0

gi

vie

'r

mg5i

CONSIDERATIONS

SUBSCRIPTION

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES,

SUBMITTED TO THE SERIOUS ATTENTION

CANDIDATES FOR HOLY ORDERS.

BY

CHARLES A. OGILVIE, D.D.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OP PASTORAL THEOLOGY, AND LATE FELLOW AND
TUTOR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

OXFORD,
PRINTED BY W. BAXTER.
FRANCIS MACPHERSON, HIGH STREET;
F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1845.

TO
THE REVEREND
RICHARD JENKYNS, D.D.
MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE.
MY DEAR MASTER,
In offering to the notice of Candidates for Holy
Orders generally the following pages, at first intended
only for the hearers of my own Lectures, I beg leave
to associate your valued name with an attempt to
uphold principles, which you have firmly maintained
through a long Academical career of usefulness and
honour ; and to declare publicly that, with sincere
respect and the warmest gratitude,
I am
Your's most faithfully,
CHARLES A. OGILVIE.
May 12, 1845.

CONSIDERATIONS,
8cc.

The recent circumstances of the University of
Oxford have called forth many Pamphlets and
Papers, bearing more or less upon the subject of
Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles. Of these
Publications none seem to have been intended, and
few certainly are likely, to survive the occasion, out
of which they arose. Their object was rather to
influence the decision of an existing controversy,
than to furnish help and guidance to that class of
persons, for whom the question concerning Sub
scription has, and ever must have, an instant practical
importance. In the number of such persons are included all
Candidates for Holy Orders in the Church of
England. They are required to perform the act of
Subscription at a season, of which every incident has
for them a profound significance and an unspeakable
interest. When the appointed days of their Exa
mination, and the accompanying exercises of self-
denial, of meditation and of prayer have been
brought to a close ; when the chief Pastor of the
Church has already intimated his well-grounded

hope, and even his confidence, that the requisite
qualifications, intellectual, moral and literary, are
not wanting; in this hour of deep and thrilling
emotion, of mingled fear and joy, the youthful
servants of God are reminded that a preliminary
step is to be taken — that an indispensable condition
is to be fulfilled, before they can be permitted to
enter into the stipulations and to bind themselves
by the vows of Ordination. This preliminary step,
this indispensable condition, is a formal and solemn
Subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles, a Sub
scription, which the law of the Church and the law
of the Land unite in enforcing.
The law of the Land, which requires this Sub
scription, is the 13 Eliz. c 12.
" That none shall be admitted to the Order of
" Deacon or Ministry, unless he shall first subscribe
" to the said (the Thirty-Nine) Articles."
The law of the Church of the same year, as laid
down in the Canons of 1571, (Canons, to which the
full character of Ecclesiastical law has never be
longed, but which yet are universally allowed to
convey the sense of the Church of that age,) is as
follows :
" Quivis Minister Ecclesiae, antequam in Sacram
" functionemingrediatur, subscribetomnibusArticulis
" de Religione Christiana, in quos consensum est in
" Synodo; etpublice adpopulum, ubicunque Episcopus
" jusserit, patefaciet conscientiam suam, quid de illis
" Artkulis el unirersa doefrina seutiatf

The present law of the Church is contained in the
36th of the Canons of 1603, and prescribes the
mode and terms of that Subscription, which the law
of Elizabeth requires :
" No person shall hereafter be received into the
" Ministry — except he shall first subscribe to Three
" Articles," of which the last in order sets forth, that
" he" (the subscriber) " alloweth the Book of Articles
" of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishops and
" Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in
" the Convocation holden at London, in the year of
" our Lord God 1562; and that he acknowledgeth all
" and every the Articles therein contained, being in
" number Nine and Thirty, besides the Ratification,
" to be agreeable to the Word of God." And, " for
" the avoiding of all ambiguities, he shall subscribe"
to the Three Articles of the Canon " in this order
" and form of words, setting down both his Christian
" and Surname; viz. I  do willingly and ex
" animo subscribe to these Three Articles, and to all
" things that are contained in them."
Can it be supposed by any seriously minded man
that an act, to be thus deliberately done, at a crisis
so momentous, is in its own nature trivial or unim
portant ? Can it be for a moment imagined that an
act, without the due performance of which all previous
care and pains of preparation and of successful study
will be frustrated, involves but little responsibility
and may therefore be hastily or inconsiderately enter-
prised ? Surely, the temper of mind of all fit Candi-

dates for Holy Orders must be one of earnest and
anxious inquiry what the true meaning of Sub
scription is. Surely, all well-disposed Candidates
must deeply feel the necessity of ascertaining the
nature and amount of the obligation, which an act,
marked by so much solemnity of circumstance,
cannot but be intended to impose.
To suit this temper and to meet this necessity,
recourse has often been had and may yet again, it is
conceived, be advantageously had, to those writings
of a former age, in which the subject of Subscription
has been fully discussed and clearly illustrated.
Among such writings, the Works of Dr. Waterland
are conspicuous. These valuable Works have been
placed within easy reach of the Theological Student
through an Edition, issuing from the University
Press under the superintendence of the late Bp. Van
Mildert, a Prelate of our Church, of whom it may be
confidently asserted, that in knowledge, judgment
and piety, he has been surpassed by few members of
the Sacred Profession, whether of our own or of any
other times. Nor is it unworthy of remark, that
Bp. Van Mildert's Edition of Dr. Waterland's Works
was put prominently forward and recommended to
general notice by the Editors of the Tracts for the
Times, up to the close of that series of Publications,
in their list of " larger Works, which may be profit-
" ably studied."
Accessible, however, as the Works of Dr. Water-
land have been rendered, and deservedly as they

have been recommended from various and even
opposite quarters, it may be doubted, whether they
have met with the attention to which they are
entitled. It is to be feared that too many even of
the Students of Divinity of our own day have yielded
to the temptation of accepting " the specious in
" exchange for the sound ; the made-dish" of Tracts
and Tales, of Reviews and Essays, " for the sub-
" stan tial food a" of solid, learned, and argumentative
Discourses and Treatises.
Under these circumstances, it is thought desirable
on the present occasion expressly and pointedly to
refer all serious inquirers, and more especially all
Candidates for Holy Orders, to " The Case of Arian
" Subscription considered, and the several pleas and
" excuses for it particularly examined and confuted;"
and to " A Supplement to that Case," as these Two
Treatises are contained in the Second Volume of
Bp. Van Mildert's Edition of the Works of Dr.
Waterland\ Of the former of the Two, the Editor
remarks :
" This is one of our Author's ablest productions,
" and may be read with great advantage, for the sound-
" ness and importance of its general principles, on a
" question deeply affecting moral integrity, as well as
a Dr. Hammond.
b The Edition, to which reference is made throughout this
Pamphlet, is that of 1823, in 12 vol. 8vo. A later and cheaper
impression of the same Edition, in 6 vols. 8vo. issued from the
Dniversiiy Press in 1843.

10
" purity of doctrine, independently of the particular
" case, to which it more immediately relates0."
By these few emphatic words, Bp. Van Mildert is
believed to sanction such an application and use of
Dr. Waterland's views and principles as are now
about to be made. And although such use and ap
plication are sufficiently warranted by the sanction of
so high an authority, yet may they be still farther
justified by a fair prospect of advantage for the cause
of truth likely to result from them. Representations
and arguments, borrowed from pages that have been
before the Public for more than a century, are
calculated to have, so far as the disputes of our own
day are concerned, the full and unimpeded force and
efficacy which can belong to general statements and
abstract reasonings; since, with whatever striking
self-evidence they may be seen to accommodate
themselves to any present purposes, they will yet by
all parties be felt and acknowledged to stand utterly
aloof from temporary and personal associations. In
casting reflections and in conveying censure, they
will be confessed to aim not at individuals, but at
classes; not at persons, but at principles; not at the
men of our own times, but at the errors and sins of
men of all times.
Now it must be observed that the general principles,
pronounced to be important and commended for their
soundness by Bp. Van Mildert, forbid Romanist as well
as A nan Subscription. The question, of which the
c Review of Dr. Waterland's Life and Writings, p. 78.

11
excellent Prelate speaks as " deeply affecting moral in-
" tegrity," concerns equally one who holds Roman
tenets, and a follower of Arius or Socinus. The case
of Romanist Subscription may undoubtedly be distin
guished plainly from that of Arian Subscription. It
is obvious that the pleas and excuses for the one will
not serve for the other. Yet were both Subscriptions
present to the mind of Dr. Waterland, when he
wrote, and of Bp. Van Mildert, when he reviewed,
the Two Treatises, which have been lately mentioned.
Both Subscriptions were by the original Author and
by his modern Editor regarded, in a moral point of
view, as coming under one and the same class and
description of actions. To both the same language
was by these authorities, distant from each other in
time but alike in reputation and in weight, deemed
applicable and in fact applied. If Arian Subscrip
tion, as it was colourably set forth and plausibly
defended by the celebrated Dr. Clarke and afterwards
maintained by his followers, who repeated language,
which he had himself suppressed or recalled; if
Arian Subscription, thus ingeniously explained and
vindicated, could not, in the judgment either of
Dr. Waterland or of Bp. Van Mildert, be allowed,
much less, according to the opinion of the same
Divines, was the Subscription of such as held the
tenets of the Church of Rome capable of apology or
excuse. Throughout both the Case itself and the
Supplement to the Case, Dr. Waterland represents
the latter, which he takes frequent occasion to men-

12
tion, as more objectionable than the former. It did
not appear to him equally to admit of palliation. It
was considered by him to be an evil, less likely indeed
to occur, but calculated, if it ever should occur, in a
far o-reater degree to alarm and shock the minds of
men. There is no reason to suppose that his judg
ment on this whole subject differed, in any degree,
from that expressed, a little while before, by Dr.
William Nichols in a work, to which Dr. Waterland,
handling a different argument", refers, as "written by
" a very judicious Divine of our Church :"
" The Articles of our Church (which not only
" Clergymen but all Students in our Universities are
" obliged by then Subscriptions to acknowledge and
" maintain) do put it out of all doubt that heaven and
" earth are not at a greater distance than our Religion
" is from Popery6."
Will it be said that neither Dr. Waterland nor
Bp. Van Mildert was aware of the pleas, which may
be urged and have been recently urged in favour of
the Subscription of persons holding and professing to
hold the tenets of the Church of Rome? Will it be
contended that, skilful as the former was in examining
and confuting the Sixteen separate reasons of the
Arians of his day; and decisive as the latter was in
pronouncing his sentence that success had crowned
the efforts of his predecessor's skill in this argument,
each of these eminent Theologians would have found
d Works, vol. v. p. 466.
" Defence of Church of England, p. 155.

13
it a task too difficult for his ability and learning to
dispose of the reasonings and to set aside the distinc
tions of the disputants of our own age, — more especially
of the Author of the 90th Tract for the Times — that
one writer, the leader as in order of time so also in
personal influence, through whom chiefly we of the
present day are made to share the " experience of
" all ages in the Church of God, that the Teacher's
" error is the people's trial, harder and heavier by
" so much to bear as he is, in worth and regard,
" greater that mispersuadeth themf?" To these
questions the means of a ready reply are fur
nished by the fact, that Dr. Waterland had in
view, and that Bp. Van Mildert cannot be supposed
to have overlooked, a remarkable work, which was
published in the year 1634; and which, under a
title not professing any such purpose, was intended
' Hooker's Eccles. Pol. v. 62. 9. where Hooker imitates Vin-
centius Lirinensis:
" Dicebamus ergo in superioribus quod, in Ecclesia Dei, tentalio
" esset populi error Magistri; et tanto major tentatio, quanto ipse
" esset doctior qui erraret."
The preceding passage of the Commonitorium, to which these
words allude, is as follows :
" Luce clarius aperta causa est cur interdum Divina Providentia
" quosdam Ecclesiarum Magistros nova qusedam dogmata praedicare
" patiatur. ' Ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester.' Et profecto
" magna tentatio est, cum ille, quern tu Prophetam, quern Propheta-
" rum discipulum, quem Doctorem et Adsertorem veritatis putes,
" quem summa veneratione et amore complexus sis, is subito latentes
" noxios subinducat errores, quos nee cito deprehendere valeas, dum
" antiqui Magisterii duceris prsejudicio; nee facile damnare fas
" ducas, dum Magistri veteris prsepediris affectu."

14
to serve for a Paraphrastic Explanation of the
Articles of the English Confession of Faith ; in other
words, for an attempt to reconcile the Thirty-Nine
Articles of the Church of England with the tenets
of the Church of Rome. To the Author of this
extraordinary Book, Christopher Davenport, who,
having gone over to the Church of Rome in early
youth, and having afterwards become a Dominican,
passed under the name of Franciscus a Sancta Clara,
Abp. Bramhall has given credit for considerable
learning, and for a' temper of Christian charity and
moderation; although the same Prelate, evidently
accounting at once for the hardihood and for the
failure of his efforts, laments his imperfect acquaint
ance with our English doctrine. Dr. Waterland,
without calling in question either his acquirements
or his motives, freely animadverts on his perform
ance and insists on the futility of his attempts.
Now it is this very work, which has been lately
pressed on " the attentive consideration of English
" Churchmen, as the testimony of an impartial witness
" to the orthodoxy and Catholicity of our own Com-
" munion;" and which has been stated by one, well
entitled to be heard on this particular point, to
" suggest an interpretation ofthe Thirty-Nine Articles
" in many respects strikingly similar to that put forward
" by the Author of the 90th Number of Tracts for
" the Times e." There can indeed be little doubt that
s " The Subject of Tract Ninety examined, in connection with
" the History of the Thirty-Nine Articles, &c. by the Rev. F.

15
the Author of the Tract in question, when he com
posed and published what has acquired an unenviable
notoriety, was familiar with the Book of Davenport.
The internal evidence of the Tract itself agrees with
the apparent acknowledgment of some of its foremost
defenders, in leading to this conclusion.
Be this however as it may; whether the Author
of Tract 90 were an imitator only, or had the
merit (if merit in such case it be accounted) of
being an inventor, the present argument is in no
degree affected. The confessed existence of u
striking similarity, of a close correspondence between
the earlier and the later production, suffices to shew,
that Dr. Waterland was no stranger to the views
of such as are of opinion, that " the orthodoxy
" and Catholicity of our own Communion" depend
upon the possibility of reconciling our Confession
of faith with the tenets of the Church of Rome.
He saw in the explanations of Sancta Clara the very
explanations, which the Author of Tract 90 either
" Oakeley, &c." It is impossible to refer to this Pamphlet without
expressing astonishment at the Author's conclusion, that, because
what he calls an Historical argument has not been answered, it is
therefore to be accounted unanswerable. He must really suffer
himself to be reminded, that there are those who have attentively
read what he has written, and who, being of opinion that " mistaken
" facts, groundless surmises, and inconclusive reasonings are all that
" the cause, which he has taken in hand, has to subsist upon,"
(p. 319. of vol. ii. of Waterland's Works,) have preserved silence,
as well out of tenderness for him, as out of regard for the dignity
of History, of which he seems to them to distort the evidence and
abuse the name.

16
offers, or indirectly suggests. He considered those
explanations. He formed an estimate of their value.
He pronounced them to be vain, frivolous, nay,
absurd. And as such he would have treated them,
if the affair, to which they related, had not appeared
to him too grave for scorn and ridicule.
There is indeed in one respect a difference between
the state of things which Dr. Waterland contemplated,
and that which it falls to our lot to witness. To the
notice of Dr. Waterland were presented principles
and modes of interpretation of the Thirty-Nine
Articles coming from a Romanist, who addressed
Romanists, for the avowed purpose of inducing them
to hope and believe that a Subscriber to the Articles
of the Church of England might possibly after all
not reject what Romanists considered and called
Catholic tenets. Sancta Clara never thought of
subscribing the Articles himself. He never dreamt
of persuading Romanists to think that they might
safely or innocently do so. He was doubtless aware
that to make either of these attempts would have
been to commit an outrage upon public decency ;
and that the result would have been to bring down
upon his head an overwhelming storm of indignation
from the whole of Christendom for an abandonment
of common honesty. As it was, he had enough
to undergo from the suspicion and jealousy excited
against him in the Communion to which he had
gone over; and from the dislike with which his
endeavours were received in the Church of England.

17
Widely different is the state of things, which we
behold. The same principles and modes of inter
pretation are now put forward for the express
purpose of reconciling to Subscription certain parties,
who are conscious of such disposition towards or such
adoption of Roman, conceived by them to be
Catholic, doctrines, as renders them doubtful and
uneasy with regard to the line of duty. Their frit
impression is that they cannot subscribe without
some sacrifice of their integrity. The slightest sacri
fice of this sort they are naturally and laudably
unwilling to make. Whilst they are in this painful
condition of mind, they are addressed by Casuists, who
entreat them to reflect that their first impression may
be wrong; that certain distinctions between popular
and genuine Romanism are to be carefully drawn;
that beneath a surface of apparent Protestantism,
which deceives most observers, the Articles of the
Church of England hide the principal features of
genuine Romanism; features, which some few clear
sighted individuals, in the course of Three Centuries,
have from time to time been able to detect, and
which are now once more brought to light. And
what has been the effect of the Address thus made
through Tract 90 and the Pamphlets that have
appeared in its defence? How many tender and
scrupulous consciences have been relieved ? How
many doubts have been resolved ? How many
perplexities unravelled? How much disquietude
allayed ? Rather may it not be inquired, how many

18
minds have been filled with scruples? How many
fresh doubts have been awakened ? How many new
intricacies woven ? How much additional uneasiness
excited ? It may be difficult to answer these questions
to the entire satisfaction of all parties concerned.
Thus much however is manifest — that a twofold result
has taken place. On the one hand, there has been
a passing over from the Church of England to that of
Rome of a succession of individuals, who have not
been able to rest with final satisfaction in the School,
of which they were for a while confiding disciples.
On the other hand, there have been instances within
the Church of England of persons adopting one notion
or impression or opinion or doctrine after another,
until at last an acceptance of that whole doctrine, of
which a specious distinction into Roman and Romish
was attempted, has been openly avowed ; and a right
to hold the whole, consistently with Subscription to
the Thirty-nine Articles, has been claimed and
vindicated. Such as go to this length do not deny
(the fact is too plain to be denied) that they avail
themselves of the principles of Tract 90 to an extent
beyond that, which its Author originally ventured to
propose, and probably therefore to contemplate.
They moreover declare that they are ignorant how
far they have the sanction of the Master, for whom
their professed deference leads the Public to believe
that, as in the analogous case of Dr. Clarke, " one
" half sheet, one small advertisement from his hand, to
" discountenance this kind of Subscription, wouldhave

19
" done the business at once, and have saved (others)
" the labour of doing any thing \" The least that can
be inferred from his silence and from their acquies
cence in an ignorance, which they impute to that
silence) is that they meet with no reproof from him.
Much indeed is it to be regretted that the Author of
Tract 90 should leave open to surmise and conjecture
certain motives and views of his, which he might
easily explain, and of which the Public seems to
have a right to demand some account. The conse
quence of his reserve is not unlike that which took
place in another instance long ago. An opinion is
beginning to prevail that " the eager and rash zeal
" of the disciples makes known what the Master's
" silence conceals. What they have heard in the
'" secret chambers, they proclaim on the house-tops ;
" in order that the doctrine, if it be approved by the
" hearers, may redound to the Teacher's credit ; and,
" if it be disapproved, may bring blame not upon the
" Master but upon his Scholars only'." Numerous
and anxious inquirers are ready to demand : Does
the Author of Tract 90 agree with some of his
followers in their distinction between holding and
teaching Roman doctrine? Does he, with them,

h Waterland's Works, p. 334 of vol. ii.
' Magistrorum silentia profert rabies Discipulorum. Quod
audierunt in cubiculis^ in tectis prsedicant : ut, si placuerit audito-
ribus quod dixerint, referatur ad gloriam Magistrorum ; si displi-
cuerit, culpa sit Discipuli non Magistri. S. Hievon. Ep. ad
Ctesiphonta adv. Pelag.
B 2

20
claim the right to hold, consistently with Sub
scription, what he confesses that he cannot,
consistently with the same Subscription, teach?
Does he really believe that the religious teaching
of any earnest and upright man can be independent
of or unconnected with the religious tenets, which
occupy that man's mind and engage his heart?
Does he entertain the monstrous hypothesis that
the Church of England imposes on her Teachers
a condition of being admitted to the office of
teaching, which is to reduce any of them to silence
and to disqualify them for the discharge of the
duties of that very office, to which they are on such
condition admitted ?
Or, having proved the fruitlessness of the effort to
" throw himself into the system j" of those, whose
language he once employed, and being emancipated
from a thraldom ill-suited to his talents and temper,
does he now copy the example of Dr. Clarke, and
rest in a position formerly and once for all attained
through the means of a Subscription, which he is
not prepared to renew? It may be so. The pre
cedent is not destitute of value ; although Dr.

' " I said to myself: I am not speaking my own words. I am
" but following a consensus of the Divines of my Church. They
" have ever used the strongest language against Rome ; even the
" most able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into their
" system. While I say what they say, I am safe." Paper, dated
Dec. 12, 1842, and ascribed to the Author of Tract 90 by his
friends.

21
Clarke's refusal of higher promotion has never
rendered clear to the apprehension of simple-minded
people the perfect integrity of retaining that promi
nent station in the Church, which up to the time of
his death he actually held. Is it surprising that
inquirers, still left in suspense and uncertainty,
should be tempted to urge, in the middle of the
Nineteenth century, the appeal which, in the
beginning of the Fifth century and in the instance
lately noticed, was once heard ?
" Tu ergo aut defende quod locutus es et sen-
" tentiarum tuarum acumina astrue eloquio subse-
" quenti, ne, quando tibiplacuerit,neges quod locutus
" es : aut, si certe errasti quasi homo, libere confitere
" et discordantium inter se redde concordiam. Fra-
" trum inter se cernis jurgiak."
The melancholy truth is that licence has been
allowed to a dangerous casuistry; and that the warn
ings of sound Moral Philosophy have been too long
disregarded : " In all common ordinary cases," says
Bishop Butler, " we see intuitively, at first view, what
" is our duty, what is the honest part. This is the
" ground of the observation that the first thought is
" often the best . In these cases, doubt and deliberation
" is itself dishonesty. That which is called considering
" what is our duty in a particular case is very often
" nothing but endeavouring to explain it away. Things
" were so and so circumstantiated : great difficulties
" are raised about fixing bounds and degrees. And
k S. Hieroiiym. Ep. ad Ctesiph. adv. Pelag.

22
" thus every moral obligation whatever maybe evaded.
" Here is scope, I say, for an unfair mind to explain
" away every moral obligation to itself."
If then there is a difference, in respect of certain
principles and modes of interpretation of the Thirty-
Nine Articles, between the state of things which
Dr. Waterland witnessed, and that which we are
compelled to observe ; if lie saw those principles
and modes of interpretation proposed by a Romanist
to Romanists, in the hope (vain and idle as that
hope was) of inducing the members of the Church
of Rome to put a favourable construction on what
might possibly be the meaning of Subscribers to the
Anglican Confession of Faith ; whilst we find the
very same principles and modes of interpretation
unfolded, defended and applied, for the express
purpose of justifying a retention of place and office
in the Universities and the Church of England on
the part of individuals, whose hearts and affections
have been already alienated from their system; it
becomes proper and even necessary to ask, how this
acknowledged difference between the two cases would
have affected the minds and influenced the language
of Dr. Waterland and Bishop Van Mildert? And
can there be a shadow of doubt concerning the
answer to be returned to this question ? Would they
have hesitated to say of the case, which they were
indeed far from anticipating, a single word, which
1 Sermon upon the character of Balaam, p. 185, of vol. ii. of
Works of Bp. Butler.

23

they had uttered touching the case -actually within
reach of their observation ? Is it possible to conceive
that there is any thing in the difference between the
cases, as it has now been stated, that would have
embarrassed their judgment — that would have shaken
the firmness of their decision— ^that would have ren
dered their voice of disapproval and of condemnation
of Tract 90 less loud or earnest, than was their de
clared sentence on the performance of Davenport?
The passages about to be quoted have been re
commended for selection by their intrinsic value, and
by an opinion of their peculiar seasonableness at the
present crisis. They are believed to contain sound
matter for thought and reflection. They appeal
forcibly to the unsophisticated sense of right and
wrong, which may be hoped to be still alive and
active in the breasts of the generality of English
men, heretofore usually so trained and educated as to
deem "Moral probity an excellent quality; and
" taught to value even a Turk, a Jew, or a Pagan, who
" enjoys it in any competent degree, more than the
" most orthodox Christian, who is a stranger to itm."
The same passages take for granted the existence
of Conscience ; and address that important faculty of
the soul as a power totally distinct from consciousness,
from momentary feeling, from sudden and violent
emotion. They are thought to guard against an evil,
,n Dr. Waterland's Disc, of Fund. p. 122, of vol. viii. of
Works.

24
of which some fearful symptoms are discernible
amongst us :
" The mistaking of every fancy or humour, carnal or
" Satanical persuasion, for Conscience, and the setting
" up, upon too weak a stock, for that high privilege of
" a good conscience, hath petrified the practical faculty,
" and made it insensible to any of those stripes or
" threats or discipline, which the law of Nature or of
" Christ hath provided for the restraint of their
" subjects"." It may be objected, that Extracts must always
exhibit an imperfect and may sometimes exhibit an
unfair view of the whole work, from which they are
taken. Nothing can be more reasonable than a
general objection of this sort. And, in the present
instance, instead of being set aside or removed out
of the way, it shall be cordially welcomed, as affording
ground of hope that every reader, to whom it may
occur, will be led by it to examine that portion of
Dr. Waterland's writings, on which these pages are
designed to fix attention. A sincere endeavour has
indeed been made to preserve for every single passage
quoted its real value ; and so to combine the passages,
that have been chosen, as to represent fairly the
whole train of argument. But it is freely confessed
that the chief end of this Publication will not be
answered, unless its readers become diligent students
of the Works of Dr. Waterland. They are exhorted
to place themselves under his safe and trust-worthy
" Dr. Hammond.

25
guidance. They are advised to seek in that whole
some discipline of mind, to which his learned re
searches and reasonings will accustom them, a se
curity from various forms of error, both speculative
and practical ; above all, from a fatal indifference to
truth and from the credulity, which, for a while be
lieving every thing, is the too probable, if it be not
rather the sure, precursor ofa scepticism, which will
believe nothing.
Extracts from Dr. Waterland's Works.
' My business is to shew that, as the Church re
quires Subscription to her own interpretation of
Scripture, so the Subscriber is bound in virtue of his
Subscription to that and that only : and if he know
ingly subscribes in any sense contrary to or different
from the sense of the imposers, he prevaricates and
commits a fraud in so doing. This is a cause of
some moment. It is the cause of plainness and sin
cerity, in opposition to wiles and subtleties. It is in
defence, not so much of Revealed as of Natural Re
ligion ; not of the fundamentals of Faith, but of the
principles of moral honesty: and every heresy in
morality is of more pernicious consequence than
heresies in points of positive religion. The security
and honour of our Church are deeply concerned in
this question. As to its security, every body sees
what I mean ; and as to the honour and reputation
of our Church abroad, whenever we have been charged
with Socinianism or Popery or any other monstrous

26
doctrines, we had no defence so ready at hand or so
just and satisfactory as this ; that our Subscriptions
were sufficient to wipe off all slander and calumny.
The good of the State, as well as of the Church, is
likewise concerned in this question; because there
can be no security against men's putting their own
private senses upon the public laws, oaths, injunctions,
&c. in contradiction to the sense of the imposers, if
these principles about Church Subscription should.
ever prevail amongst us".'
'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 com
pilers 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 under
standing 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 contro-
° p. 284, 285, of vol. ii.

27
versies 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 p.'
' 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 cove
nant 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 mani
festly 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 and privileges upon
quite different terms from what the Church intended;
and is, as one expresses it, not " entering in by the
door of the sheep-fold," but getting over it, as thieves
and robbers. ¦' p. 288, of vol. ii.

28
' 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 dis
sonant 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

29
Subscription; and is therefore unrighteous, and full
of deceit V
' No conscientious Protestant would subscribe the
Romish Catechism or Pope Pius's Creed. No serious
Papist would subscribe our Articles. No pious Dis
senter would give his assent and consent to such
parts of our Public Forms as he does not heartily
approve of, in the plain and intended sense. Thou
sands have died martyrs to the maxims, which I am
now asserting; whose great and only misfortune it
was, not to have been acquainted with those evasive
arts and subtle distinctions, which, it seems, might
have preserved them1.'
' It hath often been pretended by the Calvinists
that the compilers and imposers of the Articles intended
a sense different (with respect to Predestination, and
Original sin) from that, which now generally pre
vails. — A distinction should be made between such
Articles as, being formed in general terms, leave a
latitude for private opinions, and such as, being
otherwise formed, leave no such latitude. It is
ridiculous to pretend, that because some Articles are
general or indefinite, and may admit of different ex
plications, therefore all may. Allowing that either
Calviuist or Arminian may subscribe to the Articles,
(the Articles being general and the main points in
dispute left undetermined) would it not be weak to
i p 289, 290, of vol. ii. ' p. 291, of vol. ii.

30
argue from thence that both Papists and Protestants
may likewise subscribe to the Articles of the Church
of England? Now it is no less absurd to pretend
that both Catholics and Arians may subscribe to our
Forms; some Articles being as full and strong tests
against Arianism as others are against Popery.
' It is not fairly, because not truly, suggested, that
when men of different sentiments, as to particular
explications, subscribe to the same general words,
they subscribe in contradictory or even in different
senses. Both subscribe to the same general propo
sition and both in the same sense; only they differ in
the particulars relating to it: which is not differing (at
least it need not be) about the sense of the Articles,
but about particulars, not contained in the Articles.
For instance, let two persons assent to a general pro
position: This figure is a triangle ; one believing the
triangle to be equilateral, the other believing its sides
to be unequaly they are directly opposite in their
sentiments as to what kind of triangle it is. But in
the general Proposition, that the figure is a triangle,
both agree, and in the same sense.
' In like manner, imagine the Article of Predesti
nation (and the same may be said of any other in
like circumstances) to be left in general terms.
Both sides may subscribe to the same general propo
sition, and both in the same sense ; which sense reaches
not to the particulars in dispute. And if one believes
Predestination to be absolute and the other con-

31
ditionate; this is not (on the present supposition)
differing about the sense of the Article, but in their
respective additions to it.
' It is very uncautiously and unaccurately said
that King Charles I. patronized the subscribing
the same Articles either in contradictory or different
senses. His order is, that every Subscriber submit
to the Articles in the " plain and full meaning
" thereof," in the " literal and grammatical sense."
What? is the plain and full meaning more than one
meaning? Or is the one plain and full meaning two
contradictory meanings ? Could it be for the honour
of the Articles or of the King to say this? No.
But the Royal Declaration, by " plain and full mean-
" ing," understands the general meaning, which is
but one ; and to which all might reasonably subscribe.
And he forbids any one's " putting his own sense
" or comment to be the meaning of the Article,"
or to affix any new sense to it: that is, he forbids
the changing a general proposition into a particular.
He stands up for the general proposition or for the
Article itself; and prohibits particular meanings,
as not belonging to the Article; nor being properly
explications of it, but additions to it. This is the
plain import of the Royal Declaration; and it is both
wise and just; free from any of those strange conse
quences or inferences, which some would draw from
it. ' I cannot but observe, from the disputes and

32
clamours that have been raised about the 17th
Article of our Church, what a tender regard has
all along been paid to the point of the Subscription;
and how jealous men have been of any the least
appearance or umbrage oi prevarication in so serious
and sacred a thing V
Plea XVI.
" It becomes a sincere man (especially if he
varies from notions commonly received) to declare
plainly in what sense he understands any words of
human institution; that his inferiors and equals may
not be imposed upon by him, and that his superiors
may judge of such declaration'."
crDr. Clarke, of all men, could least be charged
with collusion, because he has declared publicly his
opinions in this matter11." Answer.
1 I have reserved this plea to the last, as being of
a very different kind from the rest, and withal
carrying a more plausible show of frankness and
sincerity in it. Nevertheless, this, though it has an
appearance of fairness, will by no means serve the
purpose for which it is brought.
' Suppose any disaffected persons in this kingdom
should invent some strange, forced, unheard of inter-
? P. 311, 312, 313, and 314, of vol. ii.
1 Clarke's Reply, p. 33.
" Modest Plea, p. 221.

33
pretation of the civil oaths, to elude and frustrate
the intent of them ; and declare in print that they
themselves take the oaths in this new sense, advising
their brethren to do the same ; would such declara
tion be sufficient to salve their honesty, or to make
them righteous in the sight of God or man ? Would
they not be rather thought the more notoriously
wicked, as not only venturing upon perjury them
selves, but instructing and seducing others into the
same crime? Their giving notice of the prevarication
would not be acquitting themselves of the guilt, but
proclaiming it ; and, in some respects, increasing it :
as it would not only be doing an ill thing, but, what
is worse, boasting of it and teaching others to do the
like. One dishonest act or more are not so dan
gerous or pernicious as the laying down principles
and contriving subtleties and artificial evasions,
whereby to undermine the very foundations of moral
honesty. ' I am not sensible that there is difference enough
between this and the other case to make one innocent
and the other highly criminal. Nothing can be
pleaded for it, but the presumed consent of the
Superiors, after declaration made. But that no such
presumed consent can have any place in the matter of
Subscription may appear from the reasons following :
' 1. Because Superiors may often connive at or
tolerate offences ; which are nevertheless offences for
such connivance.
' 2. Because so long as our Superiors continue
c

34
the same forms, which clearly express such a sense,
they must be presumed to intend the same sense, till
they declare otherwise. And their permitting the
same forms to stand is a much surer argument of
their still intending the same thing, than their
suffering an offender to escape with impunity, can
be of the contrary.
' 3. It must be observed, that our Superiors speak
by the Public Forms as much as the Legislature
speaks by the Public Laws. And no sense can be
their sense but the plain, usual, literal meaning of
those public forms ; till some as public and as
authentic declaration alters the case.
' If the Subscription contended for be in itself
fraudulent, as elusive of the law, a man's declaring
or giving notice of it does not alter its nature or
make it legal. Suppose a man should declare that
he subscribes only so far as is agreeable to Scripture,
(a method disallowed by our laws, according to the
unanimous resolution of all the judges, in a parti
cular case referred to themx,) such declaration would
never alter the nature of the Subscription; but it
would be as much against law as ever, notwithstand
ing; and for that very reason, it would be unrighteous
and dishonesty.'
' The glory of God, the honour of our most holy
Religion, and the security of Church and State, call
for our best endeavours to root out, if possible, false
1 Coke's Instit. iv. c. 74. p. 324.
" P. 315, 316, of vol. ii.

35
and pernicious principles, and to re-establish the
matter of Subscription upon its true and solid
foundation. ' 1. The Church of England requires Subscription
not to words, but things; to propositions contained
in her public forms.
' 2. Subscribers are obliged, not to silence or
peace only, but to a serious belief of what they sub
scribe to.
' 3. Subscribers must believe it true in that parti
cular sense, which the Church intended, (so far as
that sense may be known) for ihe Church can expect
no less ; the design being to preserve an uniform
tenor of faith, to preclude diversity of opinion, to
have her own explications and none other (as to
points determined) taught and inculcated; and to
tie men up from spreading or receiving doctrines
contrary to the public determinations. These and
the like ends cannot be at all answered by Subscrip
tion, unless the Subscriber give his assent to the
Church's forms in the Church's sense; that is, in
the sense of the compilers and imposers.
' 4. The sense of the compilers and imposers is to
be judged of from the plain, usual, and literal signi
fication of words ; and from their intention, purpose,
and design, however known: the rule for under
standing the Public Forms being the same as for
understanding oaths, laws, injunctions, or any other
forms or writings whatever.
' 5. When either the words themselves or the

36
intention, (much more where both) is plain and
evident; there the sense of the imposers is fully
known ; and there is no room left for a Subscriber
(as such) to put any contrary or different sense upon
the Public Forms.
' 6. If words be capable of several meanings but
yet certainly exclude this or that particular meaning,
a Subscriber cannot honestly take the forms in that
meaning, which is especially excluded. For this
would be subscribing against the sense of the Church
at the same time that he professes his agreement
with it2.'
' Let this writer3 pretend what he pleases, when
once the true and full sense of the imposers is fixed
and certain, that very sense and that only is bound
upon the conscience of every Subscriber; for this
plain reason ; that since words are designed to con
vey some meaning, if we take the liberty of playing
upon words, after the meaning is fixed and certain,
there can be no security against equivocation and
wile, in any laws, oaths, contracts, covenants, or any
engagements whatever : all the ends and uses of
speech will hereby be perverted; and there can be
no such thing as faith, trust, or mutual confidence
among men b.'
2 p. 335, 336, of vol. ii.
a The Author of a Pamphlet, entitled, " The Case of Subscrip-
" tion to the Thirty-Nine Articles considered ; occasioned by Dr.
" Waterland's Case of Arian Subscription ;" which Pamphlet called
forth from Dr. W. "A Supplement to the Case."
" p. 346, of vol. ii.

37
Objection.
" If the meaning of the Articles be in such a sense
one meaning, that they can be subscribed honestly
only by such as agree in that one meaning, many
great men" of our Church, who have differed from
one another, " must have been guilty of dishonesty."
Answer.
' If this writer can shew that any of those great
men, to whom he refers, contradicted any point of
doctrine plainly determined by our Church, then I
condemn those men, be they ever so considerable.
But if they differed in ever so many questions and
none of those questions decided either way by our
Church, their differing in such undetermined points
does not affect their Subscription any more than
their differing about the inhabitants of the moon.'1
Objection.
" When any Church requires Subscription to its
own sense of particular passages of Scripture, which
do not contain the terms of salvation and refuses
communion with those, who cannot conform to that,
it is confessed that such a Church does that, which
it ought not to do." Answer.
' This is entirely foreign. Subscription is not a
term of lay-communion but of Ministerial conformity
or acceptance of trusts and privileges.'

38

Objection.
" The Articles are so composed that some of
them are on all hands allowed to be left at large,
the composers intending a latitude."
Answer.
' Undoubtedly, it never was the intent of our
Church to determine all questions relating to every
subject, whereof she treats. Yet she intended to
determine and has determined many questions; par
ticularly the main questions between Protestants and
Papists, between Catholics and Arians. When
Franciscus a Sancta Clara took upon him to
reconcile our Articles to Popery, what did he else
but play the Jesuit and render himself ridiculous ?
The like has since been done by our Arian re
concilers, with as much wresting and straining and
with as little success. It might be diverting enough
(were not the thing too serious and full of sad
reflections) to compare the Papist and the Arian
together and to observe which of them has been the
greater Master in this exercise of wit and has found
out the most ingenious and surprising comment
upon an Article. Our Articles however will stand, in
their own native light, in defiance of both; so long
as gravity, sobriety and manly thought shall be
esteemed and valued above the little arts of equivo
cating and playing upon words. The Articles are
not general, so far as concerns our present debate.

39
There is a medium, I suppose, between determining
all questions and determining none''.''
Objection.
" The fault which is condemned by the King's
Declaration and which King Charles threatened with
displeasure was the drawing the Articles aside any
way or either way." Answer.
' I perceive this author knows little either of the
history, design, or meaning of King Charles's
Declaration. The design was to put a stop to the
Quinquarticidar Controversy, then warmly agitated.
The King, to prevent or quiet those disputes,
thought it the most prudent way to forbid either
party's being more particular than the Articles
themselves had been. And we find that, in fact,
both sides were censured, when they launched out
beyond the general meaning of the Articles in that
controversy ; the King looking upon any meaning
beyond the general one, to be a man's own meaning
or sense, not the meaning or sense of the Articles.
What is this to the point we are upon, where the
meaning was never thought to be general only, either
by that King or any other, or by any considering
man else ? He that declares and demonstrates the
sense to be special and determinate, against ancient
or modern (errors), does not put his own sense
c P. 361, 362, 363, of vol. ii.

40
upon the Articles, neither does he " draw the Articles
aside any way ;" but he secures to the Articles their
own true and certain meaning, and rescues them
from the fraudulent comments of those, who really
" draw them aside" and most notoriously pervert
themd.' Objection.
" Had the compilers or imposers intended to have
been more determinate upon any point, they ought
to have been more explicit and particular."
Answer.
' I defy the wit of man to invent any expressions
more particular and explicit than many of those are,
which appear in our Public Forms. They have
guarded against every thing but equivocation, mental
reservation, and a violent perverting of their certain
meaning. This is enough among men of sense and
probity, which is always supposed. No laws, oaths,
covenants, or contracts, can ever stand upon any
other foot than this — that, when they are plainly
enough worded for every man to understand that
will be honest, it is sufficient ; though it were still
possible for men of guile to invent some sinister
meaning. I desire no other favour than to have
our Public Forms tried by the same rule0.'
' I suppose only that the compilers of our Forms
and imposers were not bereft of common sense, were
d P. 365, 366, of vol. ii. • P. 366, 367, of vol. ii.

41
not downright idiots, intending a Subscription to
bind men up, and, at the same time, leaving every
man as much at liberty as if there were no Sub
scription. They that can suppose the Governors of
Church and State so weak and silly as this comes
to, must not take it amiss, if we remove the un
deserved reproach from wise, great, and good men,
and return it to the proper owners f.'
Objection.
" Dr. Waterland refers us to the writers of the
times, when the Articles were compiled. This is to
make those writers the standard of the Church of
England and not its own words or declarations."
Answer.
' I referred to the scope and intention of the writers,
in order to know the meaning of their writings, which
I hope is no unreasonable method. As to the par
ticular case now in hand I no where send a man to
the writers of that time; nor does so plain a matter
require it. The words themselves are sufficient and
carry their own interpretation with them. I desire
no farther postulatum than this, that our language
has not been quite reversed; that light does not now
signify darkness, or a triangle a square8.'
' Wherever our Church has tied us up to the pro
fession of any doctrine, the Subscriber, as such, must
1 p. 371, of vol. ii. e P- 373, of vol. ii.
D

42
interpret Scripture conformably to that doctrine and
not in opposition thereto. He must not, for instance,
interpret Scripture in favour of Purgatory, infallibility,
worship of Saints, and the like; at the same time
condemning those Popish tenets by his Subscription;
neither must he interpret Scripture in favour of the
Son's or Holy Ghost's inferiority, inequality, &c.
while he subscribes to their co-equality and co-eternity.
He is tied up to the Church's sense of Scripture in
all points determined by the Church, so far as to
believe that her explications are, in the general, just
and true; that whatever she proposes as Scripture
doctrine, is Scripture doctrine; and that no sense of
Scripture, which runs counter to her decisions, is the
true sense of Scripture but a violence offered to
Scripture11.' Objection.
" What advantage, real advantage, would it be to
the Church of England to eject out of its Communion
such men as Dr. Waterland plainly points at?"
Answer.
c It is unfortunate for the men who are to new model
our Divinity and to reform our Faith that they should
betray, at every turn, a strange confusion of thought
even in clear and plain things. This writer cannot
distinguish between ejecting and not admitting; nor
between Church communion and Church trusts. I
" p. 391, 392, of vol. ii.

43
said not a word about ejecting any man out of Com
munion. I pleaded only against admitting any into
Church trusts that must come in by iniquity or not
at all. And I am not sensible that I was either de
ceived in my reasoning or out in my politics. How
ever high an opinion this gentleman or I may have
of the valuable abilities of the Arian Subscribers;
whatever advantage or credit we might propose by
having so considerable men amongst us; yet our
misfortune is that we cannot have them but by sinful
means and at the expence of sincerity. And we dare
not promise ourselves any real or lasting benefit from
so notorious a breach of God's commandments. On
the other hand, since I am here publicly called upon
to declare what advantage it may be to us to have a
stop put to this unrighteous practice of subscribing,
I shall briefly hint it in a few particulars :
' 1. It will be much for the honour of God and of
our most holy religion, to have no more such offences
seen or once named amongst us.
' 2. It will be taking away one great reproach
from our country, heretofore famed for its gravity
and good sense ; and for breeding up Divines and
Casuists, as judicious, solid and accurate as any
upon the face of the earth.
' 3. It may be much for the advantage of the
common people, not to be under such guides as are
themselves remarkably deficient in the first principles
of morality and Christian simplicity; and who may
be presumed the less qualified to direct the con-

44
sciences of others, whilst so manifestly faulty in the
conduct of their own.
' These are some of the advantages we may rea
sonably propose, along with God's blessing ; which
must be had in God's own way, and in the doing of
what is just, honest, and upright '.'
' All the severity of a charge of fraud and pre
varication lies in the truth and evidence of the
charge. If the charge cannot be fully proved, the
man that makes it is in reality the sufferer, by
exposing himself. But I have taken care to proceed
upon none but the clearest and most evident grounds;
and now I may lay claim to thanks for kindly shewing
men both then sin and their danger. Principles
are valuable and precious, and must not be parted
with, in compliment to any man's character. Besides
it is to be hoped that men of education and abilities
do not want to be told that there are some things,
which they ought to be infinitely more tender of
than a short-lived character, built upon self-flattery
and delusive shows; and those are the honour of
God, the simplicity of the Gospel, and the salvation
of men. One way still there is left, and indeed but
one, whereby to retrieve their characters ; which is,
to repent and amend. If they will accept of this
plain and frank admonition, it may not perhaps be
altogether unserviceable to them. If not, let it stand
as a testimony against them, for the benefit of others,
lest they also fall into the same condemnation11.'
1 p. 392, 393, of vol. ii. k p. 394, 395, of vol. ii.
THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0870

I