NO II.

Extracts from a pamphlet intitled, A Letter to a Bishop, occafioned by a late Petition to Parliament for relief in the matter of Subscription. London, Printed for J. Wilkie, St. Paul's Church-yard, 1772, with Remarks.

66

66

LETTER.

"The Petition aimed at more than moderate men could approve; it tended to the abolishing all tefts, by reprefenting all fubfcriptions to be inconfiftent with the fun"damental principles of a Proteftant church, as implying an infallibility in the compilers of the forms fubfcribed to, "and confequently destroying the indefeasible right of private judgment." p. 1, 2.

REMARK.

The omiffion of fome words and expreffions in this pasfage, which are not omitted in the Petition, tends to impofe upon the public an abfolute falfehood. The Petitioners do not reprefent all fubfcriptions to be inconfiftent with the fundamental principles of a Protestant church. They declare only against fubfcribing to the dictates of men of like prejudices and infirmities with themfelves, and who can have no competent authority to impofe fubfcription to their dictates, before they have proved themselves to be infallible. The fundamental principles of a Proteftant church acknowledge no test but the word of God contained in the scriptures, and this the Petitioners acknowledge, exclufive of all tests of human device, and to this I prefume, they will moft willing

ly

ly fubfcribe, as a test which comes from an infallible fource. The fubfequent reafoning, fo far as it is founded upon this por tudos, is void of all strength and pertinence.

LETT E R.

"A defign of fuch confequence as that which was intended to produce a great alteration in our ecclefiaftical "establishment, wanted the recommendation-of our eccle"fiaftical Governors especially, within whose immediate "province the matter in queftion lay, who, on that account, had a right to be confulted, and whofe concurrence "would have given it great support.—In a cafe immediately refpecting our church-establishment, the House of "Commons was not perhaps the place, from whence such a defign could, with most propriety, take its rife." p. 3. 4.

66

REMA ARK.

If this Gentleman is in earnest, (of which, I hope, there is no room to doubt) he will find, that few as he supposes our exceptionable things to be, (let us take Dr. Tucker's conceffions for an instance) the alterations required to rectify them, would far exceed the alterations intended to be produced by the Petition, both in magnitude and number. But when you are to form the catastrophe of a Tragedy, all forts of fictions are allowable. However the fact may turn out, this Gentleman may certainly be enabled to prove, whether his wifdom, or that of the Petitioners, is of the more fortunate family, by making his proposals to the Bishops in the first place, and postponing the Commons, till their Lordships think fit to call for their fanction. For, first or laft, the Commons must have fomething to do in a busi nefs

02

nefs of this fort; and if they are permitted to deliberate upon thefe alterations at all, it is not much matter whether they do it in the first, or in the fecond inftance.

"It must be confeffed, that the cafe of fubfcriptions, as they now ftand by law, is far from being unexcep"tionable, and is certainly capable of great amendment." P. 5.

REM AR K.

If this is true, and if the cafe of fubfcriptions lies within the more immediate province of the Bishops, it is, and it has been, for many years, the more immediate duty of the Bifhops, to take away the exceptionable matter, and to make the requifite amendments, without waiting for an application from the Petitioners, or from any other fet of men whatever. The Bishops have not done this. The Bishops have not attempted to do it. The Bishops have not shewn the least public concern to have it done, and there is no apology to be made for them, but either that the cafe of fubfcriptions is not within their Lordships' more immediate province, or that the case of subscriptions, as they now ftand by law, is unexceptionable.

66

LETTER.

"It must alfo be confeffed, that if fubfcriptions to the "Articles and Liturgy be really required in the most rigorous fenfe the words will bear, this carries with it such a "strictness of affent to a set of propofitions, fome of much "difficulty and great obfcurity, as, from the very nature

"of

"of the human mind, a number of men cannot truly give, " and which therefore it is unfit to require." p. 6.

66

REMARK.

If I understand this Gentleman, he meant to fay in opening his case, that no ecclefiaftical establishment could subsist without a Teft, confequently not the ecclefiaftical establishment of the church of England, without requiring fubfcriptions. But furely, if we admit, that more or less rigorous fenfes may be put upon the words we fubfcribe, the idea of a Test, ascertaining the uniform affent of fubfcribers to the fame doctrines vanishes away. And though one number of men cannot truly give fuch a ftrictnefs of affent to the difficult and obfcure propofitions in our Liturgy and Articles, there is another number of men who fay they can. And if the church requires fubfcription as a Test, these latter are certainly the men whom the church ought to approve, even to the exclufion of those who say they cannot. Upon this plan, Meff. Madan, Toplady, Pietas, Shirley, and their brethren, ought to be countenanced and preferred by the church, above all who have written against them. For they fay, and I believe they truly fay, that the most rigorous fenfe the words will bear, was the sense of those who drew up the Articles, and injoined subscription to them, and which, confequently, remains the genuine fense of them to this hour. But as an exclufion would be inconvenient to the other number, who, "from the very nature of the human mind, cannot truly give their affent to the Articles, in the ftrictest

tr

fenfe the words will bear," they are obliged in fact, and by the form of fubfcription, to give their affent to them in the very fame terms that they do, who fubfcribe them in the ftricteft fenfe the words will bear, and that for a

purpose

purpose plainly and exprefsly specified, viz. For the avoiding of diverfities of opinions, and for the establishing of confent touching true Religion, without any regard to the nature of the human mind.

"Perfect unanimity in fuch fubjects is a thing in fact "unattainable, and therefore a certain latitude of interpre"tation has been, as I conceive, claimed to themselves by "the greater part of those who subscribe, from the reason "and neceffity of the thing itself, from great and respecta"ble, I had almost said, legal authorities, and from the pre"vailing sense and practice of the present church." p. 16.

REMARK.

This writer, fo far as he really wishes that things that are wrong or exceptionable in the church of England, may be rectified and amended, and takes off frivolous objections to fuch amendments, deserves the thanks of all honest men, and with this part of his performance I shall not interfere, whatever I may think of his expedients in comparison with that of the Petitioners. But when he attempts to palliate, and plaister over the grievance, as in the paffage just quoted, he muft excuse me, if I cannot commend either his candor or confiftency. He is here contending for a Latitude, which, however it may be taken, is certainly not given.. It may be true, that “ unanimity in fuch fubjects" [I fuppofe he means such subjects as the subjects of our Articles]" is in fact un

attainable," but if procuring Unanimity, and preventing Diversity, are the fame thing, both they who compofed, and they who established our Articles by Law, took it for grant

ed,