fact,"

offer themselves for ordination, consider seriously what office they take upon them, and firmly believe what they subscribe to." I am persuaded much otherwise. But as this is a “ the reader, if he be wise, will neither take the answerer's word for it nor mine; but form his own judgment from his own observation. Bishop Burnet complained above sixty years ago, that "the greater part," even then, "subscribed the Articles without ever examining them *, and others did it because they must do it." Is it probable that, in point either of seriousness or orthodoxy, the clergy are much mended since?

The pleas offered in support of this practice of subscription come next to be considered. “ One of these is drawn from the sacred writings being capable of such a variety of senses, that men of widely different persuasions shelter themselves under the same forms of expression." Our author, after quarrelling with this representation of the plea, gives his readers in its stead, a long quotation from the archdeacon of Oxford's charge t. What he is to gain by the change, or the quotation, I cannot perceive, as the same first query still recurs, “Is it true, that the scriptures are in reality so differently interpreted in points of real consequence?” In answer to which, the archdeacon of Oxford, we are told, "has shown that points of real consequence are differently interpreted," and "the plainest texts explained away," and has "instanced in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel." The plea, we conceive, is not much indebted to the archdeacon of Oxford. But be these Scriptures interpreted as they will, each man has still a right to interpret them for himself. The church of Rome, who always pushed her conclusions with a courage and consistency unknown to the timid patrons of Protestant imposition, saw immediately, that as the laity had no right to interpret the Scriptures, they could have no occasion to read them, and therefore very properly locked them up from the intrusion of popular curiosity. Our author cites the above-mentioned query from the Considerations as the first query which would lead his reader to expect a second. The reader, however, may seek that second for himself, the answerer is not obliged to produce it-it stands thus: Suppose the Scriptures thus variously interpreted, does subscription mend the matter? The reader too is left to find an answer for himself.

The next, the strongest, the only tolerable plea for subscription is, "that all sorts of pestilent heresies might be taught from the pulpit, if no such restraint as this was laid upon the preacher . How far it is probable that this would be the consequence of removing the subscription, and by what other means it might be guarded against, has been hinted already, and will again be considered in another place. We will here only take notice of one particular expedient suggested in the Considerations, and which has often indeed elsewhere been proposed, namely, “that the church, instead of requiring subscription before hand, to the present, or to any other articles of faith, might censure her clergy afterward, if they opposed or vilified them in their preaching." The advantage of which scheme above the present is manifest, if it was only for this reason, that you distress and corrupt thousands now, for one that you would ever have occasion to punish. Our author, nevertheless, "is humbly of opinion that it is much better to take proper precautions beforehand :" he must, with all his "humility," know that when it has been proposed to take proper precautions of the press, by subjecting authors to an imprimatur before publication, instead of punishment after it; the proposal has been resented, as an open attack upon the rights and interests of mankind. The common sense and spirit of the nation could see and feel this distinction and the importance of it, in the case of publishers; and why preachers should be left in a worse situation, it is not very easy to say.

The example of the Arminian confession is, upon this occasion, recommended by the author of the Considerations; a confession which was compiled for the edification and instruction of the members of that church, without peremptorily insisting upon any one's assent to it. But it is the misfortune of the Arminian to be no national church-the misfortune, alas! of Christianity herself in her purest period; when she was under the government of the apostles; without alliance with the states of this world; when she composed, nevertheless, a church as real, we conceive, and as respectable, as any national church that has existed since.

* Burnet's History of his Own Times. Conclu

sion.

See this whole Charge answered in the London

Chronicle, by Priscilla. The Lord hath sold Sisera into the hand of a woman!

+ Page 26.

Our author, who can much sooner make a distinction than see one, does not comprehend, it seems, any difference between confessions of faith and preaching, as to the use of unscriptural terms. Did a preacher, when he had finished his sermon, call upon his congregation to subscribe their names and assent to it, or never to come more within the doors of his church; there would, indeed, be some sort of resemblance betwixt the two cases: but as the hearers are at liberty to believe preachers or no, as they see, or he produces, reasons for what he says; there can be no harm, and there is a manifest utility, in trusting him with the liberty of explaining his own meaning in his own terms.

We now come, and with the tenderest regret, to the case of those who continue in the church without being able to reconcile to their belief every proposition imposed upon them by subscription; over whose distress our author is pleased to indulge a wanton and ungenerous triumph. They had presumed, it seems, that it was some apology for their conduct, that they sincerely laboured to render to religion their best services, and thought their present stations the fairest opportunities of performing it. This may not, perhaps, amount to a complete vindication: it certainly does not fully satisfy even their own scruples: else where would be the cause of complaint? What need of relief, or what reason for their petitions? It might have been enough, however, to have exempted them from being absurdly and indecently. compared with faithless hypocrites, with Papists, and Jesuits, who, for other purposes, and with even opposite designs, are supposed to creep into the church through the same door. For the fullest and fairest representation of their case, I refer our author to the excellent Hoadly; or, as Hoadly possibly may be no book in our author's library, will it provoke his "raillery" to ask what he thinks might be the consequence, if all were at once to withdraw themselves from the church who were dissatisfied with her doctrines? Might not the church lose, what she can ill spare, the service of many able and industrious ministers? Would those she retained, be such as acquiesced in her decisions from inquiry and conviction? Would not many or most of them be those who keep out of the way of religious scruples by lives of secularity and voluptuousness? by mixing with the crowd in the most eager of their pursuits after pleasure or advantage? One word with the answerer before we part upon this head. Whence all this great inquisitiveness, this solicitude to be acquainted with the person, the opinions, and associates, of his adversary? Whence that impertinent wish that he had been "more explicit in particular with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity?" Is it out of a pious desire to fasten some heresy, or the imputation of it, upon him? Is he "called out of the clouds" to be committed to the flames *?"

The 40th page of the Answer introduces a paragraph of considerable length, the sum, however, and substance of which is this-that if subscription to articles of faith were removed, confusion would ensue; the people would be distracted with the disputes of their teachers, and the pulpits filled with controversy and contradiction. Upon this "fact" we join issue, and the more readily as this is a sort of reasoning we all understand. The extent of the legislator's right may be an abstruse inquiry; but, whether a law does more good or harm, is a plain question which every man can ask. Now, that distressing many of the clergy, and corrupting others; that keeping out of churches good Christians and faithful citizens; that making parties in the state, by giving occasion to sects and separations in religion; that these are inconveniences, no man in his senses will deny. The question therefore is, what advantage do you find in the opposite scale to balance these inconveniences? The simple advantage pretended is, that you hereby prevent "wrangling" and contention in the pulpit. Now, in the first place, I observe, that allowing this evil to be as grievous and as certain as you please, the most that can be necessary for the prevention of it is, to enjoin your preachers as to such points, silence and neutrality. In the next place, I am convinced, that the danger is greatly magnified. We hear little of these points at present in our churches and public

teaching, and it is not probable that leaving them at large would elevate them into more importance, or make it more worth men's while to quarrel about them. They would sleep in the same grave with many other questions, of equal importance with themselves, or sink back into their proper place, into topics of speculation, or matters of debate from the press. None but men of some reflection would be forward to engage in such subjects, and the least reflection would teach a man that preaching is not the proper vehicle of controversy. Even at present, says our author, "we speak and write what we please with impunity." And where is the mischief? or what worse could ensue if subscription were removed? Nor can I discover any thing in the disposition of the petitioning clergy that need alarm our apprehensions. If they are impatient under the yoke, it is not from a desire to hold forth their opinions to their congregations, but that they may be at liberty to entertain them themselves, without offence to their consciences, or ruin to their fortunes.

Our author has added, by way of make-weight to his argument, "that many common Christians," he believes, “would be greatly scandalized if you take away their creeds and catechisms, and strike out of the liturgy such things as they have always esteemed essential *.” Whatever reason there may be for this belief at present, there certainly was much greater at the reformation, as the Popish ritual, which was then "taken away," had a fascination and antiquity which ours cannot pretend to. Many were probably “scandalized” at parting with their beads and their mass-books, that lived afterward to thank those who taught them better things. Reflection, we hope, in some, and time, we are sure, in all, will reconcile men to alterations established in reason. If there be any danger, it is from some of the clergy, who, with the answerer, would rather suffer the "vineyard" to be overgrown with "weeds,” than "stir the ground," or, what is worse, to call these weeds "the fairest flowers in the garden." Such might be ready enough to raise a hue and cry against all innovators in religion, as overturners of churches" and spoilers of temples.

66

But the cause which of all others stood most in the way of the late petitions for relief, was an apprehension that religious institutions cannot be disturbed without awakening animosities and dissentions in the state, of which no man knows the consequence. Touch but religion, we are told, and it bursts forth into a flame. Civil distractions may be composed by fortitude and perseverance; but neither reason nor authority can controul, there is neither charm nor drug which will assuage, the passions of mankind when called forth in the cause and to the battles of religion. We were concerned to hear this language from some who, in other instances, have manifested a constancy and resolution which no confusion, nor ill aspect of public affairs, could intimidate. After all, is there any real foundation for these terrors? Is not this whole danger, like the lion of the slothful, the creature of our fears, and the excuse of indolence? Was it proposed to make articles instead of removing them, there would be room for the objection. But it is obvious that subscription to the 39 Articles might be altered or withdrawn upon general principles of justice and expediency, without reviving one religious controversy, or calling into dispute a single proposition they contain. Who should excite disturbances? Those who are relieved will not; and, unless subscriptions were like a tax, which, being taken from one, must be laid with additional weight upon another, is it probable that any will complain that they are oppressed because their brethren are relieved? or that those who are so 66 strong in the faith" will refuse to "bear with the infirmities of the weak?" The few who upon principles of this sort opposed the application of the Dissenters, were repulsed from parliament with disdain, even by those who were no friends to the application itself.

The question concerning the object of worship is attended, I confess, with difficulty: it seems almost directly to divide the worshippers. But let the church pare down her excrescences till she comes to this question; let her discharge from her liturgy controversies unconnected with devotion; let her try what may be done for all sides, by worshipping God in that generality of expression in which he himself has left some points, let her dismiss many

*Pages 41, 42.

+ If a Christian can think it an intolerable thing to worship one God through one mediator Jesus Christ, in company with any such as differ from him in their notions

about the metaphysical nature of Christ, or of the Holy Ghost, or the like; I am sorry for it. I remember the like objection made at the beginning of the Reformation by the Lutherans against the lawfulness of communicating

of her articles, and convert those which she retains into terms of peace; let her recall the terrors she suspended over freedom of inquiry; let the toleration she allows to dissenters be made "absolute;" let her invite men to search the Scriptures; let her governors encourage the studious and learned of all persuasions :-Let her do this—and she will be secure of the thanks of her own clergy-and, what is more, of their sincerity. A greater consent may grow out of inquiry than many at present are aware of; and the few who, after all, shall think it necessary to recede from our communion, will acknowledge the necessity to be inevitable; will respect the equity and moderation of the established church, and live in peace with all its members.

I know not whether I ought to mention, among so many more serious reasons, that even the governors of the church themselves would find their ease and account in consenting to an alteration. For besides the difficulty of defending those decayed fortifications, and the indecency of deserting them, they either are or will soon find themselves in the situation of a master of a family, whose servants know more of his secrets than it is proper. for them to know, and whose whispers and whose threats must be bought off at an expense which will drain the " apostolic chamber" dry.

Having thus examined in their order, and, as far as I understood them, the several answers given by our author to the objections against the present mode of subscription, it now remains, by way of summing up the evidence, to bring "forward" certain other arguments contained in the Considerations, to which no answer has been attempted. It is contended, then,

I. That stating any doctrine in a confession of faith with a greater degree of "precision" than the Scriptures have done, is in effect to say, that the Scriptures have not stated it with "precision" enough; in other words, that the Scriptures are not sufficient."Mere declamation."

II. That this experiment of leaving men at liberty, and points of doctrine at large, has been attended with the improvement of religious knowledge, where and whenever it has been tried. And to this cause, so far as we can see, is owing the advantage which Protestant countries in this respect possess above their Popish neighbours. No answer. III. That keeping people out of churches who might be admitted consistently with every end of public worship, and excluding men from communion who desire to embrace it upon the terms that God prescribes, is certainly not encouraging, but rather causing men to forsake, the assembling themselves together.-No answer.

IV. That men are deterred from searching the Scriptures by the fear of finding there more or less than they look for; that is, something inconsistent with what they have already given their assent to, and must at their peril abide by.-No answer.

with Zuinglius and his followers, because they had not the same notion with them of the elements in the sacrament. And there was the same objection once against holding communion with any such as had not the same notions with themselves about the secret decrees of God relating to the predestination and reprobation of particular persons. But whatever those men may please themselves with thinking who are sure they are arrived at the perfect knowledge of the most abstruse points, this they may be certain of; that, in the present state of the church, even supposing only such as are accounted orthodox to be joined together in one visible communion, they communicate together with a very great variety and confusion of notions, either comprehending nothing plain and distinct, or differing from one another as truly and essentially as others differ from them all; nay, with more certain difference with relation to the object of worship than if all prayers were directed (as bishop Bull says, almost all were in the first ages) to God or the Father, through the Son.-Hoadly's Answer to Dr. Hare's Sermon.

In bis last note our author breaks forth into " astonishment" and indignation, at the "folly, injustice, and indecency," of comparing our church to the Jewish in

our Saviour's time, and even to the "tower of Babel;" mistaking the church, in this last comparison, for one of her monuments (which indeed, with most people of his complexion, stands for the same thing) erected to prevent our dispersion from that grand centre of catholic dominion, or, in the words of a late celebrated castle-builder," to keep us together." If there be any "indecency" in such a comparison, it must be chargeable on those who lead us to it, by making use of the same terms with the original architects, and to which the author of the Considerations evidently alludes. This detached note is concluded with as detached, and no less curious, an observation, which the writer thinks may be a "sufficient answer to the whole, namely, that the author of the Considerations" has wrought no miracles for the convic. tion of the answerer and his associates." For what purpose this observation can be "sufficient," it is not easy to guess, except it be designed to insinuate, what may perhaps really be the case, that no less than a miracle will serve to cast out that kind of spirit which has taken so full possession of them, or ever bring them to a sound mind, and a sincere love of truth.

V. That it is not giving truth a fair chance, to decide points at one certain time, and by one set of men, which had much better be left to the successive inquiries of different ages and different persons.-No answer.

VI. That it tends to multiply infidels amongst us, by exhibiting Christianity under a form and in a system which many are disgusted with, who yet will not be at the pains to inquire after any other.-No answer.

At the conclusion of his pamphlet our author is pleased to acknowledge, what few, I find, care any longer to deny, "that there are some things in our Articles and Liturgy which he should be glad to see amended, many which he should be willing to give up to the scruples of others," but that the heat and violence with which redress has been pursued, preclude all hope of accommodation and tranquillity-that "we had better wait, therefore, for more peaceable times, and be contented with our present constitution as it is," until a fairer prospect shall appear of changing it for the better.-After returning thanks, in the name of the "fraternity," to him and to all who touch the burden of subscription with but one of their fingers, I would wish to leave with them this observation: that as the man who attacks a flourishing establishment writes with a halter round his neck; few ever will be found to attempt alterations but men of more spirit than prudence, of more sincerity than caution, of warm, eager, and impetuous tempers; that, consequently, if we are to wait for improvement till the cool, the calm, the discreet part of mankind begin it, till church governors solicit, or ministers of state propose it-I will venture to pronounce, that (without His interposition with whom nothing is impossible) we may remain as we are till the "renovation of all things."