Page images
PDF
EPUB

members of the Church of England in DOCTRINE." They mention exprefsly, as belonging to, or abettors of, this clafs of Minifters, Romaine, Cecil, Cadogan, Goode, Scott, Wilberforce, More", &c. &c.

It is now pretty clear then, both who are the parties, and what is the matter really in debate. And, however trite our fubje&t may be, we are not, it appears, about to contend with a shadow. The Evangelical Teachers, of the description here specified, certainly do pretend to adhere strictly to the Doctrines of the Church, and thus generally is their claim denied, and the oppofite one fupported.

The QUESTION therefore is, whofe pretenfions, in this matter, are best founded? WHOSE DOCTRINES ARE REALLY THOSE OF OUR ARTICLES, HOMILIES, AND LITURGY? WHO, IN REALITY, TEACH THE DOCTRINES CONTAINED IN THESE FORMULARIES, AS THEY WERE FIRST DELIVERED BY OUR REFORMERS?—This is the queftion now to be investigated. It is doubtless a queftion of importance. Let us therefore diveft ourselves of prejudice, and meet it fairly. In the words of our opponents, "Litera fcripta manet ▾.”—Under the restrictions then, and with a view to the purposes, specified in our preface, we proceed.

2. Now, that the actual opinions and teaching of many in the Church do not coincide with the exprefs and obvious doctrines of our Articles, appears, from their CONDUCT RESPECTING SUBSCRIPTION to these Articles, and the methods they have recourse to in order to reconcile themfelves to this measure.

We design not here to recapitulate the names, and exhibit the hiftory, of thofe Minifters of the Establishment, who at other periods have complained of fubfcription as a burden; proposed their various schemes of amendment; or openly folicited a reformation". This however, were it neceffary

(t) May 1799, p. 76. (z) See Note (s); and Antijac. for Auguft 1799, p. 452; September, p. 34; October, p. 195; November, p. 255, and 258 and 339. (v) Ibid. April, 1799. p. 362. (w) See the Arian and Bangorian controverfies on the fubject; the Confeffional; &c.

on the occafion, might be done with propriety, and withr effect; and the circumftance ought not to be forgotten. But our attention fhall be confined to modern Divines, and to those authors which they recommend, and which are therefore in modern use and eftimation.

By fome then, the Articles of our church are confidered as little more than ARTICLES OF PEACE, which are only not to be contradicted in our public miniftrations; as mere profcriptions of certain fects and tenets which obtained at our first feparation from Rome, and therefore unmeaning and obfolete in proportion as these particular fects and tenets have ceased to be dangerous; as "a mere form of admiffion into the church "; or, denominate them what they please, a something which does not require from the Minifter who fubfcribes them, the actual belief of the doctrines they contain.

Under this clafs may be mentioned, as a fpecimen, the learned Bishop Watson. Addreffing his clergy upon the nature of the Chriftian doctrines, "I think it fafer," he fays, "to tell you where they are contained, than what they are. They are contained in the Bible; and if, in the reading of that book, your fentiments concerning the doctrines of Chriftianity fhould be different from thofe of your neighbour, or from thofe of the Church, be perfuaded, on your ́part, that infallibility appertains as little to you, as it does to the church... Towards the church you ought to preferve reverence and refpe&t; and in your public teaching, you ought not, whilft you continue a minifter in it, to disturb the public peace by oppofition to its doctrines ." And having recommended charity towards" individuals, of whatever denomination of Chriftians they may be," "If," his Lordfhip adds, "you do this, your difcordance of opinion will be attended with no mijchief public or private 2."

To the fame effect, but more strongly, speaks the eminent Dr. Thomas Balguy a. "We are not obliged," he fays,

(x) See British Critic for Dec. 1799. p. 610. (y) Charge, 95. p. 65. (a) Late Archdeacon and Prebendary of Winchester.

(z) Ibid.

[ocr errors]

"I conceive, in our discourses from the pulpit, either to explain or defend every particular doctrine fet forth in the articles of religion:... But we are far from being at liberty to fay all we pleafe. Every word that comes from our mouths in oppofition to the established faith, is a violation of the most folemn engagements. . . . I fay nothing against the right of private judgment: against freedom of thought, or freedom of fpeech. I only contend that men ought not to attack the Church from thofe very pulpits, in which they were placed for her defence "." In other places, he would not difcourage the clergy of the established church from thinking for themselves, or from /peaking, or even from writing, what they think." "Some perfons," he fays again, "care not to diftinguish between terms of falvation, and terms of admiffion to the miniftry. The following paffage from Clarke's Reply to Nelfon, p. 32, will perhaps give them a jufter idea of the nature and end of fubfcription. ticular churches require men's affent to, and use of, certain forms of words; not as the rule of their faith, but as prudential means of uniformity, and of preventing disorder and confufion among themselves.'"

Par

Archdeacon Paley's notions are full to our purpose. "Thofe," he observes, "who contend that nothing lefs can juftify fubfcription to the 39 Articles than the actual belief of each and every feparate propofition they contain, muit fuppofe that the legislature expected the consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual fucceffion, not to one controverted propofition, but to many hundreds. It is hard to conceive how this could be expected by any, who obferve the incurable diverfity of human opinion upon all fubjects fhort of demonftration. If the authors of the law did not intend this, what did they intend? 1. To exclude from offices in the church, all abettors of Popery. 2. Anabaptifts, who were at that time a powerful party on the continent. 3. The Puritans, who were hoftile to the epifcopal conftitution; and in general the members of fuch

(b) Difcourfe 7. p. 118-120. (z) Ibid. (c) Charge 5. p. 268. Note.

leading fects or foreign establishments, as threatened to overthrow our own. Whoever finds himfelf comprehended within thefe defcriptions, ought not to fubfcribed." All others then, it should feem, of whatever name or creed, may conscientiously subscribe. And those candidates for orders in the church, who will now find themselves comprehended amongst the abettors of Popery, the Puritans, or Anabaptifts, will fearcely be numerous.

[ocr errors]

If this mode of reprefenting the fubject does not dispense with the neceffity of any particular creed in order to honeft fubfcription, and render the articles in a great measure obfolete, it is clearly the Archdeacon's wish that this should be done. During the present state of ecclefiaftical patronage," he says, "fome limitation of the patron's choice may be neceffary to prevent unneceffary contentions ; ... but this danger, if it exist, may be provided against with equal effect, by converting the articles of faith into articles of peace." His ideas on the fubject are further illuftrated, when he fays of established "Creeds and Confeffions" in general, that "they are at all times attended with serious inconveniences;" that "they check inquiry, violate liberty, and enfnare the confciences of the clergy;" and when he fo strongly objects to the doctrines of the church being "woven with fo much industry into her forms of public worships."

[ocr errors]

Mr. Gisborne, accordingly, understood the Doctor to "intimate that fubfcription can be juftified without an actual belief of each of the articles;" and confidered it "a gratuitous affumption "." So alfo he is understood by the Antijacobin Reviewers. Having obferved that "whenever a reference is made to the "animus imponentis" in fubfcription, for the doctrine, it must be made to the "framers of the articles, for the law, to the enactors;" "this diftinc

(d) Moral and Polit. Phil. p. 180-182. 4to. (e) Ibid. (f) Ibid, p. 568. (g) Moral and Polit. Philof. chap. on forms of Prayer in Public Wor. p. 66. 8vo. (h) Moral Phil. chap. on Promises.

tion," they add, "fweeps away at once all that rubbish of reasoning, with which Dr. Paley particularly would justify fubfcription without belief." Mr. Polwhele quotes him as Jaying exprefsly, after the mention of abettors of popery, anabaptifts, and puritans,' " These three denominations of perfons, therefore, ought not to fubfcribe the 39 Articles: but all others may." This, however, although it may feem foreign to our purpose to notice it, is both a falfe quotation, and a plain mifrepresentation of Dr. Paley, Mr. Polwhele wholly omits the claufe "and in general, &c." which follows the particulars that are enumerated. Nor does "the Archdeacon fay" what is here given as his words.

To Dr. Paley, however, thus interpreted, with one other writer, Mr. P. refers, as a moft fatisfactory answer to the charge of deviation from the plain meaning of the articles; "fuch a reply as must fatisfy every man, who is neither an ENTHUSIAST, nor a HYPOCRITE"."

It is furely a little unfortunate (we cannot but here remark by the way) that what Mr. Polwhele thus confiders fo fatisfactorily decifive, his great admirers, the Antijacobin Reviewers, confider as arrant " rubbish of reasoning," sheer jefuitifm, a mere opening for "Arians and Socinians!" Commenting upon the very fame paffage, amidst much to the like effect, "Such," they exclaim, "is the confusednefs of Dr. P.'s ideas here, and fuch the contradictoriness of his language! A more grofs, more palpable, more maffy inftance occurs not, perhaps in any other author whatever"!" We will not apply to these gentlemen the appellations, which, according to Mr. Polwhele, may feem to belong to them, for this diffatisfaction with his author. They however could extol Mr. P.'s attack upon the very Divine he is here combating, as "not more remarkable for its strength than its juftice;" and "strenuously recommend it to the perufal of our regular clergy!"

(i) January 1800. p. 19. (k) 2d Letter to Dr. Hawker, p. 22. (1) See above p. 19. (z) Bishop Burnet. (m) 2d Letter, p. 22. (n) January 1800. p. 19–21. (0) Review of Letters to Dr. Hawker, Auguft 1799, p. 45%. September 1799, p. 101.

« PreviousContinue »