the Pops, agree together? If you run over all the articles, from the first to the last, you will not find one which is not held by some of them to be an article of faith, and rejected by others. as an impiety."* With these and numberless other historical facts of the same nature before his eyes, would it not, dear sir, I appeal to your own good sense, be the extremity of folly for any one to lay the least claim to the mark of unity in favour of Protestants, or to pretend that they who are united in nothing but their hostility towards the Catholic church, can form the one church we profess to believe, in the creed! Perhaps, however, you will say, that the mark of unity, which is wanting among the endless divisions of Protestants in general, may be found in the church to which you belong, the established church of England. I grant, dear sir, that your communion has better pretentions to this, and the other marks of the church, than any other Protestant society has. She is, as our controversial poet sings, "The least deform'd because reform'd the least." You will recollect the account I have given, in a former letter, of the material changes which this church has undergone, at different times, since her first entire formation in the reign of the last Edward, and which place her at variance with herself. You will also remember the proofs I brought of Hoadlysim, in other words, of Socinianism, that damnable and cursed heresy, as this church termed it in her last synod,§ against some of her most illustrious bishops, archdeacons, and other dignitaries of modern These teach, in official charges to the clergy, in consecration sermons, and in publications addressed to the throne, that the church herself is nothing more than a voluntary association of certain people for the benefit of social worship; that they themselves are in no other sense ministers of God than civil officers are; that Christ has left us no exterior means of grace, and that, of course, baptism and the Lord's Supper (which are declared necessary for salvation in the Catechism) produce no Spiritual effect at all; in short, that all mysteries, and among the rest those of the trinity and incarnation, (for denying which, the prelates of the church of England have sent so many Arians to the stake, in the reigns of Edward, Elizabeth, and James I.) are mere nonsense. When I had occasion to expose this fatal umes. Epist. ad Capiton. inter. Epist. Beza. + Dryden, Hind and Panther. Letter vii. • Constitutions and Canons, A. D. 1640. Sparrow's Collect. p. 355. See extracts from the Sermons of Bishop Hoadley, Dr. Balguy, and Dr. Sturges, in Letters to a Frebendary, Let. viii. The most perspicuous and system, (the professors of which Cranmer and Ridley would have sent, at once, to the stake,) I hoped it was of a local nature, and that defending, as I was in this point, the Articles and Liturgy of the established church as well as my own, I should, thus far, be supported by its dignitaries and other learned members I found, however, the contrary to be generally the case, and that the irreligious infection was infinitely more extensive than I apprehended. In fact, I found the most celebrated professors of divinity in the universities delivering Dr. Balguy's doctrine to the young clergy in their public lectures, and the most enlightened bishops publishing it in their pastorals and other works. Among these, the Norrisian professor of theology at Cambridge carries his deference to the archdeacon of Winchester so far, as to tell his scholars : "As I distrust my own conclusions more than his, (Dr. Balguy's,) if you judge that they are not reconcileable, I must exhort you to confide in him rather than me." In fact, his ideas concerning the mysteries of Chriscianity, particularly the trinity and our redemption by Christ, and indeed concerning most other theological points, perfectly agree with those of Dr. Balguy. He represents the difference between the members of the established church and the Socinians to consist in nothing but " a few unmeaning words ;" and asserts, that "they need never be upon their guard against each other.,'‡ Speaking of the custom, as he calls it, "in the Scripture, of mentioning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost together, on the most solemn occasions, of which baptism is one," he says, “Did I pretend to understand what I say, I might be a Tritheist or an Infidel, but I could not worship the one true God, and acknowledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of all." Another learned professor of divinity, who is also a bishop of the established church, teaches his clergy "Not to esteem any particular opinion concerning the trinity, satisfaction, and original sin, necessary to salvation." Accordingly, he equally absolves the Unitarian from impiety in refusing divine honour to our Blessed Saviour, and "the worshipper of Jesus," as he expresses himself, from nervous of these preacners, unquestionably, was Dr. Balguy. See his DisCourses and Charges preached on public occasions, and dedicated to the king. Lockyer Davis, 1785. That great ornament of the Episcopal bench, Dr. Horsley, bishop of St. Asaph's, does not fall under this censure; as he protected the present writer, both in and out of parliament, + Lectures in Divinity, delivered in the university of Cambridge, by J. Hey, D. D. as Norrisian professor, in four volumes, 1797. Vol. ii. p. 104. § Vol. ii. pp. 250, 251. Vol. ii. p. 4). Dr. Watson, bishop of Landaff's Charge, 1795. idolatry in paying it to him, on the score of their cominon good intention.* This sufficiently shows what the bishop's own be lief was concerning the adorable trinity, and the divinity of the second person of it. I have given, in a former letter, a remarkable passage from the above quoted charge, where bishop Watson, speaking of the doctrines of Christianity, says to his assembled clergy, "I think it safer to tell you where they are contained than what they are. They are contained in the Bible; and if, in reading that book, your sentiments should be different from those of your neighbour, or from those of the church, be persuaded that infallibility appertains as little to you as it does to the church." I have elsewhere exposed the complete Socinianism of bishop Hoadley and his scholars,t among whom we must reckon bishop Shipley in the first rank. Another celebrated writer, who was himself a dignitary of the establishment, arguing, as he does most powerfully, against the consistency and efficacy of public confessions of faith, among Protestants of every denomination, says, that out of a hundred ministers of the establishment, who, every year, subscribe the Articles made" to prevent diversity of opinions," he has reason to believe that above one-fifth of this number do not subscribe or assent to these Articles in one uniforın sense."§ He also quotes a Right Rev. author who maintains that "No two thinking men ever agreed exactly in their opinion, even with regard to any one article of it." He also quotes the famous bishop Burnet, who says, that "The requiring of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is a great imposition, and that the greater part of the clergy subscribe the Articles, without ever examining them, and others do it because they must do it, though they can hardly satisfy their consciences about some things in them."** shows that the advocates for subscription, Doctors Nichols, Bennet, Waterland, and Stebbing, all vindicated it on opposite grounds; and he is forced to confess the same thing, with respect to the enemies of subscription, with whom he himself ranks. Dr. Clark pretends there is a salvo in the subscripton, amely, I assent to the articles in as much us they are agreeable to scripture,ft though the judges of England have declared the contrary.‡‡ Dr. Sykes alleges that the Articles were either purposely or negligently made equivocal.§§ Another writer, whom he * Collect of Theol. Tracts, Pref. p. 17. + Letters to a Prebendary. He Dr. Blackburn, archdeacon of Cleaveland, author of the Confessional. 5 Confess. 3 Ed. p. 45. Dr. Clayton, bishop of Clogher. Confess. p. 83. 95 P. 237. ** P. 91. judgments." If you praises, undertakes to explain how "these Articles may be subscribed, and consequently believed, by a Sabellian, an orthodox Trinitarian, a Tritheist, and an Arian, so called." After this citation, Dr. Blackburn shrewdly adds: "One would wonde what idea this writer had of peace, when he supposed it might be kept by the act of subscription among men of these different will look into Overton's True Churchman Ascertained, you will meet with additional proofs of the repugnance of many other dignitaries and distinguished churchmen to the articles of their own church, as well as of their disagreement in faith among themselves. Hence you will not wonder that a numerous body of them should, some years ago, have petitioned the legislature to be relieved from the grievance, as they termed it, of subscribing these Articles ; and that we should continually hear of the mutilation of the liturgy by so many of them, to avoid sanctioning those doctrines of their church, which they disbelieve and reject, particularly the Athanasian Creed and the absolution.‡ I might disclose a still wider departure from their original confessions of faith, and still more signal dissensions among the different dissenters, and particularly among the old stock of the Presbyterians and Independents, if this were necessary. Most of these, says Dr. Jortin, are now Socinians, though we all know, they heretofore persecuted that sect with fire and sword. The renowned Dr. Priestly not only denied the divinity of Christ, but with horrid blasphemy, accused him of numerous errors, weaknesses, and faults: and when the authority of Calvin, in burning Servetus, was objected to him, he answered," Calvin was a great man, but, if a little man be placed on the shoulders of a giant, he will be enabled to see farther than the giant himself." The doctrine now preached in the fashonable Unitarian chapels of the metropolis, I understand, greatly resembles that of the late Theophilanthropists of France, instituted by an Infidel, one of the five directors. The chief question, however, at present is, whether the church of England can lay any claim to the first character or mark of the true church, pointed out in our common creed, that of UNITY? On this subject I have to observe, that in addition • P. 239. + Particularly in 1772. The omission of the Athanasian Creed, in particular, so often took place in the public service, that an act of parliament has just passed, among other things, to enforce the repetition of it. But if the clergymen alluded to ro, ally believe that Christ is not God, what is the Legislature doing in forcing them to worship him as God? Theolog. Reposit, vol. 4. to the dissensions among its members, already mentioned, there are whole societies, not communicating with the ostensible church of England, who make very strong and plausible pretensions to be, each of them, the real church of Eng and. Such are the Non-jurors, who maintain the original doctrine of this church, contained in the Homilies concerning passive obedience and non-resistance, and who adhere to the first ritual of Edward VI. Such are the evangelical preachers and their lisciples, who insist upon it that pure Calvinism is the creed of the established church. Finally, such are the Methodists, whom professor Hey describes as forming the old church of England.‡ And, even now, it is notorious that many clergymen preach in the churches in the morning, and in the meeting houses in the evening; while their opulent patrons are purchasing as many church-livings as they can, in order to fill them with incumbents of the same description. Tell me now, dear sir, whether, from this view of the state of the church of England, or from any other fair view which can be taken of it, you will venture to ascribe to it that first mark of the true church, which you profess to belong to her, when, in the fact of heaven and earth, you solemnly declare, I believe in ONE Catholic Church? Say, is there any single mark or principle of real unity in it? I anticipate the answers your candour will give to these questions. I am, &c. DEAR SIR, E LETTER XVI. To JAMES BROWN, Esq. &c. CATHOLIC UNITY. J. M We have now to see whether that first mark of the true church, which we confess in our creeds, but which we have found to be wanting to the Protestant societies, and even to the most ostensible and orderly of them, the established church of England, *To this church belonged Ken, and the other six bishops, who were deposed at the revolution, Leslie, Collier, Hicks, Bret, and many other chief ornaments of the Church of England. It is clear from the Articles and Homilies, and still more from the persecution of the assertors of free-will in this country, that the church of England was Calvinistic till the end of the reign of James J. in the course of which he sent Episcopal representatives from England and Scotland to the great Protestant Synod of Dort. These, in the name of their respective churches, signed that "the faithful who fall into atrocious crimes, do not forfeit justification, or incur damnation." Vol. ii. p. 73. |