: : agree to such forms," (our Church's forms, or of any other Protestant Church,) "whenever he can in any sense "at all reconcile them with Scripture;" i. e. his own sense of Scripture. It is observable that these words are general; and somewhat ambiguous. For the Doctor does not say, in any sense whereof the words are capable, and withal consistent with Scripture, but consistent with Scripture only and if he speaks there of the forms in general, as he seems to do, he might possibly mean, that any man may agree to such forms when he can any way reconcile them whether by giving no assent to passages irreconcileable, or whether by substituting something else in their room and this would amount to subscribing so far as is agreeable to Scripture. I know, the Doctor has took pains to reconcile the particular passages in the public forms to his own hypothesis; from whence one might imagine that he takes every particular expression to be capable of a sense consistent with his scheme. But I know also, and shall show it in due time, that he has often given a sense of which the words he is there commenting upon are really not capable: which is substituting something else in the room of what he finds in our forms, to reconcile them to his hypothesis. And I do not remember that the Doctor has ever expressly said, that every single expression of the public forms is capable of a sense agreeable to what he calls Scripture. Wherefore I have thought that the Doctor's real meaning was to subscribe with this reservation, viz. so far as is agreeable to Scripture; though he chose to word it something differently, and less offensively, by saying, in that sense wherein they are agreeable. What confirms me in this suspicion is, that several of the Doctor's arguments for subscribing, serve equally for one or other; and will either justify both those kinds of reservation, or neither. However this matter be, as to the Doctor himself, it is certain that others of the party have expressed themselves clearly and distinctly on this head; and have condemned the way of subscribing with the reserve of, so far as is agreeable to the Scripture; resting their cause entirely upon the other, viz. in such sense wherein they are agreeable. The anonymous author of the Essay on imposing and subscribing Articles, after declaring his judgment (so far judging right) that they are not articles of peace only, but of opinion; proceeds to condemn the notion of subscribing so far as is agreeable to Scripture; insisting upon it, that the articles are capable of a sense in which they are agreeable to what he calls Scripture: and he pretends no more than this, that a man may honestly subscribe in any sense of which the words are capable, and withal agreeable to Scripture. c c We are told in another tract, containing an account of pamphlets relating to the Trinitarian controversy, that subscribing the Articles so far as they are agreeable to Scripture, is very different from subscribing the same in any sense agreeable to Scripture: and that they defend only the latter, having "explicitly condemned the "former." The sum then of what is pretended is this. It is first supposed that the Articles, &c. are capable of a sense agreeable to what they call Scripture: and then, and not till then, it is supposed they may be subscribed. Their defence of subscription then rests upon two suppositions. 1. That every expression in our public forms is capable of a sense consistent with the new scheme. 2. That their being capable of such a sense is enough; without regard had to the more plain, obvious, and natural signification of the words themselves, or to the intention of those who first compiled the forms, or who now impose them. If either of these suppositions (much more if both) proves false or groundless, their whole defence of Arian subscription drops of course. I shall show, 1. That the sense of the compilers and imposers (where certainly known) must be religiously observed; even though the words were capable of another sense. 2. That, whatever has been pretended, there are several expressions in the public forms, which are really not capable of any sense consistent with the Arian hypothesis, or new scheme. CHAP. III. That the sense of the compilers and imposers, when certainly known, (as in the present case it is,) is to be religiously observed by every subscriber, even though the words were capable of another sense. BY compilers, I mean those that composed the Creeds, Articles, or other forms received by our Church. By imposers, I understand the governors in Church and State, for the time being. The sense of the compilers, barely considered, is not always to be observed; but so far only as the natural and proper signification of words, or the intention of the imposers, binds it upon us. The sense of the compilers and imposers may generally be presumed the same, (except in some very rare and particular cases,) and therefore I mention both, one giving light to the other. The rules and measures proper for understanding what that sense is, are and can be no other than the same which are proper for understanding of oaths, laws, covenants, or any forms or writings whatever: namely, the usual acceptation of words; the custom of speech at the time of their being written; the scope and intention of the writers, discoverable from the occasion, from the controversies then on foot, or from any other circumstances affording light into it. This is the true and only way to interpret rightly any forms, books, or writings whatever. The pretences to the contrary shall be considered in their proper place: I shall now hasten to the proof of my first position, and shall be very brief in it; there being little occasion for proving so clear a point: what is most necessary is, to wipe off the dust that has been thrown upon it; and that shall be done in due time and place. 1. I argue, first, from the case of oaths. It is a settled rule with casuists, that oaths are always to be taken in the sense of the imposers: the same is the case of solemn leagues or covenants. Without this principle, no faith, trust, or mutual confidence could be kept up amongst men. Now, subscription is much of the same nature with those; and must be conceived to carry much of the same obligation with it. It is a solemn and sacred covenant with the Church, or government; to be capable of such or such trusts upon certain conditions: which conditions are an unfeigned belief of those propositions, which come recommended in the public forms. To change these propositions for others, while we are plighting our faith to these only, (as is supposed in the very acceptance of trusts,) is manifestly a breach of covenant, and prevaricating with God and man. It is pretending one thing, and meaning another; it is professing agreement with the Church, and at the same time disagreeing with it: it is coming into trusts or privileges upon quite different terms from what the Church intended; and is, as one expresses it, not "entering in by the door of the sheepfold," but getting over it, as thieves and robbers. 2. To make it still plainer that such subscription is fraudulent; let it be considered what the ends and purposes intended by the ruling powers, in requiring subscription, are. They are expressed in our public laws and canons to this effect; that pastors may be sound in the faith; that no doctrines be publicly or privately taught but what the Church and State approve of; that all diversity of opinions, in respect of points determined, be avoided; that one uniform scheme of religion, one harmonious form of worship, (consonant to Scripture and primitive Christianity,) be constantly preserved among clergy and people. These are the main ends designed by subscription. But if subscribers may take the liberty of affixing their own sense to the public forms, in contradiction to the known sense of the imposers, all these ends are liable to be miserably defeated and frustrated. Pastors, instead of being sound in the faith, (which is but one,) may have as many different faiths as they happen to have different wits, or inventions. Multiplicity of doctrines, opposite to each other, may be publicly taught and propagated: and, instead of any uniform scheme of religion, or form of worship, there may happen to be as many different and dissonant religions in the same church, or kingdom, as there are pastors or parishes. These being the natural consequences of that latitude of subscription now pleaded for, it is evident that such a latitude is a contradiction to the very end and design of all subscription; and is therefore unrighteous, and full of deceit. 3. I shall mention but one consideration more; and that is, the great scandal and pernicious influence of such a fraudulent practice. I cannot better express it than in the words of the late pious and excellent Mr. Nelson. "I could heartily have now wished," says he, in a letter to Dr. Clarke," that we of the laity had no such handle "ever given us, as this your last book hath afforded, as it "is to be feared, but to too many who think themselves "able to overturn any foundations whatever, if such a " method as you there propose be allowable with respect "to the most solemn acts and deeds of that Church and "community whereof we are members, and to substitute "" what they please in their room c." He observes farther, (p. 19.) that "from a method of this nature, we are "threatened with the overturning of foundations both "sacred and civil." And (p. 21.) that "if the judges, and "others learned in the law, shall follow the same method "of interpreting the laws of the land, and accommo 66 dating the civil oaths and engagements, as Dr. Clarke "has taken in interpreting and accommodating the sense "of the Church, in her most authentic forms and declara"tions before God and man, and of the venerable Fathers "of the Catholic Church; there are many of opinion, that every thing might easily be leaped over, and that no "establishment could be so strong as to last long:" and 66 |