little remarkable, in regard to that article, with which Divines now take the greatest liberties, and which they most labour to evade, extenuate; and annihilate, this preamble is the most exprefs in prohibiting fuch a procedure. The injunction in refpect to this is, "That no man fhall either print or preach to draw the article2 afide any way, but fhall fubmit to it in the plain, and FULL MEANING THEREOF; and shall not put his own SENSE or comment to be the meaning of the article, but fhall take it in the LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL SENSE "If therefore common language is any longer to be made the vehicle of common fenfe, whatever is the plain, literal, grammatical, and full sense of the words of the articles, that is the fenfe in which they are to be underftood. This declaration, it is true, was not provided either at the time when these articles were firft compiled, or impofed, and is therefore only evidence of their intention then, as it teaches that this literal and grammatical fenfe, was "always" the "true and usual" sense of them. But, admitting its validity, which is generally done by our Divines, this circumftance of its pofteriority renders it of more importance as a directory to us. It fhows, what well deferves our attention," that it was not, as fome would infinuate, only on the first moment of her emerging from Popery, that our church adopted this mode of interpretation; but, that more than half a century afterward she adhered to it; or, to speak more correctly, did not defcend below it. And as to any interpretation lefs favourable to our fcheme, being inferred from the fuppofed Design of this Inftrument; whoever impartially confiders the real occafion and circumftances of it will, furely, find, that they af (i) Bifhop Burnet's Expo. of (z) The 17th, no doubt, is meant. (h) See the preamble to Arts. Arts. Intro. p. 8; Dr. Bennet's Effay on 39 Arts. p. 423; Dr. Ridley's 2d Letter, p. 143, &c: and Poftfcript; &c. (k) See Ibid. ford much ftronger reafons for the very oppofite conclufion. If we will fuffer it to explain its own design, it accords precisely with its expreffions. It ties Divines to this ftri&t adherence to the Articles, from a conviction, that, thus explained, they contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to God's word;" and in order, to terminate the "unhappy differences P' confequent upon a departure from this rule of interpretation. But what is the history of this Injunction? Bifhop Laud, in favour at Court, and a few of his Affociates, had adopted, what are sometimes called, milder notions, on the points peculiar to Calvinifin, than those which, according to the united teftimony of all parties, generally prevailed in the nation, at that period. On this account, Bishop Burnet informs us, they were accused of " departing from the true fenfe of the Articles. But it was anfwered by them, that fince they took the Articles in their literal and grammatical fenfe, they did not prevaricate. And to fupport this,” adds his Lordship, "that declaration was fet forth"." In this view therefore, and as it is expreffive of the doctrines then taught in the church, it proves our point a fortiori; inafmuch as, of the two parties into which the church was divided, that which was the moft moderate profeffed to reach this ftandard, while the other, which confifted of a great majority, was fuppofed to exceed it. And that an inftrument thus circumstanced, so pofitively and exprefsly inculcating the direct contrary, fhould have ever been conftrued into a general licence to deviate from the plain and full meaning of thefe articles, is, furely, an almost unexampled inftance of the perverfion of common fenfe, and common language, and of the triumph of cafuiftry over confcience. 2. All this then appears upon the very face of the Prayerbook; and only additional fupport of our Doctrine will be (1) See the Preamble. (m) See below, §. 2. (n) See Remarks on the Examina. of his Expo. of the 2nd Art of our Ch. P 3. difcovered, from a more extenfiye view of the OBJECT and SITUATION of the authors of our established forms. The circumstance usually alledged in fupport of a contrary opinion, is,―That the errors of the church of Rome being founded on the fide of human powers and merit, our Reformers, to correct these errors, expressed themselves too strongly on the opposite fide of the question; or, to borrow Dr. Croft's fimile, That to make the crooked ftraight, they bent it the other way. This circumftance the Doctor affigns as the reafon, why" the articles concerning grace, faith, and good works, lean towards the fide of enthusiasm," and why fuch a leaning" is neither to be condemned nor wondered at.” But is it not in itself a thing equally probable, that they would make every poffible conceffion towards thofe from whom they separated, and whom they were anxious to conciliate into an approbation of their principles? And, when the characters of our Reformers and the other circumstances of their fituation are confidered, is not there a ftrong prefumption that this would be their conduct? Their good fenfe and knowledge of mankind would fuggeft to them, that on no other plan they could fo reasonably expect the accomplishment of their defigns. The temper of Cranmer, who at its origin, and during fo confiderable a part of its progrefs, was at once the main-fpring, and chief Director in the business, and who had fo principal a hand in the actual compofition of our articles, would incline him to fuch a procedures. And afterwards, when thefe articles were finally adjusted, and established by law, it was the known difpofition, and exprefs direction of Queen Elizabeth and her Council, that nothing should be infifted upon unneceffarily, but that every fuitable conceffion fhould be (0) Bamp. Lect. p. 110; Gray's Bamp. Lect. p. 265; Hey's Nor Leet. Vol. III. p. 497. (p) Bamp. Lect. p. 110. (g) Strype's Life of Cranmer, p. 272. and paffim. made towards the ancient fyftem. The nature of their fituation would indeed make fuch a procedure appear even neceffary, in order to the smallest profpect of fuccefs. And fuch we are affured it was in fact." It was the principle of Cranmer," Bishop Pretyman obferves, "to proceed with moderation, not to reject too much of what people had been accustomed to, to procure a gradual change in their opinions; and "Elizabeth's apparent attachment to ufages that had obtained under the ancient establishment," his Lordship adds, caufed "feveral alterations to be made with a view to conciliate the Roman Catholics."-Bishop Burnet had before taught, that the avowed Rule by which the Agents in this bufinefs proceeded was, to make no innovation without the most fubftantial reafon for it; but, in imitation of Chrift and his Apostles at the first establishment of Chriftianity, to accommodate their fyftem to the prevailing opinions and prejudices, as far as was compatible with what they deemed effential to be received. And, that in many refpects, they unquestionably adhered to this rule, we have an irrefragable proof in the clamours of their contemporaries the Puritans, and of Diffenters ever fince, for a further reformation. These clamours, at the first, indeed, related rather to other matters than to doctrines; but it would be unaccountably strange to fuppofe that they acted upon directly oppofite principles with respect to doctrine, from those by which they were governed iu external matters. Admitting, however, for the fake of argument, that if to have fecured the Church against the errors of Rome had been the only object of our Reformers in the Articles, it were poffible, they would have acted as the objection fup (q) Elements, &c. Vol. II. p. 22. (r) Ibid. p. 25. (s) Hift. of Refor. Vol. II. p. 73. See also Hume's Hift. v. 5. p. 149. (t) See Neal's Hift. of the Puritans, Vol. i. p. 180, 235, and paffim; Mr. Wellbeloved's 'Sermon, entitled, "The principles of Roman Catholics and Unitarians compared;" &c. pofes, and have verged in their language toward the oppofite extreme. Was this really the cafe?-If we may credit the Bishops, Burnet, Conybeare", and Pretyman*; the Doctors, Heylin', Ridley, Tucker, Hey, and Croft; the Hiftorian Mr. Humes; or in fhort, the collective evidence of nearly all modern writers, on the fubject, it was equally the object of the framers of our national Creed, to guard against the extravagancies of thofe who proceeded to THIS EXTREME, and to free themfelves from the calumnies these extravagancies had occafioned. "It was the endeavour of Elizabeth," fays Hume, "to guide her people by God's rule, in the JUST MEAN between the corruptions of Rome and the errors of modern Sectaries." And to the fame purport speak the reft, with refpect to the founders of our Eftablishment in general. His Lordfhip of Sarum mentions the prevalence of this latter evil, as ONE of TWO ESPECIAL circumstances, which rendered an eftablished form of doctrine neceffary. To provide against it was therefore a full half of the intention of our articles. Heylin would almost infinuate, that, when thefe articles were finally revised and impofed, under Elizabeth, to guard against this extreme was their PRINCIPAL OBJECT. And, that this fuppofed error really confifted in laying too great ftrefs upon the doctrines of divine grace, as oppofed to the powers and merit of man, these writers would leave us no room to doubt. Befides their exprefs affertions, and general reasonings, the very epithets applied to thofe accused of (v) Hift. of Refor. Vol. ii. p. 27, and 113. and Expo. of Arts. p. 4. (w) Ser. on Sub. in the Oxford Enchieridion, &c. p. 242. (x) Elements &c. Vol. ii. p. 36. (y) Quinq. Hift. p. 589, 597, of his Tracts. (z) 2 Lett. to Conf. p. 24, 29, 141, 168. (b) Nor. Lect. Vol. iii. p. 330. (d) Hift. of England, Vol. v. (f) Expo. of Arts. p. 4. (a) Letters to Dr. Kippis. (e) Ibid. Ꭰ Ꮞ |