sider it a strong proof of the value of his other writings, that they were able, in the judgment of his patrons, to counterbalance the laxity and the dangerous tendency of such opinions as these.

Mr. Butler seems to take it for granted that the late excellent and learned Norrisian professor, Dr. Hey, would have treated the Articles with still less ceremony and respect than Paley. "A still looser construction," he says, " of the Thirtynine Articles was, however, found necessary. To furnish the subscribers of them with it, later writers suggested that the for mulary of the Thirty-nine Articles hath experienced a tacit reformation; the language of them having in consequence of various circumstances lost its original sense, and acquired that which the subscribers of them conceive they should now bear. Your Lordship is aware that Dr. Powell, the late archdeacon of Colchester, and late Master of St. John's College Cambridge; and Dr. Hey, the Norrisian professor of Divinity in the same university, divide the honour of being in their respective writings, the leading patrons of this system." It is here pretty strongly insinuated that Dr. Hey was an advocate for "a latitudinarian construction of the Thirty-nine Articles;" and that he even went farther in his views for their reformation than Paley, who we have seen was almost prepared to rescind them altogether.

We can hardly think that Mr. Butler can have read Dr. Hey's lectures with that attention which they well deserve from any man, but particularly from one who is so zealous a controversialist as he is. He cannot surely be aware of their scope and object; which are expressly to explain and defend every Article as it now stands, for the instruction and satisfaction of students in divinity. This he does in a mode, which the more we reflect upon it, the more difficult we find it to imagine another which would have been equally judicious and well adapted to his purpose. His plan is first to give the history of the Article so far as it can be traced, including the -motives for its construction, the errors it was designed to oppose, and the alterations (if any) which it has undergone. Then comes the explanation, or a distinct statement of the several propositions of which the Article consists: which is followed by proofs of each drawn from Scripture. And lastly, the application. The same process is, as far as possible, observed in the discussion of every one of the Articles; and there is not one, the conscientious subscription of which is not vindicated in a manner which we should think would be satisfactory to any candid and intelligent mind. It is true, that in one of his preliminary chapters the professor has some ingenious

and, we think, just observations, upon the "tacit reformation," which he supposes age may make in the Articles, as in other laws and customs. But he by no means applies these observations, as Mr. Butler asserts, so as to leave the construction of the Articles to the imagination of the subscribers, to be discovered, adopted, and fashioned to their own feelings." On the contrary, he evidently distrusts the validity of his own remarks; and with that candour, which he carried almost to an excess, observes that "after all, it is not perhaps to be expected, that all persons will be satisfied with this reasoning, and with the method of tacit reformation. Some will see that it is liable to abuse; others will call it crafty, evasive, and Jesuitical. It does seem liable to abuse; but what is not so?" We do not recollect that he himself has made much use of it in commenting upon the Articles. That he has not abused it, we are confident. And if so, Mr. Butler's charge upon this head, with the consequences which he deduces from it, must fall to the ground. Since Mr. Butler represents Dr. Hey as "a patron of latitu dinarian subscription," and even hints in a note, as if it deserved censure, that "it is observable, that attendance on the Norrisian lectures was required, in many cases, as a qualification for orders," we think it fit that Dr. Hey should be allowed to speak for himself, that our readers may judge how far he is liable to such an imputation; and what danger of receiving erroneous impressions the future candidate for orders might have incurred by attendance upon his lectures. And first, it well deserves our notice, that the very remarks upon "tacit reformation," to which Mr. Butler draws our attention; and upon which and very little else, he confidently asks the Bishop of Chester, whether he has not "fully shown that the Articles are signed by the general body of subscribers of them in the latitude of construction he has suggested!" that these very remarks are prefaced in this manner, which Mr. Butler has very conveniently, but accidentally, no doubt, overlooked. "It may be proper to suggest a caution, that every thing that is said be not applied, or thought applicable, to the Articles of the Church of England in particular. I am not the person who would insinuate, that any of our own Articles stand in need of any thing beyond plain interpretation: but some may think that some of them do; and it cannot but be useful to those who subscribe Articles made 230 years ago, to pursue a train of general reasoning concerning the effect of antiquity on fixed forms, whether any one applies it to his own forms or not." Afterwards,

*

Hey's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 48. Mr. Butler's reference is to page 50–53,

when he is speaking of those who wished to alter the Articles, he observes: "hitherto, whatever imperfections our doctrines and forms may have, nothing has been proposed which appears to me, on the whole, to be worthy to supersede them; or which is likely to be agreed to by those who are averse to innovations in general, or to the newly proposed schemes in particular. Those who have proposed change appear to me far inferior in solidity of judgment to those who have resisted it."

The utmost extent of Dr. Hey's latitudinarianism may be collected from these words: "I conjecture, that if it were entrusted to me to form a new set of Articles, in order to separate the Church of England from all those which are incapable of carrying on the purposes of religious society with it, I should myself simplify some parts of our present confession; but whether that would be a real improvement is another question. And that I should do so, can only be matter of conjecture, till I fairly discuss the question in my own mind. So long as our present Articles continue, I must honour them highly, looking back to the times when they were made, whatever might be spared of them, in the present times, could men be unanimous about them.-In my own opinion, they are very much undervalued; more than I can well express.-Well might Dr. Balguy say, the age of Ridley, Jewell, and Hooker will be reverenced by the latest posterity +.

We trust that this will be considered sufficient to rescue Dr. Hey from the stigma which Mr. Butler would cast upon him, of being an advocate for a loose construction of the Articles. But were it even true, and admitting (what cannot be denied) that Dr. Paley would willingly have made a considerable change in them, we would still ask what connection have these premises with the conclusion which Mr. Butler has drawn from them; and which he supposes the Bishop of Chester" will admit, that the Articles are seldom subscribed seriously, except in one or other of the saving senses he has mentioned." As little to the purpose appears to us to be "the celebrated dogma of the immortal Chillingworth," which he tells his Lordship " it is unnecessary to cite to him;" and therefore proceeds immediately to cite both in his text and in a note; " that the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." It is for any member of the communion, for which Mr. Butler is so strenuous an advocate-which sets up something beyond the Bible to expound and controul it; to controvert, if he can, this position of Chil lingworth. But we have no concern to dispute it. The Bible is the religion of Protestants, and the Articles are no farther † Ibid. p. 203.

Hey's Lectures, vol. ii. p 200.

binding upon any, than as they are warranted by the Scriptures, and can be proved thereby. Whoever believes that they declare the sense of the Bible, may safely sign them: whoever thinks they are at variance with it, cannot.

We have been led, not unnaturally, into this digression from our main object, which is the consideration of Dr. Paley's merits as a theologian. Hitherto we have viewed him in a light, which to many of our readers will probably appear to be unfavourable: as a somewhat bold and rash reformer of a system, which, if touched at all, should not be approached but with the utmost caution and circumspection. We have now to regard him as a writer deserving our high commendation; as the able defender of the truth of Christianity-the enlightened examiner of the evidences upon which it rests; as a successful expositor of those parts of it which are most intelligible, most influential upon men's lives here, and in his own opinion, at least, most conducive to their salvation hereafter. The key to his religious system seems to us to be found in the principle which he asserts in the Dedication of his moral and political Philosophy to Bishop Law; and which he appears to have shared with that prelate. "That whatever renders religion more rational, renders it more credible." By far the greater part of his writings, including his Sermons and Charges, tend to the illustration and confirmation of this position.

The prominent feature of Dr. Paley's mind, was sound good sense: which he seems always anxious to apply to religious topics, with less reserve than many writers do. Whatever subject he treats, he endeavours to render it intelligible and practicable; and in so doing frequently discovers an originality of thought, and a strength and felicity of expression, in which few writers can be compared with him. His great clearness, indeed, makes his depth often appear to be much less than it really is. Hence his principal labours were directed rather to the establishment of the general truth of Christianity, than of its particular dogmas. His Evidences," we apprehend have done more good, than any similar work that can be named: and yet the character of it, as given by his biographer, would fall short, perhaps, of the standard which would be approved by most sound divines. "In considering," says Mr. Meadley," some of the most formidable objections to Christianity, he by no means insists on the minute agreement of the sacred penmen, nor on the infallibility of the apostolic judgment, still less on the minute accuracy of every passage which the Jewish Scriptures contain. But he strenuously contends for the substantial truth of that evelation, which, by teaching the resurrection of the dead, and

a future state of rewards and punishments, has supplied motives and sanctions to human conduct, of which natural religion could hardly afford the discovery, and certainly not the proof." Some persons may think the concessions here made too liberal; but others have made them before, and an universal consent upon such points is not to be expected.

His "Hora Paulinæ," is a sort of supplement to the Evi dences, though it was published before them. It is an ingenious, and, so far as we know, an original argument, mutually to confirm and illustrate the authenticity of the history of St. Paul, as given in the Acts of the Apostles and his Epistles. The composition of both these works must have led him to investigate the Scriptures with great minuteness and accuracy: and he is said to have expressed the result of his enquiries to an intimate friend, with that characteristic freedom of manner, which we have before noticed. "There can be no deceit in this matter; I have examined it with all the attention of which I am capable: and if there had been a cheat in it, I think I must have found it out."

His "Natural Theology," though not original in design, has, from its admirable execution, almost all the merit of invention.

"It was wanted," he observes in his Dedication of it to the Bishop of Durham, to make up his works into a system: in which works, such as they are, the public have before them, the evidences of natural religion, the evidences of revealed religion, and an account of the duties that result from both. It is of small importance that they have been written in an order the very reverse of that in which they ought to be read."

His account of the use of such a work as this, shall be given in his own words.

"The existence and character of the Deity, is, in every view, the most interesting of all human speculations. In none, however, is it more so, than as it facilitates the belief of the fundamental articles of revelation. It is a step to have it proved, that there must be something in the world more than what we see. It is a farther step to know, that amongst the invisible things of nature, there must be an intelligent mind, concerned in its production, order, and support. These points being assured to us by natural theology, we may well leave to revelation the disclosure of many particulars, which our researches cannot reach, respecting either the nature of this Being as the original cause of all things, or his character and designs as a moral Governor; and not only so, but the more full confirmation of other particulars, of which, though they do not lie altogether beyond our reasonings and our probabilities, the certainty is by no means equal to the importance. The true Theist will be the first to listen to any cre

13