they would be understood to allude to the test required by our Church, they adopt general positions and ambiguous expressions, without particularizing those objectionable points, to which it is at the same time their object to direct the attention of their reader.

Bishop Hoadley, in allusion to the foregoing subject, wrote thus: "Those things which are not plain, are not necessary; those things we cannot comprehend, are no further necessary than is revealed. And when men go about to explain, and make them clear to the world, they go about a work they need not. But when they thrust into the faith their vain philosophy, and impose their scholastic niceties for necessary religion, they do more than they can justify. How far some councils have been guilty of this, carried more with a zealous hatred to a man or a party, than a love to necessary truth, let them that think it concerns them, see." The late Bishop Warburton, on the same subject, expressed himself still more particularly. "Some men," said he, "who held the truth, that it is by faith alone we are justified, thought they could never have enough. Instead, therefore, of stopping at the few general and fundamental principles of Christian faith, clearly discovered and uniformly believed by all, they went on, and brought into the Church, as terms of

To prevent the reader from being at any loss for the Bishop's meaning in this case, those fundamental principles of the Christian faith, which are uniformly believed by all," should have been pointed out. The Bishop might not perhaps have wished to be interrupted by an inquiry of the kind.

communion, abstruse questions relating to points obscurely delivered; and made still more doubtful by having the principles of the Greek philosophy,' to which the sacred writers paid no regard, and with which the faith had no concern, applied to their solution." "The violation of the unity of the spirit having been occasioned by these mistakes, we may easily collect, that the means of preserving it entire had been the requiring no more, as the terms of Church communion, than what Christ hath delivered to be explicitly believed; and these not consisting of many particulars, and all of them clear and simple," &c.

The remedy proposed by this writer for restoring that unity, which has thus been unhappily violated, was, that all unnecessary articles should be retrenched, to which the animosity of parties, the superstition of barbarous ages,* * and even the negligence of time, had given an imaginary importance; and that the formula of faith should be reduced to its primitive simplicity, leaving all disputable points to the free decision of every man's private judgment.

Archdeacon Paley's opinion upon this subject appears to correspond strictly with that of the preceding writer. The remedy proposed by him

*"It is foreign to the purpose," said the learned Dr. Balguy, in one of his charges, "when we are speaking of establishments in general, to suggest that our present articles impose upon us the doctrines of dark and ignorant ages. Otherwise indeed one might be tempted to ask the objectors, of what ages they speak. I hope they do not speak of the times of the Reformation. age of Ridley, and Jewell, and Hooker, will be reverenced by the latest posterity."

The

against the complicated evil occasioned by the unnecessary extension and multiplication of tests is, "that they should be made as simple and easy as possible; and upon the supposition that a promise of conformity to the liturgy, or an engagement not to preach certain doctrines, might secure to the public teaching of religion as much of uniformity and quiet as is necessary to edification, that then such promise or engagement should supersede the use of stricter subscriptions."

One great object with every writer is to convey a distinct meaning to his reader. When this is not done, it must proceed either from defect of ability in the party, or some other cause. Where no defect of ability can be supposed to exist, it becomes a question which ought to be resolved, why, in a subject of importance, which respects the articles of the Christian faith, ambiguous language should be made use of; which at the same time that it may mean any thing, yet speaks so indeterminately, as to leave the reader in doubt with respect to the precise meaning of the writer.

It may be asked, why we are not plainly told in this case, what is that vain philosophy, and what are those scholastic niceties, which the Church im, poses upon her ministers for necessary religion?— What are those "abstruse questions to which the sacred writers paid no regard, and with which the faith hath no concern?" What are those unnecessary articles which should be retrenched; and those controverted doctrines upon which it is proposed that silence should be enjoined? By a plain answer to these questions we should be qualified to

judge to what articles of the Church, objection was meant to be made; and in what class of professors the objectors were to be placed.

Desirous of avoiding censorious judgment, I feel unwilling to draw any conclusion from the passages above noticed; or to allow a conjecture with respect to the particular professional tenets of the authors here alluded to, to engage my mind; because charity constrains me to think, that those who have subscribed to the articles of a Church, must believe them. The only consideration suggested to the reader on this occasion is, that the best of men are liable to error; and that writers most distinguished for their talents, will not always be found the safest guides in pursuit of religious knowledge.

A full conviction, at the same time, with respect to the nature, design, and constitution of the Christian Church, calls upon me, as an honest man, (what tribute soever I may feel disposed to pay to the abilities of the writer, from whom I am bound to differ) sincerely to lament, that in these times especially, when, if we may so express ourselves, the dissolution of establishments seems to have become the order of the day, a propagator of such ideas as are to be met with in the writings of Archdeacon Paley, should be placed, as I understand he is, in the oracular chair of a learned university.

But how ambiguous soever the language of some of our clergy occasionally has been, we must hope, till we have conviction to the contrary, that their principles were sound. For to form a conclusive judgment of any man from a speech hastily delivered,

or a sentence unguardedly written, would be not to deal with another as we would wish to be dealt by. It must be taken for granted, therefore, that every minister of the Church, in consequence of his engagement, possesses some decided judgment in favour of the doctrine and government established in it. By him, therefore, it cannot be considered to be a matter of indifference, whether man believe that doctrine, or submit to that government, or not.

4

If he believe himself to be in the truth, he must of course think those who differ from him in opinion, to be in error. And whilst he makes all due allowances for those who differ from him; (and large allowance will be made, when, to borrow an idea from Lord Bacon, it is considered, that the human mind takes such plies from education, and a thousand other causes, that even wise and good men rarely think exactly alike upon any speculative subject whatever) he will nevertheless conclude, if he be consistent with his profession, that where there is a standard for the regulation of human judgment on Divine subjects, two opposite opinions upon them cannot be true.

There is indeed, we are sorry to think, a wild sectarian spirit growing up in this country, which, if not properly counteracted, will work to the utter subversion of its constitution. For (as it has been excellently observed by a late writer, whose opinion I am proud to think perfectly corresponds with my own on this subject) "sects in religion and parties in the state originate in general from similar