No

Who ever saw his own "soul? man. Yet what is there more present? or what to each man nearer, than his own soul? Spiritual things are not to be seen, but with the eye of the spirit. Therefore he that in earth will see the Godhead of Christ: let him open the eyes, not of his body, but of his mind, but of his faith: and he shall see him present, whom eye hath not seen: he shall see him present, and in the midst of them, wheresoever be two or three gathered together in his name: he shall see him present with us, even unto the end of the world. What said I shall he see Christ present? Yes, he shall both see and feel him dwell ing within himself: in such sort as he doth his own proper soul. For he dwelleth and abideth in the mind and heart of him which fasteneth all his trust in him.

Master. Very well, but our confession is that he is ascended up into heaven. Tell me therefore how that is to be understood.

Scholar. So use we commonly to say of him, that hath attained to any high degree or dignity that he is ascended up, or advanced into some high room : some high place or state because he hath changed his former case, and is become of more honour, than the rest. In such case is Christ gone up, as he before came down. He came down from highest honour to deepest dishonour, even the dishonour and vile state of a servant, and of the cross. And likewise afterwards he went up, from the deepest dishonour, to the highest honour, even that same honour, which he had before. His going up into heaven, yea, above all heavens, to the very royal throne of God, must needs be evident by most just reason, that his glory and majesty might in comparison agreeably answer to the proportion of his baseness and reproachful estate. This doth Paul teach us, in his writing to the Philip pians: he became obedient even unto death: yea, the very death of the cross. Wherefore God hath both advanced him to the highest state of honour: and also given him a name above all names; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,of all things in heaven,earth,

and hell. But although he be already gone up into heaven: nevertheless by his nature of Godhead, and by his Spirit, he shall always be present in his church: even to the end of the world. Yet this proveth not that he is present among us in his body. For his Godhead hath one property: his manhead another. His manhead was create his Godhead uncreate. His manhead is in some one place of heaven: his Godhead is in such sort each where, that it filleth both heaven and earth. But to make this point plainer, by a similitude or comparing like to like. There is nothing that doth trulier, like a shadow, express Christ, than the sun for it is a fit image of the light and brightness of Christ. The sun doth always keep the heaven: yet do we say that it is present also in the world: for without light there is nothing present, that is to say, nothing to be seen of any man: for the sun with his light fulfilleth all things. So Christ is lifted up above all heavens, that he may be present with all, and fully furnish all things as St. Paul doth say. But as touching the bodily presence of Christ here in earth (if it be lawful to place in comparison great things with small)Christ's body is present to our faith: as the sun, when it is seen, is present to the eye: the body whereof, although it do not bodily touch the eye, nor be presently with it together here in earth, yet is it present to the sight, notwithstanding so large a distance of space between them. So Christ's body which at his glorious going up was conveyed from us

which hath left the wor, and is gone unto his Father: is a great way absent from our mouth, even then when we receive with our mouth the holy sacrament of his body and blood. Yet is our faith in heaven: and beholdeth that sun of righteousness and is presently together with him in heaven, in such sort as the sight is in heaven with the body of the sun: or in earth the sun with the sight. And as the

Yet

sun is present to all things by his light: so is Christ also in his Godhead. neither can from the body the light of the sun be sundered: nor from his immortal body the Godhead of Christ. We must therefore so say, that Christ's

body is in some one place of heaven, and his Godhead every where: that we neither of his Godhead make a body nor of his body a God.

ON

(To be concluded in our next.).

For the Christian Observer.
SUBSCRIPTION

TO ARTICLES OF
RELIGION.

I. It appears from the history of the Christian Church given us in the Acts of the Apostles, that no adult person was received into her Communion, without a declaration of his hearty consent to the leading doctrines, delivered by the Apostles and other first Teachers of Christianity. If thou believest with all thine heart, said Philip to the Eunuch, thou mayest be baptized. Acts viii. 37. Much less was any one admitted to the office of Christian pastor without such a proof, at least, of his embracing the doctrines which he was to deliver to others. Thus the apostolic injunction runs respecting Ordination: The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim. ii. 2. And particular care was taken that none should be admitted into the ministry except those who held fast the faithful word as they had been taught, that they might be able by sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers. Titus i. 9.

When the books of the New Testament were all collected, and joined to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, this sacred code contained the Articles to which every candidate for the Ministry was to subscribe, that is, to testify his assent in the strongest manner before he could be admitted to teach others. So far is plain, and, I apprehend, agreeable to the sentiments of all the professors of Christianity. But here it may be asked, Why is not this simple apostolic method still adhered to? Why are candidates for the Ministry now required to subscribe to human formularies, instead of the inspired writings; and that, by those who acknowledge the Bible to contain a perfect rule of faith and practice?

The reason of such conduct is clearly deducible from the very principles upon which the objection is founded.

To make good this deduction, I shall only take for granted the following plain proposition: that words, being only the signs of our ideas, are nothing independent of their meaning. This being allowed, it will follow; that when assent is required to any form of words, it is to the meaning which those words convey, and not to the words considered in themselves. When, therefore, we speak of subscribing to the Holy Scriptures, we mean (if we mean any thing) that such subscription should be made, or assent testified, to the doctrines contained in the Scriptures, or to the meaning which the words of Scripture were designed to convey.

While the sense of Scripture was fixed by the interpretation of those inspired persons, who were employed in writing it, the words of Scripture conveyed the same ideas to all the sincere members of the Christian Church. When any person, under these circumstances, testified his assent to the words of Scripture, it is plain that he assented to their true meaning; and in this case, any other confession of faith than the sacred text, was unnecessary.

But let us suppose, that while the doctrine of the Christian Church was uniform, and the whole body of Ministers held the words of Scripture in their true sense, that one should have offered himself as a candidate for the Ministry, to whom the words of Scripture conveyed ideas different from those which they conveyed to the Church. What must have been done in such a case? The Christian Pastors were bound to require subscription to the Scriptures; for this was enjoined as absolutely necessary. But in the case now stated, a subscription to the words of Scripture would not have been a subscription to the Scriptures themselves; because the words did not convey to this candidate their true meaning. Such a person in subscribing, it is evident, must either have testified his assent to something which was not Scripture, or to words without meaning, which is in effect to nothing. The Christian Pastors, in this case, would have heen under the necessity of explaining the Scriptures to such an one,

that is, of conveying the meaning of Scripture to him in other words, and then of requiring his assent to the Scriptures thus explained, or to the words used as explanatory, which amounted to the same. And when ever the words of Scripture convey different and opposite ideas to the persons whose duty it is to require subscription, and to those who are enjoined to subscribe; one of these methods must be used, if the absurdity of requiring subscription to unmeaning words is to be avoided.

Now that the professors of Christianity are divided in their interpretation of the New Testament, it is the same thing (with respect to the matter of subscription) as if there were more than one New Testament; and each party must require subscription or assent to their formulary, upon the same principle that subscription was required to the words of Scripture, while the interpretation of those words was uniform. To suppose the contrary is to imagine, that words are something independent of their meaning, which is absurd.

If then it is the duty of any Christian Church to require a subscription to the Bible from those who are candidates for the Ministry, it is their duty to require this subscription to the sense in which they understand the Bible; for these are not properly two things with respect to any Church, but are in effect the same.

Thus the necessity of human for mularies may be deduced from the plainest principles of Christianity and common sense; and he must not have thoroughly considered this matter, who shall esteem them to be impositions on the consciences of mankind, when they are designed merely to interpret the Christian's only rule of faith, the Bible.

If the preceding observations contain a just account of the nature of Subscription to Articles of Religion, the following consequences will be the result.

1. That a formulary of religion is to be considered as an epitome of the Holy Scriptures, exhibiting, in other

words, a summary of the doctrines which they contain.

2. That when a candidate for the Ministry declares his assent, by subscription or otherwise, to Articles of Religion, he does in effect declare, that he understands the Scriptures in that sense in which the formulary represents them.

If, therefore, the Bishops of the Church of England act upon the principles of Christianity and common sense, they must require subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles as to a form of words expressing the true meaning of Scripture; and giving in other terms a summary of the doctrines of the New Testament, by way of ensuring a subscription to the Scriptures themselves.

And if candidates for holy orders act upon the same principles, they must consider their own subscription as tantamount to the following declaration :

"I believe that these Articles do give the true meaning of the words o the New Testament; and I declare my hearty assent to the Scriptures thus explained."

II. The services of divine worship in the Church of England are made conformable to the doctrines contained in her Articles of Religion, and therefore it is necessary to a sincere worship of Almighty God, that Ministers do really believe those Articles.

The leading or principal doctrines of the Church of England are these four; the doctrine of the Trinity; the atonement for sin by the death of Christ (through faith in whom we can alone obtain forgiveness); the innate moral depravity of mankind; and the necessity of the divine sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. These are found in every page of our Liturgy. The service of the Church is founded upon them; and no office can be performed without an acknowledgment of them.

The first of these doctrines describes the object of our worship. The second points out the manner of our addressing the Divine Majesty, through a Mediator. The third teaches us our acknowledgments and confessions.

And the fourth leads us to a principal subject of our supplications.

1

What sort of divine worship must that be, which is neither right in its object, in its mode of address, in its confessions, nor in its supplications! Yet thus monstrous and absurd must the public worship of every Minister of the Church of England be, who disbelieves these Articles of her Faith. He must daily bow down, with every act peculiar to divine adoration, to one whom he believes to have been a mere man, and, of consequence, in all his public addresses he must be guilty of the damnable sin of idolatry: and this not ignorantly, but with a clear understanding of his crime. He must present all his public addresses to God in the name of a Mediator, while he be lieves the idea of mediation to be a gross affront to the Divine Majesty; and must profess his expectation of divine favour through the death of one, who died by popular tumult, without any peculiarity of nature to distinguish him from other sufferers in a good cause.* He must acknowledge such depravity in himself as he believes it inconsistent with all just notions of moral agency to allow, and such as he believes to have no existence. And lastly, he must implore certain influences, which he believes it absurd to expect; and which, if granted, would destroy the end for which they are implored.

Hence we see how necessary it is, that every Minister of the Church should sincerely believe these fundamental Articles in her formulary of religion.

III. Let us take another view of this subject, and consider the case of a person preparing for the Ministry. If such an one act with proper caution and with sincerity, he will, previously to his entering into the Ministry, consider how far the doctrines, of which he is to profess his belief, and which he is to teach, are agreeable to the word of God. Whence can he learn the doctrines of the Church of England, but from those authentic docu* This supposes the Minister to be a Socinian, which is generally the case with those who deny the doctrines here mentioned.

ments, the Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the Liturgy? It is absurd to suppose that he must conform to the opinions of individuals, whether of the clergy or laity in the Church. It is not necessary for him to inquire what these opinions are, for he is not to profess any belief of them, nor to take them for the models of his own teaching. Were the opinions of individuals more uniform than they are, he is not at all concerned to know them: much less can this be any part of his duty, when these opinions are discordant with one other.

Were the body of Bishops uniform in their notions of religion, and were he acquainted with their notions, he is by no means bound to conform himself to their opinions. For he is not to declare that he understands the Scriptures in the sense in which they understand them; nor is he to worship God by forms which express their sentiments; nor to teach conformably to their opinions. In the matter of ordination the Bishop does not propose his own peculiar opinions to the candidate, but the doctrines of the Church: and the candidate's duty is to inquire, whether these doctrines agree with the Christian's rule of faith, the Bible.

The religious opinions of the Bishops may possibly be as opposite to one other as the opinions of the laity. Supposing this to be the case, how shall a candidate prepare himself for the Ministry, if the sentiments of the Bishops are to influence his belief? One Bishop believes the Articles of the Church, and approves of her Liturgy; but it is possible that another may not credit the former, nor approve of the latter. If a candidate for the Ministry were bound to conform to the sentiments of the Bishop who should ordain him, he must have no religious sentiments at all, when he knows not who shall ordain him. Upon the idea of conformity to the sentiments of the Bishops, there is no standard of religion left; and therefore the duty of preparing、 for the Ministry, by the regulation of the religious sentiments of the candidate, may become absolutely impracticable.

IV. But does every Minister act in

sincerely, who may disapprove of some ceremonies prescribed, or some expressions contained in the Articles or Liturgy of the Church, which affect not the main doctrines of Christianity? By no means there is an important distinction between essential and nonessential matters in religion. The

things contained in the Sacred Scriptures are not all of equal moment: some are fundamental and essential. The rejection of them is inconsistent with the belief and practice of Christianity. Concerning others, true Christians may differ in their belief and practice. The inspired writers delivered certain doctrines as necessary to salvation, denouncing everlasting misery upon all who should reject them. He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. These truths are never rejected from a mere error in judgment, but from a wrong state of heart. Concerning these our Saviour saith, If any man will Do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. John vii. 17.

On the contrary, the Apostle Paul allows, that there were some true Christians, who differed in less important matters from him, and one another. They were believers, though weak in the faith. One believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak eateth herbs. For such differences Christians were taught not to despise one another, nor to consider those who differed from them as rejecting the Gospel.

Formularies of Religion, which are designed to give the sense of Scripture in other words, may likewise contain essential and non-essential matters. And as the inspired writers did not scruple to acknowledge those to be true believers, who received the fundamental doctrines of Scripture, though they differed in some things of small moment; so a person may be said truly to believe a formulary of religion, who believes the fundamental doctrines contained in it, though he may not approve of every expression which the compilers have used.

The Scriptures have left several things, relative to Christian practice,

undetermined, which yet must necessarily be fixed, in order to the very being of Christian society. The New Testament has not laid down any precise method of public worship; yet public worship cannot be decently conducted without method. The New Testament has not given a complete code of rules for the government of the Church; yet the Church cannot be governed in an orderly manner without rules. Whatever is left to the prudence and discretion of religious societies, may be determined without infringing the divine authority. These human institutions must be obeyed if they are not sinful, but are intended to preserve decency and order. A person, in declaring his assent to such Articles of Religion as relate to these things, does not properly declare that he believes them to be contained in Scripture; but rather that they are not repugnant to it, and are amongst those matters allowed to be settled by human prudence.

The Articles of Religion, which relate to these prudential matters, may not improperly be called Articles of Peace. A man may conscientiously assent to them, because the Church has appointed them. Should the Church alter her conduct with respect to these matters, a Minister may with truth alter his assent.

But articles consisting of fundamental doctrines stand upon a different footing. They cannot be assented to, consistently with truth, unless they are believed; because (as hath been already observed) they immediately affect our worship of God, and other religious conduct. A Church fundamentally wrong must be deserted by the sincere worshipper. No custom can make it right for us to offer to God the sacrifice of fools, nor to worship Him with solemn acknowledgments which we disbelieve. No example can make it innocent for a Minister to declare, that he understands the Scriptures in a sense contrary to that which he judges to be their true meaning. Churches may err fundamentally; but they must then be deserted. Truth requires that we come out from among them, and be sepa