But, to return to our argument. What may feem a little extraordinary, the Conductors of the British Critic approve of Dr. Paley's method of treating this fubject of fubfcription to the Articles. "We avow our fatisfaction," they fay," in the liberal (not flimfy and unprincipled) arguments, adduced by the Archdeacon in his explanatory obfervations on the duty of fubfcribers to that teft of faith... We feel ourfelves, and we think the whole Chriftian community greatly obliged to that Gentleman for favouring the public with his rational, judicious, and enlarged fentiments on this head, and we hope they will, as they ought, have a due effect upon every reflecting, unprejudiced mind ."

By another clafs of these Divines, it is acknowledged, or all but acknowledged, that the established Confeffions have actually experienced what they call, a "TACIT REFORMATION." Thefe perfons reprefent our formularies of doc--trine as having 66 a new and acquired fenfe;" and maintain, that in this fenfe they are confcientiously subscribed, however different it may be from their literal and primitive meaning.

A leading patron of this fcheme is the celebrated Dr. Powell, late Archdeacon of Colchester, and Master of St. John's College Cambridge. Thus, in a discourse expressly on the fubject, preached before the University, and entitled "A defence of the fubfcriptions required in the Church of England," we find fuch declarations and reasonings as the following: Speaking of the Articles, he fays,

66

as new difcoveries have sprung up, NEW EXPLANATIONS have been gradually framed and adapted to them; and almost every commentator has added fomething to the common stock. And if, among this great variety, a free inquirer fhould not find all his own opinions, the fame liberty of adding to it still remains ." This is admitting, in plain terms, no finall part of our queftion. "We are not," he fays exprefsly, "concerned to difcover what was meant by (q) Dis. 2. p. 39.

(p) February, 1796. p. 146.

the writers, but what will be understood by the readers. . . . I will not," he proceeds," add by those who require the declaration; ... not by the governors of the church; ... not by the legislature ; . . . . but by the general voice of learned men through the nation." "Such words," it is added, "as were originally determinate, by length of time and change of circumstances may become ambiguous. Cuftom can take away the force of expreffions, or give them a new meaning.... Nor are these changes of the fenfe unufual, even in our most folemn forms, the fcriptures."

On this ground, the Doctor vindicates his brethren, against the charge of departure from the meaning of the Articles. "The accufation," he fays, "is not only falfe, but the crime impoffible. That cannot be the fenfe of the declaration which no one imagines to be the sense; nor can that interpretation be erroneous which all have received. With whatever violence it was at first introduced, yet poffeffion is always a fufficient title. . . . It is fufficient to juftify the use of any explanation, that it has been openly declared, and not generally condemned. And therefore when an article has been understood, by good and learned interpreters, in a fense, neither the most obvious, nor the most ujual; he who affents to it, is at liberty to follow their guidance, or to join himself to the multitude "." "Upon the whole," he obferves," it appears, that we may underftand the established doctrines in any of thofe fenfes which the general words comprehend, or to which the received interpretation of thefe doctrines, or the judgment of able interpreters, have extended them: and that we may allow ourselves, if it feems neceffary, to differ as much from former interpreters, as they have frequently done from each other "." Nay, he almost doubts, whether they can now be conscientiously understood in their obvious and primitive fignification. "Where," he says, "the original fenfe is one, the received another, the subscriber

(r) Page 35. (s) p. 37.

(t) p. 38. (u) p. 42.

is at liberty to use them in either. That he may understand them in their most obvious and primitive fignification, will scarce be doubted; and yet if there is any place for doubt, it can only be here." All this is adhering to the sense of the Reformers with a witnefs!

But the notion of this "new and acquired fenfe" appears to have obtained its highest plausibility, and received its greatest fupport, from the learned Dr. Hey. This Divine, as Norrifian Profeffor of Divinity at Cambridge, whose lectures, in many cafes, it is neceffary to attend as a qualification for Orders, has illuftrated and defended such a method of interpretation with great labour and ingenuity. And, the refult of his achievements feems to amount to fomething like this:

...

That "forms" may be "left in words, but taken away, or altered in meaning," in which case, "it may be either faid, that they grow obfolete, or that the law which injoins them is tacitly repealed; that a tacit repeal is of equal validity with an exprefs one;" that while thefe forms remain the fame," it is poffible to conceive fuch a series of improvements, that all the laws enjoining forms fhould be (thus tacitly) repealed;" that "in this case, there would be a perfect liberty;" and that all this would be " strictly defenfible and right:" In other words, "that a tacit reformation might be total;" that as "each part might become obsolete, every part might become fo; or at least every distinguishing part:" that "in this cafe, a religious fociety would change its doctrines, and yet retain the expreffions by which they were defined:" or, that " at the fame time that one fociety did this, another might adhere to the old jenfe of the forms;" and that then "there would be two religious focieties, diffenting from each other, yet ufing the fame articles of faith;" that there

(w) Ibid. p. 37.

(x) See the Bishop of Durham's Ch. 1792, Ed. 2. p. 61.; and the Bishop of London's, 1790, p. 34. (y) Norrifian Lectures, Vol. 2. p. 50-53. N. B. The quotations from Dr. Hey are all from thefe Lectures.

may be "two different Churches of England, ufing the fame forms" that one" might be called the prefent church," the other "the antiquated church;" that "each party may be fincere ;" that "in each the minifter may affent in the fenfe in which he is understood to affent, by thofe whom he accounts the moft judicious ".)

66

-us.

It is not affirmed that this is the actual ftate of things here. We are referred to the church of Geneva to fee the fuppofitions exemplified." Nay, a caution is fuggefted' "that every thing that is faid be not applied, or thought applicable, to the articles of the Church of England in particular." It is however a little remarkable that Dr. Hey's fuppofed cafe fhould be precifely that which it is our object to prove a real one; that his two churches should be formed by those who have been commonly called Methodists among understanding parts of our articles in a literal fenfe, which others of the clergy affent to in a different sense." It is worthy of remark alfo, with what apparent approbation the learned Profeffor explains the reafoning of Dr. Powell, which is founded on the admiffion of the deviation in question. On the doubt expreffed by the Archdeacon, whether the articles can now be understood in their obvious and primitive fignification, Dr. Hey comments thus: "This may mean, common men will fcarce doubt, that a man fpeaks truth, who speaks according to the literal fenfe; but thofe, who have confidered the nature of veracity and of tacit reformations, will fee, that a man, by fpeaking according to the literal fenfe, may fpeak falfehood"." This fyf tem of interpretation is illuftrated from the 74th Canon of our church. Hence, it is concluded, "it appears, First, that a tacit reformatian has, fince 1603, taken place in the church of England, with regard to the habits of its minifters." Second, That he, who engages himself to obey the laws with regard to apparel, is underfood to engage himself ac

(a) Ibid. (b) Ibid. p. 48. (c) Ibid. p. 73.

(z) Ibid. p. 72, 73. (a) Ibid. (d) Ibid. p. 74.

cording to prefent notions of decency and gravity, that is, in the new and acquired, not in the literal fense of such engagement: and therefore that the perfon, who does a &t after the new and acquired fenfe, speaks truth though contrary to the letter; whereas any one, who should make the engagement in the literal fenfe, would fpeak falfeho od though according to the letter.'

In commenting on the Preamble to the articles, Dr. Hey obferves, "We may fay, in general, that the literal sense of any form can be the right fenfe only while it is NEW;" and refers us to the place where he has obferved that our "Articles" were "made 230 years ago," and treated " of the effects of age in articles of religion ;" and adds, " in whatever degree they (the articles) grow obfolete, the Injunction must grow fo, notwithstanding it commands interpretation in the literal fenfe "."

“in

From these, and fimilar confiderations, viewed in connection with his own comments, it will, perhaps, appear to many, much the fame as if Dr. Hey had faid expressly, that the Articles are not now generally understood according to their literal and primitive fignification, but in a new and acquired fenfe. But however this be, it is undeniably his object to establish a liberty for fuch an interpretation; and this, in some respects, is even more contrary to the propofition of our opponents, that they teach thefe doctrines" as they were first delivered by our Reformers." While the Rule of duty is preserved entire, many degrees of deviation from it are compatible with hopes of a return, but who will adhere to its original strictness after the standard of conduct is depreffed? after they have a free licence to depart from it? And what is all this but faying, in effect, We do not even pretend to follow the interpretation of the Reformers; we do not acknowledge ourselves at all bound by their fentiments; we have a new fenfe of our own; the opinions of

(e) Ibid. p. 75. and 17.

(f) Ibid. p. 68.

(g) See above p. 13,