&t ] " There may be good and important reafons," faid the late Archbifhop Seeker, " to fubmit, *' even without remonftrating,. to what we do " not approve." And again, " Dodlrines not " necejfary, may be ufeful."- In thefe cafes, true religion, or Chriilianity, is out of the queftion. Chriftianity requires me not to fubmit to, but to remonflrate againft, impoiitions which I do not approve. And doctrines not ncceffary, are not Chriftian do&rines. Hence it appears that the good and important reafojis, and the ufefulnefs here fpoken of, relate entirely to the prefervation of the ejlablijljment, and not at all to that of Cbrijiianity, Dr. Balguy is ft ill more full to the purpofe. He fpeaks of the folly of " going, to the fcrip- " tures for what is not to be found in them ;" meaning, the foundation of Church-authority, or, in other words, of national eftablifhments. The confequence is, that thofe national eftablifh- ments will bid the faireft for permanency, which have their greateft fupports from human power, and the lead countenance from the fcriptures. — But then thefe are the eftablifliments againft which the cries of the Chriftian reformer are the * b 3 loudeft. JV] ADVERTISE MEN T. loudeft. Ergo — the Chriftian reformer is — a wronghead — the whitewaflier of a Negro. Thefe Gentlemen, indeed, do not chufe to own the above-mentioned confequence, though it immediately follows from their premiffes; be- caufe our forefathers, from whom we derive our prefent reformed Syflem, are generally fuppofed to have built it upon a different foundation. But the mifchief is, that while they are labouring to eftablim tW\x conjiftency , they bring thdrjincerity into queftion. A circumftance brought to light by a late publication c will explain this, The doctrine of Archbifhop Seeker above cited, is delivered in a letter, which difcovers to what extremity that eminent prelate was em- barraffedby the fine reflections of the late Dr. Lardner upon the proceedings of the council of JVio? d, fo long ago as the year 1750. His Grace's pretenfions to candour and moderation in matters of religion,: which he profeffed even to a degree of affectation, could hardly prevent his chagrin from breaking out on this trying occa- c Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Reverend Nathanael Lardner, D. D. d Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory. Tart ii. Vol. VIII. fion* ADVERTISEMENT. [xi] fion- Dr. Lardner's principles in that incompa- rable digreffion are irrefragable, and the appli- cation of them to the prefent times next to ine- vitable ; and if an expedient could not be found to mitigate the fentence pafied with fo much juflice on the council of Nice, it would una- voidably fall on fome councils and convocations of more modern date, for whofe honour and re- putation his Grace was more immediately con- cerned. The management was mafterly. The fagacious prelate grants Dr. Lardner's premiffes in general words, with much feeming franknefs, but warily guards, as he goes along, againft his conclufions, by certain limitation, fo expreffecj, that they might, upon any future emergency, take away all meaning from his conceffionsj. For particulars, I beg leave to refer the reader to the letter itfelfe, and fhall only obferve, that when the caufe of The Confessional (which was precifely the caufe pleaded by Dr. Lardner) came into judgement fifteen years after, the great benefit of his Grace's cautionary rejlriclions was immediately acknowledged ; the jury appointed to try the culprit by his Grace's canons, finding e Memoirs, p. 98. * b 4 him [xii] ADVERTISEMENT, him guilty of offending againft every one of them, without going out of court. Br. Lardner indeed was a diflemer, and was prejudiced againft fubfcnptipns for reafons and confiderations, which, as the orthodox will have it, lay quite out of the rpad of the author of The Confejfional. To this one might anfwer, that reafons and confiderations drawn from the Chriftian fcriptures, fhould not feem to lie out of the road of ^wyProteflant. But be it fo. May they not be fuppofed to lie full as far out of the road of cardinal Bellarmin ? Grant me this, rear der, and then try whether yon cannot find an apology for the author of The ConfeJJional in the following detail, even though he fhould be found with a mitre upon his head. About an hundred years ago, the Divines of France were greatly divided, and grievoufly em- broiled in the controverfy occafioned by the doc-r trines of Jan/emus. The Archbifhop of Parisy in concurrence with the Jefuits, procured the condemnation of thofe doctrines, as being herer tical ; and prevailed fo far as to have that con- demnation acknowledged as catholic and juft, by a general ADVERTISEMENT. [xiii] a general fubfcription, extending to forne lay- profeffions, and even to the Nuns of certain monafteries. One of the belt pens of Port Royal (and they had few bad ones among them) was employed, under the name of Damvilliers, to expofe this novel and abfurd pra&ice. The propofition to be fubfcribed did not fpecify any particular dogma ; but imported merely, that tlfe words, " The fenfe'of Janfenius is catholic," was an he- retical propofition. The Janfenift writer, having noted this Jefuitifm, goes on thus in his own language, which I forbear to tranflate, as the paf- fage contains an opprobrium, that aProteftant ad- vocate for fubfcriptions fhould blufh to deferve : " II faut avoiier, que depuis que les hommes " raifonnent il n'y eut de pareille extravagance. " Mais le fucces en eft encore plus etrange. Car " quoique la pluffjart du monde s'en mocque en *? particulier, on agit pourtant en public comme iv] ADVERTISEMENT. "■■ P on fcache que depuis que l'Eglife eft 1' Eglife, " on n'a jamais fait figner ny des Religieufes, ny " des Maiftres d'Ecole, ny des Clercs, ny meme " des fimples Prefixes. Ce furent les Lutheriens ^ d'Allemagne de la Confeffion d'Aufbourg qui " s'aYiferent, pour une fois feulement, de faire u iigner leur Confeffion de foy par les Principaux " de College, et les Maiftres d'Ecole. Et ils en " font rgpris par le Cardinal Bellarmin comme "d'une vanite infupportable, et d'une nouveau- " te inoiiie dans l'Eglife de Dieu, depuis les " Apoflres. Or qu'une chofe aufty etrange que " cette pratique, a laquelle on rf a jamais eu re~ 6i cours dans les plus damnables herefies, ait eftc " introduite en France, c'eft a dire, dans l'Eglife " du monde la plus libre, et la plus enemie de tc ces fervitudes, fur la plus grande des toutes les " bagatelles, cela eft admirable ; mais en la ma- " niere qu'on admire les eftets extraordinaries de " la bizarrerie des hommes. II eft vray que les u Jefuites ne pouvoient mieux faire voir l'exces P du credit qu'ils ont dans l'Eglife, que par ce " moien. Ce n'eft rien d'etablir des chofes rai- fi fonnables; on ne fcait fi c'eft la, raifon ou la " force qui les a fait recevoir. Mais pour bien " faire paroiftre fon pouvoir, il faut choifir des (i chofes comme celle-la qui foient exceffivement " deraifonnables.'* A D V E R T I S EM E N T. [xv] u deraifonnables." Les Imaginaires. a Liege, 1667. p. 99. — Happily the Parifian Prelates, in- junction went one degree beyond the ProteflantS' in this extravagance. We have no Nuns among us, nor any thing like them, unlefs you chufe to call the Religious of the Afylum by that name : and nobody, I imagine, thinks of taking fub- fcriptions from them f . It is j uft enough, that our Pratique, atone of the Univerfmes, takes in boys at their admiiTion into colleges; and at both, gra- duates of all ages and profeffions, poor curates in all circumftances, and even country fchoolmafters. It is, however, with us juft as it was with the Trench in thefe days of Janfenifm. Few fenfible men talk of thefe things in private parties, but with high difapprobation ; and yet the practice f I would not however be underftood to anfwer in future, for every individual concerned in that laudable inftitution. A refpeftable friend, a great dealer in Curioiities, fhewed me the other day, a book publiflied by one of them, inti- tuled, Comfort for the djfticled, decorated with an elegant Frontifpiece, wherein is feen the fpiritual Direftor ftanding before a v.Pow- el, that the novices in theological literature may reafonably fubfcribe a fyftematical Confeffion upon ihe authority of others.. It has been faid, that the author of The Con- fejfional is an enemy to all eftablifhments ; and fome people, it feems, think it incumbent upon him to be explicit upon this head. He does not think fo himfelf ; but as the explanation required may be brought within a fmall compafs, he will give it. He thinks, in the firft place, that the Chriftian religion is perfectly adapted, in all its parts, to the flat e and condition of man ; and is, fo far, a perfecl religion : but being in itfelf a religion of the greatefl: fimplicity and liberality, its excellency mud; be debafed, in proportion as it is incorporated with fuperftitious modes of worfhip, and reftridlive forms of doctrine. In the firft inftances, he thinks the Chriftian reli- gion hath been corrupted, in the other cramped, by human eftablifhments ; and the longer it re- main* ADVERTISEMENT. [xvii] mains in fuch unnatural connexions, the more probable will be its tendency to deltru&ion. He is not of opinion that the Chriftian religion, " by being kept intirely feparate from worldly " interefts," or, in other words, profefled by in- dividuals without refpett to temporal emolu- ments, " would be neglected, or perifli in obli- " vion," becaufe he is perfuaded it is enjoined to be fo kept, and fo profeffed, by. the gracious Au- thor of it. Hence it follows, that human eftab- liihments are not neceffary to it's fupport. A cer- tain writer hath faid, that " if men were not to " fpeak their minds in fpite of eftablifhments, " Truth would foon be banilhed from the earth." And the very fame may be faid of Piety and Right eoufnefs. So little is the Chriftian religion indebted to human eftablifhments for its fupport . Where is the mod bigoted Formalift who will venture to fay he is a friend to thofe national eftablifhments, which are " infallibly productive " of deftructiontothe Chriftian religions?'' Why then fhail the author of The Confeffional be re- trained from faying, he is an enemy to fuch efta- blifhments ? If the queftion were to be, whether the Chriftian religion or the national Eftabliih- 8 See, The Free Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil, p. 192. mcnt [xviii] ADVERTISEMENT. ment ftiould be deftroyed ? he hopes and be- lieves he mould have the honour of voting with the whole Hierarchy of the church of England, But he is riot for having things come to any fuch extremity. Whatever he may think of particu- lar eftablimments, he thinks there are none of them (o bad, but that it may be reformed by be- ing brought back to the terms of the original record (to which all Chriftian eftablimments ap- peal) with refpect to thofe points in which it has deviated from it ; namely, by difcharging all fuperfluous traditions, and fyfliematical doctrines, with which the Chriftian religion hath been in- cumbered by the craft or the vanity of men pre- fuming to be wife above what is written* Two things have been faid to this ; i. That this is not to be expected of the prefent genera- tion : and I find fome men have been called w* fwnariesy even for talking of it. — But why fo ? It is no more than ought to be expected of any generation of Chriflians ; and every man fo per- fuaded, may both lawfully and laudably folicit it from thofe who have the power, and who can- not modeftly be fuppofed not to know that it is their duty. 2. The other thing offered byway of filencing thefc teazers of eftabliflimcnts, is, that their de- mands ADVERTISEMENT. [xix] mands are vague and not explicit. " Tell us u only what you would have, and you fhall ei- " ther be gratified, or we will give you unan- " fwerable reafons why not.'* — This, it feems, is the fort of our prefent Antireformers ; and he mufl: be a little hardy who would attempt to ftorm it. The author of The ConfeJJional is no fuch adventurer, though he hath been called too peremptory for an Inquirer. To conciliate the mind of the worthy perfon who thought him fo, he begs leave to exprefs his demands in that gentleman's own words ; viz. " An ecclefiaftical " conftitution, calculated to comprehend all that " hold the fixed and fundamental principles and 11 points of faith, in which all ferious and fincere tl Proteftants of every denomination are unani- " moufly agreed, and to exclude thofe only that 4< hold the peculiar tenets that essentially " diftinguilh all true Proteflantifm from Popery." To the eftablifhment of this Ecclefiaftical confti- tution the author of The Confcjfwnal never will be an enemv. P Pv E- [ i ] 1 ■ — ■ ■ i r i PREFACE T O THE SECOND EDITION: CONTAINING REMARKS on a late Vindication of the Right of Proteftant Churches to re- quire the Clergy tofubfcribe to an eflablifoed Confefjion of Faith and DocJrines* H^E TIBI ERUNT ARTES! THE favourable reception The Confejficnal hath met with from the Public, though it will not be admitted as an argument of the merit of the book, is undeniably an argument of fome- thing of much more confequence. It is an argu- ment, that the love of religious Liberty is (till warm and vigorous in the hearts of a con- fiderable number of the good people of England, notwithstanding the various endeavours of intereft- ed and irreligious men, in thefe latter as well as in a former ii P r e f a c t to the former times, ro check and difcourage it ; and notwithftanding the defponding appreheniions of fome good men, that thefe Jiiflers had well nigh fucceeded in their unrighteous attempts. It now appears, that a little plain reafoning, illuftrated by a few indifputable facts, in favour of this invaluable legacy of our Proteftant An- ceftors, hath been iufficient to engage the at- tention of many well-wiihers to its prefervation and perpetuity, who, perhaps, might not other- wife have been aware of the prefent importance of fuch a difquilition ; but who, by having their obfervation turned upon the artful and indirect methods that have been taken by fome of its infidious adversaries, under the mafk of friend- fhip, to diminifh its e.ftimation, may, by the bleHing of God, be excited to a greater degree of vigilance, that this fountain of all true piety and evangelical virtue may never more be choaked up by the rubbifh of traditional for- malities. The Confejfional hath likewife had the good fortune to make another valuable diicovery; namely, that encroachments on religious liberty in Proteftant communities, by whatever fpecious pretences they are introduced, can never be de- fended upon Proteftant principles. A Divine, of good learning and character, who occupies, with reputation, one of the full theological chairs in Europe, hath tried his flrength upon this fatherlefs production of the 2 prefs, Second Edition. iii prefs3, without foreseeing, I dare fay, that he would fo fuddenly meet with a more able oppo- nent From another quarter; who hath fhewn, in a fflafterly manner, how little definitions and diftin&ionsj which pals, perhaps with applaufe, in the fchools for found and Scientific, are to be depended upon, when confronted by fcripture and common lenfeb. In this excellent and decifive little tract, the author of the Confcjjional thought he had fo far found his account, that he determined, when a fecond edition of his book was called for, to pats over, in the revifal of it, the learned Profeifor's Vindication in profound filence, and to leave it in that ft ate of inefficiency to which the author of the Examination had reduced it. But fome of his friends, by whofe fuperior judgment he hath greatly profited on other occa- fions, obferving to him, that fome ofDr.Rather- fortl/s ftri&ures might be underftood to affect the ConfeJJional in particular, apart from his general argument, it was thought neccflary, that particular anfwers fhould be given to thole ftri&ures ; which accordingly will be found in fome notes, fubjoined to thofe palfages again! i a In a Vindication of the Right of Proteftant Churches to require the Clergy to fubferibe to an eftablilned Confefiion of Faith and Doctrines. b Exaviination of Dr. Rutberfurtb' 's Argument, refpeclir.g the Right of Proteitant Churches to require the Clergy to fub- feribe to an eitablifhed Confeffion, CSV. a 2 which iv P R E F A G E to the which the learned Profeffor hath pointed his efforts. In running over the Vindication, the author of the Confeffional could not avoid obferving feveral flaws in the learned Profeflor's foundation, which have, in a great meafure, been left un- touched by the Examiner; who, perceiving that it would be fufficient for his purpofe to expofe the futility of the Profeflor's conditions, candidly left him his premifes, whereon to erec"t another fort of fabrick, in cafe occafion and encourage- ment lhould once more call him forth to vindi- cate the right of requiring fubferiptions in Pro- teftant Churches. The author of the Confcffional is not a little concerned, that he cannot follow this benevolent example. For, as it hath been thought proper that he lhould make his own particular defence, it is become indifpenfably neceflary for him to lay open the feveral infirmities of the Profeflor's foundation, which will now appear in a few fhort remarks on the three firfl: paragraphs of his Vindication. The learned Profeflbr opens his charge with a recital of the thirty-fixth canon of the church of England, as if that particular law of our church was to have been the principal, if not the fole object of his Vindication. Nor, indeed, had that been the cafe, and fuppofmg him to have fucceeded in his undertaking, would he, in my apprehenfion, have come fliort of his more general Second Edition. v general dcfign. For, after having effectually vindicated the right of the Proteftant Church of England to require fubfcription to her confeflion of faith and doctrines, upon the foot of this canon, he might fafely have inferred the right of all other Proteftant Churches, as a thing of courfe; inafmuch as it maybe prcfumed, that none of their ordinances or injunctions, requiring fubfcription to their refpective confeflions, are exprelTed in terms more ftrict and precife than thofe of this canon. But, inftead of undertaking the particular vin- dication of our own fyflem, he declares, that " he does not defign, at prefent, to enquire into " the force and meaning of this fubfcription [the " fubfcription enjoined by this canon], when it " is applied to theie Articles [thexxxix Articles " of the Church of England] in particular." And herein lcannot but commend his difcretion ; for, as it happens, we have certain laws of the State enjoining fubfcription, which do not require that every perfon who is received into the miniftry, or is admitted to an eccleiiaftical living, mall acknowledge, by fubferibing, &e. that all and every the thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the word of God. The cafe {lands thus : The flatute, 13 Eliz. c. 12, enjoins fubfcrip- tion to all the articles of religion which only con- cern the cenfjjion of the true Chrijlian faith, and the doclrine of the fa cr anient sy comprifed in a book imprinted, intituled, " Articles? &c. as a 3 in vi Preface /a the in the title of our prefent Articles. This Bill had puffed the Houfe of Commons five years before, namely, 8 E/iz. and was reje&ed by the Lords; and being now refumed in 157 1, fome members of the Houfe of Commons, and among the reft Sir Peter Went worth, were fent to the Archbiihop of Canterbury [Parker], for the Articles which then [viz. 157 13 palled the Houfe. The Archbiihop took that occaiion to expoftulate with the members who were fent to him, Why they did put out of the Book the articles for the homilies, confecrating of bifhopsi and fuch like f [meaning, by the limiting claufe, confining fubfeription to articles only of a certain tenor. J Surely, Sir,faid Went worth, becaufe we were fo decupled in other matters, that we had no time to examine them how they agreed with the word of God. What! faid the Archbiihop, fur eh you mifiook the matter ; you will refer yourf elves wholly to us therein. Sir Peter replied, No, by the faith I bear to God, we will pafs nothing before we underfland what it is ; for that were but to make you Popes : make you Popes who Ujl ; for wn will make you none c . From this converfation it appears, i. That the Lay part of the legiflature, of that time, thought themfelves as competent judges of what did, or did not, agree with the word of God, as the biihops. c Journal of Parliament, by Sir Simmonds D'Ewes, p. 239. 2. That Second Edition. vii 2. That the Lay part of the legiflature of that time thought, that the leaving it to the governors of the church, exclufive of them- felves, to determine what articles of religion flionld be eftablifhed for the public confeflion, was to make them Popes : That is to fay, in veil them with a power which, upon the principles of the Reformation, did not belong to them. 3. That, by palling the Aft with the limiting claufe, the legiflature did not only flunk, but did determine, that the governors of the Church of England had no right to require the inferiour clergy to fubferibe to any confeflion of faith and doctrines, without the authority of Parliament. 4. That, by palling the Aft with the limiting claufe, no other fubfeription is required by it than to thofe Articles which only concern the con- fejjion of the true Chrijlian Faith, and the doclr'me of the facr anient s. 5. That no other Aft having repealed this Aft, or in any wife contravened it, touching fub- feription to the Articles of Religion ; and the Aft of Uniformity in particular, 14 Car. II. having referred to it, as the Jlanding Law, concerning fubfeription to the Articles of Religion ; the limiting claufe is in full force to this hour d. *■ Great hath been the wrangling upon the queflion, Whe- ther the clergy are not, by this aft, obliged to fubferibe to ibe w'riolexxxix Articles, notwiihftanding the limitation inthe&rft paragraph of it. The lateil account we have of this matter is h'ju: Di\ Burn, who lays, that, " in //v?J7;'iv,ufcemetli to have a 4 No\\\ viii Preface to the Now, had the learned ProfefTor vindicated this canon upon the fame principles, and by the " been generally underftood, thatthe fubfequent claufes in the " Aft, requiring fubfcription in time to come to the faid ar- " tides, do refer to the whole book of Articles abovemen- " tioned, and not to thofe only which were at that time re- " quired to be affented to and fubfcribed." Ecclef. Law, Title Articles, p. 74. I am unwilling to afk, in whofe praftice it feemeth to have been fo underftood ? as a praftice direftly con- trary to an Aft of Parliament can convey no very advantageous idea of the praftifer's integrity. The Doftor proceeds to give the reafon why it hath been fo underftood : " For, faith he, " there is no other Aft of Parliament that enjoins the fub- *' fcription of perfons admitted to benefices." But, what then ? Does this circumftance give the pratlifers authority to aft as if there was ? What would become of our liberties and properties, if pratlifers in civil cafes were allowed to make laws according to their own underftandings, in default of better authority from an Aft of Parliament ? To go on a little far- ther. This learned and worthy perfon, by obferving that f« the Aft of Uniformity, 14.C.II. doth not extend to perfons f* admitted to benefices in this refpec7," feems to think that the Aft of Uniformity extends tofme perfons \nfme other refpeft, than the Aft of the 13 Eliz. extends to perfons admitted to benefices. But though the learned Canonift hath either forgot, or did not chufe to remark it, it is certain, that neither Heads of Co/leges nor Left urers are obliged, by the Aft of Uniformity, to fublcribe to any other Articles than the xxxix Articles mentioned in the ftatute of 13 Eliz. ; and the Articles mentioned in that ftatute to be fuhferibed, are thofe Articles which only concern the confejjior, of the true Cbrijlian Faith, and the Doilrine of the Sa- craments. §0 that it fhould fcem, whoever requires any clergy- man to fub.fcribe any other Articles of Religion, befides thofe mentioned and defcribed in the firft feftion of the 13 Eliz. hath not the authority of any ilatute for that praftice ; and how far fuch praftice can be jufiified in a Proteftant State, *nd in a Country that calls itfelf a Land of religious and ci- famd Second Edition. ix fame arguments he employs to prove the general right, he would, too probably, have laid a foun- vil Liberty, by any other authority, is to me an impenetra- ble fecret. I cannot leave this fubject without bearing my teilimony to the candor and moderation of many of Dr. Burn's remarks, in relation to ecclefiaflical authority. Of the former, I take his giving the whole converfation between Archbifhop Parker and Sir Peter Wentworth to be a ftriking inftance. The Doctor, indeed, tells us, that Wentworth was fent to the Tower, for the fpeech wherein he related this con- vention himfelf in the Houle of Commons. But, leir. this fhould make fome aukward impreffions on the unwary reader, it will be neceffary to remark, that Wentvwrth 's aflertion, concerning the Articles of Religion, made no part of his of- fence, as appears from his examination, printed immediately after his fpeech, in the Journal of Sir Simmonds D'Enxes. As I am upon this fubject, 1 (hall take the freedom to reftify another overfight of Dr. Burn's, which is too material to be parted by. At the bottom of page 7^, he fays, " and, by " the ltatute 1 3 Eliz. if any peribn (hall advifedly maintain «' —any doctrine — contrary — to any of the xxxix Articles'' &C. There is no mention in the whole Aft of xxxix Articles. The words are, any of the Jaid Articles, viz. the doctrinal and facramental Articles mentioned in the firil fedtion. This paragraph, indeed, in the act 1 3 Eliz. here cited by Dr. Bum, is a plain proof, that by the words the faid Articles, or any of the faid Articles, no other Articles are meant, in any of the fubfequent claufes, befides thofe Articles defcrib- ed in the firft feftion. They mud be little converfant in the hillory of thofe times, who can fuppofe, that the Parliament of 157 1 would confign any minifler to cenfure, and finally to deprivation, for maintaining any thing contrary to the Jifciplinarian Articles. Archbifhop Laud's word will pafs, where mine will not; 1 will, therefore, rifque this matter upon his credit. " If you will be plcafcd to look back, ' !..;,•; he, and confuler who they were that governed buii- vkuion. x Preface /o //j; elation tor forae variance between church and ftate. For the Statute, with thefe limiting " neffes in 157 1, and rid the church almoft at their plea- " fure ; and how potent the anceftors of thefe libellers " [Prynne, Burton* Ba/l tides touching the confejfion of the faith, and declare his aJJ'ent thereunto. Which fhews, even to demonftration, that the limitation runs through the whole aft, and that, to foift in, after the words, the faid Articles, the words, whereupon it ivas agreed, Sec. into any part of it, is nothing better than down- right forgery. Mr. Se/den, who probably was not lefs able to interpret an Aft of Parliament than Mr. Cay, fpeaking of the Articles, fays, " There is a fecret concerning them. Of " late, minifters have fubferibed to all of them ; but by the '* Aft of Parliament that confirmed them, they ought only " to fubferibe to thofe Articles, which contain matter of " faith, and the doftrine of the Sacraments, as appears by the ** f.rfl fuhferiptions" Table-talk, title Articles. Mr. Selden indeed was no friend to Church-Secrets, and on that account may be an exceptionable witnefs with our Profeifor. He appeals however we fee to the prailice, which was only to be controuled, by the fori 'iji 'cation (as the Profefibr's fpiri- tual progenitor Heylin very properly calls it) of Canons and Synodical Afts. For, as the fame Heylin is obliged to own, *' the Lawvers were clear, that by the ftatute, no fubfeription ••was to be required, but only unto points of doftrine." Hft of the Prejlyterians, p. 269. I will juftgive the learned Profeifor one more authority from a man after his own heart, the famous Sir Roger UEjhange, who having occafion to affert King femes the fecond's power to difpenfe with, make, in- force, or abrogate, Eccleiialtical laws, jure rigali, ufes, fcription, Second Edition. xiu fcription of every minifter, and to all and every the xxxix Articles under an authority different among others, the following argument. " Before the •* 13 Etix. c. 12, fubferiptions were enjoined by the regal '* power; and tho' this Statute required fubfeription, yet, " it being to the articles of religion "which only concern the con- " fejjion of the true chrijli an faith, and the doctrine of the facra- " ments comprized, &c. it was deemed by the bifoops to be " infuffieient ; who therefore apply themfelves to their " Prince, that by her Majefty's power ecclefiaftkal, they " might enjoin a fuller fubfeription, not only to the articles " of faith and doftrines of the facraments, but unto the " government, the rites and ceremonies of the church ; and M fuch as refufed this larger fubfeription, though they would " readily fubferibe, as by this Jlatute required, were fuf- " pended and deprived ; and has not his prefent Maieily " the fame power that Queen Elizabeth had ?" Lord Soc- men's Trafts, vol. I. p. 241. What is it the Profeffor would be at ? Would he have it underftood that there was no difference between the fubfeription required by the (tatute 13 Eliz. and the fubfeription required by the Bilhopg Articles (as they were called) and afterwards by the Canons of 1603 ? Or would he have it, that the difference only fubiilled till the Aft of Uniformity, 14 Car. II. ? If the firft, it will be incumbent upon him to prove, that they who re- fufed to fubferibe the articles touching church Government, or other articles, which do not concern the Confejfion of the true faith, or the doctrine of the facraments, and who for fuch refufal wereimprifoned, fufpended, deprived, &c. were legally convict- ed upon the Jlatute, even any one of them. If he fays, that the laft Aft cf Uniformity took away this difference, be mull then (hew, in contradiftion to Dr. Burn, that the faid Aft extends to perfons admitted to benefices in refpeft of their fubferibing the Articles. I cannot conclude without ob- ferving, that this cafe has never yet received any folemn decifion upon a fair trial at Law. Should that ever happen, I have no doubt but the Clergy would from thenceforth be, from xlv Preface to the from that which enacted the limiting law, could hardly have avoided running foul of the civil conftitution of his country ; more efpeeially as the argument, by which he vindicates the general right of Proteflant church-governors to require fubfcription to feme confeflion of faith and doc- trines, mud conclude for the general right of fuch governors to cftablijh any confeiTion of faith and doctrines, to which they have a right to re- quire fubfcription ; otherwife his argument has very little bufinefs with the writer, who led the learned Profelfor to employ the thoughts of the Eflex clergy on the fubjecl of fubfcriptiona . A right to require fubfcription, without a right to eflablijh the formulary to be fubfcribed, would amount to little more than Glendoiver's right to call fpirits from the vafty deep. To which any one might rejoin, with equal pertinence and pro- priety, as Percy does to the faid Glendower: Wky,fi can I, andfo can any man ; But will they come when you do call I This may ferve for one anfwer, among others, that might be given, to a queftion which I have heard often afked, viz. Why the learned Pro- feffor would fet at the head of his difcourfe, as it were by way of a text, a particular law of a in this refpett, put upon a footing with his Majefty's Lay fubjefts, and be no longer liable to the bondage of a pre- carious canonical impohtion, in exprefs contradiction to a plain Aft of Parliament. particular Second Edition. xr particular church, into the force and meaning of which he did not defign to enquire ? But, to borrow his own language, upon a later occafion, " inflead of confidering what he " omits, we will enquire how well he fucceeds in " what he attempts c." He undertakes, then, " to vindicate the ge- *' neral right which the governors of our own, " or of any other Protcftant church, have to " enjoin, that all thofe, who are admitted to the " office of public teaching in it, (hall fubferibe " to the truth of some confeffion of faith and " do&rines." Some confeilion of faith and doctrines \\. is undoubtedly in the Scriptures ; and there is nothing in the plan of Vindication, as it is here laid jDivr, which hinders you from undei Handing, that the right to be vindicated extends no farther than to the enjoining a fubfeription to the truth of the So7/>////r-confef]ion of faith and doctrines. But, as we go along with the learned ProfefTor, we perceive, that, beiides the general right to enjoin fubferiptions, there is a general benefit propofed by them ; for the fecuring of which, it feems, a fubfeription to the truth of the fcrip- tures, or of a confeflion of faith and doctrines, in merely fcripture-words, would not be fvif- ficient. * See Dr. Rutberforths 't fccond Vindication, p. z. But, XVI pRIFACt /« the But, if fo, is not the learned Profeffor's defign Worded in too loofe and captious a manner ? Is there not fome defcriptivc word wanting, to en- able us to diftinguifh the fort of confeffion to which church-governors are faid to have a right to enjoin fubfcription, from the confeffion of faith and doctrines contained in the fcriptures, or a confeffion of faith and doctrines drawn up in merely fcripture-terms? Left, therefore, it mould be faid, that a learned ProfefTor, in a celebrated Univerfity, had put more into his conclufton than was con- tained in his premi/fes 9 I will venture, with his leave, to fupply this defcriptive word, which is fome way or other dropped out of the propo- rtion. The claufe mould have run thus — pall fubfcribe to the truth of fome systematical confeffion of faith and doclrines. And I make this emendation with the more freedom, as, without it, fome people might be of opinion, that the learned Profeffor's difpute with the author of the Confeffwnal could hardly be kept on foot ; or, at the beft, would prefently dwindle into infignificance : For the latter having al- lowed that " a declaration from a public pallor, " that he believes the fcriptures, and will make " the contents of them the rule of his teaching, ■ " is a very moderate fecurity, and no more than " the fociety with which he is connected may " with reafon expect if the queftion, in whom i ConfeJJlonal, p. 344., of the firfl edition. the Second Edition* xvii the right of requiring this fecurity is veiled? is hardly worth debating. We are now arrived at the corner-done of the argument, which is thus laid down. rt The " univerfal church of Chrift is a fociety, which " he inflituted, and of which he is the head, " including in it all thofe, who profefs to believe " in his name, and have been received by bap- " tifm into the number of his difciples." From this definition we are referred to Locke on Toleration, Works, vol. ii. p. 255, which feems to denote, if not that the definition was taken from Locke on Toleration, yet that it is agreeable to his fenfe exprefTed in the page re- ferred to. But having a violent fufpicion, that Mr. Locke would not, at any rate, have fubfcribed the Profeffor's definition, I refolved to have re- courfe to the pafiage cited ; but the edition I ufe, being that of 1727, exhibiting nothing ap- plicable to the Profeflbr's definition, in the page fo numbered, I was obliged to make a random fearch, and, for fome time, in vain ; which I mention by way of intimation to the learned Vindicator, that though he is above being fcfcued himfelfs, yet that we, his inferiors, are humble enough to defire as exprefs directions as we can obtain to the fenfe and meamig of thofe authors with whom it is our fortune to be concerned. * Dr. Rutberfirtb's fecond Vindication, p. 4. b Ac xviii Preface to the At length, at page 235, of the fecond volume of Locke's Works, of the edition abovementioned, I found the following definition of a church. " A church, fays this incomparable writer, I " take to be a voluntary lociety of men, joining " themfelves together of theif own accord, in tc order to the public worfniping of God, in fuch " manner as they judge acceptable to him,, and " effectual to the falvation of their fouls." This is all the definition of a church I can find in Mr. Locke's Letters on Toleration. If there is any other in them more to the learned Pro- feffor's purpofe, he will certainly be able to pro- duce it. If there is not, it will, I apprehend, be incumbent upon him to reconcile his own defini- tion with this. The Profeffor's good faith. requires this of himh. h The learned Profefibr, faith, ** this lhot is ill aimed "and flies over his head." Metaphorically fpeaking, a fhot aimed at a man's good faith, is aimed rather at the heart than the head. However, I am glad the head has- efcaped, as the lofs of fuch a head, would have been irre- parable. But while the Profefibr was ducking the head to avoid the twenty pounder from the heavy artillery, he was not aware of a (hot from the fmall arms, which took him a little lower. " The fefcut" faith the Jhifty Profefibr, "is " fo held out, as to point, not at the definition which goes •• before, but at the fentence which follows it. My ufual " practice is to place the letters of reference, at, or near, " the beginning, and not at the end of the paffage, to which '* they belong : and this rule is obferved here. I deligned " to refer my readers to that part of Locke's letters on tole- ** ration, where he fays, The end of a religious fcciety is the But Second Edition. xik But whether he can accompiifh this reconci- liation or not, if the learned ProfelTor's defini- *' public ntjorjhip of God, and by means thereof, the acquifiition of " eternal life*." Miferable fubterfuge ! By this accommo- dation of his fefcue, the incautious reader is given to under- Hand, that the end of A religious society afligned by Locke, is afligned by him as the end of this society which the Profeflbr had juft before defined. Is not this plainly and pofitively fathering upon Locke his own abfurd definition immediately preceding ? Will his fhifting the fefcue acquit him of the fraud? or enable the reader to find in Locke's letters on Toleration, the definition in queftion ? Confcious of this mifreprefentation, and abaihed as much as fuch a writer can be, by the detection, the Profeflbr next endea- vours, by a detail of dull prevarication, to make this fame Locke father the confluences he, the Profeflbr, draws, in favour of Church-Governors, from his own popifh definition. This he attempts, by citing from Mr. Locke's Commentary ori Eph. iv. a paflage which begins thus, " He [Christ] alone, *' framing the conftitution of his new government, by his *' oivn power, and according to fuch rules as he thought befl.,y Is there then, no difference between the power by which Chrifl: ac~ls alone, and the authority afcribed by this learned Profeflbr to modern Church-Governors : (in confequence of his definition of the Church) viz. of framing the conititu- tion of church-government according to fuch rules as they think beft? And yet, from this fingle inftance, the Profeflbr has the modefty to infinuate, that Mr. Locke mull either be confiflent with Dr. Rutberfortb, or inconfiitent with St. Paul and himfelf. To do him juftice, however, feeling the fmart of an attack upon his good faith, he is willing to divert the ftroke from his heart to his head. For allowing the reference to be fairly made, the application of it is, it feem9, to be taken for a mere mi/fake, and his readers mull get clear of it as they may. If I were worthy to offer a word of admonition * Defence, p. ao, zi. b 2 tion xx Preface ft the tion will itand the tell of a Proteflant examina- tion, it will be, we own, lefs material to him what Mr. Locke thought of any church. The firft objection I make to the learned Pro- feiTor's definition is, that it wants explanation* He hath not informed us, whether this universal to the learned Profeflbr, it fhould be, to leave St. P^/ and Mr. Lccke to take their own way, and to flick to his Hooker,. in matters of Church-Government.. He will never have any luck in attempting to prefs either the Apoftle or the Philofo- pher into his fervice. How poorly he comes off in his at- tempts upon the former,- may be feen in Dr Daivfon's ad- mirable Letter to Dr. Rutberforth, occafioned by his fecond Vindication; On the other hand, he plumes himfelf in this Defence, p. 35. on Mr. Lockers ""confenting that tbefe men'"' [not, fucb Proteflanis as tbefe, as the Profeflbr has amended the paflage] " fhould have a Ruler" [not Ruhrs, as the Profeflbr cites it, and confequently not, whether bijbops or prejbyters^ but, as Mr. Locke hath Hated it, a hi/hop or prefhyter, without excluding even a Pope] "of their Church, eltablilhed by " fuch a long ferie3 of fucceffion, as they judge neceflary." What advantage can the Profeflbr draw from this confent? even after tutoring it, in the exuberance of his good faith, to- his tafle ? I make no doubt but Mr. Locke would have given his confent to a congregation of Mahometans, to be governed by a Mufti deriving hi3 authority from Mahomet by an unin- terrupted fucceffion, upon the fame condition that he gives it xofuch Protef.ants as tbefe: And what is all that to the ar- gument in the Confefjional? Would not a- man of common feelings have had lome little remorfe in perceiving that he muft firfl fa!ffy.t\\e paflage in queflian, before he could wich- any mew of pertinence reproach his adverfary for the fv,ppreffm of it ? He would have a fine time of it, who fhould under- take to follow a writer gifted with thefe fophidicating talents, ikp by flep, through a controverfial pamphlet of 1 14 pages. church Second Edition. xn church of Chrift is a vifible or an invifible church.; an omillion, I apprehend, of no fmall confe- cmence to the fubfequent parts of the learned I'roferTor's Vindication. Till this be known, we •are at a lofs how far to admit his fcheme of church-governraent. We muft, therefore, try to find out this circumfhm.ee as well as we can. The members of the invifible church of •Chrilf., who, as all judicious Divines agree, are in a ftate of actual acceptance with him, are no: clifcernible by any external marks or tokens ■whatever. But in this definition we have two •outward vifible marks, pointing out thofe who are members of Ghrift's univerfal church : i . Pro feffion of helief 3 and, 2. reception into the number of Ghrift's difciples by baptifm. Thefe ■vifible tokens determine the Profeffor's univerjd! church to 'be a vifible church. Now I own it would puzzle me extremely, if it were my affair, how to provide for the go- vernment of this univerfal vifible church,, other- wife than by introducing an univerfal vifible go- vernor. Chrift, the head, is invifible. ; and we have no way of coming at his directions for church-government, but by .having recourfe to ■the written record of them in the fcriptures. But though thefe written directions might do well enough for the government of one of Mr. Locke's voluntary focicties, in a ftate of inde- pmdency, yet I much queftion how far they *vould be deemed fufficient to fettle an unifor- b 3 jnity xxii Preface to the ipity of government among particular churches \ which being, according to the ProfefTor, farts of the univerfal vijible church, mufl be not only in connedion with it, but dependent upon it. A particular fociety, which is a part of an univerfal fociety, can neither . be voluntary nor inde- pendent. Again, we fhall hear prefently of fome per- fons, " who are appointed, under Chrift, to " fuperintend and govern particular churches." I hardly think the learned Profeflbr will pre- tend, that thefe perfons receive their appoint- ment immediately from Chrift. How they come by it, we iliall have occafion to aflc by and by. In the mean time, the matter of fact is, that they differ widely from each other, not only concern- ing the nature and extent of this appointment, but concerning the authority under which they reflectively claim it. Allow the particular churches, over which thefe perfons prefide, to be parts of the univerfal vifible church, and you mult allow their governors or fuperihrendents to be members of an univerfal vifible government ; but how fhall thefe fuperintendents, or parti- cular governors, who differ fo widely concerning their authority and appointment, be brought into order, without the fuperintendency of an univerfal vifible governor? Does not the learned Profeflbr know, that it is from this undeniable fact, viz. the variance among particular churches concerning church-authority, and this abfurd and grounclleft Second Edition. xxik groundlefs pretence, that particular churches are de jure parts of the univerflil viable church, laid together, that the papifts infer the neceility of an univerfal vifible church-.governor. But this mccjjity all Proteftant churches vehe- mently difclaim, and the church of England as vehemently and as loudly as an) of them. And5 therefore, I fhould think the church of England would hardly agree to have any of her tights •founded upon ib precarious a definition of the univerfal church or Ghrift, as leaves an opening whereat the Pope may be flipped in upon her •unawares- The ProfefTor proceeds : " The end and pur- *' pofe for which this fociety was inftituted, is " to lead men to eternal life, by the prefervation " and advancement of true religion." A fociety, inJHtuted by Clmft himfelf, " for the <{ end and purpofe of leading men to eternal *' life," implies, that no man can attain eternal life, except he is a member of this fociety. Otherwife we muff fay, that Chrift irrftituted a •fociety for an end and purpofe that might be "brought about without it, which no true believer will allow. The refult is, that to be in com- munion with this fociety, is neceffary to fal- vatiori. The reader will not forget, that this fociety is an univerfal vifiblc churchy of which all parti- cular churches are parts, the church of Rome, as b 4 well xxiv Preface to the Well as others, as hath been ftiewn by the accu» rate Examiner of Dr. Rutherfortfrs Vindication. Therefore, to be in communion with the church of Rome is neceffary to falvation. An ingenious Prelate of the eflabliihed church, and no enemy to church-authority, was fo fefi* fible whither the necefiity of church-communion, even with a national proteftant eftablifhment, would conduct us, that he hefitates not to de- clare, that this doctrine " alters the terms offal- " vation, as they are delivered in the Gofpel, tC which are, faith in Chrijiy and repentance " towards God; by adding others to them, fuch li as fellow -member jhip in church -communion"- — " A church, adds he, acting with this fpirit, not " only throws off fubje£tion, but affumes the " fovereignty ; and is no longer the fheepfold " of the good fhepherd, but the den of Anti- " chrift, die thief, and robber." What, then, muit we think of the churchman who preaches this doctrine ? Again. ll Though for the better conveyance " of the glad tidings of falvation, fays this M learned Biihop, it was expedient that the dif- " ciples of Chrift fhould be formed into a kind tf of fodality ; yet the founder of our holy faith " never intended this, or any other religious " fociety, to be part of its eflentials, as appears " from his exprefs words in my text (Luke'ix. 49.) " where he receives one, who was propagating u the faith in him? to all the benefits and prero- * gatives. Second Edition. xxv ** gatives of his religion ; though he was out of " the pale of that fraternity, hehadjufl then " inftituted1 ." But our ProfefTor, we fee, not content with confining the neceflity of church-memberjlnp to fome particular church, hath, by making every particular church a part of the univerfal vifible church, extended the necelTity of church-member- /hip to falvation, to the univerfal vifible fociety, and confequently to every particular church, whofe members have to fhew the tzuo common marks of their belonging to the univerfal vifible church, which, without doubt, the Papifts have to fhew as evidently as the members of any other particular church. It is true, our ProfefTor, to get rid of a difficulty he met with in the ConfeJJtonal, hath thought fit to fay, " feparate churches are, in refpecl: of one i( another, like feparate men. If each individual ft Proteftant holds his religion independently of " all others, fo does each particular proteftant " church k." I will not fufpeft the if in this paflfage to be meant for a drawback upon the conceffion, in cafe of need ; becaufe the learned ProfefTor hath acknowledged it in the amendment of his bill ', as an exprefs declaration, that " each par- J Bifhop Warburtoiis firft fermon on Church Communion, in the 2d volume of his Sermons, p. 161 — 163. k Vindication, p. 15, 16. 1 Second Vindication, p. 29. " ticular XXV I Preface to the 1( ticular protefta&t church holds its religion in- " dependent!}' of all others ;" which, however, cannot be true, if each particular church is " a " part of the univerfal vifible church, inflituted " by Chrift himfelf." Where there is a reli- gious connection, there mud be a religious de- pendency, and efpecially where the connection is iuch, that it cannot be broken, without defeat- ing the end and purpofe of the inflitution by which it was created. We have here, then, two plain propofitions laid down by one and the fame writer: i. Every particular church is a part of the univerfal vifible church, injlituted by Chriji himfelf. And, 2 . Each particular proteflant church holds its religion in- dependently of all others. Now, as one of thefe propofitions mutt, on the mere confideration of felfconfiflency, be either retracled or quibbled away, I cannot but hope the learned Profeffor will abide by the latter, and then let him work his will upon the former and welcome. It will give me great pleafure to have it in my power to congratulate a very valuable part of his Ma- jefly's fubje&s, I mean the Pro.teftant DifTenters, on this happy change in their religious affairs. On this principle of independency, ail idea of fchifm, which hath {luck fo long to their refpec- rive churches, mull vani'fli away of courfe. I am of opinion it may even chrijlianize the honed .,: for. the cooneclron anddependency of ell Second Edition. xxvii all particular religious focietics upon the Pro- feflbr's iiniverfal vifible church being diflblved, the fincerely pious and good among them may ftill be members of the invifblc church of Chrifl:, notwithftanding the abfence of one of the marks, without which they could not, according to the Profeflbr, be included even in the large and capacious bofom of the univcrfal vifible church. As to what may become of national churches, txchfive ejlablijhments, tejl-laws, and alliances, in thofe Protedant ftates where each Proteftant church holds its religion independently of all others, I lift not to inquire. They are already in very good hands ; I mean thofe of the learned Profeflbr, who, I doubt not, will take fufficient care that they come to no detriment, notwith- flanding the aukward afpect his doctrine of inde- pendency may feem to bear towards them. But to go on with the learned Profeflbr. " It " is therefore the duty of thofe who are ap- " pointed under him [Chrift] to fuperintend " and govern particular churches — " Before we proceed any farther, pray, who are they that are fo appointed, and how do they come by their appointment? Thefe are no un- neceflary queftions; for, till we know the men, and the authority by which they aft, we can neither judge of the extent of their duty in governing, nor of our duty in fubmitting to them, The xxviii Preface to the The learned Vindicator does not fay they are appointed by Chrift, but under Chrift ; which implies, that their appointment is conveyed to them from Chrifl through fome medium; which, as the governors themfelves, as well as the churches they fuperintend, are vifible, ihould be vijible too. One thing muft be agreed on all hands, namely, that an immediate vifible appointment of governors or fuperintendents under Chrift, and by Chrift himfelf, was never vouchfafed to any churches, fmce Chrifl's appearance on earth, but to the firft chriflian churches in which his apoftles miniftered. I would, therefore, willing- ly be informed, how the governors of proteftant churches can make their title, or their appoint- ment, under Chrift, to govern, appear to the fa- tisfa&ion of the churches to be governed ; and, particularly, to govern in the manner contended for by the learned Profeffor, in the courfe of his Vindication ? The mod natural expedient fuggefted by the Profeffor's fcheme, is for particular churches, which, ex hypothcfi, are parts of the univerfal vifible church, to apply to the univerfal vifiblc church, to have fuch governors appointed and properly authorized, under Chrift, to ferve their feveral occafions as they arife. But, then, how could the univerfal vifible church accommodate them with fuch governors, otherwife than by referring thera to the univerfal vifible head; whofc Second Edition. xxix whofe fubftitutes the governors, appointed by him, of courfe mult be ? But Proteftants, as obferved above, would have their objections to this fort of appointment, as they abfolutely deny that any fuch chara&er, as that of an unherfal vifible governor, has any bufinefs to interpofe in any fuch appointment ; not to mention that for a particular Protejlant church to apply to the univerfal vifible church, on any fuch account, would be to give up that independency which the learned Profeffor exprefsly declares to belong to each of them. There are fome who tell us, that church- governors take or receive this appointment under Cbrifty by way of fucceflion from the apoftles. But this will hardly pafs with Proteftants, who confider that the pretended governors of the univerfal vifible church fay the very fame thing, in afferting the plenitude of papal power. And it happens, that fome Proteftant Divines, of the firft account among us, in putting a negative upon this claim of the Roman pontifs, have done it in fuch terms, and by fuch arguments, as clear- ly and undeniably prove, that the claim of apoftolic fucceflion, made by any church-gover- nors, is not at all more adiniffible than the claim of the Pope to the iucceffion of St. Peter in par- ticular m. m See Dr. Whitby's Sermon on Matth. xii. 7. intituled, Ritual Obfcr-uations to give place to Charity; but more especial- ly the appendix, Mr. xxx Preface to the Mr. Locke, indeed, hath effectually blocked up this channel of appointment by an argument, which will admit of no reply. " Some, fays he, perhaps may object, that no* " fuch fociety £as the voluntary fociety above- " mentioned] can be faid to be a true church, " unlefs it have in it a bifliop or presbyter, " with ruling authority derived from the very " apoftles, and continued down to the prefent " times by an uninterrupted fucceffion. " To thefe I anfwer, in the firfl place, let " them fhew me the ediel: by which Chrifl has " impofed that law upon his church. And let " not any man think me impertinent, if, iri a " thing of this confequence, I require that the " terms of that edicl be very exprefs and pofi- " tive : for the promife he has made us, that ." Thaty however, is juff. as it happens. Before we get to the bottom of the page, we find there are cafes, wherein proteilant church-governors *Vind. p. 18. cannot Second Edition. xxxix cannot change the confeiTions of their churches, without being inconfijlent ; " namely, without " fuch a weaknefs and levity as is unbecoming " their office, and inconfijicnt with the trull com- " mitted to them." This cafe happens to be, when they are " led away by every one who " thinks himfelf able to reform it ; and as often " as any are found who diflike the faith and tl doctrines contained in it.'* To be fure, this is fairly 2.T\<\ingemwvJly ftated, as will appear by a fhort view of Proteftant Churches, with refpeft to their confeiTions, fince the commencement of the Reformation. Some of the confeffions in Proteftant Churches have been ejlablijhed near two hundred years, during which time various remon (trances have been made by the members of thole churches reflectively, not only concerning the precarious doctrines contained in the confeftion, but againft the cjlabiijhment of any fuch fyftematical for- mularies as telts in Proteftant Churches. Even fome of the wifeft and belt of the governors of thofe churches have confeffed, that requiring fubfcription to fuch formularies is a great impo- fition ; and have wilhed to be well rid of fome things maintained in them, as matters of which no good account could be given. And fuch, indeed, has been the language of the moft eminent, or at lead the moft liberal fpirited writers in all Proteftant Churches, that they have condemned c 4 them, Xj P R E F A C E tO the Them, if not in exprefs terms, yet by plain atid d;*recl confluences, to be drawn from their principles and reafonings. This, I fuppofe, will be confidered, by the candid reader, to be a different cafe from that dated by the Profeilbr ; where it is reprefented, as if only here and there a conceited wrong- head, or no body knows who, pretending to the character of a reformer, had exprefTed their diflike of the eitablifhed confeffion, without offering any reafon. Now it is well known, that, in fome of thofe churches where thefe confeifions are now, and have been eftablifhed for the length of time abovementioned, church-governors have never once taken their church-confeflion into ferious and folemn confideration ; never once fubmitted it to the fair and impartial examination of learned and unbiafTed men ; or ever declared themfelves ready to make fuch alterations in it as might, upon fuch examination, appear to be reafonable, neceffary, or edifying to the community in which they prefided. Have they not rather difcouraged all inquiries into the real merits of it ? Have not fome of them for- tified their confeffion with canons, and terrific menaces, to difcourage all difquillticns of that tendency ? Have not particular perfons been in former times perfecuted, in latter times brow- beaten, Second Edition. xli beaten, and marked for their even raodeft, and refpectful addrefles to their church-governors to have fuch matters examined, and, if needful, reformed ? To what purpofe is it, then, to fay of thofe churches, of whofe governors this hath been the conduct, that they make no pret cnfions to in- fallibility f Are not thefe the genuine, the natural, the conftant effects of thofe preten- fions ? To what purpofe is it to fay of thofe Proteflant Churches, which have never fought for better information, that they may be better informed at one time than another ? To what purpofe is it to fay, that it is not neccjfary a 'Proteflant Church Jhould always maintain the fame doclrines, when nothing but fuch necejjity can excufe the refufal of fome Proteflant Churches, even upon the moil reafonable re- monfrrances of pious and learned men, to review their doctrines ; and when it is faid too, by the fame man, and almoft in the fame breath, that it is unbecoming the office of church-governors, and inconfijlent with the trufi committed to them, to change them ; and this upon the difingenuous and falfe fuppofition, that neither the remon- ftrances, nor the men who have made them, were confiderable enough to deferve the lead regard ? And, laftly, upon what grounds can the learned Profeffor pretend, that all Pro- teflant Churches arc open to better information, when xlii Preface to the when he himfelf rauft know, that fome of them have fliut up their confeffions in fuch fortreffes and inclofures, as are, with refpeft to an; better information, impenetrable and inaccef- fible. Indeed, upon one fuppofition, mentioned by the learned ProfefTor, viz. That Proteflant Churches, though not infallible^ are always in the right, nothing can be more impertinent than to folicit them to change any thing that has once got an ejlablijhment among them. Our learned Vindicator finds fault with this faying, as containing more fmartncfs of exprejfwn than juflnefs of fentiment. But the jujlnefs of fe?iti- ment does not, I apprehend, .come fo imme- diately in queflion, as the truth of the facl .; and that is what makes the exprejfion fmart fo much. Be that as it may, the ProfefTor dif- likes the fentiment, and therefore would mend it ; which he tries to do, by telling us, that though Proteflant churches, or rather church- governors, are ever fo wrong in their doctrines, • yet, if they think themfelves in the right, they are obliged to abide by them ; againfl which there would be little to fay, if the Profeffor's confequence were not, that the duty of church- gorernors, under this perfuafion, leads them to oblige others, who are otherwife perfuaded, to abide by them too, on the peril of wanting the good things thefe churches and church-governors have Second Edition. xliii have to bellow ; and, if this is the cafe, I do not fee why Protcftant church-governors, as well as others, ihould not be infallible. Eur, after all, it is a fact to be depended upon, that " all governors of Proteftant (' churches have always thought the doctrines " of their eftablifhed contentions to be right?" Has the learned ProfefTor never heard of any pf them, who have held, written, or taught an)" thing contrary to the doctrine of the con- feffion of his own particular church? If he has not, has it not {truck him with furprize, that fo many men fliould have arifen, in dif- ferent parts of Europe, for two hundred years fucceflively, with intellects fo exactly fitted to their refpective confeffions, as if both had been fliaped together, like the coat and the lining, by the fame ftroke of the fhears ? But if he has heard (as who has not?) of Dif- fentients among the governors of Proteftant Churches, and thofe in no fmall numbers, was it fair in him to build fo much upon the con- trary fuppolition I But I can forgive the learned Profeflbr any thing, even this fpice of controverfial artifice, in confideration of his fending his readers to Mr. Locke's firfl Letter on Toleration, and to the Dedication to Pope Clement XI. prefixed to jSir Richard Steele's Account of the State of the Roman xliv Preface, &c. Roman Catholic Religion, in all parts of the World. Whoever reads thofe two excellent tra&s, with attention and underflanding, will never be the worfe for reading this Vindi- cation. PREFACE PREFACE T O THE EIRST EDITION. THE author of the following performance freely confefles himfelf to be one of thofe, who, in common with an eminent prelate, " have " been feized with that epidemical malady of idle •' and vi/ionary men, the projecting to re- " form the public a." Nor would he have any reafon to be afhamed of claffing with fo con- fpicuous a character, were it not that he hath unhappily taken an antipathy to that courfe of medicine, to which fo many others of the frater- nity owe the recovery of their health and fenfes. He is (till, alas! labouring to bring his project to bear, even when all the world about him is exclaiming at the folly of every one who is en- gaged in fo defperate an enterprize. The honeft truth is, he thinks the remedy worfe than the diieafe ; having feldom obferved any one of thefe patients perfectly cured, but by a See, The firjl Dedication prefixed to the fecond volume of The Divine Legntkn of Mofe?, &c. publifhed 1 758, p. $. the ii Preface /j /^ the application of&cbarm, which ufually operates in the other extreme ; and, in the fhape of politi- calfpedacleSy reprefents the public as too good to need reformation ; a fort oivifwn, which, of courfe, ends in a perfect conformity to the principles and manners in fafhion, and not feldom puts the re- Jlored fanatic in a hopeful way of recovering with advantage, whatever he was in danger of lofing, by perilling in his former reverie. Our fage advifers will, no doubt, fuggeft, that there is a middle way between the two extremes ; and that a man of prudence and probity, having tried his talent at reforming without fuccefs, may well fit down contented, enjoy his own opinion, and praclife his own virtue in fome corner, out of the way of temptation, and, for the reft, leave others, who are willing to take the public as they find it, to make their bed of it. To this fober counfel, I, for my own part, fhouldhave the lefs objection, could I be fatisfied, that a neutral character in matters concerning pub- lic reformation, where talents are vouchfafed tho' ever fo fparingly, were to be juftified ; and particularly where, as in this country, every man may, within decent reftri&ions, pubHJhy as well as enjoy, his own opinion. There are certain provinces and (rations, where, if the public really wants to be reformed, they who occupy them muft be at fome trouble in {lining their own convictions, before they can lie Fi r st Ed ition. m lie down peaceably in the repoie of a neutrality. To many of theie provinces belong conf: -Arable degrees of influence and authority, fufficient to give weight and fuccefs to feafonable and fpirit- ed remonitrances. And they who are in the lowed flations of watchmen and labourers, may- bear their teflimony, perhaps with more advan- tage than may be apprehended by thofe, who conlider not, from whom we are to look for the in* creafe of what is planted or watered by any hand. And wherever the obligation exiits, I mould think it can hardly be removed out of view, without opening the proipect: of lbme difcomfort, at that awful period when every man's final account fliall be called for. But, indeed, indolent neutrality is not a com- mon, and hardly a poflible, effect of the cure per- formed upon idle and vi/ionary reformers of the public. Id/enefs, in the proper fenfe of the term, is not their failing. They are commonly perfons of active and lively fpirits, who are not eafy un- der want of employment. Their inexperience leads them into fanguine hopes, that fame, ho- nours, and rewards muft crown their labours. It is inconceivable to them, that, where the public is fo grofsly and notorioufly wrong, it mould not acknowledge its obligations to thofe, who intereit themfelves to fet it right, by the molt fubftantial inftances of its gratitude. And this is the idle part of the character, in the figurative fenfe. $ But iv Preface-?!! f& But when the aftonifhed vifionary finds his mif- take, and perceives that public error, of the mod palpable kind, has its champions ready armed at all points, and prepared to difpute every inch of ground with him, that nothing would be got by the unequal conflict but difgrace, con- tempt, and poverty ; human nature, and an im- patience to be figuring with eclat, commonly bring him over, without much hefitation, to the furer fide ; where he fets himfelf to aft the part of a true profelyte, that is to fay, to reform back- wards, with a violence and precipitation propor- tioned to the fufpicions his new allies might en- tertain of his hankering after his old deviations, fhould he not give the mod fpirited proofs of his effectual converfion. Were not the fubjeft of too ferious a nature (for the particulars above are to be underdood of reformation and reformers of religious mat- ters), and were not the Dramatis perfona of too folemn a cafl to be exhibited in Comedy, one might give very diverting inflances of this kind of frailty, in more than one of thofe who have not only affefted, with a kind of philofophical grimace, to ridicule their own former conduct as idle and vifionary, but alfo, to fill up the meafure of their merit with their party, have been the for- warded to expofe, reprobate, and, to the utmoft of their good-will, perfecute thofe who perfift in this epidemical folly. The First Edition. v The perjijlers, indeed, are but tew ; and no wonder. All their difcourageraents confidered, they may be faid, like Abraham, again/} hope, to believe in hope. In the firft ranks of their adver- faries appear thofe who enjoy plentiful emolu- ments from the nature and conftruclion of the ejlablifoment, who are therefore concerned to de- fend every thing belonging to it, not becaufe it is true, or reafonable, or righteous in itfelf, or with refpect to the defign of the Go/pel, but becaufe it is eftablijhed. With litigants of this complexion, arguments drawn from reafon, from fcripture, from the moil: notorious facts, are of no force. When particular anfwers fail them, they have general ones at hand, which do their bufinefs ef- fectually. Public authority, long polfeflion, the concurrence of the majority, the danger to pub- lic peace from attempts to innovate, he. Sec. &c. have fuch a formidable appearance, even in the eyes of fome of the warmed friends of Reforma- tion, that they will often fhudder at the temerity of their own champions, when they contider with whom and with what they are to engage, and (fuch are the effects of this kind of intimidation) will fupprefs their own fpeculations, to avoid fufpicions of being connected with a fet of men, whom the nature and tenor of fuch anfwers go near to ftigmatize with fomething more heinous than faction and fedition. d The ▼i P r e f a c e to the The whole cafe is fet forth by Mr. Bayle in {q mafterly a manner, that I cannot refill the tem- ptation of giving a pretty long extract from him, without any fear however of difgufling the fenfi- ble reader with the prolixity of it, for which the juftnefs of that great man's fentiments upon fo interefling a fubjecl: will make him ample amends, as well as furnifh me with fome reflections arifinsf from the cafe as ftated by Bayle, compared with the conduct of the anti-reformers in our own, country. John de Launoi, a Parifian doctor of the Sor- bonne, having, in the courfe of his learned dif- quifitions, found out the falfehood of many le- gends and traditions concerning the faints who were honoured with places in the popifh calen- dars, made no fcruple to publifti his difcoveries*. and, in confequence of them, to propofe, that thefe imaginary beings might be expunged from thofe Calendars, Marty rologies, &c. as occafioning an highly criminal fuperftition in thofe who paid religious adoration to them. He even ventured to attack the angelic doctor Aquinas, as charge- able with great ignorance, or great infmcerity, in, building his arguments againfl heterodoxy upon fabulous traditions. One Baron, a Jacobine friar, undertook the defence of Aquinas, maintaining, that (i thetradi- 61 tions he built upon had been derived from pri- '* mitive times ; that LaunoVs refearches and con- " clufions First Edition. vir " clufions were the employment of a pragmatical *c genius, more concerned to obtain a great than " a good name ; that Launoi ought, like St. T/jo- t( 7iiasy to have let things alone, when they were " well ; and that, admitting fome of thefe tradi- " tions were of a doubtful authority, or even fa- " bu\ous,Lau?ioi{hould have paid a proper regard " to that maxim of the phyficians, Malwn bene " pofitum m ?noveto." Which, being transferred into divinity, fignifies, thdxfalfe traditions, which do not hurt faith, and promote piety, ought to be retained, and not diflurbed. Upon which Mr«> Bayle thus reafons : " If all the circumftances fet forth by this Ja- " cobine were true, there is no doubt but John tl de Launoi was defervedly condemned, as one " who, to make himfelf talked of, and to fatisfy <( his ill nature, would oppofe many general opi° " nions, which had obtained time out of mind, to '* the advancement of piety, without detriment " to the faith. ■ " But this is not the cafe of our Sor- f* bonne doctor. The traditions he oppofes have " no good title, and his arguments againfl them w are unanfwerable. Now, in this cafe, it is' " plain, there is all the right in the world to bring " the mod general and ancient opinions to a trial, " efpecially when their falfity keeps up a criminal a devotion. d 2 f< I defire viii Preface to the " I defire it may be obferved, that the reafon- u ings of this doctor were of fuch force, as to " undeceive abundance of people ; but yet the ic abufes have not been removed. Things remain " upon the fame foot "m Provence h, and elfewhere. " They tell you (till the fame {lories they told " your anceftors, and you fee the fame worfhip " and the fame ceremonies. This proves the " diiference there is betwixt private perfons and u the public. Particular people are mod of them, " one t:.me or other, undeceived ; and yet the " practice of the public remains the fame.'* After which Mr. Bayle brings fome parallel inflances from Cicero and Juvenal, to ihew, that public inftitutions in the Roman date, kept their ground againft the conviction even of a majority. And then goes on thus : " There is no likelihood that they who follow " the fleps of John de Launoi can do any fervice, " whilil things are only carried on by way of li- " terary difpute. The patrons of falfe devotion u will never recede. They find their account " too much in not bating an ace, and they are " powerful enough to fecure themfelves from " any violence. The court of Rome will fecond " and fupport them. The Romifii church feems " to have adopted the religion of thegodTERMi- " >ius of the Roman republic. This god never b Where a fictitious Mary Magdalen is vvorfhiped as the converter of the country. " yielded First Edition. ix " yielded a tittle, no not to Jupiter himfelf ; " which was a fign, faid they, that the Roman rt people mould never recede, nor yield an inch " of ground to their enemies. If any Pope fhould Kt be willing to facrifke fomething to the reunion " of the fchifmatics, fome infignificant devotions, u fome fuperannuated traditions, he might ap- '.' prehend as great a murmur againft him, as the " Heathens made againft the fcandalous peace of u the emperor Jovian?' He then proceeds to give fome modern in- ftances of the bad fuccefs of Reformers. Of the Jefuit Papcbroch, and his affiftants, "who at- " tempted to purge the Acta Sanctorum of many " fabulous and fcandalous particulars, for which " fervice the Carmelites and other monks pro- " cured feveral volumes of the faid Ads, fo t( purged, to be burned by the inquifition of To- i( ledo." Of Father Mabillon, who " having " laid down fome very good rules concerning the " worfhip of fome faints, and the judgment to be " made of relics; — was anfwered, Phy/irian, heal " thyfelf\ — reform firft the worfhip paid in fome " houfes of your order of St. Lencdicl to faints " as dubious as any. He was likewife told of (t the injury he did the church, and the advan- " tage he gave to Protellants." Laftly, of Mr. Thiers, who " fet up againft falfe relics, — " examined where the bodies of martyrs lay, — " publifbed fome difTenations upon the holy d 3 # « of K Preface /o the £' of Vendome, and upon St. Firmin. All, fays " Mr. Bay le, was loft labour. The King's council if fuppreifed his book about St. Firmin, as the ?f* bifhop of Amiens had condemned a letter he had '/ publifhed upon the fame queftion.,? Mr. Bay lis concluding reflection is as follows: ■" The fruits of a difcreet zeal are deftroyed " in the bud. They build upon this principle, fe that it is dangerous to abrogate old cuftoms ; "that boundaries ought not to be removed; " and that, according to the old proverb, we -" fhould leave the minjler where we find it* The f profperity of the Chriftian Rome, juft like that ft of the Pagan Rome, is founded upon the pre- ff fervation of ancient rights. Confecrations rauft " be complied with ; religion will allow no alter- ie ation in them, Jed ilia mutari vet at rcligio, et " confecratis utendum eft" In our days, faid a fub-prior of St. Anthony, let us beware of inno- vationsc. We fee then how it is : How numerous, how well difciplined the forces that are brought into the field againft Reformers ; how able the generals that head them, and how determined the whole body not to yield an inch, even to the united powers of piety, truth, and common fenfe. * Bffllf.i Di£l. Art. La un oi (Joh)* de) Rem. E. Bur, First Edition. xi But, methinks, I hear a zealous anti-reformer, iteady to his point, and not eafily difconcerted, cxpoflulating with me to the following effecl : " We fee, indeed, from this reprefentation of *' Mr. Bayle, how it is ; but only, how it is in " popi/Jj countries. Do not Proteftant churches *' reprobate faint-worfhip of all forts I Have we " any fuch inftances among us of grofs idolatry, " as that of worfhiping an imaginary faint? And a can you pretend, there are any errors or cor- tf ruptions in the church of England, any thing *' like to have fo ill an effect upon the people, as tf the mameful fuperftitions attacked by the French " reformers above-mentioned? On another hand, " is it fair to put the Reformed, churches, and " particularly the church of England, which pre- *' tend to no infallibility, and which are founded t( upon principles of Chriftian liberty, upon the " fame footing of obftinacy with the church of '• Rome, the very genius and fpirit of which ex- *' eludes all examination, and all right of private '* judgment ? And is it not upon record, that the " church of England hath made alterations in her u public forms, and doth me not declare that fhe " is ready to make them again, upon jufl and " weighty occafions?" ; To the firft part of this remonflrance I anfwer, that neither Launoi, Papebroch, Mabillon, nor Thiers, made the lead quellion about the lawful- Qefs of worfhiping thofe whom they efteemed to d 4 be j?ii Preface /a ^ be real faints, or venerating what could be proved to be true relics* They faw not the lead idolatry or fuperftition in either practice. And, it being prefuppofedby them, that faint- wodhip was both lawful and edifying, I apprehend, it would not be of much fignificance, with refpect either to the piety or moral principles of the people, that they were under the delufion which thefe reformers endeavoured to remove. Mr. Bayle, indeed, calls it a criminal devotion ; but, upon principles which he hath well explained elfewhere, it could not be criminal in the party who intended his wprfhip to a real faint d. If a French papifl was perfua- ded that his prayers to St. Finnin or St. Rena- fus were as properly directed as thofe he made to St. Peter or St. Paul, his inward ipirit of devotion would be no lefs zealous and fmcere in the one cafe than in the other ; nor would the merit of it fuffer any diminution on account of a miftake of which he was not, nor could be made, fenjible. And this is the circumilance which gives all its worth to Father Baron's maxim. Malum bene pofi- turn ne mo-veto. The cafe, indeed, is different., when you afcend from the common people to. their governors and directors, who were confcious of the delufion, and d See his Comment Philcf ph. fur ces paroles de J. Chrilt, Contracts, ics d'enirer. Par: II. chap. viii. where he undertakes (0 prove, que la conscience qui ejl dans Ferreur, a les mimes droits que cdle qi.i uj eji ja** ftiU First Edition. xiii (till kept it up, or who were capable judges of Launoi's reafonings, and refufed to examine them. But even here it would be difficult, perhaps, to ft ate the comparative guilt of popifh and protect- ant rulers in the like circumftances, within their refpecHve departments ; and the whole (as it feems to me at lean1) would turn upon the true anfwer to this fmgle queftion, Whether certain particu- lars, which are equally proved to want reformation among proteftants, have not as ill an effect upon a protectant people, while they continue unre- formed, as the miitake of a falfe faint for a true one has upon a papift, who believes faint-wor- fliip to be an indifpenfable duty ? I forbear to give inftances, though there are more than one at hand. With refpeft to the fecond member of the ex- poftulation above, I would beg leave to obferve, that Mr. Bayle's fpeculations are founded upon the nature and genius of religious establishments in general. Nor can the church of England take it amifs to be ranked with the church of Romey nor the church of Rome to be ranked with a Pa- gan eftablifliment, fb far as the parallel really and infacl will hold. To me there does not appear one confideration which impeached the prudence, or obstructed the fuccefs, of Launoi, Mabillon, or Thiers, that would not operate equally to the dif- reputation and difappointmcnt of an Englifh Pro- teftant Reformer. In all excfofivc eftablifhments, where xiv ' Preface /« the where temporal emoluments are annexed to the profeffion of a certain fyftem of doctrines, and the ufage of a certain routine of forms, and appropri- ated to an order of men fo and fo qualified, that order of men will naturally think themfelves in* terefled that things mould continue as they are. A reformation might endanger their emoluments. For though it ihould only begin with fuch things as are mod notorioufly amifs, the alteration of which would no way affeft their temporal interefls, yet, by opening a door to farther enquiry (which would be the natural effect of it), their dignities and revenues might poilibly be brought into que- flion, and be thought to need fome regulations, which it can hardly be fuppofed they would ap- prove. So that they who afk, Who knows where a reformation may end f by way of giving a rea- fon why it Ihould not be begun, are certainly not unwife in their generation. A man of fenfe, though he may love his money better than any thing elfe, may, neverthelefs, be capable of difcerning the particulars where a reformation is wanted. For the reft, the clergy of proteftant eftablifh- ments have been protected in their oppofition to innovations by the higher powers, as well as monks and augurs. The commonalty in our own country, as far as ever I could fee, are kept in their prejudices and adherence to their prefent forms, by the fame confiderations and ways of ar- guing that attach the vulgar in other countries to First Edition. xv to things of a worfe complexion6. We have an example in the renowned Tillotfon, what murmurs the prefiding character in our church experienced, upon giving way to a reformation of our public forms and fervices, though in the leafl important particulars. The arguments againft a reform, taken from poffeffion and antiquity, and the expe- dience of adhering to ancient rights, have been as often and as warmly urged by fome proteftants in England, as by the orthodox in foreign lands. How dextrous we are at recrimination, the late Mr. White's Letters to a Dijenting Gentleman re- main a memorable and Handing evidence. Father Mabillon himfelf could not hear more of the ad- vantage he gave to Proteftants, than the authors of the Free and candid Difquifitions have been told of the countenance they gave to the Engliih. Proteftant DilTenters f . And I am not certain that he would be miftaken, who fhould affirm of e See Bifhop Be verege's Latin Sermon before the Convoca- tion, 1689, and molt of the Sermons at Hatchins's Lectures. f " This book of yours [The Free and CandidDifquifitions] " will be a means to leffen very much the credit and eftima- ■" tion of the church of England in the eyes of many of its V members, as well as to confirm and encourage the Diifent- H ers in their prefent ways, perhaps alfo to increafe the num- " ber of them. — Your Difquifitions, doubtlefs, will be " confidered as a grand Arfenal, ftored with ordnance of " almoft all forts, fit to attack the church of England, which *.« our adverfaries, no doubt, will thank you for, and have f* recourfe to, upon all occafions." Free and impartial Con- fiderations on the Free and candid Difquifitions , afcribed to IWr. White, p. 59, 60. fome xvi Preface to the fome who would be thought pillars of the church n't England (what Luther did of his Romijh adver- faries s ) that the remonftrances of thefeDifqia/itors have rendered them more tenacious and inflexi- ble, even with refpe£t to fome particulars which feemed to be given up on all hands, till they were pointed out for reformation by thefe idle and vifwnary mfenh, _ To what the alterations that have been made in our ecclefiaftical fyflem amount, and confequently how far the church may be difpofed to a farther reformation upon juft and weighty occafions, .. will be feen by and by. Here is more than fuflicient, one would think, to deter a reformer, who is able and deliberate enough to count the coji, from ever meddling with public error, even with more than half the cou- rage of Luther. A man mull be in a very un- common fituation, as well as of an uncommon fpirit, even in this land of liberty, who is bold enough to undertake the patronage of a caufe, to which fo many, at different periods, have fallen martyrs. Not always, indeed, by fire and fword. s Verum concordiam fidei, feu doftrinse, fruftra qua^rit Erafmusy eo coniilio ut mutuum cedamus et condonemus, non tantum quod adverfarii prorfus nihil cedunt, nee cedere volunt, quia potius rigidius et obitinatius nunc omnia de- fendunt quam unquam antea, etiam talia aufi nunc exigere, qua; ante Luthcrum ipfimet damnaverant, et reprobaverant. Luther apud S-sckendorf, lib. iii. p. 53. & See Occafional Remarks upon fome late Striftures on The Ccnfjfimal, Part ii. p. 37 — 50. 7 but First Edition. xvii butoftener, perhaps, by what kills as furely, tho' not fo quickly, hunger and nakednefs. For the misfortune is, that the malady of re- forming the public, is moil apt to feize upon thofe, whofe profeflion leads them to a more inti- mate ftudy of the holy fcriptures ; whofe views in life, and ordinarily, whofe fcanty circumftances require, that they fhould preferve fome credit with their eccleiiaflical fuperiors, in order to pro- cure themfelves a decent maintenance. Nothing can be more fatal to fuch, than a mutinous fpirit of reformation. They are marked of courfe as forbidden and contraband men. A fprightly aca- demic was one day making fome free obfervations upon the Canons, before an eminent fage of the law : " Beware, young man," fays the prudent counfellor, " of the holy office, and remember that " there are flawing, as well as burning inquiii- " tions." But, after all, they who can get above thefe alarming confiderations, or who are in a fituation not to be affected by them, will not be abfolutely deftitute of fome gleams of hope and comfort, over and befides what refults from the inward teftimony of having done their duty. Mr. Bayle, as the reader hath fcen, obferved, that " the reafonings of Dr. Launoi had force '* enough to convince abundance of people," and thofe of courfe, people of the bed fenfe, and the moil rational piety. So, no doubt, hath it hap- pened xviii P R e f a c a to the pened to the pleaders for a farther reformation* iii our own church, many of whom have been not a whit behind the Sorbonne doctor, either in the evidence of facts, or in the force of their reason- ing. Nor is it unreafonable to prefume, that, as farther developements are made, the number of the convinced mufl be increafed. The weaknefs of the few anfwers that have been made to the important remonftrances of fe- rious and judicious men on the article of a far- ther reformation, and the fupercilious contempt with which the moft refpectful as well as the mod reafonable of them have been palled by, mull detract fomething from the eftimation of thofe whom the thinking part of mankind will fuppofe to be chiefly concerned to take notice of them. It will look like a combination to adhere to the eftablifhed fyftem, for fome political purpofes not fit to be owned ; while no folicitude is perceived to relieve the reafonable fcruples of confcientious diffenters, or to confult the real neceffities of our own people, by fubftituting, in the room of hack- neyed, and not always juftifiable forms, more in- telligible as well as more animating methods of public worfhip, and public edification. To be plainer flill; this temper and conduct in a fet of men, many of whom make it appear, on other occafions, that they want neither learning nor capacity to form an accurate judgment on {o interefting a cafe, will hardly allow us to think i- them First Edition. xix them in earned in their weekly exhortations to christian piety and virtue, or the zeal they occa- fionally exprefs for the proteftant religion and government. Their doctrine,, contrafted by their practice, will look to the difcerning part of the public, as if nothing was meant by thefe terms, in their mouths, but mere conformity to an eccle- fiaftical eftablifhment, and a refolution to fupporc and defend that at all events, with, or without,. reafon. But, if ever the mafk fhould fall off in fome future fkirmifh * (the probable and frequent effect of a rivalfhip for temporal honours and emolu- ments), and one of the parties fhould be reduced. to the neceflity of leaning upon the friends of re- formation, by way of balance to the other, it is then that the labours of thefe idle and vifwnary 1 This was once very near being the cafe, when, in the memorable year 1 74^, two of our leading churchmen could not agree, whether, upon the received fyftem of divinity, the Rebellion then on foot was to be confidered as a judgment upon the /late, or only upon particulars. The diiference, how- ever, was happily compromifed in the following manner. " In the mean time, moft polemic Sir, let us agree in this " however different we may go in other matters, to reve- ** RENCE AND SUPPORT OUR HAPPY CONSTITUTION. " And, that I may bring the matter as near to you [might he " ?:ot have added, and to myfelf ?] as I can, what other conlH- ** tution but this, let me afk you, would have heaped ChanceU " lorjhips, Archdeaconries, Prebends, &C with fo liberal a hand, ,f and on fo worthy a fubject ?" — This was an argument ad utrurrque, which would admit of no demur; and fo, we may fuppofe, they fhook hands, and parted frientk. men XX P R E F A C E to the men may come to have their weight; and fome of thofe, at leaft, who are now pining away in a de- fponding obfcurity, under the frowns of their difobliged fuperiors, may pombly live to fee the way they have been preparing, gradually open- ing to the accomplishment of what all well-in- formed chriftians and confident Proteftants have been fo long and fo ardently wifhing for in vain. But let this happen when it will, the church will not get half fo much credit by a reformation into which fhe is compelled by an unwelcome ne- cefTity, as would attend her undertaking it freely and of her own bounty ; and there is one conii- deration above all others, in which her honour is intimately concerned, that mould difpofe her to think of it ferioufly. It is an objection which, by turns, has been made to all the reformed eftablifhments in Europe, that their refpective plans are too narrow and circumfcribed ; nor is it to be denied, that, along with all their profeffions of afferting chriftian li- berty, they have, more or lefs, impofed upon their members certain doctrines and modes of worfhip, for which they have no other than hu- man authority. When this is objected to any of them, as in- confiftent with their original foundation, the holy fcriptures, they conftantly appeal to the practice of each other, as a common j unification of them all j First Edition. xxi all; lis if that were luilicieiit to preclude all ap- peals to any other authority. The learned and excellent Dr. MofJjehn hath, complimented the church of England with the title of, TBe chief and hading branch of that great tommunity^ ivhich goes under the denomination of the reformed church k. What prefcriptive or equitable right the church of England has to this preference, I fhall not (lay to enquire. It is fufficient for my purpofe that (lie accepts the compliment, having, indeed, paid it to herfelf an hundred times1. And yet, when her own un- k That is, according to Dr. Madeline's Translation, vol. ii. p. 575. quarto Ed. Mojhe'wis words are, Anglieana Ec- clefia, que nun: princeps eft Rcformatorum. The compliment in the Englifh is a little drained. M fluin, by the word princeps, meant only, the mqft conjiderahle. He could not repreient the church of England under the idea of a leader of the Nonepifcopal churches. Princeps, in good latin au- thors, often fignifies, the firji in order of time. [See Dr. Jurtins Life of Erajmus, vol. i. p. 552.] But that fenfe is excluded by the words nunc eft, neither is it true that the church of England was the fi-ft church that was reformed. It is juil enough to fay, flie Is t'-.e v.oft confiderable. Mo- sheim's Hiilory is a valuable acquilkion to the cbriftian as well as the litaary commonwealth, and is well worth the perufal of thofe who would not be deluded by the falfe and fallacious views in which the conduct of churchmen, both with refpecl to facts and fy items, has been placed by former Hiltorians. Dr. Maclaiius translation and notes have, /',: general, great merit. 1 Cl We thiak," fays a learned Ctfhop, " our own church «' the belt ; every body thinks it far from the wont." — " The " Lutherans," fays another (if another), M prefer it to the e icriptural xxii Preface to the fcriptural impofmons come to be objected to her, (he hath the condefcenfion to alledge in her de- fence, the ufages of proteftant churches abroad ; nay, hath fometimes been humble enough to take fhelter under the practice of the diflenting churches at home, — thofe very aflemblies, which, on other occafions, fhe hath refufed to acknow- ledge as fifter-churches; a degree of humility, in my poor opinion, much below the dignity of a leading church, which furely fhould maintain her ground, and vindicate her practice by ori- ginal authority, without accepting any fupple- mental aid from the examples of thofe, whom, in every other light, fhe looks upon as fome- thinglefs than her inferiors. But, would the church of England, indeed, per- fectly atchieve this honour of being the leader and chief of all Reformed churches I The way is '* Calvinifl communion, the Calaiinijls to the Lutheran, and '* the Greeks to both."' — Which is explained to mean, that every one thinks the church of England the next belt to his own. " Bur this," fays Dr. May hew, " is faid without " proof." Second Defence, p. 6. — And mark what a bitter pill the Doctor gives us in the room of this Jhveetmeat, with which we treat ourfelves. " There is indeed,'' fays he, " one church, a very ancient and extenfive one, which it " may naturally be concluded, for a reafon that fliall be *' namelefs, confiders the communion of the church of " England the next bell to her own." Qbferv. p. 1 27. For -my part, I fhould think we are well off, if, for this namelefs reafon, all other Proteftants do not think our church the worjl but one. open. First Edition. xxiii Open. Let her be the frfc to remove every ft ambling-block out of the way of her weak (if fo (he will needs call them) but confcientious fellow-chriflians. Let her nobly and generoufly abolifh and difavow all impoiitions, all bonds, and yokes, all beggarly elements, difagreeable to the fpirit and dcfign of Christianity. Let her re- move all grounds of fufpicion of her hankering after Romifto fuperftition, by renouncing every rite, ordinance, and ceremony, which maynourifh this jealoufy among theDilfenters, and for which flie is driven to make apologies, that fo remark- ably contrail, her pretentions to an authority to decree them m. Let her do this, and fet the glorious example to the other Proteftant churches ot Europe, and then will ilie be juilly entitled to thofe encomiums, which, while me dfumes them in her prefent fituation, will only pafs with the judicious for the meaneu: of ail mean things, J elf- adulation, - , But to wave our fpeculations for the prefent, and to come to a few plain facts. Let us take a curfory view of the fleps taken, by authority, to reform the church of England, after the fettle- mint of it by Queen Elizabeth's Act of Unifor- mity. Elizabeth would enter into no treaty with the old puritans to alter or reform any thing. They m Vul. Canon xx*. and the Kubrick at the «nd of the Communion Service. e 2 were XXiv Preface to the were delivered over to Parker and Whitgift, for correction only ; which the latter exercifed with fo unfeeling a hand, and fo far beyond his legal powers, that, upon the Queen's demife, he began to be terribly frighted at the approach of King James's fir ft: Parliament; and it is probable enough his appreheniions haflened his death. He lived, however, to be prefent at the Ham- pton-Court conference, where all objections were happily filenced by the commodious maxim of, No biJJjop, no king. The whole affair ended with extravagant compliments to the royal moderator, which fome people, who were not puritans, thought chriitian bifhops mould not have carried fo far. Barlow's account of it might well enough have been called, A Farce of three Aclsy as it was played by Lis Majeft-fs Servants at Hampton- Court, &c. But it proved to be no farce to the poor confcientious puritans, with whom James faithfully kept his promife, viz, that. " if they " would not conform, he would har?~y them cut " of the land, and even doworfe n. Accordingly many of thefe worthy confeffors found it more eligible to quit their country, and to feek their peace in an uncultivated defart, than abide the fury of the bifhops. And when they, who firft fled to New England, had made this a comfort- * Fullers Church Hift. B. x. p. 19, ar.d Heylhis Hiftory cf the Prefbyterians, B. xi p. 376. 5 , able First Edition. xxv able afyltim, the authority of government was rnoft cruelly interpofedj to deprive thofe, who would have followed their brethren, of this relief, that the bifhops iright not lofe the latisfaction of tormenting them at home °. And afterwards, when, in the reign of Charles I. thefe refugees began to be happy and profperous, the malicious Laud, that they might reap no advantages from their induftry, commercial genius, and chriftian liberty, contrived to cramp their trade by foolifh proclamations P, and, to complete their mortifica- tion, was upon the point of fending them a Ei- RHor with a military force to back his authority, if the Scots had not found him other buhnefs % Fuller tells us, humouroufly enough, that, after the Hampton -Court conference, " many cripples in *' conformity were cured of their halting therein, " and fuch who knew not their own, till they " knew the King's mind in this matter, for the " future quietly digefted the ceremonies of the " church r." It is more than probable, that James himfelf was one of thefe cripples, till he talked with his bifhops ; the time had been, when he could no more digeft thefe ceremonies, than his new puri- ° See TindaPs Rapin, 8vo. 1731, vol. IX. p. 312 — 395; T.Iacautay, vol. I. p. 6j. But above all, Wilfout p. 74. p RaJIjiwtb, fccond part, p. 718. 1 HeylinslAk of Laud, p. 3. '9. f Fuller's Cliurcb Hillory, B. X. p. 21. e 3 tan xxvi Preface to the tan fubje&s, and when he talked againft thofe of the church of England, in particular, with fcorn and contempt s . No doubt but, upon the event of this confer- ence, there was a confiderable/tf///wg ojf. So it will always be in fuch cafes, even with thofe who know their own minds well enough. Bancroft pre- tended to SpGtfwood, Archbifhop of St. Andrews, that, " when the rolls were called of thofe who " flood out, and were depofed, which was fome " years after, they were found to be forty-nine in " all England, whereas the miniflers in that " kingdom are reckoned nine thoufand and " abwe1.'' Bancroft probably forgot to tell his brother Spoffwood, how many ihipioads he had terrified into foreign countries u. It might be too, that he found no more than forty-nine, whom he held it fafe to perfecute ; poor, friendiefs, and moneylefs men, who had nothing wherewithal to buy off their ccnfures, nor any patrons to protect them. There are authentic accounts, that the Noncon- formifl rnin'ifters were not fo thin fofon even in Bancroft's reign. 5 He called the Engliuh Liturgy, " an evil-faid mafs in '« Enelifh ; which wanted nothing of the mafs but the lift- '! ino-3." CaliLr'wood, apud Harris, p. 25. 1 Spctfiuocd's Hift. of the Church of Scotland, p. 479. and 2%/2'a'j Hift. of the Preibyt. p. 376. Calderwoqdfoy*, that the number of iilenced and deprived ministers, on that occx- Jion, were 300. Aliare uarr.rfcenum, Praefat. J See Cccafional Remarks, Fart II. p. 91 — 93. But First Edition. xxvii But perhaps a little anecdote, preferred by a feniible and candid conformift, may help us to account for this grofs mifreprefentation. " In €t the year 1669, fays he, we had feveral articles " fent down to the clergy, with private orders to "fome, to make the conventiclers as few and in- " confiderable as might be. The eighth and " lad was this, Whether you do think they might " be eafily fuppreffed by the ajfiflance of the civil " magiftrate » *" This was a call of Sheldon's politics, the fyftem of which he took from that excellent original, Bancroft >'. It would not have looked well to the civil magiftrate to do the Hierarchical drudgery of the prelates, while the nonconforming were efteemed confiderable for their numbers and quality. Even Charles's minifters might have boggled at this. But Spotfzoocd's reflection upon Bancroft's re- port, muft not be forgot. " Such a noife, fays " he, will a few difturbers make, in any fociety " where they are tolerated." Experience hath fhewn, that the more fuch diflurbers are tolerat- ed, the lefs noife they make. But Spotfwood, by the word tolerated, meant, fuffered to live. No- thing like a halter to make a man ceafe his noife ! x Con form ills plea for Nonconformifls, Part I. p. 40. 7 See Pierce's Vindic. p. 169, 170. e 4 What xxviii P r. e f a c e to the What the puritans aimed at, and hoped to ob- tain by this conference, may be feen in that ex- cellent refcript called the millenary petition, pre- ferved by Fuller (no bad model for a reforma- tion even in thele days) ; what they did obtain, was imprifonment, depofition, and exile. The violence with which the ruling bifhops drove on during this and the firft part of the fuc- ceeding reign, (over which a good-natured man would throw a cloak, if he could find one large enough to cover it) loft them firft their feats in parliament, and afterwards their whole epifcopal authority. Of thofe great and wife men who compefed the parliament of 1641, (and greater, or wifer, or more of them at one time, England never faw z) all were not of one mind, with refpecl: to the bifhops. Some thought that, particular delinquents be- ing punifhed for examples, the oi'der might re- main, with fuch limitations, as would prevent its 'being mifchievous for the time to come. With this view, archbifhop U/Iper drew up his plan of the reduclim of Epifcopacy \ and would the z " But Cromzvdl fubdued his country when this fpirit [of f Liberty] was at its height, by a fuccefsful itruggle againft " court opprefiion, and while it was conduced and fupport- *! ed by a fet of the greaieft geniufes for government the that the noncon- forming party might flill be ffrong enough to give him much uneafinefs, publifhed a declaration at Breda a, giving the prefbyterians to underftand a *' In the deep fenfe of this danger" [of the old fdencing and dividing work] " I fet myfelf to try, whether terms of ** pojfkble'' [q. feaobab'e] " concord might be obtained. The " London miniuers joined. The King greatly encouraged "us; fujl by his Declaration at Bred a, and that again il " debauchery. Next by perfonal engaging us in a treaty M with the bilhops, and his promife that he would draw TWu XXX P R L F A C E /<7 //? i t i 1 • & " fonters] nyere bound io the farm things jSi ** other ciaufcs or obligdtfQQis t if thefts evrv " pealed K" 1 Ibid, p. 340, but more particulr.ily Baxter Sylveiter, part iii. p. 140, 141. Morfey-, lipotrfam* aft'efted great candour und mode ration ton.'. Nonconformiils. Me told one of tinea (Mr. Sa?A that " he mult not philofcphize upon the word', *' coa/entj nor fuppofe that die parliament did by .-j c-i " an aft of the understanding, and by m./t .( an «ct '* will: for rro more was intended, than thai the per "declaring, intended to read the book,'" adding, that *• :■ " he (Sprint) would make the dechn.tlon in the " the Aft of Uniformity, and then fay that thereby he aneart ** no more thin that he would read the Comv.cx . 11 would admit him into a living." Cakmy's Account, £;"«■. p. 341. They who drew up the !\Cl of Uniformity, mj.Cs/-. II. would hardly have acqnielcrd in this utrp&ilafcifrkL-ail doftrine. In the year 1665 an attempt was made foraderl*- ration of njp.nt and confmt injoined by the aft of Ur.m to the fame effeft with this explanation of Eilho but was rejeded with indignation, as an alteration wherein was neither jttflice nor prudence. Celsmy'j Abridgment v? Bax- ter j Life, p. 205. Mr. Ohj':, and the 'ate Bifh< were of the (a me mind with biihop Msrhy. .And thi haps, the biOiops of the prefent day would afk no q 1 : a candidate, how he understands the ajpnt no .Yea he is required to declare, yet, I d:,re fay, they \vo\ low him to explain hi; declaration in Bifhop 'Mt in fo many words. Nor, indeed, do I lb ink that a dec u: limited by fuch an explanation would be kged. "'. ever, is an initance of what has often been fuppofetl, thegreateft f.icklcrs for conformity have been felf-com that the terms by which it is enforced are in men as Morlty could not but know, that, if the p rlia had meant any thing hut what they plainly cx.p:e might have found words lit for their purpofe, T/ithqpt !< xxxvi Preface to the This is fo black and infamous, that I fhoiild hardly blame a zealous churchman, who mould demur to the competency of the evidence, as coming from a diffenter. There it hath flood however, for above fifty years, uncontradicted, as far as I know, by any one. In the year 1675 tnere was a conference, in order to a comprehenfion, between Dr. Tillotfon and Dr. Stillingfleet on the one part, and fome diffenting minifters on the other ; and matters being brought into a fair way towards a compro- mife, the hifhops Ward and Fear/on were to be told in confidence, and upon promife of fecrefv, by the two Doctors of the eflablifhment, f{ how " far they had gone, and how fair they were for iC agreement." The event is related by Dr. Til- lotfon in a letter to Mr. Baxter, as follows : " Sir, " I took the nrft opportunity, after you were " with us, to fpeak to the bifhop of Salijhury il [}¥ard~], who promifed to keep the matter pri- vate, and only to acquaint the bifhop of Chejler [Pear/on] with it, in order to a meet- ing. But, upon fome general difcourfe, I plainly perceived feveral things could not be " obtained. However, he promifed to appoint a " time of meeting ; but I have not heard from " him fince. — " And there ended the treaty. Ward appears to have acted the fame part with others to find out meanings, which evejy man of common fenfe fees their words will not bear. Tillotfon, First Edition. xxxvii *Tillotfon, in 1675, that he did with Wilkins in 1668, only perhaps with a little more hypo- crify k. The reafon why the fc two bifliops, Mcrley and Ward, pretended to be fo often for accommoda- tion, feems to have been, to prevent any meetings being held without their knowledge, and confe- quently a reformation from coming upon them by furprize. No doubt but Ward kept in mind, not without fome degree of horror, how narrow- ly Bel and the dragon had efcaped an ambufcade by the freedom and opennefs of honefl bilhop Wilkins. The next attempt to reform the church of England, had not only the concurrence of fome worthy bimops who did real honour to their or- der, and of a number of pious and learned di- vines in inferior flations ; but was undertaken under the anfpicious authority of William III. in the year i68o< By a fatal miitake^ it was agreed, that the matter ihould pafs through the forms of convo- cation, where it met with an effectual defeat from the zeal and activity of a faction in the lower houfe, led on indeed, as was fufpecled, by fome. of the bench, particularly Mew and Sprat, Dr. Birch brings fome authentic proofs of bifhop Complon's intriguing to have Dr. Jane chofen prolocutor, in preference to ce<«, which is no where appropriated to a formed eftablifhed church. Paul fpeaks of feels in the Jewifh religion m, fome of which were jufl as much efablifjed, as the prefbyterians and quakers are in England. James defines pure and undejiled religion before God and the Father n, in terms which ihew,that fuch religion may be prac- tifed and conformed to, where there neither is, nor ever was, an eftablifhed church. But this ^fort of religion the pious convocation-men did not think fit to mention. Their notion of religion, indeed, hath rather a pagan call. Religionem, earn, qutz in metu-j/ Cjeremonia Deorumfty appellant, fays Cicero Q. But another pagan feems to have had a more 1 LifeoT Tillotfott, p. 179. m Alsxxv. 5. * James i. 27. ° De Inrentione, ii. 22. evangelical FiksT Edition. xxxix Evangelical idea of religion. Religiofus eft non nwdo deorum fanclitatcm magni aftimans , fed etiam officiofus adverfus homines p. One cannot well call the Free and Candid Dif- quifttions, relating to the church of England, or the excellent Appeals which followed them, by the name of attempts to reform the church. Thefe were rather attempts to feel the pullcs of the ruling ecclefiaflics of that time. So, however, matters were managed at that period, that neither the authors nor the public were the wifer for thofe attempts. An ingenious fencer was em- ployed on this occafion, to parry the home thrufls of thefe reformers, who had the dexte- rity to handle his Weapons fo, as to appear in the eyes of the fpefrators, to part at lead on equal terms with his antagonists. Here then hath Terminus fixed his pedeftal, and here hath he kept his ftation for two whole centuries. We are juft where the A£ts of Uni- formity left us, and where, for aught that ap- pears in the temper of the times, the Iaft trum- pet will find us, — if popery will pleafe to let us be quiet, and leave us to cur repofe with the fame complaifance, that we have left her bifjops to go about here, and excrcife every part of their funclion without offence, and without obferva- tion a-. p jFV/7wx, in verbo rezigiosus. . * In the firit edition, the laft part of the paragraph flood •thus,— "i pcpert will pleafe to let us be quiet, andicave f 2 Having xf P R E F A c e io the Having now given a fhort feries of inftances of the church of England's difpcntion to reform " us to our repofe with the fame complaifance, that we have fc left her to go about and perfirm all her funSicns, without of- " fence, and without obfervation." Soon after the Confefizonal was publifhed, a pacquet, directed to the Author, was receiv- ed through the Printer's hands, containing a pamphlet, inti- tuled, A Review of Dr. Mayhew's Remarks on the Anfwer to his Obfervations on the conducl of the Society for the Propagation tf the Gofpel in foreign Parts, by Eaft Apthorp, M. A. printed for J. Rivington. With this pamphlet was conveyed an ano- nymous ticket in thefe words. " The Author of the Confef- «' fional is defired to read p. io, u, 12. of the inclofed " pamphlet; and then to confider ferioufly, whether he hath " given, in p. 36, 37, of his preface; ajuft reprefentation " of the words there quoted." Upon looking into the preface, the Author of the Covfejfional could find no words quoted at p. xxxvi. which had the leait relation to any part of the controverfy carried on with the late Br. Mayhew, concerning the Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel, £fff. By the ingenious fencer there mentioned, the Author meant the late Mr. White, who was faid to have animad- verted on the Free and Candid Difquifitions, in a performance quoted above. If any gentleman now living is confcious that the term ingenious fencer might be applied to himfelf, upon account of his parrying the thrufis of the faid Difquifi- tions, the Author of the ConfeJJional declares he knows no fuch gentleman, and therefore is not accountable for any offence taken at that expreflion. In the xxxviith page of., the firft edition are indeed the words fet down in. the beginning of this note, alluding to, rather than quoting the paffage in queftioru However, to be ingenuous, the Author of the ConfeJJionnl acknowledges, that he had fome words in the Anfwer to Dr. Maybews Obfervations, p. 66. then in his mind, and he now begs leave to confider how far his manner of referring to them may be called a mifreprefentation. Upon infpedting Mr,. Apthorp' s pamphlet, the fuppofed mif- 5 tlie First Edition. xli the exceptionable parts of her conftitution, I hope I may be indulged in a few remarks upon it. reprefentation, it is conjectured, confifb in this, viz. that Popery is put for Popijh Bijbcps, and all her fund ions for every pari of 'their funQion. But the Prefacer thinks, that wherever Popifh bifhops are permitted to exercife every part of their funclion without cffer.ee and without obfervation, it is a very reafonable prefumption that there every function of Popery is performed with as little refentment or interruption : and among the reft, (if that may be called a function of Popery) the making of profelytes. Not fo, fays Mr. Apthcrp, " The *' Anftverer evidently means every part of their peculiar " function as bifhops ; confirming the youth, ordaining and " viiiting the clergy of their own communion : for his ar- " gument led him to fpeak of nothing elfe. Profelytes <{ are chiefy made by their prielts ; and many cannot be "made by fo few bifhops as they have here," p. 10, ii, . What authority Mr. Apthcrp had to interpret the words of Dr. Mayhew's Anfwerer in this manner, he knows beft. But the Prefacer is of opinion, that the Anfwerer himfelf (who indeed appears, by his pamphlet, to be a much abler writer than Mr. Apthcrp) would hardly have been fo weak as to have explained himfelf in this fort. For, in the firft place, to fay as Mr. Apthorp does, that profelytes are chiefy made by Popifh prieits, is to allow that profelytes are net made by prieits only : and to fay that many profelytes cannot be made by fo few bifhops as the Papiits have here, is to a^mit'that fome may be made by thefe bifhops in proportion to their numbers : nor is any thing advanced by Mr. Apth-.rp to fhew that making profelytes is more the peculiar buiinefsof prielts than of bifhops. If making profelytes is the duty of prielts, it is the duty of bifhops to fee that it is difcharged ; to make this an article of inquiry when they vifit their clergy ; to en- courage thofe who are diligent and fuccefsful in the work ; and to reprove the indolent and the negligent. When Popifh bifhops confirm the youth of their communion, do they con- firm no profelytes among them ? Do they confirm profelytes f 3 '< The P r'efaci to the i . The profetTed motive of thofe great church- men who gave way to any movements towards; without knowing them to be fuch ? Hive the Papifb a lower opinion of the necefiity, virtue, or efficacy of confirmation, than they have who make the want of it in New England an argument for fending bifhops thither ? If not, is not the full liberty of confirming profelytes, one very conilderable en- couragement both to the pried and the profelyte in the making of them ? In one word, is it poffible to conceive how bifiiops can exercife every part of their fiin&iqn, while the Inferior clergy are reftrained from exercifing any part of theirs? Mr. Apthorp tells us, '■' the Anf-werer's argument led " him to fpeak cf nothing elfe [befides every part of their " peculiar function as bifhops ; confirming the youth, or- IC daining and yi firing the clergy of their own communion], *.* And, continues he, it is a known fact, that thofe things f* do give no offence either to churchmen or difienters in this " kingdom." In my humble opinion, Mr. Apthorp might have been furer of this fall, had he faid that there are churchmen and difienters in the kingdom known to him/elf, ro whom thofe things give no offence. The kingdom of England is of large extent; and there may be, and certainly are, in it great numbers both of churchmen and difienters, un- known to Mr. Apthorp, -to whom thofe things do give offence. He proceeds, " Whence he [the Anfvverer of Dr. Mayhevj] *' concludes, that the fame things done by Protellant bifiiops *' would give none in Nezv England." The same things ! Are then the fame things, and no other, peculiar to the func- tion of a Popifh and a Proteftant bifhop refpeclively ? Let not this be faid, or even fuppofed. In the Pontifical publiftied at Rome, 1611, p. 57. the following words Hand as part of the oath of every bifhop at his confecration, Hrereticos et re- belles Domino Pap 2j. which he cites tk.is; . .;./., the. lx P R E F A C E tO the much furely the learned author owes to his own argument ; as many a plain, fincere Chriftian, even after all the pains taken with him in the book of Alliance, may, without fuch additional evidence, be extremely at a lofs to conceive, what union or alliance between a kingdom which is, and a king- Lord God, Behold, 1 will lift up my band to the Gen TILES, anifet up myfandard to the people — and Kings shall bethy KURSING FATHERS, AND THEIR QuEENS THY NURSING mothers. This prophecy, he would have us believe, re- ceives its ultimate completion by the Chriftian religion's " adapting itfelf to the many various civil policies, by a " fuitable union and alliance." Well then, let us fee how his completion will turn out. If the Kings and Queens here men- tioned reprefent the Jlate, the party to be nurfedhy them re- prefents the church in alliance with them. Now let us go on with the prophecy, for the learned author hath left it fhort. They [the Kings and Queens, i. e. the state] Jhall how down to thee [the church] with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dujl of thy feet. If this is to be the ultimate com- pletion of the prophecy, we have reafon to be thankful that it hath not yet taken place, and that we have no intimation in the Chrillian fcriptures that it ever will, as the prophecy is here interpreted. The learned author hath all along taken it for granted, that church tyranny muft be the con- fequence of the church's being independent on the ltate, and hath been at fome pains to load the protejlant alfertors of this independency with its invidious papifical confe- quence; being willingly ignorant, as it ihould feem, that the independency contended for by the advocates for Chriftian liberty, is not the independency of any wfible focicty , but of individuals only. But, to take the matter at the very worft, what will the itate gain by bringing the church into its de- pendency, if the humiliation above defcribed is to be the ef- fect of this laboured alliance? dom First Edition. lxi dom which is not, of this world, can "with any pro- priety be c&Wedfuitable. Let us now attend to the tipfhot : " An al- " liance then we mufl conclude the Chriftian (i church was at liberty to make, notwithftand- iC ing this declared nature of Chrift's kingdom. " So far is true indeed, that it is debarred from " entering into any fuch alliance with the ftate, " as may admit of any legislator in Chrift's " kingdom but himfelf [that is, a power in the " magiftrate to alter doctrines]. But no fuch " power is granted or ufurped by the fupremacy " of the (late [which extends only to difci- " pline] *fi I mud confefs my ignorance. Till now I have thought difcipline as proper an object of legifla- tion as doctrine. And, unlefs Chrift hath left no rules of difcipline for the fubjefts of his kingdom, the civil magiftrate and the church too are ex- cluded from altering difcipline by the fame con- 1 See the Alliance, p. 180. and View of Lord Boling;broke's Philofophy, Lett. iv. p. 146. .There is not a word in the whole controvcrfy concerning Church- authority of a loofer and more equivocal iignification that the word difcipline. Rita and ceremonies are reckoned by fome writers among the ar- ticles of difcipline. And yet rites and ceremonies may be idolatrous. 1 'efts and fubferiptions are conhdered by others, un- der the notion of difcipline; and thus the magiftrate, upon the principles of the Alliance, may have the power of altering doctrines. Eifhop Hoadlvfs ftate of the cafe prevents con- fuhon. Whcre-cverconfcience is concerned, whether in mat- ters of doctrine or difcipline, there all lawgivers or judges, Chrift alone excepted, are excluded. fiderations Ixii Preface to the fiderations which prohibit their altering doctrines. That Chrifl hath left rules or laws of difcipline for his fubjects, I think I may venture to affert on the teftimony of the learned author himfelf, who, when the merits of this complex theory were not in agitation, could plainly fee the fuperior autho- rity of the Chriflian defcipline incomparifon with that of the alliance. The cafe was this : A certain Chancellor of a diocefe, an officer appointed to execute the code of difcipline by the powers in alliance, having unhappily incurred the learned author's difplea- fure, is fummoned by him before a foreign ju- dicatory (a judicatory foreign to that wherein the faid Chancellor prefided), that is to fay, holy scripture. If this be really the cafe, what be- comes of the ALLIANCE? To this foreign judicatory, however, let us all appeal ; and, when thefacramental tcjl can ftand its ground before this tribunal, it will readily be given up as an object of reformation. It may now, perhaps, be expected that I ihould give fome account of a publication, which has in ir io very little of the complexion of the times, and which appears at a fcafon, when there is but lijttle profpecr. of engaging the attention of the public to fubjects of this nature and tendency. The reader will perceive, that fome part of rhefe papers were written at times very diftant from others, and not in the fame order in which they First Edition. lxiii they now appear. Perfons and fa&s are men- tioned or alluded to, which, when they were noticed, were frill upon the flage, but have now many of them difappcared ; nor has the author perhaps been fufficiently careful to adjuft his re- marks upon them to the prcfent period, fo as to avoid the imputation of anachronifms. The Free and Candid Difquifitions, and after- wards the Effay on Spirit, gave occafion to feveral little pamphlets on the fubje& of a re-view of our public fervice, and to the difcuflion of feveral particular points, which were fuppofed to be proper objects of it. And at the fame time, when cards were not in the way, the fame topics were debated in private parties. Into one of thefe the author was accidentally j thrown, where it was his hap to mention a glar- ing inconfiilency in the cafe of fubfcription to our eftabliihed articles of religion. Some gentle- men of good fenfe and refpectable ftations, then prefent, exprefled the utmofl furprize on the occafion ; nor did a dignified divine, who alfo made one of the company, feem to have been apprized of the impropriety before it was then mentioned, though, for the honour of the church, he made an attempt at a folution by that fort of cafuillry, of which feveral famples may be met with in the enfuing difcourfe. One ot the lay-gentlemen defircd to have the cafe Hated upon paper, which, after fomc time, was lxiv Preface to the was prefented to him, and makes a part of the following work, though placed at fome diftance from the beginning. In going through the par- ticulars then to be confidered, the author found new matter arifing upon him ; which he pur- fued at leifure hours, without thinking of putting any thing into form upon the fubjecl: immedi- ately. In thofe days, the two principal fees were filled with two prelates, well known, while they were in fubordinate if ations, for their zealous at- tachment to civil liberty, and for their enlarged, generous, and chriflian fentiments in religion ; in which one of them perfifled to the lad: moment of his life, and in the higheft eminence of ftation, and gave proof of it in a remarkable inilance, which, when the time comes to give his charac- ter its full luftre, will do him honour with our late if potter ity. Here was then encouragement to venture fomething for the truth, and on that fair occa- iion the author methodized and put the flniih- ing hand to his collections. But a hidden change in the face of affairs quickly convinced him, irmt a publication of iuch fentiments would be now quite out of feafon. It will certainly now be demanded, if out of feafon f/joi, what is it that hath brought to light i work of this fort at a period, when there is nqt only fo conhdefable a change in the public 2 tafte, First Edition. Ixv tafte, but when other circumftances, unfavoura- ble to the caufe of reformation, feem to diffuade an enterprize of this kind, for ftill more cogent reaibns ? It may look like a paradox to alledge (in an- iwer to this expoffulation) that there are others who can give a better account of this matter than the author himfelf ; which, however, is pret- ty much the cafe. Suffice it to fay on the part of the author, that his principal inducement to acquiefce in the publication was, his obferving the redoubled efforts of popery to enlarge her borders, without being at the pains, as hereto- fote, to cover her march ; and the furprizing in- difference with which fome public and even cla- morous notices of her progrefs were received, where, one would have thought, both interefl and duty were concerned to remark and obflruct her paffage. As this is a matter of fome confequence, I muff beg a little more of the reader's patience for a few reflexions upon it, having firft rectified a miftake, into which I was led by a paffage in the quarto edition of Dr. Madeline's tranflation of Mejheim's Ecclefiaflical Hiffory. That paffage runs thus : " Hence, in our times, '. And as long as this pretenfion lafts, we fhall in vain look for any alteration either in the fpirit or doftrine of the church which makes it. y The learned and benevolent Dr. Wortbington, in his Effay on the fbeme and condu£ly procedure and extent of Man's Redemption, publifhed 1743, p. 156, hath intimated as if fome of the grofler errors of popery had of late been ex- plained in a manner more agreeable to truth and fcripture [.than heretofore]. I fuppofe he might have the emollients of the late bifhop of Meaux in his eye, mod of which have been fince difowned, and fome of them, if I miitake notP condemned by his own church. The truth is, thefe expla- nations were, as' the worthy Doctor properly expre/Tes its forced from the faid bifhop and his coadjutors by the very nature of the fervice to which they were applied. The fame entertaining and inltruftive writer adds, a little lower, " Nor " do the papifts at prefent feem to thirll fo much after pro- " teftant blood." But this, however, he qualifies by fay- ing, " though there is reafon to fufpeel that they ftill retain " but too much of the old- leaven, durji they fuffer it te " work out." Since the time that this obfervation was made, we have had' repeated inftances of the old leaven's working as much as ever, and' of its being quite ready to Work out, both in this and a neighbouringcountry,upon the f.rftfavour- able occafion. For my part, I cannot but look upon thefecon- ceffions, even with thefe drawbacks upon them, as inffances of an eajinefs towards popery in proteftants of the prefent age, unknown to our forefathers, and for which, however, they had full as much reafon as we have. It is well known, by fome late productions of popifh advocates, what life they make of thefe concefhons from protectants, even h Th^ ixx Preface te the Tht feeming moral impojfibility oi proteftants re- lapfing into popery, to whatever it may amount^ may, perhaps, be more reafonably accounted for (efpecially among the multitude) from the in- fluence of education, and particularly from an early and familiar acquaintance with the fcrip- tures, than from any improvements in human fcience. It mud indeed be confefTed, that hu- man fcience has been eminently ufeful in the advancement of fcripture-knowledge among fcholars ; but this has been the mod remarkable in points of inferior importance. In a gofpel preached to the poor, and, confequently, adapted to all capacities, one would naturally look for a plainriefs and fimplicity which does not want the elucidations of human fcience, in thofe articles at lead which are of univerfal concern to people of all ranks and degrees. Accordingly we find this character given of, and fully exemplified in, the Gofpel of Chrift. And this plainnefs and fimplicity applies fo materially to the confuta- tion of the errors of Popery, that, even in the infancy of the Reformation, and where improve- ments in human fcience were totally out of the queltion, the common people, only by reading the fcriptures in their mother tongue, were en- while they themfelves (confcious of the truth of the cafe) are unable to fhew, either from matters of fa&, or any real modification of their ancient principles, that they have the lead right to them. How long is this delufion to laft, and where will it end ? i abled First Edition. lxxi abled to put to filence the fubtileft of the popilh doctors with whom they were engaged, as may be feen in a variety of inftances in Fox's Mar- tyrolugy. And notwithstanding the kind of influ- ence that fcience and philoibphy may be fuppofed to have upon the multitu.de of thefe days, I very much queltion wrhether an equal number of them would acquit themfelves lo well in the like conflicts. As to the proficients in modern fcience and philofophy, I make a very confiderable differ- ence between the fund of this kind of learning they lay in, and the actual influence it has upon them, with refpect to their religious opinions. To fuppofe the influence equal to thefe improve' tnents, is to fuppofe that a large majority of man- kind will always be governed by their own con- victions, and that no worldly motives or tempta- tions whatever will feduce them into compliances and conformities to what they know to be wrong. There is the ftrongeft prefumption that the mat- ter of fact is juft contrary to this fuppofition, not to mention the indifference and fecularity of the prefent times in comparifon of the zeal and piety of the jirji proteftants. The queftion, however, as I faid above, is a queftion of fact, and to be determined by what has actually hap- pened among the reformed in thofe regions where thefe motives and temptations are laid in their way. Have we no reafon to fufpect, that h 2 if txxii Preface to the if an accurate account were to be taken for aa century backwards, the balance in point of con- verfions in thofe Roman Catholic countries which are the mofk improved in fcience and philoibphy, would be greatly againft the reformed reli- gion ? While I took Dr. Machine's tranflation of the paifage abovementioned to exhibit the true fenfe of his author, I imagined Mojheim might chiefly . have had in his eye the doctrines of Arminianifm, concerning which, the more rational members of the federal reformed churches,, fo called, are now faki to. entertain more temperate fentiments than heretofore. According to Dr. Maclaine, " Ar- " minianifm may be faid to be predominant a among the members of the church of Eng- " land'1'.''' I imagine it may have prevailed in fome degree, among individuals in fome other reformed churches abroad, befides thofe of the Remonftrants. But it will hardly be denied, that fome of the doclrines of Anninhts have a mani- feft tendency to diminifh the weight and im- portance of certain controverfies that feparated the firjl proteftants from the communion of the church of Rome. On another hand, improvements in philofo- phy, or fomething fo> called, are faid to have made many fceptics in religion, in all churches reformed and unrcformed. And fcepticifm,. 1 See Dr. Machines next note. when,. First Edition. Ixxiii when, in a melancholy or a departing hour, it is mixed, as frequently has been the cafe, with a certain degree of appreheniion of what may be hereafter, is very apt to take its repofe in the bofomof that church which offers the fpeedieft and mod effectual fecurity every way, without putting the perplexed patient to the trouble of examining and determining for himfelf. And of all the churches in chriftendom, that which offers this fort of fecurity with the greateft con- fidence, is, out of all -question, the church of Rome \ a The improvements in fcience and philofophy in the laft and prefent ages have, perhaps, never been exhibited to more advantage than in the famous French work called Encyclopedic. It is well known, however, that the freedoms taken with re- vealed religion in fome articles of it, occafioned a public cen- fure to be patted upon it, and, if I miftake not, a prohibition with refpedl to the fale of it. The gentlemen chiefly con- cerned in that noble compilation, are the greateft geniufes of France. It is needlefs to mention their names. They are eminent all over Europe. I have been informed, that all, or moftof them, profefs the Roman Catholic religion, and com- ply with the forms of that church. Without inquiring into the nature of the imprefiions thofe forms make upon them, we may prefume they will conform to the end. — In the laft age Cardinal Richelieu was called an dtheijl over and over. Father Caujfftn infinuated fomething very like it to the king himfelf, and gave inftances. Richelieu was a man of fcience, and an encourager of its progrefs. When he came to die, all fufpicions of his heterodoxy vaniihed. He went through the minuteft fuperftitions of the church, even though he was told by the curate who attended him, that fome of them might be difpenfed with on account of his quality. See Vie dt Cardinal h 3 But Ixxiv Preface to the But this is not all. There is one fcience where- in the reformed churches, perhaps in mod coun- tries, have made as remarkable improvements as in any other: I mean the fcience of poli- tics, which, as fome think, has had no obfcure effects upon them all. And church-politics, in reformed countries, chiefly aim at accommo- dating all the peculiarities in their refpeclive iyftems, as much as may be, to the religion of the magiftrate; a conduct, which, out of all doubt, cannot be defended in every in/lance, upon any principles which are of proteftant ori- ginal. It is the fame fort of policy which hath laid to fleep ib many controverfies among the reformed, which fome perhaps may think a bleffmg. Controverfies, however, have had this good in them : they have kept the feveral parties among the reformed upon their guard, not to incur the reproach of each other of ad- vancing too near to the quarters of the common enemy. We are told with fome degree of ex- ultation, that this contentious fpirit is fublided. It is a good hearing, if it hath not funk along with it, the Jimplicity, godly fincerity, and truly apojlolical zeal, of our firfl reformers againfl po- pery : otherwife we may have no great occafion to rejoice ; and fhould be feht to learn what that puc de Richelieu, Cologne, 1696, p. 313 and 592 of the fe- pond volume. The French Memoirs afford other examples in great abundance. meaneth, First Edition. lxxv meaneth, my peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, GIVE I UNTO YOU b. b Dr. Maclainet\n the fecond of three Appendixes fubjoined to the new edition of his tranflation of Mojheints Ecclefiafti- " P- >7- This, and what goes jufl before, is Hating the matter very favourably for the efiablifhed church. But they who confider with what circumflanccs that demand is accompanied, and in what a refufal to comply with it al- ways ends, will find it very diJficult to overlook fomethinp- i il conduft lxxxvi P R e f a c e to the " conduct of Dr. Wake, archbifhop of Canterbury, in the procefs verging towards the fpirit of Popery. And when it is further examined, what has been lately advanced, in fupport of the demand, by certain writers, who would gladly pafs in the world for pillars of the eftablifhed church, one might proceed a good deal further, and fay very jultly of the le particular writers, that it will require very little mo- dification of their principles, mould they, in other refpedls^ find their account in pairing over to the very tents of Popery. They would have lefs to do than thofe, who, in DrI Mac- laine's opinion, are verging towards the Reformation. — The Doclorintimates (with fome caution and obfeurity indeed) that the Methodists are the molt likely to make way for Pope- iv, of any other feci; within the pale of the Reformation, " on account of their fanaticiftn, difcrediting _/>*■'." A circumftance that can no otherwife be accounted for, than upon the fup- y Anftvcr to Dr. Maybewt Obfervations. pofition xcviii Preface to the pofition that the two hierarchies are growing* daily more and more into a refemblance of each other; which fuppofition is indeed neceffary for the fupport of the point, in proof of which this notable fa£l is employed. Surely thefe phenomena were not common, even in Archbifhop Wake's time* Our protedant diffenters in general have, I hope and believe, very different conceptions of the malignity of popidi principles, and of their fatal afpecl upon the civil and religious rights of Great Britain. I know fome of the worthieft and molt, judicious among them, who fee with concern and anxiety the little interruption that is given to the unwearied endeavours of treache- rous priefls to pervert his Majeity's proteftant fubje&s to their intolerant fuperdition, and con- fequently from their allegiance. — A late cafe, however, remarkable enough to have taken up no little room in the public prints, hath difco- vered, that all the leading characters among them are not of the fame (lamp, and that popery itfelf may be diverted of its terrors in the eyes of a once zealous champion for religious liberty in-its fulled extent, when taken into the protection of a man, who, for the time being, had the didribution of the loaves and the fifties. But let us now proceed to inquire what popery hath done to intitle herfelf to this complaifance from the reformed churches ; what deps die hath taken, First Edition. xcix taken, or what difpofition fhe hath ihewn, to meet all or any of thefe churches half-way ? And here I will not afk whether the papifts have endeavoured to diminifh the weight and importance of thofe controverfies they have with us, which are merely of the religious kind. I will not inquire whether and how far the church of Rome hath modified her abfurd and impoflible doctrine of Tranfubftantiation. I Will not examine her on the head of purgatory ', faint -ivorjlrip, relics, maffesfor the dead, penances, and other articles, which have no immediate ill effect upon civil fo- ciety. I will only inquire whether popery hath reduced her ancient pretenfions fo far, as to become a friendly, benevolent, and charitable neighbour to perfons of the reformed religion. In the firft place, hath fhe acquitted the pro- tectants of herefy f If not, is fhe convinced that heretics ought to be tolerated, and that fhe ought to keep her faith and perform her covenants with them, as well as with perfons of her own com- munion? Or hath fhe receded from her claim to infallibility, on which thefe other doctrines are built? Have the papifts of Great Britain, in parti- cular, given the King and his Government the fecurity of their allegiance, as proteftant fubjects do? Do they acknowledge no King of Great Britain but his Majefly King George III ? Have not a majority of Englifh papifts of rank and fortune 6 P R e f a c i to the fortune Jefuits in their houfes, as directors of their confciences? Hate not their youth been fent to be educated among Jefuits? Are hot the Roman-catholic priefts* ftatioiied all over Eng- land, chiefly of the Jefuitical order ? Is it not the doctrine of the Jefuits that princes may be excommunicated by the Pope, and afterwards depofed or murdered? Are not all Proteftant princes, and particularly the King of Great- Bri- tain, coniidered by this order of men, as already excommunicated? Are not all perfons whofe confciences are directed by Jefuits obliged to believe as the Jefuits themfelves believe? And are not they who hold thefe opinions fworn enemies to the proteitant government of thefe kingdoms \ If thefe queftions cannot be anfwered to the fatisfaction of a proteftant people, it behoveth every good fubject of our gracious Sovereign, and every friend to this country, to keep up a fpirit of vigilance and attention to every motion of thefe dangerous inmates, whom we daily fee ftrengthening their hands with new converts, of whom the leaders of this malignant party will not fail to avail themfelves, the moment they find their numbers fufficient to give them an equal chance in a ftruggle, to wreft out of our hands our ineftimable rights and liberties civil and religious. But you will afk, " What has all this to do with " fubfcription to Articles of religion, and the efta- 5 " blifhment First Edition. ci " blifhment of Confeffions of faith and do&rine id " proteftant churches ?" Not fo little as you may imagine. All reli- gious impofitiorisin Proteftant focieties, not war- ranted by fcripturej and which mufl: be fubrhitted to on the pain of wanting bread, have a ten- dency to lefTen the apprehenilons, that they who have fo much at flake as Britiih fubjecls have, ought to entertain of the encroachments of Popery. Men of liberal education, finding they cannot be compleatly qualified for certain pub- He flations, without complying with terms, of the rectitude of which they are riot fatisfied, and with which they mud comply or lofe the .ex- pence as well as the fruits of their education, will naturally be loth to forego the means of their fubfiftence for a fcruple which is not coun- tenanced by one example in a thoufand, and will therefore comply at all events. They will be apt to fufpeft, that a free examination into the merits of the cafe might leave impreflions, which would either difappoint their profpects in life, or, in cafe of compliance, bring upon them anxieties that would embitter every emolument arifing from their profeflion. What wonder that, in thefe circumflances, they mould take up with the firfl flimfy cafuiilry fuggefted to them by a fellow-feeling brother ? or, which is the fhorter Cut, and by far the moil current anodyne, repofe themfelves in the authority of the church? ik I cii Preface, &c. In either cafe, they are in a train which would lead them with equal fecurity to acquiefce in the genuine impofitions of popery. The cafes only differ in the degrees of more and lefs : and they of courfe mud be tender in afierting the privileges of chrijVnin liberty, on the peril of being mortified with recriminations, which the reproof of their own hearts would force them to apply, not without painful fenfations. Nor is there any alternative, but a flate of profligate fecularity, difpofing men to fee"k affluence, power, and dignity at any rate, and by any means that will give them the fpeediefl poffeffion; and with fuch men, popery and proteftantifm, the evange- lifls and the mafs-book, are upon a level. This is the way that fome people have of ac- counting for the omiffion of the master argu- ment againfl popery, in thofe few and fuperficial difcourfes on the fubject, which are now-a-days heard from the pulpit. It' can never be for the interefl of a free (late to have men under this kind of diflrefs in any public office ; much lefs thofe who are callous, and perfectly proof againfl fuch feelings. It may be for the interefl of a church to have a hank of this kind upon the clergy; but it mufl be the interefl of a church, with which it is not for the interefl of a free Proteftant flate to cultivate an alliance. THE C i ] THE CONFESSIONAL. CHAP. I. Afummary View of the Rife, Progrefs, and Succefs, of ejlablifoed Confejfions of Faith and Doclrine in Protejlant Churches. WHEN the Proteftants firft withdrew from the communion of the Church of Rome, the principles they went upon were fuch as thefe : "JESUS CHRIST hath, by his gofpel, u called all men unto liberty, the glorious liberty " of the. fons of God, and reftored them to the " privilege of working out their own falvation " by their own understandings and endeavours. " For this work of falvation fufficient means are ;ngs Rational Enquiry into the proper Me- thods of fupporting Christianity. B 2 fubfe- 18 THE CONFESSIONAL, fubfequent times have been embroiled on account of their eftablifhed confeffions, is well known. In fome of thefe churches the inconveniences of infilling on thefe tefls of orthodoxy have been lb- great, that they have found it the wifeft way ei- ther intirely to drop them, or to content them- felves with fome general declaration, or promife from the minifter, that he will not openly oppofe them. In fome churches a formal fubfcription is flill required, even where the inconveniences of it have been no lefs, and where the moil fc* rious, confcientious, and ufeful minifters, are flill groaning under the burden of fuch fubfcriptions. It is chiefly for the fake of fuch as thefe, that this difquifition is undertaken, if by any means our prefent governors (who, if they had had the original work of reformation in their hands, to- gether with the light and experience which the prefent and pad ages have afforded, would, it may be prefumed, not have impofed it) may be prevailed with to remove a yoke which neither •we nor our fathers have been able to bear11. But to proceed. Upon this fhort view of the tendency and effects of eftablifhed confeftions in Proteftant churches, the following reflexions feem to be very natural : i . It was a great misfortune to the Proteftants, that their confeihons fhould abound with expli- cations of fo many minute points of fcholaftic n This was written in the year 1 7 55. theology, THE CONFESSIONAL. 19 theology, which, without flopping one Popifh mouth, with refpect to the general accufation of Herefy, tended fo manireftly to narrow their ori- ginal foundation, and to give their common ad- vcrfaries fo great an advantage, by rendering their breaches among themfelves, occaiioned by thefe explications, utterly irreconcileable. 2. It was a greater misfortune frill, that they fhould think of eftablifhing thefe explications as tefts of orthodoxy, by requiring their minifters to fwear to them, or fubfcribe them, as an in- difpenfable condition of admitting them to the paftoral office. Had they been contented with a folemn declaration on the part of teachers and pallors, " that they received the fcriptures as the " word of God, and would initruft the people " out of thofe only °," leaving them at liberty to 0 The learned Profefibr Rulhafortb feems to apprehend, that " a general profeffion of believing whatever is contained in " the fcripture, or of adhering to the doctrine of the apoirles, ** was not likely to fatisfy Timothy or Titus, that they who " made it, held fajl the faithful nvord as they had been taught , *' the my fiery of faith in a pure confcicnce." Charge, p. y, 8. But this is a cafe of too great conference 'to he determined by likelihoods, which may be juit as well grounded on the one fide as on the other; and the learned Profeifor does no- thing for his caufe, unlefs he can prove that Timothy and Ti- tus were actually dij/atisfed with fuch general profeffion. In the mean time, has he confidered, whither, as he fiates the cafe, this likelyhocd would lead him r For what is the point concerning which Timothy and Titus would want to be fatif- fied? It is, according to the ProfefTor, that the minilkrs they appointed, held the myjlery of the faith in a pure confeience. But 13 3 difown 20 THE CONFESSIONAL, difown whatever, after proper examination, they judged ' inconiiilent with them; in all human what could fatisfy Timothy or Titus of this, lefs than a perfect in light into the faccrity of thofe who made the profeffion ? Now, allowing Timothy and Tifus to have had the gift of dif- ceming the hearts and confeiences of particular perfons for this purpofe, how would the learned Profeffor prove, that church governors of the prefent times are endowed with the fame gift ? I do not indeed think it at all neceifary to fuppofe that Timothy and Titus had a perfect difcernment of the hearts and consciences of thofe whom they admitted to the miniftry, I do not think it neceifary to fuppofe that St. Paul himfelf had this gift in, fuch perfection, as to be able at all times to know what was in the men whom he himfelf ordained. At leaft there is no appearance in fcripture that he had a prfeel ojfurauce beforehand of the Jinccrity and good confcicnce of all whom he ordained to the miniilry. And hence I conclude, that it is likely the learned Profeffor may be under fume mif- 2pprehenfion, with refpec~t to the points wherein he fuppofes Timothy and Titus would want Satisfaction. But here I fball expeft. to be told, that " the lefs the apoftles and their imme- f* diate fucceffors are fuppofed to be gifted as above, the more f' Occafion they would have to be Satisfied of the fi.ncer.ty and f fun confeience of candidates for the nn\\\[\ry Jl:ne other -i<-"y» " and (what is ftill more to the Profelibr's purpofe) the more " mult the prefent governors of the church be fuppofed to be " upon a level with PW, and Timothy, and Titus, in this part " of their office." Now fuppofe all this to be granted, it Vvill ftill be incumbent upon the learned Profeffor to (hew, that the other ixay that Timothy and Titus took to fatisfy themfelves of ihc jiuccrity and pure ccnfciei:ce of the candidates khey admitted, was to amplify and Split the apoitolic confef- iion exprelfed in general terms, into puticular proportions, ind to require from the faid candidates a iubfeription or de- claration pf aifent to this amplification. For this, according jo the learned Vindicator, is what the prefent governors of the church pretend they have a right to require, and that too 5 probability Jfi$ CONFESSIONAL. 21 probability the intcrefls of Popery would have declined more vifibly, and the true ends of re* for the purpofe abovementiorced. For the learned Vindicator tells us, p. 11, that " the governors of the church have a " right to examine into, and «f certain the faith and doctrires u of the candidates for the orHce of public teaching." But to afcertain the faith and doctrines of any man is impoffible, unlefs you can, at the fame time, afcertain his fincepity in pro- feiling them. Is this then one of the general benejits of efta- Jblifhing confeiHons, to give church governors an infght into the conf'.enccs, rnd to enable them to a/certain the fi/.cerity, of the fubferibers ? Is this method o$ fifing the ccnjcience always to be depended upon ? And are not another fort of Confef- J-.ons, called auricular, much more beneficial 'for this purpofe ? And is it likely the governors of our own church will thank the learned Profeflbr for 'vindicating to them the exercife of fo prefu?nptuous, and, at the fame time, fo i\ L-rdacr's Supplement, &c. vol. II.] B 4 formation 22 THE CONFESSIONAL. formation have been more fpeedily, as well as inb're effectually, promoted. But, after all, they who are extremely out of temper with the fiifl Reformers, for their mif- faken and unfeafonable zeal in thus prefcribing religious opinions to their fellow-chriftians with- out fufiicient warrant oi fcripture, would do well to coiifider in what fituation they were. Many abufes in Popery lay open to the ob- fervation of men of all forts. But it could hardly be credited of a fudden, by men of any fort, that the greater! part of that aftonifhing ftrn&ure called the church, which pretended to have for its foundation the Apq/lles and Prophets, and Chrijl himlelf for its corner ftone, fhouki be a- mere heap of antichritlian rubbifh. It is, there- fore, no wonder that the moil enlightened of our firfl: Protectant Fathers fhould be afraid of de- molishing too much. It was vifible, with what props and fupports the moil eminent faints and doctors of former ages had accommodated the edifice. And thefe, it might well be imagined, wrouid hardly have been placed there by fuch venerable hands, without fome good reafon, anc\ apparent necefhty. In thole days, nothing was thought to be IhiTiciently confirmed by fcripture- tellimonies, without additional vouchers from the ancient Worthies of the church : and accord- ingly Tertidlian, Chryfojlom, Au/l'm, and Jeromey regularly took their places on the fame bench of r THE CONFESSIONAL. a* of judgement with Paul, Peter, James, and John p. In procefs of time fome particular perfons be- gan to fee into this mit'take. In our own coun- ' try, the learned Cariwrlght, in his difpute with Archbiihop Wbiigift, about the year 1573, took jhe courage to appeal from the authority of the Fathers, and to prefcribe them narrower limits in the province of determining religious contro- vcrfies. How this would be received in thofe da;, ;, might eafily be conjectured without particu- lar information. The terms in which Cartwright had charactcrifed thefe venerable doctors, were collected together in a book of Bancrofts, and fet off with tragical exclamations, as if they had been little lefs than lb much blafphemyi. Some few years after this, Erafmus Johannes, a fchoolmailer at Antwerp, took fliil greater liber- tics with antiquity, " He affirmed, that all the " councils which had met, and all the books of " the Fathers which had been written fince the " death of the Apoflles, were infected with anti- " chriftian errors, not excepting the famous (t council of Nice" He propofed, therefore, that, in order to a perfect reformation, the new phrafes, and new ways oi fpeaking, invented by the Fathers, fhould be wholly fupprelled and p See the Cathdicus Veterum Conjhifus, at the end of the Qorpus ConfcJJionum. i Slype's Life of Whit 'gift, p. 51. laid THE GONFESSIONAL. laid afide, and all religious proportions expreffed according to the fimplicity of Chrift and his A- poftles. " If any man/' fays he,, " finds him- •* felf obliged to ufe new terms to exprefs the tfc articles of his faith, fo that the words of the ** Prophets and Apoftles are not fufficient for *( him, that man's doctrines and religion are cer- tc tainly new, as well as his terms : for otherwife ** he would eafily find, in the fcripture, language " proper enough to exprefs his notions r." But the times were not yet ripe for the toleration of thefe fentiments ; and the poor man, who was hardy enough to venture them with the public, was obliged to fly his country. From thefe days, the authority of the Fathers hath continued gradually to decline among all reafonable and confident Proteftants, and more particularly fince the publication of Mr. Daille*s famous book, De Ufu Patrian, in 1631. But none, that I know of, ventured fo far as the fchoolmafter of AnHverp, till, about thirty years ago, an eminent prelate of our own church advanced pretty much the fame doctrine, con- cerning the explication of points of faith, by new and unfcriptural phrafes ; for which his Lordlhip underwent the difcipline of feveral orthodox pens s ; but without any lofs of repu- tation among thofe who confidered things with lefs prejudice. For, when it was feen that his. r La Roche, Abridgement, vol. I. p. 218. * See Dr. Stebbitigs Rational Enquiry, p. 25. Lordlhip THE CONFESSIONAL . 25 Lordfhip had reduced his antagonifts to the dif- agrceable neceffity of holding, that " new and li wife ripi ural words would better fix the fenfe of " fcripture-dcclrine, than the words of ChriH: '* and his Apoftles." the clamour fubfided l. Rea- * " Do not they [fays Dr. Rutberfortb, Charge, p. io.J " who object this to us, [w's. the pretence that new and un- V fcripturJ words will better fix the fenfe of fcripture doc- " trine, than the words of Chrift and his apoftles]. — Do not f' they hold, that pallors and teachers, by familiar, clear, f* and iifuai forms of fpeech, can make the fenfe of fcripture i* more plain to their hearers, than if they were to read it to " them in the words which Chrift and his Apoftles made ufe f* of? Theymuft, if they think otherwife, maintain, that all f preaching and interpreting of :he fcriptures is intirely ufe- *' lefs, and that the public teachers in Proteftant churches f have nothing elfe to do for the inltru&ion of their congre- ff gations, but to read the Bible to them." Truly, Mr. Pro- fefTor, neither $us noryo, as anyone may be fatisfied who will take the trouble to read the 39th, 40th, 2nd 41ft pages of the ft rft edition of the ConfeffionaU to the laft of which only you refer; and even in that you might have feen enough to have faved you the trouble of propofing your alternative. However, it lhould feem as if the particulars in that page had not been altogether without their effect upon the learned Profeffor. For t* he does not mean from the utility of " preaching or interpreting the fcriptures in Chriflian affem- V blies, to infer the utility of eltablifhed confeffions." Why rot, if his alternative is rightly ftated ? But rightly flated it cannot be, unlefs the cafes are cxaSlly Jimilar, and that probably he might learn, from that part of the Co nfejjicnal Yk. refers to, was by no means the fact. Well, but what is it he does mean ? why, " to remind the oppofers of fuch con- i* feffions, that what they hold in one cafe is exafily Jimilar to " what they imagine would bring an odium upon us if we were M to fay it in the other." Pray, Mr. Profeffor, do you know fonable 26 THE CONFESSIONAL, fonable men began to fee the inconvenience of any oppofers of eilablifhed confefuons who hold that " new *' and unfcriptural words, ufed by preachers in their popular '* diicourfes, will better fix the fenfe of fcripture doctrine, *' than the words of Chrift. and his Apoitles ?" Do you kno.' any fuch oppofers who hold, that " new and unfcrip- '-* tural words ufed in fuch popular diicourfes" will fix the fenfe of fcripture doctrine at all i or is either of thefe propo- rtions in the />/? member of ycur alternative ? If not, what they hold is not exaclly fimilar to what, they fay, you hold. And if you really do hold it, the odium Rill remains with you. For it is to little purpofe to fay, " If the fenfe of fcripture *' may be expreffed more plainly, why not more precifily, " than in the words of Chrill and his Apollles." 1 he con- trail, is not between the words plainly and precifely, but be- tween the words exprejid and fixed. Their difference with you is occafioned by your pretending xofix the fenfe of fcrip- ture by new and unfcriptural words in an efiahli/hed confeKion, to the exclufion of the right of private judgment, and not by your endeavouring to make the fenfe of fcripture either more plain or more precife in a popular difcourfe, which pre- cludes no man from rejecting the preacher's fenfe, if his own judgement leads him to another, And indeed after all this twilling thefe poor oppofers in a dilemma, thus the learned Frofe(fcr appears to underfland them ; for towards the end of the paragraph (p. n.) he finds it convenient to fay, that " '-what are called new and unfcriptural words and ex- ef preflions are introduced [in:o confeifions], not to fix the •' fenfe of fcripture- doctrines, but to fix the fenfe in which " foipture-exprtflions are [rather, mull: be] underflocd by '* thofe who are candidates fcr the office of public teach- *' ing." Of which unmeaning distinction he hath heard fo much from one of thefe perw/fe oppofers, that it cannot be very plcafant to him to be reminded of it any more. See, Jn Examination of Dr. P.utherfonh's Vindication, &c. p. 20. 21. adopting THE CONFESSIONAL. 47- adopting a principle, which would go nearer to juflify the worft impofitions of Popery ; and the practice of requiring fubfcription to human ex- plications of Chriflian doctrine, is now confidered and treated, by many different forts of fenfible writers, as an unwarrantable incroachment on Chriflian liberty ; from which, there is reafon to* believe, all who are capable and willing to exa- mine the fubject without partiality and without hypocrify, heartily defire an happy deliverance. Upon this flate of the cafe, it appears, that the matter of complaint does not affect, the fa- thers of our Reformation by far fo much as their Jons and fuKceJfors. Our firil reformers were befet with their own and other men's prejudices, to a degree that rendered them, in a great mea- fure, incapable of conviction. It was next to impoflible to convince them, that their eftablifhed confeilions of faith were unchriflian impofirions, for which there was no jufl authority, when they had the early practice of the Chriflian church to appeal to, long before the tyrannical fpirit of Rome prevailed. Their veneration for antiquity prevented their feeing that thefe very precedents were fome of the fleps by which the papal power afcended to its height, and arrived at the pleni- tude ot its ufurpaiion. But, fince it has been made appear, that fome of the Fathers who lived neareil to the times of the xL\poitk's, were greatly miftaken in the fenfe they a THE CONFESSIONAL they put upon fome feriptures, with refpeft td points of no fmall importance, we have reafon to hope, that our fuperiors will no longer bind ei- ther themfelves or us to an implicit acquies- cence in an authority, which may occafionally be extremely inconfiftent with our original obli- gations as Chriftians, as well as with the diftin- guifhing principles of our profeflion as Proteft- ants. Whatever expedients of peace and order their own fort of prudence, or the exigencies of the times they lived in, might fugged to' thefe venerable Fathers, they certainly had nd right to prefcribe articles of faith to us. And fhould either they themfelves, or any others in their name, pretend to it, we beg leave to re- mind them of a capital maxim, to the truth of which the Fathers themfelves have occafionally borne their teflimony, namely, Thefcriptures of the Old and New 'Teflament contain all things nccef fary to fahation, and are the fole ground of the faith of a Chr'iflian tt. Upon this principle, all impofed fubferiptidns to articles of faith, and religious doftrines, con- ceived in unfcriptural terms, and inforced by hu- man authority, are utterly unwarrantable, and not to be defended but by arguments and pre- u For a compendious view of the telHmony of the Father^ to the fufjiciency of the holy fcriptures as a rule of religion, the reader may confult a book intitled, The Divine Oracles, writ- ten by the learned and candid Mr. John Brekell, printed for Waugb, &c. 1749. fences, The confessional. 2? tences, highly diihonourable to the facred writ- ings, and, in many cafes, contradictory to the exprefs contents of them. But, forafmuch as there never yet was any inftance of a profperous ufurpation deftitute of advocates to lay in for it a claim of right and juflice, it would he flrange if this matter of fub- fcription, wherein fuch large and opulent bodies of men are interefted, mould be left to fliift for itfelf. What the orators of the church have offered on this behalf, we fliall now briefly con- fider. C U A P. $6 THE CONFESSIONAL. CHAP. n. ''The Claim of a Right to eftabliftj Confejfions as Tefts of Orthodoxy in P rote ft ant Churches, briefly confidered* THE fundamental pofition, on which the authority of eftablifhed confeffions in Pro- tectant communions depends, is this: "Every " particular church, confidered as*a fociety, has tf a right, as other focieties have, to fecure its own " peace and welfare, by all lawful means ; and " confequently, to prefcribe fuch terms of com- Cl munion as appear to be moft expedient for the *' purpofe ; provided that nothing be required* " under this pretence, which is contrary to the " word of God, or inconfiftent with the liberty " of other churches." To this it has been anfwered in fhort, " That* tc by admitting the principle of felf defence and " felf-prefervation in matters of religion^ all the " perfecutions of the Heathens againft the Chri- " flians, and even the Popifh Inquifition, may be " juftified a." If the church of England, for example, has a right to fix her own terms of com- munion, and, in confequence of that, to fecure the obedience of her members by temporal re- a See Bifliop Hoailefs Speech for the Repeal of the Occa- fional Conformity and Schifm Acts, in TindaVi Continua- tion of Rnpin Tlojras, 8vo. vol. xxvii. p. 237. Ward? THE CONFESSIONAL. 31 War Js and penalties •, the church of Portugal mu ft, upon the fame principles, have an equal right to lecure herfelf by the difcipline of an holy office, Or how othenvile fhe thinks proper b. b "lam as ready to allow," fays Dr. Rutberfortb, " as "' any man can be to contend, that temporal rewards and Cl punifliments — are not the proper means for promoting true ** religion;" referring to ConfeJJional ', p. 22. 23. of the firft edition. But who thanks him for -this conceffion ? The queftion here is not concerning the means of promoting tru$ religion, but concerning the means of fixing the terms of com- munion, and fecuring obedience to thofe terms in a particular church. The Doctor tells us, that " legal emoluments are " indeed temporal rewards — but that they are only rewards ". for doing the work of the miniftry," p. 3. But then it is only for doing the work of the miniftry in one particular mode, prefcribed by the particular church or church-governors where the minifier does the work. Whoever does the work, of the miniitry in any other nvay, is not intitled to the legal reward. In this light the rewards are plainly the means of fixing the terms of communion in the particular churches here mentioned, and of fecuring the obedience of the mem- bers of thofe churches fo rewarded, to the terms fo fixed. And the queftion here is not concerning the propriety of thofe means for thofe particular ends, but concerning the right that particular churches or church-governors have, iofix the terms of communion by fuch means. If the Doctor will prove the right, we will not difpute with him the prcprie'y of pro- moting temporal ends by temporal means. On the other hsnd, if the Doctor will allow that church-governors have no right to fix the terms of communion by temporal rewards and punifliments, he will tender us fomething worth our accept- ance, and will fave us the trouble of inquiring how true reli- gion is promoted by fending honeft and confeientious men, who cannot comply with the terms of doing the (i greeable to the word of God," will not in the prefent cafe help the PrOteftant churches at all. Eftablijhed confcilions, being human compofi- tions, muft either be fubjecl to examination by the private judgement of thofe who profefs (as all Proteftants do) to make the written word their only rule of religion ; or elfe the church muft claim a right of interpreting the fcriptures for all her members, exclufive of the right of private judgement c. The former of thele principles taken care to guard his conceffion againffc any fuch miflake. " Temporal rewards," fays he, <« are therefore fuch means, " as the governors of the church have no right to make ufer " of for the attainment of that end, to which the fociety " wherein they prefide, and the office which they bear in it, " are ultimately referred." Which hinders not, but that church-governors may have a right to make uie of fuch means, for intermediate ends, to which the fociety and the of- fice are not ultimately referred. c The late Bifhop Conybeare, in his famous Subfcription- Sermon, argues from the confent required by the Apollles to their doctrines, to the confent required by fucceeding church- governors to human articles. This fallacy has been too apt to pafs without examination ; but the fuppofition upon which it is fupported is indeed neither more nor lefs than this : " Scripture truths and the church's explications ftand upon *' the fame authority." This will readily appear, by taking a mort account of Bifhop Ccnybeare's foundation, and what he builds upon it. His firft head of enquiry is, " What right or •* power the church hath to demand fuch fubferiptions," namely, fuch fubferiptions as are demanded to the thirty nine articles of the church of England. " For the better decifiort «* of this queftien," he tells us, *' we are to confider the manifestly THE CONFESSIONAL. 33 manifestly precludes the right of the church to eftablilh any thing as a condition of Chriitian " church, not barely as a number of perfon?, who profefs a " belief in Jejus ChriJ? as the promifed Mefiias, but as a reli~ 11 giom body or fociety of men ; who are united under Chriji " the fupreme governor, as well as founder of this fociety. apollles, who indeed required, as appears by the bifhop's text, [1 Tim. vi. 3, 4.] confent to the wbclcfome words of our J. crd fefus Cbrij}, and to the doctrine which is according to goj- linefs, that is, to the doctrine which they taught, and have left in the books of the New Teitament. This confer.*, they had a right and power to demand, given them by Jelus Chrift himfelf, and they demanded no ether confent; Now the Bilhop gives not the leaft hint that the church into whofe right and power he propofes to inquire in his firft head, is a different church from that reprefented in the New Teftament. Is it not therefore evident that he means to transfer the right And power of the New Teftament-Church, to the church which demands fuch fubferiptions as thofe that are demanded to the thirty nine articles of the Church of England F If he does not, he deferts his premiffes, and his fubfequent reafon- ing is juft as pertinent to the cafe of fubfeription to the ar- ticles of the Koran, as to the articles of a Cbrifian church (for the church of Mahomet is as much a religious fociety as the j church of England, or any ether church). But this, 1 take it for granted, the admirers of the Bifhop's way of build ng will not allow. The alternative is* that Bifhop Conybeare, In his ferrnon on the cafe of fubfeription to the articles of re- ligion, " argues from the c nfent required by the Apoflles to " their doclrines, to the confent required by fucceeding *' church-governors to human articles." In other words, a;guss, that " Scripture truths, and the church's explica- " tior,*, Hand upon the fame authority." C 2 communion, 34 THE CONFESSIONAL. communion, without the previous confent of all her members ;-that is to fay, of all who, without that condition, would have a right to Chriftian communion d. The latter, indeed, vefts the. church with a full meafure of authority to efta- blilh what fhe pleafes; but then it is an authority which every Proteflant church mod exprefsly dif- claims, and condemns in the church of Rome as an impudent and groundlefs ufurpation. There is, indeed, nothing more evident, than that every Chriftian hath a right to fearch the fcriptures ; a right which he cannot transfer, either to any church, or to any fingle perfon, becaufe it is his indifpenfable duty to exercife it perfonally for himfelf. And if it is his duty to fearch, it muft alfo be his duty to determine for himfelf; and, if he finds jufl caufe, to dilTent from any or all the human eftablifhments upon earth. d Koneft old Rogers, by the church nvhich hath authority in controversies of faith, under/lands not only the aggregate body, but every ?nember of found judgement in the fame. Cath. Doft. Art. xx. Propof. 3. well knowing that every intelligent Chri- ftian, with the fcriptures before him, is, upon Protectant principles, and in decrees of this nature, a church to himfelf. This leaves no room for Bifhop Burnet's dillin&ion between an infallible authority, and an authority of order, which laft, he faintly infinuates, might be fafely intruited with the body of the clergy. But his Lordfhip, to do him juftice, qualifies this with aprovfb, that this body is properly difpofed for the province. — Perhaps is might be as difficult to find fuch a body of men, as to find fingle perfons without mif- tekes. See Bifhop Burnet's Expo lit ion, fol. p. 195. Some THE CONFESSIONAL. 35 Some writers on this fubjeft difcover an incli- nation to deny the right of private judgement in every cafe where it is oppoied to church-authOri- tv. Thefe we leave to reconcile their principles with their reparation from Rome. Others attempt by various arguments (fome of which will occur hereafter) to prove that the authority of the church to frame and fettle confeflions of faith and doctrine for all her members; is perfectly confident with the rights of private judgement. But, to difcover the fallacy of all arguments to this purpofe, it is only neceffary to confider, that, if this fuppofed authority was vigoroufly exerted, and applied in all cafes (as it ought to be, if the authority is real), and if, on the other hand, the people were diligent and careful in fearching the fcriptures every one for himfelf (as all Proteftants agree they ought to do) the confequence would moil probably be, that the far greater part of honed: and fenfible Chriftians would be excluded from the communion of every church which has an eilabliihed confeflion e. For where is there one e A certain writer, in the Daily Gazetteer of Sept. 30, 1766, pronounces, that ** the Author of the Confeffional cannot, " confiftently with his principles, be a member of any efta- " blifhed church." Whether the hint was taken from this paflage, or fome other, is not any great matter. The quef- tion is, how far the faid Author is within the reach of this fulminating cenfure ? or what the confequence mull be if he falls under it ? " He," fays Lord Clarendon, " who will pro- <• fefs all the opinions held by the moft ancient fatbits, and ob- C 3 of $6 THE CONFESSIONAL. of thefe confeflions which does not contain fome very material decifions, from which an intelligent Chriflian, who hath duly examined the {criptureSj li ferve all that was praftifed in the primitive times t cannot tf be of the communion of any one church in the world." EJfays, fol. 1727. p. 226. As this zealous brother in the Gazetteer may probably be one of thofe who eftimate ortho- doxy by an agreement with Fathers and Times, one would wifh to know v/hat abatements in profejfion and practice he thinks proper to make, in order to qualify himfelf to be a member of the eftablifhed church with which he communi- cates ? An explicit declaration on this head, by fo ftrenuous an adherent to ejlabtifiments, would be both edifying and entertaining. The Author of the Confejfwnal, on his part, declares, without hefitation, that he knows no Fathers of the ChriiHan church more antient than the Apoftles of Chrift, nor any times more primhi-ue than thofe in which they preached and wrote. Whatfoeyer they taught, he profelfes cordially to believe ; and how much foever he may befneereJ for ad- hering to fcripture-precedenis, is defirous to obferve whatfo- ever was prattifed in the firft Chriftian churches fettled by thofe venerable Fathers, fo far as he can difepver it in ths fcriptures. And if any eftablifhed church fhould difown him for a member, upon accountof his not believing or not prafli- fing more or lefs than he finds in thofe fcriptures, he appre- hends the fault will, in the event, be found, not in himfelf, but in the church or churches who rejeft one whom the .Apoftles of Chrift would not have rejected. " J'avoue que? " je fuis de ceux qui font pour le Chriftianifme apoftolique,, '■' ou pour celui qu'on pent tirer de leurs ecrits, en propres f* termes, oupardes confequences neceffaires, lorfqu'il s'agit ?« d'uu dogme eflentiel," fays Mr. Le Cltrc, Bibl. Choifie, torn. 21. p. \ K- And. fo fay I too; referving to myfelf, however, the privilege of drawing thefe nectjjary conjequenccs for my own ufc, without being obliged to trull to the logic 0/ latj^ursof mpye modern dmcq. THE CONFESSIONAL. 37 may not rcaforuibly dijfentf I had almoft. faid, where is there one of them to which a knowing and thinking Chriflian can affent in all points, without proflituting his underflanding and con- science to the dottrines and commandments of men ? — I fay, a knowing and thinking Chriflian ; for he mud have confidered the cafe before us very fuperficially, who does not perceive, that the adherence of fuch numbers to the peculiar ■doctrines of the church from which they receive their denomination, and even to fome do&rines ■common to the creeds and confeffions of all churches, which call themfelves orthodox, is ow- ing to their ignorance, their indolence, their fe- cularity, or the early prejudices of education, which are known to be the unhappy circumflan- ces of the common people, all over the Chriilian world. Some zealous men have, indeed, inferred a neceffity for confeffions, and consequently an au- thority in the church to eftablifh them, from thefe very indifpofitions and incapacities of the people to examine and judge for themfelves. But, tho' this is perhaps the belt plea of right which the church has to all edge, yet wifer and cooler ad- vocates for confeffions chufe not to abide by an argument, which would equally vindicate the church of Rome with refpect to many of her im- pofitions. Not to mention, that thefe indifpofi- tions and incapacities in the clergy would be but C 4 *Q 38 THE CONFESSIONAL. an aukward reafon for making their affent and fubfcription to confefiions an indifpenfable con- dition of being admitted into the church as teachers. Thefe prudent gentlemen, therefore, feem in- clined to acquit the laity of all concern with edablifhed confeffions, and to confine their au- thority to the clergy ; infomuch that (if I under- fland fome of our modern cafuifts on this fubjecl) a layman, if he can get over his own fcruples, may pray, hear the word, and even communicate, with what Proteftant church he pleafesf. If f The opinions, indeed, of thefe modern divines on this article are not uniform. Many worthy minifters of feveral de- nominations, whofe catholic principles would incline them tp rejecl. no man who mould attend their communions with de- cency and reverence, may ftill think themfelves obliged (and very realbnably) to have refpecl: to the fenfe of the congrega- tion where they conftantly officiate. Others, I know, think differently ; and this occafions a variety in pra&ice. See fVbifton's Memoirs, vol, II p. 485. and Killing" continues the learned Profeflbr, ,{ is the cafe fairly ftatedin the prefent w fituation of things. Subfcription is no 7ie:, when thefe inftances occur, implies change of fenfe. Whether the writers of thefe paffages purpfcly delivered them in fuch expreffions as would admit of different interpretations, 1 leave to be difcufled by thefe two eminent Doctors. Jf they did, I cannot fee why each particular perfon fhould not, upon Protcftant principles, have as much right to choofe an 'interpretation for himfelf, as his church-governors have to choofe one for him. If they did not, I am afraid it will follow that every Chriftian who makes ufe of thefe folemn forms, and cannot apply the paffages of fcripture in them as the writers of thefe paffages applied them, has been />«>•- pfth led, by thofe who compofed and authorized thefe forms, iirto a mifapplicathn of fcripture. But to anfwer the Profeflbr's qucllion directly : Nobody that I know of does imagine, that this was the defign of Chriil and his Apoftles; and what then ? Why then, " the terms which fecure to each Chriftian D 2 This 52 THE CONFESSIONAL. This point being fettled, the fquabbles among particular churches concerning their fuppofed li- " the right of interpreting them [the difcourfes or writings of " Chrift and his Apoilles] for himfelf, cannot without impro- fi prieiy be called the fcriptural terms of chrijlian liberty : they " fhould rather be called the terms of an accidental liberty% f1. which belongs to Chriftians in their prefent fituation." And fo all this parade of objection ends in an impropriety ! and well it is no worfe. However, if it is an impropriety, the author of the Confejfional was led into it by an authority equal at lead to that of Dr. Rutberfrib, even the authority of the great Cbillingmuortb, whofe words are thefe : " This • vain conceit, that we can fpeak of the things of God bet- ' ter than in the words of God; this deifying our own in- ' terpretadons, and forcing them upon others ; this reftrain- 1 itg the nvord of GOD from that latitude and generality, and ' the w:derfiandings of men from THAT LIBERTY WHEREIN ' Christ and his Apostles left them, is and hath ' been the only fountain of all the fchifms in the church, * and i;» that which makes them immortal." Chap iv. feci. 1 6. The Profefior, however, having left this fma!l cavil to take its chance, returns to the true queflion, " Whether " this liberty is not unwarrantably interfered with, by re- f* quiringChriltians to afhn to any certain fenfe of fcripture, tf where they are perfuaded it will admit of other fenfes, *' and have a right to judge for themfelves which is the true " one ? The anfwer, fays the Profelfor, is obvious. No *.' Chriitian is jequired to fubferibe to fuch confefiions as I am f* fpeaking of, who is not in his own private judgement con- f vinced that they are agreeable to the word of God." p. l 3. I would not willingly fufpedt the learned ProfeiTor of attempting to evade the force of the queilion, under the cover of the wofd. fubferihe. The term in the queltion is fffent ; ana if it is not required of thofe Chrillians, who are not required to fubja-ibe, to aJJ'ent to the confeffion, how can the governors of the church poffibly underhand thofe Chriftians who do not fubferibe the cenfeffion, to be bound THE CONFESSIONAL. 53 "berty within their refpeftive departments (in lb far as thefe confeffions come in queflion) is about in confcicnce to believe what is contained in it, as much as they who do fubferibe it, as the ProfefTor afftrts in the very next page ? Can any man be underftood to be bound in conference to believe apropofition, to which he is not required to offent ? Well, but there are Chriflians of a certain clafs, who are required both to ajjbit and fubferibe to a certain fenfe of fcripture expreffed in fuch confeffions as the Profef- for is fpeaking of. What right have church-governors to interfere with the private judgement of thefe, any more than with the private judgement of any ira,. for which they do not condefcend to offer any 'proof. Thefe noxious errors too have, fometimes, procured themfelves to be eftablifhed by another party of Confeilionifls and Creedmakers ; in which cafe, thefe authorized formularies are fa far from being of any real utility to an unpre-- judiced inquirer, that they only ferve to deflroy the force and virtue of each other. Again, if confeffions are really profitable to- wards fuppreffing thefe grofs and noxious errors, it muft be profitable, and in the fame propor-s tion needful, to enlarge and amplify them as. often as fuch errors arife, and the birth of every new herefy ihould always be attended with a new article in the confeflion f. Perhaps there is fcarce a year pafTes over, in any country where the prelfes are open, and men's tongues at liberty, without bringing forth fome new opinion, or reviving fome old one with new circumllances, contrary to, or at lead f One article of difference between K. Charles I. and the Scotch Proteltors, anno 1638, turned upon the neceffity of renewing and applying confeffions of faith to every prefent emergency of the church. This the Scots compared to the riding of Merches, or boundaries, upon every new " In- " cronchmenc." And, indeed, fuppohng the utility of con- feffions to be what the Remonftrants fay it is, King Charles's Whole convocation could not have furnifhed him with an an- swer lo this argument of the North Britons, in behalf of their tew formulary. See Rujbwort&'s Collections, vol. II. pag. different THE CONFESSIONAL. 69 different from, the approved and orthodox fy- ftem ; and confequently, within the description of a grofs and noxious error. Suppofe the re- quifite (triftures on thefe hetorodoxies had been added to the confeffions of the feveral churches where they have appeared for the laft two hun* dred years ; to what a comfortable bulk Would an Harmony of thefe confefiions have amounted by this time? what plenty of elucidation might fuch an Harmony have afforded to blind miferable mor- tals? and what a field is here opened for de- claiming againfl: the indolence and drowfinefs of our appointed watchmen, who, during this long and perilous interval, have been filent upon fo many important Subjects ; fuffering this multitude of herefies to pafs uncorrected by any public cen- fure, even while their partizans have been ince£- fantly preaching up to us the great utility of confeffions, as the only fovereign antidotes againfl them ? But, inflead of inveighing againfl our fuperi- ors for any omifiions of this kind, let us make ufe of this very circumftance to point out to them the inutility (perhaps fomething worfe) cf our prefcnt cflabl idled formularies of faith and doc- trine. What is become of all thofe herefes againfl: which none of thefe public provifions have been made \ Why, many of them are dead and funk down into utter oblivion, as if they had never been ; others, being left open to free E ^ debate, 7o THE CONFESSIONAL. debate, have had no worfe effect in religion, than other harmlefs and innocent, and even edifying problems, are allowed to have in literature and philofophy: — Whence the conclufion feems to be inevitable, that the malignity of other here- fies (and perhaps the very exiflence of fome of them) has been perpetuated, only by the refpeft- able notice that fome church or other has thought fit to take of them in an eftablifhed confeffion. I will prefume to fupport the juftice of this remark, by an inltance or two in our own efta- blifhment. In the 42 d of K. Edward's Articles, a formal cenfure was pafTed upon the reftorers of Origerts opinion concerning the temporary duration of fu- ture pumfoments. But in the Articles of 1562, this cenfure is not to be found. Undoubtedly the queftion is of great importance with refpecl: to the influences and fanctions of the Chriftian religion ; nor is there any point of theology up- on which churches may be fuppofed to decide more reafonably, than this. And yet, had the negative of this problem, whether future punifo- ments Jhall be eternal f ilill been ftigmatized with this heretical brand, we mould probably have wanted fcveral learned and accurate difquifitions on the fubjeft, from fome of our mod eminent writers, fuch as RuJ}, Tillotfon, Hartly, csV. ; by whofe refearches we have gained at leafl a clearer ft ate of the cafe, and a more accurate infight into the language of the fcriptures relative to it, than x the THE CONFESSIONAL. 71 the compilers of the article had before them ; without laying any invidious prejudice on the judgement or confcience of any man living, or precluding the right that every Chriftian hath to determine for himfelf, in a cafe where his interefl Is fo great and important. Again,the 40th of thefe original articles " affirm- " ed it to be contrary to the orthodox faith, to u maintain that the fouls of men deceafed do " fleep, without any manner of fenfe, to the day " of judgement, &c." This was likewife difmif- fed in 1562 ; fince when, the doctrine condem- ned, and (fome few faint efforts excepted) all controverfy concerning it have lain dormant, till very lately, that fomething very like a demonftra- tion that our firfr. reformers were miftaken on this head, has been offered to the worlds ; which probably had never feen the light, if an afTent to this 40th article had (till remained a part of our minifterial fubfeription. As to what the Remonftrants fay of the neglect of neceffary heads oi belief ; urging and infilling on points of faith which are not neceffary ; binding human inventions on men's conferences ; e In a fermon on the Nature and End of Death, and a cu- rious appendix fubjoined to the third edition of Confidcration: on the Theory of Religion, &C. by Dr. Edmund Lazv, the reve- rend, learned, and worthy Matter of St. Peters College, Camb. nowBifhop of CarliJIe. How many doctrines are defended, how many are not oppofed, not becaule they are to be found in the New Teftament, but becaufe they are ejlablijhed in a Liturgy, or decided in an Article ? mifappli- 72 THE CONFESSIONAL. mifapplications of fcripture-expreffions and au- thorities, and the like ; if" thefe are not to be pre- vented or corrected by the current labours of able and honeft paftors, joined to the juflice which every man owes to himfelf, in fearching the fcrip- tures for fatisfa&ion in all doubtful cafes ; it is in vain to expect any relief from confeffions ; many of which, if not all, are accufed on fome fide, of thefe very abufes which theRemonflrants propofe by their means to reform. 2. Another ufe which the Reraonftr ants have for confeffions is, l( to obviate foul and difhoneft " flanders, calumnies, and fufpicions, with which that they cannot be gain- " faid without the extreme hazard of our ialvation. (i Freely to contradift thefe, or quietly to fuffer " them to be contradicled by others, would be the " far theft from prudence and charity pojfible" What, may we fuppofe, would the gentle Epif- copius have done with the gainfayers of thefe things, inverted, as he might pofTibly have been, with a commiffion from the iecular arm? All this moderation and forbearance might, after all, have amounted to no more than what all Pro- teftant churches profefs ; namely, to affert the fovereign authority of the fcriptures, with a com- modious faving to themfelves of a concurrent privilege, of providing for the utility of their own well-being, by an orthodox ted. Let no man fay, that, confidering the tempe- rate language of the Remonftrants, a furmife of this kind cannot be juftified. In this verbal de- ference for the authority of the fcriptures, no church has ever gone farther than our own, nor confequently left greater latitude for private judgement. " We receive and embrace" (fays the church of England by the pen of Bifhop Jewel) f( all the " canonical fcriptures both of the Old and New " Teflament ; — we own them to be the heaven- " ly THE CONFESSIONAL. 79 " ly voices by which God hath revealed his will u to us; — in them only can the mind of man 11 acquiefce ; in them all that is neceffaiy for our u falvation is abundantly and plainly contained; — u they are the very might and power of God un- " to falvation ; they are the foundations of the " Apoftles and Prophets upon which the church " of God is built; they are the mod certain and " infallible rule, by which the church may be •' reduced if (lie happen to ftagger, flip, or err, " by which all ecclefiajlical doclrines ought to be " tried ; no law, no tradition, no cujlom, is to be re- *c ceived or continued, if it be contrary to fcripture ; " no, though St. Paul himfelf, or an angel from tf heaven, fhould come and teach otherwife m." This was once the fenfe of the church of Eng- land, whatever authority fhe may have fince pre?> tended to, upon other principles. Be this as it may, fuch of her divines as have afferted this authority with the uttermott zeal, and in the higheit terms, have yet, in the fame breath, ex- tolled her moderation, in laying no greater flreis upon her Confeflion, than the Remonftrants them- fclves feem to contend for. " Our church," fays Biihop Bull, fi profefleth " not to deliver all her articles (all, I fay, for " fome of them are coincident with the funda- " mental points of Chriftianity) as eflentials of ■ Contra eat nee legem, nee traditionem, nee cenfuctudinem ul'am audnndam ej/'e, fays the Latin Apol, fe&. 27. F " faith, So THE CONFESSIONAL. "' faith, without the belief whereof no man cars j(* be faved ; but only propoundsfthem as a body te of iafe and pious principles, for the preferva- " tion of peace, to be fubfcribed, and not openly " contradicted, by her fons n." Nay, even the rigidly-ecclefiaftical Di\ Stebbmg allows, that " when we fpeak of a right to deter- " mine what is the true fenfe of any article of " faith, we do not propofe the explication, given " in virtue of this right, as a rule for the faith or tl conduct of Chriflians ; but only as a rule, ac- *e cording to which they (hall either be admitted' Ci or not admitted to officiate as public minifters °.'? 'Tis true, the obfcurity of thefe conceffions is fuch, that no man can tell what is intended to be given up by them, and what refer ved for the church. In my opinion, they are hardly fenfe. But this iikewife is the misfortune of the Remon- flrants, who ofcUlate the queflion backwards and forwards, till no mortal can find out what they mean to alcribe to, or what to detract from, the virtue and merit of a public Confefiion. The Remonftrants, however, have had thus far the better of us ; they believed their Confeilion iaft when they made this Apology for it. We are driven to make Apologies for, and even to defend, fubfeription to a Confefhon which many fubferibers do net believe ; and concerning which n Vindication aft fa Church, of 'England, p. 178. 0 Rational Enquiry, p. 56. no THE CONFESSIONAL. 8* no two thinking men (according to an ingenious and right reverend writer) ever agreed exaclly irt their opinion, even with regard to any one article of it P. Of what curious materials thefe extraordinary- Apologies and Defences are framed, we are now proceeding to examine. p Dedication to the EJJay on Spirit, p. vi. F 2 CHAP. 82 THE CONFESSIONAL. CHAP. IV. A particular Examination of Bifiop Burnet's. Introduction to the Expofition of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. Hitherto our obfervations have been general. Little has been fa id on the fubjeft of ellablifhed confeffions, in which our own church has any greater concern than other Proteftant churches. We fhall now be a little more parti- cular. And as Biihop Burnet has brought to- gether all the topics of any moment, relating to the fubfcriptions required of the EngHJh clergy, in a particular difcourfe prefixed to his Expofi- tion of our Articles of Religion, we fhall do our venerable mother no wrong, in fele&ing, for our prefent confideration, the apology of fo mafterly an advocate. But, before we proceed to examine his Lord- ihip's folutions of the feveral difficulties which have been fuppofed to encumber the cafe of our Encrlijh fubfcriptions, it may be necefiary to give a little previous attention to the motives and rea- fons which engaged his Lordfliip in this particular work of expounding the Articles of our church. " Some of the Articles,'' " fays the Bifhop, " feemed to lean fo entirely to an abfolute pre- i( defiination, that fome, upon that account, " fcrupled THE CONFESSIONAL. 83 " fcrupled the fubfcribing them: and others re- " proached our church with this, that though our u articles looked one way, yet our doclors, for the " mod part, went the other way. It was fit fuch " a point lhould be well cleared; and it was in " order to that, that the late blefled Chieen ■' [Mary] did command me to explain thofe " firft ; which fhe afterwards enlarged to the ** whole thirty-nine a." Let us reflect a little on this remarkable cir- cumstance.. Every one knows that, in the fenfible and pa- thetic Conclufwn, fubjoined to this excellent Pre- late's Hi/lory of his own Times, his Lordfhip has not fcrupled to declare, " that the requiring fub- " fcription to the thirty-nine Articles is a great " impofition b ;" an opinion which was not the refult of a late experience. His Lordfhip had exprefTed himfelf to the fame purpofe to the principal men of Geneva, with refpect to their Conjenfus Doftrinte, many years before he could have any view to the circumstances which gave rife to his Expojition, and that with fo much zeal and eloquence, that, according to the writer of his life (a witnefs worthy of all belief), " it was " through his (the Bifhop's) credit, and the " weight of his character, that the clergy at " Geneva were releafed from thefe fubferiptions, * Bifljop Burnet's Remarks on the Examination of his Ex- position of the Second Article of our Church, p. 2. k folio edition, vol. IJ. p. 634. F 2 " and 84 THE CONFESSIONAL. i* and only left fubjecl: to punifhment and cenfure, (e in cafe of writing or preaching againft the *f eftablifhed doctrine c." Thefe being his Lordfhip's uniform fentiments, in the earlier as well as the latter part of his life, a queftion is naturally fuggefled, why he fhould write a book, in the mean feafon, on the avowed purpofe of making men eafy under their obliga- tions to fubfcribe ; an attempt which could have no other tendency, than to perpetuate the impofition in all fucceeding times ? For, the point the Biihop was to clear being this, se that the fC articles were capable of the feveral fenfes of " different doctors," the confequence would be, that all might fafely fubfcribe them: which would of courfe fuperfede the neceffity of abo- lifning fubfcriptions on the part of the church., let the impofition be ever fo grievous to thofe who could nqt come into the Bilhop's expedients ; and this, as his Lordfhip had good reafon to know, was no uncommon cafe. Whether Bifhop Burnet considered, or indeed whether he faw, his enterprize in this point of light, cannot be determined. That there were feome confiderations, which, notwithstanding the weight of a royal command, made him enter upon this talk with no little reluctance, appears pretty plainly from the following particulars : i. In a paragraph jufl now cited from one of his Lordfhip's pamphlets, we are informed that he c Life, voL II. fol. edit. p. 693. undertook THE CONFESSIONAL. 85 Undertook his Expoftion, at the command of Queen Mary : by whom, he likewife fays elfe- where, he wasyfr/2 moved to write it d. But in the preface to hi:; Expq/ition, he fays, " he was <( firjl moved to undertake that work, by that " great Prelate who then fat at the helm [Abp. "" 'TWotfbn], and only determined in it, by the com- •' mand abovementioned afterwards." You may, if you pleafe, call this a contradic- tion; to me the truth of the cafe is clearly this, that the great Prelate, unable to prevail with his friend Burnet to undertake an affair of that na- ture at his own'motion, applied to the Queen, whofe influence, added to his own, left the good Bifliop no room to decline the fcrvice, however difaprecable it miqdit be to him. 2. The Queen and the Archbifliop dying foon after the Expoftion was finiihed, and before it was put to the prefs, the Bifliop, as he informs us him- felf, " being advifed not to publifh it, by fome of " his friends, who concurred with him in opinion, " that fuch a work would lay him open to many " malicious attacks, kept it by him in manufcript, M no lefs than five years : at the end of which •" interval, he was prevailed on by the Archbilhop " [Tenifcri] and many of his own order, to delay " the publilhing it no longer V To which fo- ■licitations we may fuppofe his Lore ;i to have d Hift. O. T. vol. II. p. 228. • Hilt. O. T.' ubi fupra. ,E 4- 86 THE CONFESSIONAL. given way with the lefs difficulty, as he was now •jt liberty to fpeak his mind in a preface, which, it is highly probable, had never feen the light in the circumftances we now have it, if the £>ueen and Tillotfon had furvived the publication of the Expofition. For, 3. In this preface, the Bifhop takes particular care to apprize his readers, " that his Expofition " was not a work of authority ; and that, in what " in one place, calls, The form of doctrine that was fs delivered \ in another place, The form of found ,( words \ which thofe, who were fixed by the n Apoftles in particular churches, had received u from them. Thefe words of his do import a " Jlandard or fixed formulary, by which all doc- " trines were to be examined n." The palfages here referred to are, Ro?n. vi. 17. — r Tim. iv. 6. — to which are added in the margin, 1 Tim. vi. 3 2 Tim. i. 13. and the Greek words in thefe fcveral palfages which are fuppofed to fig' m Ecclefiattical Hiftory, from the days of Con/lantine down- wards, bears an ample teliimony to this truth. After Cc«- jhintine took it into his head to accommodate the church ac- cording to changes he thought proper to make in the civil conltitution of the Empire (fee Mojhcim, Hi it. Ecclcf. p. 140.) there was very little cither of moderation in the government, or of Jimplic'ity in the doflrine and worjbip of the Christian church fo called. 6 Introd. p. 2. G nif> 96 THE CONFESSIONAL. nify this ftandard or fixed formulary , run thus— TvTrog SiStx'/YiS ——'Y7rolviru(ns vyiccivoflwv Xoyccu — Aoya ■ZeTjrfwf, >c»i xzXns ^iSuffytzXiotg — 'Yyiuwovliq Xoyoi, ci ra Ku^jh Jijawi/ \%vz X/5if«, xai » kcit tviriStizv hoourxaXiz. Now, when a capable and unprejudiced reader confiders the variety of expreflion in thefe fevefal paffages, lie will probably be inclined to think, that a fixed formulary of doctrine is the laft thing a plain man would look for in them. A fixed formulary, one would think, fhould have a fixed title. Nor is it at all probable, that one and the fame form of words fhould be defcribed in terms, which may denote an hundred different forms. To enter into a juft criticilin on thefe expref- fions, would be tedious and unneceimry. Suffice it to obferve, after very competent judges, that ruTroi Si^zyn^y and uVoTU7rco? was afterwards ufed, may be feen in Mills's tranflati^n of Bruys's Hift. of the Popes, vol. II. p. 42 3. where an inltrument, or edict, of the Emperor Conjians, for the pacifi- cation of the dilputes concerning the two Wills of Chrill, is called the Type ; which inflrument contained no formulary of doctrine, but only enjoined that the parties at variance ihould abide by the fcriptures, the five oecumenical council-, ind the plain and fimple paflages of the fathers. G a that 9S THE CONFESSIONAL. that no man, or body of men whatfoever, could have had the leaft authority to add to them, or enlarge them in any future time. And if any other Jlandard or formulary is meant, it then comes to our turn to afk the que- Jtion, Where is it to be found ? what is become of it I For that it fhould be loft,, or drop into utter oblivion, if it once had a real exiftence, is wholly incredible. In anfwer to this demand, the Bifhop gives us to underftand, " that, by a fixed formulary ', he " does not mean one frccife and invariable form " of words, which he thinks it improbable the " Apoftles fhould leave behind them. For his S( Lordfhip obferves, that the firft. Apologifts for " Chriftianity, when they deliver a fhort abftract *f of the Chriflian faith, do all vary from one " another, both as to ihe order, and as to the sc words themfelves. Whence he thinks it more " probable, that they received thefe fhort ab- *' ftrafts from the Apoftles themfelves, with fomc " variation." But furely, the moment you admit of varia- thus, not only the idea of a fixed formulary, but even the ufe of any formulary, as a Jlandard or icjl of all doctrines, immediately vanishes away. There mcit be left, in fuch varying formularies, room for doubtful and precarious judgements : and the fcriptures alone, in all fuch cafes, mufl be the dernier rejort. And if fo, why might they 2 not THE CONFESSIONAL. 99 not as well have been admitted to decide in the firft inftancer* But to come nearer to the cafe in hand. Do .any of thefe Apologifts pretend to have received any of thefe fhort abftra&s from the Apoftlcs thcmfelves? or does it appear, among all the va- riety of creeds which thefe primitive £itfe$rs have -exhibited, that any one of them came immediately •from the ApoMles 1 ? Mr. WhiJlony who, perhaps, had made as exar depends upon, that confefTion, you iccre not to receive him into your houje, nor bid him God/peed, unlefs he brought this fecret Symbolical doctrine, which perhaps he might never have heard of,. ' See Cbiltingivortb's Letter to Lctvgar. Life 'by Definai- ■ ■ *, p. 32. His words are thefe: " If you think me one thofe to whom St. John forbids you to fay God 'fave ycu, " then you arc to think and prove me one of thofe deceivers ich deny Jefus Chriil to be com: in tljefrjb." G a 4^4 10? THE CONFESSIONAL. And how oppofite that would be to the fpirit of the gofpel, needs no particular proof. What other arguments or evidences there may be to fupport this fancy, I have not examined. 1 freely own, it would mortify me greatly to find fuch a practice fixed upon the primitive church, by any fort of evidence, which fhould fairly de- rive it from the Apoflles t. Nothing could be * I have been informed, that the late learned Dr. John Colbatchy prftpffor of cafuijlical divinity in the univerfny of Cambridge, hath left behind him a manufcript, wherein the reality of a xfvQtov Jay^a,. among the ancient ChrilHans, is clearly proved. I wifh fuch manufcript were printed. For, though I think it impoihble that a fecret of this kind, if ever it had ?.ny fubftantial foundation, fhould not tranfpire be- fore the eighteenth century ; yet fuch an attempt, from fo learned a perfon as Dr. Colbatcb, would certainly furnifli cu- riofities enow to rccompence the pains of reading his book, however fhort and unfatisfied it might leave us with refped jo the main point. A cafuiftical divine is, by his profefiion, a dealer in cryptics. The plain open truths of the New Tef- tament will not agree with certain fqueamifh confeiences. Few people, I apprehend, carry their fcruples to cafuifts, without having a fufpicion that the gofpel is againll them. The Doctor, to oblige or to fatisfy fuch patients, muft fetch his drugs from the hidden wifdpm of the fathers and fchool- men. 1 have lately been favoured with a fight of Dr. Collatch's manufcript, confuting of forty fiye quarto pages, written out fair, as intended for the prefs, but left unfinifhed. The title is, An Enquiry into the antiquity and authority of the Apoflles cried. The Doctor's hypothefis is, that this creed was de- livered by the Apoltlcs themfelves, and was in ui'e, in the Christian churches, even before the books of the New Tef- tament were written. He fuppqfes it to have been the only baptiimal creed \n ufe for feveral centuries; and to account mor9 THE CONFESSIONAL. 103 more inconfiflent with the nature and circum- (lances of their commiflion, or the tenor, fpirit, and defign of the gofpel in general. Our Saviour for it's late appearance, he averts,, that the baptifmal creed of the primitive church had no place in any other facred office ; that it was never committed to writing, but only- taught by word of mouth, and learned by heart; in fhort, that this form of words was induflrioufly concealed from all but baptized Chriilians, or fuch as were in a readinefs for baptifm, and not only fecreted from infidels and heretics, but from the catecbumeni themfelves, until they were of the rank of competentes, and not communicated to thefe, till about a week before their baptifm. The reufon why this form ol words was thus fecreted, was, the Doctor fays, that it might be a fignal, or tejfera hofpitalis, by which true Chrillians, in times of perfecution and dillrefs, made themfelves known te one another, and thereby avoided impofitions from fuch as only pretended to be Chriftians, for finifter ends. He affigns, indeed, another ufe for this creed, which fome perhaps mav think not quite fo confluent with this careful concealment of it, namely, that of a rule to diftinguifh between true and falfe doctrines. But even this he finds the means to recon- cile with the foregoing fuppofition, of its being incommuni- cable to all but the competentes, by fuppofing, that when there was occafion to confute the falfe doctrines of thofe early times openly, other creeds were made ufe of, fuch as thofe exhibited in the works of Ignatius, Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, Sec. containing the fame articles, but expreffed in different for- mularies, both with refpeel to the arrangement of the articles, and the form of words. Thefe particulars the Doctor en- deavours to fupport, againft the opinions of Epifcopius, Vojfius, Vuifnngc, Dochvcll, Lord King, Sec. reflectively, by authori- ties from the Fathers, and reafonings upon them, which fhew that the Doclor was a man of learning, and no contemptible difputant. I thought this (ketch of Dr. Colbatc&s fentiments en thj: fubjccl would not be unacceptable to the reader, tpld I04 THE CONFESSIONAL. told his Apoftles, that what had been whlfpcred in the car (the truths that had been communi- cated to them only) Jhould be by them proclaimed upon the houfe-tops u. St. Paul puts his being pure from the blood of all ?ncnt upon this, that he had not Jimmied to declare to the churches where he preached, the whole counfel of God * : and appeals to his opennefs, fimplicity, and fincerity, on many other o.ccafions. In the fame fenfe of their duty, the whole college join in prayer to God, that they may be enabled tofpeak the word with all boldncfs: y.tla. zrcttrxg zTzppYi with all freedom ; -fine involucris, fays Grotius x. And yet, it feems, they had among them a fecret dc- whofe curioiity might be railed by what is faid in the former part of this note. But here I muft flop, without adding the Jcafr, ftri&ure of my own, upon the Doctor's performance. However precarious or incompetent I might think his autho- rities, or however infirm his reafonings, I cannot allow my- felf the liberty to examine them, while the public has no opportunity of judging between us. I (hall therefore only add, that along with the fair copy of this tract, there was, when I faw it, a coniiderable number of loofe papers, con- taining a larpe collection of teftimonies and obfervations re- Litive to the fubject, which mew that the author had been indefatigable in this difquifition j and containing likewife, as far as 1 could judge, fufHcient materials to compleat the difcourfe which is left imperfect in the fair copy. This, it is to be wiihed and hoped, the worthy and refpeclable perfons in whole hands the faid manufcript and papers are lodged, will, at fome convenient time, undertake to do, as the work itfelf is in many refpects both curious and interefting. u Luke xii. 3. compare Maltb. X. 27. f, T4c?s >:x. 26, 2 7, x A3s iv. 29. THE CONFESSIONAL. 105 flrine, referred to be communicated only to ad- epts, to the initiated, and fuch as might be con- fided in : which indeed would have been reducing Chriflianity to a paltry left, and bringing in di- ftin&ions, which could not but have difgufled new converts, many of whom, no doubt, had taken offence at the exclufive rites and myfleries in the religions they had profeffed, and would, on that very account, be rather inclined to em- brace an inftitution where every thing was open- ly declared, and freely communicated. What indeed might happen in fome Chriflian. focieties, and, perhaps, in no long time after the demife of the Apoflles, I would not undertake to fay. As little as we know of thofe early times, we have fufficient evidence of their widely devi- ating from the fimplicity of the gofpel ; and all I am concerned for is to fhew, that the Apoflles fet them no fuch examples. Bifhop Burnet indeed makes no exprefs men- tion of this fecret doclrinc • and whether he meant any thing of that fort by the depojitum lodged in the hands of the Bilhop, is uncertain. But it is plain, without fome fuch fuppofition, the lofs of an apoflolical formulary of faith mufl be ut- terly unaccountable ; as a depojitum, in any other circumftances, mufl have been preferred and per- petuated with the fame care and refpedt as the fcripturcs thcrnielves. But, i06 THE CONFESSIONAL. But, admitting that there had been fuch a for- mulary of apoftolical authority, and that fome of tliofe creeds, which the earlier Fathers have left us, were framed after the model of it ; we mould certainly expeft a good account, by what autho- rity thofe large additions were made, which ap- pear in creeds and confeffions of a later date ; the rather, as we haye good reafcn to believe, that the fhorteft of the ancient creeds now re- maining came the neareft to the apoftolic model, in courfe of time, as well as in their contents. To this the good Bifhop anfwers no otherwife, than by giving us a detail of thofe growing he- refies, which occafioned fuch enlargements. He does not venture to fay, that fuch enlargements were properly grounded upon, or duly authorized by, fuch occafions, He had too honed a heart, snd too difcerningahead, to juftify fuch practices at all events, as fome others, both before him i fuccefforibus par eft pet eft as cum ipfo Pet>o ? Sals. Quidni ? Lan. Tanlundcm igitur honoris debetur refcipto Ro- mani pontifcis, quantum epiftolis Petri : et tantui-dem con/litutio- nibus epifcopcrum, quantum epiftolis P auli ? Sals. Eqzddemarbitror ttiam amplius deberi, fi precipitant et legem ferant cum autori- tate. Lan. Sedfafne eft dubi/are, an Petrus et Paulas fcripferint afjlatu dierport) Expofit. paraphraflicam in articulos confeflionis Anglic*-, in Art. 28. and Heylins Introduce, to the Life ql Archbifhop Lavd. that THE CONFESSIONAL. 119 that with refpc& to the particular occasions of the church of England, the publication of thefe articles had no effect, either in filencing the ca- lumnies of Papifts, or keeping fuch of them out of the church as were inclined, either wholly to temporize, or to meet the church of Englan d half way. We might then fave ourfelves the trouble of entering into any debate, concerning the extent of that authority by which our articles were efta- blifhed, and fubfcription to them enjoined. I will, however, make no fcruple to affirm, that no fuch authority is veiled in the church. Far- ther than this I ihail not enquire, otherwife thaa as the good Bifhop leads me the way. His Lordfhip obferves, " that whatever may " be the fanctions of a law, it does not alter the u nature of things, nor oblige the confciences of Cl the fubjects, unlefs they come under the fame " pcrfuafion." This is particularly true of any fuch law, as infringes upon the privileges to which Chriflians are intitled under the profeflion of the Gofpel; and this, we fay, is the cafe of all laws enjoining affent and confent to human creeds -and confeffions, which appear not to thofe, of whom fuch aflent and confent are required, to be in perfect agreement with the word of God. It is therefore of no fort of confequence, whether fuch creeds and confcllions arc cftablifhed by ci- vil authority, or by fynods and convocations of proicfied thcologr.es. Upon Proteftant princi- ples, 12© THE CONFESSIONAL. pies, neither the one nor the other can encroach, fo much as a itraw-breadth, upon the rights of private judgement, in matters of faith or doctrine. His Lordfhip indeed would feem to fay fome- thing in vindication of our Princes, for interpo- ling at the Reformation in a point fo extremely tender and delicate ; infinuating, that they did not pretend to judge in points of faith, or to decide controverfies. t( The part," fays he, " they had in the Reformation was only this, — *' being fatisfled with the grounds on which it " went, they received it themfelves, and ena&ed " it for the people ; and this, in his Lordfhip's " judgement, they had as much right to do, as *' every private man had to chufe for himfclf, " and believe according to his reafon and con- te fcience.'* I prefume, his Lordfhip might mean, that our Princes were fatisfied with the grounds of Refor- mation, by thofe churchmen whofe province it was to examine them. But here, I apprehend, his Lordfhip, by an ambiguity of expreflion, hath put the change upon his readers, and per- haps upon himfelf. The true ground of Re- formation was, the neceility of being relieved from the incroachments, impoutions, and op- preffions of Popery. The abolition of thefe grievances, our Princes (including the legifla- ture) had not only a right, but were in duty bound, to enaft for the people. When Popery was THE CONFESSIONAL. 121 was out of the way, the fcriptures became the rule of religion ; and to fay that thefe facred ora- cles did not contain a fufficient formulary of faith and doctrine (to let alone forms of worfhip) with- out explanations of artificial theology, is degrad- ing them once more to that unworthy ftate of fubferviency to human refcripts and decrees, from which the Reformers pretended at leaft to refcue them. Had our Princes, therefore, purfued the true grounds of Reformation with uniformity, they fhould have difcountenanced the introduc- tion of fcholaftic doctrines and articles of faith of man's device, in their ozun dotlors, as well as in thofe of the Popifli perfuafion. They could not be ignorant, that an Engliflo convocation had no more right to prefcribe to the people directories of faith, diftincl: from the fcriptures, than an Ita- lian council : or that a fincere EngliJ]} Proteflant could no more make his Bifliop his Proxy in matters of Faith and Confcience, than he could transfer his civil allegiance, which he had fvvorn to the King or Queen of England, to the Pope of Rome. Both the civil and ecclefiaflical authority were on this, as on all other like occafions, under the controul of the word of God. The word of God had given a liberty to the difciples of Jefus, which no earthly power had any right either to take away or abridge. It was indeed the bufi- xicis and the duty, both of the civil and ecclefia- ftical 122 THE CONFESSIONAL. flical power, to promote Chriftian edification among the people, for whK the word of God had made fufficiem re sHthout breaking in up.,*; Chtifi ' ... It h tie; this Chriftian liberty might be ab- tifed by abfurd and licentious men, fo as to en- danger the peace, and fubvert the order, of civil fociety. Here the civil magiflrate has his right of interpofmg referred to him by 1 it- felf. A con fide rati on, which, as it fully jui Chriftian Princes in their demolition of . fo likewife does it referve to them an authority to reflrain all religious corruptions and extravagances which have a like effect, and break out into overt acts of oppofition to the righteous regula- tions of civil fociety: which however never can be affecled, where any man or any body of men demand or attempt no more than to be permitted to believe and worfhip God, peaceably and fin- cerely, in their own way. The good Bifhop would have us believe, as hath been obferved, that the fyftem which took place at the Reformation, was only barely enacled by our Princes, who, according to him, left it to the church to judge in points of faith, and to decide controverfies. How the faStJlood'm fome periods, I will not Hay to enquire. This I know, that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth the ortho- dox Laiv was, that " Religion being variable ac- il cording fo the pleafure of fuccecding Princes, that " which THE CONFESSIONAL. 123 " which at one time is held for orthodox, may at " another be accounted fuperftitious, &c." b. A maxim which was exemplified fo often, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, and in fo many inftances, where the church, as fuch, had not the lead concern, that it may very well coun- terbalance the few cafes the Bilhop may be fup- pofed to have had in his eye, when he ventured this affertion with the public. But thefe are points, which we are now no longer permitted to debate with the powers in being. The flate and the church are cordially agreed to continue thefe articles as flandards of orthodoxy, and the fubfcription to them as an indifpenfable condition of holding any preferment in the church of England. Still they are points^ very proper to be debated with an honed man's own heart; and from this fort of felf-controverfy no honeft man is precluded, I had almoft faid can well be excufed. For, if the Chriftian reli- gion is of divine authority, and our future hap- pinefs depends, in any degree, upon having its documents pure, and unmixed with human com- mandments and traditions, the man, who is in a capacity to examine into the truth, muft be in- excufably rafn, fhould he receive and embrace do&rines unfupported by thefe facred oracles, merely becaufe they are eftabiifhed by the powers of this world. b Dukes Law of Charitable TJfes, p. ijt, 132. To J24 THE CONFESSIONAL. To help us out of the doubts and difficulties which may arife in the courfe of fuch an exami- nation, Bifhop Burncfs next endeavours are laid out in explaining, i . The ufe of the Articles ; and, 2. The importance of the Clergy's fubfcrib- ing to them. By the ufe of the articles, one would fuppofe, at firft fight, his Lordlhip meant their utility to the church. But, however, without entering far- ther into this matter than we have already feen, and after a fhort digreffion, importing that they are not merely articles of union and peace, he proceeds to tell us, that, " with refpect to the " laity, they are only articles of church comr " muni on." But I would defire to know in what inftance our articles ever had any operation this way? What layman is or ever was required either to fubfcribe, or folemnly declare his aiTent to them, as a qualification for communion with the church of England d I Pbyficians and Civilians indeed d Dr. Ruiberfortb reprefents me as " fuppofing here Bifliop " Burnet to mean, that all laymen are required either to fub- " fcribe or folemnly declare their afient to the articles, as a 4< qualification for communion with the church in which they " are etlablifhed." I wim it were not below the Profeffor's dignity to endeavour to underftandMxs opponents before he un- dertakes to reprefent them. The plain obvious cafe is this. Bifhop Burnet calls our articles, fo far as the laity are concern- ed with them, articles of church communion. In examining whether they really are fuch or no, I enquire how they ope- fubfcribe THE CONFESSIONAL. 125 fubfcribe them, to entitle themfelves to academi- cal degrees, and the latter fometimes to qualify themfelves for ecclefiaflical offices. But, fuppofe rate upon the laity for the purpofe of admitting them to, or excluding them from, communion with the church in which they are eftabliflied. 1 prove that they have no operation this way, by fhewing that the laity in general are actually admit- ted to communion with the church, not only without being required either to fubfcribe or declare their affent to them, but without being afked a fingle queftion concerning the ar- ticles. Hence I conclude, they are not, with refpect to the laity, articles of church-communion. Farther than this I neither did nor thought I had occafion to enquire what was Bifhop Burners meaning. It was fufficient for me to have fhewn, that whatever it was, it depended upon a fuppofition, contrary to matter of fact. But Dr. Rutherforth hath found out the Bifhop's meaning, and hath very gracioufly adopted it ; and thus explains it : " Every layman, who is a member •' of any church, not only if he is perfuaded, that all the " propofitions contained in its eftablifhed confeffion are true, " but, if he thinks that none of them are erroneous in fo *' high a degree, that he cannot hold communion with fuch " as profefs them, he is obliged to continue in its com- " munion." Charge, p. 13. I wifh the learned Profeffor hath not here fuppofed Bifhop Burnet to mean what he did not mean. But without enquiring at this time into Bifhop Burnet's meaning, let us confider how the Profeffor's fyftem will be affected by the meaning he hath here avowed. As he hath flated the cafe, a layman is obliged to hold com- munion with the church of which he is a member, although he (hould think every article of the confeffion of that church to be erroneous, provided he does not think any article or any propofition in the confeffion to be erroneous info high a degree, that he cannot hold communion with fuch as profefs it. Here it is obfervable, that the obligation to hold communi- on, does not wholly arife from the fubject- matter of the ar- ticles, or the high or the low degree of errors contained in any i26 THE CONFESSIONAL. any of thefe men fliould choofe to forego the degree, or the office for which he is a candidate, rather than comply with his condition (and fome them, but chiefly from the extent of the layman's charity. A layman may be of that catholic fpirit, that he mail think himielf obliged to hold communion with pious and well- meaning perfons, even though he mould be perfuaded that all the articles of the confeffion, or at leafc the major part of them, profefTed by thofe perfons, are unfcriptural, and fome of them perhaps antifcriptural, than which there can hardly be among Proteitants an higher degree of error. Such laymen there have been in the world; and when that happens to be the cafe in any degree, what can fuch laymen have to do with the articles of any confeffion, or the articles with him ? A great deal, if we believe the learned Profeflbr. For in the very next paragraph we are informed, that " the governors V of the church understand the laymen to be bound in con- ?.' fcience to believe and praftife what is contained in the " confeffion [of the church, we muft fuppofe, with which " he is in communion], as much as the clergyman who fub- «' fcribes, and folemnly affents to it." If the governors of the church are right in fo underftanding, they mull imderfiand the articles of the confeffion to be as much a teji to the lay- man, as they are to the clergyman. And this being the cafe, the governors mould feem to have as much right to exclude the unajjenting layman from communion, as they have to exclude the unfuhfcrihing clergyman from the office of teaching. And yet, by the ProfefTor's own Hate of the cafe, church-gover- nors can have no fuch right. For the layman may dijjent from all the articles of the eftablifhed confeffion in a certain degree, and that a very high degree, and ftill be obliged to continue in communion with the church in which they are eirabliihed. He is left to his own judgement, or rather to his own charity, for the extent of the obligation. And what have church-governors or church-confeffions todo with that ? Either therefore the articles of the eftablifhed confeffion are not to fuch a layman, nor conferjuenily to any layman, ar- fuch THE CONFESSIONAL. iif fuch I have known), would this be a fufficient reafon for excluding him from church-communi- on? or was ever any one excluded upon any fuel* account I The Bifhop indeed fays, that the $ih canon; which declares " thole to be excbmmunicated ipfd " faElo who mall affirm any of thefe articles to be " erroneous, or fuch as he may not with a good u confcience fubfcribe to, extends to the whole " body of the people, laity as well as clergy.'* I apprehend, that a refufal to fubfcribe the ar- ticles, in the cafes abovementioned, amounts to fomething equivalent to the affirmation cenfured. in the canon ; not to mention laymen of great name and note, who, both in word and writing, have affirmed as much in plain terms. And yet who ever heard that any of thefe were prohibited from communicating with the church on this ac- count, or were ever afked a firjgle queftion uponl the fubjec't? Either therefore his Lordlhip mud have been miftaken in his interpretation of this canon, or here is a relaxation of difcipline in the church, extremely difhonotirable to her governors, and highly fcartdalous to her members. Be this as it may, this is a matter of fact, which proves to a demonfVration, that our thirty-nine Articles, confidered as articles of church communion, are of no manner of life to the church, of fignificance titles of church-communioh; or we hatre here two counter obligations, which 1 fear the learned Profcflbr, with all his dexterky at dijlinguijhing, will never be able to reconcile, I to l28 THE CONCESSIONAL. to the laity. Some of our divines, indeed, have: attempted to bring the laity under this obligation of affenting to article-do&rine, by way of i?npli- eation. Others, however, have frankly exone- rated them from any fuch bond, and have left church-communion upon a more righteous and reafonable foundation, by a way of reasoning, Which, tome at lead, looks like condemning the church for infilling on clerical fubfcriptions, as well as laical affent, to human doftrmes and ar- ticles of faith e. Bat^however that may be, the e Dr. Siebbing h amcmg the former fort, who bluflies not 'to fay, " there is the fame need of human explications of *' fcripture-words, with refpeft to lay-eommnnion, that there *' is with refpecl to miniilerial-communion. For the hold- " ing the faith of the Gofpel, neceffary in both cafes, and *' a general belief that the fcriptures are the word of God, *' is no evidence of this, in either." Rational Enquiry,. p. yj. No evidence of what ? I fuppofe he means, no evidence of communion with any particular charch which efpoufes. thefe human explications. More fhame for the church which requires more and other terms of communion, than Chrift himfelf required. But, if we may believe Bifhop Bull, this church is not the church of England: which, according to his Lordfhip, " docs not require the laity to fubfcribe the ar- ** tides, though they are as much obliged to acknowledge *' the fundamental articles of the Chriftkn faith, as the moll f* learned doctors." That is to fay, as much obliged as Chriflians, and inforo confeienti to acknowledge thofe fun- damental (not as they are contained in the thirty-nine ar- ticles, for then they would be obliged to fubferibe, or give their public affent to thofe articles, but) as they lie in the fcriptures. Which plainly implies, that the church of England thinks this general acknowledgment firfficient evidence fubfeription THE CONFESSIONAL. n9 fubfcription of the clergy {lands, it feems, upon a different footing, and, as a matter of more confequence, will demand a more particular ex- amination* The Bifhop begins this part of the cafe with obferving, that " the title of the articles bears, if that they were agreed upon in convocation,/^ u the avoiding of diversities of opinions ■, and the " ft xablifoingconfc7it touching true religion. Where," fays his Lordfhip, " it is evident that a confent " in opinion is defigned." Namely (if common language is the vehicle of common fenfe) fuch a confent) as is abfolutely exclufive of all diverfi- ties of opinions. Now the cafe (landing thus, and the title of the articles, as well as the cano- nical form of fubfcription, remaining the fame to this very hour, what poffible pretence can there be for conftruing the act of fubfcription into a fimple declaration of the fubfcribers pofi* tive opinion, in a certain literal and grammatical fenfe different from the literal grammatical fenfe of another fubfcriber? The cafuiftry that allows different men to fubfcribe the fame fet of articles, which, as they all agree, were intended to prevent divcrfities of opinions, not only in different, but of the communion of her lay-members with her. Dr. Stelbing might wifh it had been otherwife, and when he wrote his Rational Enqui>yt might hope the laity would, at fame fine, be bound to affent in form to thefe human explications. If he had any explications of that fort, he did not live to be gra- tified. And that matter is juft as well as it is. I 2 .even i3o THE CONFESSIONAL, even in contrary fenfes, mud be weak and con-* temptible, beyond any thing of the kind that ever came from, the Jefuits. Thefe pious fathers,, in all fuch cafes, bring their matters to bear at a pinch, by the help of equivocation and mental referves. We defpife and difov/n this practice as infamous; and yet, it feems, we can condefcend to arrive at the fame fort of ends, by quibbling upon the ambiguous fignifkation of words* Alas for pity ! that, to explain and defend this mean, unmanly expedient, fhould fall to the fhare of this illuilrious Prelate, contrary to his own ge- nerous fentiments; as too plainly appears from the following paffage, cited from a piece he was obliged to publifh in his own vindication, while the iheets of his Expofition were hardly dry from the prefs : " I do not deny but men of the Cahinift per- " fuafion may think they have caufe given them <; to complain of my leaving the articles open to v thofe of another perfuafion. But thofe of the " Armmlan fide" [who, by the way, were the men who bore the moft tyrannous hate againft him] " mull be men of a peculiar tinfture, who " except to. it" [ his Expofition ] u on that ac- et count : though, without fuch enlargement of 4< fenfe, their fubfcribing them does not appear " to agree fo well with their opinions, and *c With COMMON INGENUITY f." f Eifhop Burnet's Remarks on the Examination of his Ex> pciition of the fecond arucleof our Church, p. 3. But THE CONFESSIONAL. ij% But what caufe could the good Bifhop give the Calvinijls to complain, if there really was any good foundation for this enlargement of fenfe, ei- ther in the original defign of the articles, or in any fubfequent decifion of competent authority ? The Armiiuan fenfe is certainly not the original ienfc of the articles: nor is it a fenfe they will naturally receive. It is a fenfe which was never once in the heads of thofe who compiled them, nor of thofe who gave them the fanclion of that aft of parliament, under which they are fubferib- ed to this prefent hour. But, it feems, there is a royal declaration at the head of our articles, which makes a confiderable abatement in the ftrictnefs of our fubferiptions, and leaves room, in exprefs terms, for thefe (different literal grammatical fenfes. It remains then that we examine the validity of this declaration, upon which fo great a drefs is laid ; wherein we fhall endeavour to be as accu- rate, and at the fame time as candid, as poflible- Bifhop Burnet tells us, that this declaration wag fet forth by King Charles I. " and little doubt " can be made," lays his LordUiip, " but it was " prepared by Archbiflipp Laud g.v That King Charles I. publiflied a declaration .along with the articles in the year 1630, we have the teftimony of Dr. Nicholls h, who however y * Remarks, p. 3. •'.. 'r.lli's Commentary on the Articles, p. j.- 1 3 &C| 132 THE CONFESSIONAL. cites a paflage from it which is not to be found in the declaration referred to by Bifhop Burnet ; that is to fay, in the declaration which in his time was, and itill is, prefixed to our thirty-nine articles. The confequence is, that King Charles's declaration is dropped long ago, and has no au- thority to decide any thing in the prefent que- stion. The declaration which {lands before the thirty- nine articles in our prefent books, is more gene- rally believed to have been firft publifhed by King James I. and is the fame from which, Dr. Nichclls fays, Bifhop Burnet drew his inference, " that an article being conceived in fuch genera} " words, that it can admit of different literal and tf grammatical fenfes, even when the fenfes are *£ plainly contrary to each other, both fides may " fubfcribe the articles with a good conicience, " and without any equivocation." But Dr. Nicholls believed that the force of this declaration did not, nor was defigned to, extend beyond his [3£ing Jame/s^ time. If this be true, fhis declaration has no right to the place it occu- pies. It is of no ufe or fignificance to us of the prefent times ; nor could any rule of interpreta- tion be either inferred from it, orauthorifed by it. Dr. Nicholls^ indeed, gives no particular reafon for his judgement. There was no occafion. The very face of the declaration fhews that he Jaad very good grounds for what he faid. The THE CONFESSIONAL. 133 The King fet forth his declaration by virtue of his being fuprerne head of the church. But acrs of fupremacy, when unconfirmed by the legiflature, are merely perfonal, and die with the particular Prince whofe acts they are, unlefs they are revived, by his fuccefTors, with the fame formalities which were obferved at their firft ap- pearance. The declaration before us is deftitute of all thefe formalities, even with refpecr. to the Prince (whoever he was) by whom it was at firfl fet forth. There is no royal fignature at the head of it ; no atteftation of his Majefty's command, by any of the great officers of the crown ; no mention of the time when, or the place whence, it iffued. And that it has never been acknow- ledged by any fucceeding Prince, is evident from the following circumitance, namely, that, during the reign of Queen Anne, the title of it flood invariably as it had done from the firit, viz. his Majcfly's Declaration ; which would not have been the cafe, had her Majefty adopted this refcript as her own act, authenticated by the fpecific rati- fication of her royal predeceffors. On another hand, the language of this decla* ration is fuch, as is abfolutely inconiiffent with the fundamental principles of our prefent happy conilicution. " We will not endure," fays the declaration, '' any varying, or departing, in the leafl degree, I 4 " from i54 THE CONFESSIONAL. " from the doctrine and difcipline of the church " of England mow eftablifhed 5r" This might 1 It is neceffary here to obferve, that the word now (as far as may be judged from evidence next to demonflrative) was not in the original declaration, but a mere interpolation, craftily enough calculated for the deception of after-times ; but (confidering the purpofe for which the declaration was fet forth) molt abfurdly inferted in the place it occupies in the common copies. This difcovery we owe to the good offices pf &fmall writer, who was extremely provoked that this de- claration fhould be afcribed to King James I. and who fent lis for better information Xo'Heylitfs Life of Archbifhop Laud, where, we were told, is an authentic copy, taken from a collection of King Charles's papers, intituled, Bibliotbeca Regia. It was to this writer's purpofe to prove fomething or other from the emphatical expreiiions, now eflablilhed, and, already eflablifhed, which occur in the common copies of this Declaration. Upon examining the copy of it in Hey/in's "Life of Land, p. 188. the words now and already were not to be found. This circumflance occafioned a long- ing to fee this Bibliotbeca Regia, which, it was fuppofed, could be nothing lefs than an authenticated collection of Royal mandates by fome public officer, of whofe fidelity and ac- curacy there could be no doubt. But upon having recourfe to Anthony Wood, [Ath. Oxon. Vol. II. p. 282. J it appeared that this collection was compiled and publiihed by the indi- vidual Peter Hcylin who wrote the Life of Laud, and confe- cuent'ly, that in referring to this Bibliotbeca Regia (as he fre- quently does in his Hiftory of that Prelate) he was only quoting himfelf. Some lit tip time ago I had an opportunity of confulting this Billiotheca Regia, printed, as the title page informs, in the year 1659. .. In the copy of the Declaration exhibited in this book, the words now and already ftand as they do in cur common copies ; which, as one might be fure Hiylm would not mifquote himfelf, and as it was next 1 to impofiible that both thefe e;nphatical words mould be emitted iri his Life of Laud by accident, wa.s not eafil- 0 ''•-■•'-■ l ; • 1 THE CONFESSIONAL. 135 tally well enough with the politics of a James or a Charles ; but if our princes and people, in be accounted for. But being informed by A. Woody that there were two former editions of this Bibliotheca Regia, the one in 1649, the other in 1650, I have no doubt but the words in queftion have been foifled into this hit edition, not only becaufe, as we are informed by A. Wood, [u. f. p. 99 ] there are other alterations in the later editions of the Bibliotheca, but becaufe the Declaration in this copy of 1659 diners materially, in other inf.ances, from that in Heylin's Life of Afchbiihop Laud. It was once conjectured, that the in- terpolation might probably be the work of Dr. Anthony Spar- row, and contrived to accommodate the new eitabliihment pro- jecting about the time his collection fir It came out. We now honourably acquit Dr. Sparrow of that manoeuvre, and mult be contented to leave the true author of the forgery in his concealment ; for that a forgery it is, appears indifputably from internal tokens, as well as from the circumltances above- mentioned ; nothing being more abfurd than to talk of doc- trine or difcipline already ejiablijhed in convocation voith the King s royal ajjent, when nothing of the fort had been done in convocation for the King to aflent to. [See Fuller's Church Hijiory, B. xi. § 12. and p. 131. § 65. fub anno 1628. ] We may then fafely take it for granted, that the copy of the Declaration in Htylins Life of Laud is genuine, and, as fuch, e.ifily explained by the fentiments of the times con- cerning eflablifnments, and the Archbifhop's views in pub- lilhing it. The political Prelate was aware, that, in the opinion of the Lawyers of thofe days, there had been no legal euablilhmcnt of forms of worfhip, or ordinances of dif- ciplii.e, fince the demife of Queen Elizabeth. This encou- raged him, as well as left him room to introduce fo many ceremonies from what he thought fit to call primitive antiqui- ty ; for which, though he had no prefent authority but his own, he thought he might fafdy truft to a future eltablifh- ment; and for this, he manifeflly intended to pave the way py this Declaration, not apprehending an oppofition from aftertimes. 136 THE CONFESSIONAL. after-times, had perfifted in not enduring the leaft departure from the dodrine of the church of Eng- an affcmbly of more conlequence, and lefa devoted to him, than a convocation. What the fentiments of that genera- tion were, concerning the eftablifhment of forms of WQrfhip 3nd ceremonies, may be underftood from the following cita- tion, which, it is hoped, will not be unacceptable to the cu- rious reader, whom fo remarkable a paffage may have efcap- ed. The author, having given account of fome circumftances relative to Queen Elizabeth's acceffion, proceeds thus : " The enfuing Parliament was wholly made up of fuch per- *' fons, as had already voted in their words and aclions, " every thing the Queen could defire to have confirmed in " the Houfe : fo as no fide but were miftaken in their ac- *' count ; the Proteftants gaining more, and the Catholics " lefs, than could be expected, to the taking the title of Head " of the Church, and conferring it on her Majefly, which was " thought unfuitable to her father and brother, and therefore " far more unbecoming the perfon of a woman: the caufe a " Declaration was not long after iffued out, to (hew in what «« fenfcs it was to be underftood." [Fid. Queen Elizabeth's In- junctions, 1559, and the 57th Article of religion.] " And to " prove they more intended the limitation of the Roman per, 4* than to fecure themfelves from tyranny at home, an Aft " was parted, enabling the Queen, and commiffioners for the •* time being, to alter or bring what ceremonies or worfhip w they thought decent into the fervice of God, without ** excepting that formerly exploded : whereby a return " (likeiieil to be made ufe of) or a farther remove was left " arbitrary at the will of the Queen : nuhcfe fucccjjors not be- * ' tng mentioned in the Acl, left room to quejlion^ it ought to be *' nn linger in force than l.er life; for whofe gratification M alone her privy counsil (that did then, and indeed almoft P* all her time, govern parliaments) had intended it. But ?' King James and the Bijhops, finding the advantage it " brought the crown, no lefs than the cfarch, did not only - . fond) THE CONFESSIONAL. 137 land, particularly as it is exhibited in the homily againft wilful rebellion, what mud have become " own it amongft the ftatutes unrepealed and in force, but ** did print it, with a proclamation to itrengthen it, at the " beginning of the book of Common-Prayer. Neither had " the High Commiffion any better vizard to face the tyran- " ny daily p raft i fed by the clergy, but what the authority *' of this Act did r.iford ; which may one day tempt the '* people to a new, if not a more difmal reformation, after " experience hath taught them, how pernicious it is to en- " truft either Prince or Priefl with any power capable of " abufe : yet, to the honour of this Princefs it may juftly " be faid, that fhe never made ufe of her own liberty to " enflave the nation, but repaid, or rather exceeded, in " thanks and acknowledgments, all power they gave her: ?' an art loft in thefe later times, or thought unkingly. " But I leave this her wifdom to be justified by the happy " fuccefs." Osborn's Works, 1673, p. 414, I would not abridge this pafiage on feveral accounts, but chiefly to (hew on what grounds they went, who affirmed them was no legal ecclefiaflical eftablifhment in this country from the death of Queen Elizabeth, till the Aft of Uniformity, 13 Car. II. How far a mere aft of fupremacy might avail towards ellablifhing any thing, though not confirmed by Parliament, I fhall not pretend to fay; but I hardly think it would be allowed in thefe days, that an Act of Parliament which had expired, might be revived by a royal Proclama- tion. I imagine the churchmen themfelves in King James's time, might be aware of this. The title page of Rogers's Expofition of the xxxix articles runs thus, The Faith, Doc- trine, and Religion, professed and protected in the Realm of England, &c. Why would he not fay, pro- filed and eftablijked? Perhaps becaufe he knew the religion of the realm wanted the fanftion of Parliament, and was only proteStd by regal power. If it fhould be faid, that Rogers, or, what is the fame thing in the prefent cafe, Bifhop fiancrcft, had no reafon to be fo fhy, as Rogers's bufinefs was of 138 THE CONFESSIONAL. of us at the Revolution? Where had been our 2.£ts of fettlement and limitation of the crown to King William, and the prefent royal family k ? If the difcipline of the church had continued invari- ,cble9 not only the aft tolerating Proteibmt dif- fenters had never feen the light, but the churchy cenfure, in his Majeity's oommiffim ccckfiajiieat^ had been in full force, not to mention many other wholefome correctives, provided fox-puritans end heretics by the pious care of Arehbifhop Laud. The declaration, indeed, remits the offenders againft it for their punifhment, to the faid com- mrffim ecclejiaflical, as if it was flill in full force. But this only ferves to betray its weaknefs and impotence ; and to (hew, that it has no more aiv ihority to licence any one practice, or to pre- scribe any one duty, to Britijl) fubjefts, than an edift of the French King. only to expound the xkx'xx Articles, which were eftablilhed by an Aft of Parliament, vix. \3Eliz. I anfwer, that they very well knew, that eltablifhment did not reach tliofe ar- ticles which concerned Government and Difcipline ; and thefe the commentator took into his plan, as well as the dotlrinal and facroinenfal articles. And there happened to be no Profefibf either of law or divinity in thofe days, who would venture to llretch the Aft of Parliament to the whole thirty- nine. k See thefe quellions anfvvcred, and the point they relate to handled, by a mafterly writer, in a pamphlet intituled, A plain and proper anfwer to this qzujiion, Why does not the Bijkop cf CkgLer rffign bit preferments? Frinted for Sbuckburgbt 753- THE CONFESSIONAL. igp Bifhop Burnet, in the pamphlet above cited, gives the following account of the occafion of publishing this declaration: " The Armlnicn * party (as they were called) was then favoured, lt To thcll- it was objected, that they departed " from the true fenfe of the articles. But it was 4< anfwered by them, that, (ince they took the i( articles in their literal and grammatical fenfe, " they did not prevaricate. And to fupport this, " that declaration was fet forth." Here it is not denied, that the literal and gram- matical fenfe of the Arminians was different from the true fenfe of the articles. But how could men fubferibe to articles as true, when they could not deny that they fubferibed to them in a fenfe that was not the true fenfe of them, without prevari- cation ? If therefore the declaration was not fet forth to fupport prevarication , what was it in- tended to fupport? His Lordfhip, I fuppofe, may have given a true, though no very honourable account of the occafion of this declaration ; but it was an occa- fion that was given, and might be taken, in the latter part of King 'James's reign, as likely as in any part of King Charles' 's. There is indeed no evidence that James ever turned Arminian in principle. This, however, was the party that (hick to him in his meafures and his projects, and which it became necefiary for him, on that ac- count, to humour, and to accommodate, by every expedient i4o THE CONFESSIONAL. expedient that might fet them in a refpectable light with the people, without bringing any re- flexion upon his own conuftency. Whoever con- fiders the quibbling and equivocal terms in which this mitrument is drawn, will, I am perfuaded, obferve the diftrefs of a man divided between his principles and his interefts; that is, of a man exactly in the fituation of King James I. in the three lad years of his reign. Charles I. was an avowed Arminian, upon the fuppofition that all Cahinijis were enemies to his kind of policy, both in church and flate. His father's declaration had not wrought the end propofed by the Anninians;2.r\d therefore, to make them eafy, in the year 1626, he ifTued a procla- mation, enjoining filence to all parties with re- fpedt to the points then in difpute. " The effects H of which proclamation, fays RuJIizvorth, how " equally foever intended, became the (topping " of the Puritans mouths, and an uncontrouled " liberty to the tongues and pens of the Arminian " party 1." Which is eafily accounted for, when it is remembered, that the refllefs and fa&ious Laud had the execution of this proclamation in his hands. This partiality brought on fo much oppreffion and ill-treatment of the party obnoxious to the court, that the Houfe of Commons complained of it in their remondrance ao-ainfl the Duke of o 1 Hift. Colle&ions, vol. I. p. 412, 413. Buckingham, THE CONFESSIONAL. 141 Buckingham, June 1628™; and not long after, namely, January 28th, 1628-9, upon the motion of Sir John Elliot, entered into this remarkable vow: We the Commons in Parliament ajjfembled, do claim , protefl, and avow for truth, tbejenfe of i he articles cf religion, which were ejlablijhcd by parliament in the thirteenth year cf our late Queen Elizabeth, which, by the public acl of the church cf England, and by the general and current expojitions of the writers of our church, have been delivered unto us. And we rejeel the fenfe of the Jefuits and Armeni- ans, and all others, wherein they differ from usn. Whether either the King or the Houfe of Com- mons, in a feparate capacity, have a power to in- terpret the articles of religion for the people, will admit of a difpute ; but that this vow, or proteftation, confidered as an acl of (late, hath greatly the advantage of the declaration in que-* ftion, in point of authority, will admit of none. • It is equivalent at leafl to any other refoluiion of the Houfe of Commons. It is found among the mod authentic records of Parliament. And what- ever force or operation it had the moment it was publifhed, the fame it has to this hour; being never revoked or repealed in any fucceeding Par- liament, nor containing any one particular, which is not in perfect agreement with every part of our prefent conflitution, civil and religious. •" Rujbvsorth, vol. I. p. 621. * Ibid. p. 649. On i42 THE CONFESSIONAL. On the other hand, here is a namelefs, and* for aught that any one knows^ a fpurious decla- ration. It is a problem to this day in what reign it was fet forth; which is a circumftance hardly poffible, if any original record of it were forth-coming, with thofe iblemn atteflations ne- ceffary to give it the weight and authority of a royal mandate °. Not to mention thofe particulars • It is not eafy to fuppofe but there muft be fome printed copy of this Declaration ftill extant, of fufficient antiquity to afcertain, whether it was originally {et out by King James I. or King Charles I. And it were to be wifhed, that if any gentleman hath fuch ancient copy in his cuftody, he would favour the public with an account of it. On the other hand, it is next to incredible, that if any fuch copy had been eafily to be found, two fuch men as Bilhop Burnet and Dr. Nicbolls mould differ fo widely in their accounts of it. The former afcribes this Declaration to Charles, the latter to James. And that Declaration which Dr. Nicbolls afcribes to King Charlit I. cites the Bilhop of Chefter's judgement concerning the wifdom and moderation of the church of England ; of which Bilhop, or his judgement, there is not the leaft mention in the Declaration now prefixed to our articles, which Dr. Ni- cholls, and I think rightly, afcribes to King James. The inducement I have to agree with Dr. Nicbolls, is as follows! In 1628, King Charles, in a proclamation, calling in all the copies of Montague's Jppello Cafarem, declares, that, *' out of his care to maintain the church in the unity of «« true religion, and the bond of peace, to prevent unnecef- ■' fary difputes, he had lately caufed the articles of religion '• to be reprinted, as a rule for avoiding diverfities of opi- " nions." Rujhix>orth,vo\. I. p. 634. Now it is abfurd to fup- pofe, that the bare reprinting the xxxix articles only, would anfwer any fuch end, or, indeed, that copies of the articles fhould be fo very fcarce, as to require a new edition for in THE CONFESSIONAL. 143 in it, which are plainly repugnant to the prefent eftabli foment both in church and (late. It is indeed furprizing, that Bifhop Burnet, who well knew from what court-intrigues this declaration took its rife ; how grievoufly it was complained of by the Calviniits, and how effec- tually it was oppofed and difannulled by the above-mentioned vow, fhould lay the lead flrefs upon it. But not more furprizing, than that he Ihould afcribe the pacifying the difputes of thofe times, to " men's general acquiefcence, in being " left to fubfcribe the articles according to their " literal and grammatical fenfe." Hiftory gives us little reafon to believe, that thofe difputes the purpofes mentioned. Hence I conjecture, that King Charles reprinted his father's Declaration (the fame we new have) along with the articles, as more copies of the articles then extant undoubtedly wanted it, than had it. That this Declaration was published along with thefe reprinted arti- cles, appears from Sir John Elliots fpeech in parliament, the January following, who cites it thus : " It is faid," " (namely, in a Declaration he h*d juft mentioned) if there " be any difference of opinion concerning the fcafmable [perhaps reafonable J " interpretation of the xxxix articles, the " biihops and clergy in the convocation have power to dif- " pute it, and to order which way they pkafe." Rujhnxjorth, vol. I. p. 649. Now this particular is actually to be found in his Majetty's Declaration, as we no-iu have it. You will 'fay, perhaps, " And why might not this originally be King " Charles's own Declaration ?" I anfwer, it might be fo : but if it was, it is unaccountable his Majefly lhould not fay, in the palfage above-cited from the Declaration of 1628, he had caufed a Declaration, made and publifhed by himfelf, for the purpofes mentioned in the Proclamation, to K were 144 ™E CONFESSIONAL. were pacified in any degree worth mentioning. And if the difputants went off" from their Jierce- nefsj it was only becaufe of the tyrannical re- straint put upon one fuie. But of what nature and extent the acquiefcence has been in other refpects, is fufHciently evident, in almoft every controverfiai book that has been written in or fince thofe days, where the lead occafion or co- lour has been given to the difputant, to reproach the adverfe party with the infincerity of his fub- fcription. The Declaration flanding upon this infirm ground, it would be doing it too much honour to examine the contents of it, and to mew, what is really the truth, that, if there is in it either conliftency or common fenfe, it binds men to the avoidance ofdiveriities of opinion, and allows of as little latitude of fenfes, as the title of the articles itfelf: unlcfs there may be two, or two hundred, different fenfes of an article, each of which may be the true and usual, as well as the literal fenfe of it. There was a time indeed, when Biihop Burnet accounted for the laxity of the articles upon a dif- be printed and publifiied along with a new edition of the xxxix articles. Whereas, if yon fuppofe that the Declaration had been publifiied, and prefixed to the articles in his father's rei"-n, there would be no occaiion for a particular fpecifica- tion of that refcript, diftinft from the articles. It would be reprinted along with the articles of courfe, and be confidered za a part of the book of articles, as I fuppofe it is by fome people at this very day. ferent THE CONFESSIONAL. 145 ferent footing, which, however, he has not ven- tured to mention in this Introduction. In the fecond volume of his Hiflory of the Reforma- tion, p. 169, he informs his readers, " that upon " the progrefs of the Reformation, the German " writers, particularly Ofiandery Illyricus, and " Jmjlor/ius, grew too peremptory, and not only " condemned the Helvetian churches for differing " from them in the manner of Chrift's prefence " in the facrament, but were fevere to one ano- " ther for leffer punctilios, and were at this time " exercifing the patience of the great and learned " Melanclhon, becaufe he thought, that in things u in their own nature indifferent, they ought to " have complied with the Emperor. This made tl tbofe in England refolve on compojing thefe articles " with great temper in many fuch points ." The good Riihop, I am afraid, fays a good deal of this at random, or at lead upon plaufible con- jecture. A few pages before, he is evidenriy under great uncertainty, who compiled thefe ar- ticles. M He had often found it faid, that they " were framed by Cranmer and Ridley ; which ** he thinks more probable, than that they were " given out to feveral bifhops and divines, to de- i( liver their opinions concerning them." But, however, it might be the other wav. And being under this uncertainty, how could his Lordfhip undertake to fay with what temper they were compoied, or by what views or confiderations the compofers were influenced ? However, that they K 2 learned 146 THE CONFESSIONAL. learned any moderation from thefe inedifying contefts in Germany, or had refpecl: to the fuffer- ings of Melanclhon in tempering thefe articles, is rendered utterly incredible by the following facts. i. At the time referred to, viz. 1501, Melanc- thon was employed by Maurice Elector of Saxony, to draw up a confeflion of faith, to be exhibited at the council of Trent, on the behalf of the Saxon churches. In confequence of which, the principal divines, and prefidents of thofe churches, being affembled at Leipfic, this confeifton, which was no other than that of Augsburgh lbmewhat enlarged, was read to them, and fubfciibed by them, with great unanimity, and with very little oppofition^. So that this feafon, with refpecl to Melanclhon's difpute with Illy r km, &c. was a feafon of great tranquillity, the troubles with which his patience, and that of his brethren, was then exercifed, be- ing chiefly from the Papifts. 2. In the year 1548, the fecond of King Ed- ward's reign, " Archbifhop Cranmer was driving iC on a defign for the better uniting the Prote- " ftant churches, viz. by having one common " confeffion and harmony of faith and doctrine, " drawn up out of the pure word of God, which " they might all own and agree in." Melanclhon, among others, was confulted by Cranmer on this occafion ; and encouraged the Archbiihop to * H^jpnian, Hi ft. Sacrament, vol. ii. p. 373. go THE CONFESSIONAL. 147 go on with his defign, advifing him, however, " to avoid all ambiguities of expreflion ; faying, " that, in the church, it was beft to call a fpacle " a fpade, and not to call ambiguous words be- " fore pofterity, as an apple of contention." Tins advice he inculcates in a fecond letter, pro- pofing, " that nothing might be left under gc *' neral terms, but expreffed with all the perfpi- *' cuity and ciiHincTnefs imaginable." Some, it feems, thought it might be more conducive to peace, to fuiFer fome difficult and controverted points to pafs under dubious expreffions, or in the very words of fcripture, without any parti- cular decifive fenfe or explanation impofed upon them. u This Melanclbon was againft, faying, " that for his part, he loved not labyrinths ; and " that therefore, all his fludy was, that whatfo- " ever matters he undertook to treat of, they " might appear plain and unfolded. That this " was, indeed, the practice of the council of " 'Trent, which, therefore, made fuch crafty de- " crees, that they might defend their errors by " things ambiguoufly fpoken. But that this fo- w phiflry ought to be far from the church. That " there is no abfurdity in truth rightly propound- 11 ed : and that this goodnefs and perfpicuity of " things is greatly inviting, wherefoever there be " good minds r." 1 Stypes Memorials of Archbifhop Cranmer, p. 407, 408. K 3 Undoubt- 148 THE CONFESSIONAL. Undoubtedly Melanclhon was highly to be commended for his opennefs and fincerity. But affuredly the method propofed by him, was not the way to compofe differences of opinions, or to bring difagreeing parties to any temper upon dif- ficult and controvertible points. Mr. Strype thinks it probable, that Cranmer had confulted Melanclhon on this very point, and judges that Cranmer was the certain good man, mentioned by Bucer to Peter Martyr , as of opi- nion, u that ambiguous forms of fpeech, which " might be taken in a larger acceptation, was the " bell means of ending the great controverfy *.' concerning the real prefence, and of reftoring i{ peace to the church." Now, whoever had not, Cranmer certainly had a principal hand in fram- ing K. Edward's articles ; and how likely it was that he fhould compofe them with any temper, in view either of the fentiments or the fituation of Melanclhon, the foregoing particulars may ferve to ihew. 3. At the very time that Melanclhon wrote thefe letters to Cranmer, he was in the heat of the difpute he had with Iltyricus, concerning the con- ceflions he thought fhould be made to the Em- peror, in reference to the fcheme of pacification called the Interim. Thefe conceffions, however, concerned only fome rites and ceremonies, which he thought were void of fuperftition and idolatry ; but which, in the opinion of II/yricus, ought to THE CONFESSIONAL. 149 be oppofcd to the death. But, for matters of doftrinc, Mclanftbon was as ftiif and peremptory as 11/yriciis himfclf. He was the perfon who ma- naged the conferences on the fubjecl: of the Inte- rim with the Emperor's Commiffioners ; and par- ticularly wrote the Cenfure upon it; and, indeed, from the year 1544 to the end of his life, con- ftantly maintained, that all matters of faith and doc/trine, and particularly upon the facrament, mould be clearly exprefTed, and without any fo- phiilry or ambiguity whatibever *. s Boyle's Di 1707, p. 1 2. Btfides what this venerable man had feen with his own eyes, his particular ftudies had opened to him a melancholy view of the woeful efTefts of thefe fyftematical felts, from the very time of their commencement in Proteftant churches which he, as a true friend to his own church, has communi- cated for her ufe, but hitherto to very little purpofe. out JUE CONFESSIONAL. 155 out of his fenfes, he would be willing to under- {land him with any favourable allowance, rather than fufpect him of advancing a palpable untruth, for the fake of ferving a prefent turn. And, therefore, when my aftonifhment (occa- fioned by the fudden recollection of many things' I had read in the authors referred to in the mar- gin d) had a little fubfided, I began to cad about how this writer's afTertion might be made con- fident with the real truth of the cafe ? The firft expedient for this purpofe, which oc- curred to me, was, that this avoidance of di- verfity mufl be underflood of a fimple filence and acquiefcence on either fide, in fome common and unforced conftru&ion, which, as he has ex- preffed it, the words of the article might be ?nade to bear. But, befides that I could fee no differ- ence between this plan of peace and Bifhop Bur- net's literal and grammatical fenfes, I found it afterwards to be this author's aim to prove, that none of the articles had, or was ever underflood to have, a double meaning. Nor, indeed, admitting fuch double meaning, could the articles be faid to have prevented diverfity of opinions, in any degree. d Rogers's Preface to his Expofition. Fuller's Church- Hiflory. Heylins Quinquarticular Hiftory. Hickman's Anfwer. Prynne's And arminianifm. — Dr. Ward's Letters to Archbifhop Ufier, apud Parr's Life. — Bifhop Barhiu's Re- mains. Edwards's Veritas Redux. Bilhop Daveaata'j Pieces. Montague's and Carlt.ns Controverfy, and an hun- dred more. After 156* THE CONFESSIONAL. After many fruitlefs trials, methought I dif- cerned the healing quibble lurking under the words in the church : the author, I fuppofe, being of opinion, that whoever difputed the iingle or- thodox fenfe of an article, was really not in, but cut of the churchy in confequence of the ipfofaclo- excommunication mentioned in the 5 th of our canons ; which would leave none in the church, but fuch as were all of a mind. And indeed I very much incline ft 1 11 to adhere to this folution of the difficulty, the rather, as there is no other way of fecuring the veracity of another orthodox brother, and refpectable con- temporary of our own, the late reverend Mr. John White, B. D. who hath laboured with great zeal and earncftnefs in the fame occupation of defending fubferiptions; and to this /even/core years of peace and reft, hath, without the lead hefitation, added forty /even more. The cafe with Mr. White was this : Dr. Sa- muel Chandler, at the end of his pamphlet inti- tuled, The Cafe of Subfcription, he. calmly and impartially reviewed, publifhed 1748, had printed the fpeech of the famous Mr. Turretine, fpoken to the Leifer Council of Geneva, June 29, 1706, touching fubfeription to the Formula Confcnfus : the effect of which oration was, that all fubferip- tions to human formularies were thenceforward abolifhed by public authority; a promife only being required inftead thereof, that the perfon to THE CONFESSIONAL. 157 to be admitted to the function either of minifter or profeflbr, would teach nothing, either in the church or academy, contrary to the faid Cotifenfus, or the Confeflion of the Gallican church, for the fake of peace c. This precedent Dr. Chandler I n a pamphlet publilhed 17 19, intituled, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Tong, Sec. occajionid by the late differences ammo the Dijlnters, an account is given of this abolition .of fub- fcriptions, different from this of Dr. Chandlrr, but not Iefi honourable to the magiftrates of Geneva, to the following ef- f«sft : " In the year 1706, a Divine of Neufchatel, Mr. Jacques " Vialde Beaumont, a very worthy Minifter of the Gofpe], be- 41 ing called to Geneva toexercife hisminiilry there, was r.e- ** quired to fubferibe that numerous fet of articles [the Cun- * /enfitj]. Mr. Beaumont, initead of fubferibing as required, " wrote to the following purpofe: Tkejc I ajjent to, as far as " they agree nuith the holy fcriptures, which I believe to be the ** 'word of God. I will always teach what God Jhall teach me " from thence ; and will never, knowingly, maintain or teen b u any thing contrary thereunto." After fome debates and ap- ** peals from one affembly to another, aform was agreed upon, 0 much to the fame purpofe as that of Mr. Beaumont. To which •' was added indeed an exhortation not to teach any thing coo- *' trary to the decifions of the Synod of Dart, the forty Arti- " cles of the French churches, or the Catechiffn of Geneva, " for the fake of keeping peace and union in the church," pag. 77. The material difference between this account of the abolition of fubferiptions at Geneva, and that of Dr. Chandler, is, that what the latter fays \va6 a promife required of the can- didate, the other makes to be only an exhortation from the minillry. A difference indeed far from inconfidcrable : and, as I remember, Dr. Chandler was reminded, in a printed let- ter addrefled to him about that time, " That, while this " prom ft was infilled upon, he [Chandler] had no great room " to boaft as he does of the moderation of the church of Qe~ failed i58 THE CONFESSIONAL. failed not to recommend, as a very proper one for the church of England to follow; which pro- voked the abovementioned Mr. White to make the following reply : " Becaufe they [the Divines of Geneva] or " mofl of them, had fwerved from the doctrines u which they were called to afTent and fubfcribe " to, and were therefore uneafy till their fub- " fcriptions were removed, are we to be called " upon to remove ours I we who have no fuch " trouble and divifion among ft us, upon the points " to be ajfented and fubfcribed to f I" rt neva, fuch a promife, in faro cotifcientia, amounting to lit— *' tie lefs than a formal fubfcription." This objection does not affecl a fimple exhortation, againit which a teacher, who fhould think differently from his exhorters, would always have an unanfwerable remonurance from Afis iv. 19. With refpeft to the matter of fa&, it is difficult, if not impoffible, to decide whether Dr. Chandler or Mr. Tong'j correfpondent were better informed. The latter, indeed, acknowledges, the had not received an txacl account how the matter was tranfacled at Geneva. Dr. Chandler, as coming fo long after him, fhould know more of the matter; and that throws the probability on the fide of the promife. But then can any one imagine, that Mr. Beaumont, who undertakes to teach what God Jhould teach him from ihefcriptures, would bind himfelf by a promife, which might very poffibly oblige him to fupptefs what God fhould teach him ? Perhaps there may be a myflery in this, which our Diffenters chufe not to reveal. All re- ligious fbcieties have their diropfflu. f A Letter to the reverend Dr. Samut! Chandler, occasioned by his late Difcourfe, intituled, The Cafe of Subfcription, &c. page 7 1. 3 This THE CONFESSIONAL. 159 This is an home pufh indeed, and wants only the fingle circumftance of truth, to intitle it to the honour of deciding all future controverfy concerning fubfcriptions, in the church of Eng- land. But in good earned; could Mr. White be ignorant of the trouble which Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whifton met with, for their deviations from the fenfe of the eighth, and fome others of our arti- cles ? Had he never heard of the controverfy concerning Arian fubfeription ? Could he, could any man, who has read a twentieth part of our controverfies fince the commencement of the current century, be ignorant, that this reproach of going againft their fubfcriptions, has been caft in the teeth of our moil eminent writers, and that too in the mod opprobrious terms 2 r* £ " The unchriftian art of confeffing the faith without be- •' lieving it; an art which, I am forry to fay, has of late " been brought to its utmoft perfection." Archdeacon Brydg es's Charge, 1721, p. g. See likewife a book intituled Opbiomacbes, vol, ii. from p. 292. to 300. where great free- doms of this kind are taken with fome of the greateft names then in our country. The late controverfies occafioned by Dr. Middletons Free Inquiry; Free and candid Difquifit 'ions ; EJfay on Spirit, &c. furnifh more initances flill. Nor hath Mr. White himfelf with-held his mite from this collection. " It is commonly fuppofed," fays he, " that the Creeds and " Articles of the church of England are fubferibed only by " the clergy of the church of England. But be it known to " all the people of Great Britain, that there if not in the " kingdom one dilfenting minifter, who has complied with L And i6o THE CONFESSIONAL. And is there, all this while, no trouble or divijion among us, upon the points to be affented and Jubfcribed to? Why, no. The words we and us, in the above-cited paffage, relate to no body but the orthodox, who have all along been unanimous m iheir opinions : while they who have oecafioned thefe troubles and divifions, and railed thefe doubts concerning points of doctrine in the Ar- ticles, are not allowed to belong to this feletl number, although they continue to minifter in the church of England, and fome of them, per- haps, to minifler in the higheit flations of it. That this is Mr. White's meaning (whatever that of the Convocation-man might be) is pretty clear from the renor of his expoftulation with his difTenting adverfary : " Did the church," fays he, Commentary on the Articles, &c. p. 3. col. 1. « No," THE CONFESSIONAL. i6$ ". No," fays the Doctor, " becaufe the thing " is impoilible." But what then? The impoffi- bility of the thing is no proof that the compilers of our Articles did not defign it. How did the Doctor know, but thefe fathers of our church might think the thing very poffible? Or how fhall we know what they did or did not deftgn> but by their words and declarations ? The com- pilers themfelves tell us, that the defign of the Articles was to avoid diverfities of opinions. Dr. Nicholls comes 150 years after them, and affirms this could not be the defign of them. Which of them is the credible evidence ? The Doctor is of opinion, " that fome of thefe " Articles were purpofely cjrawn up in general " terms, [i. c. in terms admitting feveral fenfes] " becaufe they who compiled and firfl fubfcribed " them, were of different opinions," " Some of thefe Articles." — We defire to know which of them ? and how the Articles which were purpofely fo drawn up, may be diflinguifhed from thofe which were not ? For the different fentiments of thofe who compiled and firfl fub- fcribed thefe Articles, if it prove any thing relative to the defign of the Articles, will prove, that no Ids than tl^e whole fet were purpofely drawn up in general terms, at leafl if the Doctor has given 14s a true account of the men, to whofe fentiment: they were to be accommodated. " Some of « them," fays he, " learned their divinity from I- 3 «' the. 1*4 THE CONFESSIONAL. " the fathers, without any relation had to the " doclrines of modern Divines. Some went up-? " on the foot of Luther's and Melancthoifs doc- " trine. Others were perfectly wedded to Cal- s: yin's divinity, and, perhaps, not a little to his " form of church-difcipline. Some were for a " real, though undeterminable, prefencem the Eu- i( charift ; whilft others thought Chriff/s body u was only there by figure and reprefentation." After which he goes on to ark, " Can any one " fay that thefe feveral perfons held no cliverfity " of opinions?" Rather, can any one fay, that all thefe feveral perfons were agreed upon any one point, delivered in any one Article of the whole thirty-nine ? And if none of them would agree to the pairing fuch Article or Articles, as excluded his or their own opinion ; the probability is, that all and every of the Articles were purpofely drawn up in general terms, as nothing lefs would make room for the heterogeneous opinions of fuch a number of men, educated in fo many different fy items. But mark how plain a tale will deftroy this fpecious hypothefis. The articles were compiled by Cranmer, and at the moll with the help of one or two of his particular friends. And thefe, put of all doubt, were all of a mind. They were then laid before the council, and by them approved, and ratified by the King. They were, finally, introduced into the convocation, not to receive any fynodkal authority there, but to be agreed THE CONFESSIONAL. 165 agreed to by fubfcriprion. And let men's pri- vate opinions be what they would, when they were given to underftand that court-favour and church-preferment would depend upon their com- pliance, we ma)' judge in part, from what hap- pens in our own times, that the diflenters would not be the majority : which yet might poflibly be the cafe, as it by no means appears that the fir ft fubfcribers were all, or molt of them, mem- bers of the convocation k. Dr. Nicholls fuffered himfelf to be impofed upon in this matter, by the fabulous account of Peter Heylin, a man loft to all fenfe of truth and modefty, whenever the in- terefts or claims of the church came in queftion l. Well, but if the compilers made the matter fo eafy to men of all forts of opinions, fubfcription would not give the church fufficient hold of thole who are put to this teft. This the Doctor fore- faw, and therefore puts in his cautions in time. " Men muft not indulge fanciful glo/fes, or " wire-draw the words in the articles to unreafon- " Ablefenfes." But if the cafe really is what the Doctor hath reprefentcd it to be, I do not fee how this is to be helped. Would not every Calvinijl among the k See the proofs of this collected together, in An hijlorical and critical Ej/ay on the Thirty-nine Articles, &c. printed for Francklyn, 1 724. Introduction, p. 2, 3. 1 ** Our firit reformers, out of Peter Hey/ins angry (and, ** to our church and truth, fcanJalous) writings, are made " fanaticks" Bifhop Barlow's Genuine Remains, Ed. 1695, p. 18 z. I, 4 firfll i66 THE CONFESSIONAL. jfirft fubfcribers, think the fenfe of the Arminian, or (as they then were called) the Freewiller, an unreafonable fenfe f And if the article expreffed the fenfe of the Cahinifi naturally and plainly, would he not call the different fenfe put upon it by the other party a fanciful glofs ? The com- pilers, it is plain, have left us no criterion in this matter. And if the articles were left fo open and indeterminate as the Doctor's fcheme fuppofes, no man can pretend to fay what fenfes are unrea- fonable -y unlefs the Doctor would have faid that all fenfes but his own, are unreafonable, and then there is an end of all latitude. " He thinks the force of King James's Declara- " tion did not, nor was defigned to extend farther '* than his own time — and that, perhaps, Bifhop " Bumet might extend the rule of fubfcribing (in " any literal grammatical fenfe) he drew from it, " too far." Bifhop Burnet might be to blame, for drawing a rule of acting from a refcript of no authority;, but undoubtedly, if the articles were purpofely drawn up in general terms, that is, fo as to ad- mr of a confcientious fubfcription by the men of all thofe different opinions the Doctor has men- tioned, the rule itfelf cannot poffibly be extend- too far. Obferve, however, that Bifhop &/r- i knew of no authority or foundation for this rule, but the King's Declaration. This our Doc- tor, indeed, hath reprobated ; but, however, we have no reafon to complain of his abridging our liberty, as will appear by the following inftance. Bifhop THE CONFESSIONAL. 167 Bifhop Burnet had obferved, that, according to the form of fubfcription prelcribed in the 36th canon, namely, "I fubfcribe willingly, and ex ant- u mo, the party fubfcribing declared his ownopini- " on, or, in Dr. Bennetts language, declared that " he believed the articles to be true infome fenfe." " But," fays Dr. Nicholh, « tho' I am not al- " together different from his Lordfliip's judge- •* ment in this matter, I am not fo well fatisfied tc with the reafon he grounds it upon. For ex " ammo, in that place, does not fignify according " to my opinion, or, as I firmly believe, but readily " and heartily. For this form of fubfcription is " not a form of fubfcription to the thirty-nine " articles, but to the three articles contained in " that canon, which are not fo much arricles of *< opinion, as of confent ; and the fubfcription to " them declares, not what the fubfcriber believes, " but what he confents to." Nicely diftinguifhed indeed! fo, according to this cafuiftry, a man may, by his fubfcription, confent to what he does not believe. For this being the only form of fubfcribing the articles now in ufe, and the verbal declaration profufling no more than affent and confent to the articles, we are no more bound, by our fubfcription, to bc- lieve the thirty-nine articles to be true, than if they were fo many proportions taken out of the Koran. And yet, immediately afterwards, Dr. Nicholh fays, " The fubfcriber ought to affent to each ar- " tide, i6S THE CONFESSIONAL. " tide, taken in the literal and grammatical " fenfe." — But why ought he? or what bufmefs has he with the fenfe of the articles, who may give fuch an affent and confent to them as does not imply belief? But it is quite neceffary to take thefe gentle- men, every one in his own way. Bifhop Burnet had faid, that men might confcientiouily fub- fcribe to any literal or grammatical fenfe, the words of any article would fairly bear ; but he had not faid what was meant by literal and gram- matical fenfes. This fell to the fhare of Dr. Nicholls, by whom we are informed from Grotius, " that the gram- " matical fenfe is twofold, fen/us grammatical'^ ab *( origine, and jenfus grammaticalis popular is ', the " latter of which only is to be allowed in the " interpretation of any law, or writing; for, " continues the Doctor, to take words in their " firjl original fignification, which by length of " time they have much varied from, may carry " them off to a fenfe very different from what " they were firii intended; therefore the expref- u fions mull be taken in the plain common fenfe "' thev are generally ufed in, or were ufed in at " at the time of making fuch law or writing. " The former part of this obfervation we rea* dily allow. If the framers of a law, or a writ- ing, make ufe of words in a fenfe different from the origina' grammatical fenfe of fuch words, it THE CONFESSIONAL. i69 mud be prefumed that it is becaufe fuch words have deviated, in popular life, to a fenfe differ- ent from the original fenfe. In which cafe, the fenfe of the framers, or compofers of fuch law or writing, is to be adopted. But it will not there- fore follow, that fuch words or expreffions are to be taken in the fenfe they are now generally ufed in. Becaufe the popular grammatical fenfe in which the words dare generally use now, may not be the fame popular grammatical fenfe, in which thofe words were ufed when the law or writing was made. In all fuch cafes, we mult recur to the fenfe of the author or the lawgiver ; or elfe the law or the writing cannot be underflood; and the modern fenfe of words may, in forne cafes, carry us as far befrde the in- tention of the author or the lawgiver, as the ori- ginal fenfe would do. For example; whatever the original grammati- cal fenfe of the word confent might have been, it is certain that the compilers of our articles meant by it, a confent of belief, or a perfeel agreement of opinions: and when fubferibers were afterwards required to give their confent to the articles, there can be no doubt but fuch a confent was intend- ed as is fpeciiied in the title, namely, fuch a confent as was necefTary for the avoiding divcrfi- ties of opinions. Dr. Nicholls, on the other hand, finds, that confent may now lignify a confent or acqiricfcence only, with which opinions and belief have little to do; i7o THE CONFESSIONAL. do ; and for this fenfe he accordingly contends. But with the word luck in the world ; for the thing, with refpect to which this confent is to be eftablijhedy happens to be true religion; and we may be pretty confident that the compilers never intended that a confent in true religion > which did not imply belief and conviction, mould be accepted as fufEcient to anfwer the end of fub- fcribing the articles. By the Doctor's diftinguifhing grammatical fenfes into original and -popular, and forming his rule of interpretation upon that diftinftion, one would think that the grammatical fenfe of words, in any law or writing, could be but one. And yet he agrees with the Bilhop of Sarum, " ihatfe've- " ral grammatical fenfes may fometimes very " fairly be put upon expreffions in the articles." But if you may put both the original and popular fenfe upon the fame words, of what ufe is the distinction ? or what fenfe is there in his rule of interpretation ? If, indeed, as the Doctor fuppofes, the com- pilers purpofely drew up fome of the articles in general terms, they undoubtedly left room to put fever al grammatical fenfes upon the fame words ; but then, how fhall we know, which of thefe is the popular grammatical fenfe, in which only the law (or, in this cafe, the article) is to be inter* preted ? To folve this difficulty, the learned Doctor in- forms us, that " a Law is to be interpreted ac- " cording THE CONFESSIONAL. 171 ** cording to the mind of the legiflator ; fo that, st if the compilers of the Articles have exprefled " themfelves obfcurely in any place, that is to " be explained, by what we find to have been " their avowed opinion, or by fome other place " of their writings, or authentic books, where " they have exprefled themfelves clearly?* But here it is evidently fuppofed, that the ob- fcurity in the article does not arife from the ge- neral terms in which it is purpofely worded, but from fome accidental inaccuracy of the compilers, whofe avowed opinions, in their authentic books, are likewife fuppofed to be uniform, and con- fident with each other. Otherwife, nothing can be more perplexing to the party who wants to have the difficulty cleared up, than the expedient here recommended. For example : According to the Doclor, fome of the articles are drawn up in general terms, on purpofe to receive the different fenfes which the compilers, who were of different opinions, might think fit refpectively to put upon them. Hence arifes anobfcurity of expreflion, which the fubfcriber to fuch Articles wants to have cleared up. He confults the authentic books of a Lw thcran compiler, and there he finds the obfcurity cleared up, according to the fyftem that compiler had efpoufed. But the Calvini/l compiler hath likewife written authentic books, of equal au- thority with thofe of the Luthenm, and he un- 7 folds i72 THE CONFESSIONAL* folds the my fiery in a fenfe juft contrary to that given by the Lutheran. What fliall the fcrupu- lous and detracted fubfcriber do in fuch a cafe ? or what expedient of elucidation mall he fall up- on next I But, indeed, what the good Doctor means is only this, that, if you will allow him to point out the avowed opinions of the compilers, and to direct you to the authentic books you are to confult, he will lead you out of all obfcurity, to a clear, confident fenfe of an article, even though it mould be drawn up in terms fufEciently gene- ral, to admit of an hundred different grammatical fenfes. This is plain from the inflance he brings to il- luftrate his general doctrine above recited, which is too curious to be paffed by. It is taken from the twenty-third Article, which fays, That we ought to judge thofe lawfully called and fent, which be called and chofen to this work [of the miniftryj by men who have public authority given them in the congregation, to call and Jhidminiflers. The plain, and, if you will, the grammatical meaning of which words is, that there is a public authority in every Chriflian church, to appoint the particular perfons who are to miniiter in that church, exclufive of all others ; and that they, and they only, who are fo appointed, are lawfully called and fent. " And THE CONFESSIONAL. 173 " And yet," fays Dr. Nicholls, " there can be " no doubt made, but that by public authority the «' compilers meant the authority of Bifnops." But, if no doubt can be made of this, what {hall we fay of thofe compilers who perhaps, and of thofe fir/i fubferibers who certainly, were wed- ded to Calvin's form of church-difcipline? " Can " any one fay that they held no opinion diverfe " from this interpretation? or can any one think " that they would agree to the paffing this Ar- u tide, but that they thought it was conceived " in fuch general terms, that they might fub- " fcribe it with a good confeience, and without u equivocation?" Thefe are Dr. Nicho/Is's own queftions ; and any one has jufl as much right to afk them as he hadm. m This hath been reprefented as inconfiftent with what hath been faid before, concerning the retrained feofe of the articles, as the author feems here to be contending againft Dr.KiJjolls, for a latitude admiiiivc of more fenfes than one. But every candid and fenfible reader will eafily perceive that the appearance of inconfiilcncv arifes mereiy from the author's arguing here againfl Dr. Ntcholh, ad bominem, upon the Doctor's own principles. The fenfe of this article is only, that mimjlers may be lawfully called or fent without the Pope's authority ; and was directed folely againit the contrary doc- trine, and might be fubferibed by any Proteitant minifter, whether Epifcopal or not. " The Papills," fays old Rogers, (fpcaking of the adverfaries to the truth of this article) **. al- " beit they allow the afiertion, yet take they all minirters 5 Let i74 THE CONFESSIONAL. Let us afk another queftion. Have any of the Compilers interpreted this Article as Dr. Nicholh has done ? No : Cranmer, and his fellow-compi- lers of the Articles, (be they more or fewer) are well known to have held a friendly correfpond- ence with the great founders and fupporters of other Proteflant churches abroad ; who had the misfortune (if it is one) to think there might be a lawful call to the miniftry, without a Prelacy. It is even notorious, that the opinion of thefe foreign Divines was afked by our EngliJJj Re- formers, concerning the methods they fhould take in fettling both matters of doctrine and difcipline in their own church. And can it be fuppofed that Granmer meant to fay, that the minifters in thefe foreign churches had no lawful calling f Dr. Nicholls himfelf well knew, they neither faid it, nor meant it. And therefore, inftead of referring us to their avowed opinions, or their authentic books, as his pofition required he fhould do, he appeals to a matter of fact, namely, " that neither by the laws of the church, or by " to be violves, hirelings, laymen, and intruders, who are no " facrificing priejls, anointed by fome antichrijlian bijbop of " the Romijb fynagogue," referring to Cone;/. Trid. Sejf. 7. Can. 7. As to what he fays before, of the Anabaptifts, Fa- 7nilifts, and Bronunijls, as if the article had fome refpect to them, it is a mere dream of his own. The article is copied word for word from the 24th of King Edward's articles of 1552, when Familijls and Broiunijls were unheard of, and when no difturbance was given, or apprehended, from the Anabaptijls) in this country. * « the THE CONFESSIONAL. 175 " the laws of the realm, any public authority is t( granted to any other than Bifhops, to call or " fend minifters into the Lord's vineyard :" as if the compilers confidered only what was lawful in this refpe<5l by the m>/7conftitution and human laws of England \ or as if the Lord had no vine- yard but in Britain. But indeed, if we go back to the times of the compilers, the fadl: itfelf is not true. For, even fo late as the 13th of Eliz. " every perfon under " the degree of a bifhop, which did or Ihould pre- " tend to be a pried or minifter of God's holy " word and facraments, by reafon of any other f* form of injlitution, confecration, or ordering, than " the form fet forth by Parliament, in the time " of the late King of moft worthy memory, King t{ Edward VI. or [by any other form, than the " form] now ufed in the reign of our moft gra- " cious fovereign Lady, — " if he took care, be- fore the Chriftmas next enfuing the paffing this Act, to qualify himfelf by fubfcription, &c. as is therein directed, was deemed, by the ecclefiaftical as well as the civil laws of the realm, to be fufH- ciently called and fetit, to enjoy a benefice, and exercife the function of a minifter of God's word and facraments, in the church of England itfelf. And there is no doubt but that hundreds, both in King Edward's and in Queen Elizabeth's reign, miniftered in the church of England as legal Pa- M ftors, i76 THE CONFESSIONAL. ftors, who had no epifcopal ordination ; which would never have been fuffered, if the doctrine either of the church or ftate was what Dr. M- cholWs interpretation of this Article fuppofes. it to have been. If indeed you take the faft as Dr. "Nicholh has ftated it, and confider the grounds and principles upon which it ftands, it might perhaps turn out, that the Article cannot be confcientioufly fub- fcribed by any one, but a downright Eraftian ; which however I would leave to the determina- tion of the judicious reader, after he has duly and ferioufly weighed the following honed remark of Bifhop Burnet upon this twenty-third Article : " They who drew this Article," fays his Lord- ibip, " had the ftate of the feveral churches be- " fore their eyes that had been differently re- " formed; and although they had been lefs forced " to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet " they knew that all things among themfehes had " not gone according to thofe rules, that ought to U. be facred in regular times." And fo, wanting grains of allowance themfelves, it was their bufi- neis and their wifdom to give them to others. Turn we now to another church-champion of cafuiflical memory, the famous Dr. Bennet, whofe doublings and refinements upon the Articles are lb various and intricate, that it would be an end- lefs tafk to follow him through them all. A few of them may ferve for a fample of the fpirit which THE CONFESSIONAL. 177 which pofTeffcth thofe who undertake to defend human eftablifhments at all adventures. It appears in Dr. Bennet's Directions for Jiu* dying the thirty-nine Articles, &c. published in 1 7 14, that the faid Do&or was perfectly ac- quainted with the fenfe of the church upon them all : which he accordingly opens to his young fludent, fometimes contrary to the mod obvious and natural import of the words. In one place, Where he gives an interpretation of this fort, he adds, t( This was infallibly the meaning of " the compilers of our Articles, and they mujl be " underftood in this fenfe1." Upon the third Article he fays, " The church " excludes that fenfe of the word Hell, which " fays, that by Hell is meant The Grave •" con- trary to Bifliop Burnet, Dr. Nicholls, Dr. Clarke, and many more. Upon the ninth he fays, '* The church does not " mean, that original fin defer ves God's wrath " and damnation in infants which die before the " rational faculties exert themfelves ;'. and he fays, " That they who believe and fubferibe the " Article in this fenfe, believe and fubferibe. more " than the church teaches or requires." Nota bene ; The Article fays in exprefs words, * Original (the title adds, or birth) Jin deferveth " God's wrath and damnation, in every per/on t( born into the world." 1 Page 6t. upon the fixth Article. ]\i 2 Upon i78 THE CONFESSIONAL. Upon the eleventh Article he obferves, " That " our church's intention and doctrine about Juf- t( tification by faith, are abundantly manifeft, ff though they ^re unhappily worded?' Which he explains by telling us, " that the church expref- 1* fed the real truth in St. Paul's own phrafe, " but in a fenfe fomewhat different from what " he [the Apoflle] did molt' certainly intend " thereby111." Qu. How far may a man fafely fubfcribe this Article, as being agreeable to the word of God f Upon the thirteenth Article he fays, " That, " though the church makes ufe of the foftening i( comparative words yea rather, and we doubt " not but, yet, the Latin word for rather being u immoy the church directly affirms, that works " done before the grace of Chri/i have the nature "of fin." The Doctor inquires, in another work, to what edition of the Articles we are obliged to fubfcribe, by the aft of the 13 Eliz. chap. 12 n? The Doctor determines for the new Engliflo tranjlation, to which C)ueen Elizabeth's ratification is an- nexed, and which, out of all difpute, has the "> Perhaps the Apoftle pur^oftly delivered this do&rine in fuch exprejfwns as would admit of different interpretations, to ac- commodate THE church with a 'variety to choofe out of, though he did not leave fuch choice to each particular per/on. See Dr. Rutberfortlj's Vindication, &c. p. 12. * Eflay on thirty-nine Articles, chap. xxx. foftening THE CONFESSIONAL. 179 foftening comparative words. We are not obliged therefore, by the datute above-mentioned, to take any notice of the word inuno, although it carries along with it the church's direcl affirma- tion But, to accumulate no more indances, Upon the feventecnth Article, he fays, " He il is fo clear that the church condemns the notion " of abfolute predejtination in her Liturgy, that, " if that was his notion, he could not fubfcribe " to the ufe of the Liturgy. And with this the " Article muji fo confident." He fhould have faid, a mud be made confident ;" for which edi- fying purpofe, the Doctor has taken a great deal of fruitlefs pains, to fhew that the Article is in perfect agreement with Arminius upon the fame fubjeft. From thefe particulars it appears, that, in the year 17 14, Dr. Bennet was intimately acquainted with the fenfe of the church, upon the obfcured and mod ambiguous of the thirty-nine Articles ; and accordingly communicated his difcoveries with great freedom, and fometimes fo, that the literal import of the words of the Article was by no means favourable to his condruction. And where was the ufe or the pertinence of all his labour, if his young dudent was not given to underdand by it, that he mud fubfcribe the Articles in thefe very fenfes, exclufive of all others? M 3 And iSo THE CONFESSIONAL. And yet, the very next year, viz. 17 15, the very fame Dr. Bennet, in the $$& chapter of hi$ Effay on the thirty-nine Articles, in anfwer to Priejicraft in Perfection, undertaking to enquire (by what temptation infatuated does not appear) iv hat liberty the church allows io the fubfcribers of the Articles? anfwers, that" The Church does not " retrain us to the belief of any one Article or " Propofition, in any particular fenfe , farther than iC we are confined by the words themfelves." As much as to fay, that, where the words do not confine us, the church has no particular fenfe of her own. Contrary to his repeated interpreta- tions in his Directions, where he over and over exhibits the church's fenfe, againfl the confine- ment of the words themfelves ; and contrary to his Majefty's Declaration, which the Doctor hath acknowledged for an authentic public act0; for, ihould the Doctor have been afked, in what fenfe men are allowed to fubfcribe ? muft he not, to preferve his felf-confiftency, have anfwered, r in ** any fenfe of our own, which we believe to be true, " and which the conftruction of the words will f* admit of ?'? (f When an Article, or Propofition," fays the Doctor, " is fairly capable of two different fenfes, ," I would fain know who has power to determine *' which is the church's fenfe ?" When the Doctor wrote his Direclions, &c. he thought he himfelf had this power ; upon the 0 Effiy on the thirty-nine Articles, p. 423. iuppofitiqn, THE CONFESSIONAL. 181 fuppofition, I imagine, that the church had left no article or proportion capable of two different fetifei. If indeed fuch articles or propofitions are left ambiguous, and, particularly if (according to Dr. Nicbolls) they are fo left of fet purpofe, I do not know who has any power to determine that the church, in fuch articles or propofitions, had any fenfe at all. Be it obferved, by the way, that Dr. Bennet perfectly ridicules Dr. Nicholls's expedient of con- futing the writings of the compilers of the Ar- ticles, for the purpofe of clearing up obfcurities in them. " For," fays he, " did they write [their " books] by authority ? or were all that lived in " their time of the fame opinion ? Might not " the Convocation themfelves differ as much as *' the words [of the Articles] are capable of ad- " mitting ?" In the 33d chapter of the fame Effay, the Doctor undertaking to prove, (and meaning to prove no more than) that they who fubfcribe the Articles, are obliged to believe them true mfcme fenfe ; he hath brought arguments, which prove (if they prove any thing) that fuch fubfcribers are obliged to believe them not only true, but true in one and the fame fenfe, exclufive of all others ; or which prove, that no proportion in the Arti- cles has more than one fenfe. And thus Dr. Bennet is not only againft Dr. Nicbolls, as to the point of M 4 a confent 182 THE CONFESSIONAL. a confent of acquiefcence, but againfl himfelf in the tenor of his whole 35th chapter. 1 . He argues from the title of the Articles, fi which," he obferves, " ihews them to be de- " figned to prevent dlverfities of opinions" But if two or two hundred men fubfcribe the fame propofition in different fenfes, the deftgn of the Articles is, with refpecl: to thefe fubfcribers, ab- folutely defeated. 2. He ariiues from the words of a canon made in the Convocation of 15 71, viz. Jta tamen, ut ■prius fubfcr ibant Articulis Chriftiana Religionis, pub lice in Sy?iodo approbates, jidemque dent,fe velle tucri 6? aefendere doctrinam eam qua in illis contineiur, ut consentientissimam veritati VERBI DIVINI. Now if the compofers of this canon, by doclri- nam earn, meant more than one doclrine upon one fubject, ihey exprefled themfelves very ill, both , as to grammar and fenfe. If the wording of any propofition admit of two or more do&rines or fenfes different from each other, as Dr. Bennet allows to be fairly poffible ; and more efpecially if (as Bifhop Burnet contends) thofe do&rines may be literally and grammatically contrary to each other ; how could they both or all be de- fended as mofi agreeable to the divine wordf The church declares, (lie herfelf may not, and there- fore certainly would not, fuffer her fons to inter- pret fcripture in a manner repugnant to itfelf, {Art. xx.] THE CONFESSIONAL. 183 \Art. xx.] And what are fubfcriptions in differ- ent fenfes, upon the principles of this canon, more or lefs than this? 3. The Doctor argues from a judgement at Common Law, reported by Lord Chief Juflice Coke, the fubftance of which is, " that if any " fubfcription is allowed which admits diverfity " of opinions, (to avoid which was the fcope of " the flatute 13 Eliz.) this Act touching fub- " fcriptions would be rendered of no effect p." 2. The cafe upon which this judgement was given, was, that " one Smith fubfcribed to the faid thirty-nine Articles ** with this addition, fo far forth as the fame were agreeable " to the 'word of God. Whereupon it was refolved by Wrayy '* Chief Juftice of the King's Bench, and all the Judges of " England, that this fubfcription was not according to the " Statute of 13 Eliz. becaufe the Statute required an abfolute " fubfcription. and this fubfcription made it co7iditional ; and " that this Act was made for avoiding diverfity of opinions, " &c. and by this addition, the party might, by his ovjn *' private opinion, take fome of them to be againft the word " of God ; and by this means diverfity of opinions mould " not be avoided, which ivas the fcope of the ftatute, and the " very Act itfelf made, touching fubfcription, of none ef- " fett." Bennetts EfTay, chap, xxxiii. p. 417. who cites Coke's Inftit. 4. cap. 74. p. 324. If one fhould hereupon afk, Does the church then, or the law, require fubfcription fxc!u/i be the fenfe of the compilers, and no other ; the declaration and fubfcriptioii to the Articles being enjoined by a law, which is nearly cosevat with the compilers themfelves. u Cafe of Arian Subscription, p. f. w Ibid. p. 11. * Cafe of Subfcription to the thirty-nine Articles, p. 3*. N 2 Jfc 194 THE CONFESSIONAL. In this the Doctor found hiinfelf obliged to ac- quiefce ; and, in his reply, " would not take up- u on him to determine what the Bifhops or the s< Legiflature might do 7." — So that, by this ter- giverfation, the natural and proper Jignification of words, and the intention of the impofers, are thrown quite out of the queftion ; and we are once more brought back to the fmgle fenfe of the compilers. For, if the Bifhops may not alter the fenfe of the Articles, in virtue of any power given them by the church, or even by the legiflature ; neither may the fubfcriber, upon pretence of giving a natural and proper iignification to the words. " The fenfe of the compilers and impofers," fays the Doctor, " where certainly known, muft " be religioufly obferved, even though the words " were capable of another fenfe V The fenfe of the impofers may be always cer- tainly known, and confequently, according to the Doctor, mult always be religioufly obferved *. y Supplement, p. 41. z Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 1 1. a " By impofers" fays Dr. Waterland, " I underftand the " governors in church and ftate for the time being." But how will it be poflible to know certainly the fenfe of our go- vernors in church and ftate, upon any one article of the whole xxxix? If we go t© them fparately, it is poflible they may give us different fenfes. If ' collecli'uely, or in their legiflative capacity, they would tell us, all that they impofe, is the ail of fubjcribing, and that if we want to know any thing concern- ing yky£; and intentions, we mull go to the minijierial impofers, Which THE CONFESSIONAL. 195 Which I mention (not that the fenfe of the im- pofers has any thing to do in the affair, but) to fhew how by this proposition the Doctor abridged his own liberty, when it came to his turn to plead for it. The cafe is this : The Doctor fays, " that diversity of opinions is in- " tended to be avoided with refpcct to points de- " termined b." Among points determined, the Doctor reckons the doctrine of the Trinity. But, pleading for a liberty to fubferibe the feventeenth and other Articles in an Arminian fenfe, he confiders thefe points as undetermined. Whereas, by taking in the fenfe of the impo- fers, the meaning of the Articles is determinable in all points ; becaufe the fenfe of the impofers may be always certainly known, whatever the fenfe of the compilers may be. " The Article in the Apoflles Creed, concern- il ing ChrilVs defcent into Hell, is now univerfally " underftood in a fenfe probably -different from " what the compilers of the Creed intended," fays the learned Dr. Clarke. " However that be," replies Dr. Waterland, " one thing is certain, that our church hath left " that article at large, intending a latitude ; and '; indulging a liberty to fubferibers to abound in " their own fenfe c." appointed to take the Subfcription ; that is to fay, the bifhops, whofe fenfe may always be certainly known. b Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. II. e Ibid. p. 35. N 3 Here, l96 THE CONFESSIONAL. Here, if you leave out the intention of die impofers, one thing is certain, that no latitude is left to the fubfcriber of the Article; the words hell and inferi never iignifying any thing in the days of the compilers, but the place of torment. If the intention of the impofers is taken into the account, another thing is certain, that no liberty is allowed to fubfcribers to abound in their own fenfe, unlefc, having deferted the fenfe of the compilers, they absolutely neglect the intention of die impofers, which may always be certainly known. Dr. Waterland indeed tries to falve all this, by faying, if that the fenfe of the compilers and im- M pofers may generally be prefumed the fame u (except in fome very rare and particular 7< cafes) d." Well then, may the impofers, in any of thefe rare and particular cafes, go againft the known, or even the prefumed fenfe of the compilers ? If rhey may, the Doctor fhonld have told us how they came by their authority; and why the im- pofers may not, upon equally good grounds, de- iert the compilers, in cafes neither rare noi parti- cular. Befides, one impofer may think that a rare and particular cafe, which to another is not fo. A third impofer may have his rare and particular cafes, different from them both j and fo a fourth 1 Cafe of Arum Subfcriptionj p, i it i and THE CONFESSIONAL. 197 and a fifth, till the fenfe of the compilers is thrown quite out of doors in every cafe. Dr. Waterland, in particular, had rare and particular cafes of his own, upon which he a&s the part of an impofer with no ill grace. Of the articles relating to the Trinity, the Doctor fays, " their fenfe is fixed, and bound u upon the confcience of every fubfcriber, by the both with the true friends of Chriftian liberty, and the partial and prejudiced retainers to church power. On which account it has been a great misfortune to the prefent generation, and will be a greater to the next, that thefe gentlemen did not (land aloof a little longer, till they had tried at lead what conceffions the church would have made them, rather than have wanted their fer- vices, which, under all di Advantages, have been fo great an honour and ornament to her. What might not the firmnefs of an Hales and a Cbillingworth formerly, or more lately of a CL.rke or an Hoadley, have obtained for us by this time? Which of us all, abufed and vilified as thefe men have been, by bigots of different clai- fes, would' have wiihed to have feen them in another communion ? And who is he that will affirm, the church cftabliihed has loft nothing by depriving thefe champions of the power of add- ing to their victories over the fpiritual tyranny of 220 THE CONFESSIONAL. of Rome, a complete and folid vindication of her own dodtrine, difcipline, and worfhip ? But that day is paft and gone beyond recall ; with this cold comfort indeed, that thefe worthy men have left their principles to thofe among us who are inclined to profit by them. From thefe principles, compared with their practice, we can- not but judge they were under fome fmall con- flraint, touching the fubjecl: now in hand. And if it fhould be found, upon a fair examination, that, for the fake of preferving the appearance of confiflency, they have fet their apologies for fub- fcribing in a light which has thrown back the real truth into fhade and obfcurity ; it is but juflice to bring it once more forward to public view; if haply a circumftance in our difcipline, which has more or lefs turned to our reproach with Diffen- ters of all denominations, may at length be either quite difcarded, or put into a condition fit to be owned by every hone ft man and fmcere Proteftant among us. The controverfy with Dr. Watcrland, concern- ing what he thought fit to call Arlan fubfcription, took its rife, it feems, from fome paffages in Dr. Clarke's Introduction to his Script ure-doffirine of the Trinity, wherein that learned and excellent perfon (confcious that the contents of his book would hardly be thought to agree with the efta- biifhed forms of the church) thought proper to apprize his readers, that the church of England did THE CONFESSIONAL. 221 did not mean more by fubfcription, nor require more of fubfcribers, rhan that they mould con- form their opinions to the true fenfe of fcripture ; the inveftigation of which fenfe, he fuppofes, was by the church left to the fubfcriber himfelf; otherwife, that the church muft be inconfiftent with her own plain and repeated declarations. With Dr. Clarke therefore we fhall begin, the rather as Dr. Clarke's reafonings upon this fubject have prevailed with fome to comply with the church's fubfcription., who are now ready to own that they think thofe reafonings infufHcient for their juflification. The Doctor's ft ate of the cafe then is briefly this : " At the Reformation, religion began to " recover, in a great meafure, out of the great <( Apoftacy : when the doctrine of Chrift and his " Apoftles was again declared to be the only rule " of truth, in which were contained all things " neceffary to faith and manners. And bad that " declaration ccnjlantly been adhered to, and human " authority in matters of faith been disclaimed in " deeds as well as in words, there had been " poflibly no more fchiims in the church of God, " nor divifions of any confiderable moment a- " mong Proteflants. — But, though contentions " and uncharitablenefs have prevailed in practice, Ct \ et (thanks be to God) the root of unity hath " continued amongft us ; and the fcripture hath " univerfally been declared to be th« only rule of " truth, 222 THE CONFESSIONAL. " truth, a fufficient guide both in faith and prac- " tice ; and thofe who differ in opinion, have " done fo only becaufe each party has thought " their own opinion founded in fcripture; and " men are required to receive things becaufe, " and only becaufe, they are found (and confe- u quently in no other fenfe than [that] wherein " they are found) in the holy fcriptures. Where- " fore, in any queftion of controverfy concerning " a matter of faith, Proteftants are obliged (for " the deciding of it) to have recourfe to no other " authority whatfoever, but that of fcripture "only b." This is fpecious : And the time was, as I faid, when, by this deduction of particulars, the DodTor feemed to me to be fairly entitled to his confe- quence ; which is, that a man may honellly fub- fcribe the thirty-nine Articles of the church of England, accommodated to the fenfe or fcripture, as he himfelf underftands it. And certainly words and oaths cannot difclaim human authority, in matters of faith, with more vehemence and precifion, whether on the part of the church, or fome of her mofl eminent doctors, than is done in the citations that follow this reprefentation. But, upon having recourfe to thefe paffages upon zfeccnd occafion, a fudden queftion forced itfelf upon me, and would take no denial ; viz. * Introjutt, to Script. Dodl. of the Trinity, Ed. 2. p. viii, How 23 THE CONFESSIONAL. 2 How (land the deeds in the church of England? Thefe words indeed are plain; but is there no- thing in the acts and deeds of this church, which implies that thefe are but words I And are there no other words, which directly unfay what is faid in thefe ? Why yes. It will be found, upon exa- mination, that the deeds of the church of Eng- land are very plain and ftrong on the fide of hu- man authority, difclaiming in their turn thefe verbal declarations of the Proteftant religion, by- many formal acts and ordinances, and contraven- ing them in fome inftances, where there feems to be fome outward refpect paid to them. Men, it is true, are required to receive things for no other given caufe, and upon no other de- clared authority, than becaufe they are found in fcripture, and in no other fenfe but that in which they are faid to be fo found. But, in facl, we are allowed to receive thefe things in no other fenfe, than that in which the church declares fie hath found them herlelf ; which is fometimes a fenle, that the perfon obliged to receive it is not able to find, let him fearch for it with ever fo much capacity and diligence. So drat, though Proteftants are obliged by their original princi- ples to adhere to no other authority whatever than thatot the fcripture; yet, by coming under pofterior engagements and flipulations with the church of England by law eftablifhed, and parti- cularly by acknowledging that this church bath *■ authority 224 THE CONFESSIONAL. authority in controverjies of faith, they are obliged to take her interpretations of fcripture, not only in preference to, but in exclufion of, their own. Dr. Waterland mdeed fays, " that no man is " required by the church to fubfcribe [that is, to " receive things^ againft his confcience, or in a " fenfe which he thinks not agreeable to fcrip- « tureb#.» That is to fay, if a man cannot bring himfelf to fubfcribe in the church's fenfe, as thinking that fenfe not agreeable to fcripture, he may let fubfcribing alone, without any cenfure or punifh- ment. But Dr. Waterland knew very well, and fo did Dr. Clarke too, that fuch a one refufing to fub- fcribe, or to receive things in the church's fenfe, would be underftood, in that in fiance, to decline any engagements with the church, and, in fo do- ing, to forfeit all the advantages that would have accrued from his compliance; which may happen to be his whole livelihood. Dr. Waterland could not mean, that the church cenfures no man for fubfcribing in a fenfe which he thinks agreeable to fcripture, but contrary to the church's fenfe. For he himfelf hath iliewn the contrary, efpecially where fuch fubfcriber avows his own fenfe. And, with refpecl to other cafes, the Doctor obferves very pertinently, that b Cafe, p. 16. " the THE CONFESSIONAL. 225 " the connivance and toleration of fuperiors at " offences does not take away the guilt of fuch will juft amount to not fubfcribing it. " The church," faith the Doctor, " hath no " legiflative authority e." We agree to this likewife. Bifhop Hoadlcy, and, before him, St. Paul, have proved it beyond the poffibility of an anfwer. But, in this cafe of fubfcription, the b Cafe, p. 44. c Introduft. p. xr,Y\\, e Jiud Cafe of Arian Subfcript'on, p. 21. P 2 queffion 226 THE CONFESSIONAL. queflion is not what power the church hath of right, but what power fhe exercifes. It is very poffible for a man to wave or to give up his rights, whether civil or religious, to an itfurped authority. " Every man," faith Dr. Clarke, " that, for the " fake of peace and order [let me add, or for a " maintenance], affents to, or makes ufe of, hu- (i man forms, is obliged to reconcile and underftand " them in fuch a fenfe only as appears to him to " be confident with the do&rineof fcripturejother- " wife he parts with his Chriflianity, for the fake " of a civil and political religion f." The Doctor means, obliged in confcience, and as a Proteftant. But, fuppofe he cannot reconcile and underftand thefe human forms in fuch fenfe onlyi or even at all (which is not an impoflible cafe) ; what is he obliged to then ? — May not fuch a man, as the cafe is here put, be obliged fo to underftand, reconcile, and alfent to Pope Pius's creed, or a chapter in the Koran, upon the fame confiderations? But the true cafe is really this : Proteftant churches ought not to employ human powers to eftablifh religion upon civil and political princi- ples, nor ought confcientious Chriftians to receive their religion fo eftabliflied. But, if Proteftant churches, fo called, have done this, and approved 1 Cafe of Art an Subfcription, p. 23. by THE CONFESSIONAL. 227 bv deeds what they have difclaimed in words, they have left the conjtftent Chriftian no option, but either to comply with thofe churches upon civil and political principles, or to decline all doclrinal connexion with them. To what Dr. Clarke fays (Introducl, p. xvii.) concerning the declarations of the church in the fixth, twentieth, and twenty-firft Articles, as giv- ing countenance to his fcheme of fubfeription ; Dr. Water land anfwers, " That thefe declarations u amount to no more, than that nothing is to be " received, but what is agreeable to fcripture. •' And for this very realbn the church requires " fubfeription in her own fenfe, becaufe fhe judges " no other fenfe to be agreeable to fcripture £." This is indeed giving the church but a very indifferent character, reprefenting her as injinuate- ing one thing, and meaning another. But, if it is a true character, who can help it ? The church, perhaps, might fuppofe, that the fcripture could never be more accurately interpreted, than ihe had interpreted it in her Articles. Be that how it would, her own interpretation of it in thefe Articles is the' only one Ihe admits of, exclufive of all other fenfes. And therefore Dr. Waterland is fairly entitled to his conclufion, " If any judge " that the church's own fenfe is not agreeable to " fcripture, let them not fubferibe." £ Cafe of Arian Subfcription, p. 25. P 3 When 228 THE CONFESSIONAL. " When in the public forms," fays Dr. Clarke, " there be (as there generally are) expreffions " which, atjirjl fight, look different ways, it can- " not be but men muff be allowed to interpret u what is obscure, by that which feems to them " more plain and fcripturalh.,, Another advocate on the fame fide expreffeth this matter thus : "Unlefs this liberty be allowed," i, e. the liberty of fubfcribing the Articles in any fenfe the words will bear, and in which they may be reconciled to (the fubfcribers oivnfenfc of) fcripture, and to the other authorized forms of the church), " nobody can fubfcribe the Articles, " Creeds, and Liturgy, of the church of England Ci at all; there are feveral things in thefe forms, " which, if taken in the mod obvious fenfe, con- " tradicl one another '." No matter for that ; if you fubfcribe them, they mud be fo taken. For who can give you the liberty you defire? Not the Biihops, nor even the Legiflature, without a new law ; and then furely no private man has the power to take this liberty of himfelf. " No man, fays Phileleutherus, " without this liberty can fubfcribe our public " forms." Without what liberty? Why, the li- berty of reconciling contradiclions. Did Phileleu- therus confider to what this liberty may amount ? h Cafe, p. 26. » EfTay on impofing, &C. by Phikhutberus Cantalrigienfis, What THE CONFESSIONAL. 22? What is there that, with this liberty, a man cannot fubfcribe ? Might not the moft crude fyftem of Paganifm be made good Chriftian divinity, by putting a lefs obvious fenfe upon it ? Let us fee how Dr. Water I and provides againfl this inconvenience. " Sometimes) fays he, (in " our public forms) the Father is ftiled orJy God; " oftener all three. Sometimes two of the Perfons " are introduced, in a fubord'mation of order to the "Jirft. At other times, their perfect equality of " nature" (which, by the way, excludes all forts and degrees of fubordination, for fub ordination of order is nonfenfe) " is as fully and clearly pro- pelled'." Thefe, I fuppofe, are the contradictions and obfeurities, or fome of them, objected by Dr. Clarke and Phileleutherus. But Dr. Water land will have it, that all here is eafy and confident ; ' 11 becaufe what goes before or after them, and " other paffages in our public forms, require " that they fhould be confijlent" In confequence of which, Dr. Waterland is for putting a lefs obvious fenfe upon thofe paffages which feem, at firjl fight, to contravene a perfeel equality in the Godhead. "Would this ridiculous fophiftry of Waterland's have gone down with Dr. Clarke and his party ? By no means. And yet they proceed upon the 1 Waterland' s Cafe, &c. p. 30, 31. P 4 fame 230 THE CONFESSIONAL, fame principle, when they would put a lefs obvious fenfe upon the paffages which affirm a perfect equality ; namely, becaufe the plain fcriptural doc- trine of a fubordination of nature requires this lefs obvious fenfe to be put upon thofe paffages, that all may be clear and confident. But who fees not that all thefe feveral fenfes are eftablifhed in otir public forms ? Who fees not that, in the eye of the law, and in the inten- tion of thechurch, every fubfcriber fubfcribes to them all? And confequeritly, that in fubfcribing, Dr. Waterland was an Arian, and Dr. Clarke an Athanaftan, as often as they received thefe incon- iiftent forms, refpe&ively, by fubfcribing them? In one word, all Dr. Clarke's arguments, that I have feen, tend only to prove, that in truth, and reafon, and common juftice, and common fenfe, fuch and fuch things ought not to have been im- pofed upon Chriftians in Proteftant churches ; which he and others have done with all poffible precifion and perfpicuity. But not one of them hath been able to mew, that fuch things are not impofed. Dr. Clarke , indeed, has as good as con- feffed the facl, in the long palfage I have cited from his, Introduction ; and hath more than iup- pofed it, in the fuggeitions at the end of his book, concerning the expediency of a Review of our ecclefiaflical forms. For if all thefe liberties in affenting to and fubfcribing thefe forms are given, , and THE CONFESSIONAL. 231 and may be honeftly and confcientioufly taken, the occafion for a Review, or, in other words, for al- tering thefe forms, cannot be fo very prefling as he would reprefent ir. The next advocate for this liberty and latitude in our fubfcriptions, is the acute writer of The Cafe of Subfcription, &c. in anfwer to Dr. Water- land's Cafe of Arian Subfcription m. But as this Gentleman argues chiefly from Dr. Waterland's conceffions, and from that in particular which imports that fo?ne of the Articles are left indeter- minate, there is not much in his pamphlet which has not already fallen under our notice. Some things, however, deferve our farther confider- ation. The firft. remarkable occurrence in this per- formance, is the great ftrefs that is laid upon King Charles I.'s Declaration, which gave the latitudinarian fubfcribers the firft hint of general, literal, and grammatical fenfes. It has been proved before, that this refcript is of no manner of validity. But fuppofe it, for the prefent, to have the validity of a royal Declaration ; what would be its operation ? Juft the fame with that of King James IPs Declaration for liberty of Con- fcience: which went upon the pretence, that there was a power in the Crown to difpenfe with the Statute-Law of the land. The doctrinal Articles of Religion (concerning which we are now enqui- ring) had, in the reigns of Jamcsl. and Charles I. ■ Commonly fuppofed to be Dr. Sykes, as 232 THE CONFESSIONAL. as ftrong a ftatute on their fide, as any of thofe which excluded Papifts from offices of truft or power in the .reign of James II. The title of thefe Articles was recognized in the Act of the 1 3th of Elizabeth. And that title fet forth, that they were agreed xnponfor the preventing diver- fities of opinions, and confequently, for the pre- venting of all general, literal, or grammatical fenfes, which admitted diverfities of opinions. King Charles's Declaration then, which is under- flood to have introduced thefe fenfes, and thereby to have allowed of diverfities of opinions, was jufl as fubverfive of the ecclefiaftical, as King James's was of the m;/7 conftitution. I have indeed faid elfewhere, that I do not underftand the Declara- tion before the Articles in this light. I offer this therefore only as an argument ad hominem, which might have put this ingenious perfon to fome trouble to vindicate his Revolution-principles, of which he was known to be a ftrenuous and fuc- cefsful alfertor. What he fays from Fidler's Church-Hiftory of Britain, is fomething (and but very little) more confiderable. It concerns Rogers's Expofition of the xxxix Articles. u Some Proteftants, accord- " ing to Fuller, conceived it prefumption for any '* private minifter to make himfelf the mouth of " the church, to render her fenfe in matters of Cf fo high concernment. Others were offended, " that he [Rogers'] confined the charitable lati- " tude, THE CONFESSIONAL. 233 " tude, formerly allowed in thefe Articles ; the " compofers whereof, providently forefeeing dif- inti- tuled, An Ejjay on impojing and fubfcribing Articles cf Religion. This very fenfible writer begins with making allowances for an (humanly) eftablifhed autho- rity in matters ecclefiaftical (and, by the way, makes THE CONFESSIONAL. 239 makes a great many more, allowances than he taught to have mader); after which he infifb, that " no Articles, as a Rule and Standard of " doctrinal preaching, ought to be impofed, be- " caufe of the great danger that the right of " Chriftians to private judgement incurs by fucli *' impofition \" notwithflanding which, he is of opinion, that, "fir the fake of peace, a man may " fubmit to an ufurpation upon this right, pro- " vided he believes what is contained in the Ar- u tides." When he comes to explain what he means by believing what is contained in the Articles* it ap- pears to be, " believing them in any fenfe the " words will admit of.'* ' In confequence of which, he takes fbrae pains to mew, that " thefe " Articles may be fubferibed (and confequently " believed) by a Sabellian, an orthodox Trinita- ei rian (whofe opinion he calls nonfenfe), a Tn- " theijl, and an Arian fo called/' One would wonder what idea this writer had of peace y when he fuppofed it might be kept by the act of fubfeription, among men of thefe different judgements. Why might not the fame men, with equal fafety to the peace of the church, fubfcribeyWr feveral forms of words, each ex- prcfTinghis own fyftem clearly and explicitly, as ' See An Apology for a Proteflant D'JJhit, printed for Burne, 1795, p. 28, %g. O fubferibe 240 THE CONFESSIONAL. fubfcribe the fame form of words in four differ- ent fenfes ? But did this Gentleman, in good earned:, be- lieve, that the compilers of the Articles intended to make room for thefe four feveral fenfes ? I will anfwer for him — He did not believe it. We all know, by the title of the Articles, and he knew it as well as any of us, that the fenfe of the compilers was but one fenfe ; and that fenfe being bound upon the fubfcriber by law, it is plain that three of the fenfes above-mentioned are ex- cluded, both in the intention of the compilers, and by the tenor of the law which eftablifhes the Articles, and enjoins fubfcription to them. Let us now look back to his principles. Why ought not fach Articles to be impofed upon Chriftian Preachers, as a tefl ? He does not, in- deed, anfwer this queflion in plain terms ; but his principles lead us to a very juft and proper anfwer to it; namely, becaufe the fubjecl of preaching in a Chriftian Church, is the Gofpel of Chrift, over which no human power can have any controul, or exercife any, without incurring the guilt of fetting up anoiher Gofpel, under another authority, diftincl: from his, who hath de- clared himfelf to be the one Matter to whom all Chriftians ought to fubmit. Would this Gentle- man have afferted totidem verbis, that we may give up our Chriftian liberty to thole who ufurp the THE CONFESSIONAL. 241 the province of Chrifl? He makes ufe, indeed, of the word nfurpaiion, but he refers it only to the right of private judgement ; and of this right, or //- berty, he makes little doubt but a man may abridge himfe/f, p. 33. But upon what is this right founded ? Is it not folely upon thofe principles of the Gofpel, that Chrift: is King in his own Kingdom ? that he is the only Lord and Mailer in matters pertaining to confeience ? And can any man give way to an ufurpation of that authority which Chrift claims folely to himfelf, without revolting from his allegiance, and fub'mitting to an ufurper of his Kingdom ? Here let us flop. There is no occafion to proceed a flep further, or to enquire upon what notions of latitude in the Articles the Effayer could reconcile his fubfeription to them with his obligations to fland fajl in the liberty ivhercwith Chrift hath made him free. Upon which fubject he hath indeed brought no more than hath been anfwered already. There is yet another writer upon this fubjeel, of the fame complexion, who muft not be wholly paffed by, as he hath been at the pains to fum up the whole merits of this cafe in a few words s. s In a pampMet intituled, The external Peace of the Church only attainable by a Zeal for Scripture in itsjujl Latitude, 17 1 6, printed for Bakir. <±2 " If," 242 THE CONFESSIONAL. " If," fays he, " we confider ourfelves as mem- " bers of the church of England, we are not " obliged to an uniformity of opinion." In other words, the church of England, as fuch, hath no uniform doclrine ; which, whatever the matter of fact may be, the church, I appre- hend, will not take for a compliment. But this idle notion being built entirely on His Majejlfs Declaration, falls to the ground along with that. He goes on : " If the Legiflature do not think fit to deter- " mine in what particular fenfe the fubfcriber " mall give his affent, it is very poffible and well " known, that perfons of quite oppofite opinions " may and do fubfcribe." Hath the legiflature then determined, that men may fubfcribe the Articles in oppofite fenfes ? No. If not, then, hath the legiflature deter- mined any thing about articles and fubfcriptions ? Yes, it hath determined that the Articles fhall be fubfcribed, for the purpofe of avoiding diverfities of opinions. The legiflature tnen hath deter- mined that the Articles (hall be fubfcribed only in one fenfe refpe&ively ; and that is, in the mod obvious fenfe of each Article. *' The fenfe/' faith this author, " which fuch " as require fubfcriptions accept and tolerate, is " to be the rule of fubfcription." This matter is put in a wrong light. It is the Law, and the Law only, which requireth fub- 1 fcription j THE CONFESSIONAL. 243 fcription ; and " requiretb that it mould be made before the Ordinary, that is, in the prefence of the perfon who inflitutes. The Ordinary is not bound to offer the Articles to be fub- fcribed ; but the Clerk himfelf is bound to offer to fubfcribe them ; and he mull fubfcribe without any referve, exception, or qualifica- tion t." The canonical fubfcription is indeed another affair, of which there is no prefent occafion to fay anything, as the queilion here is only concerning fubfcription as enjoined by the legiflature. And enough has been faid of this, to refute our author's fancy about accepting and tolerating fenfes. The author concludes thus : " Since the church M therefore accepts and tolerates contrary opini- tl ons, 'tis plain the church does not conceive " identity of opinion neceffary to her tran- " quillity." The church, as we have feen, accepts or tole- rates nothing, but what the Law allows her to accept and tolerate : which is juft the reverfe of contrary opinions. The notion indeed is abfurd, even fo far as there is any colour to apply it to the church. If the church accepts and tolerates, me Iikewife efpoufes and maintains, contrary opi- nions. For the perfons, whofe contrary opinions {he accepts and tolerates , do, by this very act of * Vade Mecum, p. 79. under Injtitution. (^3 fubfcription, 244 THE CONFESSIONAL. fubfcription, become part of the body of the church herfelf, and mofr. commonly are the very mouth of the church ; and retail their contrary opinions to the public, by the very authority which the church gives them. Is not this to lift the church off her ancient foundations ? Or, rather i$ it not to own the juftice of that reproach, " That " the church of England, properly fo called, is " not now exifting u r" There were feveral others of this way of think- ing, who bore a part in this controyerfy ; but, as they all went into the church at the fame door which T)r.CIar fohzd opened for them, and be- lieved, or pretended to believe, the proteftations » See a pamphlet intituled, Oh/ervations upon the ConduSi tf the Clergy in relation to the thirty-nine Articles. " Thefe f* ftri&ures of Religion," fays this excellent writer, (mean- ing the thirty-nine Articles) " are either a rule of teaching •'' in this church, or they are not a rule. If they are not a " rule, what constitutes the church of England ? If they be a 4f rule and a flandard, where mud be grounded the authority *' of modern teaching, which is not only not agreeable to f* thefe Articles, but abfoliuely a contrary fyftem ? In cafe, " by any after-lights, a clergyman finds caufe to change ft his fubfcribing opinion (a right I fhall not difpute), and " goes into different fchemes, why is not fuch difagreemeni f with his rule publicly acknowledged, and the people ad- " vertifed of the difference ? This myftery of the pulpit ?' appears to me unfair with refpecl to the people. They t* have no fixed fight of their minifler's fcheme. They can ti have no fecurity, no dependence upon him, in any doftrinal ft point v/hatfoever." Pag. 2, 3. of THE CONFESSIONAL. 245 of the church, againft the mutter of fa&, we meet with nothing in their refpeclive fyftems of latitude, which hath not already been obviated. And, the matter of fact being fo plain and in- difputable, it is to little purpofe to argue the point of right, upon the original Proteftant prin- ciple ; as if that principle was ftill allowed to have its uncontrouled operation in the matter of fubfeription to the Articles. We frankly allow that every Proteflant, as fuch, has a right to deny his afTent to, or approbation of, any doctrine, which he himfelf conceives to be contrary to the fcriptures. But the moment he fits down to fubferibe the xxxix Articles, circumftanced and conditioned as that fubfeription now is, he fits down to fign away this right (as much as in him lies), and to transfer it to the church. The church, indeed, does not in fo many words re- quire him to fubferibe to any thing which is con- trary or even difagrccablc to the fcripture. But the church, by obtaining that fubfeription from him, takes the interpretation of fcripture out of his hands. It is the church, and the church only, \\\2.x.jinds therein, and proves thereby, the propo- rtions to be fubferibed. And if a man fhould after that pretend to interpofe his own judgement in contradiction to the church's findings and prov- ing*, the church, with the help of the date, would foon ihew him his miftake; by virtue of that Alliance, the original inftrument of which hath (^4 been 246 THE CONFESSIONAL. been fo happily difcovered and commented upon by a great Genius of our own times. The church of England i( tells mankind indeed, they " {hall judge for themfelves. But if they who f* take her word, do not think and judge as fhe " does, they fhall fuffer for it, and be turned out " of the houfe." To prove the equity of which proceeding (equity and utility, in this author's idea, be'fhg the fame thing) is the laudable puFpofe of this famous new-found ALLIANCE. There is yet one writer behind, who hath offered a plea for liberty and latitude in fubfcrib- ing the Articles, of a different complexion from the red. The writer I mean is Dr. Clayton, the late worthy Bifhop of Clogher in Ireland, and au- thor of the Effay on Spirit, who, in his Dedica- tion of that learned work, hath taken this matter of fubfcription into particular confideration. Bilhop Conybeare had obferved, in his fermon on the Cafe of fubfcription, that the xxxix Articles are not to be confidered as Articles of Peace, but of Doctrine, as the very title denotes, which is, for avoiding diver/if ies of opinions, and for efa- blifloing confent touching trite religion. And from this circumitance his Lordftiip inferred, and very juftly, u that every man's fubfcription amounts i( to an approbation of, and an aflent to, the \* truth of the doctrine therein contained, in the '? very THE CONFESSIONAL. 247 ^c very fenie in which the compilers thereof are & fuppofed to have underftood them." Now, the right reverend Effayift tells us, his .cafe was this : " Being a clergyman, he had fub- u fcribed the Articles pretty early in life, and " probably in the fenfe in which the compilers " underftood them. But, finding reafons after- " wards to difagree with his former opinions, he " laboured under fome difficulties how to direct " himfelf in thefe circumftances." Had Bifhop Conybeare been confulted upon thefe difficulties, there is little doubt but he would have anfwered, that this change of opi- nions in the Effayifl: was virtually difclaiming his fubfcription, which let him into his function ; and, as he now no longer complied with the con- ditions required by the church of all her minifters, an obligation ieemed' to lay upon him to refign his preferments in the church. To avoid this confequence, Bifhop Clayton was inclined to confider thefe Articles not as Articles of doctrine, but as Articles of peace. " As I ap- " prehend," fays he, u that the church of Ire* i( land does not fet up for infallibility, I do not " think fhe requireth any other kind of fubfcrip- " tion than fuch as is neceffary for peace- «'fake.M What the laws of fubfcription are in Ireland, I know not ; but if his Lordfhip formed his judgement 248 THE CONFESSIONAL. judgement only on the circumftance of the church of Ireland's difclaiming infallibility, I fancy the cafe may be much the fame there as in our own country ; where, though we are not infallible, we are always in the right. His apprehenfions, there- fore, of ecclefmftical moderation, in the one coun- try or the other, will go but a little way towards fettling the debatable point between the Effayifl and Bilhop Conybeare, which, reding upon a mat- ter of fact, mufl be determined by fuitable evi- dence. " I apprehend,'' fays Dr. Clayton, " any at* " tempt towards avoiding diverfity of opinion, * not only to be an ufelefs, butan impracticable " fcheme." In which I entirely agree with him. But what then ? It actually was the attempt of our firft Reformers, and is (till the fcheme of the churches of England and Ireland. u I do not only doubt," continues he, u whe- " ther the compilers of the Articles, but even " whether any two thinking men, ever agreed " exactly in their opinion, not only with regard " to all the Articles, but even with regard to any " one of them." The prefumptive proof is very ftrong, that Cranmer was the fole compiler of K. Edward's Articles. The alterations and corrections of 1562 are well known to be in Parker's hand, who, though he might make a mew of confult- -ing his brethren, moll probably gave them to underftanc} THE CONFESSIONAL. 249 underftand at the fame time, that the Articles were to pafs as they were then fettled w . Think- ers in thofe days, any more than in our own, were not very common ; and perhaps not half a dozen of thofe to whom they were communi- cated, or who fubferibed them,confidered how far they differed from each other, or fufpe&ed that they differed at all. They received them impli- citly, as hundreds do to this hour ; and, confe- quently, in the fenfe of the compiler or compilers. They tranfmitted them to pofterity, juft as they received them ; and juft fo were they bound upon pofterity by law. The inutility, therefore, and the impracticability of an uniformity of opinion, where men are difpofed to think for themfelves, is indeed an unanfwerable argument why fuch Articles JJmdd never be impofed, but will afford no proof that our xxxix Articles are not impofed with this particular view. But, though the right reverend Author of the Effay thinks thus of our Articles, and of the fub- fcribers to them, he feems to think it expedient that there ftiould be fome fuch fyftem of doc- trines, not indeed as a teft of opinions, but of w The Irijb Articles were different from thofe of the church of England, till the year 1634, " when, by the power of the 41 Lord Deputy V/entwortb, and the dexterity of Bifliop Bram- " hal, the Irijb articles were repealed in a full convocation, " and thofe of England authorized in the place thereof." Hey- Ih's Hiitcry of thePrefbyterians, p. 595. frofefon. 250 THE CONFESSIONAL. profejfion. I fay, he feems to think fo. But let the reader judge from his own words. " An uniformity of profeffion," fays he, " may u indeed be both practicable and ufeful ; and when it is received and profeffed by individuals* upon the fole authority of divine revelation. Civil y Defence of the EJay onfptiit, p. z. fbciety THE CONFESSIONAL. 257 fociety can only be eitablifhed by human laws and ordinances, at leaft as this author conceives, and as, for the prefent, I am willing to grant. If then the eftabliiliment of religion by divine reve- lation is fufficient to anfwcr the purpofes of civil fociety, the purpofes of the great Author of Na- ture, in creating this connection, are anfwered at the fame time ; and with any farther eftabliihrnent of religion, human laws have nothing to do. Whether they have or not? is the queftion. And hereupon, the writer of the Letter to the Bijhop vf Clogher very pertinently aiks, Who is the judge ? that is to fay, who is the judge, how far it may be neceflary to eftablifh religion by hu- man laws ? To this the Defender anfwers, without hefita«» tion, " The fame legislative powers, which efta- '* blifh the one, have a right to eftablifh the " other ; and to chufe that religion Which they « think to be bed z." Where it muft be fuppofed, that the great Author of Nature hath left it as free for Magi- ftrates, and Legiflators, to eftablifh by human Taws what doctrines or modes of religion they chufe, or find expedient for fecular utility ; as it is for them to chufe what modes of civil fociety they find convenient; Which indeed is to fiap* z Defence of the Etfay on fpirit, p. j. R 2 pofe, 258 THE CONFESSIONAL. pofe, that there never was any authentic revela- tion of true religion in the world. For as furely as God hath revealed true religion, fo furely has he inhibited Magiftrates, and all others, from eftablifning any thing contrary to it, or deviating from it. But by what is faid in the Dedication prefixed to the EJfay an fpirit, the Defender, molt likely, would confine this right of the legiflative powers, to the inforcing of an Uniformity of ProfeJJion only. But it has been fhewn above, that in this view, the eftablifhment of religion will afford no aid to civil laws ; inafmuch as he who profeffes one thing, and believes another, will derive none of that influence from his profejfion, which is necef- fary to fuppl-y the unavoidable defe&s of civil ordinances. And, if the great Author of Nature founded the welfare and fupport of fociety on no furer bafis of religion than this, it hardly feems. worthy of his infinite wifdom to have interpofed in this matter at all. Upon the principles of this author, whatever right Chriflian Legiflators have to eftablifli what religion they chufe for the heft, the fame had the Pagan Legiflators3. Suppofe then thefe latter to a The author of the EJay on Ejlablifinmits, &c. having afferted this right to Pagan Legiflators in its full extent, and without referve, it may not be unentcrtaining at leaft to take 4 have THE CONFESSIONAL. 259 have extended their eftablifliment no farther than to an uniformity of prof effort, what were St. Paul's a view of the fort of right which may be fuppofed to refult from the fentiments of one of the wifeft among them ; pre- mising, that even Pagan Legiflators in general feem to have been ienfible, that a right to eflablifh religion upon the foot of civil authority only, was too precarious to be depended upon, without the fanclion of a divine revelation, which, therefore, they took care to forge for the purpefe. I can hardly think the Effayifl on Efab/i/hments (politician as he is) will fay, that the Pagan Legiflators had a right to forge thefe revelations. And yet this he muft fay, if lie will vindicate to the Pagan Legiflators an unlimited right of eilablifliino- what religion they pleafed ; as it might be, in'fome cafes at lead, impoffible for them to eflablifh any popular or national religion without fuch forged revelations. Let us pitch upon Cicero for our guide in this difquilition, and try what infor- mation we can gain from his fpeculations upon this interefling fubjeft. According to Dr. Middlcton, " Cicero never harboured " a thought of the truth or divinity of fo abfurd a vvorfhip, as " that of the religion of his country ; and yet always recom- " mends it as a wife inflitution, contrived for the ufes of " Government, and to keep the people in order, Angularly •' adapted to the genius of Rome ; and conflantly inculcates ** an adherence to it^rites, as the duty of all good citizens.'* Life of Cicero, vol. iii. oclavo, p. 345. One of the citations the ingenious Biographer brings to verify this reprefentation, is taken from the lafl feclion of Tally s fecond book on Divi- nation ; where in the context we find, to our great furprize, the Roman Patriot turning downright Confcffonalifl, explod- ing one fort of Divination after another, lamenting, that " Superflition had fpread every where, oppreffed the minds " of almoft all, and had feized upon human weaknefs in " general ; that it had been his view, both in thefe books on *' Divination, and in thofe on the Nature of the Gods, to fet f* this forth ; and that he fhould eflecm it a confiderable R 3 converts tfo THE CONFESSIONAL. converts to do? were they to comply with the modes of the times, and profefs themfelves idola- i( fervice done to himfeif and his friends, if he could rooc " up this fuperftition efteclually." He then goes on, in the true (tile of a Reformer, to fay, that " religion mould not f* be taken away along with fuperitition, nor did he mean f* it." Nam a majorum injiituta tueri Jacns caremoniifeue reti- vendis Japientis eji (which is the -xbole of Dr. Middietou's ci- tation from this feclion) ; upon this principle, ejje prajlan- tern aliquam alernamque naturam et earn J'ufpicicndam admi- randamque bcminum gcneri, pulchritude mundi, ordoque rerurj. calejiium cogit confiteri. And he concludes thus : Quamobrcm, ut rebgio propaganda etiam eft, qv m. est jukcta cum cog- nittone natures, jlc Juperjtitionis Jlirpes cmnes ejicienda : ftiftat enim et urget, et quo te cumque as followetb. In this lit- tle piece there is this objection to the 16th Article : *.* They " affirm, that a man, after he hath receyved the Holy Ghoft, *' may fall from Grace, contrarie unto the certayntie of God *' his election." There islikewife an objection to the 35th Article, concerning the Homily on the Nativity, as contain- ing a double error. But that is a mere cavil, unworthy of farther notice. With refpeft to the 16th Article, as we have no account of this objection from thofe who were called be- fore the Bifhops for refufing to fubfcribe, we may be fure they thought the doctrine of the fnal perjeverqnee of the elecl, fufficiently fecured in the Article, by its leaving room for arifing again by the Grace of God ; and we may conclude that this was only the fcruple of a private man, not fuffici- ently verfed in the theology of thofe times, which made a confiderable difference between a departing from Grace (which is the expreffion in the Article) and the filling from Grace (as the obje&or reprefents it) • the one admitting a pof- S 3 Rogers 276 THE CONFESSIONAL. Rogers wifely fays nothing to the particulars of this objection; that is, nothing of the Canons , or the paffages in the book of conference, which had given offence. He was writing a fulfome dedication to Bancroft, the father of all this new mifchief. To have entered into the merits of the complaint, might have difturbed his patron. We are obliged to him indeed, that he would mention this matter at all ; and cannot but do him the juflice to acknowledge, that he hath ac- quitted himfelf of the difficulty upon his hands by a very dextrous quibble, viz. " that the lt words of the articles being flill the fame, the f doctrine, purpofe, and intention of the church " muft be the fame likewife." And if the Puri- tans would not be impofed on by this fophifm, it xvas none of his fault. But to come to the point. The regal fupre- rnacy, as extended to ecclefiadical matters, and efpecially in the hands of a woman, was an eye- fore from the beginning to the Puritans, as well as to the Papifts. This obliged Parker, in re-; Ability of arip.ng again, or returning, the other not. The va- riation of the doftrine of the church, complained of in King James's time, was a different thing, and meant, the putting a tievj fenfe upon the words of the Article ; and it was proba- bly from an apprehenfion of the evil tendency of that prac- tice, that Dr. .Reynolds propofed, at the Hampton- court Confe- rence, to add the reftridlive words, not totally, or finally, to this Article, that it might not feem to crofs the doftrine of Predeftlriation, viewing THE CONFESSIONAL. 277 viewing Edward's Articles in 1562, to add a pretty long explanation, to the article concern- ing the Civil Magi/irate, importing, " that the " miniflxing either of God's word, or of the fa- " craments, were not given to our Prince, — but " only that prerogative which we fee to have " been given always, to all godly Princes in the " holy fcriptures, by God himfelf;" meaning the godly Princes of Judah and Ifratl. Art. 37. With this explanation the Puritans had realbn to be (and probably were) fatisfied. When the Kings of Jfrael and Judah interfered with the facred office of the Priefthood, farther than they were warranted by the law of Mofes, they ceafed to be godly Princes ; and fo long as our own Princes kept themfelves within the like bounds, their fupremacy was liable to no abufe. Should it prove otherwife, the Puritans had no objection to the doctrine of refinance; or the lawfulnefs ot transferring dominion from ungodly Princes to the pious and elecl. But thefe doctrines James could by no means relifh. He knew not in what light he might Hand with his people in procefs of time. If in the light of a reprobate, here was a door left open for transferring his crown to a better man, Bancroft therefore took care to falve this mat- ter in the canon which enjoined fubfcription, by adding to the authority of the godly Kings in Jcripture, that of the Cbriftian Emperors in the S ^ primitive 278 THE CONFESSIONAL. primitive church, godly or ungodly ; and at the fame time verting James with the fupremacy in all caufes ecclefiaftical and civil s. This alteration put matters upon a very differ- ent footing, and made no fmall variation in the doctrine of the church. It is but dipping into the imperial law, where-ever it opens at an eccle- fiaflical cafe, to be convinced, that the Chrijlian Emperors far outftripped the Jewiflo Kings, in the powers they claimed and exercifed over the church h. But, 2. The paffage in the Bock of Conference, which gave offence, was chiefly this. In the fixteenth Article of our church it is faid, that after we have received the Holy Ghofl we may fall from grace. Dr. Reynolds imagined this might feem to crofs the doctrine of Predeflination, unlefs fome fuch words were added as, yet neither totally nor finally, which he defired might be done by way of ex- planation. He likewife defired that the nine » s See Canon ii. xxxvi. and lv. The Article to be fub- fcribed to, concerningthe Queen's [Eli%abetfjs~\ fupremacy, in the injunction appealed to in our thirty- feventh Article, was thus worded : J? The Queen's Majefty is the chief Governour, f* next under Chrifr, of this Church of England, as well in f ecclefiaflical as civil caufes."' Which may be compared with the nritcfthe three Articles enjoined to be fubferibed by pur thirty-fixth Canon. h They who choofe not to turn over voluminous codes of the imperial law, may find what is here advanced tolerably well [ made out in Father Paul's Hillory of Beneficiary Matters. l/imbetb THE CONFESSIONAL. 279 Lambeth Articles, drawn up by Whitgift, might be inferted in the book of Articles. Dr. Bancroft was highly provoked at this, and obferved, " that very many in thofe days, neg- " letting holinefs of life, prefumed too much on " perfifting in grace ; laying all their religion on " Predeftination ; if I Jhall be faved, I Jhall be " faved: which he termed a dcfperate doctrine, " fhewing it to be contrary to good divinity, and i( the true dodlrine of Predeflination; wherein we " fliould rather reafon afcendendot than defcen- u dendo, thus, / live in obedience to God, in love *' with my neighbour ; I follow my vocation, &c. " therefore I trujl God hath elected me, and pre- tc dejlinated me to falvation. Not thus, which is " the ufual courfe of argument, God hath prede- " Jlinated me to life ; therefore, though I fin never " f° grievoujly, yet I Jhall not be damned ; for whom that fovereignty, particularly in Monarch s, was jure divino, and uncontroulable. They knew this principle could do them no harm, qualified as it was, by James's notions of Epifcopacy : and for the reft, it was a fure bait to draw him in to whatever they might fee fit to build upon it. But the great difficulty lay here. They had not only the King, but the people to manage. The Puritan party was ftrong, and refpe&able for the quality, as well as the numbers, of its ad- herents. And it would not be fo eafily compre- hended by the people, how they, who were fo perfectly right in their divinity, could be fo far wrong in their politics. The next flep then was to call forne flur upon the doctrines, of the Puri- tans, and, if poilible, to wean both the King and people from their fondnefs for them. Fuller, in his Church-Hiftory, informs us, that the Archbifhop of Spalato was the firft who ufed the word Puritan, to fignify the defenders of matters do&rinal, in the EngViJh church. u For- " merly," fays he, " the word was only taken to " denote fuch asdifTented from the Hierarchy in " dilcipline and church-government, which was " now 298 THE CONFESSIONAL. (f now extended to brand fuch as were Anti-ar- (t minimi in their judgements." And he confeifes, that the word, in this extenfive fignification, was afterwards improved to afperfe the mod orthodox in doctrine, and religious in converfation e. Thefe improvers were the ^r/?z/>z/Vz7z Bifhops and their adherents. We have feen above, ivbat they insinuated to James , upon occafion of obtain- ing from him certain injunctions fent to Oxford, anno 1616. But dill the eftabliflied Articles of religion were on the fide of the doclrinal Puri- tans. The writers againft Arminianifm made that appear beyond difpute: and Laud himfelf durit, not deny it. The next ftep, therefore, was to get the Puri- tan party filenced, from preaching or printing any thing upon the fubjecl, Abbofs influence with King James had been broke, by his untrac- eable firmnefs in the matter of the Earl of Efex's divorce; as well as by other accidents : and a misfortune in his private conduct had afforded room for the full effect: of Laud's intrigues, who loft no opportunity of recommending himfelf and his fyftem to James. The firft-fruits of Laud's power over the Kinjr appeared in thofe injunctions, or directions, bear- ing date Augujl 4th, 1622, wherein, among other things, it was enjoined, that " no Preacher, un- e Fuller, Ch. Htft. B. x. p. 99, 100. THE CONFESSIONAL. 299 u der the degree of a Bifhop or a Dean,— .mould " from thenceforth prefume to preach — the deep " points of Prcdc/li nation, Eleflion, Reprobation, " or of the univerfality , efficacity, refiftibility, or l( irrcfijlibility, of God's Grace , &c f." One might afk, how James could reconcile himfelf to a meafure, which, in the cafe of the edict of the States- General, had given him pain ? That is to fay, how he could, as a civil magif- (rate, alTume a right of making decrees in mat- ters of religion ? His Divines would have told us, upon this oc- cafion, 1. That he was a civil magistrate jure di- vino ; which was not the cafe with republican ma- gistrates. 2. That, by a faving claufe in the end of the direclions, this was only a kind of interim, till the next Convocation mould. aiTemble. This, however, was all that James could be brought to during his reign; unlefs the Declara- tion, at the head of the xxxix Articles, is to be afcribed to him ; which however is a problem I cannot take upon me to folve; nor. is it very ma- terial. r Heylins Hiftory of Laud, p. 97. who confeflcs that his Hero had a hand in digeiting and drawing up thefe injunc- tions. What cenfures were parted upon them, may be Teen in Wilfon and Fuller, fub anno 1622, who both give the in- iuniftions at large. Thefe cenfures are acknowledged by Heylin himfelf with great indignation, who, as a lefs fuf- perted witnefs thun the others in thefe points, may be con- futed, p. 99. In goo THE CONFESSIONAL. In his fucceffor, Laud found a King more to his mind. James had no perfonal eiteem for Laudy and gave him a Bifhoprick with much re- luctance. His bufy fpirit was accordingly, during James's reign, obliged to operate in fubordina- tion to fome Prelates, who had more of the King's confidence. But Charles I. was wholly at Laud's devotion. Hitherto the Cahini/is were barely filenced, and perhaps hardly that. Wilfon tells us, iC the i\.rch- e* bifhop recommended it to his Diocefans, that " thefe directions might be put in execution " with caution V And Fuller fays, " Thefe igh point [of Prede- v ftinationj meddled withal, or debated, either; " the one way, or the other r." It was but a very little before that Laud had faid, et thefe cu- 41 rious points fhould be left to the liberty of li learned men, to abound in their otvnfenfe." But the Parliament, which differed from him on this head, was now difTolved ; and mod probablyLtfz/J never expected to fee another. I hope, the foregoing particulars, may be fufH- cient to fhew, that fubferibing with a latitude, or taking, particular Articles in different fenfes, was an artifice of Archbifhop Laud's, to open a way £or his own Arminian opinions. He hath been followed, however, by many io this practice, who have neither had his views, ror approved his example, in other things; and tvho therefore muff, be fuppofed to have fome realbns of their own, to determine them in a » fuller's Church Hill, h. xi. p. 138—141. practice, THE CONFESSIONAL. 311 practice, which, at firft fight, is hardly defenfible. Let us confider what thefe reafons may be. 1. Then, it is generally underftood, rhat the points in diipute between the Arminians and the Calvinijh are points of no confequence, and may •be held either way, withour any derriment to the true faith. Dr. Nicholls calls them, * Theological points, " which do not affect the main of religion." So did Hey/in before him ; and he had it undoubt- edly from his mailer Laud. King James too, once upon a time, thought fit to fay, " that, if " the fubjecl of Vorjlius's Herefies [in his book de i{ Deo] had not been grounded upon questions of " higher quality, than touching the number and u nature of the facraments, the points of meritt " of jiiJ}{ficationy of purgatory, of the vifible head f* of the church, or any fuch matters, we fhould " never have troubled ourfelves with the bufi-» kt nefs." Upon which, Mr. Tindal, the rranflatorof Ra- pin T/joyras, thus defcants : " As if wrong no- ** tions or errors concerning the effence of God " were more pernicious than fuch corrupt no- fs tions and principles, as are dcftrucTive of mo- " rality, and repugnant to God's moral chara- " cter l ." Such, I fupp ofe, as Mr. Tindal takes the notions and principles of the Cahinijh (among others) to be ; and confequcntly efteems them ' Tindal' f Rupin, 8vo» 1730. vol. ix. p. 353, points 3i2 THE CONFESSIONAL. points of great importance. It is much, however, if Vorjllus orhis followers did not draw fome con- ditions of the moral kind, from their fpeculations on the ejfence of God, Bifhop Burnet^ in his travels, met with an emi- nent divine among the Lutherans in Germany, upon whom he preffed an union with the Cahin- ijls, as neceffary upon many accounts. To which the faid Divine anfwered, that, " He wondered " much to fee a Divine of the church of Eng- u land prefs that fo much on him, when we, " notwithftanding the dangers we were then in, " could not agree our differences. They differed " about important matters, concerning the attri- " butes of God and his providence ; concerning •* the guilt of fin, whether it was to be charged " on God, or the finner ; and whether men " ought to make good ufe of their faculties, of *' if they ought to trufi entirely to an irrefiflible " grace. Thefe were matters of great moment. " But, he faid, we in England differed only i( about forms of government and worfhip, and " things which were in their own nature indif- " ferent, &&*?' It would be a very flrange thing, if the fcri- ptures, rightly underflood, mould give any real occafion to the queflion, whether the guilt of fin is to be charged on God or the finner ? But if 1 Preface to Burnet's E.xpof. at the end. occafion THE CONFESSIONAL. 3r5 occafion is given for fuch a difpute, whether real or imaginary, it is doubtlefs a point of high im- portance, fince no fuch queftion can be decided, without bringing the fupreme God into judge- ment, as a party, with one of his creatures, and fubjecting him to the fentence of another of them. The fcriptures, in truth, give no jufl oc- cafion for any fuch controverfy. But if occafion is taken for fuch difputes from Creeds, Confef- iions, and Articles of religion of human device ; and if, in particular, fuch a difpute may be railed from the exprefs terms of our own Articles, mould not a ferious and confiderate man be cautious how he fubfcribes them ? Would it not be inex- cufeably rafh to take it for granted, that they contain matters of no confequence ? Perhaps o.urprefent fubfcribers are generally, tho' not univerfally, of the Arminian perfuafionu. u Mr. La Roche indeed fays, " The Doctrine of Arminius, " whom that Prince [James J.] called an enemy to GoJ, has *' been long ago the dodrine of the church of England.'" Abridgement, vol. i. p. 319. I fhould be glad to know what the church reprefentative would fay to this, and whether they would allow of this reprefentation of La Roche, or adopt that of another foreign Divine, who argues thus, " Though- " the Annir.iam are particularly favoured by the church of " England; though Arminianifm may be faid to have become " predominant among the members of that church, or at lcaft *' to have lent its injluence in mitigating feme of its articles in V the private fentiments of thofc who fubferibe them ; yet J. mean, 3i4 THE CONFESSIONAL. I mean, fuch of them as are of any perfuafion at all. For, I doubt, few of them confider (if in- deed they know) the difference between that and the perfuallon of the Calvinijls. Surely it con- *'• the Thirty-nine Articles of the church of England dill main- " tain their authority, and when we judge of the doctrine ** and difcipline of any church, it is more natural to form *• tnis judgement from its eftablifhed Creeds and Confefionct " Faith, than from the fentiments and principles of particu- *i lar perfons." See Mr. Madame" s note [a] on Mojheim, Ecclef. Hift. vol. ii. p. 574, ed. 410. By which it mould ieem, that the doctrine of the church of England 'is not, nor iince the enablifhmcnt of the xxxix Articles ever was, Ar- minian. Both ihefe writers fpeak with great rcfpecl of the church of England on all occafions ; and, I dare fay, nothing was farther from the thoughts of either of them, when they made thefe obfcrvations, than to do the leaft dis- honour to that church. Thereafon of their refpective judge- ments, which foever of them you agree with, is obvious ; namely, the apparent difagreement of the doctrine of many cf the molt, eminent divines of the church of England, with the doctrine of the Articles. And, after this, is it not a jeft to talk of the xxxix Articles as a Confeffion of Faith and Doc- trines, to the truth of which the Governors of the church cf Eng- land have a right to require all th of e to fubfcribe nvho are admit- ted to the office of public teachers in it, by way of giving the go- vernors of the church fufHcient afTurance of the foitndnefs of their Fuiih and Doclrines ? This is Dr. Rutherforth's language in his Vindication ; not indeed with refpe*?c to the xxxix Arti- cles of his own church, for the fame confeffion of faith and doclrines to which his Vindication is applied, may be a very d'ffcrcnt confeffion of faith and doctrines from that contained in the faid Articles. And yet, as the learned Profeflbr takes the Governors of the church of England, among others, into his patronage, one would think, he would hardly walte his precious time in vindicating to them a right which ihey do pot exeiciie. cerni THE CONFESSIONAL. 315 cerns fuch fublcribers not a little, to be fatisfied whether our prefcnt Articles are truly and pro- perly capable of an Arminian fenfe or not. But of this more by and by. 2. Another thing which draws in fubfcribera of the prefent generation is, that, whereas Armi- nianifm was heretofore efteemed to be the back- door to popery and arbitrary power, that notion has, upon examination, been found to be utterly groundlefs, and the opinions fo called, abfolutely innocent of the charge. " Rapin" fays Mr. Tindal in a note, mi;iia~ *<>/>» has been for a great part of the lafi: century, and as much of theprcfent as hath run off, the ruling fyllem of the times, though perhaps rather taken fcr granted by the ge- nerality, than efpoufed upon reafonable conviction. As far as I can judge, many of thole who have cenfured the tenets of the Cal-jimjls, have been little beholden either to Utters or philofophy for the arguments thfv have brought 2gainfl X But, 32o THE CONFESSIONAL. But, to leave the theoretical part of this pro- blem for the prefent : Thofe old worthies who them, and have feemed to me, amidft all the afperity with, which they have cenfured them, almoft utter Grangers, ei- ther to the ftrength of their own eaufe, or the weaknefs of that of their adverfaries. Some of them have treated the fubjeft in fo fuperficial a way, adorned indeed with all the pleafing elegancies of language, as hardly to touch the material obje&ions either of the ancient or modern Predefiinarians. Will not thefe good people be a little furprized, that in the year 1769, a warm, but fenfible writer, and no very contemptible reafoner, fhould arife,. and call upon them to vindicate " their loofe Arminian principles from the charge " of tending to the rankejl Atheifm?" [See the Preface to a late tradt, intituled, The doBrine of abfolute Pr-edefinati on fated and ajferted; printed for J. Gurney, 1769, p. xvi.] They who have read another trad by the fame hand, intituled. The Church of England 'vindicated from the charge o/Ar» mini an ism, will difcern how unequal even the Public Ora- tor of Oxford was to the tafk he had taken upon himfelf, and how pitiably he falls under the difcipline of this fhrewd and mailerly Cahinif. Think not, gentle reader, there is any undue partiality in this commendation. The Devon/hire Calvinijl appears, by fome flirts thrown out in the laft- mentioned pamphlet, to have no greater predileftion for The Confejjtonal, than the Oxford Arminian ; and from thence I once conjectured, that they were equally indifpofed to- wards any relaxation of our prefent fubfcriptions j hoping, however, for the honour of their penetration, not with a common view of avoiding diuin in Galliis, quod benrfieii loco fine dubio numeravit, mag- num adeptns erat librorumCalvinianorum-copiam, quorum de font i- The THE CONFESSIONAL. 329 The Papifts have common fenfe; and Can fee, no doubt, into the tendency of certain opinions, as well as Luther or Calvin did. And, whatever Janfenius could fay for himfelf, the orthodox Catholics faw, that, in the next generation, his followers, if they adhered to his opinions, would, very probably, leave their church : to prevent which, they procured the condemnation of his book, anno 1 65 3 . The fame fufpicions procured the famous Bull Unigenitus, condemning the doctrines of Father Pafquier Qiiefncl, in the year 17 13. Was this man fo treated, becaufe his conduct: gave any offence as a Papifl: I No ; he died not only a fin- cere, but a bigoted fon of that church : and, what is more, he fo died in a Proteftant country, where he was under no neceffity to diflemble ; namely, at Amflerdamy December 2, 17 19. bus hauftt Auguflini interpretationem, iff inuerijls principles led them to believe, that every good member of the common* wealth ought, in his place and calling, to contri- bute all in his power to the reftoration of K» Charles, and that for the fafcty of his country, and the prefervation of civil fociety therein. No one can doubt of this, who knows that it was this fame Dr. Sanderfon who declared, it was not lawful to refill: the Prince upon the throne, even to fave all the fouls in the whole world. But did Dr. Sanderfon really think that the powers then in being v/cre fuch fools and triflers, as probably to intend to put no other but his lower fenfe upon the Engagement, or indeed to allow of that fenfe at all ? — It is too evident for his credit, from his own words in this very traft, that he did not. For he intreats his correfpon- dent to take care that no copies of his paper (h'ould get abroad, " left the potent party,'* i<\y?, he, " in confidcration of fome things therein " hinted, might think the words of the Engage- " ment too light, and mlghC rhence take occailon " to lay fome heavier obligation upon the Royal- M ids, in words that would oblige to more" Could the Cafuifl have entertained any fufpU cions of this fort, had he really and lincerely thought the lower conjlruclion was the fenfe in- tended by the pqj^nt party ? Y 7 ' He 34S THE CONFESSIONAL. He concludes his cafe thus : M If any man, f out of thefe confiderations, rather than fufTer M extreme prejudice to his perfon, eft ate, or ne- f* ceffary relations, fhall fubfcribe the Engage* ** merit [in that fenfe which binds to /, and if upon it you build an exdufi-ve authority to interpret the fcripturcs, the church diftfroe will be obliged to receive implicitly whatever the church reprefentative fees fit to obtrude upon her. The diversity then between the Latin and Englijh Article, is a mr/diverfity. According to the Latin Article, the church reprefentative has a power of infiituting or ordaining, fubjec~t neverthelefs to the judgement and controul of the church dffifve. According to the Eng- Articls, the church reprefentative is veiled with authority in cor.tr ove;j:cs of faith, which implies an exclufive authority cf interpreting the fcriftures, and confequently is the file judge cf thofe limitations mentioned in the fubfequent parts of the Article ; and confequently, again, her authority is bcundlefs ; nor has the church diffufve any right, upon this flate of tne cafe, to judge whether the church reprefentati've mifufes her authority , or not, f Perhaps the moft blameable part of the conduct of the Fathers fo called, was their introducing^^ injtituiions into Chriftian worihip. And this might be called the faint of the times. But Cafaubon thought they were well juftified in this practice, by the example of the Apo?i\e Paul. His words are thefe : In ed dfputatione [he is fpeaking of his Excercitaiions'] de nominibus Eucharifia, unum eji caput de nomine Mylleriuin. Qb/ervavi Jingularem Fattian prxdeuiiam, qui paganorutn mult a a Whether THE CONFESSIONAL. 373 Whether the cafe of our modern Fathers would admit of a like apology, is not material to in- quire ; as it is certain, that an advocate who fhould offer it on their behalf, would meet with ' inflituta ad pios ufus retuhrunt. Ego non nego pofleriorum culpa, mul.'a mala ir.de provcnijfe ; fed piorum illorum voter urn failutn mordicus defendo exemplo Pauli. Epift. 931. Jac. Aug. Thuano. edit. Aim. Here then is no fault either of the men, or of the times. The example of an Apollle precludes all blame of courfe ; nor can we afcribe this inftance of Jingular pru- dence to a zeal without knowledge. As to the fhare the Fathers had in introducing thefe pagan inftitutions, there is no reafon to think Cafaubon was miitaken in the fact. What the evils were, of which this introduction was the occafion, every one knows who is acquainted with the flate of Popery in the fubfequent ages. Thefe evils are here put to the account of pofterity. But if the Fathers were fingidarly prudent in in- troducing thefe inftitutions, why mould not poflerity be as well jullified by the example of the Fathers, as the Fathers were by the example of St Paul? For will not posterity fay, they introduced thefe additional inltitutions for the fame^j- ous ufes for which the Fathers firft adopted the others ? We have here, however, a; confirmation from matter of fact, that Dr. Middleton was right in deriving the idolatry and fupcrftition of the church of Rome from the rites ofPagan- ifm. The doctor, however, was to be oppofed upon this head, right or wrong ; for, as fome of the ritual cufloms and fuperftitious devotions of Popery had found their way into fome Proteftant churches, it would not have looked well on the fide of reformed church-rulers to have referred to a Pagan institute for the origin of fuch cuflorns and devotions. 1 could indeed point out one liturgic champion, who, being unwilling that certain forms of devotion iq the fervice of the church of England, to which objections had beta A a 4 no 374 THE CONFESSIONAL. no thanks at their hands. They fay, they fee as well as others, that things are out of order in the church ; but alledge the unfeafonablenefs of theie times for any attempt to fet them right. In the mean time, others fee that the infection of the times has, in fome degree, laid hold even of thefe venerable perfonages, and produced ap- pearances of fecularity, which, whenever a refor- mation fhall be happily brought about, we may be fure will not be fuffered to difparage their fa- cred characters, nor to give offence any longer to thofe weak and fhort-fighted brethren, who can- not comprehend chat fuch conformity to the world can contribute to bring the times to maturity for planting and bringing forth more evangelical fruits. But let us do all fides juflice, and now proceed to examine how this plea of impracticability has been elucidated and enforced by certain writers, who were a little more prudent and cautious than the above-mentioned Mr. White. " In all propcfals and fchemes to be reduced " to practice," (fays a very dextrous champion made, mould reft upon the authority of Popifri precedents alone, thought fit to fetch a parallel cafe from Homer. Dr. Middle ton' s opponent, however, if he ftill abides by his hy- pothecs, mult of neceflky change the poflure of his defence of the Fathers. If the fuperffitions they introduced arofe tco late to be derived from Paganifai, either the introduction of them was no fault, or, mt the f cult of the times, but or hjiman nature, a fort of fault, which may be incident to Fa-j then of more modern times. of THE CONFESSIONAL. 37^ of the church of England) " we muft fuppofe the " world to be what it is, not what it ought " to be. We muft propofe, not merely what " is abfolutely good in itfelf, but what is fo with (( refpect to the prejudices, tempers, and confti- " tutions we know, and are fure to be among " uss." To this doclrine a very eminent name is fub- fcribed, which is likewife fubfcribed to fome other doctrines utterly inconfiftent with it, at leaft in my apprehenfion, unlefs conforming to what the world is, and conforming to the fovereignty of Chrift in his own kingdom, is precifely one and the fame thing h. Be this as it may, the docTrine of conforming to the prejudices, tempers, and conftitutions, that we know to be among us, has clearly carried the vogue, and is now pretty generally adopted by the clergy, in whatever repute the reft of the right reverend Author's divinity may be with them. (i It is reprefented, that the world was never lefs difpofed to be ferious and reafonable, than at fhis period. Religious reflexion, we are informed, is not the humour of the times ; nor can men of e Bifliop Hoadltfs Reafonablenefs of Conformity, apud Phi!. Cantab, p. 17. h Sermon on the Nnture of the Kingdom of Chxift, and t!.'. Bifh:>p's Defences of it, any 376 THE CONFESSIONAL. any fort be brought to examine their own opinions, and popular fafliions, with attention fufficient to enable them to judge either of the efficacy of fuch remedies as might be propofed by public authority, or the propriety or expediency of ad- miniftering them." " We are therefore advifed, to exercife our prudence and our patience a little longer ; to wait till our people are in a better temper, and, in the mean time, to bear with their manners and difpofitions ; gently and gradually correcting their foolifh and erroneous notions and habits ; but (till taking care not to offend them with un- feafonable truths, nor to throw in more light upon them at once, than the weak optics of men fo long ufed to fit in darknefs are able to bear. — In one word, to confider the world as it is, and not as it ought to be" This is the common cant of thofe, both in higher and lower flations, who defire to put a negative upon a review of onr ecclefiaftical fyflem. It is fomething, indeed, that, with re- fpe£t to our prefent fyflem, they will own that the body of the people fit in darknefs ; which implies, that, if they were more enlightened, they would have no inconfiderable objections to the forms in which they now acquiefce. But when it is conhdered from whence this light and truth are to come, namely, from thofe records which have prcferved to us the Gofpel as it was preached THE CONFESSIONAL. 377 preached by Chritl and his Apoftles, is it not a little 11 range, that this truth fhould be unfeafona- ble, and this light intolerable, after the Gofpel lias been taught, received, and profeffed, in a fucceffion of generations, for near eighteen hun- dred years ? But to examine his Lordfhip's doctrine a little more narrowly. What the Bifhop calls the pre- judices, tempers, and conflitutions of men, are known to be much oftener, and in much greater abundance, on the fide of folly, falfehood, and vice, than of truth, virtue, and good fenfe. Pre- judice and partial affection carry their point every day, againft the loudeft remonftrances of reafon, and the cleareit light of revelation. If this were a new, or an incidental cafe, peculiar to the prefent, and unknown to former times, we might be at a lofs for directions how to deal with it, and excufeable enough for taking up with the bed expedients that human prudence fhould fug- ged. But thefe, in fact, are the very fame cir- cumftanccs in which our bleffed Saviour found the world at his firft appearance. The preju- dices, tempers, and conflitutions of the men of thofe days, had in them the very fame perverfe- nefs and obliquity, of which we complain at this hour ; and from the fatal cffxte of which J ejus came to fave fuch as would hear his voice. According to the Bimop's maxim, our Saviour fhuuld have ordered his propofdls with a view to the 373 THE CONFESSIONAL. the prejudices and tempers of the Scribes and Pharifees, the leading men among the people to whom he made his firfl overtures of reformation, and from whom the people derived their own prejudices and tempers. Infteadof this, Jefus feems to have formed what this right reverend author calls an ecclefiajlical Utopia. He paid little refpecr. to the eftablifhed church, as it was then modelled. He openly reproved, and by his teaching oppofed, the tra- ditionary religion of the rulers of the Jewifh church, both as to their forms of worfhip and points of doctrine ; and taught many things on thofe occafions, which fhew he never intended his religion mould be fhut up in a national church, or eftablifhed upon exclufivc conditions. The confequence was, that he was purfued by the great churchmen of thofe times with their litmofl vengeance, even to the death. This he knew from the beginning would be his fate ; neverthelefs, what is (till more ftrange! he commanded his Apoftles, and in them, as it ihould feem, all who were to fucceed them in the fame province, to follow his example, and to ad- here to the fame methods of reforming the world. It feems, he committed the event to the providence of God, who favoured the plan fo far at lead, as to make it probable in the highefl.de-* gree, that if any other had been fubftiluted in § its THE CONFESSIONAL. 379 its place, there would not have been one Chriftian this day in the world K 1 Among the great variety of critics who have fat upon The ConfeJJional, there is one who hath honoured it with his notice in a French publication, intituled, Memoires Lite- r aires de la Grande Bretagne, pour Van 1767, who, having garbled and mangled to his tajic, or perhaps to his under- Jianding, the anfwer given above to Bifhop Hoadley's plea for accommodating all propofals for reformation, to what the nvor/d is, not to tuhat it ought to he, adds in the margin the following curious annotation, which he calls the JoiirnaliJVs Remark : " The author mould not have fuffered himfelf •' here to ramble into one of thofe digreffions fo common in " controverfy, by dragging into his fyfrem a comparifon " neither juft nor decent. What refemblance is there be- '* tween a divine Legiflator, who, by working miracles, gives " authority to a new religion, which he comes to teach " mankind, and a private perfon, who delivers fome fenti- " ments which appear to him to be reafonable, but which " are not fupported by indifputable evidence ?" After which he adds, from the plenitude of his critical authority, " One may hurt the belt caufc by defending it with feeble " weapons." Now, if by a private perfon [un particulier\ be here meant the author of The ConfeJJional, the Journalift fhould have taxed him, not with injujiice and indecency, but with downright impiety, in comparing himfelf and his fentimcnts, to the divine Legiflator and his heavenly doc- trines ; an accufation, which, had there been any the leaft colour for it, the adverfaries of The Confefponal ^ would have eagerly adopted, carefully foflered, and pompoufly exhibited with every horrible grace of their calumniating Rhetoriclc, long before it appeared in thf fc idle Memoirs. That the mif- reprefentation was the handy-work either of a Frenchman who did not undcrfland Engliflj, or of an Engliflitnan who did not underiland French, appears from this inltance. In ftating the arguments of the anti-reformers above, againft underta- king any review or amendment of our public forms, it is In 380 THE CONFESSIONAL. In anfwer to this, it hath been fuggefted, that the circumftances of both clergy and people are mentioned as one allegation on the part of the adverfaries, that religious refcxion is not the humour of the titnes ; which is thus tranflated by the Journaliit, Que des reflexions religieufes ne font point faites pour le terns oil nous vons, i.e. Religious reflections are not made [or defgned] for the time in which we live. Now, whatever opinion the author under the hands of the Journalifl might form of the anti-reformers, he never thought any one of them either fo ftupid or fo wicked, as to alledge, that reflections of which religion is the fubject were not made or deflgned for all times, as much as religion itfelf, which, without fuch reflexions, could have no effect upon any times. Nor indeed could the faid author ever have imagined, before he faw it upon paper, that any man could be fo amazingly blockifh, as not to be able to diffinguifh between the general obligation upon all men at all times to exercife religious reflexion ; and the general temper and difpofltion of men at particular times, and in particular places, to be difajfecled to it. Again, according to this translator, The ConfeJfio?zal reprefents Jefus as deiiring to change the Jewifli ConfeJJion of Faith [dupeuple dont il vou- loit changer la ConfeJJion de Foi], of which there is not one word to be found in the whole book. The Jewifli Confeffion of Faith, depending upon the Law and the Prophets, our Lord acknowledged in common with the Jews themfelves ; and it was from thefe common principles efpou fed on all fides, that Jefus argued againff. the prejudices and tempers of the people, and againft the traditions of the Scribes and Phari- rifees, by which they had corrupted the religion delivered by Mofes, both as to forms of worfhip, and points of doctrine. And a very fmall lhare of common fenfe would have in- formed the Journalift, that the author of The Confcfjlonal is here arguing, after this grand and venerable exemplar, from the common principle of all Proteftants, #. Prideaux, printed for Knafton, 1748. p. 91, ?5 rejected THE CONFESSIONAL. 437 iC reje&ed therewith, and the church hath ever " fince fuffered for the want of it °." Our univerfities are generally efteemed to be fo far out of the reach of all reprehenfion, that I mould not have ventured to have retailed this little piece of hiflory upon the credit of a left refponfible voucher than Dr. Prideaux, But, as the fact (lands upon fo good authority, I hope I may be indulged in a few reflections upon it, without being accufed of outraging thefe refpect- able bodies, for which I have the utmoft. vene- ration p. 0 Ibid. p. 92. Dr. Bujby was not ignorant, with what tinfture of religion thefe youngflers either came to him, or went from him. 9 They who will be at the pains to look into the end of the Preface to the fecond edition of the Divine Legation, published in the year 1 742, will find enough to frighten any man from ever hinting at any blemifhes in our univerfities. By the facred fence with which they are there inclofed, one would think every gremjal as fafe from impugners, as an ar- ticle of faith is, when it hath once got into an ejlablijbed confrjfion. The Prefacer, perhaps, did not then know that they had been attacked by any more considerable perfon than the addle-headed Dr. Webjler ; much lefs that the eminent Dr. Prideaux had propofed, among other neceffary regulations in thefe feats of learning, to have a new college eredbed in each by the name of Drone-hall, for reafons there fpecified, by no means honourable to the academical bodies. If I miftake not, tivo editions of the Divine Lega- tion have fince appeared without that Preface, which indeed would with a very ill grace have introduced to our notice a book, wherein fuch freedoms are taken wi;h the Kite's Ee4 In. 433 THE CONFESSIONAL. In my humble opinion, the mofl reafonable account that could be given of the motives of thefe learned bodies for rejecting a benefaction of this fort, would be, that funicient care is al- ready taken for the Chriftian inftruclion of tjiefe younger ftudents, without the aid of a fupernu- merary catechift. if fo, both thefe doctors muil Jiave been mi (taken, the one in defcribing the diftemper, the other in indicating the method of cure. The rejection, indeed, is in the narrative put to the account of the condition, perhaps becaufe the catechift, after the candidate had fatisfied his ex- aminers in philofophv, might have it in his power to put a negative upon him, for deficiency in Chriftian knowledge, which would look like an hardfhip ; and the rather, as there feems to be an expedient already in the hands of both univer- fities, calculated to anfwer all the ends of ap- pointing a particular cafuift. Professor of Divinity in one of the univerfni.es, an4 matter of ridicule and contempt raifed from circumstances of the office, common to all profejjors in the fame chair. I have feen a lift of the co?np!ime?its paid to the learned and worthy ProfefFor in the performance above mentioned, drawn out into one view, for which, according to the opinion of very competent judges, the Profe/Tor might have made his toncurrent a legal return, in a way, however, which would have fhewn the little propriety of dedicating a thing, with \\\t title the lawyers gave it, to the Lord Chilf Jus tick or England, For, THE CONFESSIONAL. 439 For, if I am not mifinformed, in both univerfi- ties, every Matter of Arts hath a right to exa- mine every candidate for a Bachelor's degree, and a power of putting a negative upon him, and as much for a deficiency in Chriftian know* ledge, as for any other default. Upon inquiry, however, I am told, that few if any candidates have their degree poftponed on that account. Perhaps fome may think it is, becaufe they are fcldom or never examined in that branch, for a reafon which the univerfities think very fuffi- cient, and which operates equally to the exclufion of an appointed catechift. Let us fnppofe this reafon to be the impro- priety of intermixing catechiflical examinations with thofe which afcertain the candidate's quali- fications for a degree in arts, and of a catechifl's interfering in the conferring fuch degree ; yet might not the condition be modcl'd by a fmall alteration, fo as to render fuch a benefaction eli- gible both to the univerfities and the public ? Suppofe, for example, no academical candi- date mould be promoted to the office of deacon \ without exhibiting to the bifhop, among the reft of his papers, a teftimonial from the academical catechift. of his proficiency in Chriflian know- ledge I It does not feem at fir ft: fight at all more proper, that the arts which qualify a man for a bachelor's degree fhould of themfelves qualify fiim for the Chriftian miniftry, than that Chriflian knowledge 44o THE CONFESSIONAL. knowledge alone fliould qualify a man for a de- gree in arts. But here I mall certainly be told, that this is the affair of the Bifliops, and not of the Univer- fities ; and that it is an unwarrantable reflexion upon their Lordfhips to fuppofe, they mould want to be informed by a catechift, of the abili- ties of a candidate in that branch of knowledge, which is the particular object of their own exa- minations. To this I can only anfwer in the words of Dr. Prideaux above- cited: " Many who have taken t( their firft degree, are too often admitted (t to be teachers in /A? 'church, when they are " only fit to be catechumens." Perhaps, matters may have mended fince the days of Dr. Prideaux ; or, if not, the whole fault may not belong to the Bifhops and their Examiners. For if> as the worthy Dean of Norwich hath obferved, " Bi- " fhops are often deceived by falfe teJli?nonials" the Univerfities may come in for a fhare of the blame, fince they give as ample teflimonials, and often upon as flender grounds (particularly with refpecl to Chrijlian knowledge), as country miniilers. In the mean time, thefe confiderations, as matters now frand, make it frill more neceffary, that the church (to fave the credit of all parties) fhould content herfelf with the declaration, framed from the Ordination-officej, fet forth, ^hpyye. THE CONFESSIONAL. 441 above. This declaration not only admits of im» provemcnts in theological learning, but exhibits the candidate as determined to make them ; and furely the profeffing fuch .determination fliould be no trifling part of the fecurity he gives to the church. And after that, to require the fame •candidate to fubfcribe to a fyftem of opinions, or interpretations of fcriptures eftablifhed in perpe* tuity, and which he may not gainfay at any future period (notwithftanding what he may find in the fcripture to the contrary) on the peril of being excommunicated ipfofafto, is not only abfolutely to preclude him from all future improvement^ but likewife difabling him from performing his promife to any good purpofe, viz, " to be dili- " gent in reading the holy fpriptures, and in ft fuch fludies as help to the knowledge of the " fame." " No," fays a late notable Cafuift, " young fi people may give a general affent to the Articles, " on the authority of others ; more cannot be ex- " peeled or underftood to be done by thofe who f1 are juft beginning to exercife their reafon, — ic by which means room is left for improvements tc m theology V Which, as I take it, implies a fuppofition thai thefe young fubferibers are left at liberty to re~ 1 See Dr. Powell's Sermon, on Commencement-Sunday, 17S7- 7 tracl 442 THE CONFESSIONAL. trad their aifent to the Articles, if, in the pro- grefs of their ftudies, they find what the)' affented to inconfiftent with their farther difcoveries and improvements in theology. And, if this is really the cafe, why would not the preacher fpeak out? This fermori, fo far as I know, is the lafl: for- mal Defence of the fabfcriptions required in the church of England ', that hath yet appeared ; and is fo well calculated to make all ends ?neet, that it is a thoufand pities it fhould ever be fuperfeded by any new production upon the fiibject, which fhould change the poflare of Defence r; particu- " Facher Baron 's maxim, Malum bene pofetum ne ?no . 1 3. And what the ProfefTor means by affenting to them, he explains elfe- where, namely, the giving Church-governofs fuffieient af- " furance of the foundnefs of their faith and doftrines," p. 3. But of two or more oppojite dottrines, one Or more muft be un- found ; and the mere aft of fubfcribing, where the uniform fenfe of Church-governors, with refpeft to the faith and doc- trines to be fubfcribed to, is not firft eftablifhedj will not give Church -governors fuffieient, or indeed any aflurance, which of the oppofite doctrines the fubfcriber aflents to. To do t)r. Powell juflice, however, his fcheme has much more of a Protefiant air, than that of the learned ProfefTor. The great and leading Proteftant principle is, that the fcriptures are the only Rule of Faith to every Chriftian, whether he is a clergyman or a layman. But whoever is required to aflent to human interpretations of fcripture, as a Tefi of the found- nefs of his Faith, is required to adopt dnother Rule of Faith, fubftituted in the place of the fcriptures ; and is fo far re- quired to defert the only Proteftant Rule of Faith, or, at the beft, to abide by it under fuch reftriftions as exclude his right of judging for himfelf. But this, Dr. Rutherforth af- ferts, Church-governors have a right to require of the Clergy ; and if it is not required of the Laity, it is not, it feems, for want of the good-will of the Church-governors, for they M underftand the' Laity to be as much bound in cori- " fcience to believe what is contained in thefe human inter- ** pretations of fcripture, as the Clergy who declare their af- •* fent to them." The Profeffor fays indeed, that" nochurch " has a right to make ufe of its Confeflion [/'. e. its inter- ** pretations of fcripture] as a Law, to compel the candi- «* dates for holy Orders to aflent to the propofitions con- •' tained in it, but only as a Tefl to difcover whether they do *• aflent to them or not." Eat what if they do not aflent to pofterity THE CONFESSIONAL. 445 poflerity in forming a true judgement of the libe- them ? Why then the Confeflion immediately operates as a Teji-lavj, and excludes them from certain privileges, from which, had the fcriptures been allowed to be their only Rule of Fait b, they would not have been excluded. And wherein, after all this quibbling, does the learned ProfefTor's plan of church-authority differ from that of Popery, but in this cir- cumftance, that his Proteftant Church-governors have all the benefits of infallibility, vjiihout the abfurdity x>f pretending to it ? See Dedication to Pope Clement XL p. iii. ed. 8vo. 17 15. But Dr. PovittTs fcheme has indeed, as I faid, a little more of a Proteftant afpedt. For though he does not explain him- ielf on the right of private judgement, claimed by Proteftants, of interpreting the fcripture for themfelves, being wholly filenton that head, yet he makes as much room for private judgement in interpreting eftabliftied Confeflions as heart can wifh : and is fo far from fuppofing Church-governors to be always in the right, that he fays, " Every fincere man who " makes a public declaration, will confider it as meaning *' what it is ufually conceived to mean. I will not add, by tl thofe who require this declaration ; not [whatitisconceived " to mean] by the Governors of the church, becaufe they " cannot properly be faid to require that which they have no '* authority to difpenfe with, or alter." Obfcurity is one of the EJfentials of CafuiJJry. But, fo far as I underftand thii paflage, it imports, " that the declarer may very Jincerely *' conceive his declaration to mean, what the Governors of *' the church do not conceive it to mean ;" and this mud be as true of an hundred declarers as of one. Sermon, p. 12. Whereas Dr. Rutherforth fays, that " the church requires •* evidence of the candidates for the miniftry, that their faith " and dodlrines are fuch, as it judges to be ag reeable " to the true religion of Cbrijl." And again : " The church " claims a right tofecure the teaching of fuch doctrines to H its members, as it judges, upon the best informa- c' TION IT can GET, to It agreeable to the truth of the Gof- "/<•/." Charge, p. 5. 18. This fecurity depends upon the 44* THE CONFESSIONAL. ral fentiments of the* prefent age on the article of moral honejly, as well as give them a jufl idea evidence above-mentioned. But it is impoflible the church or [what is the fame thing, in the prefent cafe] church-go- vernors mould ever have this evidence, if they who declare their affent to the Confeflion, may fincerely conceive their declaration to mean, what the church or church-governors do not conceive it to mean. It appears then, upon the whole, that it had been Dr. Rutherfortb's wifeft way to have left fubfcriptions upon that ample foundation upon which Dr. Powell had placed them. By pinning down fubfcribers to the judgement of the church or church-governors, as he has done, he hath only given occafion to obferve, that Popijh equally with Proteftant churches fall within his Vindication j and his feeble endeavours throughout his Second Vindication to rid himfelf of that imputation, only ferve to fix it the fafter upon him. For my part, I fee only one hope he has left us. The next adventurer in the caufe may probably do as much for him as he hath done for Dr. Powell, and leave us juft where we were. In which cafe, I dare fay, they whom he writes for will approve of his acquiefcence, without with-holding the reward of his by-paft labours. It is indeed ferioufly to be lamented, that, after all the lights and advan- tages that have been vouchfafed to this happy country, and the many deliverances and efcapes we have had from civil and ecclefiaftical tyranny, there ihould 1H11 be found among us Divines, who would once more fhackle us in the fetters of Church-authority, and particularly, that fuch Divines Ihould be found in thofe feats of learning and liberal fcience, where every poffible encouragement ought to be given to freedom of enquiry, and the purfuit of truth, unincumbered with the ligatures of fyftem, and perfectly tfript of thei vizard of fcholaitic fophiftry. With what fpirit can a youth of inge- nuous probity of mind purfuehis fcriptural ftudies, when he reflects, that whatever difcoveries he may make, upon what- ever conviction he may form his religious principles, he bath of THE CONFESSIONAL, 44? of our improvements in theology, and how far we go beyond the zeal and dexterity of our fore-* already given the chiirch fecurity to be determined by her Confeflion, upen the authority of others, in terms which could not have been ftronger or more exprefs, had he done it after the moil minute examination of its contents ? With what ala- crity can he"go forward in quell of religious knowledge, in order to qualify himfelf for a faithful minifter of the Gofpel* under anxieties and fufpicions that the word of God may difagree with the eftablifhed Confeflion, to which, however, if he does not fubferibe in the fame pofitive and abfolute terms, he is told, he muft apply himfelf to fame other way cf getting a livelihood ; and over and befides have the mord loca- tion to be upbraided as a re-volter from the aiient he had given, though it was merely upon tru/I, by a hundred mean* narrow-minded men, who have taken the hint from their own fubferiptions, never to think for themfelves ? The nine was, when the moderation of the church of England gave her fome advantage over the eftablifhed church of Scot/and, which at that period was the more rigorous of the two, in ad- hering to her doclrinal fyftem. Were Dr. Rutherforth's Vin- dication to be the ftandard of orthodoxy among us, wer mould foon be in a fair way of loflng this advantage, t'iie language of the mod refpectable of the clergy of the church of Scotland is become the language of truth, reafon, peace, and Chrillian liberty. And it is with pleafure I can now elofe my additions with a fpecimen of it, delivered in a pub- lic difcourfe, about three months after Dr. Rutberfbrth's Charge, and on a fimilar occafion. — " The minifters of reli- •' gion," fays this truly Chriftian preacher, <; are bound to ** lead the way to union, by keeping at the titmoft diftance ** from fpiritual dominion over the faith and confeiences of •• their brethren. Neither, fays the Apofilc Peter, I Ep. •f v. 3. as being lords cntr GotTs heritage, but being c?ifampU: to " the flock. And his beloved brother Raul to the fame pur- " pole ; 2 Cor. i. 24. Not for that we ha-ve dominion over your F f fathers, 448 THE CONFESSIONAL. fathers, in accommodating plain, fimple, naked Chriilianity, with the arts, ornaments, opulence, «' faith , but are helpers of your joy ;for by faith, that is, by fin- '* cere, private, perfonal convidlion, ye Jland. After fuch " declarations as thefe from thofe who were divinely in- " fpired, to claim the dominion of peoples faith and con- " fcience, is highly unreafonable ; and to comply with it, is *'/hothfooliJh and wided. It is, in effecl:, to fet afide real *' infallible authority, and to fubititute that which is weak ** and fallible in the room of it. From thence, too, come " divifions, herefies, ftrifes very calamitous. Our bleffed " Lord forefaw this, and therefore exprefly enjoined, Mctth. ■S( xxiii. g, 10. that we mould call no man father upon earthy if becaufe one is our Father, who is in heaven : neither to be *' called mafiers, becaufe one is our Mafier, even Chrijl. Jefus •* the Son of God, he is Lord of all ; Lord of our confcience, "Lord of our faith; and now he adminifters his govern- " ment, by the written rule of his word. This rule is open " and free to all; even the teachers of it themfelves are not, " under a pretence of interpreting" what it contains, to in- " troduce their own authority, to ufurp maflery and domi- " nion. No ; they are, in all humility and diligence, to 44 affift their brethren, but not to impofe their interpretations '« upon them. The hurt which has been done to truth and " love, by affeflingfpiritual dominion, is fcarce to be imagined 44 by thofe who are ignorant of the hiftory of the church ; •' and thofe who are in any tolerable ipeafure acquainted " with that hiftory, will need no other argument to fall in 44 with the counfel of union and peace which I now propofe. 44 They will rejoice in the liberty wherewith Jefus Chrift 44 has made them free; they will ftedfaftly adhere to it in their 44 own practice, and they will publiQi far and wide, as their 44 influence can reach, that T'hefupreme Judge, by which all " controverjies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of 44 councils, opinions of ancient Writers, doclrines of men, and pri- 44 fition attacked by the lower Houfe of Convocation, 152. His remark on the twenty-third Article, 176. His opinion of the Homilies, 187. How replied to by a Lutheran divine; on his recommending an union between Lutherans and Calviniifs, 312. Btijby, Dr. his offer of founding catechiftical lectures for the religious inih uction of under-graduates, rejected by both Uni- verlkies, 436. C. Calamv, Dr. Edmund, his fentiments on the eighth Article of the church ot England, refpecting the Athanalian creed, 201, Calvlmjh in Holland, an account ot their notions of church government, 294. Cart-,vr/g,(>t, rejects the authority of the Fathers, in determining religious controverlies, 23. Cafauhoti) his account ot the fentiments of King James and his bifhops, concerning the edict of the States relating to the Gomariits and Arminians, 288, note. Jultifies the Fathers, in introducing Pagan inllitutions into Chriilian worfhip, 372, noti ■ Claries I. ltate of the contefl: between him and the Scots pro- teftefc on renewing confeilions of faith fuited to circumllances, 68, note. Was a profound Arminian, and why, 140. 0 arJt 1 II. his declaration to the prelbyterians from Breda, Pre* t to 1 ed, xxix. CbiUingivertbt 4&0 1 N D E X. Cbillingtvortb, his account of the origin of fchifms in the chufch,- $2. note. Chrijl, his kingdom not capable of alliance with civil commu- nities, on the authority of Bp. Warburton, Preface to i ed. lv. Cbriftian Religion, is corrupted and cramped by human eftablifti- ments, Advertifemcnt, xvi. Church, a definition of, from Mr. Locke. Preface to i ed. xviii. Church of England, Dr. Mofheim's character of, Preface to i ed. xxi. How this character might be made good, Ditto, xxiij Review of the fteps taken for the farther reformation of, Ditto, xxiii. Remarks on the Hampton-court conference, . Ditto, xxiv. The Savoy conference, Ditto, xxix. A reform in it, how defeated in the reign of William III. Ditto, xxxvii. Obferva- tions on the conduct of, in profeffing a difpofition toward re- formation, Ditto, xliii. The civil power not averfe to a refor- mation in it, Ditto, xlvi. Remarks on Archbp, Wake's fcheme for a union of it, with the Gallican church, Ditto, xci. Not fo well difpofed to treat of a union with diilenters, Ditto, xcii. The zeal of both pallors and people againit the church of Rome vifibly declined, xcvii. The authority of it fubmitted to the teft of Scripture, by Bp. Jewel, 73. Why a farther re- formation in it, did not rake place on the acceifion of king. George I. 93, note. The eftablifhment of the Articles of it, as a itandard of doctrine, objected to by Bp. Burnet, 94. The copious form of doctrine in it, how accounted tor byBp. Bur- ned 107. Why the pafiage in king Edward's Articles againit the real prefence was ftruck out, on the review of them, in queen Elizabeth's reign, 1 1 7. The ufe of the thirty-nine Articles according to Bp. Burnet, 124. The Articles of it fo- lemnly accepted by a refolution of the Kouie of Commons in the reign of king Charles I. 141. In what fenfe it has been always Xinarnmo us, in points of dodlrine, 156. Inquiry whether the reaibnablenefs of conformity to it, is confiffent with the rights of private judgement, 218. The mode of fub- icription required to the Articles of it, 243. The clergy of it, charged with departing in practice from their Articles, 244. note. Subfcription to the Articles of it, a total relignation of the right of private judgement, 24^. The firif occafion of difference between it and the Puritans, 270. Archbp. Parker's expofition of the regal fupremacy over it, 277. Is agitated by the Cornells between Arminians and the Puritan defenders of the dortrinal articles, 297. Arminianilin prevalent at pre- fent among the fubfcribers,3 1 3. A reformation in it, necellary, 355. By whom a reformation of it mould be undertaken, 357.- The' INDEX. 461 The firit claufe of the twentieth Article, of fufpicious autho- rity, 367, nole. Examination of the alleged uniitnefs of the prefent times f< r atterhpting a farther reformation, 376. Ex- pediency of a review of the forms of it relating to the Trinity, 401. Proper tefl of the doctrines of it, by which a reform fhould be conducted, 119. See Articles, Liturgy, and Ordination. Cicero, examination of his religious opinions, 259, note. His observations on fuperftition, 260,. note. His principles of legislation, 261, note. Le Gere's character of him, 407. Bp. Warburton's apology tor him, ibid. note. Civil Magijfrate, his great ufe in affairs of religion, according to Dr. Jortin, 210. According to Archbp. Tillotfon, 263, note. Clarendon, Lord, his conduct in the Savoy conference. Preface to I ed. xx ix. Clarke, Dr. his defence of the fcripture as the only authority in religion, 221. Deduction from his arguments, 230. Sup- poled a fubfeription agreeable to the office of ordination, ful- ficient, without fubfeription to the thirty-nine Articles, 426. ?wte. Clayton, Bp. his plea for latitude in fubfeription to the Articles of the church of England, examined, 247. His notion of the dependence of civil fociety on doctrinal points in religion, inquired into, 2 cr. Admits the advantages of religious free- dom, 25c. Was in danger for oppoling the Athanaiian creed, 398. His difpofition toward a farther religious reform, 404. Colbatcb, Dr. remarks on his Inquiry into the antiquity and an- tbority of the Apojiles Creed, 102. note. Commons, Houfe of, its folemn avowal of the xxxix Articles of the church of England, in the reign of King Charles I. 141. Comprehcnfion. See Church of England, J^uritans, Hamp- ton-couut, Savoy, Tillotson, &c. Concord, book of, the intolerant fpirit of, 1 3. note. Confejfvvu of faith, the natural confequences of impofing them" on the clergy, Preface to 1 ed. ci. The origin of them among the fitft reformers, 7. The diffractions occalioned by them, 18* The right of eitablifhing them inquired into,30. A rigorous in- forcement of them y • exclude diligent fearchcrs of the fcripturcs from every communion where fueh power is ex- ercilcl, 3 £. Inquiry into ihc confequences of non-fubferiprion after acated to the miniftry, 4S. note. The requhed fubfeription to them not to be aflerted without interfering with the rtghtof private judgement, e o. Examination of" the Apology ot the Remonftrants in Holland, 61. The apoliclic tounda- tion of them inquired into" 95. 1 Coriftancty 462 I N D E X. Confiance, the council of, admits the decretals as of equal au- thority with the epiftles of the Apoftles, 114, note. Conftitution, ecclefiaftical, definition of a defirable one, Adver- tijcmcnt, xix. Controverjies, their life in religion. Preface to 1 ed. lxxiv. Con-viBion, the fmall fhare it lias in influencing the conduct of mankind, Preface to 1 ed. lxxi. Convocation, a reformation of the church of England how ob- ftructed by it, in the Reign of William III. Preface to 1 ed. xxxvii. The lower Ho ufe of, attacks Bp. Burnet's Expofition of the thirty-nine Articles, 152. Conybeare, Bp. remarks on his iermon, intituled, Tie Cafe of Subfcription, Pr face to zed. id, note. 32, note. 208. Corpus ConfeJJionum, the intention of that work, 14. Remarks on the Synopfis in it, 16. Cranmer, Archbp. negociates with Melancthon for a commorf confeflion of faith, to unite Proteftant churches, 146. Was concerned in compofing King Edward's Articles, 148. Was the principal compiler of themt 1 64. Creed, Apoftles, remarks on Dr. Colbatch's manufcript treatife of it, 102, note. For that of St. Athanaiius, fee Athanasiax. D. Dahymple, Mr. extract from his fernu n before the fynod of Glafgow, in lavour or Chriftian liberty, 447, ?wte. Damvilliers, his reflections on the l'ubfcription required in France" to the condemnation of Janienius, Advertifement, xiii. Davenant, Bp. is reprimanded in council for preaching on pre* deftination, 310. Afierts predeftinatian to be the doctrine of the church of England, ^^2. Davenport. See Sinclair. D'Alcmbert, inquiry into the juitnefs of the fuperiority he at- tributes to the Prbteitant univerfities in Germany over thofe of the Romifh perfuafion. Preface to 1 ed. lxxvii, note. His account of the motives which led to the expulfion of the Jefuits, Ditto, lxxxii, note. Daivfon, Dr. Benjamin, his character as a defender of religious liberty, Advcrt:fcu:eut, vi. De Marca, his character as a writer, by Bp. Burnet, Preface to I ed. liii, note. De Trautjbbn, John Jofeph, Archbp. of Vienna, obfervations on his pa floral Letter, Preface to 1 ed, bixviii, note. Declaration, of King James I. prefixed to the xxxix Articles of the church of England, the hiftory of it inquired into, 133. 5 Decretals, INDEX; 463 Ibecretals, are admitted by the Council of Conftance, as of equal authority with the epiftles of the apollles, 1 14, note. Difciplinc, church, 'an expreflion of loofe fignification, Preface to 1 ed; lxi$ note. Do&rinet, Chriftian, examination whether any fixed formulary of them is to be juftified from the writings of St. Paul, 95. Inquiry after this formulary itfelf, 98. Du Pin, M. L'Avocat's apology for his negociating with Archbp. Wake for a union between the Englifh and Gallican churche?, Preface to I ed. xci, note. E. Elizabeth, Queen, indications of her having temporized with the Papifts in conducting the Reformation, 1 1 7. Foundation of orthodoxy during her reign, 122. Ofborne's account ot her afluming the fupremacy, 1 36. Connives at the Bifhops^ oppreifing the Puritans, 271. Was offered the fovereignty of Six of the Seven United Provinces, 295. Encyclopedic, a remark on the religious freedoms in that work, being wrote by profefled catholics, Preface to 1 ed. lxxiii, note. ■ Engagement, Dr. Sanderfon's ingenious falvoes for taking it, after oppoling the Covenant^ 341. Is fubferibed by Dr. Barrow, who afterward prevails to have his name itruck out, 350, note. Epijiopius, his controverfy in defence of the conrellion ot raith, publithed by the Remonftrants in Holland, 74. Erafmus, De/iderius, his account ot the precedence given by catholics to the papal relcripts, above the epiitles ot St. Peter and St. Paul, 1 1 5, note . His remarks on the corruptions of the Romilh church, 410, note. Erafmus, Johamics, rejects the authority of Fathers and councils in religious doctrines, and is forced to fly his country tor it, 2 3' Ejiabliflh-ncnts, religious, truth not to be preferred under them, unlels counteracted by the exercife of religious treedom, 255. The meaning of the terms inquired into, 256. See Con- fessions of Faith, ARTICLES of the Church of England, Protestants, &c. Expedience, no fuffieient foundation for a difcretionary exercife ot church authority, 41. G g E-:tlh 4<% INDEX. F. Fathers, the confequences of their introducing Pagan inftitutions into Chriftian worfhip, 373, note. Their diiingenuity in- flanced, 406. 408. Fofter, Dr. his difintereited oppofition to fubfcriptions, 47, note. Fothcrgil, Dr. undertakes to prove the Articles of the church of England not to be CalvinifHcal, 280, note. Fox, the martyrologilt, his reflection on the univerflty ef Ox- ford, 4££. Free and Candid Difqiafitiom, the probable effects of that pub- lication, Preface to 1 ed. xv. Fuller, Dr. examination of his fuppofed latitude of general terms employed in the Articles of the church of England, 2$z. His account of the origin of the term Puritan, 297. G. Geneva, the clergy of, releafed from fubfeription to their con- fenfus declrhwv, by the means of Bifhop Burnet, 83. Germanv, the Protertant and Popifli univerfities of, compared, Ixxvii, '?wte. Government, Civil, the fubfiftence of it not dependent on doc- trinal forms of religion, 2$i. The true ufeof religion to it, 2^3. The advantages of religious toleration to it, 2 54. Grenada, a warning of the encouragement now given to Ca- tholics in that ifland, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxix. Grotius, his explanation of the grammatical fenfe of doctrinal propolitions, 168. Forms a fcheme for a union between Pro- tectants and Catholics, 287. Jointly with Bamvelt, draws up the edisl of the States refpecling the Gomariils and Ar- sninians, 288. B. Hales, Mr. of Eton, remarks on his letter to Archbp. Laud, 367. Furnifhes evidence of the fufpicious authority of the firft claufe of the twentieth Article of the church of England^ ibid. note. Hampton-cowt conference, remarks on it, Preface to 1 ed. xxiv. 278. Harmony of the Confeffions, publifiied by the Belgic and Gal- lican churches, 1 \. Objections againll this work, 12. 1 Harris, IN D E X. 465 Harris, Dr. ftri&ures on his account of King James's contelt. with Vorltius, 284, ?w(e. Hartley, Dr. David, remarks on his character of the Chriftian Church, in his Objcrvations on Man, 406. 414. His objec- tions to fubferibing to the divine authority of the fcriptures, 428. Hire/j, the origin of, among the firft reformers, 5. Is per- petuated and multiplied by church cenfures, 69. Heylin, Dr. his opinion of the firit Englifh reformers who com-'' piled the church Articles, 326, note. Heylin, Peter, an interpolation in King James's Declaration prefixed to the Articles of the church of England, detected j as it appears in his Bibliotheca Regia, 134, note. Hiseha-, racier, 16^. Afferts the authority of the Homilies, 189. Afterwards, abides by the fecond book only, 100. His tefti- inony in lavour ot the authenticity of the firit claufe of the twentieth article of the church of England, unfatisfaCtory, 368, 7iote. Hoadly, Bp. his fentiments on church government, Preface to 1 cd. liv. His opinion of the Homilies of the church of Eng- land, 190. Propoles a temporiling plan of reformation, 375V Alleges an unfitneis in the prefent times for undertaking a re- formation, 376. Homilies, Archbp. Laud's conditional fubfeription to them, 1 S6. Bp. Burnet's declared opinion of them, 187. Sinclair's ac- count of them, 188. Bp. Barlow's account of them, ibid. The fentiments of Peter Heylin concerning them, 189. Bp- Hoadly's opinion of them, 190. Hypocrify, deltruftive to true Religion, 255. J- James I, his threat to the Puritans, Preface to r ed. xxiv. His former fentiments, and how altered, Ditto, xxv. Account of his Declaration prefixed to the Articles ot the church of England, 133. How induced to favour the Arminians, 139. Was dilfatisfied with Archbifhop Parker's limitation of the: regal fupremacy over the church, 277. His conduct at the Hampton-court conference, 280. Attempts to confute Voi- itius's book De Deo, 283. Favours Grotius's fcheme for a coalition between the Proteftants and Catholics, 287. His in- ftruiftions to the fix Divines fent by him to the fynod of Do:t, 293. Account of his religious and political opinions, 294. His objections to religious toleration, 296. Enjoins all un- dignified clergymen to forbear preaching on certain doctrinal G g 2 points, 4^6 INDEX* points, 299> Anecdote of him, and the Bifliops Andrews and Neale, 422, note. Janjenijls, their tenets prejudicial to the intereits of the church of Rome, lxxxiv, note. Janjemus\ remarks on his Syitem of Grace, 328. His book condemned, 329. His dodtrmes fuppreiTed in France, as tending to a Proteilant reformation, 330. Jennings, Mr. his character of Popery, Advertifement, vii. Jerom, St. a character of, 406. Jefuks, the motives that operated to their expulfion, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxii, note. Probability of their reiteration, Ditto, lxxxiii, note. jeufely Bp. iubmits all church authority to the tell of fcripture, 78. Character of his Apology for the church of England, 1 10. Jobnfin, Mr. of Cranbrook, his cenfure of Dr, Calamy's Remark on the eighth Article ot the church of England, refpeifing the Athanafian Creed, 201. Jones, Mr. a card to him, -\.^. JortiH, Dr. his acknowledgment of the great ufe of the civil magiflrate, in religious concerns, 210. Ireland, the Articles of religion there, repealed by the convoca- tioiij and thofe of the church of England fubitituted, 249, note. L. La Roche, charges Armiinianifm on the church of England, 313, note. Lardner, Dr. his reflections on the council of Nice, ofFenfivc to Archbp. Seeker, Advertifement, x. His remark on altera- tions ol religion, 214, note. Land, Archbp. admits the limitation of fubfeription to the Articles of the church of England, in the ftatute 13 Eliz. c. 1 2. Preface to 2 ed. ix, notd His conduct toward the Pu- ritans, Preface to 1 ed. xxv. His conditional fubfeription to the Homilies, 186. Procures an injunction, forbidding un- dignified clergymen preaching on certain doctrinal points, 298. 'fhe reafon of his patronizing Mr. Montague, 300. Gets the prohibition of preaching on controverted points extended to Deans and Bifliops, 309. Impofed an Arminiai> fenfe on the church Articles, 331. Remarks on Mr. Hale's letter to him, 367. Launoi, John de, attempts to reduce the calendar of popifh faints, Preface to 1 ed. vi. L.e Cxrc, his character of St. Jerom, 407. z JjEftruejnel, Father Pafquier, his doctrines condemned by the bull Umgenitus, 329. His dying declarations, 330. " R. Heal Prefence, why the pafTage in King Edward's articles againft it was ftruck out, on the review of them in Queen Eliza- beth's reign» 117- Reformatio)!, public,' the hazards of attempting, Preface to 1 ed. i. Conduct of thofe who are deterred from profecuting it, and acquiefce under public errors, Ditto, iv. The adver- faries or it pointed out, Ditto, v. The obftacles to it, Ditto, xiii. Inducements to attempt it, Ditto, xvii. See Church of England. Reformed Churches, examination of Dr. Machine's pofition, " that they were never at mch a diitance from the fpirit and doctrine of the church of Roriie, as at this day," Preface, is 1 ed. lxxv, note. "Agree With the church of Rome in the doctrine of the feparate exigence of the foul, lxxxv, note. Reformers, remarks oh their conduct in defending themfelves againit popifh calumnies, 108. The conferences of their intolerant 'fpirit, 112. Religion, the etymology and true fenfe of the word, Preface to I ed. xxxviii. Remonjlrarits in Holland, how treated in confequence of the lynod at Dorr, fa. Inconfiltency of their own conduct after- ward, ibid. Their apology, 60. An examination of ' this apology, 61. Admit the right of private judgement in com- paring -confeffions with Icripture, 76. Their motive in this concelfion, 77. 1 ■ Reynolds* INDEX. 47r Reynolds, Dr. Alterations in the Articles of the Church of England, propofed by him at the Hampton-court conference Richlieu, cardinal, his fcientific knowledge not able to free him from fuperlHtion, Pre/ace to i ed. lxxiii, note. Rogers, his Expofition of the thirty-nine Articles, the only one publifhed by authority of the church of England, 234. His account of the difputes between the Bifhops and the Puritans on the fubjedf. of epifcopal authority, 274. Anecdote related by him, concerning Zanchius, 324, note. Rome, the church of7 an inquiry by what means it has intitled itfelf to the favour of the reformed churches, Preface to 1 ed. xcviii. Avails itfelf of the rife of feftaries among the re- formers, 9. Inquiry when it began to admit traditions as of equal authority with the fcriptures, 114, note. The idolatry of, derivable from Pagan inftitutions, 373, note. Rujbzvorth, his account of Montague's being recommended to King Charles I. by Laud and other Bifhops, 303. Rujl, Bp. his opinion of the clergy of the church of England, 46, note. Rutherforih, Dr. remarks on his Vindication of the Right of Pro- tefiant Churches to require Subfcription, &c. Preface to 2 ed. iii. Remarks on the Defence of his Charge, Ditto, x, note. His idea of a Chriitian church compared with Mr. Locke, from whom it is quoted, Ditto, xvii. Compared with Bp. Warburton, Ditto, xxiv. Examination ot his fyftem of church govern- ment, Ditto, xxvii. This compared with Mr. Locke, Ditto, xxx. Examination of his account of the duty of church go- vernors, Ditto, xxxi. Does not think a reception of the fcriptures as the word of God, fufficient fecurity for faith and a pure confcience, 19. Teaches that fubfcription is not re- quired ot laymen, who are left to the exercife of private judgement, 40, note. His uncharitable reflection on diflenting minilters, 47, note. His defence ot fubfcriptions inquired into, 48, note. Examination of his account of the Apoftles method ot condemning falfe doctrines, 109, note. His con- tradictory pofitions refpecling lay-aflent to the Articles of the church of England, as a qualification for communion, 125, note. Sacramental 472 N D E X. Sacramental Te/i, as a qualification for holding civil offices, ob- fervatious on it, Preface to i ed. xlviii. Sanderfon, Dr. his objections to lalvoes for taking the Covenant, 339. His falvoes for taking the Engagement, 341. His dex- trous equivocations applied to ambiguous exprerlions in the Engagement, 344. Teaches that the obligation to obferve it, after lubferibing, depends upon the continuance of the power that impofed it, 350. Savoy conference, account of, Preface to 1 ed. xxix. Compared to the Council of Trent, Ditto, xlvii. Scepticifm, has a tendency to lead to Popery, Preface to 1 ed. lxxii. Science, how far the improvements in it fecure mankind from relapfing into Romifh fuperfHtion, Preface to 1 cd. lxvii. Scriptures, Dr. Hartley's objections to fubferibing to their divine authority, 428. Remarks on the various copies of them, 429. No variations in them affect the eflential points of religion, 431. Seegrave, his remarks on the church of England clergy de-* parting from their Articles, 244, note. Teaches that the Prince only is concerned in fecuring government againft Nonconforming, 251, note. Scckendorf, his account of a Popifh feet of Fanatics, fuppofed t© be the Myftics, 1 1 2, note. Seeker, Archbp. his plea for church authority, and unneceflary doctrines, Advertifement, ix. Sectaries, the occafion of them among the fitft Reformers, $. Are perpetuated and multiplied by church cenfures, 69. How accounted for by the firll: Reformers, 113. Selden, Mr. his opinion of fubfeription to the Articles of the church of England, Preface to 2 ed. xii, note. Sinclair, Francis, his account of the Homilies of the church of England, 188. Smith, fubferibes the Articles of the church of England con-. ditionally, 183, note. Society, its fubfiitence not dependent on doctrinal forms of re- ligion, 2^1. The true uie of leligion to it, 2$$. The ad- vantages of toleration to it, 254. Soul, its ieparate exiftence, a tenet common to the church of Rome and Reformers, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxv, note. The (ioctrine of the lleep of it condemned by King Edward's Articles, and refuted by Bp. Law, J 1 . Stebbiflr, INDEX. 473 Stebbing, Dr. his j unification of the decifions of fynods ex- amined, 63, note. 67. 80. His defence of a ilricCt fub- fcription to the Articles of the church of England, for ad- miifion to the miniftry, 209. Sttypc, his opinion of fyftematical tefts in religion, 154, note. Superjlition, Cicero's obfervations on it, 259, note. Sykes, Dr. an examination of his anfwer to Dr. Waterland's Cafe of Arian J'ubfcription, 231. Acknowledges an equivocal fenfe in the words of the Articles of the Church of England, 333- Yillotfon, Dr. his account of a conference toward a comprehenfion with the diflenters, Preface to 1 ed. xxxvi. Prevailed on Bp. Burnet to undertake an Expofition of the Articles of the church of England, 85. An examination of his fentiments with regard to church authority and fubfcriptions, 87. Is injurioutly treated by his biographer Dr. Birch, 94, note. His principle, averting the civil magiitrate's fuperintending power over religion, examined, 263, note. His conceffion with re- gard to this pofition, 266, note. Tindal, remark on a ftricture made by him on Rapin the hilto- rian, 31$. Toleration, religious, its advantages to civil communities, 2^4. King James's objections to it, 296. Toplady, Mr. his reflections on the tendency of fubfcriptions to confeffions of faith, 321, note. Inquiry into his quarrel with the author of the ConfeJJional, idem, ibid. His inconfiftency in defending the Articles and Homilies, 322, note. Traditions, inquiry when the church of Rome fail began to admit them as of equal authority with the fcriptures, 114, ?wte. Trimming in religious matters, remarks on it,. 91. Trinity, the doctrine of it eminently defended by the Doctors Waterland and Bennet, without agreeing between themfelves, 161. Dr. Waterland's notions ot the damnatory claufes in the Athanalian creed concerning it, 197. Expediency of a reform in the church liturgy, refpefting it, 401. Truth, the preiervation of it admitted by Bp. Clayton to de- pend on the exiftence and exercife of religious freedom, Uniformity, 474 INDEX. v. Uniformity, Act of, 14 Car. II. how far it affects the ftatute 13 ILliz. c. 1 2. requiring fubfcription to the Articles of the church of England, Preface to z ed. x, note. Unigenitus, the famous bull fo called,on what occailon publilhed, 329- Univerjities, Englilh, reject Dr. Bufby's offer of founding cate- chiltical lectures in them, 436. Dr. Prideaux's remarks on the religious ignorance of candidates tor holy orders, after being educated in them, ibid. note. Obfervations on their refufal of Dr. Bufby's otFer, 438. See War burton. Vindication of the Right of Protcjlant Churches to require Subfcription, &c. Remarks on that publication, Preface to z ed. ii. See Rutherforth. VorftiuS) his book De Deo, written againft by King James I. 283. W. Wake, Archbp. his plan for a union between the Englifh and Gallican churches, Preface to 1 ed. lxxxvi. Reflections on his conduct in this negociation, Ditto, xci. xciv, note. Remarks, on his conduct with refpect to Dr. Sacheverell, Ditto, xcvi. His inconfiftency with regard to the Schifm-bill, 413. Warburton, Bp. his idea ot a Chriitian church, Preface to 2 ed. xxiv. Remarks on his Alliance between Church and State, Pre-, face to 1 ed. Hi. 245. Strictures on his defence of the Fathers in his Julian, 365. His apology for Cicero's oratorical craft analyfed, 407, note. His defence of the universities, in the Pretoce to the fecond edition of his Divine Legation, omitted in the fubfequent editions, 437, note. Ward, Bp. his conduct in refpect ot the comprehenfion fcheme, Preface to 1 ed. xxxii. Waterland, Dr. his notions of fubfcription to the Articles of the church of England, examined, 793. His fentiments on the damnatory dailies in the Athanaiian creed, 197, How he reconciles the obligation to fubfcription with the right ot private judgement, 227. Endeavours to prove the Articles anti-calviriiilical, t,$z. Wcntzvortb, Sir Peter, his converfation with Archbp. Parker, reipecting the bill for eftablilhing the Articles of the church ot England, Preface to 2 ed. vi. Inferences trom this conver- fation, ibid. Is lent to the Tower on this occafion, Ditto, ix, note. Whitby INDEX. 475 UVithy, Dr. his opinion of church government by apoftolid fucceflion, Preface to z cd. xxix. iVbite, Mr. remarks on his reply to Dr. Chandler's advice to the church of England, on the fubject of fubferiptions, i$8. His telKmony of the willingnefs of the late King to admit of a reformation in the chinch, 3^7. But alleges an indif- pofition of the people to admit of a reform, 358. Wbitgift, Archbp. iupprefles the publication of the Harmony of the Confeffions, in England, 12. Pronounces books to dif- turb the church, more pernicious than lewd books, 412. Williams, Bp. confidered the xxxix Articles of the church of England only as articles of peace, 89. Wortbington, Dr. remarks on his account of the prefent prin- ciples and practices ot the Roman Catholics, Preface to 1 ed. lxxix, note. z. Zancbiiis, remarks on his fubfeription to the Axgfbv.rgb con" fellion, and Strafburgh articles, 323, note. FINIS. ERRATA. PREFACE to the FIRST EDITION. Page Line xliii. 2. for connection, read conviction, lii. 3. fir was, read were. lxi. noic x, 1. 4. from the bottom, for prevents confufiou, read prevents this confufion. lxvi. between the third and fourth paragraph add, Dr. Machine's remark upon the foregoing paflage, as then tranflated by himfelf, was as follows. Ixxvii. note, 1. 4. for religion, read region. Ixxviii. TtctCf 1. 8. from the bottom, for has, read had. CONFESSIONAL. Page Line 1 o. 4. for it, read in. .64. 20. for open, read opened. 71. 16. for our firit reformers, read the compilers of this Article. 11C. note, 1. 23. for precipitant, read pracipiant. J69. 9. for DARE GENERALLY USE NOW, read ARE GE- NERALLY USED NOW. 2. from the bottom, for confent or acqu'efcence, read confent of acquiefcence. 189. 9. for lofe, read loofe. 363. 5. for it is not, nW is it not. ^^ The Purchafers of Occajional Remarks uponfome late Strictures on THE CONFESSIONAL are defired to correct the following Errata. Part I. Page. Line ii. 6. for colt, read wit. 40. 9. from the bottom, for reafons, read reafon. 48. 3. from the bottom, read confequential. 49. penult, for are only at liberty, read are at liberty. $2. 14. fir extremely knack, read extremely ingenious knack* 22. for prelate lamenting, read prelate was lamenting. $9. 10. read produced this good, that Part II. Page Line 2. 22. for True Inquiry, read Free Inquiry. ik 7. from the bottom, for infbru&ions, read inftruc~tion. Ii. ?wte, 1. 9. from the bottom, for feemed, read feem, ^5. 1 1. for thofe read thefe. 74. 1 2. for obfervatur, read obverfatur. 11$. 18. read, in the beft fenfe of Spvcxucc. 146. 12. for ecelefiaftical church, ;vWepifcopaI church. 206. noter 1. 6. read de hominibus, nomine faltem, chriftianis. 228. u* for fufpicions, read fufpicious, &c. and dele the comma.