creed proposes,-nor can I, according to the "with a good con

be

requisition of the canons, science, subscribe unto it." It is possible that some of my readers may tempted to say,—but why not have been satis fied with an assent to the articles generally, without entering too nicely into the drift of each and all of them?

To this I reply, first, that even such a manœuvre, was it a lawful one, would fail to extricate me from those other difficulties which are created by the canons, the oath of obedience to the bishop, and some very exceptionable passages in the form of baptism. But, in the second place, such a mode of acting would be diametrically opposed to that "godly sincerity" which scripture enjoins upon us, and too nearly allied to that "dissimulation" which it condemns. For it is plainly and broadly stated, that the subscribing clergyman" acknowledgeth all and every of the articles to be agreeable to the word of God." Now the doctrine objected to above, happens to form the entire subject matter of one of those articles. And finally, for an answer to the Rev. Archdeacon Paley's scheme of subscribing the thirty-nine articles, as articles of peace, I will submit the

following remarks from the pen of the Rev. Mr. Gisborne, observing by the way, that according to scripture, the wisdom which is from above," is first pure, and then peaceable.”

"The opinion," says Mr. Gisborne, “which Mr. Paley maintains, appears to me not only unsupported by argument, but likely to be productive of consequences highly pernicious. That subscriptions may be justified without an actual belief of each of the articles, as I understand Mr. Paley to intimate, is a gratuitous assumption. On this point let the articles speak for themselves. Why is an article continued in its place, if it be not meant to be believed? If one may be signed, without being believed,-why not all? By what criterion are we to distinguish those, which may be subscribed by a person who thinks them false, from those which may not? Is not the present mode of subscription virtually the same, as if each article were separately offered to the subscribers? And in that case, could any man be justified in subscribing one which he disbelieved?"

Here, then, I would interpose the enquiry, How can our " Arminian clergy," as my Lord' Chatham denominates them, be justified in their

subscription to the 17th article, amongst others equally high in point of doctrine, which go to make up our "Calvinistic creed?" If the English be a definite language, and the articles be well and truly rendered in our mother tongue, then how can two persons, both of good and competent understanding, take those articles in their plain, literal, grammatical sense, and in their full meaning, and yet assign them two opposite interpretations, as opposite at least as are the theological systems of Calvin and Arminius? Our twelve judges are not at everlasting variance about the common law of the land; they may sometimes meet with difficulties, springing from occasional obscurities, or other incidental causes; but where the letter and spirit of the law are obvious, and its intended meaning evident in the perspicuity of its style, and in the whole nature and tendency of the particular enactment of the legislature, our su preme legal characters would blush for themselves, and would be deemed by others wholly unfit and ineligible for their high and important stations, did they split into two or more parties, and proceed to give to the British public explanations of the same words, and words too of most ordinary use, and simple construc

tion, which should assign to them the most contradictory significations. But all the difference lies here; our judges do not subscribe to what they do not believe; nor do they swear to things which they do not intend to perform; but our bishops and clergy do both. Now they take the same license in interpreting words, which they take in subscribing and in swearing to them.*

This may sound harsh; but what is harsher than truth? A similar declaration has been made by a learned bishop. In the case of the Rev. Pike Jones, brought before the House of Lords, in reference to some supposed impropriety on the part of the Bishop of Exeter, my Lord Holland observed, that "Bishop Burnet, towards the conclusion of the History of his own Times, had not scrupled to say, that sixty out of every hundred of the clergy, subscribed the thirty-nine articles, who did not believe them, and the rest because they must !”

In the same debate, the Earl of Carnarvon said, "As to the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, he had not heard even the right reverend bishop himself say, that he approved of them. If he did approve of them, though perhaps he might think himself a good member of the Church of England, he would say that he was not a Christian." His Lordship next quoted a passage from the writings of the Bishop of Lincoln, in which he regrets that such clauses should be found in any human composition.

But how unavailing is such regret, or the expression of it, as long as men subscribe and swear to the truth of every

But to conclude. "No circumstance," adds Mr. Gisborne, "could have a more direct tendency to ensnare the consciences of the clergyno circumstance could afford the enemies of the Established Church a more advantageous occasion of charging her ministers with insincerity, than the admission of the opinion, that the articles may safely be subscribed, without a conviction of their truth, taken severally as ·well as collectively. That opinion I have seen maintained in publications of inferior note, but

item in all the Formularies of the Church? Would it not be more manly, as well as honest, to resist such impositions, and labour to obtain their repeal? But the obstacle to their abolition, perhaps, is the same with what opposes itself to the Catholic emancipation-the Coronation Oath. The question put is this" Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by the law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and the Churches. committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do, or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" The answer of the sovereign is, "All this I promise to do."

But in this there appears not a word which forbids any thing to be done that might be consistent with the true profession of the Gospel, and beneficial to the ministers of the reformed religion, provided it be done in a legal way.