of the most obvious construction; parallelisms destitute (of all similitude; figurative solutions of literal assertions; metaphysical embarrassments of what is plain; and popular elucidations of what is mysterious."

He next proceeds to the subject of Enthusiasm, as an abuse of Christian liberty,-making every fair allowance for its connection with a deep solicitude for the salvation of men's souls, but very properly imputing to it the strange fancy that withdraws mechanics and peasants from their callings to become preachers of the Gospel, as though miraculously "endued with power from on high."

६

As it is not possible for us to transcribe so much as we should wish to do of this excellent discourse, we shall proceed to such parts only as seem most essential.

"On the whole," he says, "it appears that the only latitude allowed to Christians in matters of faith is confined to points on which the Scripture is either silent, or which it has not revealed explicitly: of this kind are the manner in which the prescience of God may be reconciled with human free-will; the state of departed spirits between death and the resurrection; the kind of happiness reserved for the blessed; and whether the good shall be known to each other in a future ́existence. On all such questions every one is at liberty to use his judgment, provided he make not his own deductions the means of public discord." P. 29.

Though little latitude be allowed as to doctrine, it is not exactly so with regard to "the government and discipline by which Christian societies are to be regulated and restrained." Here the right reverend Author properly takes occasion to show, how carefully the Gospel seems to have provided for the maintenance of peace and order in the Church, to the positive exclusion of all fanatical notions of independency and anarchy; and on what good grounds the system of our own establishment of three orders, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, is held to be founded on the authority of the apostles,-beyond this he could not go. Where there is no positive command, we can only judge for ourselves what form of ecclesiastical polity appears to have had the preference in the days of the apostles; and so far the case seems to be determined for us by the joint authority of Church and State: though we need not deny, that under other forms, and in other countries, the great ends of order and piety have been accomplished.

Rites stand upon a more uncertain ground than the form of government; "decency and order," appearing to be, as the Bishop observes, the only standards. Here then, he says, though

By some at least he was more applauded when living than dead. It cannot therefore be said of him,

"Urit enim fulgore suo, qui prægravat artes

Infra se positas: extinctus amabitur idem."

To what cause is this to be attributed? We have heard his orthodoxy questioned-not very seriously, perhaps, but in that convenient manner which takes a point for granted, and so gets rid of the burthen of proof. This is no doubt a very serious charge, and it should seem a very extraordinary one too. That a man, who by his writings alone, obtained dignity and preferment in the Church, if not equal to what, in the judgment of his admirers, he deserved, still far beyond what many very able and meritorious men have reached; who was successively patronized by no less than six Bishops, solely on the ground of his merit; whose works have long been and still are standard books in his own university; a certain proficiency in which is one of the requisites for a degree: that such a man should after all not have been orthodox, would seem to be strange indeed; and would (if true) convey a severe imputation upon his character, and upon the discernment of his patrons, some of whom are still living to account for it.

We apprehend that the foundation for this charge rests chiefly upon the part which he took in the discussions of his day, upon the propriety of requiring subscription to the Thirtynine Articles. That he considered them to a certain extent objectionable, and that not only they but the Liturgy also needed alteration, is abundantly apparent from his writings. If therefore that fact be judged sufficient to fix upon him the charge of heterodoxy, the question is at once decided. But if, on the other hand, a man may conscientiously subscribe Articles, which he nevertheless thinks require revision and modification; if he may judge it to be inexpedient to compel the assent of others to certain propositions, which he himself believes to be true; if there be no absurdity in the supposition that established formularies of religion which at one time were highly proper and necessary, may in the lapse of ages and great change of circumstances, become capable of alteration for the better: then it would appear that the distinguished writer before us may be vindicated upon grounds to which the soundest Churchman cannot properly object; that, at least, no just imputation can be cast upon his orthodoxy, unless there be some other evidence to warrant it.

It was early in life, when he was about 31 years old, that he published his " Defence of Bishop Law's Considerations on the

Propriety of requiring a Subscription to Articles of Faith." There is no reason to suppose that he ever changed materially the opinions advanced by him in that publication; as ten years afterwards the same principles were briefly laid down by him in his moral and political philosophy, in the chapter "on Subscription to Articles of Religion." The first question to be considered then is, whether he himself conscientiously subscribed the Articles? Whether he might not have done so, even though he should have been one of those who, we are told, subscribe them "with a sigh or a smile?"

We are happy to observe that Mr. Butler, to whom we now allude as having used the expression of Gibbon, explicitly denies that by quoting it, and applying it to the Clergy of the present day, he means to impute to them any thing like a charge of hypocrisy or falsehood; and we are grateful to the Bishop of Chester for having called forth that positive denial. Of "the latitude of construction in which Mr. Butler supposes the Articles are generally signed," we shall have occasion to say something in the course of our observations. At present our business is with Dr. Paley.

No one, we imagine, will contend or suppose that every man who subscribes the Articles can or does subscribe them in precisely the same sense; that all men equally understand them; and that the proofs of every proposition which they contain are equally familiar and cogent to their minds. So far is this from being the case, that we can conceive more than one general ground upon which they may be conscientiously signed even by those who think the subscription itself inexpedient or unwise. Dr. Paley himself has stated the principle which no doubt satisfied his mind when he subscribed the Articles; and though the principle itself should to others appear to be questionable or erroneous; still if to him it appeared on due deliberation to be true, he would be justified in acting upon it. In such questions there is no infallible umpire to appeal to. Every man must judge for himself according to the best of his ability. His rule for subscription then (it is well known) was "the animus imponentis."

"The legislature of the 18th Elizabeth (he tells us) is the imposer, whose intention the subscriber is bound to satisfy. And that intention was to exclude from offices in the Church, 1st, All abettors of Popery. 2nd, Anabaptists, who were at that time a powerful party on the Continent. 3rd, The Puritans, who were hostile to an episcopal constitution; and in general the members of such leading sects or foreign establishments as threatened to overthrow our own. Whoever finds himself comprehended within these descriptions, ought not to subscribe."

Mr. Butler, in quoting this passage, adds these words, as if they were Paley's" all others then, it should seem, of whatever name or creed, may conscientiously subscribe." We can only say, there are none such in the edition which now lies before us, which is the fourth, nor in any other which we have seen. And even should they be found in Mr. Butler's edition, we think a gentleman of his patience and diligence in research, might have taken the trouble of ascertaining whether they were continued in the later editions. But that would not have suited the inference which he proceeds to draw from them, which is entirely his own; and would not have occurred to the mind of so poor a reasoner as Dr. Paley. The inference is this: "surely, therefore, they may be conscientiously subscribed, in Dr. Paley's opinion, by Unitarians, Arians, and Socinians." With all due deference to Mr. Butler, we do not think that Dr. Paley would have supposed that an Unitarian could conscientiously subscribe Articles, the title of the first of which is "Of faith in the holy Trinity" nor that he has written any thing from which such conclusion could be legitimately drawn. Though the Archdeacon agreed with those who were desirous of a revision and modification of the Articles; he was too honest a man to have subscribed them if he had not believed them in their present form to be true. Nor was he by any means so eager as some were upon the subject. It is well known that he could not be prevailed upon to sign the petition, which was presented to the House of Commons, by Sir Wm. Meredith, in February, 1772.

a

Dr. Paley's biographer, Mr. Meadly, has (indiscreetly perhaps) recorded one of those jocular expressions, of which he was evidently fond: which taken in a strict and literal sense would indeed be most injurious to his memory; nay, entirely destructive of his moral character. But whose jokes will bear to be so interpreted? The expression to which we allude is this, "that he could not afford to keep a conscience:" which it appears has been gravely commented upon in more than one publication. To us it seems, that no stress whatever should be laid upon it. It was evidently a sort of phrase with which he frequently amused himself, and intended to amuse his hearers. It was in bad taste, but was not meant to be received as a formal declaration. Upon another occasion, we are told that his advice to young Clergymen was, if they required a sermon every Sunday, to make one and steal five: selecting a strong and harsh expression to denote a very innocent action. His story of the pigeons in his chapter "of property," in his moral philosophy, is another striking instance of this peculiar turn of his mind;

which was indeed an unfortunate propensity in him, if it be true, as some have surmised, that it obstructed his merited preferment in the Church.

It is not easy to ascertain what were precisely the Archdeacon's views respecting subscription. They seem to have been vague and indeterminate. He speaks of "converting the Articles of faith into Articles of peace." But we hardly suppose that he ever was sanguine enough to conceive that any Articles could be devised, which would comprehend all persons who assume the denomination of Christians. Some of his first thoughts, which we find in his "Defence of Bishop Law's Considerations," seem to us to be crude enough, and to argue little in favour of any alteration of the existing system. He sup

poses,

"A test might be substituted, if any test were insisted upon, which could adapt itself to the opinions, and keep pace with the improvements, of each succeeding age. This in some measure (he thinks) would be the case, if the Governors of the Church for the time being, were authorised to receive from candidates for orders declarations of their religious principles in their own words, and allowed at their discretion to admit them into the ministry. Bishops (he adds) being taken out of the lump of the community, will generally be of the same leaven, and take both of the opinions and moderation of the times they live in.'

par

With all our respect for Episcopacy, we should be sorry indeed that such an experiment as this should be attempted: nor do we believe that many persons would be willing to become Bishops under such a responsibility, excepting such as would grossly abuse it.

Towards the conclusion of his pamphlet, Dr. Paley throws out hints of a less romantic character; but which are still so indefinite, as to shew evidently that he had not sufficiently considered the important subject upon which he had undertaken to write. The passage we allude to is this:

"The question concerning the object of worship is attended, I confess, with difficulty: it seems almost directly to divide the worshippers. But let the Church pare down her excrescences till she comes to this question; let her discharge from her Liturgy controversies unconnected with devotion; let her try what may be done for all sides, by worshipping God in that generality of expression in which he himself has left some points; let her dismiss many of her Articles, and convert those which she retains into terms of peace."

Si sic omnia-if he had written nothing better than this, our wonder certainly would be, not that he did not obtain more preferment, but that he obtained so much. We cannot but con

VOL. II. NO. III.

M