A Third Letter to the Author of the Confeffional: containing Re- IN 8vo. 2 s. 6d. N the course of this controverfy with the author of the CONFESSIONAL, the reader's attention is fo frequently diverted from the main point in difpute, that he is apt to lofe fight of it, and to be bewildered in a variety of historical and other incidental topics, which are either quite foreign to the fubject, or are very remotely connected with it. In our account of this Third Letter, therefore, we fhall confine ourfelves to fuch extracts as will not only clearly fhew the Letter-writer's fentiments concerning what has long been earneftly wifhed for, by many perfons of great worth, and diftinguished abilities, viz. a reformation of our ecclefiaftical conftitution, but the fentiments of those likewife whom he calls the fincere and genuine clergy of the church of England. After this cruel treatment of Archbishop Laud, fays he, you retu n to the plea of impracticability, and apply it as a fcourge to the medern governors of the church. mind, what the real plea of the fincere and genuine clergy of the church but here I must beg to obferve and keep in of England is. They fay, that the alterations which you and your friend would make in refpect of our articles, liturgy, &c. are moll of them for the worfe: and that fuch of them as may be for the better, are neither neceffary nor of very great moment; and are in the present fate of the nation, to all appearance, impracticable, or likely at leaft to produce more harm than good. Either you muft difprove this, or you prove nothing. You fay, that, while the c'ergy complain of the people, others fee that the infection of the times hath laid hold even on thefe venerable perfonages and produced appearances of fecularity which difparage their facred characters. So far as this is true, I am beartily furry for it. But they, of whom it is true, cannot have due weight to affift you in reforming any thing. And if the fault be general, as you feem to think it, your first step thou'd have been, not writing against confeffions, but reforming the clergy. One would imagine, indeed. by your intimation, p. 362, that there is no Jeparating functions from abuses, your scheme to be the abolition of the clergy, and the finding out other functions, which would equally answer the end of an effectual reformation. By what authority you would do this you have not bgnified. And I hope we are not fo bad as to require the utmost extremities. This at leaft I know, that when one of our Saviour's apottles had denied him, and all forfaken him, he did not revoke his appointment of them, but with proper exhortations renewed their commiffion. Surely then the moft blameless of his followers ought to obferve the rule, If a man be overtaken in a fault, reflore fuch a one in the spirit of meeknefs, confidering thy elf left thou also be tempted. And remember, Sir, there are temptations to faults fill worse than fecularity. Very blameable degrees of that fin may, in times and coun ries of licentious indulgence, creep in upon well-meaning perfons: and the fight of it must grieve every truly pious mind. But if there be any one, who, instead of being concerned at at the failings of his fellow-minifters, and the hurt done to religion by them, takes pleasure to publish them, to aggravate them, to enlarge apon them with expreflions of fcorn, contempt and malevolence, how fincere foever his zeal may be, hath along with it, whether he perceives it or not, an evil spirit the moft directly oppofite to the genuine temper of Christianity that poffibly can be. Admonith us, therefore, Sir, and we will join with you in the good work. But form yourself first to a difpofition of good-will towards us, and perhaps we fhall appear in a better light to you. United friendly endeavours to amend ourselves and each other may do much, though many imperfections must still be Juffered. But I acknowledge myfelf one of thofe weak fhort-fighted brethren, who cannot comprehend, how either abolishing the function of Chritian teachers can contribute to the planting and bringing forth of more evangelical fruit, or how taking pains to make them thought worse than they are, can be the means of making them more useful in a nation already fo full of prejudices against them.' What opportunities this Letter-writer has of knowing the real plea of the fincere and genuine clergy of the church of England, we know not; nor do we know, by what marks and criterions the fincere and genuine clergy of the church of England are diftinguished. This however we know, and are ready to make it appear to this Letter-writer, or to any other perfon, who calls the truth of it in queftion, that there are many clergymen in the church of England, of diftinguished worth and abilities, diligent in the difcharge of their paftoral office, eminently useful in their ftations, and ornaments to their profeffion, who think that many of the alterations which the author of the CONFESSIONAL and his friends would make in our articles and liturgy, &c. are of very great moment, and highly necessary; neceffary to the honour of our church, to the interests of truth, virtue, and religion. If the bishops, in their respective dioceses, would make it their bufinefs to converie with the knowing and ferious part of their clergy upon the important fubject of a farther reformation, and be at pains to know their fentiments in regard to it, we are perfwaded they would find a very confiderable and refpectable part of them warmly approving and expreffing their readinefs to promote it. Till this, or fome fuch step is taken, every impartial and confiderate per.cn will think, that they have other motives for their conduct, than a concern for the interefts of real religion and genuine Chriftianity. But to return to our Letter-writer. You tay the world is not mended, fince Bp. Hoadly advanced the maxim of confidering it AS IT IS, rather than as it oUGHT TO BE. A maxim, which, in your fenfe of it, I hope never was his; and, in the right fenfe. hath always been every man's of common understanding, on all occafions. I with the world were mended. But if we are to exchange continually what doth not appear to have dore much good for its contrary, whatever harm it may de, I fhall think it farther off from amendment than ever. To an author, who alledges, that Speculative truths ought not to be received at the expence of the peace and quiet of the world, you anfwer, and for ought I know very juttly, that no religious truth or error is merely Speculative. But the practical influence of fome is much less than of others. And accordingly, there are cafes in which teachers may and ought to leave their hearers for the prefent in ignorance or even mistake. Our Saviour had many things to fay to his difciples: but they could not bear them then. St. Paul fed the Corinthians with milk, and not meat, because hitherto they were not able to bear it. And though, ever fince the complete publication of the Chriftian covenant, every article of it is neceffary to be taught, and no falfhood ought at any time to be taught, yet there may be perfons, congregations, countries, ages, to which the declaration of whatever any one knows or thinks to be true, in relation to religious matters, may do unfpeakably more harm, than the improvement of their understandings by it will do them good. Whoever conceals useful things for his own private benefit is a selfish fecular man: but he who proclaims dangerous ones, if to raise his own character, is a vain one; if to deprefs others, a malicious one; if without attention to confequences, an indifcrete one: whereas fear of introducing diforder and confufion, even where it is exceffive, nay groundlefs, implies a benevolent humility. Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth. May you not do well, Sir, to judge yourself by these contiderations, before you go on to judge others with severity? You applaud Dr. Middleton's fyftem of the miraculous powers, &c. as beneficial to religion and fociety: and on that foundation raise a queftion, which you think will distress us. Before I proceed to that, permit me to obferve, that the common fyftem had been very well defended against popish conclufions from it long before Dr. Middleton was born: that I never heard of one man who became a proteftant, or was kept from becoming a papist, by reading what he had wrote on the fubject; but I have heard of more than one, whom it perverted to infi delity, or confirmed in it and that the world, I believe, is pretty well agreed, which effect he defigned it should have. Permit me alio to digrefs fo far as to add, that the almost demonftrated doctrine, as you think it, of the foul's annihilation at death, is no way neceffary to guard against Romish fuperftitions, hath never, I conceive, made one deift a Chriftian, but hath a ftrong tendency to make every deit a wicked man: though, I am verily perfuaded, from the author's general character, that his intention is good; and therefore I wish that nothing in favour of either of thefe tenets had ever feen the light. And now to your question: If a perfon fhould think that fome fyftem, under the protection of an establishment, was juft as pernicious to the caufe of true religion, and juft as void of truth and reajon, as the fyftem of miraculous powers in the post-apoftolic church, what is to be done? is this man to fit down and acquiefce with the herd, under the apprehenfion of caufing a faction, and unjettling, in fome degree, the peace and quiet of the world? Now give me leave to afk you a queftion in return, and perhaps your anfwer may help me to one. The anabaptifls and papists, at the time of the reformation, thought the English ecclefiaftical system, under the protection of an establishment, was pernicious to the cause of true religion, &c. What was to be done? Were they to fit down and acquiefce, Ec. I am certain you will think that they ought to have confidered 4 fidered their differences from the establishment very carefully, and confulted the reformers and their books very candidly, and fuch of them as were convinced have yielded to conviction; that the rest should not have reviled or calumniated the public doctrine, or endeavoured to raise an odium against their fuperiors in church or ftate; or have continued in flations, which obliged them to teach what they did not believe; that they should not have taught, even in more private affemblies, what the government forbad, and themselves thought unneceffary: and that if they did think it neceffary to teach what authority had forbidden, they fhould do it with fuch modefty and peaceable acquiefcence in the provifions made against it, as might juftly induce the legislature to be as mild in those provifions as poffible. Now thefe things, Sir, we think others ought to do likewife. And if subjects would have done them honeftly, and prelates and magistrates have been influenced by fuch behaviour as they were in duty bound, the creed, and the whole ftate of the proteftant evorld, at this inftant, we apprehend would have been a very good one. But who, after all, are these perfons, fuppofed by you to think Some other fyftem, under the protection of our establishment, pernicious to religion, &c. And what is that fyftem? no other, it feems, than that of the great Athanafius; in other words, the doctrine of the trinity as taught in our church. The oppofers of that, then, reckoned amongit the anabaptifts by our reformers, are the perfons, concerning whom we have answered, what they are to do. But let us at the fame time confider, what we are to do. Not, furely, to admit, on your infinuations and affertions, or thofe of your party, that this doctrine is falfe, and that Arianifm would be a reformation. By what right do you expect it of us? we have proved, and we are ready to prove the contrary. And therefore if you cannot acquiefce in the established belief, much less can we in your attack upon it. That, indeed, you tell us, was quite peaceable: and we, the defendants, were alone to blame. For when fome of thefe anabaptifical errors (as K. Edward's articles called them) were revived by Mr. Whifton, Dr. Clarke, the Bishop of Clogher, and others, you admit that factions enfued; but you afk, whence did they arife? we must look for them among the clergy. That is, they were very inoffenfive, in contra dicting the doctrines of the church, which were established for avoiding those error; and the faction was in those unreasonable governors of the church, who would needs fupport the old doctrines, taught here ever fince we feparated from Rome, for 200 years; and generally affented to throughout the Chriftian world for 1400. Thefe harmless fouls der fire no difturbance: they only wished to be indulged in the peaceable liberty of giving the lye to the church, and of fharing in her preferments for fo doing. So gentle-fpirited are they fill, that, in return for reftoring these fenfible and confcientious brethren to the Chriftian liberty of publicly teaching what the church judges to be herefy, and of enjoying her emoluments, they think there is no need, FOR THE PRESENT at least, to preclude others from expreffing their belief of, and their veneration for, every thing established in the church of England, in as high terms as they can invent. And are not these very modelt men? But I perceive, fay you, a fly orthodox brother.... Soft and fair! as you prefently fubjoin. Why is an orthodox brother to be cated Cc3 by by you with lefs civility than a heterodox brother? But what of this fly orthodox brother? why, he afks, if the prefent attempt to reform, according to the deteftable fyftems of Arius and Socinus.. does not confirm the fujpicions of those who imputed thefe views to the free and candid dif quifitors? To which you reply, Soft and fair! Let the difquifitors anjwer for themselves..... Had you fhewn a difpofition to reform thofe neceffary matters which they laid before you, bave been given you for the reft. This 1 prefume to fay on the part of the time and credit would difquifitors. It is therefore you yourself, not the fly orthodox brother, that will not let the difquifitors anfwer for themselves. And doublefs they, or fuch as thus anfwer for them, think themselves very gracious in giving us time and credit for banishing the doctrine of the Trinity. But perhaps this temporizing would be doing what you have, for fo many pages, just been condemning. They do not indeed fay, how much time and credit they would give us. they had power in their hands. I believe very little, after fpirit of toleration. But would they or you be ever fo forbearing, we At least you fhew very little of fuch a cannot take time and credit: for that implies, that, fooner or later, payment must be made. Now the doctrine of the trinity is what we cannot ever give up' If the Athanafian doctrine of the trinity be what the fincere and genuine clergy of the church of England can never give up, we can only fay that we are fincerely forry for them: as for us, we cannot poffibly embrace that doctrine, without renouncing our reason, and giving up our Bible.-But our Readers, we apprehend, have feen enough of this Letter; we shall therefore conclude. In a Poftfcript our Letter-writer makes fome obfervations upon a pamphlet lately publifhed, entitled, Occafional Remarks, &c. The production, fays he, if I may prefume to guefs, is not of any of your auxilia ies, however numerous, but of your own pen, who cin multiply yourfelf into an army, by affuming various forms, to make your attacks more terrible. Alas, what is to become of me, fated figly to fultain alarming a confederacy, while there advance again!! me 6 Magnum Agmen agens Claufus, magnique ipfe agminis inftar' Poor gentleman! we fhould, from a principle of compaffion to a fellow-creature in diftrefs, be difpofed to give him all the affiftance in our power, were it not that we have some reafon to think he is not in fo very deftitute and forlorn a fituation as he reprefents himself to be. If fame fpeaks true, he is encouraged and fupported by CNE, who is magni agminis inflar, and whofe patronage is infinitely better than that of a whole legion of poor Reviewers. R. State |