Page images
PDF
EPUB

grown to be the fashionable tenet of the times "." This, he fays again, was" a Principle become fashionably orthodoxy.”

Nor will they fuffer us to fuppofe, that these flighted doctrines of Proteftantifm have ever been reinftated in their ancient credit fince this period.—According to Bishop W., efforts toward this end were making," when the old Puritan Fanaticifm revived, under the new name of Methodifm.... This," he adds, "foon put a stop to the recovery of that middle way, in which Grace aud Morality are preferved in their respective rights: an unhappy difpofition now appearing in feveral opposers of this late revived fanaticifm, to return back to the old latitudinarian exceffes *."

"Such improvements," continues Bishop Shipley, "have been made by the clergy, in the rational manner of preaching, that in fome inftances they have even reformed the doctrines of the church itself."..." At prefent," his Lordfhip adds," it appears that OUR ABLEST DIVINES have gradually departed from fome rigorous interpretations of the articles that prevailed at first: this is not unknown to those who alone have authority to determine what is most expedient for us; and we doubt not, but in their own good time, they will confent to have the burdens that are complained of removed 5."

According, indeed, to the notions of this Prelate, Archdeacon Paley, Dr. Hey, &c. refpecting" the effects of age in articles of religion," and their fuppofition that a church is, in reality, constantly changing its creed, this difference between the actual and profeffed fentiments of our Divines must obtain under the present circumstances of our church. A - paffage from the Archdeacon shall confirm what has already been advanced to this effect. After mentioning the inconveniences attending "established creeds and confeffions" before noticed, "However," he adds, " they may exprefs the perfuafion, or be accommodated to the controverfies, or to the fears of the age in which they are compofed, in process of (y) Ibid. p. 325. (g) Charge. 2 p. 43.

(2) Doct. of Grace, p. 316-319.
P. 326.

(x) Ibid.

time, and by reafon of the changes which are wont to take place in the judgment of mankind upon religious fubjects, they come at length to contradict the actual opinions of the church whofe doctrines they profefs to contain "." That the doctrines of our church therefore fhould be believed and taught now as they were taught near 240 years ago, is a thing fcarcely poffible!

The conceffions of Dr. Croft alfo deserve further attention. Having proposed the question, "Whether, upon the fuppofition that the reformation had been deferred till our days, the articles would not have been materially different from the present? No advantage," he answers, "is given by allowing that they certainly would ;" and then proceeds to show how proper and necjjary this would be. Speaking of the doctrines of the articles, and the opinions which obtained when they were firft impofed, " Oppofite errors in our time," he says, "require a DIFFERENT KIND of religious inftruction." Now what is this but the very reverse of the doctrine of his pamphlet? That, in fuch a cafe, fome verbal and trivial difference would obtain, may readily be admitted without affecting the queftion. But with whatever propriety it would be done, for that is not here our subject, they who would now make the articles MATERIALLY DIFFERENT, and who maintain that a different kind of religious inftruction is now proper, muft believe and teach fomething materially different from thefe articles, which is furely the very contrary to adhering to them, and teaching them, as they were first delivered by our reformers.

But that, in Dr. C.'s judgment, this difference wouldnot confift in any thing trivial or unimportant, but in the fundamental and moft diftinguishing doctrines of the gospel, in the articles which refpect grace, faith, and good-works, he has fully informed us. That thefe articles "lean towards the fide of enthufiafm," he feems not to doubt but

(b) Moral and Polit. p. 568, 4to. (i) Bampt. Lect. p. 110.

every body muft admit; and it "is neither," he says, "to bé condemned nor wondered at*." We may be pardoned for repeating the paffage, becaufe the Doctor has honoured it with a place in two feparate publications!, which fhows that it is expreffive of his deliberate judgment, and of a fentiment he is zealous to propagate.

But furely this is leaning towards the representation Mr. Hume has made of our established creed. It is, however, another proof, that Dr. C. and those of his opinion, have not ftrictly adhered to the doctrines of this creed. It cannot be fuppofed that, with the whole aggregate of learning and rationality, which it seems they exclusively pofsefs, they Thould believe, and teach, that which only leans towards this degrading error. Nay, the paffage not only proves, that Dr. Croft and his affociates do not adhere to the doctrines of the articles, contrary to what his pamphlet maintains; but also, as far as his authority reaches, that those whom he calls Methodifts do adhere to them, which he denies. For, according to his ftatement, the matter ftands thus. The doctrines of the Methodists are mixed with enthusiasm: the articles of our Church lean towards enthyiafm: then, according to the moft confummate logician, things that are like the fame thing, are like one another: Ergo, the doctrines of the Methodists, and the articles of our Church are alike; and Dr. Croft's differ from both! At leaft, this leans towards a proof of the point. But Dr. Croft shall further ratify it. The author of Pietas Oxonienfis, (a profeffed Calvinift and Methodist, and abettor of Gospel minifters) Dr. C. fays, "well knew that the articles leaned to his fide of the question; in this he, and all the fraternity triumphed "."

But who would expect any thing in fupport of our pofition from our very warm opponents, the Antijacobin Reviewers? Yet even they have heard of " the ratiocination of the cold Theologian." And mark their words. "We cannot," they

(k) Ibid.

(z) See below, Ch. 8. § 2.

(1) Ibid. and Strict. on Paley, &c. p. 58. (m) Strictures on Paley, &c. p. 63.

1

Tay, “but lament, that learning too often operates on the minds of our grave Dignitaries, with an influence fatal to common sense and nature. We have had occafion to perufe more than one Infirmary fermon, for inftance, from the Clarendon prefs at Oxford, a dry, unanimated, philofophical lecture; MORE IN THE MANNER OF ARISTOTLE THAN OF CHRIST."-Another paffage, not a little to our purpose, they have produced us, from their defervedly admired author, Mr. Jones; and from a work upon which they bestow the very highest encomiums. "We have allowed," fays 'this excellent advocate for found principles in religion and politics, as they characterize him, "fo much, to human philofophy, that it is too commonly known against our preachers, and factioufly objected to them, that they NEGLECT THE GOSPEL, and take what they call good natural religion into the pulpit. This is JUSTLY thought to be a GREAT AND CRYING ABUSE; in confequence of which Gospel-preachers arise and abound, who have no authority to teach the people"." And " the root of" this, he adds, is, that “our preachers are formed and educated" after fuch “directions as Bishop, Warburton's?,"

Surely then, all these Gentlemen forget themfelves, when they fo indignantly "reprobate" and "fpurns" the mention of this circumftance by others. If there is not a foundation for the charge, why are they thus guilty of flandering their brethren? Why, in all these ways, do they contribute towards the support and propagation of fuch an idea? If there is a foundation for it, and if this conduct is, as they here fay, "JUSTLY THOUGHT TO BE A GREAT AND CRYING ABUSE, why do they on other occafions fo vehemently deny it? And why may not others, who view the matter in this light,

(n) Nov. 1799. p. 306. (0) Ibid. Nov. 1798. p. 528. (p), Ibid. (q) See Croft's Strictures on Paley, &c. p. 145; Clapham's Ser, at Boroughbridge, p. 28; Daubeny's Appendix, p. 622; &c.

openly lament it, as well as themselves? What conftitutes that conduct weakness, and enthusiasm, and reviling in fome minifters in the church, which is not fuch in others? And if, in reality, they do not perceive a nearer resemblance between our doctrines and those of the church, why do they thus characterize them by the fame epithet? And why do they say "that the articles lean to our fide of the question?

Nor can our conclusion be evaded by saying, that their obfervations are confined within much narrower limits. Some of our writers, doubtlefs, may have expressed themfelves in too general terms. It was natural for men, under their circumstances, and experiencing their treatment, to do fo. The perfons, however, cenfured in the passages juft quoted, are "The Clergy,"-" Our ableft Divines,❞— "Our Preachers,"-"The English Divines," &c.; expreffions which extend the conduct in question far beyond what this work undertakes.

4. But, as the oppofers of our doctrines would be thought to have great respect for the judgment of our Bishops, and wish to charge us with a dereliction of our duty towards these dignitaries of the church',-Let us hear the OPINION of fome of our most active and eminent PRELATES ON the fubject we are discussing.

Few men, it may be prefumed, have worn the Mitre with more luftre than Archbishop Secker. And there is, perhaps, no writer whose works are more generally recommended to the perufal of the clergy, by the present Bishops, and other Dignitaries of our church. His opinion, therefore, cannot but highly deserve our attention. One passage, decifively expreffive of this opinion, has already been produced. We will here add another. Treating then di-, rectly on our fubject, he addrefses the clergy thus:-" To improve the people effectually,.. you must be affiduous in

(r) Above p. 30, 31, 34.

p. 364.

(s) See Antijac. Rev. April 1799. (t) See the charge of the Bishop of London, 1791; lift of Books recommended by the Bishop of Chefter; &c (0) Title page.

« PreviousContinue »