pranitentes, qui publicani fufcipiunt auc AiCceperunt 
 Pcenitentiam, ante fores Ecclefi:c fe reprasfentant Epifcopo 
 Civitatis, Sacce induti, nudis pedibus, vultibus in terrain 
 demiffis ; reoa fe effe, ipfo habitu & vultu proteftantes ; 
 [ut eft in Cone. Agath. ubi adjicitur, " Ibi adefTe debent 
 '* Decani, /. e. Archiprefbyteri Parochiarum, & Prefbyteri 
 *• Poenitentium, qui eorum converfationem diligenter in- 
 " fpicere debent:, & fecundum modum Culpas Pcenitentiatn 
 *' per prefixes Gradus injungere, Poft hxc, eos in Ecclefiam 
 ** introducant, & cum omni Clero Septem Pcenifentiales 
 ** Pfalmos in terra proftratus Epifcopus, cum lachrymis 
 ♦* pro eorum Abfolutione, decantet ; — &c cum gemitu & 
 *' crcbris fufpiriis dcnuncict eis, quod ficut Adam pro- 
 ** jeftus eft de Paradifo, ita ipfi pro Pcccatis ab Ecclcfia 
 *•" abjiciuntur. Poft base, jybeat Miniftris, ut eos extra 
 »' Januas Ecclefia; expellant : Cleru& vero profequatur eos, 
 *• cum Refponforio. [In fudore vuhus tui vefceris pane 
 
I^>1, 
 
 Art.xxxlil. Ws Nature and J^iJlinSliorts. 143 
 
 done in the face of the Church, without fo much 
 ■fokmnity J and is that ~to which I think the 
 Article moft probably here refers. By the third 
 was underftood nothing more, than what was 
 injoined by the Prieft in private confcltion. 
 
 The doftrine of Penance as held forth in the 
 Article now under confideration, may be farther 
 confidered either as performed, or commuted j for 
 in both cafes it is equally efficacious as a Refto- 
 rative. When publick Penance is to be per- 
 formed, the Offender " prefents himfclf a little 
 *' before Morning prayer in the Church porch, 
 *' in a white linnen garment, reaching from his 
 ** head to his heels. In this garb he is obliged 
 *' with tears to beg the prayers of all that paf* 
 " by. Soon after he is called into the Church. 
 *| As foon as he is over the threihold, he ought 
 *f to fall down on his face, and kifs the ground. 
 V^ Prefe.ntly the Church-wardens lift him up, 
 *^ and fee him in fome higher place of the 
 ** Church,, where he may be beft feen of the 
 *' P^opfc,' and hear the Minifter's reproofs and 
 " admonitions relating to his grievous fm. 
 ^* Whjpij the Penitent has religioufly promifed,. 
 
 ** tuo, &c.] ut videntes Sanflam Ecclefiam pro faainoribus 
 •* Alls tremefa(flam, atquc commotam, non parvi pendanc 
 ** Poenitentiam. In Sacra autem Domini Caena, rurfus ab 
 ** eorum Decanis, & eorum Prefbyteris, Ecclefis liminibua 
 *• repraefententur.] Ljnd'woed, Lib. V. Tit. 16. 
 
 «' that 
 
144 ^hs Manner tf dohig Pettance. Aft.xxxiiii 
 
 " that he will for the future watch more dili- ^ '» ♦^'^ 
 ** gently againft the temptations of the fleOi^ V-^f^'T 
 '* and has craved pardon of God and the '^ j^^ 
 " Church, for the fcandal he has given, he is 
 ** then abfolved by the Minifter *." J This is 
 Dr. Nichols's account, which is pretty accurate, 
 excepting that he has omitted to mention the 
 white Wand which the offender fhould hold in. 
 his hand, and the Stool on which he Ihould 
 ftand.^— a circumftance, which moft probably 
 gave rife to the proverb, of The Stool of Repen^ 
 tame. To which I may add, that in the cafe of 
 Inceft or Incontinency,. the Sinner is ufually in- 
 joined' to perform his publick Penance in the' 
 Cathedral^ or fome publick Market ; and as an 
 additional token of his Humiliation, is com- 
 manded to be both bare-legged^ and bare-headed f» 
 Thus is an offending Member of the Church, 
 who has incurred the fentence of Excommuni- 
 cation, '* openly reconciled by penance." An 
 Inftance of this kind, though not ftriftly 
 canonical, in the cafe of a Man convidled of 
 Fornication, together with a difcourfe made to 
 him in a Country parifh Church, was publifhed 
 in the year 1733, by the Rev. Mr. Pf^hatley^ 
 Reftor of Toft in the diocefc of Lincoln, who 
 
 • Se&NichoIi's Defence of the Church, Part JL Chap,,»\[i. . 
 
 f CoJelj>iui*i Repcftorium Gandnic6m'yippen'di)?r''9'5fi- " 
 
 .■• . ' re- 
 
Art. xxxlii. Difference of ConfeJJions. 145' 
 
 recommended his difcourfe to the confideraticn 
 of the Committee of the Houfe of Commoa^^^ 
 appointed to inquire into the abufcs of the. 
 ecclefiaftical Courts ; arid dedicated it to the 
 then Lord Bilhop of London. 
 
 The prefect forms of confefllon made ufe of 
 upon thefe occafions, are not near fo particular 
 as thofe injoined in the ancient penitential 
 Canons-, wherein among other confefTions made- 
 before his Lord and Saviour Chrift, and before, 
 the Holy Altar, and the Relicks in the Church, 
 and before his Shrift, and the Lord's Mafs, 
 Pricft,the penitent Offender was alfo commanded, 
 to ufe the following expreffions. " I confefs all^ 
 *' the fins of .my Body by my fkin, by my flefli, 
 " by my bones, by my fincws, by my reins, by,^ 
 " my griftles, by my tongue, by the lips, by 
 " the palate, by the teeth, by the hair, by the 
 " marrow, by every thing foft or hard, wet or 
 *' dry, &c. *'." The Shrift or ghoflly Phyfician 
 was to fqueeze out the crimes of the Penitent; 
 but if he accufed himfelf in conformity to the 
 tenor, and in the language of the Canons, he 
 was thought to " ad like a man." 
 
 "When we confider the fcriptural.dodrine of 
 Repentance, it is difficult to juftify the reftora- 
 tion and abfolution of the Offender, immediately 
 
 * See Abp. Dunstan's penitential Canon.-:, % 8. 
 
 L uDon 
 
14^ Penance varioujly conftdered. Art. xxxiiL 
 
 upon the performance of Penance j for there can 
 be little doubt that many who have flood in 
 a white fheet in the Church, have at the expira- 
 tion of the limited time, only repented of their 
 difgrace. And if indeed Penance is to be con- 
 fidered as a ftgn of repentance, I know not how 
 the continued ufe of it can be reconciled with 
 the 25th Article of the Church of England^ in 
 which the five Popifti Sacraments, are faid 
 " not to be counted for Sacraments of the 
 ** Gofpel." Since if we adhere to the Church's 
 own definition of a Sacrament, Penance mufl in 
 this view be one, as being " an outward and 
 vifible fign of the inward and fpiritual grace" of 
 Repentance -, and might not improperly be 
 called the fourth Sacrament of the Church of 
 England. The only way to evade this conclu- 
 lion, muft be to confidcr it as the fubjlituts 
 rather than as the fign of Repentance. But 
 though this is more agreeable to faft, and to 
 other views given of this doctrine by the publick 
 Injun(5lions of the Church, it is far from being 
 in fuch a view more agreeable to the word of 
 God, or a more proper condition of reconciling 
 notorious finners to the privileges of the Church. 
 
 But whatever objedions there are, againfl a 
 
 reconciliation of Offenders by the performance 
 
 of Penance, there are many more, and much 
 
 ftronger, to allowing the fame influence and 
 
 3 efficacy 
 
Art. xxxiill Commutation of Penance. 147 
 
 efficacy to the redemption of it by money ^ com- 
 monly called the commutation of Penance \ 
 which requires fome farther confideration. 
 
 By the ftatute 9 Edw. 11. Cap. I. it was 
 enafted, " If a Prelate enjoin Penance pecuniary 
 ** to a man for his offence, and it be demanded, 
 ** the King's prohibition fliall hold place. Not- 
 *' withftanding if Prelates enjoin a Penance 
 ** corporal:, and the Party will redeem fuch 
 ** Penarice by money^ if m>oney be demanded 
 *' before a Judge Spiritual, the King's prohi- 
 " bition fhall hold no place." Hence the 
 pra6lice of commutation prevailed in the 
 Church, to the no fmall fcandal of our Holy 
 Religion. Dr. Nicbols fpeaks of it, as a pro- 
 vifion made for the accommodation of perfons 
 of a fuperior rank, " whofe honour would 
 *' fuffer by publick Penance j and who are on 
 " that account allowed to ranlbm themfelves 
 ** from the reproach of it, by a good round fum 
 *'• of money * f ." A practice fo infamous, 
 
 could 
 
 • Nichols ubi fupra, p. 3^0. 
 
 f A Writer to whom the learned World is greatfy 
 ifidebted, for a very valuable account of the Do£lrine, Sec. 
 of the Greek Church ; has taken occafioh in the courfe of 
 that work, to defend and applaud the Conftitution of the 
 Church of England, upon certain general principles of 
 analogy. And among other encomiums pafled upon this 
 eftabliiliment, he defcribes it as '^ genersus in its difcipline.'" — r 
 L ? a corn- 
 
14S Hegtilations of the Art. xxxilri 
 
 could hardly fail of giving offence to every 
 i'erious profefibr of Religion, in any period of 
 the Church. And fo we find the fa6l to have been. 
 For the Commons in Parliament ift R. II. and 
 ill H. V. petitioned that there might be no 
 Commutations at ail. The Petitioners however 
 never lucceeded •, but in fome meafure to 
 obviate the Icandal,, feveral regulations were 
 eftablilhed m different periods. By one, the 
 Commutation was limited to great and urgent 
 caufes -, but this was explained by the Lower 
 
 a compliment vvhieh I confefs is unintelligible to mej. 
 unlefs it is to be referred to the eftablifhed dodrine of the 
 Commutation of Penance. In this refpeft, I fear the Church 
 is too generous in her difcipline, to the rich Offenders in 
 her Communion. But it is fuch a fpecies of generofity, as 
 one fhould imagine could fcarcely be applauded by her 
 warmell advocates, if any rcfpedt is to be had to moral 
 fitnefs, in tlie adminiflration of ecclefiaflical cenfures. If the 
 encomium Ihould be applied to the ailualexercifeo^^\i<i\'^X\XiCy 
 upon the prophane and licentious, her generofity mufl confift> 
 in a general negligence ; and fo I apprehend there is a great, 
 impropriety in the expreflion. But if it be meant of her 
 difcipline, as delineated in the ecckjiajiical Lanvsy generofity 
 and benevolence miift be fet at an irreconcileable, and moft 
 unnatural variance. For the Canons breathe a fpirit of 
 cruel fevericy, efpecially againft all who are enemies to 
 human inventions in matters of religion ; and with the moft 
 unmerciful generofity to the Prince of darknefs, devote ' 
 immortal fouls to everlaiting deftruclion, for the moft trivial 
 offences againft the authority of the Church. A fimilar 
 generofity to this, appears in the Office oi orthodox Sxxndiiy, 
 ufed in the Greek Church. See Dr. John Glen King's Rites 
 and Ceremonies of the Grtek Churchy p. 271, 404. 
 
 3 Houfc 
 
Art. xxxiii. i^ommutatien of Penance. 145 
 
 Houfe of Convocation, A. D. 1 580, fo as exaflly 
 to anfwer Dr. Nichols's account of it, as intended 
 for perfons of great value or dignity — a truly- 
 great and urgent, caufe. Another regulation 
 provided, that it fliould be made only by the 
 privity and advice of the Bifhop. Another, that 
 the money (hould be applied to pious or chari- 
 table ufea. Another, that if the crime was 
 publick and notorious, the fatisfaftion made to 
 the Church, fliould be fignified to the Congre- 
 gation where the Offender dwelt -, with publiclc 
 profefTions of his fubmifTiOfi and repentance. 
 And another, that the favour of Commutation 
 fhould not be granted a fecond tirne, to the fame 
 perfon, for the fame fault *. 
 
 ^ Thefe regulations feem however to have been 
 very little regarded j fo that the great abufes 
 which prevailed in the management of this 
 bufinefs, induced Archbifhop Tenntfon to apply 
 to King William^ to inforce an attention to them, 
 by inierting an Injunflion to this purpofe, 
 among the reft which were publiflied in the 
 year 1694-1-. In the reign of Qtieen y^;W(?, the 
 
 * See the Artkuli pro Clero, A. D. 1584, & Conjiitutiones 
 EccleJiafticeEy A. D. 1597. T)e moderanda folennis Paenitentia 
 cofnmutatione : in Bp. Sparro--vfs Collection of Articles, &c. 
 And alfo Bp. Gibfon's Codex, Tom. 2. Tit. 46. Cap. 3. 
 Note (t.) 
 
 t See Injunftion 17, and the Life of Abp. Temii/otif 
 p. 41, Edit, 2, 
 
 L 3 Convo- 
 
icQ , Ex lent of the Art. xxxiii. 
 
 Convocation made fome farther trifling regula- 
 tions. But the Reader fliould be informed, that 
 none of thefe reguiaiions whether more ancient 
 or modern, are held to be in force at this day^ 
 So fays Bifhop Gibfon. However I am inclined 
 to think, that one or two of the more ancient, 
 which ftand upon a different authority from thd 
 reft, muft be conlidered as ftill binding upon 
 all Ordinaries. I refer particularly to one of 
 Bp. Stratfcrd's Conftitutjons, which prohibits 
 the repetition of the Grant as above fpecified, 
 and decrees that a certain moderation fbould be 
 ufed, for the honour of the Judge, and the eafe of 
 the OfFehder •, or that, in the words of the Confti- 
 tution, " the Receiver may not be thought rapa- 
 ** cious, nor the Giver too much aggrieved *.'* 
 But however well this regulation was intended, 
 it is liable to an interpretation, which no mart 
 who has any juft fenfe of moral obligations, can 
 reflect on without deteftation. For if it means 
 any thing, it imports, that the fpiritual market 
 ihould be kept low, and guards againft putting 
 too high a price upon the pardon of fin. 
 
 The candid and confiderate Reader will natu- 
 rally indulge the hope or prefumption, that this 
 Commutation is never allowed, excepting in cafes' 
 of very flight ofl^cnce againft the authority of the 
 Church. Or he will probably conclude, that 
 
 * Ziratfordh Extrav. '342. Ex. 9. 
 
 howevef 
 
Art. xxxiii. Commutation of Penance, 151 
 
 however far it might be extended in times of 
 Popifli darknefs, it could never be carried to any 
 length fince the Reformation. What his fen- 
 timents and reflexions will be, when he finds 
 there is evidence to the contrary, I know not. 
 But left my own veracity fiiould be called in 
 queftion, by barely aflerting a thing fo incredible 
 in itfelf, I Ihall infert at length, the Letters 
 teftimonial ifTiied by Archbifhop Abbot, to 
 certify the commutation of Penance, as accepted 
 by Dr. Ridley^ his Vicar General, in the cafe of 
 one James Gates of Siddlejham iq t|ie County of 
 SuffeXy who was cpnvidled of having committed 
 adultery or fornication with one Joanna Pratt^ 
 wl^o had formerly been his maid fervant *. This 
 
 certi- 
 
 * Univerfis & finguHs Chrifli fidelibus, prxfentes Literas 
 noftras Teftimoniales vifuris, Icdluris, vel audituris, aut 
 quos ipfrafcripta tangunt feu tangere poterint quomodolibet 
 in futurum Georgius, Sec. Salutem in Domino fempiternam 
 ac fidem indubiam prsefentibus adhiberi. Ad Univerfitatis 
 veftrae notitiam deducimus, U deduci volumus per prafentes. 
 Quod dileflus nobis in Chriflo Magifter Thomas Ridley, 
 Legiim Dodlor Vicarius in Spiritualibus Generalis & OfH- 
 cialis principalis legitime conftitutus, in quodam negotio 
 Correftionis five Reformationis contra Jacobum Gates de 
 SiddleOiam in Comitatu Suflex', Ciceftrenfis Diaecefis 
 prasdift' noftrseque Cantuarienfis Provincia:, propter adul- 
 terium live fomicationem cum quadam Joanna Pratt ejus 
 nuper famula per eum commifT' & perpetrat' ex officio fuo 
 mere rite & legitime procedens (audito prius per eura difto 
 negotio, ac confideratis Circumftantiis ejufdem) tandem dif 
 ^(' prjffentium, ex certis caufis & confiderationibus eum 
 
 L 4 *: 
 
i^i Defcription cf the Art. xxxiii. 
 
 certificate was granted, above fifty years after the 
 prcfent Articles were compiled, and is therefore 
 an abundant proof, what was the invariable 
 judgment of the Church concerning the efficacy 
 of Commutation, and the extent of it's applica- 
 tion ; and fliews us the fenfe of the Article nov?" 
 imder ccnfideration, as to the methods of recon- 
 ciling fpiritual Delinquents. 
 
 Before we difmifs this Article, it will be proper 
 to invelligate the meaning of the lafl: claule"^ 
 When' the Offender is reconciled by Penance, he 
 is'to be received into the Church, by a '■^ Judge 
 ** that hath authority thereunto/* Now unlefs" 
 a man would fubfcribe blindfold, he will naturally 
 ^flc, Pi^y who is he ? ^*^ '-[' - '• •■ 
 
 The defcription of this Judge as laid down in 
 many ecclefiaftical Conftitiitions, will not give? 
 the generality of readers, any diftinft or proper 
 
 & ejus animum in Iiac parte legitime moven' Posnitentiam 
 publicam, alias dido Jacobo Gates pro Crimine prsedifto 
 injundam, in muldam & pcenam pcecuniariam in pios' 
 & Charitativos ufus, juxta juris exigentiam, & Canonem 
 dadum in ea parte edit' & promulgat' diftribuend' & ero-' 
 gand. commutavit ; prout ex Regiilro nollro Principali 
 plenius liquet &. apparet. In cujus rei teftimonium, Sigillum 
 quo in hac parte utiinur prxfentibus apponi fecimus. I>at* 
 Decimo ftxto die menfis, Junii, ^nno Domini millefimo 
 f'excentefimo decimo quinto & noftrae Tranflationis Anna 
 «i»iinto. Vide G/^w Cod. Jur. Tom. II. Append. § xix. ■ 
 
 ideas 
 
Art. xxxii], authorized Judge. 159 
 
 ideas of the fevcral offices comprehended under 
 It. For in the more ufual language of the Canon 
 Law, this Judge is called the Ordinary^ or Perfon 
 exerciling of right epifcopal jurifdidion. The 
 acceptation of this term in the Common L,aw, 
 feems to reftrain it to fuch, as have ordinary 
 jurifdiclion in caufes eqclefiaftical immediate to 
 the King.' "Whence it is moll properly, and 
 primarily to be underflood of the Bilhop of th^ 
 Diocefe; who is faid to have fuch a jurifdidion 
 jure propria, ^ non -per deputationem. But in the 
 ■Civil Law, whence the word Ordinarius is taken, 
 it fignifies any Judge authorized to take cog- 
 nizance of caufes propria fuo jure, as he is a 
 magiftrate, and not by way of deputation oc 
 delegation. And it is certain, that in the Ca7wn 
 Law it comprehends all thofe, who under the 
 Bilhop exercife any ecclefiaftical jurifdi(5lion, 
 whether hy right, by privilege, ox cuftom. And 
 thus we are to underfland the defcription of an. 
 authorized judge in the Article, as intending 
 not only t1ie Bifhop, but alfo Vicars General, 
 Chancellors, CommiflarieSj Archdeacons, and 
 Officials. 
 
 I would gladly refer the Reader to fome 
 pafiages in fcripture, for an account of the 
 charader and claims of thefe Officers in the 
 Apoftolical Church of England. But as I cannot 
 find any account of their Inftitution, in the 
 - original 
 
'54 0/ the Chancellor. Art. xxxiir. 
 
 original records of the Chriftian Church, wc 
 muft look into the Canon Law, in order to under- 
 Hand their feveral claims and diftin(5i:ions *. 
 
 The Chancellor of a Diocefe is a Church 
 Lawyer, or the Bifhop's Lawyer, whofe jurif- 
 didion extends throughout the whole Diocefe, 
 and who fupplies the Bifhop's abfence in all 
 matters and caufes ecclefiaftical. By this Chan- 
 cellor, the Biihop keeps his Court according to 
 the ecclefiaftical Laws, in all matters pertaining 
 to his jurifdiftion. And as his authority is the 
 fame with the Biihop's, and extended throughout 
 the whole Diocefe, he is called the Bifhop*s 
 Vicar General, and was alfo anciently intitled 
 Oculus Epifcopi. This is faid to be the fame office 
 formerly held by the perfons, whom the Law 
 calls Ecclefiecdici, or Epifcoporum Ecdici. By the 
 ancient Canon Law, a Layman was excluded the 
 office of a fpiritual Judge. But by an A61 of 
 Parliament at the Reformation -f", Dodors of 
 Law were allowed to exercifc all manner of 
 ecclefiafl ical jurifdiflion. So that the office of 
 Chancellor is now moft commonly held by 
 
 • For a more particular account, of the diflinft ch^rafters 
 and powers of thefe ecclefiaftical Officers, 1 refer the Reader, 
 to Lyndxuood's Provinciale, Dr. Ridley''^ View of the Civil 
 and Ecclefiaftical Law, Godolphms Repertorium Canonicum, 
 Bp. Gih/ons, Introduftion to his Codex, &c. and Dr. Burn'i 
 Ecclefiaftical Law. 
 
 t n Hen.Wlh Cap. 17. 
 
 ' ' Civi- 
 
^rt. xxxiii. Of the Commijfary, 155 
 
 Civilians, who are Laymen •, though CIcrgymea 
 who have been bred to the ftudy of the Civil 
 Law, are by no means excluded from holding 
 the office. And fome fuch Chancellors there 
 how are. 
 
 A Commijfary is a title of ecclefiaftical jurif- 
 didion, applied to fuch as exercife it in Ibme 
 remote pirts of a Diocefe, fo far diftant from 
 the Bifhop's chief Confiflory, that his Chancellor 
 cannot without great inconvenience, call the 
 fubjefts before him in that Court. Likewifc 
 fuch parifhes as are the Bifhop's Peculiars, and 
 exempt from the Archdeacon's jurifdiflion, fall 
 under the cognizance of the Commiflaries. 
 Their authority is reftrained to fome certain 
 parts of the Diocefe ; and to fome certain 
 caiifes of the jurifdiftion, limited to them by the 
 Bifhops. For which reafon, it is faid, the Law 
 calls thesn Officiales Foranei, quaji Officiaks 
 afiri5li cuidam foro Di^cefecs tantum. Thus arc 
 they diftinguifhed from Chancellors. By the 
 flat. 21 Hen. VIIL and ^y Hen. VIII. Dodors 
 of the Civil Law may hold the office of 4 
 ^ommifTary. 
 
 An Archdeacon is defcribed in the Canon Law, 
 to be one who hath obtained a dignity in a 
 Cathedral Church, who has the priority among 
 the Deacons, and is firft in jurifdidion ne:it after 
 the Biihop. He hath fome jurifdidion of 
 
 common 
 
1^6 Of the Archdeacon-. Art. xxxiiL 
 
 common right, though it may vary according 
 to circumftances, and the cuftom of the place-, 
 and therefore in fome cafes it is faid to be 
 Jurifdi^io Ordinaria., and in others 'Dekgata. 
 It does nbt however like the Chancellor's extend 
 throughout the Diocefe, but is limited within 
 the bounds of his Archdeaconry. But fo far as 
 his authority reaches, in omnihus vicem Epifcopi 
 gerit. On this account, he was alfo anciently 
 dignified with the title of Oculus Epifcdpi, or the 
 Bifhop's Eye *. Hence alfo he has under the 
 Bifliop a power of Excommunication, and in- 
 junftion of Penances, &c. Some of the Arch- 
 deacons hold their ofEce by Prefcription, fomc 
 by Law^ and fome by Covenant. Where the 
 jurifdiflion of the Archdeacon is by Prefcription, 
 or de jure^ it operates in law to the exclufion of 
 the jurifdidion of the Bifhop himfelf. So that 
 a prohibition will lie for fuch an Archdeacon, 
 
 * As the title of Oculus Epifcopi was formerly given both 
 to the Chancellor and Archdeacon, we may charitably 
 conclude that the cenfures of fome well-meaning perfons, 
 who reproach the Bifhops with negligence in the duties of 
 paftoral infpedlion, are not fo well founded as they imagine. 
 For fince the Canon Law has given them tnvo eyes in the 
 perfons of thefe their reprefentatives, they may be allowed 
 to fave their own ; feeing the God of nature has thought 
 two fufficient for one man, of whatever rank or dignity. 
 At lead the Chancellors and Archdeacons fhould have their 
 fhare of th* blame, too juftly due to the prevailing neg- 
 Jigence of inquiry into the preaching, and lives [of the 
 Clergy. 
 
 againil 
 
Art. xxxiii. Of Officials. i^f 
 
 againft the Bifliop, if he intermeddles juridically 
 with any matters or things within fuch Arch- 
 deaconries. But a prohibition will not lie where 
 the Archdeacon's jurifdi(ftion is only by Contrad', 
 or Covenant. 
 
 The term Official is applied in common td 
 the Chancellor, who is Official principal^ and to 
 the Commiflaries, and Archdeacons, as fevcrally 
 officiating in the exercife of epifcopal jurif^ 
 diftion. In like manner, a perfon duly authorized 
 by the Archdeacon to aft in his place, is alfo 
 called his Official, and flands in the fame relation 
 to the Archdeacon, as the Chancellor does to the 
 Bifhop. Thus this charafter is commonly united 
 with the preceding, in the exercife of the power 
 annexed to it -, though it is diftinguifhed in the 
 commiffion. So far however as the proper duty ' 
 of an Official, is to be confidered as diftinft from 
 that of Chancellors, CommifTaries, and Arch- 
 deacons, it fimply refpefts thofe matters of 
 temporal cognizance^ which have been granted to 
 the ecclefiaftical Courts, by the conceffion of* 
 Princes. But the diftinftioh has long fince been 
 fet afide,and with very good reafon, as Temporals 
 and Spirituals are blended together, throughout 
 the whole conftitution of the Church. 
 
 Such is the general view given us in the Canon 
 Law, oi the feveral offices above confidered. It 
 
 19 
 
158 The Origin of thefe Aft. xxxfii: 
 
 is foreign to my purpofe, to enter into a more 
 minute explication of them, or to confider the 
 difputes about the degrees of their fubordinationl. 
 to the Bifliop, and other points of ceremony, of 
 which the diftincflion between ordinary^ and dele- 
 gated jurifdidion, has been a fruitful fource. 
 But it may not be amifs juft to inquire into their 
 origin. The great Bifhop Stillingfleet, has givert 
 us a very honeft and particular account of this,' 
 in his treatife Of the Duties and Rights of the 
 Parochial Clergy. 
 
 *' Lanfranc was the firfl: who made an Arch- 
 *' deacon with jurifdifbion in his See. And 
 '' Thomas firft Archbilhop of Tork, after the 
 *' Conqueft, was the firft who divided his Diocefe 
 *' into Archdeaconries ; and fo did Remigius^ 
 *' Bi(hop of Lincoln^ his large Diocefe into feven 
 *' Archdeaconries, faith H. of Huntingdon. And 
 " fo it was with the reft ; of which there were 
 " two occafions, i. the laying afide the Core- 
 ** pifcopi in the Weftern parts, as affuming too 
 *' much to themfelves. 2. The publick fervices 
 " which the Bilhops were more ftridly tied to, 
 *' as the King's Barons in the Norman times j 
 " which was the reafon not only of taking in 
 " Archdeacons, but likewife of Archprefbyters 
 *' or rural Deans, who had fome infpedlion into 
 *' the feveral Deanaries, and alTifted the Bifhop 
 **.in fuch things, as they were appointed to do;^ 
 
 " and 
 
Art. xxxili. Eulefiafiical Judgei, 1 59 
 
 *' and then came in the other ecclefiaftical 
 *' Officers, as Vicars General, Chancellors, Com- 
 " mijfaries, &c. for we read not of them here 
 " at all in the Saxcn times ; but about the time 
 " of Henry the II. the Bifhops took them for 
 " their afliftance in difpatch of caufes, when 
 *' the King required their ftrift attendance on 
 " the publick affairs in the fupreme Court of 
 « Parliament*." 
 
 Here it is plainly allowed, that whatever 
 claims thcfe Officers may now have to the exercife 
 of their authority dejiire Communis they have none 
 de jure Divino -, though we naturally look for 
 the latter, in the Officers of an Apofiolual 
 Church. But on the contrary, when the Biffiops 
 became too much entangled with the affiiirs of 
 Legiflation, to purfue their fpiritual Warfare, 
 one corruption proved the parent of another. 
 
 If the power of thefe fubordinate Judges 
 had been abfolutely unlimited, fome important 
 diftin<ftions of the Hierarchy, might have loft 
 the refpeft which is due to their pre-eminence. 
 The Canon Law has therefore made ample 
 provifion againft any inconvenience of this 
 kind. It fecms to be univerfally agreed by the 
 Canonifts, that Archdeacons cannot inflid: pecu- 
 niary Penance, unlefs warranted by prefcrip- 
 
 • Stillingfleet\ Ecclefiaftical Cafes, p. 146. 
 
 tion. 
 
i^o Limltattons of their Power Art. xxxiii. 
 
 tion. The Legatine Conftltutions of Othohon^ 
 66 ej^prefly prohibit them from taking any^ 
 money, for any crime that is mortal and noto- 
 rious, or which may occafion fcandal ; and 
 ordain that they fhould punifli all fuch offences,. 
 
 with a iuft animadverfion. The reafons affigned 
 
 ' < ... '^-^ ' 
 
 for this prohibition are very fubftantial and 
 
 fcriptural. Becaufe, fays one of the Conftitutions, 
 
 *' God Almighty, whofe are all things, accepts no 
 
 " price for any crime, neither.requiresan holocauft 
 
 *' for fin.- -Becaufe the finner fears no crime, 
 
 " which he thinks he can redeem with money. — 
 
 '' And by this means the evilinclination is not 
 
 '^ diminiflied, but rather an authority and licence 
 
 " is thereby granted to fm *.'* 
 
 This was certainly found docflrine, though 
 delivered and confirmed by a Legate from the 
 Apoftolick See of Ro?ne. I only lament that the 
 Canonifts have not informed us, why the fame 
 reafons do not equally apply to Bifliops, as to 
 Airchdeacons ; for I am utterly at a lofs to 
 conceive, that the payment of conuderation 
 rrtoney for fin, fliould be more acceptable to 
 God, when injoined by a Bifiiop, than if it had 
 only the Archdeacon's warrant. L)ndwood in 
 his glofs upon this Cohftitut-'ion, afiTures us that 
 thefe reafons are not to be applied to Bifliops *, 
 but has left us wholly in the dark, as to the 
 
 * Conflit. Provi-nc. Domini Qtbobcniy Tit 19. 
 
 ratio- 
 
Art. Jcxkiii. in Favour of Bifiops", iSi 
 
 rationality of the diftinftion. It is to be re- 
 membered, he was himfelf a Bifhop. 
 
 A fimilar refpedl was paid to the fuperior 
 authority of the epifcopal Office, in granting 
 pecuniary abfolutions, by the Canons of 1571 ; 
 which do alfo explicitly exclude other eccle- 
 fiaftical Judges, befides the Archdeacon, frotn 
 the right of commuting Penance, unlefs by 
 fpecial commiffion, in the following words. 
 
 Commutationem autem injunflse poenitentijp^ 
 nee Cancellarius faciet, nee Archidiaconus, nee 
 Officialisj nee Commiflarius. Ea poteftas multis. 
 gravibus de caufis Epifcopo foli relervabitur, 
 aut fi quern alium Epifcopus ad eum ufum 
 fpeciali mandato defignabit *. 
 
 Several other Injundions of the Church per- 
 fe<flly harmonize with the preceding declarations. 
 But befides the various limitations in favour of 
 the Bifliops, many of the Canons have alfo 
 referved to the Archbishop, as was hinted 
 above, the fole exclufive power and authority of 
 reftoring the moft heinous Offenders +. To him 
 fome fpecial powers of abfolution are likewile 
 granted by tke ftatute Law of the Land. For 
 when the payment of Peter-pence, and other 
 
 * Liber quorujidam Canonum, I57i> p» 230, in 
 Bp. Sparrow^ s Colledlion. 
 t Seej)age 137. 
 
 M Papal 
 
tSi The Prerogalive of the Art. xxxii/.. 
 
 Papal exadlions were abolifhed -, the pov/er of 
 Difpenfations was taken from the Pope, and 
 veiled in the Archbifl^iop of Canterbury by 
 25 Hcn.YlW, Cap. 21. Inftead of fuing to 
 Rome for any Difpenfations, or other Inftrumencs 
 whatever, it was provided by that Statute, that 
 they llioiild be " had and obtained in manner 
 *' and form following, and none otherwife. 
 " That is to fay, the Archbifliop of Canterbury 
 " for the time being, and his Succeflbrs, fhali 
 " have power and authority from time to time 
 *' by their difcretions, to give, grant and difpofe, 
 " by an Inftrument under the Seal of the faid 
 *' Archbifliop, unto your Majefty, and to your 
 " Heirs and SuccefTors, Kings of this Realm, 
 *' as well all manner fuch licences, difpenfa- 
 " tions, compofitions, faculties, grants, refcripts, 
 " delegacies, inftruments, and other writings, 
 " for caufes not being contrary or repugnant 
 " to the Holy Scriptures, and laws of God, as 
 *' heretofore has been ufed and accuftomed to 
 *' be had and obtained by your Highnefs, or 
 " any your moft noble Progenitors, or any of 
 " your or their Subjects, at the See of Romt^ 
 " or any perfon or perfons by authority of tlie 
 " fame; and all other licences, difpenfations, 
 *' faculties, compofitions, grants, refcripts, de- 
 *' legacies, inftrument?^ and other writings in, 
 " for, and upon all fuch caufes and matters, 
 *' as fhall be convenient and neceifary to be 
 7 > • " had,- 
 
Arf, xxxiii. Jrchhijhop of Qant.cxhury. i6g 
 
 ** had, for the honour and furety of your 
 *' Highnefs, your Heirs and SuccefTors, and 
 *' the wealth and profit of this your Realm.'* 
 And by the fame Statute it is provided, that 
 in cafe the ArchbiHiop Ihall obltinately refufe to 
 grant any fuch Difpenfation, he fhall incur the 
 penalty limited by the King, in the writ of 
 Injun(5lion. And his Majefty may then com- 
 mifilon two other fpiritual Prelates to grant the 
 faid Difpenfation \ which by this Act is ren- 
 dered of as good value, ftrength, and effe(fl, and 
 as beneficial to the TranfgrefTor, as if it had 
 been obtained under the name and feal of the 
 laid Archbifhop. I am fure I do not at all 
 queftion it. To prevent miftakes it is necefiliry 
 however to add, that this fpiritual, apoftolical 
 power can in neither cafe be exercifed to purpofe 
 unlefs quickened to adion by the co-operation 
 of certain Fees, to be paid to the Officers of 
 the Court. For carrying the purpofes of this 
 A(5l into execution, the Archbifliop has a (land- 
 ing Officer, called T^he Mafter of the Faculties'*. 
 
 From 
 
 * The pious Bp. 'Jenxiel in Kis celebrated Apology of the 
 Church of England, upbraids the Church of Rome with her 
 corrupt management of the Keys ; and thus ftates the oppo- 
 fition between the dodrine of the two Churches, upon this 
 point. 
 
 " Seeing the fame word was given to all, and the Key 
 
 *' which pertains to all, is but one ; ijce fay that the power 
 
 " of all Minifters as to binding and loofmg is one and the 
 
 M 2 «' fame J 
 
164 'the Se7ife of the Article. Art. xxxiii. 
 
 From the preceding account of the feveral 
 Officers encrufted with ecclefiallical jurifdiction, 
 we may learn the genuine fenie, and full extent 
 of the phrafe in the Article. There was an 
 evident propriety in making ufe of fo general 
 a defcription, as that of " a Judge that hath 
 *' authority thereunto •," becaufe in different parts 
 of a Diocefe, under different degrees of guilt, 
 
 " fame; and -mc fay, that even the Pope himfelf, notwith- 
 *' flanding his flatterers, do fo fweetly footh him up with 
 ** thefe words, I avill gi-ve. unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom 
 *' of Heaven ; as if they belonged to him, and to no other 
 ^^ mortal under heaven ; except he makes it his bufinefs to 
 •' bend and fubdue the confciences of men to the word of 
 *' God, we deny that even he (as I faid) can eitlier open or 
 *' ftiut, or has at all the Keys ; and although he doth teach 
 ** and inflruft the people (which I wifli he would fometimes 
 ** do truly, and at laft be perfuaded to believe it is as leaft 
 •* fome part of his duty and office) but yet if he did fo, his 
 *' key would be neither better nor greater than that of 
 ** others ; for who made that difference ? Who taught him 
 *' to open more learnedly, or abfolve more poiv erf ully than his 
 •' Brethren." JeiveVs Apology, Chap. 2. § 8. 
 
 With fubmiffion to the judgment of others, I am of opinion 
 that in this inftance, the good Bilhop through an excefs of 
 filial duty and affedlion, rather ftretched a point to ieive the 
 caufe of his Holy Mother. Several provifions of the ancient 
 canon Law then in force, and the Statute above quoted, 
 fpeak a very different language from his Lordfhip. And it 
 is certain that the Church proceeded upon quite oppofits 
 principles, in the Canons of !6o3. So that I apprehend, 
 the Archbifliop of Canterbury is to the full as much interefted 
 in the quellions propofed in the Apology, as the Pope of 
 Rome himfelf. 
 
 7 accord- 
 
Art. xxxiii. Rogers'j Expofition. 16.5 
 
 according to the different quality, rank, and 
 ftibftance of the Offender, and in other various 
 circumftances, the authorized Judge miglit 
 happen to be either the Archdeacon, or the 
 Commiffary, or the Chancellor, or the Bifhop, 
 or the Archbidiop. Hence alfo we muft infer, 
 that though Proteftant Diffenting Congregations 
 may excommunicate Offenders, they have, ac- 
 cording to the dodrine of the Article, no power 
 to reconcile and reflore them -, fince they have 
 no fuch authorized Judges in their Communion. 
 
 The Expofitors of this Article, are exceedingl v 
 tender and cautious of entering into a particular 
 examination of it ; but lb far as thev go, they 
 juftify the interpretation above given. It is 
 probable they might fay the lefs, as knowing 
 it to be fufficiently expounded by the Canons 
 and Injuncftions of the Church. 
 
 The only thing remarkable in Rogers^ expo- 
 fition of it, is this : That in the lift of Errors 
 and Adverfaries to the truth of the Article ; 
 the fecond clafs confifts of thole " which allow 
 " the cenfure of Excommunication fo it be 
 " done not (as with us it is), fays he, by Com- 
 " miffaries. Chancellors, or Bifhops, but in every 
 *' Pariffj^ and that either by the ivhole Cpjigrega- 
 *•'■ iion, or by the Elder/hip^ and the whole Church ; 
 *' or by every Minijier^ yea every Member of the 
 M 3 *' Church i 
 
1 ^6 WelchmanV, a::d Bp. BurnetV Art.xxxiii. 
 
 " Church ; or finally, if not hy^ yet not without 
 *' the confcnt of his Pajior^ who is to be excom- 
 " municated *. 
 
 Welchman in a note upon the claufe, con- 
 cerning the Judge that hath authority, fays, 
 " i. e. the Bifhop, cr he at leaft, to whom this 
 *' epifcopal authority is delegated by cuftom -|-." 
 
 Bifliop Burnet was flruck almoft dumb in 
 treating on this Article. He fays not a word in 
 vindication of the doftrine of reconciliation by 
 Penance ; nor does he enter into the particular 
 conHderation of the Judge that is authorized 
 thereunto. In fad, he does not expound the 
 Article, but gives a general diilertation upon 
 the nature and realonablenefs of Excommunica- 
 tion, as fet forth in the Scriptures, and prac5t:ifcd 
 in the primitive Church. Vv htn he treats of the 
 caufes for which, and the manner in which the 
 fentence fhould be palled, he talks a language 
 diredly oppofite to the whole tenor of the 
 ecclefiaftical Canons. And in the clofe he re- 
 prefents the Church as having long groaned 
 under the management of the Civilians and 
 Canonifts, .and as having long wilhed to fee that 
 efFcded, which was defigned in the beginning 
 of the Reformation. He fays the draught of 
 
 * Rcgtrs ubi fupra, p. 195. 
 t U'eiJjmoK ubi fupra, p. 35* 
 
Art. xxxili. Expofilions ccnjidered. i^y 
 
 the reformation of thofe Courts is ftill extant. 
 But having faid this, he probably recolleded 
 the timid difpofition of that great Prelate, who 
 moved him to undertake his expofition, and 
 put him into commifTion to remove difficulties, 
 and not to ftart them. Therefore v^'hile he ac- 
 knowledges that by reafon of the delay of the 
 reformation, the tares grow up with the wlieat -, 
 he thinks we ought to let them grow together, 
 *till the Great Harvefl: comes •, or at lead, till 
 a proper harveft may be given the Church by 
 the providence of God. In the ecclefiaftical 
 Regiller of time, there never has been a harvell 
 feafon fince the Reformation, and perhaps there 
 never will be, till the final confummation *. 
 
 Upon the whole, how materially docs the 
 judgment of the Church vary from the rules laid 
 down in the New Tcftament •, where tiie excom- 
 munication of Offenders is reprefented, not as 
 the province of any one individual Member, or 
 Minifter of fuperior rank, nor as taking place 
 ipfo fa^lo i but as the aft of the Church or 
 Congregation alfembled together, after repeated 
 private admonitions -f. The Gofpel knows not 
 any fuch inftituted means of reconciliation, as 
 the performance or commutation of Penance. 
 Nor is the reftoration of the Offender entrulted 
 
 * See Burnet's Expofition, p. 457 & feij. 
 f Mat. xviii. 15 — 17 i Cor. v. 4, 5. 
 
 M 4 under 
 
i68 Refle5Iions cyi the Art. xxxiii. 
 
 under different circumftances, to different 
 Officers •, but the Congregation from whole 
 Communion he was excluded, are to forgive 
 and receive him into fellowfhip again *, though 
 not without a more credible evidence of his 
 repentance, than either ftanding in a white Sheet, 
 or paying a round fum of Money. 
 
 Here I mud beg leave to paufe a little for 
 refleftion. Permit me as a Proteftant, ferioufly 
 to afk the queflion, Wherein does the abfolution 
 of a notorious fmner, upon the mere performance 
 of Penance, materially differ from the obnoxious 
 dodlrine of the 0;pus Operatum of the Papifts ? 
 What is the commutation of Penance, but 
 putting pardons to fale ? A pra6lice which 
 furely can never be juftified, however pioufly 
 the purchafe-money may afterwards be difpofed 
 of. Who can trace in the facred volume, any 
 diftinftion in the mode of the redemption or 
 reftoration of the rich and the poor tranfgreffor ? 
 If I miftake not, Chriftianity puts us all upon 
 a level in fpiritual concerns, and fuppofes us alj 
 to be infolvcnt debtors, who muft feek a pardon 
 and reftoration to the favour of God, merely 
 from his free mercy thro' Jefus the one only 
 Mediator. The language of the gracious 
 promife, is, " I, even I am he that blotteth out 
 [[ thy tranfgreflions," (not for a good round 
 
 * i Cor. ii. 7, ?, 
 
 fum 
 
Art. xxxiii. I)o5lrine of Pejiance. 169 
 
 Turn of money, but) " for mine own fake *." 
 And the prophetick invitation, addrefled to the 
 contrite Penitent, runs in a fimilar fVrain. " Ho 
 " every one that thirfteth, come ye to the 
 *' waters i and he that hath no money, come ye, 
 " buy and ear, yea come, buy wine and milk 
 " without money, and without price -f." Can the 
 followers of the blefled Jefus, admit the fuppo- 
 fition, that the common Law of England is a 
 purer fyftem of ediicks, than Divine Revelation 
 itfelf ? Yet if the doiflrine of this Article be 
 agreeable to Scripture, this is certainly the cafe. 
 For a great Lawyer of our own tinies,occafionally 
 glancing at the dodlrine of the commutation of 
 Penance, afTures us, that " the common Law is 
 " a flranger to fuch unaccountable batterings 
 *' of publick juftice J." 
 
 Whofoever fubfcribes the Articles of the 
 Church of England, as the condition of his 
 toleration in the exercife of the Chriftian 
 Minidry, is bound to preach agreeably to them ; 
 et tiicri et defender e fidcm Ecclefi<£. But how then 
 muft a man preach ? In treating of the forgive- 
 nefs of fms, he muft inform his hearers, that 
 there is one way prefcribed for the rich, and 
 
 * Ifaiah xliii. 25, 
 f iraiah Iv. i. 
 
 X Blackjlone'% Commentaries, Book IV. Ch. 19. p. 273. 
 Edit. 4. 
 
 another 
 
lyo The Application of this Art. xxxiil.' 
 
 another for the poor. With refped to the former, 
 he may affiire them, that if they have fallen 
 into any of the grofieft crimes, they need not be 
 beholden to the mercy of God — they need 
 not be indebted to the atoning efficacy of the 
 blood of Jefus^ — they need not feek the purify- 
 ing influence of the grace and fpirit of God in 
 order to their repentance, nor fubmit to the 
 reproach of publick Penance. But, Horrendiim 
 diBu ! they may redeem themfelves by a good 
 round fum of money ; and upon payment of 
 luch an adequate confideration, a diocefan 
 Bifliop is fully authorized to abfolve them, and 
 pronounce them fully reconciled to God. If 
 from their knowledge of Scripture, they fhould 
 happen to obje<5l the declaration of an infpired 
 Apoftle, " Forafmuch as ye know that ye were 
 " not redeemed with corruptible things, as filver 
 " and gold, but with the precious blood of 
 " Chrift, as of a lamb without blemifh and 
 " without fpot *;" he muft tell them (to allude 
 to a memorable Tale,) that Peter of Rome, who 
 had an admirable talent at interpreting his 
 Father's will, fortunately difcovered that this 
 ■was only fpoken of the fcattered ftrangers, who 
 ■were reduced to extreme poverty by the rage of 
 perfecution •, but that the reverie is true with 
 rcfpe(5t to thofe who are in more afliuent circum- 
 flances. This is the Gofpel for the rich. What 
 
 * 1 Peter i. 18, 19. 
 
 then 
 
Art. xxxiii. Bo5frinc to Preaching. lyt 
 
 then mil it be faid to fuch poor wretches, as 
 have neither filver nor gold to puichafe their 
 reconciliation to God ? This do(flrine would 
 naturally lead them to defpair. But their relief 
 is at hand. The confiftcnt Preacher may afiure 
 even thefe, that the Scripture in conformity to 
 an eflabliflied maxim of the canon Law, declares 
 ^e non hit in burfd luet in corpore. For pruden- 
 tial reafons he may beg to be excufed froni 
 quoring Chapter and Verfe, and proceed to 
 expatiare on their advantageous fituation, when 
 compared vvith that even of rich linners of old. 
 Under the former difpenfation, a broken-hearted 
 backflider importunately cried, *' Create in me 
 " a clean hearty O God •, and renew a right 
 " ffirit within me * ;" not othervyife expefting, 
 that God would reflore unto him the joy of his 
 falvation. But now may this Preacher fay, the 
 Chriftian difpenfation being lefs fpiritual than 
 the Jewifh, God does not fearch the hearts, nor 
 try the reins of the children of men •, but by 
 virtue of the gracious tenor of the new covenant, . 
 is mercifully pleafed to accept of a corporal 
 Penance^ \o that it be performed in a white 
 Sheet, in the body of the Church, and in the 
 exaft forms prefcribed in the Canon Law. 
 
 Such I apprehend to be the doflrlne of the 
 Article. Yet I hope, nay I am pcrfuaded that 
 
 * Pfalm ]i, lo. 
 
 there 
 
172 -A'^ unfcriptural Tio5lrine. Art. xxxiir. 
 
 there is not a diffenting Congregation in the 
 Kingdom, v/hich would not difmifs a Minifter, 
 were he to preach this do6lrine of Devils among 
 them. Such I muft both account and call it, 
 as a Chriflian, and as a Proteftant ; notwith- 
 ftanding the anathema of the Canon. For 
 I had rather be anathematized by all the Canons 
 of the Church, than forfeit the approbation of 
 my great Lord and Mafter, by alTenting to a 
 do(flrine fo repugnant to the genius and 
 fpirituality of his religion. What an infult 
 upon the moral perfections of God ! What an 
 affront to a crucified Redeemer ! Why did he 
 fhed his precious blood, if (landing in a white 
 Sheet, or the oblation of Silver and Gold, are 
 equivalent in efficacy with his atoning Sacrifice ? 
 How totally inconfiftent is this, with the Scripture 
 doiflrine both of the necefiity and nature of true 
 Repentance ! The finner who feeks reconcilia- 
 tion to God by this means, can, in my opinion, 
 give no ftronger evidence of his being yet " in 
 *' the gall of bitternefs, and in the bonds of 
 " iniquity." A faithful Minifter would furely 
 rejefl the propofal of furchafing a pardon with 
 abhorrence ; and fay to the deluded Wretch, 
 *' Thy money perifh with thee." There is in- 
 deed hardly any thing more ihocking, or more 
 blafphemous, in the whole enormous fyftem of 
 Popilh corruption, than this dodrine of reconci- 
 liation by Penance. Yet if you will credit fome 
 
 de- 
 
'Art. xxxiii. The true Origin of it. 173 
 
 declaimers, and fome writers, this is one of the 
 vjery articles of Chriftianity — this is one of the 
 bulwarks of Proteftantifm. Chriftianity and 
 Proteftantifnn are bafely calumniated by fuch 
 aflertions. The learned Judge above referred 
 to, feems much better acquainted with the true 
 nature of this doftrine, and has given a much 
 more accurate account of its origin, than thofe 
 who would thus palm it upon the eternal Spirit 
 of Truth. 
 
 " But though, fays he, the being fpiritual 
 " head of the Church was a thing of great 
 " found, and of greater authority, among men 
 *' of confcience and piety, yet the court of 
 " Rome was fully apprized that (among the 
 " bulk of mankind) power cannot be main- 
 " tained without property -, and therefore its 
 *' attention began very early to be rivetted 
 " upon every method that promifed pecuniary 
 
 *' advantage. Indulgences were fold to the 
 
 " wealthy, for liberty to fin without danger. 
 " The Canon Law took cognizance of crimes, 
 " injoined Penance pro falute anim^^ and com- 
 " muted that Penance for money. — In fhort, 
 " all the wealth of Chriftendom v/as gradually 
 " drained, by a thoufand channels, into the 
 " coffers of the Holy See *.'* 
 
 ♦ Bladjloni'% Commentaries, B, IV, Ch, 8. p. 105. 
 
 Such 
 
174 li'* 5 natural Tendency. Art. xxxiil. 
 
 Such beyond all controverfy, was ihe crthcdox 
 original of the do(fl:rine of reconciliation by 
 Penance, held forth in the Article now under 
 confideration. And it's natural tendency fcems 
 well to correfpond with fo pure an original. 
 For does not this eafy mode of reconciliation to 
 God, appear well calculated to be the bafis of 
 a delufive hope, to hardened and impenitent 
 finners — to be the fource of their comfort in the 
 pradice of iniquity — -and a moft powerful in- 
 centive to a courfe of fmcere, ftedfaft, chearful 
 obedience to the lulls of the- flefti ? I flatter 
 myfelf therefore, that, upon mature deliberation, 
 thofe who, I am perluaded, do not wilh to reir 
 their hopes upon the farae bafis, to derive their 
 confolations from the fame fources, or to walk 
 under the influence of the fame principles, which 
 Severn the views and conducfl of the moil aban- 
 doned and prophane ; can no longer in the 
 inftance before us, approve the application of fo 
 high a compliment, as they formerly paflTed upon 
 this Article, in common v/ith the reft. But to 
 proceed. 
 
 It is I prefume fufficiently evident, that by 
 fublcription to this Article, we alfo declare our 
 concurrence in judgment with the Church, that 
 all who are rightly cut oflf or excommunicated, 
 are to be accounted of the whole multitude of 
 the Faithful, as Heathens and Publicans. The 
 
 Canons 
 
Art. xxxiii. All Dijfenfers excommunicated. 175 
 
 Canons fully inform us who are comprehended 
 under this defcription. Thus we pals fentcnre 
 upon ourfehes as accurfed, devoted to the Devil, 
 feparated from Chrift, and his Church's Com- 
 munion. For ic cannot be denied, that in fome 
 or other of the premifes we all offend ; fince 
 our principles as Diflenters, necefiarily fubje6b 
 us to the fentence of Excommunication — of 
 Excommunication ipfo fa£fo. For fhocking 
 as it is in a Proteftant Church, profefTing 
 to believe in the fufficiency of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, it is a truth unqueftionably confirmed 
 by the tremendous roar of thundering Canons, 
 That to fpeak againft any human inventions in 
 matters of religion, is confidered and treated by 
 this Church, as a more heinous offence againft 
 God, than Lying, Swearing, Fornication, Adul- 
 tery, or any other tranfgrcffions of the Moral 
 Eaw. And our Northern Brethren would do 
 well to be extremely cautious of fubfcription to 
 this Article, left unawares they fhould anathe- 
 matize the Minifters and Members of their be^ 
 loved Kirk *. It follows from a fubfcription 
 
 ex 
 
 * It would be difficult I believe to find in any Author, 
 fuch bitter and fevere refleftions upon Prelacy, and all the 
 elFencials of an epifcopal Church, as are to be met with in 
 the writings of Mr. Rutherfocrd of the laft century, whofe 
 opinions appear to have been the general fentiments of his 
 countrymen at that time. Nor is there any evidence to my 
 knowledge, of any material change in the judgment of the 
 Minifters of the Church of Scotland fince that time ; though, 
 the prefent fecurity of the Kirk, has foftened their refent- 
 
 ment; 
 
176 The Confequences of a Art. xxxilL 
 
 ex ammo to this Article, that we ought to account 
 ourfelves and one another Heathens and Pub- 
 licans ; 
 
 ment ; and the more polite tafte of their writers, would lead 
 them to exprefs their fentiments in much more inofFenfive 
 terms. The Reader may take a fpecimen of Mr. Rutherfoord's 
 t)pinion, in the following extrafls from his letters. In one 
 of them directed to his Parifliioners he addrefTes them 
 thus : 
 
 " I counfel you, beware of the new and ftrange leaven of 
 men's inventions, befide and againft the word of God, 
 contrair to the oath of this Kirk, now coming among 
 you. I inftrudted you of the fuperllition and idolatry of 
 kneeling in the inftant of receiving the Lord's fupper, 
 and croflinginBaptifm, and the obferving of men's days, 
 without any warrant of Chrill our perfed lawgiver : 
 countenance not the Surplice, the attire of the Mafs 
 Prieft, the garment of Baal's Priells ; the abominable 
 bowing to Altars of tree is coming upon you : hate, and 
 keep yourfelves from idols : forbear in any cafe to hear 
 the reading of the new fatherlefs Service Book, full of 
 grofs herefies, Popifti and fuperftitious errors, without 
 any warrant of Chrift, tending to the overthrow of 
 preaching : you owe no obedience to the baftard Canons j 
 they are unlawful, blafphemous and fuperftitious : all the 
 ceremonies that lie in the Antichrift's foul womb, the 
 wares of that great mother of fornications, the Kirk of 
 Rome, are to be refufed ; ye fee whither they lead you : 
 continue ftill in the doftrine which ye have received : ye 
 heard of me the whole counfel of God, (s'fi no clouts 
 upon Chrift's Robe." 
 In another letter direiSted to Lord Lonxdon, he thus exhorts 
 him : ** Go on as you have worthily begun, purging of the 
 ** Lord's Houfe in this land, and plucking down the flicks 
 *« of AntichrilVs filthy neft, this wretched Prelacy, and that 
 •♦ black Kingdom, whofe wicked aims have ever been, and 
 
 '♦ ilill 
 
Aft.XXxiii. Suhfcriptioh to this Article. 1"}^ 
 
 licans • and we agree chat we ought fo to be 
 accounted by the whole multitude of the 
 Faithful. But my cortfcience will ndt allow me 
 
 •' flill are to make this fit Woi'Id the only conipafs they 
 *' would have Chrill and Religion to fail by ; and to mount 
 *' up the man of fin, their Godfather the Pope of Rome, 
 '* upon the higheft ftair of Chrift's Throne, and to make 
 «* a velvet Chiifch, (in regard of parliament grandeur and 
 *' worldly pomp, whereof always their llinking breath 
 " fmelleth) and put Chrift and Truth in fackcloth and 
 " prifon. They mind nothing elfe, but that by the bringing 
 " in of the Pope's foul tail iirft upon us, (their wretched and 
 " beggarly ceremonies) that they may thrufl in after them 
 ** the Antichrift's legs and thighs, and his belly, head and 
 *' fhoulders ; and then cry down Chrirt and the Gofpel, 
 ** and up the merchandize and wares of the great Whore. — ■ 
 *' Chrift fhail never be content and pleafed with this land, 
 '♦ neither fhall his hoi; fiery indignation be turned avVay, {o 
 " long as the Prelate (the man that lay in Antichrift's foul 
 " womb, and the Antichrift's Lord Bailiff) fhall fit Lord 
 " Carver, in the Lord Jefus his courts : the Prelate is both 
 •' the egg and the neft to deck and bring forth Popery : 
 *' plead therefore in Chrift's behalf, for the plucking down 
 *' of the neft, and cruftiing of the egg ; and let Chrift's 
 <' Kingly office fuffer no more unworthy indignities." 
 See Jopua Rei/:'vivus, Letters 2, 213. Edit. Glafgouo, 1765. 
 This good Man, I am fure, according to the Article and 
 Canons, died under the fentcnce of the Greater Excom- 
 munication. — And though I think far otherwife of his ever- 
 lafting ftate, it muft be acknowledged, that this illuftrious 
 Sufferer was betrayed by an immoderate zeal, into a very 
 tinjuftifiable feverity of expreftion. Agreeably however to 
 thefe views of EpifcOpacy, it is common at this day in fome 
 pirts of Scotland, for the Merribers of the Kirk to reproach 
 the Epifcopalians, with" bowing to Baal's broad Side.'* 
 
 N to 
 
178 f he Injuftice of the Sentence. Aft.xxxiit, 
 
 to confent, that the Church hath herein judged 
 a righteous judgment. Many of the criminal 
 affirmations fpecified in the Canons, appear to be 
 the refult of a judicious acquaintance with the 
 facred Scriptures — of a zealous attachment to 
 the fole authority of Chrift, as King and law- 
 giver in his Church — an unfeigned regard to 
 the purity and fimplicity of Gofpel worlhip — 
 and a firm adherence to the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of true Proteftantifm. Nor can I conceive 
 that our venerable and godly Anceftors, who 
 never repented of thofe heinous offences, and 
 were never reftored by the Archbifhop, though 
 they are thus anathematized by a Church on 
 Earth, are feparated from the Communion of 
 the Church Triumphant above. 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to prove, that fuch 
 confequences do not follow from a fubfcription 
 to the Article -, fince there is no polBble method 
 of evading the conclufion, but by putting our 
 own fenfe and comment upon It, and thereby 
 deviating from the prefcribcd rule of interpreta- 
 tion, as laid down in the Royal Declaration. 
 While however fuch are my views of the 
 dotftrine contained in this Article, no man can 
 wonder, that I fhould fcruplc on this account, 
 aflentingto an encomium pafled upon the Articles 
 to which I have before referred. For there muft 
 be (bmething very extraordinary both in the 
 3 - fenti- 
 
Att.xxkvil Of the Ctvil Magljiraie, if^ 
 
 fentiments and fenfations of a man, who can ac- 
 count it the bafis of his hope, to be thus held ac- 
 curfed by the whole multitude of the Faithful — • 
 the fource of his comfort, to be devoted to the 
 Devil — and a powerful incentive to a courfe of 
 fincere, ftedfaft, chearful, obedience, to be fepa- 
 rated fromChrifl, and his Church's Communion. 
 
 It would be wrong to omit the difficulty of 
 fubfcribing to what is faid of the nature, and 
 extent of the power of the Civil Magiftratc, and 
 the chief government affigned to him ^ fo far as 
 it refpe6ts ecdcfiajlical caufes, when it is alTerted 
 to be 
 
 ARTICLE XXXVII, 
 
 ■ •• That only Prerogative which 'we fee 
 
 to have been given al'jjays^ to all godly Princes \w 
 holy Scriptures by God himfelf 
 
 On this I fhall only remark, that it does not 
 appear to us from the Scriptures, to be the 
 province of the civil Magiftrate to exercife any 
 dominion over the confcicnces of men. God 
 claims' it as his own prerogative to be the Lord 
 of confcience. Confequently the Civil Magiftrate 
 can have no authority to " reftrain v/ith the civil 
 " fvvor4,'* thofe who are confidered as " ftubborn 
 ** and evil doers," merely on account of a con- 
 N 2 fcientious 
 
1^0 Of thi Power af crib ed to him. Art.xxxvli. 
 
 fcientious non-conformity to an ellablifhed Reli- 
 gion ; or an equally confcientious non-com- 
 pliance with the conditions of a Toleration, fo 
 limited as to afford them no relief from the 
 penalties againft con-conformity. For notwith- 
 ftanding fiich ftubbornnefs, if it muft be fo 
 called, they may bear true and faithful allegiance 
 to their King and Country, and in all refpeds 
 be good fubjedts, and peaceable members of 
 civil Society. We think this defcription in the 
 Article, of the power given to the Magiftrate, is 
 vaftly exceeded in the prefent conftitution of the 
 Church •, in which the King is made fuprcme 
 judge of herefy, and with the advice and confent 
 of the Parliament, may vary the publick ftandard 
 of Faith at pleafure. But thefe points have 
 already been handled in a moil judicious and 
 fatisfadiory manner, by many of the ableft 
 Writers -, and by confulting their feveraltreatifes, 
 the Reader may fee the merits of the queflion 
 fairly examined, and fully difcufled *. 
 
 Thus I have gone through the confideration of 
 thofe objeftions to the Articles, which equally 
 affeftProteftantDiffenters of every denomination. 
 I could have infilled upon fome few objedlions, 
 which particularly affedl thofe Calvinifts, who 
 conlidering that the Royal Declaration binds to 
 a literal fubfcription, are apprehenfive that fome 
 
 * See particularly the writings of the Rev. Mr. Tcwgood, 
 Dv. FurneauXf and Mr. Fonjonet, 
 
 2 €X- 
 
Art. xxxvii. Ohje^lions of fome Cahinijis. i8i 
 
 expreflions in the Articles, are too favourable to 
 the tenets of other denominations of Chriftians. 
 And it muft doubtlcfs be admitted, that the 
 literal fenfe of the Thirty-firft Article, which 
 treats of the facrifice of Chrid, leems upon the 
 firft view, to be more confonant to the principles 
 of the UniverHilifts, than of the ftrid Calvinifts. 
 For it is thcreirv faid, that '* The Offering of 
 *' Ghrift once made, is that perfect Redemption, 
 " Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the fins 
 *' of the whole IVorld-, both original and a6tual.'* 
 And the language of the Sixteenth Article, is 
 not fo explicit in favour of the dodlrine of the 
 final perfeverance of the Saints, as Calvinifts 
 might wiih ; declaring only, concerning thofe 
 who depart from grace given and fall into fin, 
 that " by the grace of God they may arife again •," 
 which feems to admit it as a pofiible fuppofition, 
 that they may not. Whereas in accurate con- 
 fiftency with the fentiments of the Calvinifts, it 
 Iliould have been faid of true Chriftians, that 
 they undoubtedly will arife again, and fliall not be 
 left finally ro fall away. But it was not n>y 
 defign to confider the obje(ftions peculiar to any 
 one denomination of Chriftians \ and perhaps 
 after all, the phrafeology of thofe Articles is not 
 fo totally repugnant to the Calviniftical fcheme, 
 as to be utterly incapable of being honeftly re- 
 conciled with it. It appears alfo clearly to me, 
 that whatever little impropriety of exprefllon the 
 N 3 Com- 
 
182 Reafons for not inftjling on Art. xxxvii. 
 
 Compilers might fometimes fall into, they had 
 no intention of eftablifliing any do(5lrine incon- 
 fiftent with the principles of the Calvinifts. All 
 which Dr. Nowell^ Dr. Wi-ncheficr. and Dr. Tucker 
 have of late advanced in favour of an Arminian 
 interpretation of the Articles, is very far from 
 being fufficient to refute the abundant evidence 
 already produced by Mr. Hill, and the Rev. 
 Mr. TopJady on the contrary fiJe of the queftion. 
 Nor have I any doubt but that the latter, who 
 is a thorough mafter of his Subjedl, and a Writer 
 of very diftinguifhed talents, v/ill remove every 
 remaining difficulty to the intire fatisfaflion of 
 an impartial Reader, in the Work in which he 
 is now engaged. 
 
 If there had been any fufRcient authority 
 for the interpretation given of the Seventeenth 
 Article, by fome undutiful Sons of the Church ; 
 I Ihould have thought it prop(.r to have menti- 
 oned that Article, as one liable to objections from 
 all parties. For in that cafe, an honeft Arminian 
 would hardly know how to reconcile himfelf to, 
 a fubfcription to it in the literal fenfe, by taking 
 ^efuge in the ^<7»^-^^/^^ intention of the Compilers. 
 While on the other hand, an honeft Calvinift 
 would fear that the favourable turn of expreflion 
 in the Ardcle, was nothing more than a trap laid, 
 to enlnare him, to fubfcribe his cordial approba- 
 tion of ^n intention to efiablijh Arminianifm. But 
 
 as 
 
Art. xxxvii. the Seventeenth Article, 18^ 
 
 as the Article now Hands, I think Calvinifts can 
 have no reafonable exceptions againft it •, and it is 
 neither my intention nor inclination, to find fault 
 with the prthodcxy of the Articles. I confine my 
 cenfures to their heterodoxy^ imonfifiency^ and 
 unfcriptural feverily, lo far as all parties are 
 concerned. Some perlons have indeed thought, 
 that the Author of a late Diflertation upon that 
 Article, has fully proved it not to be Calvi- 
 niftical ; but I am far from being convinced 
 that the proof is fatisfactory. If it was the 
 intention of the Compilers to eflablifh the 
 Arminian dodrinc, I am fare that Cranmer 
 totally neglefted the counfel of his Friend 
 MelanElhon^ who advifed him " to avoid all am- 
 *' biguities of expreflion -, faying, that in the 
 *' Church, it was beft to call a Spade a Spade, 
 ** and not to cafl: ambiguous words before 
 ** pofterity, as an apple of contention — that 
 *' nothing fhould be left under general terms^ 
 " but exprefied with all the perfpicuity and 
 ** diftinflnefs imaginable." Dr. Winchejler (who 
 is faid to be the Author of that Diflertation,) 
 has however greatly mifreprefented Calvinifm, 
 and brought many paflages to favour the Armi- 
 nian interpretation, which are not at all to the 
 purpofe. By an inaccurate Hate of the true 
 point of difference, between the Calvinifts and 
 Arminians on this fubjed, he has given an ap- 
 pearance of plaufibility to many teftimonies, 
 N 4 which 
 
1 84 I'he Seventeenth Article greatly Art. xxxvil 
 
 which would be found to be not at all incon- 
 fiftent with the principles of Calvinifm, when 
 inore accurately examined. The true ftate of 
 the queftion, is, Whether Predeftination follows 
 from the forcHght of faith and obedience ? Or 
 whether faith and obedience are the effefts and 
 confequences of the free, gratuitous, and fove- 
 reign purpofe of God, predeftinating his chofen 
 people through Jefus Chrift, unto the enjoyment 
 of everlafting life ? The Dodor fomet!?-^ es treats 
 the Calviniftical notion of an irrefpetiive Elec- 
 tion, as if it was meant to exclude all refpecb to 
 faith and obedience, ijs the certain fruity and 
 neceffary evidence of Ele<^ion— or as if it was, 
 fuppoled by the Calvin.ifbs, that men might be 
 finally faved, without either faith or holinefs. 
 "Whereas they only exclude a refpefl to them as 
 the moving caufe^ and forefeen reafon of Predefti- 
 nation unto life ; and are to the full, as ftrenuous 
 Advocates for the Predeftination of the means^ 
 as of the end. Nov; in this refpeft, the Article 
 ftridly correfponds with the principles of the 
 Calvinifts ; for it clearly holds forth the fecret 
 counfel of God ". to deliver from curfe and dam- 
 " nation, thofe whom he hath chofen in Chrifl;- 
 " out of mankind," as the Unde derivatur of 
 their Vocation, and of their obedience to the 
 Call i of their Juftification, Adoption, Sandifi- 
 catlon, and religious Walk, as well as final Sal- 
 vation i which may be plainly difcovered in th^ 
 
 Englijh, 
 
A rt. XXXV ii. mifreprefenied hy fome Writers. i S5 
 
 EngUjh^ but more clearly in the hatin Edition of 
 the Articles. So that though the Doftor has 
 reprefented the Article, as framed in oppofition 
 to, what he terms, the rigid do6lrine of Calvitiy 
 there appears to be no folid foundation for this 
 hypothefis *■. The medium of proof which he 
 has chofen, is in itfelf liable to fome objeflions ; 
 and had before been applied at leaft with equal, 
 if not greater fuccefs, in favour of the contrary 
 conclufion, by Mr. /////-, who has produced nu- 
 rnerous teftimonies from the Writers of thofe 
 times, not invalidated by this learned Doflor. 
 
 * I apprehend it is no refledlion upon the modern Ad- 
 vocates for the Arminian interpretation of the Articles, to 
 fay that the Divines of the Church of England of the laft 
 Century, were full as well qualified to judge of the fenfe of 
 the Compilers, as any Writers of the prefent day. Now it 
 appears from the Copy of the Proceedings of fome learned 
 Pivines, appointed by the LordsJ^ to meet at the Bifhop of 
 Lincoln's in If'eJiminJIer, A. D. 1641, touching Innovations 
 in the Dofliine and Difcipiine of the Church of England ; 
 that they confidered Arminianifm as repugnant to the 
 original Dodrine of the Church. For the thirteenth Article 
 of Innovations in Doftrine is thus exprefled. 
 
 •♦ Some have defended the whole grofs fubflance of 
 *' Arminianifm, that ElcSIio ejl ex fide pr^-vija, That the 
 ♦* aft of Converfion depends upon the concurrence of Man's 
 <.f freewill, That the jufiified Man may fall finally and totally 
 ** from grace." 
 
 This AfTembly confided of the great Abp. U^er, 
 Bp, Williams, Dr. Pridmux, Dr. Ward, Dr. Bronunrig, 
 Dr. Feately, and Dr. Hacket. I do not remember ever to 
 ^ave feen this teltimony invalidated by any of the Arminian 
 AJVriterj. 
 
 The 
 
1 86 It^s Senfe ftriSily Cahiniftkal. Art. xxxvii. 
 
 The qutfcion may certui"ly be brought to a 
 much more ir.vcJ.y and unexceptionable deter- 
 mination, by comparing the Article with the 
 Inftituces of Calvin himfelf. And there is fuch 
 a perfect agreement between them in the fen- 
 timent, and in feme paifages, fuch a remarkable 
 coincidence of exprtaion, that I cannot forbear 
 fufpecling, that Dr. Vi^inchefter never read the 
 writings of that Reformer on this fubjed. Upon 
 the cioletl comparifon, the principal difference 
 I can difcern, is, that Calvin wrote hy far 
 the moft elegant hatin *. Calvin and the 
 Compilers agree in their reprefentation of the 
 origin ana fource ot elecfticn — of the fruKs and 
 cffeds of it — of the means of afcertaining it — 
 and of the danger of looking only to the purpofe 
 of God, without having refpedt to the fcriptural 
 figns and evidences of eledlion. Dr. Winchefier 
 indeed fpeaks of Calvin as never taking the 
 merits and death of Chrift into the account, in 
 treating of our eledlion. But the truth is, that 
 the Reformer employs a whole fedion, to prove 
 that Chrift is the foundation both of our elecftion 
 and calling •, or that Believers are chofen and 
 called only in and through him f . I therefore 
 difmifs all farther confideration of this Article, 
 as fully perfuaded of its orthodoxy. 
 
 • Compare the Laiin Edition of the Articles with Calvin*%. 
 Inftitutions, Lib. III. Cap. 24. §1, 4, 
 -j- Calvin Inllit. ubi fupra, § 5. 
 
 In 
 
Art.xxxvii. J modern Comment examined, 187 
 
 In the courfe of the preceding Review, I have 
 taken no notice of a m^^dern Commentator upon 
 the Articles. For though the title of his Work, 
 would lead-one to ima^^ine it deferved fome pe- 
 culiar regard, it appears upon examination to 
 be not at all to my purpofe. It is intirled 
 yf Scriptural Comment upon the 'thirty nine Articles 
 of the Church of England, But then it contains 
 nothing more, than a colledlion of Texts of 
 Scripture upon x.\\t fuhje^fs of the Articles, which 
 do by no means always agree with the particular 
 view and explication of ihofe lubjects, as given 
 in the Articles. There is not a fingle pafTagc 
 alleged, which has the mod remote tendency 
 to prove thofe things to be agreeable to Scripture, 
 which I have act':mpted to prove are excep- 
 tionable in the Articles. The Author indeed 
 tells us, that he hopes " every candid mind 
 ** will allow, that the Articles of Faith in 
 ** the Church of England, are in exa6b unifon 
 " with the Scriptures." But, I am lure, this 
 was hoping againft hope. For if the Reader 
 will take the pains to examine the Texts pro- 
 duced by the Author, to prove that the Thirty- 
 third Article of the Church (for inftance) is in 
 cxaft unifon with the Scriptures ; he will find 
 that thofe pafi^iges fufficiently prove it to be the 
 doctrine of Scripture, that fcandalous Members 
 ought to be excommunicated by the Congrega- 
 tion, ^fter repeated Admonition. But there iai 
 
 not 
 
'1 88 ^he Incon/ijlency of the Art. xxxvii, 
 
 not a word of Excommunications ipfo fcMo^ nor 
 of the adminiftration of fuch ecclefiaftical 
 cenfures by a Chancellor, Commiffary, or Arch- 
 deacon, &c. He will alfo difcern, that it is the 
 dodrine of the New Teftament, that fuch fhould 
 be received again by the Church into their 
 Communion, after fufficient evidence of their 
 genuine penitential Ibrrow. But it is beyond the 
 critical fkill of the greateft Mafter of modern 
 Cabalifm, to find out a fyllabk, or even a letter 
 in the Texts produced by the Author, in favour 
 of Reconciliation by Penance — -by the Offender's 
 kifiing the ftone Pavement of a Church, repeat- 
 ing a penitential Form, and dreffing himfelf up 
 in an Habit, fitted only to frighten pregnant 
 Women, and Children — or by the payment of 
 a good round fum of Money, as the condition of 
 exemption from fubmitting to this penitential 
 Farce. Nor is there a tittle refpefling fuch 
 authorized Judges as are referred to in the 
 Article -, nor the moft diftant intimation of any 
 cafe, in which none but an Archbifhop can re- 
 concile the excommunicated Member. How 
 far then do thofe Texts fall (hort of proving the 
 truth of the Article ! I have produced the fame 
 paflages in fupport of the different opinion 
 and pra6lice of the Proteftant Diffenters •, and 
 which of the two has the better right, to repre- 
 fent his principles as in exa6l unifon with the 
 Scriptures, I am very content any man of 
 
 common 
 
Art. XXX vii. 'Tiile and the Work illujirated. 189 
 
 common fenfe and honefly (hould determine. 
 1 cannot therefore agree with the Author, when 
 he fays " Our Articles have as many Friends as 
 " the Truths have which are contained in 
 *' them." For there are many perfons, who 
 are Friends to all the Truths they contain, and 
 yet difapprove the Articles, on account of the 
 many errors incorporated with thofe Truths. 
 Surely a Gentleman, a Scholar, and a Divine, who 
 was capable of making fuch a difplay of his 
 Literature in an Appendix, muft know better 
 than to think, that the Texts he has produced 
 under this, and fome other Articles, do really 
 prove the feveral propofitions contained in thofe 
 Articles. Is not this then (to allude to his own 
 words,) being guilty of an atrocious attempt, 
 if not to corrupt, yet infamoufly to mifapply the 
 word of God, in order to deceive the ignorant 
 and unlearned part of Mankind, and bring them 
 over to his opinion * ? 
 
 From the feveral authorities by which I have 
 fupported my objedions, every intelligent Reader 
 will be fully qualified to judge for himfelf. 
 Whether fuch Articles can with any propriety be 
 called the very Articles of Chrijiianity — whether 
 they agree with the language, and breathe the 
 fpirit of the New Teftament — and whether there 
 
 * Madav's Scriptural Comment, p. 76, go. 
 
 is 
 
190 Reafins for adhering to tfoe Art.xxxvii,- 
 
 is not a peculiar impropriety in requiring a 
 fubfcription to fome of them, from Proteftant 
 Diflenting Minifters ? Or whether on the other 
 hand, thofe who objedt to them are juftly com- 
 pared to Epicurean Atheifts, and the Fools who 
 fay in their heart there is no God ? 
 
 It was furely a very ill compliment paid to an 
 infpired Apoftle, when fome late Advocates 
 for perpetuating the obligation to fubfcribe 
 thefe Articles of the Church, adopted one of 
 his noble declarations in vindication of their 
 conducl, at the celebration of a Te Deum upon 
 occafion of the Rejeflion of the DifTenters Bill. 
 For St. Paulh epiflles will fully inform them, 
 that thofe who can do nothing againjl the 1'ruth, 
 hut for the 'Truths ought not to fubfcribe their 
 own belief of fome of the doftrines contained in 
 the Articles above reviewed ♦, much lefs plead 
 for the continued impofition of a fubfcription 
 to them upon others, as the condition of Tolera- 
 tion. If however fuch is their view of the 
 perfed: conformity of the Articles to the Truth, 
 they (hould inftantly quit all pretenfions to the 
 minifierial charafter •, fince according to the 
 Twenty-third Article of the Church, not one of 
 them is lawfully called to take upon him the 
 office of publick preachings or miniftering th« 
 Sacraments in the Congregation. But I am 
 perfuaded this is too mortifying a dodrine to 
 
 meet 
 
A rt. XXXV ii. ejiahlijhed Faith of the Church, 191 
 
 meet with their approbation, and is far from, 
 being in their judgment, perfedly connftent 
 with the Truth. 
 
 Perhaps many may be fatisfiec', that taking 
 Scripture to be the rule of our Faith, the ob- 
 jedtions I have urged to the Articles, arc 
 well founded. But then they have fuch a 
 dreadful notion of herefy, that they think it 
 fafer to abide by the errors of the Church, than 
 by the truth of the Scriptures ; fince both the 
 ancient Canon and Statute Law, will bring them 
 under the denomination of Hereticks, if they 
 fbould happen to accord in judgment with me. 
 Lyndwood defines an Heretick, to be one who 
 doilbts concerning the Catholick Faith, and 
 negleds to keep thofe things, which the Roman 
 Church hath appointed or decreed to keep*. 
 And the Statute 12 Hen. IV. Cap. 15. gives 
 a fimilar defcription of Hereticks, as t(fachers 
 of erroneous opinions, contrary to the Faith 
 and blefied Determinations of the Holy Church. 
 Thefe Definitions are now frequently transferred 
 to the publick Faith, as varied in the prefent 
 Eftablilhment. And terrified by fuch appre- 
 henfions, many dare not think for thcmfelves j 
 but out of regard to their own fafety, " have 
 *' recourfe to implicit Faith, and imitate that 
 *' prudent Monk, who, when Satan would have 
 
 * Lyndnuood Provinc, Lib. V. Tit. 5. Glofs (1) in verb.- 
 heclarentur, 
 
 *' drawn 
 
1 92 ^he Truth of DoSfrines grounhd Art. xxxvii, 
 
 *' drawn him into Herefy, by afl<.ing him what 
 " he believed of a certain point, anfwered. Id 
 " credo quod credit Ecckjia. But, ^id credit 
 Ecclejia ? faid Satan. Id quod Ego credo, replied 
 the other." It is a juft obfervation of an elegant 
 Writer on this head, that " where arbitrary 
 " power has prevailed, nothing has proved 
 " more profitable than either obfequious dulnefs, 
 *' or a political palfy in the head, nodding and 
 " affenting to all." 
 
 Omnia omnibus annuens *. 
 
 Of the numerous Authors who have pleaded 
 for a ilrict adherence to the publick decifions 
 of the Church, there is no man among the 
 Moderns, who feems to enter fo deeply 
 into the true fpirit of the ancient Canon Law, 
 as the famous Archdeacon Dr. Balguy^ who, 
 according to his own account, would imitate 
 the Monk wherever he went, and nod affent to 
 any Creed, for the fake of a Stall in a Cathedral -, 
 as his attachment to Chriftianity is only locate 
 founded not upon it's divine original and intrinfic 
 excellence, but upon the efiahlijlomeiit of that 
 Religion in the Country where he refides. *' If,, 
 '' fays he, in his Charge to the Clergy, it fhould 
 '* be thought that I am here offering a defence 
 " of Popery, it would only be too candid an 
 
 " inter- 
 
 * Dr. Jortifi's Preface to his Remarks on Eechfiajiical 
 Hijiory, p. 27, 28. 
 
6nly upon their EJiahliJhment. 19 3 
 
 ** interpretation. I mean to defend not Popery 
 *' only *, but Paganifm itfelf. I mean to defend 
 " every eftabliflied Religion under Heaven.'* 
 Confequently he would become an avowed enemy 
 to Chriftianity, where any other Religion was 
 eftabliflied. Much might be faid to expofe the 
 inconfiftency of thefe principles, with genuine 
 Chriftianity and Proteftantifm. Thole who hold 
 them can with no propriety be ranked among 
 Proteftants. But I forbear — the Doctor has 
 already been beaten with many Stripes. We 
 have for our comfort a more fare word of 
 prophecy, to which we do well to take heed -, 
 though by fo doing, we ftiall in many inftances 
 unqueftionably incur the guilt of Herefy, if we 
 give any credit to fuch ecclefiaftical reprefenta- 
 tions of the mutability of Truth. 
 
 Otiiers will not carry the obligation of abiding 
 by the determination of the Church, any farther 
 
 * When au Archdeacon was exhorting his Clergy to fo 
 firm an attachment to the Church of England, there was 
 a peculiar impropriety in letting fall any intimation of his 
 own willingnefs to defend Popery, if it Ihould ever happen 
 to be the ellablifhed Religion. For every Archdeacon was 
 injoined by the Canons of 1571} among other Books, parti- 
 cularly to have The Monuments of the Martyrs in his own 
 Library. This Injuniflion was certainly intended, to cherifh 
 in th-eir minds an irreconcilable averfion to Popery, 
 wherever prt)feffed, or ejlahlijhed — that it might never find 
 aD Advocate in that honourable rank of the Clergy. 
 
 O back 
 
1.94 Farther Ohje^ions to the 
 
 back than to the time of the Reformation ^ 
 reprobating fuch only as Hereticks, who difap- 
 prove any of the Articles now eftablifhed. Upon 
 this principle, the Author of A Letter to the- 
 Dijfenting MiniJlerSy has thrown out Ibme very 
 illiberal refledions, infipuating that if we difbe- 
 lieve any of thefe, we are no Proteftants. Buc 
 I may venture to aflert, that the Author upon 
 his own principles, is then as little intitled to 
 the character of a Proteftant, as any of us. It 
 is however very abfurd, to fet up the principles 
 of Proteftantifm, in o-ppofition to a regard to the 
 Scriptures. Proteftants fliould all agree in main- 
 taining a fupreme veneration for the word of 
 God, hoy/ever they may differ in their interpre- 
 tation of particular Paffages. Men may alter 
 their judgments, in different periods of life, 
 without forfeiting the charaiftcr of Proteftants in 
 any. Nor is tliere any reafon, that men fliould 
 be unalterably bound to maintain every fentiment 
 and pofition in a Creed, becaufe it was framed 
 by Proteftants. The beft of menhavenojuft 
 pretenfions to Infallibility. " Indeed to be ab- 
 " folutely againft: all changes, is either great 
 " folly, or g'"eat wickednefs. Things may have 
 " been wrong conftituted originally : they may 
 " have degenerated finee : they may be attended 
 " now with different circumftances : and.alte- 
 " rations may not only be reafonablc to cure 
 5 ** prefent 
 
preceding Review con/idere^. 195 
 
 *' prefent complaints, but neeeffary to prevent 
 " worfe dilbrders **" 
 
 Perhaps others may fuggeftj that my ob- 
 je(5tions refpeft only the minuti^ of Religion — * 
 that they are mere trifles, which are not worth 
 difputing about. But I beg leave to reply, that 
 nothing is to be accounted a trifle in which 
 confcience is concerned. A truly upright man, 
 will always find as much difficulty to iubfcribe 
 to the truth of what he really difbelieves, in 
 matters of little importance, as in more mo- 
 mentous cafes. The law of truth binds us not 
 to a partial, but to an univerfal obfervation of 
 it's facred injundlions. And when men have 
 once broken down the fence which God has fet 
 up, it will be difficult to ereft any other boun- 
 dary. When men are accufl:omed to trifle witli 
 confcience, in what they account trifling matters j 
 it is a great chance, if any objedions or diffi- 
 culties, will appear any other than trifles, when- 
 ever intereft and preferment may call aloud upon 
 them, to repeat their violations of the law of 
 truth. I cannot forbear lamenting upon this 
 occafion, that the requifition of fubfcriptions, 
 has been the parent of fo many ingenious inven- 
 tions, to teach men how they may play tricks 
 with their confciences ; that the eflential and 
 
 * Bp. of Oxford's (Dr. Sechr) Sermon before the H, of 
 of Lords, May zc), J 739, p. 12. 
 
 O 2 eternal 
 
jg6 1'he Oppofition of the Bijhops 
 
 eternal difference between right and wrong, 
 feems to be almoft funk in the apprehenfions of 
 fome men, into a mere nominal diftindlion. 
 
 Nor can I by any means admit, that the ob- 
 jcfticns above urged are trifling either in them- 
 felves, or in their conlequences. It is no trifle, 
 in my account, to pafs a fentence of damnation 
 upon my Fellow-chrifl:ians, who may differ 
 from me in their modes of explication, and forms 
 of expreffion, on fome particular points of FaitI"K 
 It is no trifle for a Protcftant Diffenting Minifter, 
 to fubfcribe himfelf an Ufurper of the facred 
 charader he fuftains. Nor can it be a trifle to 
 any man who believes in a fl:ate of future rewards 
 and punifiiments, to fign his o\yn Mittimus to the 
 prifon of Hell. 
 
 But fome may be ready to fay, If there is any 
 propriety in thefe objedions, how could the 
 prefent bench of Bifhops, who are faid to be fo 
 diftinguifhed for their moderation and candour, 
 fo ftrenuoufly plead againfl: abolifliing the requi- 
 fition of fubfcription, from Proteftant Diffenting 
 Minifters? 
 
 The firfl: and moft obvious reafon to be 
 
 affigned, which will naturally occur to every 
 
 honeji man, is, 'Their own firm perfuafton both of 
 
 the truth and importance of every one of ths 
 
 5 Articles. 
 
confidercd as the Refuh of their Faith. 197 
 
 Articles. For there is fomethlno; fo fhockincr \n 
 the fuppofition, that the Right Reverend Bench 
 could vvifh any fet of men, to be bound to 
 fubfcribe and to preach, what their Lordfhips 
 in their own coniciences do not believe to be 
 both true and important^ that I would be the 
 laft to admit any fufpicion of this kind. I have 
 TiO pofitive evidence of their difbelief of the 
 Articles, which have been reviewed in the pre- ' 
 ceding pages; yet Kmuft join with many in 
 lamenting, that their oppofition to us, is the only 
 apparent evidence of their belief of fome others. 
 I Ihould congratulate the Church, were I fully 
 convinced of their attachment to fome of thofe 
 important and glorious truths, which are held 
 forth in many of the Articles. I Ihould then 
 hope to fee the charaders of an Usher, a 
 Leighton, or an Hall revived in the prefent. 
 day, in their indefatigable labours for promotino" 
 the everlafting falvation of precious fouls, by 
 preaching the unfearchable riches of Chrift. 
 But this point may perhaps be more fatis- 
 faclorily fettled, by fome perfons better fkilled 
 in modern cafuiftry, than I pretend to be. 
 May I not however be permitted to (late my 
 difficulties, and draw up a cafe for the determi- 
 nation of the Learned .^ 
 
 It is certain, no man could fufpeEl the Thirty- 
 Bine Articles to be the flandard of the national 
 O 3 Faith, 
 
iq8 ^he Evidence of their Belief 
 
 Faith, from any of the Sermons which have been 
 preached and publiflied, by the Bifhops of the 
 Church of England for many years. There is 
 a certain lavour which ufually charafterizes the 
 difcourfes of fuch Miniilers, as believe certain 
 doftrines of the Articles to be true, even 
 when they do not profefTedly treat upon any 
 diftinguiihing points of doftrine. But this does 
 not appear to be the modern (train of preaching, 
 adopted by the higher orders of the Clergy. 
 Though their Sermons are, for the moll part, 
 preached upon particular occafions -, yet fome 
 of thofe occafions, have afforded a very fit 
 opportunity for infifting upon the peculiajj 
 dodtrines of the Articles. But if we examine the 
 Difcourfes which have been preached upon 
 days of publick humiliation, we do not find 
 the prevalence of fm, traced back to the original 
 guilt and depravity of human nature, as its 
 fourcc-, but reprefented as arifing from the follow- 
 ing of Adam, and the evil examples of his pofte- 
 rity, in apparent oppofiticn to the ninth Article of 
 the Church of England. We find the people 
 direcfted, to put away their fins by the good 
 work of reformation -, but without any intima- 
 tion of the neceflity of being juftified by Faith 
 only, as previoujly necefiary to its being pleafing- 
 and acceptable to God in Chrifl: ; and without 
 leading them to feek that powerful operation 
 of the Grace of Chrifl, and the inffiration or 
 
 re- 
 
«/ the ^Articles examined. sr)g 
 
 rregenerating influence of his Spirit, before and 
 without which their works are not pleafant to 
 ■God, but have the nature of fin. This is in 
 .apparent oppofition to the tenth, eleventh, 
 twelfth, and thirteenth Articles of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 Another fit occafion prefents itfelf, for infixing 
 on the peculiar doctrines of the glorious Gofpel 
 of the Blefled God, committed to their truil ; 
 at the Anniverfary meeting of the Society for pro- 
 pagating the Gofpel in foreign Parts. It would 
 be natural to expeft both from the defign of 
 the meeting, and the obvious fcope of the 
 pafl!ages of Scripture, commonly chofen to be 
 the theme of the Preacher's difcourfe, that 
 ,2. Believer in all the dodlrines of the Articles, 
 ihould principally infift upon the loft and 
 miferable eftate of man by the Fall, and his own 
 utter impotence to fave himfelf — on the eternal 
 purpofe of God to redeem and fave a chofen 
 people out of every tribe and nation — upon the 
 .qualifications of Jefus Chrift, to be the Mediator 
 of the new Covenant — upon the all-fufficient 
 efficacy of his atoning Blood — upon the per- 
 feflion of his obedience for the juftificadon of 
 the feed of Ifrael — upon the provinon of his 
 Holy Spirit, for the renewal and fanflification of 
 our depraved natures — or upon the fuicablenefs 
 rOi the provifions and promifes of the Gofpel, 
 O 4 to 
 
200 Their Oppojttion grounded on their Duty 
 
 to the ftate of all mankind — that by thele ani- 
 mating confideracions, they might the more 
 cffeftually convince their Hearers, of the e)t- 
 cellence and importance of the defign of their 
 meeting •, and excite them to a chearful con- 
 currence in every meafure, for promoting and 
 extending the knowledge of our Lord and 
 Saviour. But inftead of this, how much more 
 frequently are we entertained with a political 
 eflay, on the propriety of fending Bifhops into 
 thofe parts of America, where the Gofpel is 
 already preached ? 
 
 It may be however farther alleged, that their 
 cppofition fprang not only from their belief of 
 the truth of the Articles -, but from an inflexible 
 regard to their duty, as appointed by the State, to 
 he the Guardians of that Faith. But there are 
 fome difficulties attending this fuppofition. It 
 appears to me not a little ilrange, that their 
 Lordlhips fhouid limit their guardian care to 
 thofe v/ho are without the Church, and be fo 
 very negligent of the prefervation of the 
 eftablifhed Faith within the pale of their own 
 Communion. One may juftly wonder, that 
 they ihould be fo extremely partial, in fhewing 
 favour to the flocks committed to our charge, 
 as to do the utmoil in their power, that our 
 Congregations may be fed with found doctrine j 
 though the people under their own more 
 
 imme- 
 
as Guardians of the Faith of the Church. 20 1 
 
 immediate paftoral infpecflion, are permitted to 
 perifh for lack of knowledge. 
 
 It is conjedured from the general ftrain of 
 preaching of the parochial Clergy, that their 
 Lordfhips do not greatly interelt themfelves, 
 in feeing that the Clergy of their refpeftive 
 Dioceies, prefer ve an invariable refpeft to the 
 dodrine of the Thirty-nine Articles. If the 
 Tewkefhury Informers fhould fucceed in the 
 profecution they have lately commenced, and 
 be fo elated with their fuccefs as to make a 
 parochial vifitation throughout the Kingdom ; • 
 it is much to be feared that were they to prefent 
 every violation of the Canon Law, they would 
 leave every Diocefe without a Bifhop, and near 
 nine thoufand Pariflies without a Priefl. It 
 may perhaps be alfo juftly queried, whether 
 their Lorddiips religioufly regard the Canon, 
 which prohibits them from ordaining any perfons, 
 who are not " able to yield an account of their 
 ** faith in Latin, according to the Thirty -nine 
 ** Articles, and to confirm the fame hy fufficient 
 ** Tefiimonies cut of the holy Scriptures. *" Many 
 Clergymen feem to know very little about the 
 Articles ; certainly not enough to give an ac- 
 count of their Faith in them as the Canon 
 requires. But my difficulty on this head prin- 
 
 * Canon XXXIV of 1603. 
 
 .cipally 
 
202 ^he Difficuities attending' 
 
 cipally arifes, from obfcrving that fueh of the 
 Laity, as are attached to the Calviniftical 
 doflrines of the Articles, are for the moft part 
 conftralned to defert their own Parilh Churches, 
 and to flock after fome particular Preachers ", 
 ■who on account of their adherence to thofe 
 doflrines, are ftigmatized with opprobrious 
 names, and hardly acknowledged by their 
 Brethren, as Minillers of the Church of England. 
 Now thefe have been fo far from meeting with 
 that countenance which they might juftly expefV, 
 and have juftly deferved from the Guardians of 
 the Faith of the Church of England, that fome 
 of their Lordlhips have occafionally preached 
 againji them, and cenfured their principles, as 
 deferving no better a name than puritanical 
 Fanaticifm, 
 
 Again, if their Lordfhips are really folicitous 
 to maintain this charader, why is the ridiculous 
 cuftom of chanting Prayers, and the ufe of 
 Organs ftill continued in the Church ? So long 
 as thefe are continued, every Cathedral, anci 
 every Parifh Church in which an Organ is 
 played, will be witnefles againft them. For 
 have not their Lordfhips repeatedly, and moft 
 folemnly fubfcribed to the truth of the Thirty- 
 fifth Article of the Church of England, which 
 afterts that " the Book of Homilies doth contain 
 *' a godly and wholefome dodrine?" And is it 
 
 not 
 
this Suppofttion illiijlratcd. 203 
 
 not one branch of that godly and wholerome 
 doftrine, that chanting, and playing upon the 
 Organs, forely difpleafe God^ z.n^ filthily defile his 
 holy Houfe * ? To aft confiftently therefore with 
 
 the 
 
 * <* Finally, God's vengeance hath been, and is daily 
 " provoked, becaufe much wicked people pafs nothing to 
 *• relbrt to the Church, either for that they are fo fore 
 *« blinded that they underftand nothing of God and God- 
 " linefs, and care not with devilifli example to offend their 
 *' neighbours, or elfe for that they fee the Church alto- 
 *< gether fcoured of fuch gay gazing fights, as their grofs 
 «' phantafy was greatly delighted with, becaufe they fee 
 *' the falfe Religion abandoned, and the true reftored, 
 " which feemeth an unfavoury thing to their unfavoury 
 •' tafte ; as may appear by this, that a woman faid unto 
 ♦* her neighbour : Alas ! goflip, what fliall we do at 
 ** Church, fince all the faints are taken away, fince all the 
 *' goodly fights we were wont to have, are gone ; fince we 
 " cannot hear the like piping, finging, chaunting, and 
 " playing upon the organs, that we could before. But, dearly 
 " beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and give God thanks 
 ♦* that our Churches are delivered out of all thofe things 
 " which difpleafed God fo fere, and filthily defiled his holy 
 " Houfe and his place of Prayer, for which he hath juftly 
 ♦' dellroyed many nations, according to the faying of 
 " St. Paul, (i Cor. iii.) if any man defile the temple of 
 'f God, God will him deHroy. And this ought we greatly 
 *' to praife God for, that fuch fuperftitions and idolatrous 
 " manners as were utterly naught, and defaced God''s 
 •" Glory, are utterly abolifhed, as they moll juftlydeferved '* 
 See The fecond part of the Homily, Of the place and time of 
 ^' Prayer. Edit. 4. p. 304. 
 
 Were the good Woman fpoken of in the Hotnily to rife 
 from the dead, how would it rejoice her heart, to go into 
 
 St, 
 
204 Doubts arifing from their Condu^ 
 
 the charafter of Guardians of the fairh of the 
 Church, they fhould banifli all finging Men 
 and Boys from their Cathedrals, and command 
 every Organ in their refpedive Diocefes, to be 
 taken away. 
 
 My difEcuky on this head is increafed, by 
 refle6ling that it is an indifputable truth, 
 That fuch young Clergymen as really believe 
 
 St. Paul's, and fee fo much of the old Religion which wsi/ ,^,^ 
 abandoned in her time, happily reftored in thefe latter days 1 i,^^— 
 
 It is remarkable, that the Thirty-fifth Article injoins 
 the reading of the Homilies " in Churches by the Minifters, 
 " diligently and dijiincily, that they may be underilanded of 
 *' the people." But any Miniller niethinks would cut 
 a very awkward and ridiculous figure, to read this / . 
 Homily diftinftly in St. Paulh Church, after the chanting u ^ '^ 
 of Prayers, and the performance of an Anthem. 
 
 This Homily likewifefurnifhes us with aftriking inftance, , 
 of the inconfiltencies into which thofe Men naturally fall, 
 who are accuftomed to fubfcribe in the grofs. For many 
 zealous Churchmen, who would not for all the World 
 knowingly have faid any thing difrefpe^lful of the dodrines 
 of the Church, have neverthelefs earneflly and angrily con- 
 tended for the praclices, fo feverely condemned in the 
 Homily. Bp. Atterbury has left us a curious Sermon, upon 
 the Vfefulnefs of Church Mufick ; which is throughout a 
 perfedl contraft to the Do6lrine of the Homily. (See Vol. IV. 
 S. g.) Another of a fimilar ftrain, was publi{hed fome 
 years ago by a Minor Canon of Worcejler, preached at the 
 nnnual Meeting of the three Choirs of Worcejler, GJcuceJIer^ 
 and Hereford. And innumerable other teftimonies might be 
 produced from the Writings of the Clergy, in proof of this 
 Obfervation. 
 
 the 
 
in the Ordination of Minijlers. 205 
 
 the Calviniftical doftrines of the Articles, how- 
 ever ferious, or well qualified for their pro- 
 fedion, have found it next to impofTible to 
 procure Ordination, if their principles were 
 known by the Diocefan, to whom their title 
 was directed. Some of them have indeed found 
 fhelter, in the confidence ufually repofed in his 
 Lordfhip's Chaplain ; and fo have ftolen into 
 orders, by virtue of fome private recommen- 
 dation to him, without faying a word of their 
 Orthodoxy *. 
 
 Again, 
 
 * A young Clergyman of my acquaintance, who from his '^''■'*^ / 
 
 Childhood was dillinguifhed by fuperior powers of genius, 'U^a.^—^-J^'^ ^^ 
 
 and whofe moral charafter is in all refpedts unexceptionable, 
 informed me that he was refufed Ordination, on account 
 of his belief of certain doflrines of the Articles. After 
 he had pafled through the ufual examination by the 
 
 Chaplain, the • came into the room, and 
 
 queftioned him very minutely concerning his Faith. It is 
 not the common practice of his ■■ ^^'" ^io he fo very 
 particular, in his examination into tne creeds of the Can- 
 didates for holy Orders ; but he had received a letter, re- 
 quefting him to be very cautious whom he ordained, by 
 virtue of that title, of which my young Friend was poiTefTed. 
 This precautioa was owing to an apprehenlion, that fome 
 perfon would be put in, who would preach what was of old, 
 to the Jews a Humbling block, and to the Greeks fooliihnefs. 
 
 His paid rather more refpedt to the requeft of 
 
 the letter, than to his own charafler as a Guardian of the; 
 faith of the Church of England. For when he found upon 
 particular inquirjf, that the Candidate really believed the 
 X)£cefEty of Divine Influences, anJ alfo the dodrine of 
 
tio6 Doubts ciYifittg from their 
 
 Again, if we confider the Bifhops under the 
 character of tiie Guardians of the Faith of the 
 
 Church 
 
 Juftification by Faith, according to the tenth and eleventh 
 Articles of the Church of England, after ridiculing both 
 thofe dodlrines, and declaring his difapprobation of them 
 by fome comparifons and examples, derived from the quali- 
 fications of his Poftilion, and the conformity of thofe 
 Articles to the principles held in the time oiOliuer Cfcm-vjell ; 
 he abfolutely refufed to ordain the Candidate, afligning as the 
 only reafon of that refufal, " That thefe were fundamental 
 ♦• Errors., and fuch as he could not in confcience fufFer to 
 " be broached in hisDiocefe, as by his authority." But at 
 the fame time he affured him, that if there fhiould be a revolu- 
 tion in his ideas, (/. e. if he fhould become an unbeliever as 
 to thefe dodrines of the Church), he would very readily 
 ordain him. The Candidate in a very folemn manner then 
 declared, that his Faith was contained in the Articles of the 
 
 Church ol England ; and as folemnly requeued his -, 
 
 as a Head of that Church, to ordain him a Minifier of that 
 Church, upon the profeffion of his belief in them. This 
 
 was refcnted by his ■ as telling him his duty. The 
 
 next day his ■ JB- was reminded by a very refpeftful 
 
 letter, that the reaibns afiigned for refufing Ordination to 
 the Candidate, appeared to be inlufficient to juftify that 
 
 refufal. Since whatever his 's own particular fen- 
 
 timents were, of the principles wlaich the Candidate held ; 
 as thofe principles were confelfedly agreeable to the 
 Articles, the cenfure, if any was due, mull fall not upon 
 the Ordainer, but upon the Conftitution of the Church, 
 which had not made-fufficient provifion againft fundamental 
 
 Errcrs. His ; however ftill perfiiled in the refufal, 
 
 and the difappointed Candidate, after a long and expenfive 
 journey, returned to London re infedd; and without receiving 
 any gratuity towards defraying the expence of his loth 
 
 labour. 
 
Inattention to the Oxford Expulfton. 207 
 
 Church of England^ how muft we account for 
 their inexcufable negligence, in remaining filenc 
 Spedators of the Oxford Expulfion ? This was 
 fuch a blow at the doflrines of the Church, as 
 called aloud for the cenfure of thofe, who were 
 bound to proteft the Faith delivered in the 
 Thirty-nine Articles. What profpe6t could 
 there be, that the Church would be fupplied 
 with found and orthodox Minifters, when all who 
 were known to efpoufe the genuine doiSlrines 
 of the Church, were expelled from that re- 
 nowned Seminary of Religion and Learning ? 
 That their Faith and Devotion were the true 
 caufes of their expulfion, is evident from the 
 original accufation brought againft the Students 
 by their Tutor -, and indeed from the whole 
 tenor of the proceedings againflr them. The 
 
 labour, though the door of the Church was (hut agalnd 
 him, merely on account of his believing the dodlrines of the 
 Church. 
 
 If the above declaration of his . be compared 
 
 with Canon V of 1603, it may furniih a quellion for the 
 Canonifts, Whether any fubfequent epifcopal Ads could 
 be valid according to the Ecclefiaftical Conflitution ? For 
 there is fome difficulty in conceiving, that any perfon under 
 the fentence of Excommunication ipfo faSio, who is in the 
 jufl: ^conftruftion of the Canon Law, a dead and amputated 
 Member of the body of Chrift, (hould yet remain poflelled 
 of a lawful authority to abfolve from fin, and to convey the 
 power of abfolution, and the gifts and graces of the Holy 
 Ghoft to others, 
 
 account 
 
2o8 'The Grounds of that Expul/ion 
 
 account of feme circumftances attending that 
 judicial procefs, as well as others brought to 
 light by it, can hardly be read by any true 
 friend to Chridianity, Virtue, or Decency, with- 
 out fenfible emotions of horror. Every good 
 man mull furely be fhocked to think, that' 
 before fuch a Tribunal, the regal charadter of 
 Chrift, (the prefent joy of his difciples, and 
 future terror of his enemies), fhould be made 
 the fubje(5l of the moft prophane dcrifion ; and 
 by thofe too whofe bufinefs and pleafure it fhould 
 be, to proclaim the glories of that King, whom 
 God hath fet upon his holy hill of Sion. Such 
 an impious contempt of our exalted Saviour, 
 was a much greater crime, than any laid to the 
 charge of thofe who were expelled. But the 
 Heads of Ploufes thought thofe who were advo- 
 cates for the Kingly office of Chrift, were more 
 properly deferving of fo 'kwQXQ a punifhment. 
 
 When the public attention had been 
 drawn to this remarkable tranfaflion by the 
 friends of the injured parties, and the general 
 opinion of good men of every denomination, 
 appeared to be ftrongly in their favour •, the 
 Public Orator of the Univerfity, having moft 
 dexteroufly glofled over the infamous proceed- 
 ings by feveral fpecious pretences, came forth 
 and bade defiance to the armies of Ifrael. The 
 confequence was, that Mr. Hill, like David the 
 Scripling, went out, and as with a ftone in a 
 
 fling. 
 
more p£irticularly confidered. 209 
 
 fling, in the name of the Lord God of Ifraet^ 
 flew Goliath the Philiftine* The flone funk in 
 his forehead — he fell — and has rifen no more. 
 Thf vi(5torious Advocate for the perfeciited 
 Students clearly proved, that every other reafon 
 afllgned, befides the faith and piety of the un- 
 happy fufferers, was nothing better than a pre- 
 tence, to conceal the true caufe of their expulfion v 
 and that the learned Apologift for this ad of 
 feverity, had erideavoured to fecure an honour- 
 able retreat by falfhood and mifreprefentation *. 
 
 From 
 
 * See Goliath Jlain paflim. And fo far as the Dodrines of 
 the Church are concerned, the Reader may fee Dr. NozuelPs 
 mifreprefentations pointed out, with great ftrength of 
 argument and evidence, by the Rev. Mr. Toplady in his 
 Vindicatio7i of the Church of England from the charge of 
 Arminianifm. The confequence of perufing thofe trads, 
 will moft probably be a clear conviflion, that there is 
 hardly a pamphlet of the fame fize with the Dodor's in the 
 Englijh language, which contains fo many egregious blunders. 
 But many of the mifreprefentations, ought in juftice to be 
 placed to the fcore of ignorance, as it plainly appears that 
 the Doftor had then but very lately entered upon the (ludy 
 of Divinity ; nor is it to be fuppofed, that he would 
 kno-wingly have vilified the dodlrines of that Church, " whofe 
 " bread he eats, and whofe raiment he wears." There is 
 one mifreprefentation however, which it more particularly 
 concerns me as a Proteitanc Difienter, to point out to 
 publicic notice. Speakingof the Calviniftical tenets, p. 94, 
 he fays, *• The dodrines which you would father upon 
 " Cranmer and Ridley were really thofe of Prynn, Hugh 
 *' Peters, MarJhaU, Ovjcn, and others, who compofed the 
 *• affembly of Divines, moft of whom were (according to 
 
 P " my 
 
210 ^he Paith of the Church vilified 
 
 From many Oiocking iniVances, it plainly ap- 
 pears, thac if the fervour of religious zeal had 
 
 betrayed 
 
 ** my Lord Clarendon) declared and avowed enemies to the 
 " dodlrine and difcipline of the Church of England y fome 
 *' of them infamous in their lives and converfations ; and 
 " moll of them of very mean parts in learning, if not of 
 " fcandalous ignorance, and of no other reputation than of 
 *' malice to the Church of England.''^ 
 
 TheDodlor fhould have known better, both as anHiflorian 
 and a Divine, than to have tranfcribed fuch a charafter of 
 feveral worthy men, upon the bare authority of fo partial 
 an Hifiorian, as my Lord Clarendon — a charader, which 
 wants the fingle circumftance of truth, in almoft every 
 branch of it. For the truth of Hiftory will permit me 
 only to acknowledge, that they difapproved the difcipline of 
 the Church of England, as not conformable to the word of 
 God. None of them were enemies to the true original 
 dodlrine of that Church, upon the feveral points to which 
 Dr. No^jjcU rdsrs ; though they were agreed in an oppofition 
 to Archbifhop Laud's Innovations, and to that unconftitu- 
 tional doftrine which Dr. Nozvell himfelf preached before the 
 Houfe of Commons, and which that Honourable Houfe fo 
 juflly cenfured, as totally inconfiftent with the principles of 
 the Revolution ; to the great joy of every Friend to the 
 Houfe of Hano'ver, and our excellent Conftitution. It is 
 not true, that moll: of the perfons who compofed the Afiembly 
 of Divines, were men of very mean parts. Many of them 
 were men of very confiderable abilities, of equal learning, 
 as well as of eminent piety. There was no man among 
 them of fcandalous ignorance — no man of infamous life 
 and converfation — no man but what had a reputation of 
 a much higher and nobler kind, than that of mere malice to 
 the Church of England. Their oppofition to the Church 
 did not fpring from malice, but from a confcientious refpeft 
 to what they judged to be the revealed will of God. If the 
 
 Dodlor 
 
in order to defend the Expulfioft. aii 
 
 betrayed thefe young men into fome irregula- 
 rities ; the dominion of fenfual appetites had 
 
 betrayed 
 
 Doflor meant to fecure any credit, to his own frequent re- 
 prefentation of" King Charles the Firll, as the bell of Kings ; 
 or to his compliment to that pontifical Tyrant, Archbifhop 
 Laudj as the brightefl; ornament of the Qhurchoi England ; 
 he fhould have fpared the mention of the name of Pryyin ; as 
 the fuiFerings of that able Lawyer, bear very hard upon the 
 characler both of the blefled Martyr, and of his favourite 
 Prelate. A pious King could never have thought, that the 
 cenfure of lewd Adrefles, was a crime deferving of fo fevere 
 a punifhment as a fine of 50C0/. ftanding in the pillory, 
 lofing two ears, and being imprifoned for life. Nor can ic 
 be forgotten, that Laud\ pious motive for in fl idling thefe 
 heavy penalties, was no other than refentment of Prynn\ 
 vindication of the true faith of the Church oi England ; and 
 that in order to gratify the worft of paflions, this brightefl 
 ornament of the Church of England, did not flick at telling 
 the King a moll notorious falfhood. That the book in which 
 the cenfure of lewd AftrelTes was contained, was purpofely 
 written againll the Queen ; though he knew it was pub- 
 lifhed fix weeks before the Queen afted a part in a pafloral 
 at Somerfet Houfe. I trull the Church of England has had 
 ttiuch brighter ornaments than this antichrillian Perfecutor, 
 and zealous Patron of fuperllition and prophanenefs ; and 
 I pray God that Ihe laay never have fuch another ornament 
 as he was. 
 
 It is mofl allonifl-ii'^'j :o fee the name of Dr. O^Men 
 bring up the rear of cJai lifl, as if fome, or all of Lord 
 Clarendon's opprob loii charadleriflicks, werp applicable to 
 him. Whereas <*u who are acquainted with the Dodlor's 
 true chara6l:;r and writings, very well know that he was 
 not only a O.rillian of unfullicd reputation for the praftice 
 of true piety; but likewTe a Scholar of great parts, ex- 
 tenfive reading, and uncommon application ; a very confi- 
 derable Linguill ; an able Divine well Ikilled in theological 
 
 P a centre- 
 
212 Infidelity and Vice treated more 
 
 betrayed many more into worfe, which were 
 neverthelefs only made the fubjefts of mirth. 
 So that if the former were juftly charged with 
 a violation of the Statutes, yet had our Saviour's 
 rule been obferved, that he who was without 
 
 controverlies, and in all branches of Jewifh antiquities; a 
 jnoft fair and genteel Difputant ; a folid and judicious 
 Writer; and held in fuch ellimation by foreign Pioteftants, 
 that when he was filenced by the Aft of Uniformity, he 
 was invited to a Profeflbrfliip in the United Provinces. 
 Nor was he lefs diftinguifhed by his amiable temper, and 
 great moderation when at the fummit of his power towards 
 theEpifcopalians. Let me alfo obferve, that he condufted 
 himfelf with the higheft reputation for wifdom and prudence, 
 as Vice Chancellor of Oxford for the fpace of five years. So 
 that I am fully perfuaded, there was no connivance at 
 gaming, lewdnefs, &c. in his time ; nor any expulfion for 
 praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures. If the 
 Principal of %\..- Mary Hall, fhould in any future period 
 betake himfelf to the ftudy of the Scriptures, and happen 
 to lay his hands upon Dr. Ozven's Expofition of the Hcbrevjs, 
 I perfuade myfelf he will blufh to think, that he fhould 
 have mentioned the Author in fuch difrefpeftful terms. 
 To this long note I will only add, that from the purport of 
 the quotation from Lord Clarendon, as well as from the 
 grammatical conftruftion of the fentence, upon which thefe 
 obfervations are grounded ; the Reader would be naturally 
 led to conclude, that all the perfons whofe names are 
 there inmentioned, were members of the Aflembly of Divines. 
 Whereas in truth, Mr. Marjhall (a Man of an excellent 
 character) is the only one among them, who had a feat in 
 that Aflembly. I hope Dr. AW,r//for his own credit, will 
 both think and read, before he writes again on fubjecls and 
 charai^eis, with which he feems at prefent to be io little 
 accjuainted, 
 
 fin. 
 
favourably than Faith in the Articles. 213 
 
 fin, fliould have thrown the firft ftone ; it is 
 probable, the Accufer, and the Judges, would 
 have retired one by one, and left the fix young 
 men (landing alone. A Friend to real Religion, 
 could have been at no lofs to have found out a 
 fufficient excufe, for fome few innocent devia- 
 tions from Statutes, which are fo little attended 
 to, that the young men might probably be 
 ignorant they were guilty of any offence againfl: 
 them J efpecially as they had the teftimony of 
 a good confcience, that they were guilty of no 
 violation of the law of God. But how will 
 pofterity blulh to read, that gaming, rioting, 
 and lewdnels were conftantly connived at, though 
 in diredt violation of the Statutes -, and that 
 drunkennefs in one inftance, could be admitted 
 as an excufe for blafphemous expreflions -, and 
 a drunken blafphemcr without any difficulty, 
 obtain a Teftimonium to qualify him for holy 
 orders — while no quarter was given, and no 
 mercy (hewn, to fuch as chofe to fpend a focial 
 hour in the exercifes of Devotion, rather than at 
 a Card-table, and in fcenes of riot and intem- 
 perance ! Thus however did the Univerfity of 
 Oxford publickly declare, that infidelity, and 
 every fpecies of immorality, are more tolerable 
 in that feminary of Religion^ than the true faith 
 of the Articles of the Church of England^ or 
 the fpirit and pradlice of true devotion. Nay to 
 avoid the mod diftant appearance of giving 
 P 3 coun- 
 
2 14 ^he immoral Determination of the 
 
 countenance to religious exercifes, we are lef^ 
 to conclude, that the drunken blafphemer was 
 requefted and perluaded by the Pleads of Houfes, 
 not to leave the infecfted Hall ; in order that 
 he might help to recover the credit of that 
 Houfe, from the odium brought upon it by the 
 religious Tenets, and devotional temper of the 
 young men who were expelled. It is therefore 
 now a point moft folemnly determined, that for 
 Students in the Univerfity to believe the Calvin 
 niflical Articles, and to pray, read, and ex- 
 pound the Scriptures in a privace Houfe, are 
 crimes of a more horrid nature, and more ag- 
 gravated guilt, than to get drunk, to frequent 
 Brothels, to beget Ballards, or blafpheme the 
 power of God—- crimes, which for their enorr 
 mity, mud even be put upon a level with that 
 of adminiftering the facrament of the Lord's 
 Supper to an Afs, in prophane contempt of 
 a divine Inftitution. But is it poflible that any 
 Proteftant, that any Chriflian, can reconcile fuch 
 a decifion either with the principles of found 
 morality, or the peculiar doctrines of revealed 
 Religion ? Surely not. Yet as this judgment 
 was given by perfons, who have folemnly fub- 
 fcribcd their belief of the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 who have taken orders in the Church of England^ 
 and profefs the ftrongeft attachment to the 
 doftrine and difcipline of that Church, and one 
 pf whqm is alfo a publick Profeflbr of Divinity ; 
 
 y/ou^ 
 
Univerfity, uncenfured by the Bijhops. 2 1 5 
 
 would it not be naturally inferred, that this 
 decifion inufl: certainly be agreeable to the 
 do6lrine of the Church «of England? Had I 
 therefore been a Diocefan Bifnop, and accounted 
 myfelf one of the appointed Guardians of the 
 Faith of that Church, I would have exhorted 
 •all my Brethren inftantly to have joined with 
 me, in bearing a publick teftimony againft fuch 
 an irreligious, and immoral determination. And 
 if they had refufed their concurrence, I would 
 have flood forth alone, in vindication of the 
 true dcxflrine, and purer morality of the Re- 
 formed Church. Yet all thefe things, have 
 pafTed to this day mtcenfured^ by the publiclc 
 Guardians of the Faith of the Church of England ; 
 while every friend to Religion, and religious 
 Liberty, pities the unhappy fufferers, condemns 
 the cruel and partial treatment they met with, 
 and thinks the whole tranfaction, an indelible 
 blot upon the reputation of the firft Univerfity 
 of the Realm. 
 
 When thefe remarkable in (lances are confi- 
 dered, in which the Faith of the Church has 
 been left to fliift for itfelf, without any fuccour 
 from it's Guardians, and even when eno-aged 
 in the fharpetl conflict with the rage of perfe- 
 cution •, it feems to be very aftonifhing, that 
 any of their Lordfliips Ihould have been feized 
 with fo fudden a tendernefs for their reputation 
 ? 4 in 
 
2 1 6 How the Faith JJjtuId he defended. 
 
 in this charafter, as to make it a plea for op- 
 pofing the relief of their DiiTenting Brethren. 
 I would with all d^ humility fuggefl: to their 
 Lordfhips, the impropriety of the means they 
 have chofen to approve themfelves faithful to 
 their truft. There are many others, which 
 feem to claim the preference to that of laying 
 reftraints upon the confcicnces of their Fellow-^ 
 chriftians, and holding thofe in continued fub- 
 jeflion to heavy penalties, who cannot confcien^ 
 tioufly fubfcribe the Articles of the Church. 
 Suppofmg their Lordfhips had rather tried the 
 expedient of conftant preaching every Lord's 
 Day, in fome part of their refpedive Diocefes, 
 in defence of the dodrines of the Articles — a 
 prudent caution not to admit any perfons into 
 holy Orders, who fhould be found either 
 ignorant of the Faith of the Church, or dif- 
 affefted to it ; or a fcandal to the minifterial 
 charader, by a difTipation of manners, totally 
 inconfiftent with the genuine power and pradice 
 of Religion — a more frequent parochial Vifi- 
 tation — and a flrifler conformity to the cano- 
 nical Iiijun(5lions, of fufpending all fcandalous 
 and immoral Clergymen, Would not fuch 
 means as thefe, have redounded more to their 
 own honour, and to the credit and reputation 
 of that Church, whofe Guardians and Governors 
 they profefs themfelves to be ? Thefe are means 
 too, which have been already pointed out to 
 7 thea^ 
 
No Banger in making Scripture the Rtih. 2 1 7 
 
 them by one of their worthy Predeceflbrs, who 
 was himfelf a fhining example to his Cotem- 
 poraries and Sacceflbrs^ of a moft faithful and 
 diligent refpeft to all the duties of the epifcopal 
 Function *. 
 
 'The danger of trujiing men to interpret the Bible 
 for themfelves^ has, I think, with great impro- 
 priety been urged upon this occafion. So far 
 from there being any juft ground for this 
 apprehenfion, it may be truly faid, that ail the 
 milchiefs apprehended, have really arilen from 
 the decrees of Councils, from the eftablifhment 
 of human Teds, and the impofition of human 
 Creeds upon the confciences of Chriftians. 
 Thus alone has the benevolent religion of 
 Jefus, been made the innocent occafion of civil 
 dilcord, and confufion. Thus too has that 
 Odium Theologicum been gendered, . which '* like 
 *' a poifonous tree, has reared it's head and 
 *' fpread it's arms, and the neighbouring plants, 
 " inftead of receiving ftielrer and protection, 
 *' have fickened and withered beneath it's 
 *' baleful influence -, yet has it proved a friendly 
 •' covering to weeds and nettles, and the fox 
 
 * See Bp. Burnett excellent Treatife, intitled. The 
 Pafioral Care ; and his moft ferious and pathetick Addrefs 
 to the Bijfhopg, in the Conclufion of the Hilary of his ozvn 
 Time}, 
 
 *^ lodges 
 
2 1 8 Proved by an Article of the Church, 
 
 " lodges fafely at it's root, and birds of ill 
 " omen fcream in it's branches *." 
 
 Befides, if the various explications of Scripture, 
 fliould be thought to render an eftablifhed inter- 
 pretation indifpenfably necefTary, to fecure an 
 uniformity of Faith and profeflion •, there is 
 at leaft an equal neceflity, for an eftablifhed in- 
 terpretation of the Articles ; fince the Clergy are 
 contending to thiii very day, about their proper 
 meaning and fignification. But in order to 
 magnify the importance of requiring fubfcription 
 to human Creeds, the Guardians of the Faith of the 
 Church of England^ have, it feems, facrificed the 
 truth of one of the moft excellent and important 
 Articles of the Church. " Holy Scripture," 
 fay the Compilers, " containeth all things 
 *' neceffary to Salvation ; fo that whatfoever is 
 " not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, 
 " is not to be required of any man, that it 
 " Iliould be believed as an Article of the Faith, 
 *' or be thought requifite or neceffary to Salva- 
 " tion f." Falfe doflrines, and fuperftitious 
 inventions of men, have much to fear from a 
 due refpedt to this excellent Article of the 
 Church. But the interefts of religious truth 
 will always gain ground, in proportion to our 
 
 * Dr. Jortin ubi fupra, p. 27. 
 t Art. VI. 
 
 attach' 
 
Confirmed hy the I'eftimcny ofBp.VEARCE. 219 
 
 attachment to the Scriptures. I have the hap- 
 
 pinefs to know that I fpeak the language of 
 
 a Bifhop. For when the mod ancient, and one 
 
 of the mod learned of the prefent Bench, 
 
 celebrated the praifes of Queen Elizabeth^ for 
 
 the part fhe took in the Reformation -, he ex- 
 
 preffed himfelf to the fame purpofe. " She em- 
 
 " ployed the learned, the pious, and the wife, 
 
 ^' to examine all over again, by the fureft teft 
 
 " of truth, the Holy Scriptures. And the event 
 
 " was, (what mufl ever be the event, when 
 
 " fmcerity is employed in the fearch,) that 
 
 " many falfe doctrines were (like bad wares) 
 
 *' returned upon the hands of the Italian manu- 
 
 »' fadurers in Religion *.'* 
 
 The fame apprehenfion, another Divine of 
 the Church of England^ plainly entertained of 
 the o-reat importance of fearching and adhering 
 to the Scriptures, rather than to truft to the 
 decifions of men •, when he thus addreffed his 
 Congregation. 
 
 " It is by the efpecial bleffing of Heaven, 
 " that ye have the free ufe of your Bibles^ 
 ^' while the people of many other nations are 
 *' deprived of it by the tyranny of the Church 
 f* of Rome, which would make it of none effect 
 
 * Bp. Pearcis Jubilee Sermon, p. 9. 
 
2 20 Additional Evidence from Dr. Be a r c r oft. 
 
 " by her Traditions. And to prevent the moft 
 *' ignorant of our Brethren from being led aftray 
 " by her bufy Seducers, permit me to iliuflrate 
 " the cafe of the Priejls of the Church of Rome, 
 " endeavouring to take from you your Bibles, 
 " and our bidding you to hold them faft, in 
 " a plain and familiar inftance : Should a 
 " Stranger in your walks on a fun-fliining day, 
 " accoft you and fay, that the Sun is hot and 
 " troublefome, and fhines fo clearly as to en- 
 " danger your eye-fight •, and therefore if you 
 *' would fhut your eyes and give him your hand, 
 " he would fhew you the right way : Would you 
 " not think the man mad, or fomething worfe? 
 " I will not miftruft your underflandings fo far 
 *' as to make the application, but only obferve, 
 " that it would be but common prudence to 
 *' keep your eyes open, and look carefully 
 " about you in fuch fufpicious company. Make 
 " ufe of your own eyes, and diligently read 
 " your Bibles, for the true Chriftian Faith ; 
 " prove all things by it, and examine thoroughly 
 " the great points in debate between the Church 
 *' of Rome and us, and ye will plainly difcover, 
 " that though Chrijl's Kingdom is not cf this 
 *' World, yet his pretended Vicar's is ; that 
 " wealth and dominion are in truth the great 
 " power which he adores, and that all his 
 " doftrines with which he hath perverted, I had 
 " like to have faid, deftroyed Chrillianity, are 
 
 '^ vifibly 
 
The Opinion of Fox the Martyrohgijl. 221- 
 
 " vifibly calculated to magnify and enrich 
 '* himfelf. But whither am I going? — if my 
 ** zeal for God's word hath carried me out too 
 ** far, forgive me this wrong : to be zealoufly 
 " afFeded in fo good a caufe is truly laudable 
 *' and praife-worthy ; and may the blefTing of 
 *' Heaven always accompany us in this good 
 " zeal, and dire<ft us in it according to know- 
 " ledge *.'* I will not miftruft the Reader's 
 tinderftanding, fo far as to make the application 
 in the prefent cafe -, but only add my cordial 
 Amen to this moft excellent and truly Proteftant 
 prayer. 
 
 The novelty of an objeflion to fubfcribing the 
 Articles, has been urged with equal vehemence, 
 againft abolifhing the prefent requifition. If 
 there was any truth in the obje(5lion, it would 
 be nothing at all to the purpofe -, if fuch a fub- 
 fcription appeared to us, to be inconfiftent 
 with the reverence which we owe to God, and 
 to the dictates of our own confciences. But there 
 is not that novelty in the objeftion, which has 
 been fuppofed and aflerted. When the famous 
 John Fox the Martyrologifl:, was fummoned 
 to fubfcribe by the Queen's diredion, the vene- 
 rable old man produced his Greek Teftamenr, 
 and faid, " To this I will fubfcribe" And 
 
 * Dr. Bearcroft\ Sermon at the yearly Meeting of the 
 Charity Schools, 1748, page i6. 
 
 when 
 
222 OhjeBions of cur Foi-efaihers ' 
 
 when a fubfcription to the Canons was required, 
 he refufed it, faying, " I have nothing in the 
 *' Church, fave a Prebend at Salijbury, and 
 " much good may it do you, if you will take 
 " it away from me *." Nor was he the only 
 inftance in the Church. But, " Our Forefathers 
 *' intirely approved the Articles." So fay the 
 modern advocates for fubfcription. But mark 
 in how different a language, a rigid Churchman, 
 above a century and a half ago, poured out his 
 bitter complaint againft them, to a tyrannical 
 Prelate of thofe times. 
 
 *' In the years 157 1, and 1572, when Suh- 
 " fcription firft was required, the whole Land 
 " will witnefs, that many, and fundry books 
 *' (as well in Latin, as Englijh) then, and afcer- 
 *' wards flew abroad. In which we read, how 
 " then, and in thofe days, the truth of God did 
 " in a manner but peep out (as it were) at the 
 " Screen \ that Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, and 
 " all the other Martyrs, Preachers, and Learned 
 " Men, (which firft in our age brought the 
 " light of the Gofpel into the Realm) did fee 
 " a little, and had a glimpfe of the truth, but 
 " overfaw many things, which in thefe days of 
 " the fun-fiine of the Gofpel, men of meaner 
 ^' gifts do fee •, and yet may not utter them 
 
 * See Z'^&r's Church Hillory, B.IX. p. 76. 
 
 " without 
 
to a Suhfcription to the Articles, ii^ 
 
 " without great danger of the Laws (through 
 " the iniquity of the times) though the faid 
 " things now feen be comprized in the Book of 
 " God, and alfo be a part of the Gofpely yea the 
 " very Gofpel itfelf, (fo true are they) and of 
 *' fuch importance, as if every hair of cur heads 
 " were a Life, (fay the Brethren) we ought to 
 *' afford them in defence of thefe matters ; the 
 " Articles of Religion penned, and agreed upon 
 *' by the Bifhops and Clergy, and ratified by the 
 " Prince, and Parliament, in comparifon of 
 " thefe things now revealed, and newly come to 
 " light, are but childifh and Toys. — They fay, 
 *' alfo that the Civil Mogifirate is none Officer 
 " at all in the Church. For Church Officers be 
 *' Non Magnates, aut T^etr archie, not gracious 
 " or honourable Lords, but Minifiers of the 
 " Church. And that their controverfy is, 
 " whether Jesus Christ fliall be King, or no." 
 Thefe he calls the uncouth do(5trines of the 
 fadlious Brethren *. 
 
 Let it be farther obferved, that foon after the 
 Toleration Ad: took place, Mr. Baxter drew up 
 a brief explication of his fenfe of the Articles, in 
 anfwer to the fcruples propofed to him by fome, 
 who were called upon to fubfcribe them. This 
 
 • Rogers's Preface to his Faith, Doilrine, and Religion, Sec. 
 dedicated to the famous Abp. Bancroft, p. 9, 11. 
 
 2 he 
 
624 ^^- Baxter'^ Ohje5lions confidered. 
 
 he gave in at the time of fubfcribing, to teftify 
 his difapprobation of the plain literal fenfe -, and 
 it is faid that fourfcore Diflenting Minifters in 
 London^ concurred with him in his objeftions 
 and explication. He has objeded to almoft all 
 the Articles which I have reviewed, and to 
 feveral others which I have not taken into confi- 
 deration j and has prefaced his explication, with 
 a truly Proteftant precaution againft taking the 
 Articles to be inftead of the Scriptures, a neceffary 
 rule of Divine Faith ; at the fame time declaring 
 his wifh, that God's own word were taken for 
 the fufRcient terms of our confent and concord, 
 in order to union and communion *. 
 
 Many Difienting Minifters, appear to have 
 been reconciled to a fubfcription to the Articles, 
 by apprehending they (liould be confidered as 
 fubfcribing them according to that explication. 
 But there is no fufficient foundation for fuch an 
 apprehenfion •, nor is any qualified fenfe or expli- 
 cation eve;- admitted. 
 
 As the temper and fpirit of the times are much 
 in favour of religious liberty ; few,, if any, of the 
 moft zealous advocates for fubfcription, will 
 openly avow their approbation of perfecution 
 for confcience fake. But yet they think fome 
 
 » See Baxter's Praaical Works, Vol. IV. p. 957- 
 
 rejiraint 
 
Dijlin^ficn in favour of Perfecution. 225 
 
 rejlraint fliould be laid, ?Lr\dfome dominion exercifed 
 over the confciences of men. Such perfons 
 feem nearly to approach to the principles of 
 Valefius^ who was offended with Socrates the 
 Hiftorian, becaufe he cenfured Theodofius for 
 perfecuting the Macedonians. He would neither 
 wholly juftify 'Theodofius., nor yet agree with 
 Socrates., who fpoke like an utter enemy to 
 every kind of perfecution. But Bijlinguendum (/?, 
 cried Vakfius., i. e. you muft not thirft after the 
 blood of Hereticks, but you muft implore the 
 aid of the Magiftrate to reftrain and keep them 
 in ©rder ; and inftead of alluring them by all 
 kinds of gentle methods, they muft be incited 
 and attrafted by the punidiments and mulds 
 of the Imperial Laws ; becaufe he had learned 
 by experience, that thefe had proved the happy 
 occafion of their converfion. This art of diftin- 
 guiftiing, is finely ridiculed by the elegant pen 
 of our own Hiftorian, Dr. Jortin. 
 
 " What is to be done then with one who is, 
 " or who is accounted or whifpered to be 
 " erroneous ? Why, Dijlinguendum eji : you 
 *' muft not filed his blood, nor enrich yourfelf 
 " with his fpoils ; but you may contrive other 
 " ways to bring him to a right mind, or to 
 " beggary : Ways, which refemble the method 
 " of Italian Aflafilns, to beat a man with 
 " fatchels of fand : no blood is flied, and no 
 Q. " bonea 
 
226 Opiniovs of Dr. Jortin, Ahp. Seckih, 
 
 *' bones are broken, but the patient dies by 
 *' the operation, A Gentleman and a Scholar, 
 " as Vale/ius was, fhould have nothing to do 
 '* with fuch dijlinflions : he ought rather to 
 *' dijlinguiffj himfelf from the vulgar by a larger 
 *' mind, by detefling perfecution in every Ihape, 
 " were it only for this reafon, that it is the 
 " bane of letters *." 
 
 To the fame purpofe fpeaks a celebrated 
 Prelate, when, among other refledions upon a 
 inemorable period of our own hiftory,hefuggefts 
 the following improvement of it, 
 
 " It muft remind the Governors of the 
 " eftablifhed Church, that rigorous treatment 
 ** of fuch as dilTent from it, and endeavours to 
 *' extend their own authority, or influence, 
 *' beyond reafonablc bounds, are methods as 
 " contrary to Prudence, as they are to Religion : 
 " that neither Learning, nor Piety, nor erriinence 
 " in other virtues, will be able to fupport 
 *' them, without a fuitable degree of Humility 
 " and Forbearance •, but that care to be in-r 
 " ofFenfive, and diligence to be ufeful, are their 
 ♦* true ftrength f," 
 
 * Pr. Jortin abi fupra, p. 30, 31. 
 t Bp. of Oxford's (Dr. Seeker) Sermon before the Houfe 
 pf Lords, I^ay 29, 1739, p. 10. 
 
 7 Nqr 
 
Ahp. Drummond, and Dr. Tunstall. 2^7 
 
 Nor would I do fo much injuftice to the 
 charader of a modern Prelate, as to omit the 
 teftimony which he has given, to the propriety 
 of the fame inferences, drawn from the fame 
 events. " They are, fays he, a conftant lefTon 
 " to us, that liberty Jhould not be ufedfor a cloke 
 *' of malicioufnefs, nor power be exerted without 
 " moderation : that all indulgence fhould be 
 ** fhewn to tender confciences ; but that tolera- 
 *' tion Ihould not be made a fcreen to licen- 
 *' tioufnefs and prophanenefs : that confciences 
 *' fjould be won by truths time, infiru5lion, and 
 *' perfuafion, not forced by authority *." 
 
 It fliould feem too, that the Church o( England 
 is an eftablidiment of fuch a nature, as does 
 not Hand in need of any fuch methods for its 
 fupport \ if the view given of her conftitution, 
 and the chara(fter of a Church of Chrift, de- 
 lineated by a learned Dodlor, are both agree- 
 able to truth and fa<5l. 
 
 " The true Church of Chrijl pretends no 
 " divine commifTion tq entrench upon the na- 
 ** tural or civil rights of men ; difpenfing an 
 " authority of reafon to perfuade, not of dominion 
 " to over-rule private judgments ; and thankful 
 " for the borrowed aids of fuch an eftablifh- 
 
 * Dr. Drummond'i (now Lord Archbifhop olYork) Sermon 
 before the Houfe of Commons, January 30, 1747-8, p. 20. 
 
2 28 Dr. Jortin'j Opinion of religious 7'yramy'. 
 
 " ment, as can maintain the cxercife and cfFeft 
 " of her facred funflions, without forcing th« 
 " inviolable dicSlates of confcience *.'* 
 
 After fuch profeiTions, and many more to 
 the fame purpofe, made by men thoroughly 
 attached to the Church, it will be difficult to 
 find any confident plea for maintaining a domi- 
 nion over confcience, in violation of the rights, 
 of private judgment ; and without the lead 
 indulo'ence to tendernefs of confcience. If there 
 was indeed any reafon to apprehend, that what 
 really defcrves the name of Fanaticifm, woul i 
 gain ground by taking off the reftraints of penal 
 Statutes ; I would even then recommend to 
 the confideration of the Guardians of the Faith 
 of the Church of England^ another noble paflage 
 in one of my favourite Writers before quoted, 
 well adapted to this point. 
 
 ** Worfe than Fanatical Fervour is the fedate 
 *' fpirit of religious tyranny, arifing from the 
 *' luft of dominion, from fordid felf-intereft, 
 ** and from atheiftical politicks, taking it's 
 " meafures, and purfuing it's ends deliberately, 
 *' void of all regard to truth, and of every 
 " tender fentiment of pity and humanity -f." 
 
 * Dr. TunJiaWi Sermon before the Houfe of Commons, 
 May 29, 1746, p. 15. 
 
 f r>r. Jortiu ubi fopra, p. 34. 
 
 How 
 
Abp. Drummond'j View of found Policy. 229 
 
 How any political inconveniencies can be 
 fuppofed to arife, from granting a rcqueil which 
 has no other objeft, than the prefervation of 
 the facred rights of confcience, is difficult to 
 conceive. The political interefts of the nation 
 have much more to fear, when men are tempted 
 to hypocrify and prevarication, in order to the 
 fccurity of their perfons and property. The 
 reftraints of Law itfelf, are more feeble than the 
 reftraints of confcience -, and when the bed of 
 principles have loft their cffedl upon the one, 
 the fevereft fancftions of the other, will be in- 
 fufficient to fecure a general obfervance. " That 
 " Virtue is the ftrongeft fupport of Govern- 
 *' ment, and the countenancing of virtue the 
 " foundeft policy j is a truth obvious to vulaar 
 " obfervation j a truth, fo fixed in the nature 
 " of things by the juftice of God, that it will 
 " make its force fek by every Ibciety, and 
 " every individual *." Now it can hardly be 
 denied to be a ftriking evidence of the moft 
 virtuous integrity, when men voluntarily expofe 
 their own perfons and property to dano-er, 
 rather than obtain a legal fecurity, upon condi- 
 tion of a fubfcription to Articles, which in their 
 confciences they do not on many accounts 
 approve. How then (hall we account for ic, 
 that thofe who efteem " Virtue to be the fureft 
 
 * Dr. Drummond ubi fupra. 
 
 pre- 
 
I30 ^he Cofife^uences of difregarding 
 
 «« prefervative of national order and ftrength/* 
 and have therefore exhorted us " to give all 
 *' diligence to cultivate it j*' fliould neverthelefs 
 both by vote and influence, do their utmoft 
 to leave their Fellow-chriftians open to penalties 
 and imprifonment, merely on account of their 
 confcientious adherence to it's facred obliga- 
 tions ? Can this inconfiftency be refolved into 
 any thing, but thofe political viewSj which 
 *' give them up a prey to that party rage, or, 
 *' as fome affedl to call it, party honour •, (for 
 '* honour is too often proftituted to the moft 
 ** dilhonourable purpofes) that party rage and 
 " party honour, which having once gained 
 " a full afcendant, lead even reafonable and 
 " othervvife honeft men into the moft abfurd 
 " and unjuftifiable condud * ?" Such an in- 
 fluence, it Hiould fecm, may with juftice be 
 applied to more cafes than one. In the prefenc 
 day there is a peculiar impropriety in difcoun- 
 tenancing the claims of confcience -, lb numerous 
 are the evils which daily arife to our view, 
 which are the effedl of a general want of prin- 
 ciple, in every clafs of life. And I am forry tO' 
 fay, that it is not unufual with many of the 
 Laity, to urge the example of the Clergy, in 
 fublcribing to Articles which they do not believe, 
 for the fake of a Living •, as a kind of authority 
 for difregarding the dictates of confcience — a 
 
 * Dr. Diummond ubi fupra, p. 23. 
 
 condu(5t 
 
the J)i5lates of Covfcience. -231 
 
 ccndu6l whicK has too often brought the reality 
 of Religion into quellion, by men of a fccptical 
 turn i and the charafler of many q£ the Clergy 
 too juftly into contempt, with thofe who deteft 
 every fpecies of perjury and falfhood. Ledtures 
 of Morality lofe much of their force, when 
 it is known that the Preacher is indebted for. 
 his preferment, to fuch arts of difTimulation 
 and prevarication, as would for ever reprobate 
 the charader of a Tradefman, in any com- 
 rnercial tranfadlions. Such a Preacher will be 
 confidered by his Hearers, in no other light 
 than as merely aSling a Part. Excufes may be 
 urged ; but the opiates which have been fo 
 frequently adminiftcred, v/ill no longer take 
 cffeft. The Articles are now more read, than 
 they have ever been fince they were firfb fet 
 forth by authority \ and the intelligentLaity can- 
 not fail of difcerning, how notorioudy they dif- 
 agree with the general tenor of their publick in- 
 ftrudions. And though the unbelieving Cleri^v 
 generally keep them out of fight as much as 
 poITible ; others who are defpifed for preaching 
 fome of the doflrines they contain, are con- 
 llrained to appeal to them, in their own juft 
 vindication. 
 
 If it fhould after all be fuggefred, that the 
 Guardians of the Faith of the Church oiEmland 
 4id not ad voluntarily in their oppofuion to us ; 
 
 but 
 
2^2 '^^s Condujion. 
 
 but were conjlrained to it, by fome fuperior 
 power i it becomes me to do nothing more, 
 than addrefs the Church in the language of 
 fympathetick lamentation. 
 
 T« mihi qu^e imperitas^ aliis fervis mifer, aique 
 ■ Duceris, ut nervis alienis mobile lignum. 
 
 In every view, the application of the Proteflant 
 Diflenting Minifters appears to be reafonable in 
 icfelf •, and all the objeflions to it frivolous 
 and groundlefs. The preient conditions of 
 Toleration, muft be confidered as an infringe- 
 ment upon the natural rights of confcience, if 
 there was no objection to the matter of fub- 
 fcription. And I hope the Reader is fully 
 convinced, that many of the Articles to which 
 our fubfcription is required, muft be liable to 
 exception by every ProteftantDiflentingMinifter. 
 We therefore chearfully appeal to the determi- 
 nation of every liberal mind, whether our ob- 
 jeftions are of fuch a nature, as to juftify the 
 feverity of the Laws againft us. And we 
 readily fubmit our cafe to the decifion of all the 
 friends of Virtue, whether we do not aft a more 
 honourable part, v;hen fo reafonable a requeft 
 is denied, in ftill refufing to comply with the 
 requifition of Law ; rather than to imitate the 
 example of thofe, who through covetoufnefs with 
 
 feigned 
 
/ 
 
 ^he Condujion, 233 
 
 feigned words, make merchandize * of the fouls 
 of men. It is both my fervent wlfh and prayer, 
 that Proteftant Diflenting Minifters may herein 
 exercife themfehes, to have ahjoays a confcience 
 fjuoid of offence both towards God, and towards 
 pien -f — not teaching for do^rines the comfna7td~ 
 men^s of men J ; nor handling the word of God 
 deceitfully, but by manifeftation of the truth, com- 
 wending themfelves to every man's confcience in the 
 fight of God^. That fo, in whatever oppro- 
 brious light they may be viewed by the State, 
 and whatever penalties they may incur by the 
 Laws of the Land, yet wjoen the chief Shepherds 
 (hall appear, they may receive a Crown of Glory 
 that fadeth not away [j •, and hear him fay unto 
 them, Well done, good and faithful fervants^ 
 (nter ye into the joy of your Lord ^. 
 
 * 2 Peter ii. 3. f Adls xxiv. 16. X Mat. xv. 9. 
 
 § 2 Cor. IV. z, U 1 Pet. v. 4. fl Mat. xxv. 21. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 16. 1. 18. for were read'wzt 
 
 25. 1. 22. for venture add read vtriixaxt to ad4 
 
 72. note, 1. 4. ^cr euJTt'Sjoy read ewTi^ios 
 
 75. 1. 4. i^.V^ Thereafon of 
 
 77. 1. 13. yor inpregnable r^^i*/ impregnable 
 ig8. I. 9. ji^r orignally «<z</ originally 
 171. I. S. for Qne read Q^i 
 191. 1. iS. for 12 Hen. read z Hen. 
 199. 1. 1 6. /or a Believer read Believers 
 
 A 
 
 Puhlijhed hy the Author. 
 
 Funeral Sermon for Mr. Jofe^b Longhurf. Seconj) 
 Edition. Price 1 s. 
 
 A Sermon for the Benefit of the Charity School in 
 Bartholomew Clofe. Price 6 d. 
 
 An Apology for the Renewal of an Application to Par- 
 liament by thePreteilantPliTenting Minifters. Price 1$ 6d, 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01013 0948