6

preliminary terms, and certain preparatives for a future negotiation. The event I mean, was a discourse delivered, in an extraordinary meeting of the Sorbonne, March 17-28, 1717-18, by Dr. Patrick Piers de Girardin, in which he exhorts the doctors of that society to proceed in their design of revising the doctrines and rules of the church, to separate things necessary from those which are not so, by which they will shew the church of England that they do not hold every decision of the pope for an article of faith. The learned orator observes farther (upon what foundation it is difficult to guess), that the English church may be more easily reconciled than the Greek was; and that the disputes between the Gallican church and the court of Rome, removing the apprehensions of papal tyranny, which terrified the English from the Catholic communion, will lead them back into the bosom of the church, with greater celerity than they formerly fled from it: Facient (says he) profecto offensiones, quæ vos inter et 'senatum Capitolinum videntur intervenisse, ut Angli, deposito servitutis metu, in ecclesiæ gremium ' revolent alacrius quam olim inde, quorundam exosi tyrannidem, avolârunt. Meministis ortas inter 'Paulum et Barnabam dissensiones animorum tandem eo recidisse, ut singuli propagandæ in diversis regio'nibus fidei felicius insudaverint sigillatim, quam 'junctis viribus fortasse insudâssent.' This last sentence (in which Dr. Girardin observes, that Paul and Barnabas probably made more converts in consequence of their separation, than they would have done had they traveled together, and acted in concert,) is not a little remarkable; and, indeed, the whole passage discovers rather a desire of making proselytes, than an inclination to form a coalition founded upon concessions and some reformation on the side of popery. It may, perhaps, be alleged, in opposition to this remark, that prudence required a language of this kind, in the infancy of a project of union, whatever

concessions might be offered afterwards to bring about its execution; and this may be true.

After the delivery of this discourse in the Sorbonne, Dr. Du-Pin shewed to Girardin archbishop Wake's letter, which was also communicated to cardinal de Noailles, who admired it greatly, as appears from a letter of Dr. Piers de Girardin to Dr. Wake, written, I believe, April 18-29, 1718. Before the arrival of this letter the archbishop had received a second from Dr. Du-Pin, and also a copy of Girardin's discourse. But he does not seem to have entertained any notion, in consequence of all this, that the projected union would go on smoothly. On the contrary, he no sooner received these letters, than he wrote to Mr. Beauvoir (April 15, 1718), that it was his opinion, that neither the regent nor the cardinal would ever come to a rupture with the court of Rome; and that nothing could be done, in point of doctrine, until this rupture was brought about. He added, that fundamentals should be distinguished from matters of less moment, in which differences or errors might be tolerated. He expresses a curiosity to know the reception which his former letter to Du-Pin had met with; and he wrote again to that ecclesiastic, and also to Girardin (May 1, 1718,), and sent both his letters toward the end of that month.

The doctors of the Sorbonne, whether they were set in motion by the real desire of an union with the English church, or only intended to make use of this union as the means of intimidating the court of Rome, began to form a plan of reconciliation, and to specify the terms upon which they were willing to bring it into execution. Mr. Beauvoir acquaints the archbishop, in July, 1718, that Dr. Du-Pin had made a rough draught of an essay toward an union, which cardinal de Noailles desired to peruse before it was sent to his grace; and that both Du-Pin and Girardin were highly pleased with his grace's letters to them. These letters, however, were written with a truly Protestant spirit; the archbishop insisted, in them,

upon the truth and orthodoxy of the articles of the church of England, and did not make any concession, which supposed the least approximation to the peculiar doctrines, or the smallest approbation of the ambitious pretensions of the church of Rome; he observed, on the contrary, that it was now the time for Dr. Du-Pin, and his brethren of the Sorbonne, to declare openly their true sentiments with respect to the superstition and tyranny of that church; that it was the interest of all Christians to unmask that court, and to reduce its authority to its primitive limits; and that, according to the fundamental principle of the Reformation in general, and of the church of England in particular, Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, and head of the church. Accordingly, when Mr. Beauvoir had acquainted the archbishop with Du-Pin's having formed a plan of union, his grace answered in a manner which shewed that he looked upon the removal of the Gallican church from the jurisdiction of Rome as an essential preliminary article, without which no negotiation could even be commenced. "To speak freely (says the "prelate, in his letter of the 11th of August to Mr. "Beauvoir), I do not think the regent (the duke of "Orleans) yet strong enough in his interest, to ad"venture at a separation from the court of Rome. "Could the regent openly appear in this, the divines "would follow, and a scheme might fairly be offered "for such an union, as alone is requisite, between "the English and Gallican churches. But, till the "time comes that the state will enter into such a "work, all the rest is mere speculation. It may "amuse a few contemplative men of learning and "probity, who see the errors of the church, and groan "under the tyranny of the court of Rome. It may dispose them secretly to wish well to us, and think "charitably of us; but still they must call themselves "Catholics, and us Heretics; and, to all outward 66 appearance, say mass, and act so as they have "been wont to do. If, under the shelter of Gallican

66

"privileges, they can now and then serve the state "by speaking big in the Sorbonne, they will do it "heartily: but that is all, if I am not greatly mis"taken."

Soon after this the archbishop received Du-Pin's Commonitorium, or advice relating to the method of re-uniting the English and Gallican churches; of the contents of which it will not be improper to give here a compendious account, as it was read in the Sorbonne, and was approved there, and as the concessions it contains, though not sufficient to satisfy a true Protestant, are yet such as one would not expect from a very zealous papist. Dr. Du-Pin, after some reflexions, in the tedious preface, on the Reformation, and the present state of the church of England, reduces the controversy between the churches to three heads, viz. articles of faith,-rules and ceremonies of ecclesiastical discipline, and moral doctrine, or rules of practice; and these he treats, by entering into an examination of the XXXIX articles of the church of England. The first five of these articles he approves. With regard to the VIth, which affirms that the Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, he expresses himself thus: "This we will readily grant, provided that you do "not entirely exclude tradition, which does not exhi"bit new articles of faith, but confirms and illus"trates those which are contained in the sacred "writings, and places about them new guards to de"fend them against gainsayers, &c." He thinks that the apocryphal books will not occasion much difficulty. He is, indeed, of opinion, that "they ought to be deemed canonical, as those books concerning which there were doubts for some time;" yet, since they are not in the first or Jewish canon, he will

66

66

f The original words are: 'Hoc lubenter admittemus, modo ' non excludatur traditio, quæ articulos fidei novos non exhibet, 'sed confirmat et explicat ea, quæ in sacris literis habentur, ac ⚫ adversus aliter sapientes munit eos novis cautionibus, ita ut non ⚫ nova dicantur, sed antiqua novè.'

allow them to be called Deutero-Canonical. He consents, to the Xth article, which relates to freewill, provided that by the word power be understood what school-divines call potentia proxima, or a direct and immediate power, since, without a remote power of doing good works, sin could not be imputed.

With respect to the XIth article, which contains the doctrine of justification, he thus expresses the sentiments of his brethren: "We do not deny that "it is by faith alone that we are justified, but we "maintain that faith, charity, and good works, are necessary to salvation; and this is acknowleged in "the following article.

66

Concerning the XIIIth article, he observes, "that "there will be no dispute, since many divines of "both communions embrace the doctrine contained "in that article," (viz. that works done before the grace of Christ are not pleasing to God, and have the nature of sin). He indeed thinks "it very "harsh to say, that all those actions are sinful which "have not the grace of Christ for their source;' but he considers this rather as a matter of theological discussion than as a term of fraternal communion h.

On the XIVth article, relating to works of supererogation (undoubtedly one of the most absurd and pernicious doctrines of the Romish church), he observes, "that works of supererogation mean only "works conducive to salvation, which are not mat"ters of strict precept, but of counsel only; that the "word, being new, may be rejected, provided it be "owned that the faithful do some such works."

He makes no objections to the XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIIIth articles.

8 The original words are: Fide solâ in Christum nos justi'ficari, quod articulo XImo exponitur, non inficiamur; sed fide, charitate, et adjunctis bonis operibus, quæ omninò necessaria 'sunt ad salutem, ut articulo sequenti agnoscitur.'

hDe articulo XIIImo nulla lis erit, cum multi theologi in ' eâdem versentur sententiâ. Durius videtur id dici, eas omnes actiones quæ ex gratiâ Christi non fiunt, esse peccata. Nolim 'tamen de hâc re disceptari, nisi inter theologos.'