peace than of belief: fo that the fubfcribing was rather a compromife not to teach any doctrine contrary to them, than a declaration that they believed according to them, There appears no reafon for this conceit, no fuch thing being then declared: fo that those who fubfcribed, did either believe them to be true, or elje they did grofsly prevaricate}."

Nor does there appear more reason, for the more ingenious conceit of an acquired fenfe, and a tacit reformation, about which we hear fo much from the Drs., Hey, Powell, and their difciples.-The very foundation on which they reft this fcheme of accommodation is groundless. We allow that words are mere arbitrary figns of whatever ideas the general will of mankind annexes to them; and that, when a fufficient reafon appears, they may agree" to call the Sun by the name of the Moon, and the Moon by the name of the Sun." But this new fenfe of terms is certainly only allowable, as far as it is thus agreed upon, and generally understood, especially among those whom the subject they refer to immediately concerns.

According to Dr. Paley, to juftify a departure from the original fenfe of any form of words to which we affent, the inconveniency of adhering to this sense must " be manifest, concerning which there is no doubt." This he shows with refpect to" oaths to obferve local ftatutes;" and "Subfcription to articles of religion," he fays, "is governed by the fame rule of interpretation." And it is on the fuppofition that this new fenfe of the articles is generally known and understood, that it is defended by its advocates.

Thus, after a vast deal to the fame effect, Dr. Powell ob ferves, "How unjuft then is the charge brought against the English Clergy, that, having departed from the meaning of their articles, they all continue to fubfcribe what none be lieves! The accufation is not only false, but the crime im

(i) Hiftory of the Reformation, Vol. ii. p. 169. (k) Chap. i. (1) Moral and Political Philofophy, p. 179.

p. 22-26.

#

poffible. That cannot be the fenfe of the declaration which no one imagines to be the fenfe; nor can that interpretation be erroneous which all have received"."

This paffage is approved, and thus explained, by Dr. Hey : "The English Clergy comprehends both parties; that which makes the declaration, and that which receives it. If these are agreed, there can be no falfehood"." Of a fimilar import is this Profeffor's quotation from Cicero: "Rectiffimè etiam illud receptum eft, ut leges non folum fuffragio Legislatoris, fed etiam tacito confenfu omnium, per defuetudinem abrogentur."

But nothing is further from the truth, than the fuppofition that any fuch general agreement, univerfal understanding, or tacit consent of all, obtains, in respect to our present subject.——In regard to those who receive the Declaration, the very reverse is the cafe. So far are our venerable Prelates from requiring subscription to the articles in fome new fenfe, different from their plain and express meaning, that they feriously lament the departure from this mode of interpretation, and urgently recommend a return to it: This, it has been fhown", is the undoubted conduct of feveral of the most active and eminent of thefe Prelates. Read a paffage more, on the subject, from the Bishop of Rochester. "You have no authority," his Lordship obferves to his Clergy, "to preach any new-fangled opinions of your own.... You must stick close to the doctrine; to the form of found words originally delivered to the Saints. You are to lay open the wonderful scheme of man's redemption. You are to lay it open in its intirety. You are to fet it forth faithfully and exactly, as it is exhibited in the Holy Scriptures; and, upon the authority of the Scriptures in their plain, natural, unfophifticated meaning, in the Offices, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Homilies of

(m) Sermon on Subfcription, p. 37. (0) Ibid. p., 57. (p) Chap. i. p. 36-43.

(n) Vol. ii. p. 68.

the Church of England..... In delivering the great myfterious truths of the Gospel; and I repeat it, the whole Gofpel, with all its myfteries, must be preached in all congregations, I would advise you to use in general, not an argumentative, but a plain didactic style: teach with authority, not as the Scribes: upon the momentous doctrines of Man's corruption, of Chrift's atonement, the gratuitous acceptance of Man's imperfect works in regard to Chrift's merits, of the juftification of man, of good works, (the precife fubjects of this controverfy) always adhering strictly, as I have before said, to the Scriptures, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Homilies." Recollect the decifive language of the Bishop of Lincoln. And eafily might it be proved, that adherence to the plain and natural fenfe of the eftablifhed Confeffion is inculcated in the Charges of many other of thefe Dignitaries a.

In regard to those who make the Declaration, there are alfo certainly very great numbers who adhere to this obvious and primitive fenfe, and who fee not how they could confcientiously fubfcribe in any other.-This clafs of Minifiers our opponents themselves defcribe as " forming a confiderable body;" "a confiderable part of the Clergy;" as "numerous, active, united, and fupported by opulent patrons;" as occupying "many livings in different counties of the kingdom, numerous chapels in populous towns, and a majority of the lectureships in London "." "I fhail

(z) Charge, 1800, p. 31. (y) Above, p. 336. (q) This interpretation is enforced in the ufual Exhortations of the venerable Archbishop of York, to Candidates for Orders. It is also firongly ...、 enforced by those of our Prelates who recommend Nowell's Catechifm, Jewell's Apology, Secker's Charges, &c. as illuftrations of our Articles. (r) See the Critical Review for November, 1797, p. 289. (s) Ibid. for May, 1800, p. 18. (t) Antijacobin Review,

April, 1799, p. 364. See alfo the Critical Review for June and July, 1800, p. 223, 334; and Mr. Haggitt's Sermon, Preface, p. 13. "The literal and grammatical fenfe," Mr. Bingham obferves, "is the sense in which all churches commonly defire their Articles to be understood;

affume it as indifputable," fays a refpectable Minister, addreffing his Clerical Brethren, "for the contrary supposition is too horrid to be admitted for a moment, that we. receive the doctrines of our church, as contained in her articles, to which we have folemnly fubfcribed; and as breathed in every page of our most excellent liturgy, to which we have publicly pledged ourselves to conform; that in our prayers and our difcourfes, we speak the fame language, utter the fame fentiments, and are actuated by one and the same spirit "."

And, in regard to a third party which is certainly very intimately concerned in the business, there is no doubt but that nine perfons out of ten, who hear a Minifter read the Articles with a declaration of his unfeigned affent to them, believe him fincere, and to speak according to the ordinary ufe of language. And fo far is a difcovery of the contrary from being univerfally affented to, and acquiefced in, by the laity, that for this avowed reason, because they cannot hear her genuine doctrines", large bodies of his Majesty's fubjects, even by "half a million w" in a clafs, defert the fervice of our church, and frequent other places of worship where they believe fomething more like these doctrines is taught. So weak is the defence of this new sense of the Articles, on the ground that it is univerfully agreed upon, and understood, by those whom the fubject concerns.

The cafe of obfolete Acts of Parliament which Dr. Hey pleads, is not parallel to the cafe in queftion. Thefe Acts are not conftantly and folemnly read with declarations of unfeigned approbation of them; but are literally fuffered to fall into difufe. The very reverse is the treatment of the Thirty-nine Articles.

and to understand them in any other sense, is either to force unnatural interpretations upon plain words, or make nonfenfe of them." Apology, p. 96.

(0) See "a Difcourfe delivered at the Vifitation of The Right Worshipful Robert Markham, M. A." By John Lowe, M. A. p. 5. (v) See Mr. Benfon's Vindication of the Methodifts, p. 11, 12, &c. (w) Antijacobin Review, August 1799, p. 452.; fee alfo Note at p. 414, below. (x) Vol. ii. p. 55—60.

a

The argument deduced from the change which has taken place with regard to the Habits of Minifters; and from the phrafe repeated fo often, " My mafter is not at home;" the fignature," obedient, humble fervant ";" &c, is frivolous and pitiful. Does the truth of Chrift wax old and change like the fashion of our garments? Or is it a proper vindication of Jefuitical cafuiftry in his Ministers in the folemn act of devotion to his fervice, that a few complimentary lies are tolerated by the World?

" In

The example of Geneva, which Dr. H. adduces, the British Critic is conftrained to denominate "a flagrant violation of the laws of confcience and morality, and even the religion of an oath, in its inmoft fanctuary . the modern Church of Geneva," Dr. H. fays, "the most complete tacit Reformation feems to have taken place. Geneva was the metropolis of Calvinifm; Calvin himself taught there; and, after him, Beza; but the Genevese have now in fact quitted their Calviniftic Doctrines, though in form they retain them.... When the Minister is admitted, he takes an oath of affent to the Scriptures, and professes to teach them according to the Catechifm of Calvin;' but this laft claufe, about Calvin, he makes a separate business; speaking lower, or altering his posture, or speaking after a confiderable interval. There feems ftill to be fome obligation to read public Lectures at Geneva on Calvin's Catechism, for the Lecturers propofe a part of it as a fubject or text; but then they immediately go off to fomething else: they do not adhere to it, nor even treat of it. The Youth are chiefly taught Oftervald's Catechism, which feems to contain what may now be called the real religion of Geneva d." "The multitude," however he fays, "may poffibly retain the Calvinistic notions." Yet after quoting the paffage juft noticed from Dr. Powell, "This fhows," Dr. H. obferves,