תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

ought to have taken the same, shall, upon con-
viction thereof, besides the loss of the office, for-
feit the sum five hundred pounds:"* Stat. 25
Car. I. c. 2. Now, although starving be no
"corporal punishment," nor the loss of all a man
has, a
"fine," or "penalty," yet depriving men
of the common benefits of society, and rights even
of lay subjects, because "they will not comply
with the terms of Church communion," is a "se-
verity" that might have deserved from our author
some other apology besides the mere suppression

of the fact.

2. "Doth it deny them the right or privilege of worshipping God in their own way ?""Whoever shall take upon him to preach or teach in any meeting, assembly, or conventicle, and shall thereof be convicted, shall forfeit for the first offence twenty pounds, and for every other offence forty pounds:"Stat. 22 Car. II. c. 1.-"No person shall presume to consecrate or administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper before he be ordained priest, after the manner of the church of England, on pain of forfeiting one hundred pounds for every such offence:" Stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. These laws are in full force against all who do not subscribe to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, except the 34th, 35th, and 36th, and part of the 20th Article.

3. "Are men denied the liberty of free debate?" -"If any person, having been educated in, or at any time, having made profession of, the Christian faith within the realm, shall by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be God-he shall for the first offence be disabled to hold any office or employment, or any profit appertaining thereto; for the second offence shall be disabled to prosecute any action or information in any court of law or equity, or to be guardian of any child, or executor or administrator of any person, or capable of any legacy or deed of gift, or to bear any office for ever within this realm, and shall also suffer imprisonment for the space of three years from the time of such conviction." Stat. 9 & 10 Will. III. c. 32.

[ocr errors]

themselves for ordination, consider seriously what office they take upon them, and firmly believe what they subscribe to." I am persuaded much otherwise. But as this is a "fact," the reader, if he be wise, will neither take the answerer's word for it nor mine; but form his own judgment from his own observation. Bishop Burnet complained above 60 years ago, that "the greater part," even then, "subscribed the Articles without ever examining them, and others did it because they must do it.'" Is it probable, that in point either of seriousness or orthodoxy, the clergy are much mended since?

*

The pleas offered in support of this practice of subscription come next to be considered. "One of these is drawn from the sacred writings being capable of such a variety of senses, that men of widely different persuasions shelter themselves under the same forms of expression." Our author, after quarrelling with this representation of the plea, gives his readers in its stead, a long quotation from the archdeacon of Oxford's charge.t What he is to gain by the change, or the quotation, I cannot perceive, as the same first query still recurs, "Is it true, that the Scriptures are in reality so differently interpreted in points of real consequence?" In answer to which, the archdeacon of Oxford, we are told, "has shown that points of real consequence are differently interpreted," and "the plainest texts explained away," and has "instanced in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel." The plea, we conceive, is not much indebted to the archdeacon of Oxford. But be these Scriptures interpreted as they will, each man has still a right to interpret them for himself. The Church of Rome, who always pushed her conclusions with a courage and consistency unknown to the timid patrons of protestant imposition, saw, immediately, that as the laity had no right to interpret the Scriptures, they could have no occasion to read them, and therefore very properly locked them up from the intrusion of popular curiosity. Our author cites the above-mentioned query from the Considerations as the first query, which would lead his reader to expect a second. The reader, however, may seek that second for himself, the answerer is not obliged to produce it-it stands thus: Suppose the Scriptures thus variously interpreted, does subscription mend the matter? The reader too is left to find an answer for himself.

It has been thought to detract considerably from the pretended use of these subscriptions, that they excluded none but the conscientious; a species of men more wanted, we conceive, than formidable to any religious establishment. This objection applies equally, says our answerer,t to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy;" and so far as it The next, the strongest, the only tolerable plea does apply, it ought to be attended to; and the for subscription, is, "that all sorts of pestilent truth is, these oaths might in many instances be heresies might be taught from the pulpit, if no spared without either danger or detriment to the such restraint as this was laid upon the preacher." community. There is, however, an essential How far it is probable that this would be the condifference between the two cases: a scruple con- sequence of removing the subscription, and by cerning the oath of allegiance implies principles what other means it might be guarded against, which may excite to acts of hostility against the has been hinted already, and will again be constate: a scruple about the truth of the articles im-sidered in another place. We will here only take plies no such thing.t

Our author, good man, "is well persuaded, that the generality of the clergy, when they offer

notice of one particular expedient suggested in the Considerations, and which has often indeed elsewhere been proposed, namely, "that the church, instead of requiring subscription before* This and the Corporation Act, an otherwise excel-hand, to the present, or to any other Articles of lent person calls the laws which secure both our civil and religious liberties.-Blackstone's Comm. vol. iv.

p. 432.

↑ Page 22.

The answerer might have found a parallel below in some other oaths, which he does not care to speak of, viz. the case of college statutes, page 34 of the Considerations

faith, might censure her clergy afterwards, if they opposed or vilified them in their preaching."

* Burnet's History of his Own Times. Conclusion. See this whole Charge answered in the London Chronicle by Priscilla. The Lord hath sold Sisera into the hand of a woman!

Page 26.

The advantage of which scheme above the present is manifest, if it was only for this reason, that you distress and corrupt thousands now, for one that you would ever have occasion to punish. Our author, nevertheless, "is humbly of opinion, that it is much better to take proper precautions beforehand;" he must, with all his "humility," know that when it has been proposed to take proper precautions of the press, by subjecting authors to an imprimatur before publication, instead of punishment after it; the proposal has been resented, as an open attack upon the rights and interests of mankind. The common sense and spirit of the nation could see and feel this distinction and the importance of it, in the case of publishers; and why preachers should be left in a worse situation, it is not very easy to say.

[ocr errors]

The example of the Arminian confession is, upon this occasion, recommended by the author of the Considerations; a confession which was compiled for the edification and instruction of the members of that church, without peremptorily insisting upon any one's assent to it. But it is the misfortune of the Arminian to be no national church-the misfortune, alas! of Christianity herself in her purest period; when she was under the government of the apostles; without alliance with the states of this world; when she composed, nevertheless, a church as real, we conceive, and as respectable, as any national church that has existed since.

Our author, who can much sooner make a distinction than see one, does not comprehend, it seems, any difference between confessions of faith and preaching, as to the use of unscriptural terms. Did a preacher, when he had finished his sermon, call upon his congregation to subscribe their names and assent to it, or never to come more within the doors of his church; there would, indeed, be some sort of resemblance betwixt the two cases; but as the hearers are at liberty to believe preachers or no, as they see, or he produces, reasons for what he says; there can be no harm, and there is a manifest utility, in trusting him with the liberty of explaining his own meaning in his own terms.

We now come, and with the tenderest regret, to the case of those who continue in the church without being able to reconcile to their belief every proposition imposed upon them by subscription; over whose distress our author is pleased to indulge a wanton and ungenerous triumph. They had presumed, it seems, that it was some apology for their conduct, that they sincerely laboured to render to religion their best services, and thought their present stations the fairest opportunities of performing it. This may not, perhaps, amount to a complete vindication; it certainly does not fully satisfy even their own scruples: else where would be the cause of complaint? What need of relief, or what reason for their petitions? It might have been enough, however, to have exempted them from being absurdly and indecently compared with faithless hypocrites, with Papists and Jesuits, who, for other purposes, and with even opposite designs, are supposed to creep into the church through the same door. For the fullest and fairest representation of their case, I refer our author to the excellent Hoadly; or, as Hoadly possibly may be no book in our author's library, will it provoke his "raillery" to ask, what he thinks might be the consequence, if all were at once to withdraw themselves from the church who were dissatisfied

with her doctrines? Might not the church lose, what she can ill spare, the service of many able and industrious ministers? Would those she retained, be such as acquiesced in her decisions from inquiry and conviction? Would not many, or most of them, be those who keep out of the way of religious scruples by lives of secularity and voluptuousness? by mixing with the crowd in the most eager of their pursuits after pleasure or advantage? One word with the answerer before we part upon this head. Whence all this great inquisitiveness, this solicitude to be acquainted with the person, the opinions, and associates of his adversary? Whence that impertinent wish that he had been "more explicit in particular with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity?" Is it out of a pious desire to fasten some heresy, or the imputation of it, upon him? Is he "called out of the clouds" to be committed to the flames?*

The 40th page of the Answer introduces a paragraph of considerable length, the sum, however, and substance of which is this-that if subscrip tion to articles of faith were removed, confusion would ensue; the people would be distracted with the disputes of their teachers, and the pulpits filled with controversy and contradiction. Upon this "fact" we join issue, and the more readily as this is a sort of reasoning we all understand. The extent of the legislator's right may be an abstruse inquiry; but whether a law does more good or harm, is a plain question which every man can ask. Now, that distressing many of the clergy, and corrupting others; that keeping out of churches good Christians and faithful citizens; that making parties in the state, by giving occasion to sects and separations in religion; that these are inconveniences, no man in his senses will deny. The question therefore is, what advantage do you find in the opposite scale to balance these inconveniences? The simple advantage pretended is, that you hereby prevent "wrangling" and contention in the pulpit. Now, in the first place, I observe, that allowing this evil to be as grievous and as certain as you please, the most that can be necessary for the prevention of it is, to enjoin your preachers as to such points, silence and neutrality. In the next place, I am convinced, that the danger is greatly magnified. We hear little of these points at present in our churches and public teaching, and it is not probable that leaving them at large would elevate them into more importance, or make it more worth men's while to quarrel about them. They would sleep in the same grave with many other questions, of equal importance with themselves, or sink back into their proper place, into topics of speculation, or matters of debate from the press. None but men of some reflection would be forward to engage in such subjects, and the least reflection would teach a man

* We were unwilling to decline the defence of the persiderations which brought on the attack, manifestly

sons here described, though the expression in the Conrelated to a different subject. The author of the Considerations speaks of being bound" to "keep up" these forms until relieved by proper authority; of ministe rially" complying with what we are not able to remove; who are the instruments of imposing a subscription alluding, no doubt, to the case of Church governors, which they may disapprove. But the answerer, taking it for granted, that "ministerially complying" meant in their functions, has, by a quibble, or a blunder, the compliance of ministers, i. e. of clergymen officiating transferred the passage to a sense for which it was not intended.

that preaching is not the proper vehicle of controversy. Even at present, says our author, we speak and write what we please with impunity." And where is the mischief? or what worse could ensue if subscription were removed? Nor can I discover any thing in the disposition of the petitioning clergy that need alarm our apprehensions. If they are impatient under the yoke, it is not from a desire to hold forth their opinions to their congregations, but that they may be at liberty to entertain themselves, without offence to their consciences, or ruin to their fortunes.

Our author has added, by way of make-weight to his argument, "that many common Christians," he believes, "would be greatly scandalized if you take away their creeds and catechisms, and strike out of the liturgy such things as they have always esteemed essential."* Whatever reason there may be for this belief at present, there certainly was much greater at the Reformation, as the Popish ritual, which was then "taken away," had a fascination and antiquity which ours cannot pretend to. Many were probably "scandalized" at parting with their beads and their mass-books, that lived afterwards to thank those who taught them better things. Reflection, we hope, in some, and time, we are sure, in all, will reconcile men to alterations established in reason. If there be any danger, it is from some of the clergy, who, with the answerer, would rather suffer the "vineyard" to be overgrown with "weeds," than "stir the ground," or, what is worse, call these weeds "the fairest flowers in the garden." Such might be ready enough to raise a hue and cry against all innovators in religion, as "overturners of churches" and spoilers of temples.

"strong in the faith" will refuse to "bear with the infirmities of the weak?" The few who upon principles of this sort opposed the application of the Dissenters, were repulsed from parliament with disdain, even by those who were no friends to the application itself.

The question concerning the object of worship is attended, I confess, with difficulty; it seems almost directly to divide the worshippers. But let the Church pare down her excrescences till she comes to this question; let her discharge from her liturgy controversies unconnected with devotion; let her try what may be done for all sides, by worshipping God in that generality* of expression in which he himself has left some points; let her dismiss many of her Articles, and convert those which she retains into terms of peace; let her recall the terrors she suspended over freedom of inquiry; let the toleration she allows to dissenters be made "absolute;" let her invite men to search the Scriptures; let her governors encourage the studious and learned of all persuasions:-Let her do thisand she will be secure of the thanks of her own clergy, and what is more, of their sincerity. A greater consent may grow out of inquiry than many at present are aware of; and the few, who, after all shall think it necessary to recede from our communion, will acknowledge the necessity to be inevitable; will respect the equity and moderation of the established church, and live in peace with all its members.

I know not whether I ought to mention, among so many more serious reasons, that even the governors of the church themselves would find their ease and account in consenting to an alteration.— For besides the difficulty of defending those decayed fortifications, and the indecency of deserting them, they either are or will soon find themselves in the situation of a master of a family, whose servants know more of his secrets than it is proper for them to know, and whose whispers and whose threats must be bought off at an expense which will drain the "apostolic chamber” dry.

Having thus examined in their order, and, as far as I understood them, the several answerst

But the cause which of all others stood most in the way of the late petitions for relief, was an apprehension that religious institutions cannot be disturbed without awakening animosities and dissensions in the state, of which no man knows the consequence. Touch but religion, we are told, and it bursts forth into a flame. Civil distractions may be composed by fortitude and perseverance; but neither reason nor authority can controul, there is neither charm nor drug which will assuage, the passions of mankind when called forth in the cause and to the battles of religion. We were *If a Christian can think it an intolerable thing to concerned to hear this language from some who, worship one God through one mediator Jesus Christ, in in other instances, have manifested a constancy company with any such as differ from him in their noand resolution which no confusion nor ill astions about the metaphysical nature of Christ, or of the Holy Ghost, or the like; I am sorry for it. I remember pect of public affairs, could intimidate. After the like objection made at the beginning of the Refor all, is there any real foundation for these ter- mation by the Lutherans against the lawfulness of rors? Is not this whole danger, like the lion of communicating with Zuinglius and his followers. be. the slothful, the creature of our fears, and the elements in the sacrament. cause they had not the same notion with them of the And there was the same excuse of indolence? Was it proposed to make objection once against holding communion with any articles instead of removing them, there would such as had not the same notions with themselves about be room for the objection. But it is obvious the secret decrees of God relating to the predestination that subscription to the 39 Articles might be those men may please themselves with thinking who and reprobation of particular persons. But whatever altered or withdrawn upon general principles of are sure they are arrived at the perfect knowledge of justice and expediency, without reviving one reli- the most abstruse points, this they may be certain of, gious controversy, or calling into dispute a single that in the present state of the church, even supposing proposition they contain. Who should excite dis-only such as are accounted orthodox to be joined toge ther in one visible communion, they communicate toturbances? Those who are relieved will not; and, gether with a very great variety and confusion of nounless subscription were like a tax, which, being tions, either comprehending nothing plain and distinct, taken from one must be laid with additional weight or differing from one another as truly and as essentially as others differ from them all; nay, with more certain upon another, is it probable that any will comdifference with relation to the object of worship than plain that they are oppressed, because their brethren are relieved? or that those who are so

* Pages 41, 42

if all prayers were directed (as bishop Bull says, almost

all were in the first ages) to God or the Father, through the Son.-Hoadly's Answer to Dr. Hare's Sermon.

† In his last note our author breaks forth into "astonishment" and indignation, at the "folly, injustice,

given by our author to the objections against the present mode of subscription, it now remains, by way of summing up the evidence, to bring "forward" certain other arguments contained in the Considerations, to which no answer has been attempted. It is contended, then,

I. That stating any doctrine in a confession of faith with a greater degree of "precision" than the Scriptures have done, is in effect to say, that the Scriptures have not stated it "with "precision" enough; in other words, that the Scriptures are not sufficient." Mere declamation."

II. That this experiment of leaving men at liberty, and points of doctrine at large, has been attended with the improvements of religious knowledge, where and whenever it has been tried. And to this cause, so far as we can see, is owing the advantage which protestant countries in this respect possess above their popish neighbours.-No answer. III. That keeping people out of churches who might be admitted consistently with every end of public worship, and excluding men from communion who desire to embrace it upon the terms that God prescribes, is certainly not encouraging,

and indecency" of comparing our church to the Jewish in our Saviour's time, and even to the " tower of Babel;" mistaking the church, in this last comparison, for one of her monuments (which indeed, with most people of his complexion, stands for the same thing) erected to prevent our dispersion from that grand centre of catholic dominion, or, in the words of a late celebrated castle-builder, "to keep us together." If there be any "indecency" in such a comparison, it must be chargeable on those who lead us to it, by making use of the same terms with the original architects, and to which the author of the Considerations evidently alludes. This

detached note is concluded with as detached, and no

less curious, an observation, which the writer thinks may be a "sufficient answer" to the whole, namely, that the author of the Considerations" has wrought no miracles for the conviction of the answerer and his as.

sociates." For what purpose this observation can be "sufficient," it is not easy to guess, except it be design. ed to insinuate, what may perhaps really be the case, that no less than a miracle will serve to cast out that

kind of spirit which has taken so full possession of them, or ever bring them to a sound mind, and a sinrere love of truth.

but rather causing men to forsake, the assembling of themselves together.-No answer. IV. That men are deterred from searching the Scriptures by the fear of finding there more or less than they look for; that is, something inconsistent with what they have already given their assent to, and must at their peril abide by. -No answer.

V. That it is not giving truth a fair chance, to decide points at one certain time, and by one set of men, which had much better be left to the successive inquiries of different ages and different persons.-No answer.

VI. That it tends to multiply infidels amongst us, by exhibiting Christianity under a form and in a system which many are disgusted with, who yet will not be at the pains to inquire after any other.-No answer.

At the conclusion of his pamphlet, our author is pleased to acknowledge, what few, I find, care any longer to deny, "that there are some things in our Articles and Liturgy which he should be glad to see amended, many which he should be willing to give up to the scruples of others," but that the heat and violence with which redress has been pursued, preclude all hope of accommodation and tranquillity-that" we had better wait, therefore, for more peaceable times, and be contented with our present constitution as it is," until a fairer prospect shall appear of changing it for the better. -After returning thanks, in the name of the "fraternity," to him and to all who touch the burden of subscription with but one of their fingers, I would wish to leave with them this observation, -That as the man who attacks a flourishing establishment writes with a halter round his neck, few ever will be found to attempt alterations but men of more spirit than prudence, of more sincerity than caution, of warm, eager, and impetuous tempers; that, consequently, if we are to wait for improvement till the cool, the calm, the discreet part of mankind begin it, till church governors solicit, or ministers of state propose it-I will venture to pronounce, that (without His interposition with whom nothing is impossible) we may remain as we are till the "renovation of all things."

REASONS FOR CONTENTMENT,

ADDRESSED TO THE

LABOURING PART OF THE BRITISH COMMUNITY.

HUMAN life has been said to resemble the situa- | when we see exorbitant fortunes placed in the tion of spectators in a theatre, where, whilst each hands of single persons; larger, we are sure, than person is engaged by the scene which passer be- they can want, or, as we think, than they can use. fore him, no one thinks about the place in which This is so common a reflection, that I will not say he is seated. It is only when the business is in- it is not natural. But whenever the complaint terrupted, or when the spectator's attention to it comes into our minds, we ought to recollect, that grows idle and remiss, that he begins to consider the thing happens in consequence of those very at all, who is before him or who is behind him, rules and laws which secure to ourselves our prowhether others are better accommodated than perty, be it ever so small. The laws which accihimself, or whether many be not much worse. It dentally cast enormous estates into one great is thus with the various ranks and stations of so- man's possession, are, after all, the self-same laws ciety. So long as a man is intent upon the du- which protect and guard the poor man. Fixed ties and concerns of his own condition, he never rules of property are established for one as well thinks of comparing it with any other; he is an another, without knowing, before-hand, whom never troubled with reflections upon the different they may effect. If these rules sometimes throw classes and orders of mankind, the advantages and an excessive or disproportionate share to one man's disadvantages of each, the necessity or non-ne- lot, who can help it? It is much better that it cessity of civil distinctions, much less does he feel should be so, than that the rules themselves should within himself a disposition to covet or envy any be broken up; and you can only have one side of of them. He is too much taken up with the oc- the alternative or the other. To abolish riches, cupations of his calling, its pursuits, cares, and would not be to abolish poverty; but, on the conbusiness, to bestow unprofitable meditations upon trary, to leave it without protection or resource. the circumstances in which he sees others placed. It is not for the poor man to repine at the effects And by this means a man of a sound and active of laws and rules, by which he himself is benemind has, in his very constitution, a remedy against fited every hour of his existence; which secures the disturbance of envy and discontent. These to him his earnings, his habitation, his bread, his passions gain no admittance into his breast, be- life; without which he, no more than the rich man, cause there is no leisure there or vacancy for the could either eat his meal in quietness, or go to bed trains of thought which generate them. He en- in safety. Of the two, it is rather more the conjoys, therefore, ease in this respect, and ease result-cern of the poor to stand up for the laws, than of ing from the best cause, the power of keeping his the rich; for it is the law which defends the weak imagination at home; of confining it to what be- against the strong, the humble against the powerlongs to himself, instead of sending it forth to ful, the little against the great; and weak and wander amongst speculations which have neither strong, humble and powerful, little and great, there limits nor use, amidst views of unattainable gran- would be, even were there no laws whatever. Bedeur, fancied happiness, of extolled, because un-side, what, after all, is the mischief? The owner experienced, privileges and delights.

of a great estate does not eat or drink more than the owner of a small one. His fields do not produce worse crops, nor does the produce maintain fewer mouths. If estates were more equally divided, would greater numbers be fed, or clothed, or employed? Either, therefore, large fortunes are not a public evil, or, if they be in any degree an evil, it is to be borne with, for the sake of those fixed and general rules concerning property, in the preservation and steadiness of which all are interested.

The wisest advice that can be given is, never to allow our attention to dwell upon comparisons between our own condition and that of others, but to keep it fixed upon the duties and concerns of the condition itself. But since every man has not this power; since the minds of some men will be busy in contemplating the advantages which they see others possess; and since persons in laborious stations of life are wont to view the higher ranks of society, with sentiments which not only tend to make themselves Fortunes, however, of any kind, from the naunhappy, but which are very different from the ture of the thing, can only fall to the lot of a few. truth; it may be an useful office to point out to I say, "from the nature of the thing." The very them some of those considerations which, if they utmost that can be done by laws and government, will turn their thoughts to the subject, they should is to enable every man, who hath health, to proendeavour to take fairly into the account. cure a healthy subsistence for himself and a family. And, first; we are most of us apt to murmur, | Where this is the case, things are at their perfec

« הקודםהמשך »