66 or the malignity, or the falfhood of the following paragraph. Confidering what the terms of mi"nifterial conformity are, fays our annotator, it may be justly queftioned, whether if all the clergy "were equally confcientious, one half of them "would not be Diffenters. To declare an affent and "confent to ALL and EVERY THING contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, the book of Common Prayer, "&c, (which comprehend fuch a prodigious num"ber of particulars; many of them very difputable, "fome of them unintelligible, and others exploded ૯ by the wifeft and beft of men ;) is such a requi"fition as it is hard to be conceived the generality "of the clergy can bona fide approve. It is indeed "WELL KNOWN that MOST of them, and even of "the BISHOPS themselves, difbelieve fome of the "doctrinal articles of the Church, as appears from "the general ftrain of their preaching and of their writings, and that they profefs to fubfcribe them only as articles of peace. If the terms of conformity were a declaration that they did not “believe all and every thing, &c," it is unde"niable that many (not to fay the most) of those "that conform might very confcientioufly make it. "Whether therefore their fubfcription to the pre"fent terms be confiftent with fimplicity and godly fincerity, it behoves them feriously to enquire. If others think that fuch a fubfcription would, "in them, be a grofs prevarication, and rather than 1 "be "be chargeable with it, willingly forego the advantages of being in the Church, they ought at "least to be respected as honeft men. And if Dr. Johnson had studied the grounds of Non-conformity (which he appears not to have done) he "might have entertained a better opinion of the "understandings of Proteftant Diffenters as well "as their integrity. But this is not the place for "entering into that controversy." If these representations are juft, and these affertions true, the controversy is abfolutely decided with a vengeance; and the bulk of the clergy of of the Church of England are as great a fet of fc-ndr-ls as can be produced in the annals of the human race. I fhall not waste a moment in vindicating them from imputations fo palpably fcandalous; but content myfelf with declaring my firm belief, that Dr Johnson would not have en "tertained a better opinion either of the under"ftandings or integrity of Proteftant Diffenters" from these famples of BOTH; and that were Dr. W. reftored to life, he would, for visible reafons, think himself under much greater obligations to the Biographer than to the Annotator. In short, we are not to wonder at any thing which is advanced by one who maintains, as this writer does in another page of this very performance, that "in the Scripture-plan no traces of a "national Church, or ecclefiaftical authority, are to be found." It It may be pertinent to remark farther, that exceedingly mad as the Puritans and their friends in the last century were against the governors of the Church, and our whole ecclefiaftical polity, THEY appear to have been more than ordinarily folicitous to express their full affent and consent to the moft material articles of our faith. Their quarrel was not against our doctrine but our discipline. I have by me a juft and literal translation of the Confeffion of Faith, together with two Catechifms, a larger and a lefs, drawn up by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, in 1651, under the authority, and with the concurrence and approbation of Parliament, (so called,) and of the Kirk of Scotland. The 3d claufe in the ch.de Deo et Sacro-fan&ta Trinitate runs verbatim as follows. "In Deitatis unitate perfonæ tres funt unius ejufdemque effentiæ, potentiæ, ac aternitatis; "Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanc T tus. Pater quidem a nullo eft, nec genitus nempe nec procedens: Filius autem a Patre eft t æterne genitus: Spiritus autem Sanctus æterne "procedens a Patre Filioque." In the 23d ch. de ftatu bominum poft mortem, deque refurrectione mortuorum, we find this claufe: "Noviffimo illo die, "qui comperientur in vivis non morientur quidem "fed mutabuntur; qui mortui fuerint refufcita"buntur omnes, ipfiffimis iis corporibus quibus "viventes aliquando fungebantur, ac non aliis, ut "ut ut qualitate differentibus; quæ denuo animabus quæque fuis æterno conjugio unientur.", Thefe doctrines are held out almost in the fame words in both Catechifms... From which circumstances I take occafion to ask, whether, as far as we may reasonably collect from the style and the fentiments of the Editor of Dr. Johnson's Life of Dr. I. Watts with Notes, the views and the difpofitions of the Proteftant Diffenters of this age have not a tendency more inimical and deftructive, than were those of these fame Ancestors of theirs who "triumphed in the ruin" both of Church and State? But is there not after all an inveterate difficulty, which we have rather met than encountered, and much less overcome, and which furnishes Popery with its fhrewdeft argument, and Infidelity with its ftrongest handle? The proteftant principle afferts the right of private judgment in matters of religion. And yet precepts relative to obedience to fpiritual authority, &c, are as plain as thofe directions which require us to prove all things, and to bold fast that which is good, &c. How fhall we reconcile these things? In confequence of the exertion of this perfonal right, differences arise in the world, and controverfies, the natural iffue of them. How are thefe to be decided? Is it not a folecism in religion to fuppofe a controversy without a judge? Nevertheless we fay, and demon ftrate ftrate too, that the Church of Rome, the only Church which pretends to infallibility, has erred, and that even in fundamentals. Accordingly we refer to no arbitration; we acknowlege no rule of faith, no judge of controverfy but Holy Scripture. Supremus judex (fay the Westminster Divines abovementioned) a quo omnes de religione controverfia funt determinanda, omnia conciliorum decreta, opiniones, &c, nullus alius effe poteft præter Spiritum Sanctum in Scriptura pronunciantem. † But are not these vain words? Doth any man, or any body of men pretend to the gift of difcerning of Spirits at this day? Or if they do, are their pretenfions admiffible? Or can Scripture, with any propriety, be faid to be the judge of controverfy, when it is the whole and fole ground of it? Do not all parties find means to wrench the authority of the facred pages to their fide? Every Anti-trinitarian will fay, in the words of Chillingworth, (whatever the real fentiments of the latter might be,) " Propofe me any thing out of this Book, "and require whether I believe or no, and feem " it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I " will fubfcribe it with hand and heart, as know"ing no Demonstration can be stronger than this, "God hath faid fo, therefore it is true." But then to the proofs you have to offer, and the texts + Confeff. Fid. Cap. 1. 10, Religion of Proteftants &e. p. 335. you |