―128―

For the Literary Magazine.

the polemical passion.

WHEN Luther and his followers
first dissented from the reigning re-
ligion, they built their faith upon the
bible only, instead of admitting into
any partnership with the sacred
volume, that monstrous mass of ho-
milies and traditions, which the
catholics allowed to possess a co-
equal authority with the writings of
Moses and Paul. The lutherans
imagined that, in this choice, they
substituted order for confusion, and
simplicity for complexity; that they
appealed to a standard of belief,
clear, plain, and incapable of deceit-
ful or double construction. How far
this opinion was well founded, the
history of the protestant sects will
sufficiently evince.

One who should judge without
experience would naturally imagine,
that to avoid all ambiguity, evasion,
and debate, it is only necessary to
reduce the matter of our opinions to
writing. Thus some politicians have

of late imagined that no government
could safely rest upon custom or
tradition, that no nation can be sup-
posed to have any constitution which
is not reduced to writing, and that
to make the rights and duties of ci-
tizens perfectly clear, definite, and
stable, it is only necessary to record
them, with all practicable perspi-
cuity, in a book. The first lesson of
experience overthrows those plausi-
ble conclusions, and shows, that such
is the imperfection of language, and
such the subtlety and Proteus-like
lubricity of the human understand-
ing, that it easily and inevitably
starts away from, and eludes all such
trammels and fetters.

A very curious and forcible ex-
ample of this uncertainty is to be
found in the history of what are
called the thirty-nine articles of
the church of England. A com-
pany of learned men assembles, and
after the most deliberate consulta-
tions, adopts a few short sentences
as the standard of religion, and di-
rects that all persons shall assent by
their subscription to these articles,
in order to obtain certain rights and
privileges.

It is surprising how much has
been written, and how many opi-
nions have been entertained on the
plain and obvious question, what
does a man mean when he subscribes
these articles? Some consider them
as a mere form, and the articles,
not as articles of truth, or even opi-
nion, but as articles of peace. They
subscribe them in no fixed sense,
but in any sense the words will
bear, so far as they are agreeable to
scripture, or in that sense in which
they are agreeable to scripture.
Others view them as articles of
truth, and subscription as the best
way of securing them. But then
again, what is the true sense of these
articles? This point is not yet set-
tled, some contending that they are
to be taken in the literal and gram-
matical sense; others, that the lite-
ral and grammatical sense is not
the true sense. One party main-
tains, that what are called the doc-
trinal articles are arminian; ano-

―129―

ther, that they are calvinistic;
others, that such articles have two
senses, both true; so that an ar-
minian, no less than a calvinist,
may conscientiously subscribe them.
Indeed, it has been asserted, that
certain articles have three senses,
all true. Till at length, men of
some account, both in the universi-
ties and the church, have given a
still more liberal turn to this mat-
ter. Aware, that the articles, in
their literal and grammatical sense,
the sense in which they are required
to be subscribed, have but few advo-
cates, and that an almost general
disbelief of them prevails even
among the clergy, they avow, that a
tacit reformation has taken place
both in the church and universities,
since the first framing of the thirty-
nine articles; that the persons sub-
scribing, and the persons who offici-
ally demand subscription, keep pace
with such improvements, and in-
dulge each other in the most liberal
interpretations; the articles now
being, according to this representa-
tion, a mere nothing, and men being
at liberty to subscribe them, as well
as to teach them, mechanically, in a
kind of philosophical sense.

Is it possible to carry licentious
reasoning further than this? Before
these reasonings which are firm-
ly adopted and boldly avowed by
many upright and eminent men of
the English church, must not all faith
in the efficacy of a written standard
of belief entirely vanish?

If a superior power should reduce
the belief of all mankind to one
single text from scripture, or indeed
from any volume, which speaks a
language current among men, and
should this power select for this
purpose, that text which contains
the clearest and most intelligible
meaning, there is no doubt that man-
kind would build upon this scanty
ground, just as great a diversity of
faith and practice as they have hith-
erto done upon the widest founda-
tions.

This diversity of views, happily
for mankind, though manifest and
glaring to every observer, seldom

produces any wavering in our own
opinions. Our own conclusions and
interpretations, are not the less sa-
tisfactory and cogent to ourselves
on this account. It would be still
more fortunate, if it impaired our
charity as little as it does our faith,
and if we could retain all the ful-
ness of our own conviction, without
proportionably undervaluing the
understanding, integrity, or sin-
cerity of those from whom we differ.
This however may safely be pro-
nounced impossible.