<\nsv/er to <\ Pairphlet entituled Considerations on the propriety of requiring a Subscription to* Articles of Faith. By Thomas Randolph { 1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES A N ANSWER T O A PAMPHLET, ENTITULED, CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Propriety of Requiring a SUBSCRIPTION T O Articles of Faith. - OXFORD. AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. Printed for J. and J. Fletcher, in the Turle; and fold by Mefl*. Rivington, in St. Paul's Church-yard, London. M DCC LXX1V. 5/3^ r t A N ANSWER, HEN I took thefe Considerations on the Propriety of requiring a Sub' fcription to Articles of Faith in Hand, I found myfelf in the Entrance promifed great things. I was told that federal able Writers, who had engaged in this iJO Caufe, were even yet hardly got in Jight of the '?i main Quejlion, and that thofe original Maxims, ° which ought to direcl all fuch Enquiries, had c- long been, and were Jlill, either too little un- % derjlood, or too much difregarded. And we are promifed to have thefe Maxims revived, and farther explained, and the whole fet in a proper Light. But in the fequel I found myfelf much difappointed ; I could find - A 2 ral ( 4 ) ral Principles of this Religion. Perhaps, only " a general Profeflion of their Faith in Chrijly though they believe not one Doctrine which he taught. Or perhaps he means an Acknowledgement of the Truth of Scripture. And this again is a Teft that will admit Popifh Priefts, and all the wildefl: Sectaries, into our Miniftry : for all thefc pretend to found their Doctrines on Scripture. An ex- cellent Method this of guarding againft pefti- lent Hcrejies, by fuch an Enquiry, as will exclude none of them. Our Author begins with an Account of the Rife and Progrefs of a Cuffom, ivhicb, as he tells us, feems to place certain Explications of fuppofed Scriptures on the fctme foot *with Scrip- tures themfehes, viz. Creeds, and Confeffons. And for what he advances we are to take his Word : for he has given us no Manner of Proof. It will appear that the Reverfe of what he has here advanced is true. Thele Subtihics of metaphyseal Debate were not in- troduced by the Governors of the Church, but by the feveral Hereticks of thofe Times 6 . • See p. 12, 13. b This is "the Account given us by Iren/eus, I. 1. c. 1. f. 20. & c. 2. In him alfo vre may fee a pariicular Account of thefc Hereticks, and their Subtleties. Amongfl them we find CertH- thus ( 5 ) And Creeds, and ConfeJJions of Faith, were from the Beginning found neceflary to guard thus, and others, who denied our Bleffid Saviour's Divinity. See alfo Bingham's Antiquities, 1. x. c. 3 & 4. 1. xvi. c. 1. f. I. Cirtical Hift. of the Apoitles Creed, ch. 1. We are told in a Note that a Creed ought to be very clear and intelligible to all Per/ons : and that the Terms of Chrifian Com- munion Jhould likewife be as general, and comprehenfive, as it it fcjtble. But how we are to make a Creed, in which all Par- ties jhall agree : or frame a Liturgy, wherein all Seels of Chrijlians might join, I cannot eafily comprehend : How mall they, who worlhip Jefus Chrift, and honour him as God, join in the fame Liturgy, with thofe who deny his Divinity, and efteem his Worfhip no better than Idolatry ? The good Man might as well carry his Scheme of Comprehenfion a little farther. Mr Pope has given us an Univerfal Prayer. Might not we on the fame Plan frame an Univerfal Liturgy, wherein not only all Se<3s of Chrijlians, but all Jews, Turks, and Infdels, as well as Hereticks, might join ? And yet, I am afraid, even this would not take all in. The whole Body of our DiJTenters would ftill be excluded : for they all, I think, declare againft pre-conceived Forms of Prayer. In the fame Note, though our Author had juft before told us that he had no Defgn cf entering into the fubjecl matter of cur Articles, he leems to plead only for fame Relaxation from the. prefent Mode of Subfcrihing, and complains of our Articles, as entailing a whole Syjlem on us at once. And then he proceeds to calculate how many Proportions there are in thefe Articles, I wifh he would take the fame Pains to calculate how many Propofttions are contained in the Firft Chapter of St. John's Go/pel. There are no lefs than three in the fixft Verfe. And yet they are all neceffary Truths. againft ( 6 ) againft their Evafions : nor were any Perfons admitted to Baptifm without making Pro- feflion of the primary Articles of the Chrijlian Faith. And, as Herefies multiplied, and new, and unfcriptural Doctrines were in- vented, the Church judged it neceffary to guard againft their Mifconftru&ions of Scrip- ture ". This Writer has put us in mind that even in the Apojiles Times there were thofe who corrupted the Word of God, and bandied it deceitfully. Some fuch Provifion therefore feems to have been neceffary to guard againft: thefe deceitful Workers. So far indeed we are agreed that this Power of the Church may be, and has been, abufed. In Procefs of Time Corruptions ftole in, both in Prac- tice, and Faith. And as the Church of Rome thought fit to eftablifh thefe Corruptions, it became neceffary to feparate from her Com- munion. But how did the firft Reformers do this ? not by abolifhing all Creeds, and Confcjfons. No, they found it neceffary to draw up Confejjions of their own. As fome, who fet up for Reformers, had broached many erroneous, and peftilent Doctrines; the Lutherans firft, and after their Example other Protcjlant Churches, thought fit to draw up Confejjions of their Faith. And this * p. 10. they ( 7 ) they did, partly, to acquit themfelves of the Scandal of abetting wild and feditious En- thujiafts, and declaring what were their real Doctrines : partly, to prevent fuch Entbu- Jiajis on the one Hand, and Popijh Emiflaries on the other, from intruding themfelves into their Miniftry. Nor was there (as far as I can find) ever any Church, ever fince the dpojlles Times, either before, or after, the Reformation, but what had fome Creed, or Confejjion of Faith. The Lutherans, the Cahinijis, the Remonjirants, and even the Socinians, as well as our Church, had their Forms of Doctrine, and did not acknowledge fuch as their Brethren, who would not pre- fer their Belief of them. Nor is it eafy to con- ceive a Church under any other Notion, but as a Body of Men profeffing fome common Form of Doctrine, and joining in fome com- mon form of Worfhip. a But we are told that thefe good Men were not aware bow little agreeable this part of their ConducJ might prove to the Principles they frfi fet out upon : which were that the Holy Scripture was our only Standard both of Faith, and PracJice ; and that its Meaning was to be afcertained to us by our own Rea/on. But this » p. 6. Incon- ( 8 ) Inconfiftency {hould not only have been aflerted, but proved. They did not fet up their Confejjions, as Standards of Faith, nor impofc them on Men's Confciences as fuch. They defired every Man to fearch the Scrip- tures, and judge for himfelf. But though they did not aflume a Power over Men's Confciences, nor deny them the Liberty of private Judgment, yet they thought that they had Authority to enjoin a publick Profeflion of what they judged to be neceffary Articles of Faith, as a Condition of external Com- munion. But this, it feems, was one of the chief Caufes of the Divi/ion t and Dijlrejfes, which we read of in ecclefiajlical Story. — Our Au- thor, I fuppofe, thinks that fuch Divifions, and Disturbances, were not owing to theper- verfe difputings of Hereticks, and Scbifmaticks, but to the Governors of the Church, who held faji the Form of found Words. And poflibly too he may think that Infurrections, and Rebellions in the State, are not owing to the Unrulinefs of factious Subjects, but to Kings, and Rulers. But mofl reafonable Men, I believe, will think otherwife. Our Author refers us here for Proof to Curcellaus, and Limborcb. Thefe Men might have but too ( 9 ) too much Reafon to complain of the Impo- fitions of the Romifi Church, and thofe of their own Countrymen at home. But they were both Remonjlrants, and had given their Aflent to, and wrote in Defence of, the Re- monji rants Confefjion of Faith. This Confejjion was published with a Preface, wherein are anfwered the Objections ufually urged againft fuch ConfeJJions. They are the fame with thofe brought here by our Author, — that they detract from the Authority of Scripture — that they offend Mens Conjciences, and hinder the Liberty of Prophecy ing, — that they occafon Divifionsy and Factions, — I refer him to this Preface for an Anfwer to every thing he has here alledged a . After all, what is all this to the Purpofe ? The Queftion propofed is the Propriety of re- quiring of Perfons to be ordained a Subfcription to Articles of Religion. But he has hitherto been arguing againft Creeds, and ConfeJJions of Faith, required of all Men as Therms of Communion. We are hardly yet got in fight of the main ^uefiion. If we ihorten our Creeds, new frame our Liturgies, and make cur a I beg leave alfo to refer him to Dr Rogers's Difcourfe of the Vifible and Invifible Church of Chrijl, p. ii. ch. 6. and to his Review, p, ii. ch. $. B farms ( io ) of Communion fo general, and comprehenfive, as to take in all Seels of Chriftians, yet frill it may be neceflary to take Care that this mixed Multitude may be well taught, and for that Purpofe provided with proper Teachers % who may be able by found Doctrine, both to ex- tort, and to convince the Ga in/ay ers. But now we feem to be coming to the main Point b . We are told that all Kinds of Engagements declarative of our full and final Perfuq/ion in Matters of Faith — are wholly founded on Principles direclly oppofite to thofe abovementioned, (I fuppofe) that Scripture is the Standard of- Faith, and that its Meaning is to be a/cert ained to us by our own Re af on.— But we do not fet up our Articles as a Rule of Faith. Nay thefe very Articles declare that c nothing is to be required of any Man to be believed as an Article of Faith, that is not read in Scripture, or may be proved there- by : and that d befides the fame the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necejjity of Salvation. Nor do we deprive any one of his Right of private Judgment. "The Candidate for Orders might judge for himfelf, before he offered himfelf, and fo he may after Ordination. It is a very uniair a Tit. 1.9. k P. 8. c Art. vi. * Art. xx. State ( » ) State of the Cafe to call our Subfcription a Declaration of our full, and final, Perfuafion, in Matters of Faith. No Man is hereby tied up from impartially examining the Word of God, nor from altering his Opinion, if he finds Reafon fo to do, a We are told indeed (how truly I know not) that the Church of Scotland requires her Minifters to promife to adhere to the fame Perfuafion to thier Life's End. I am fure our Church requires no fuch thing. J3ut I cannot fee what Obligation lies on a Teacher, who on his Examination alters his Opinion, openly to maintain his new Opi- nion. Will this Writer fay that every Teacher of the Go/pel is bound to maintain all Truths, and combat all Errors, in all Cafes, and at all Seafons ? If he does, he muft allow the Governours of the Church the fame Right of Judgment, and the fame Zeal for Truth. And if fo, they may think themfelves obliged to forbid, and reftrain, fuch Perfon from venting his novel Opini- ons, as their Minifler, But we are told that the "Judgment of mofi thinking Men will be always in a progrejfive State. — So indeed we find. Thefe thinking Men will one Year preach up the Divinity of a P- H- B a our ( '2 ) otir Bleffed Saviour ; the next Year they will explain it away ; foon after, growing ftill wifer, they will teach their Flock that he is a rhere Man, and no Worfhip due to him : at laft, they will give them to underftand, that the Apojlles Creed is erroneous. I fear that while the teachers Underjlanding is in a progrejjive State, his Congregation will be in a retro- grade State, with regard both to Faith, and Morals. And I humbly think that in fuch Cafes thefe thinking Men, if they choofe to retain their Preferments, fhould keep their Opinions to themfelves\ b What follows is mere Declamation. Our Church preaches no other Gojpel than that which Jhe received, nor propounds any other Articles for GofpeJ, nor fixes any Standards or Cr iter ions of Faith Jeparate jrom this Gcfpel : and fo me has fully declared. She claims indeed Authority in Controverjics of Faith : but only fo far as to judge for herfelf what mail be her own Terms of Communion, and what Qualifi- cations me (hall require in her own Miniftqrs. Nor does our Church herein claim any other • See this Point ftated by Dr Randolph in his Vindication of the 1 'ocirine of the Trinity, App. p. 13.--- and more fully handled in Dr Rogers's Civil E/tablifhment of Religion, Chap. ii. SeA. 7, 8, 9. * p- 9, 10. Au- ( '3 ) Authority (as has already been (hewn) than what all Cbrijiian Churches, ancient and modern, Protejlant as well as Popijh, have always claimed, and exercifed. Nor is this Claim any way inconfiftent with the Right of private Judgment, or Liberty of free En- quiry. But we are told that a this Spirit of impofoig, Jiiled the My fiery of Iniquity \ began to work as early, as the Apojiles Times. But who were thefe Impofers ? Not the Governors of the Church b : but vain talkers, and De- ceivers, who fet themfelves up in Oppofition thofe Governors. Thefe were the Perfons the Apofile forewarnes us againji, as e corrupting the Word of God, and handling it deceitfully. If any fuch mould arife amongft us, I fhould think, and fo did St Paul, d that it concerns the Governours of the Chnrch to Jiop their Mouths. But we now feem to be coming to the main ^uejlion e . We are told that with regard to the Right of requiring Subfcription deduced from the Nature of a Society, as fuch, which Writers on that fde generally ft out with, it re/is entirely on this Argument, or Ajjertion, viz. that ' P. 10. b Tit. I. 10. c 2 Cor. ii. 17. - iv. 2. * P. 12, the ( '4 ) the Church, like other Societies, has a Power to prefcribe its own Terms of Admittance , &c — To this it is anfvvered that this Society is fomething more than a mere human E ft a blijhment— and that the Terms of Admittance into this Society are fixed by the very Authority that conjiituted the So- ciety itfelf. And here three or four Texts of Scripture are brought to prove that we are bound to receive all Perfons into this Society on a general Profejfion of their Faith in Chrift. But here again the Queftion is changed upon us. The thing to be proved was the Impropriety of requiring Subfcription of Perfons to be or- dained. And to prove this he tells us that the Apoflles admitted Perfons to Baptifm on a general Profejfion of their Faith in Chrift. Queen Candaces Eunuch and Cornelius the Cen- turion were indeed baptized : but they were not ordained Priefts, or Deacons. Nor do his Inftances prove even the Non-necefiity of Baptifmal Profeftions \ Philip, before he baptized the Eunuch, had preached unto him fefus, and taught him from If liii. the Doctrine of Redemption by Chrift : and the Eunuch by his ProfefTion of Faith in fefus Chrift, mud be underfiood to give his Aflent to the Doctrines preached to him. Cornelius's * Acts ix. 33, &c. Cafe ( *s ) Cafe was an extraordinary one '. While St Peter was preaching to him, the Holy Ghoji fell upon all them which heard the Word. Whereupon Peter anfwered — Can any Man forbid Water that thefe fiould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghofi as well as we. And he commanded him to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. — This can be no Rule what is to be done in ordinary Cafes. His laft Text of Scripture is ftill lefs to his Pur- pofe \ There arofe a Diffenfon, and Di/pu- tation, among the Chrijlians at Antioch, about the Neceffity of the Mofaical Law. This Quejlion was determined in a Council of the Apojlles and Riders at ferufalem, who gave Sentence that no greater Burden jhould be laid upon the Gentile Converts than fome few necefTary Points of Practice. And what is this to the Cafe of Creeds, or Subfcriptions. This PafTage mould rather feem to prove the Authority of the Church, both to prevent the teaching of falfe Doctrines, and to ordain Rites, and Ceremonies. I know that is has been alTerted by fome Writers of Note, that the only necefTary Article of Faith is that J ejus is the Mejjiah: and thefe Texts, which our Author has pro- * Afts x. 44, &c. b Ads xv. duced ( '6 ) duccd, and fame others, have been brought in proof of it. But I mould be glad to know what they mean by this Term — Mejjiab. — If they mean only a Prophet fent by God, then this Aflertion amounts to this, that it is necefTary to believe fejus to be a true Pro- phet, and yet not necefTary to believe any one Doctrine which he taught. But if by — the Mejjiab— they mean, as they lhould mean, the Only-begotten Son of God, anointed, and fent by the Father, to make Propitiation for the Sins of the World, this will include all the Fundamental Articles of the Chrijlian faith. Nor can any Argument be drawn from the Practice of the Apojlles. At the firft Publication of the Gofpel God bore Wit- nefs to it with Signs and Wonders. Thofe who were convinced by thefe Miracles, and believed the divine Million of the Apojlles, and thereupon fubmitted to be taught by them, might perhaps be baptized, and re- ceived into the Church, without any farther Profeflion. But this would be no Rule to fucceeding Ages. And even in the Apojlles Days we find that Teaching generally pre- ceded Baptifm a . So it was in the Cafe of Queen Candaces Eunuch. It has been already fliewn that Creeds and ConjeJJions of Faith • See alfo A&i viii. 12. x. 34. xvi. 14. 32, 33. xviii. 8. were ( *7 ) were in Ufe in the firft Ages of the Chrzf- tian Church, and were require^ of Perfons to be baptized y . This Practice is faid by the mod ancient Writers to be derived from the Apofiles themfelves. The Apoftles Creed, which we now have, though the whole of it was not compofed by the Apoftles themfelves, yet was formed upon their Plan -, and the greater! Part of it either compofed, or authorized, by the Apofiles, as may be feen in the Writers cited underneath*. In the Primitive Church no adult Perfons were baptized without previous Inftruction. a They continued fome Time in the State of Catechumens, when they were inftructed in the Doctrines of Chrijiianity , and taught their Creed-, and when they were admitted tQ Baptifm, they made publick and folemn Profefiion of their Faith, in the Words of * Iren. L i. c. 2. TertulL de Praefcript. adv. Hseret. c. 13, 21. Adv. Prax. c. 2. See alio Bingham's Antiq. L. x. ch.3. Critical Hiit. of the Apojlle's Creed, ch. 1. Rogers' Review, Part. ii. c. 5. Our Author, perhaps, may cry out, So early did this My fiery of Iniquity begin to work. No ; it was not the Myfiery of Iniquity, but the Myftery of Godlinefs, which thefe Creeds fet forth — God manifeft in the F/eJh. z Bingham's Antiq. B. x. » lb. B. xi, ch. 7. C.8, &c. the ( i» ) the Creed appointed by the Church b . And v hen Children baptized, they had Sponfors who anfwered for them. The like Care was from the Beginning taken to keep falfe Teachers out of the Church. c St. Paul directs Timothy to com- mit thofe Things which be had heard to faith- ful Men, who JJjould be able to teach others alfo : d and to ordain fuch Deacons only as held the Myjlery of the Faith in a pure Con- Jcience. e And he commiflions Titus to or- dain fuch Elders in every City as held fajl the faithful Word, as they had been taught, that they might be able, by found DocJrine, both to exhort and to convince the Gain/ay ers. And he commands him to Jlop the Mouths of vain Talkers and Deceivers -, and to rejeft % after the firfi and fecond Admonition, a Man that is an Heretick* g And in the Primitive Church the greateft Care was taken to pre- ferve the Unity of the Faith. Strict En- quiry was made into the Faith and Ortho- doxy of all Perfons to be ordained : and they were required to give in a Form of b Ch. 8. f. 4. c 2 Tim. ii. 2. * I Tim. iii. 9. e Tit. i. 5, Sec. f iii. 10. * Sec Bingham's Antiq. B. xvi. ch. 1. lb. B. iv. ch. 3. f. 2. Of ( i9 ) Confejfion of their Faith fubfcribed with own Hand ; and thofe who taught any he* retical Opinions were cenfured, and call out out of the Church. I am glad, however, that our Author al^ lows the Church to be a Society, As to the 'Terms of Admittance, I refer him to the ori- ginal Charter h , which commiflions the Apoftles to receive £)ifciples into the Church, by baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoji. I think it may be from hence reafonably concluded, that Perfons baptized mould make Profeflion of their Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoji ; and that Per- fons appointed to be Teachers mould be found in this Faith, and able to inftruct others in the Nature and Offices of thefe Three Divine Perfons. But here we lofe Sight of the Queftion again -, l and a new one is introduced in its ftead, with regard to the Civil Sanctions of Religion. It feems Men muft not only not be compelled, but muft not be tempted to de^ h Matt, xxvii. 1 9— pxrtn-rivrXTi /3«s;rrj£omj.> 1 Page 13, &c. C 2 dare ( 2° ) tlare their Ajfent to what they cannot believe, The Magiftrate therefore muft not eftablifh what he thinks the true Religion ; muft annex no Rewards to it's Profeffors. There muft be no Tythes, no rich Benefices, no Dignities or Bi&opricks ; for thefe are tempting Things, and may hazard the Probity of his Subjects. Or, if he allots any Main- tenance to the Teachers of Religion, he muft admit all Perfons indifcriminately, Papifts, and all the wildeft Sectaries, who hold Principles fubverfive of the Foundation of what he thinks the true Religion k . Whe- ther this will contribute to fecure either the Peace, or the Probity, of the People, let any reafonable Men judge. I muft defire to be excufed from following our Author any far- ther out of the Way. The Authority of the Magiftrate in Matters of Religion, the Reafonablenefs of Toleration, and under what Reftriclions it may or may not be granted, are Points of fome Difficulty, and cannot be properly treated of in a narrow Compafs. And as they are foreign to the prefent Queftion, fo I have neither Inclina- tion, nor Leifure, to enter into the Difcuflion of them i and therefore I refer to the ex- k See Dr. Balgufs Charge. ccllent ( 9* ) cellent Dr. Rogers, who has fully handled thefe Subjects. But I cannot forbear afking our Author what he means by l Pains and Penalties, and ivholefome Severities ? and what, and who he complains of? Does our Church or our Go- vernment m (to ufe the Words of the worthy Dean of Glocejier) inflict any corporal Pu- nifhment, or levy any Fines and Penalties, on thofe who will not comply with the Terms of her Communion ? No. Doth it deny them the Right of Privilege of wor- shipping God in their own Way ? No : a Toleration is granted them on reafonable Terms. Are Men denied the Liberty of free Debate ? No ; nothing is puniihable by our Laws but open Blafphemy and Profane- nefs, and publickly impugning the moil fundamental Articles of our Religion ; and even thefe Laws are fcarce ever put in Exe- cution. Men fpeak, and write, juft what they pleafe, with Impunity. What then do they complain of ? Why, that they have node of thofe Emoluments allotted to the Teachers of the eflablimed Religion, which w Apology for the Church of England, p. 52. ' Page 16. they ( 22 they wifh to enjoy without complying with the Terms required ; and load the Church, and Government, with Abufe for not grati- fying them in their extravagant Demands. I meet with nothing to the Purpofe till p. 21. where we are told, xhztfuch dofirinal Formularies exclude none but confcientious Men from any particular Communion : they create no Difficulty to others, who fubfcribe them as Things of Courfe ; and in the like Qircum- fiances will fubfcribe any thing. — I would de- fire our Author, in fie ad of docJrinal Forma- lities, to read Oaths, and then fee how his Argument would run. The Government mud require no Oaths of' Allegiance, or Supre- macy, of Perfons to be admitted to Pofts of Honour or Profit ; for thefe will exclude none but confcientious Men : others will take them as things of courfe, and will fwear to any thing. But who are thefe others, who fub- fcribe the Articles as Things of Courfe ? He would not, I hope, fuggeft that the Bulk of the Clergy do fo. I am well perfuaded that the Generality of the Clergy, when they offer themfelves for Ordination, confi- der ferioufly what Office they take upon them, and firmly believe what they fubfcribe to. If by this means fome confcientious Per- fons ( 23 ) fins are excluded, we are forry for it : but we efteem thofe only fit to be admitted into the Minijlry, who hold the Faith, as well as a good Confcience. If unworthy Men, who know not, or care not, what they fubfcribe % by this Means get into the Minijlry, they would not be excluded, if we were to abo- lifh all Subfcription. If others fubfcribe againft the Dictates of their Confcience, and afterwards think themfelves at Liberty to bear their Teflimony againft what they have thus folemnly declared their Aftent to, it is their Fault alone. If the beft Method which could be thought of to avoid Diverfi- ties of Opinions, and ejlabliJJj Confent touching true Religion, may, through the Perverfe- nefs and Corruption of Mankind, have had a contrary Effect ; furely not the Church, but fuch Men alone are to blame. n But our Church, it is faid, at jirjl pro- ceeded on the mofi extenfive Plan. — And pray when has fhe altered it ? We have the fame Articles of Subfcription now as we had in Queen Elizabeth's Time. The royal De- claration afterwards prefixed to it, added no- thing to them, but only approved and con- a Page 21. firmed ( H ) firmed what had been always the true Intent of fubfcribing. I am no way concerned to vindicate every Expreffion in this Declara- tion. It may be fufficient to obferve, that there are fome Errors exprefsly condemned in our Articles, and fome Doctrines clearly and pofitively afferted. In thefe it was the Intention of the Compilers to ejlablijh Con- fent ; nor were thefe to be drawn qfide to any new Senfe by forced Conftructions. In other more curious Points they purpofely worded the Articles in general Terms, allowing Per- fons agreeing in the general Senfe to differ in the particular Explanation of it. ° Our Author comes now at laft to an- fwer the Pleas offered in Support of this Prac- tice of Subfcription. One of thefe, he fays, is drawn from the f acred Writings being capable offucb a Variety of Senfes, that Men of widely different Perfuafions foelter themfehes under the fame Forms of Expreffion. It would furely have been more fair to have given us the Words of fome of thefe Advocates for Sub- fcription. Let us then take their Plea in their own Terms. — p We acknowledge (fays one of them) the Scriptures to be fufficient ly • Page t\. f A. D. of 0*s Charge, p. 13. clear ( 25 ) clear in all Matters neceffary to Salvation : but what if Men wrefi thefe Scriptures % explain away the plainejl Texts of Scripture, and pre- tend to prove the mojl erroneous and pernicious Doctrines from Scripture f Are fuch Men to be entrufled with the Minijlry of the Go/pel, and commifjioned to teach thefe erroneous Doc- trines ? What then is to be done in this Cafe ? I know of no better Way of Security againjl fuch Deceivers, than by drawing up Articles explaining fuch Scriptures as thefe Men have perverted, and guarding againjl their Mifcon- JlruSlions. If this is not allowed, we can have no Fence to prevent Popifi Emiffaries, or any falfe 'Teachers whatfoever, from thru/ling them/elves into the Minifry. And what has our Author to fay in An- fwer to this ? Firft, he queries whether the Scriptures are in Reality fo differently interpre- ted in Points of real Confequence. But the fame Writer has {hewn that they are, and inftanced in the firft Chapter of St. John's Go/pel. But we muft not take this for grant- ed, and ?nake ourfelves Jole Judges of this Con- fequence. So far only does the Church make herfelf Judge, as to judge what Doctrines are fit to be taught, and what Securities are to be required of thofe whom me admits into D her ( * ) her Miniftry. And in this the Governors of the Church have the fame Right to judge as all other Perfons have to judge for them- felves, and to act accordingly. But their Expoftions, we are told, will at length be- come equally difficult to be expounded. If they lhould, the Church has Power to alter and explain them when (he judges it neceflary or expedient. f Another Plea our Author mentions of the fame Kind is, that all Sorts of pejlilent Here* fes might be taught in publick, if' no fuch Re- Jlraint as this were laid upon the 'Teachers. * His Reply to this has been already confi- dered. It is indeed a fair Conceflion that pejlilent Herefies ought to be guarded againft, and that to this End fome Enquiry ought to be made into the Principles of thofe who are to be appointed Teachers. What then would he give us in the Room of Subfcrip- tion? — The Church may, if JJje thinks Jit, fupply her Clergy with proper Comments on Scripture, or Homilies properly adapted to their own Times, and, ifyoupleaje, with Articles of Religion alfo. — Very well. But of what Authority are thefe Comments, Homilies and ' Pagt 25. * Sec above, p. 3. Articles ( *7 ) Articles to be ? Here we are rather in the Dark. It Should feem by what follows, that they are only for the Edification of theft her Sons, as meet Helps and Directions for the more effectual Difcharge of their Minijlry* How then will you hinder pejlilent Herefies being taught in publick, if you admit Perfons into your Miniftry, who neither approve of your Comments, nor believe your Articles, and fuffer them afterwards to write and preach againft all or any of them ? But it feems, Preachers are to be made liable to Cenfure for Impieties, when uttered by them, but not bound beforehand to fuch a Clog of Pre- cautions. But here again he fhelters himfelf under general Words. What does he mean by Impieties f And who is to be judge what are Impieties,- and what Cenfure is to be paf- fed upon them. You put Comments on Scripture, and Articles of Religion, into your teachers Hands. Is he obliged to explain the Scriptures in Conformity to thefe Comments? and to teach fuch Doctrines as are fet forth in thefe Articles, and no other ? If he is, how mould we be in a better Cafe than we are at prefent ? It mould feem rather worfe ; for we mould be tied down by Comments as well as Articles. Suppofing then that any of thefe Preachers mould preach different D 2 Doctrines, ( 28 ) Doctrines, and that in the moft important and fundamental Points j would you allow the Governors of the Church any Power to reftrain them, or fufpend them from their Office ? Or mud they wait till they proceed to open Blafphemy, and may be convicted before a Judge and Jury ? If fo, then all Sorts of pejiilent Herefies may and will be taught in publick, without any Reftraint. And I am humbly of Opinion, that it is much better to take proper Precaution before-' hond, and more eligible, not to admit thofe into the Miniftry who hold thefe pernicious Doctrines, than to to cenfure them for it afterwards — But Mojlmm reprefents the Me- thod here recommended to be the Cafe pre- cifely with the Arminian Confefjion. But thefe Arminians are no national Church : they are, as the fame Moflmm tells us, a Medley of Perfons of different Principles, who, properly f peaking, have no fixed fable Form or Syflem of Doctrine. And yet thefe will not look on the Papijls or the Calvinifis, who deny their five Articles as Brethren. They alfo thought it necefTary to draw up a Confefjion of their Faith, much larger than our Body of Articles. And ' (as I obferved before) ■ Page 6. their ( *9 ) in their Preface to this Confefjion, they an- fwer the fame Objections againft fuch Con- fefjions of Faith as are here revived by our Author. I muft beg Leave to pafs by the follow- ing long-minded Periods of Declamation : I can find nothing in them but what has been already obviated ; and I am tired with repeating the fame Anfwers to the fame Objections, cloathed in different Expref- fions. I pafs on to page 30, where our Author, in Anfwer to thofe who have urged that ««- fcriptural Words might as well be ufed in Confejjions of Faith as in Preaching, fays, that the two Cafes are widely different. I can fee but little Difference in this Refpedt. They are both Explications of Scripture 3 and therefore in both other Words muft be ufed befides Scripture. Nor does our Church claim any divine Authority -, nor does me peremptorily decide Matters for us, or bind them upon us, as our Author mifreprefents the Cafe. But whereas falfe Teachers had ex- plained away the Senfe of Scripture by new and unfcriptural Diftinclions, it was judged neceflary to guard againft their Evaiions, and thereby ( 3* ) thereby exclude fuch falfe Teachers from our Miniftry. If we were on this Account forced to make Ufe of new Terms, the Novelty is chargeable, not on us, but on them. Nor is this (as I have often already obferved) any way inconfiftent with the Affertion, that the Holy Scriptures contain all DoBrines required of Necefjity for eternal Sal- vation -f-. However, I cannot pafs by one of his long-winded laboured Sentences, though I cannot eafily fix his Meaning. ' Were fome Perfons fenfible of this (though I can- not make out from the Context what this is) tbey would not furely be Jo forward to fufpetl us of Hypocrify and Prevarication, while we ejleem our/elves bound to keep up alltheje Forms, till relieved by proper Authority i nor impute it wholly to our private Interejl, when we mini- Jlerially comply with what we are not able to t But we find the Tables now turned upon us. The Church is now charged with introducing lutfcriptural Terms and metaphf.cal Debates ; whereas it was her Defign to guard againft the metaphyfical Subtleties of vain Deceivers. And it may be, and often has been fliewn, that thofe Things, which may now feem abftrufc in our Creeds and Articles^ were occafioned by the fubtle Evafions of the Hereticks of thofe Days. * Page 32. remove ; ( 3» ) remove ; and patiently remain in Pofls, bow* ever invidioujly reprefented, where it is con- ceived that we may do more good, and perform a more acceptable Service to our common Maf- ter, by continuing to labour on in his wafte Vineyard, aiid wait his own good Time for Op- portunities of ufing our little Influence [hereby prevented from growing fill lefs] towards pruneing a few wild Branches in it, and root- ing outfome of the rankefl Weeds.— Be pleafed, Sir, to come out of the Clouds. You have not yet thought fit to tell us who you are, nor what your Tenets are, nor what it is which you fo much diflike in our Forms, I conld wifh in particular that you had been more explicit with regard to the Doctrine of the Trinity. This Doctrine has been lately abufed in very rude and grofs Terms. Permit me then to afk, Whether a Perfon, who disbelieves this Doctrine, can, without Hypocrijy and Prevarication, fubfcribe to the Article, which afTerts, that in the Unity of the Godhead there be three Perfons of one Subjlance, Power, and Eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. But perhaps there may be fome, who at firrt fubfcribed to thefe Ar- ticles as things of courfe ; but are improved in Knowledge fince. But have they never repeated their Subfcription f and do they think ( 3* ) think themfelves at liberty to take upon them the Office of Teachers and Governors, in a Church whofe fundamental Doclxines they difbelieve, and repeatedly declare their AfTent to what they think falfe ? Again, can Perfons of thefe Principles efleem them- felves bound, or even at Liberty, to keep up the Forms in our Creeds, and Liturgy f Can they, without Prevarication, repeat the Words of a Creed in a publick Congrega- tion, if they do not believe the Contents of it ? Can he who denies the Divinity of our Blejfed Saviour, folemnly protefl before God, and his Church, that he believes in our Lord fefus Chrifl — very God of very God— being of one Subjlance with the Father t Can he, who difbelieves the Doctrine of a 'Trinity, declare it publickly to be his Belief, that the whole three Perfons are co- eternal together, and co- equal ? Nor can fuch a Man join in the Ufe of our Prayers. Can he, without Prevari- cation, invoke ' the holy, blejfed, and glorious 'Trinity, as three Perfons, and one God ? Can he addrefs himfelf to v our Lord J ejus Chrifl, as one who liveth, and reigneth, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, 1 Litany. * Colled for 3d Sunday in Advent. World ( 33 ) World without End? w Can he pray to God to keep him Jiedfaft in the true Faith, to ac~ know/edge the Glory of the eternal 'trinity ? Whether thefe are our Author's Principles I know not : that he differs from the efta- blifhed Church in fome important Points, may, I think, fairly be gathered from his own Words. He fpeaks in the firfr, Perfon, — We — and he reprefents our Church as a wajle Vineyard ; and waits for an Opportunity of pruning the wild Branches in it, and rooting out fome of it's rankejl Weeds. But my Charge is not perfonal againft him -, but in general againft all who thus prevaricate, who, I fear, are too many, and whofe Caufe our Author here pleads. And I muft aik him what he means by. that equivocating Ex- preffion of minifterially complying ? — Does he think that the Minijler officiating in a pub- lick Congregation fpeaks only like a Puppet, or like an Actor in a Play, who fpeaks not in his own Perfon, but that of another ? Or does he efteem Creeds and Publick Prayers to be only Matters of Form, x fpoken not from the A v Colled for Trinity Sunday. x I fear that ConfeJJion will not be made with the Mouth unto Salvation, unlefs with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteouf- nefs, Rom. x. 10, E Such ( 34 ) Heart, but only from the Mouth ? Can he folemnly profefs in his own Perfon, faying— J believe— before God, in his Church, and at his Altar, in the Face of the Congrega- tion aflembled for Divine Service, and yet believe nothing of what he profefies his Be- lief of* Is he the Mouth of the Congrega- tion ? but furcly he is one of the Congrega- tion, and muft be fuppofed to declare his own Faith, as well as that of others. If he does not declare his own Faith, pray who does ? Again, if he folemnly addrefles him- felf to God in Terms containing what he verily thinks to be a Falfhood ; if he prays to him as CrW, whom he believes to be no God, is there not a Lie in his Mouth ? Does he not hereby deceive his Congregation, and mock God ? But it feems that ive comply, and •patiently remain in Pojls (yes, and patiently enjoy the Profits of thofe Pojls, and patiently rife from one Pofi to another) that we may do more good, and perform a more acceptable Such Diffimulation was held in Aborrcnce by the Heat bent themfelves. When Eurifufa's Tragedy was acted on the Theatre at Athens., where Hippolytus fays,--'H ykmar ifiitp.*% i h flfjj? mt*ft*r»i>-Mj Ttngue has /tuorn, hut tut my Heart— Sccrates was fo offended at this Prevarication, though only fpoke by an Aftor, out of a Play, that he left the Theatre. Service ( 35 ) Service to our Majler—thzt is, in Scripture Language-— 7 Let us do Evil, that Good may come.—- What would this Writer himfelf think of a Jefuit, who fhould talk, and adt thus ? who (hould apply for Orders, take the Oat h of Supremacy, fubfcribe our Articles % and declare his AfTent to our Common Prayer \ {hould take upon him the Office of a Priejl in our Church, accept of Benefices, Dignities, and a Bifioprick and on every new Promo- tion repeat his Subfcriptions and Declarations ? Shold fuch a Man officiate in our Church, and declare that he did this in order to do more good, and perform a more acceptable Ser- vice to bis Majler ; that he continued to labour on in the wajle Vineyard, and waited a good 586 of ( 38 ) of the Protejlants in Queen Mary's Time. Cranmer was protected by the Kings and not only did not fubferibe, but openly de- clared, and wrote againil them. In Queen Marys Reign it is well known what a glo- rious Stand thefe great Men made j and how far from any Compliance all of them were, excepting only one, who fell, and rofe again to receive the Crown of Martyr- dom. We may therefore, upon the whole, admire their Spirit, and applaud their Con- duel. Be it our Care to avoid their Failings, and copy after their good Examples. One of our Author's Aflbciates feems to be convinced of the Iniquity of fuch mini- Jlerial Compliance. He has refigned his Pre- ferment, and published an Apology for fo doing. I really think he needed no Apo- logy. I think he has acted an honed Part in giving up his Benefice, rather than offi- ciate in a Service, which he could not join in without grofs Hypocrify. If he believed no Worfhip to be due to our Saviour, he was right not to offer up a Form of Prayer, wherein he is fo often invocated, and addref- fed to, as God. But for the fame Reafon he cannot join in our Communion, nor at- tend our publick Worihip. Nor can he join ( 39 ) join himfelf to any Church in Chriftendom. Jefus Chriji is worfhipped in every Chrijlian Church, and has been fo in all Ages from the very firft Propagation of ChriJUanity to this Day. We cannot call this Gentleman either Arian, or Socinian : he outftrips both. Both Anus, and Socinus, held Worfhip to be due to Chriji. d Nay, when Francifcus Davides, following only the necefTary Con- fequences of Socinus's own Doctrine, denied the Worfhip of Chriji, Socinus was greatly provoked, wrote againft him with great Bit- ternefs, and called him a Blafphemer, more than an Heretick, and unworthy the Name of a Chrijlian. And this Davides was perfe- cuted by the Socinians, and caft into Prifon, where he died a miferable Death. And ac- cordingly in the Racovian Catechifm we find the Worfhip of Chriji defended on the fame Principles, as the 'Romanijls defend the Wor- ship of Saints, and Angels. e And to the Queftion — What think you of thofe who hold that Chriji is not to be worjljipped 'ocant s nee adorandum cenfent ? Pror/us non ejfe Chrifiianos fentio, cum re ipsa Chrijium non haheant, et licet verbis id negare non audeant, re ipsa negent tamen. fwer ( 40 ) fwer is—/ think they are by no means Chrif- tians. Another of this Fraternity, not quite fo honeft, is now under Profecution (I fup- pofe it will be called Perfecutton) for pub- lickly fpeaking, and preaching, againfl: the Doctrines of our Church, calling her Articles profane, and her Worfhip idolatrous, and even the Apojltes Creed erroneous j altering the Liturgy, and leaving out fuch Parts of the Service, as he does not like. And yet this Man keeps his Benefice, to which he was lately inftituted, when he fubfcribed our Articles, and declared them all to be agreeable to the Word of God, and folemnly in the Church promifed to conform to our Liturgy, which he now in that very Church abufes in the grofleil: Terms. However extraordinary this may feem, I efteem him one Degree honeiter than our minijlerial Com- pilers : he acJs fairly, and above board. And thefe are the Men, who petition for Relief in Matters of Subfcription. What would they have ? and what will content them ? Moft of them have been backward to fpeak out. Our Author deals moftly in general Terms. But they have now, fome of them at leaft, plainly fpoken out. Nay we ( 4« ) we are here told that they patiently remain in their Pojis, and wait the Opportunity of pruning our wild Branches, and rooting out out rankejl Weeds. Give them therefore the Relief they afk for, and they will overturn our Church, Root and Branch. Allow them the Liberty of Prophecying, which they con- tend for, and all Sorts of Doctrines will be publickly taught in our Pulpits, and the moft important Articles of our Religion openly vilified. But neither will this fa- tisfy them. We muft part with all our Creeds, even the Apojlles Creed-, we muft abolifh, or new modify our Liturgy, and in fhort give up our whole Eftablifhmcnt, And what End will be ferved by thefe Con- ceffions ? Will it promote either Peace, or Edification, if all Men of all Perfuafions are allowed, and commiffioned, to teach in our Churches whatever Doctrines they pleafe ? Thefe Men (it feems) keep to Forms at pre- fent : but when relieved by proper Authority, they will foon fall to Work in our Vineyard, and root out all our rank Weeds. I fear, if we let thefe Weeders in, they will tear up the 'True Vine itfelf. But can thefe Weeds be rooted out, without ftirring the Ground ? What is it which makes them fo earneft to F root ( 4* ) root them but ? A Zeal for Truth, I fup- pofe. And would not others be as zealous to fupport what they call Truth ? Would there not be many who would e/tcem, what they call rank Weeds , as the faireft Flowers in the Garden ? Our Author may perhaps fancy that all but the confeientious Men of his own Way of thinking fubferibe the Articles as things o/Courfe, and will fub- feribe any thing. But he will mod certain- ly find himfelf miftaken. He will find the Bulk of the Clergy as zealous to main- tain, and as able to defend, the Do&rines of our Church, as he is to oppofe them. And many common Cbrijlians, I believe, will be greatly fcandalized, if you take away their Creeds, and Catechifm, and ftrike out of the Liturgy fuch Things as they have always efteemed efTential. Shall we gain any Dif- fenters by thefe compreheniive Schemes ? I am afraid but few, and we may create more. New Seels of Dijjenters will arife, who will be as much offended at our leav- ing out neceiTary things, as others are for enjoining things indifferent. If you abolifh the Worfhip of our BleJJ'ed Saviour, I de- clare that 1 will be mylelf a Diffenter : nor will I join in Communion with any Church which ( 43 ) which does not in her publick Worfhip e call on the Name of our Lord J ejus Chrift.-- Church did I fay ?— No, it is no Church— the very Name implies the Worfhip of our LORD. But farther ; would thefe Refor- mers agree among themfelves ? Thofe who deny the Divinity of our Blefed Saviour, as they would fiercely contend with thofe who hold this Do&rine, fo they would differ from one another. f Some would maintain that he was a Second Jehovah', others that he was a mere Man. Some would tell us that they who worfhipped not Chriji were no Chrijlians -, others would call this Worfhip idolatrous. This we fee was warmly con- tefted among the Socinians; and they abufed, and perfecuted, one another. And in the bleffed Times of Oliver Cromwell, when the Church of England was fub verted, the feveral Sectaries divided, and quarrelled among them- felves. And how would the People be edi- fied by this Freedom of Debate ? The Pul- pit would be made a Stage of Controverfy : and while the different Teachers were dif- « 2 Cor. i. 2. f Bifhop of Clogbtr's Eflay on Spirit. F z puting ( 44 ) puting, and wrangling with one another on the mofl important Points, while one taught one Doctrine, and one another, and that with equal Authority, the People would not know what to believe ; and probably many of them would be of no Religion at all, while others would feek Refnge in Po- pery g . But why may not Perfons of different Per- fuafions be united by Charity, and mutual Forbearance ? And why may they not now under the prefent Eftablifhment ? Why may not Perfons of different Communions live in Peace, and Charity, as well as thofe of dif- ferent Perfuafions under the fame Commu- nion ? We bear no Malice, or Hatred, to thofe who differ from us, nor do we defire to perfecute, or injure them. If they diflike the Terms of our Communion, we compel/ them not to come in ; they may join them- felves to any Conventicle they like beft. Jf they approve not the Doctrine of our Ar- ticles, they need nolfubfcribe them. If after * Sec Dr. Ba/gu/s Charge, p. 5, &c. Mr. Whitt*t Appen- dix to his three Letters. their ( 45 ) their Subfcription they fhould change their Opinion, yet, if they keep their Opinion to themfelves, no Man will, or can, hurt them. Inftead of this, the Prefs teems with the bittereft Invectives againft our Eftablifhment in general : and the moft ef- fential Doctrines of our Church are treated with the greateft Afpcrity. If thefe warm Zealots were admitted into our Church, and fuffered to teach what they would without Reftraint, will they be more quiet than they are now ? I think it has been already (hewn that fuch Comprehension would contribute neither to Charity, nor Peace, nor Edifica- tion. k But I may be afked, perhaps, — Are there no Faults in our prefcnt Conftitution ? Is there nothing that I myfelf mould be glad to fee altered ? — - I (hall fpeak my Mind fairly and freely. There are fome things in our Articles, and Liturgy, which I mould be glad to fee amended (though, I believe, not the fame as thefe Gentlemen would objecl: to) in many other things I 4 See Dean Tucker* % Apology, p. 54, &c. mould ( 4* ) fliould be willing (though againft my own Opinion) to make all reasonable Concef- fions, if by that Means we might obviate Objections, gain any considerable Number of Diflenters without making more, quiet weak Consciences, or promote Peace, and Unity, amongil Frotejkant*. But when fuch bitter lavectWes are publifhed againft our Church, as the ConfeJionaU and feveral others of the lame Stamp j when we are loaded with Reproaches- ; when the moft fundamental Doctrines of Cbrijlianity are attacked, and Principles advanced, which are fubverfive of all Eftablimmenta, I fear there is little Room to hope for Peace* or Accommodation with fuch Men. And therefore I humbly think, with all due Sub- miffion to my Superiors in Church, and 1 This Writer fccrns to tread in the fame Steps the*' — m* pa-fiikus eeqws. Witnefs his Conclufion, where our Church, and it's Government, are compared to the Je