That learned and able divine, Dr. Edwards, of Cambridge, published, in the life-time of bithop Burnet, fome ftrictures on that prelate's way of treating the articles. "I can by no means," fays he," approve of this learned prelate's extravagant attempt, when he takes a great deal of pains to persuade his readers, that thefe thirty-nine articles, or most of them, are fo dark and ambiguous, that the true fenfe of them is not to be found out: and therefore that we may make what conftruction of them we please. Surely, his lordship's memory is none of the best: any man must needs think that he had forgot what he had afferted and given as his judgment, namely, That thefe are articles of downright belief, and therefore muft not be dallied and played with. It is fuch a ftrange perverting of the articles, as cannot but raife admiration in indifferent perfons, and fuch as are not led by prejudice. For, ift, This new-found expofition fofters diffimulation. It seems to teach our clergymen to equivocate. For, though the learned and reverend author acknowledges, once and again, that the compilers of those articles were Calvinistically difpofed, and accordingly formed fome of the articles fo as they are to be understood in favour of Calvin's opinions; yet he proposes them to the clergy, to be taken in an ambiguous fenfe. They are taught, in the whole, to trim; to turn about as they pleafe; to diffemble with God and man; to fubfcribe to that, which, they know, moft affuredly, is, in the plain meaning of it, against their perfuafion. Therefore I fay that this new-coined explication of the articles, is inconfiftent with the integrity of our Church, and the fincerity of its minifters who are to fubfcribe to them. It will be hard to reconcile this with the doing it with a good confcience, as is required in the 5th canon; and ex animo, and avoiding all ambiguities, as the 36th canon enjoins. [2.] After this rate, it can never be known, from our profef

fions and fubfcriptions, what our mind is, what our belief and fentiments are. Though we openly acknowledge, under our hands, fuch doctrines to be agreeable to God's word; yet we may not think one article of them to be true: yea, we may think and profefs the quite contrary. And of this our author [Burnet] gives us an inftance in himself: telling us in his preface to the Expof. of the Art.] that in the point of predeftination, he follows the Greek Church, from which St. Austin departed, and formed a new fyftem: and yet he publicly declares, that our Church's article of predeftination may be interpreted and understood in favour of the Calvinifts, who follow St. Auguftin. I remember this learned writer, in the account he gives us of his travels, makes this reflection on Geneva, that there is want of fincerity there. May we not, from what has been reprefented under this particular, fear, that there is the fame want fomewhere elfe ?" [Veritas Red. p. 521, 522.]

But I return to Doctor Nowell. Another part of your address to the author of Pietas Oxonienfis runs thus: Suppofing that they and we," namely, the Arminians of paft and prefent times, "are miftaken, in the fenfe we put upon our articles; yet, furely, unless you can fee our hearts, you cannot cenfure us for fubfcribing to what we believe not a word of." You do well, fir, to fuppofe yourfelf and your Arminian friends miftaken. I hope, your next step will be, to retract your mistakes. And you have fallen into not a few, in the very paragraph last cited. Ift, You feem to take for granted, that you have a right to put your own fenfe on the articles to which you fubfcribe. But this is by no means the cafe. Our articles, like the prophecies, are not of private interpretation. You, and I, and every subfcriber, are, by exprefs declaration of authority, pinned down to the plain, literal and grammatical meaning of each article. The legislature, duly weighing

weighing the importance and folemn nature of ecclefiaftical fubfcription, have taken almost every precaution, human wisdom could fuggeft, or the energy of language furnish, to preclude evafion, and preferve the doctrines of the Church inviolate. Let part of the royal declaration, ufually prefixed to the articles themselves, and which, having never been revoked, still stands in full force, ferve by the way of fpecimen: "We have upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of fo many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following: That the Articles of the Church of England do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to God's word: which we do therefore ratify and confirm, prohibiting the leaft difference from the faid articles; from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the leaft degree :-And that no man, hereafter, fhall either print or preach, to draw the article afide any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and fhall not put his own fenfe, or comment, to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical fenfe." Hence it is as evident, as demonstration can make it, that Calvinifts are the only fair fubfcribers; and that Arminians, as fuch, are virtually excluded from fubfcription: because, the articles are to be fubfcribed, not with qualifying gloffes, diluting comments, tacit limitations, and mental exceptions (for this would defeat the very end for which fubfcription is required :) but we are to fubfcribe, as every fubfcriber profeffes to do, ex animo; with unfeigned affent and confent; without drawing afide the articles any way, or varying or departing from them in the leaft degree: moreover, without putting the fubfcriber's own fenfe on what he fubfcribes unto, but honeftly and bond fide, taking the articles in their literal and grammatical meaning, fimply as they ftand.

2dly, You

2dly, You would infinuate, that we cannot charge the Arminians with fubfcribing to what they do not believe, "except we could look into their hearts.' But there is no occafion for our looking quite fo deep as that: fince, out of the abundance of their hearts, their hands write and their mouths fpeak. I think, that I myself, without pretending to dive into hearts, may form a judgment, for inftance, of Dr. Nowell and his fubfcriptions. You, fir, have fubfcribed, to our articles and homilies, over and over again. Thefe articles and homilies are Calvinistic and you are a profeffed Arminian. Either, therefore, you was not an Arminian when you fubfcribed; or you fubfcribed to what you difbelieved. And, by the fame rule that we form an eftimate of you, we are qualified to judge of others of your fect.

*

3dly, I difcern not a little chicanery in the latter claufe of your paragraph; "you cannot cenfure us for fubfcribing to what we believe not a word of." This is brought in, by way of a trap-door, to escape at, in cafe you fhould happen to be hard preffed. You may believe a word, and many words, even in the 17th article itself; without believing the fubftance of the article, or affenting to the doctrine it afferts. There are not a few detached words, even in the decrees of Trent, to which any Proteftant in the world might fafely teftify his affent: and yet no

with

*The Calvinifm of thefe has been acknowledged by very many of the Arminians themfelves. One, in particular, recurs, this moment, to my remembrance. A late dignitary (Dr. H.) of confiderable figure, both in the Church and in the world, and celebrated among other things, for a learned and fenfible work, published under the title of Theological Lectures; being, one day, in company another dignitary (now living, and from whom I had it), the converfation happened to turn on the Thirty-nine Articles: against feveral of which Dr. H. exclaimed with great warmth. My friend afked him," But have you not fubfcribed to these, and that ex animo?" I have. "And do not you hold all your preferments by virtue of that fubfcription ?" I do; and our reformers, who drew fuch articles, deferved to be hanged for their pains.

truly

truly confcientious Proteftant would look upon that as a fufficient warrant for fetting his hand to thofe execrable decifions. And by parity of argument, I greatly queftion, whether any truly honeft and confcientious Arminian would venture to rest upon this, as a plea for fubfcription, "though I abhor, deteft, and abjure, as impious and Calviniftical, the doctrines contained in the 10th, 11th, and 17th articles of the Church of England; yet as a fubfcriber to thofe articles, I make myfelf eafy, because I cannot fay, that I believe not a word in them; for there are fome words, here and there interfperfed, which are of innocent tendency: and for the fake of thefe, I have fwallowed the whole." Inftead of shifting, and mincing, and trimming, in this despicable manner, would it not be more to the credit of fuch clergymen as are Arminians, to make a push for an alteration, and boldly cry out, with the monthly reviewers," Our eftablifhed doctrines are not fuch as might be wished, and ought to be re-modelled ?" Let them act like men of courage and principle; and, inftead of doubling and winding, and putting our articles on the rack, "to find out meanings never meant," say of them, and of the 17th in particular (as archbishop Tillotfon did of the Athanafian Creed), "I heartily with we were well rid of it." This would be treading in the steps of their elder brethren, the Dutch Arminians; and would make them remonftrants in act, as well as in principles. It would not, indeed, vindicate them from the glaring difhoncfty of folemnly fubfcribing to articles thus profeffedly difbelieved: but it would fave them. the ridiculous and fruitlefs trouble of endeavouring to twift and torture Calviniftic articles into a fenfe they are incapable of bearing. The reverend and dignified author of the Confeffional, is a faint, when fet in competition with fuch divines as would put out our eyes, by daring to tell us that the 10th article does not overturn free-will; that the 11th does

not