Christians can now no longer make laws, nor affift in making them but they may referve to themselves a right of examining those laws and of judging for themselves whether or no they are framed agreeably to the great end for which the legiflators were appointed.

But it will be faid, that between religious and civil fociety there is a moft effential difference. Every private Christian hath a liberty which he cannot make away. His right of private judgment he cannot alienate or make over to another, because on his own judgment alone, and not on that of any other, muft the great affair of his falvation be decided, the laws of which are unalterably laid down in the revealed word of God, which must be his only guide.—True: and therefore it is, that in all religious focieties the legislative power ought to be conferred with this reftriction, beyond what neceffarily accompanies the legislative power in civil focieties, that it shall be exercised in a manner agreeable to the revealed word of God. The claim which we have undertaken to vindicate, is exprefly said to be under this reftraint. And whilft this great principle is obferved, the liberty neceffarily belonging to private chriftians is fafe from violation.'

The Effayift answers fome other objections against religious establishments advanced by the author of the Confessional, and then goes on to confider the fentiments which that writer entertains of the church of England.

The church of England is charged with invading the right. of private judgment, whilft it profeffes to maintain it, because it hath a fet of doctrines drawn up according to its own sense of fcripture, to the truth of which it requires its minifters to fubfcribe, and to take them for their guide in their public inftructions, without which condition it will fuffer none within itself to affume the office of teaching.

Mr. R. replies, As a religious fociety, it hath an undoubted right to judge for itself of the sense of scripture, to frame its doctrines agreeably to that fenfe, and in its public inftructions to adhere to thofe doctrines. It compels none to embrace its doctrines, much lefs to teach them, contrary to their own conviction, but leaves them to the free enjoyment of their own opinions.

Is there any church, is there any congregation which doth not exercise this power, or can any long fubfift without it? Every religious fociety it is prefumed hath its doctrines and its common principles on which it is united in itfelf. And the

Suppofing laws unreafonable, and obedience required, where, we beg leave to afk, is the fatisfaction in having a right of examining thofe laws? prefervation

N 3

prefervation of peace and order, nay the prefervation of its very being, requires that it fhould have a power of excluding from itfelf fuch as would oppofe thofe common principles, and endeavour to fubvert them.'

• All that coercive power which belongs to the constitution of the church of England, is merely fuch as the wisdom of the ftate hath provided for its own fecurity. If amongst us there are any pains and penalties inflicted upon the adverfaries of the church, it is not on a religious but on a civil account; it is not because they are enemies to the church, but to the state, These methods of defence are not practised because the church is of divine original, but because it hath contracted an human alliance, and is by law established and fo established for the fake of the civil conftitution; which takes it into its peculiar favour, because it is calculated to promote, beyond any other religious fyftem, the peace, order, and welfare of fociety.

If there be any thing like a force and constraint upon private judgment amongst us; if there are any hardships laid upon those who diffent from the church established; if there be any application of religious tests to civil purpofes; they are all to be placed to this account. And when the fafety of the ftate fhall no longer require or dictate fuch constraint or fuch penalties, the church of England will be the firft to rejoice at their removal.

If the fafety of the ftate had not been fuppofed to be connected with the safety of the church established, it never would have been established. No peculiar benefits would have been annexed to it, no hardships laid upon those who oppose it or who diffent from it. Whilft this connection is believed to fubfift, the ftate will probably think fit to continue the fame fen, ces round the éftablished church.

In a word, the church of England hath no temporal power but what the fafety of the civil conftitution requires it should have. And thus much every church affociated with civil government will, and ought to poffefs.'

The toleration contended for by the advocates of religious freedom is, we are told," abfolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty."

If, fays our author, by the liberty described in these terms, be ineant indeed abfolute liberty, fo that every man shall do what is right in his own eyes, without reftraint and without controul; then it is plainly the liberty of man released from all the bonds of fociety, and fuch as he cannot poffibly enjoy in a focial ftate.

If it implies that the magiftrate fhall abfolutely make no diftinction of men on account of religion, regardless what the man's principles may be whom he advances to dignity and

power; then muft the defence of chriftianity itself be abandoned, 'infidelity and religion must be put upon the fame footing, and the fpoils of government be shared alike by Turks, Idolaters, and Atheists.

But I will be anfwerable for the author, that he doth not mean to contend for this. He will allow that the christian magiftrate fhall give a preference to christianity before paganism and infidelity. But if the magiftrate be allowed to make this diftinction, he will on the fame principles diftinguish farther. Give him liberty but to make this first step, and you enter him into a courfe from whence he cannot be recalled; nor will it be in. your power to stop his progrefs till he arrives at an establish

ment.

'But if liberty, when it talks in this raifed ftile, and comes attended with this train of epithets, means no harm to fociety; but is still willing and ready to demean itself peaceably, and fubmit to fuch regulations and restraints as the order and welfare of fociety require; then do we acknowledge it again by its features, notwithstanding a little unusual vehemence of language, to be no other than our own eftablished and constitutional liberty.'

It is alleged, that the church of England acts with inconfiftency when flie requires the affent of her teachers to articles of religion, to which the laity are not called upon to give their affent.

The writer of this Effay replies, The authorized teacher of religion is supposed to be acquainted with the whole compass of christian doctrines, which he is appointed to teach the laity. And therefore he may well be required to subscribe to the doctrines which he is appointed to teach; though it would be lefs proper to call upon them to fubfcribe to the doctrines which they are to be taught: Befides, care is to be taken that the true faith be delivered to the people; and on this account chiefly it is neceffary that the teacher be laid under an obligation to teach the true doctrines of religion. Were he permitted to affume the office without firft giving proof of the rectitude of his own opinions, he might defeat the very end of his appointment, and instead of conducting his people to the truth, lead them into error. Error in a private christian may remain in his own breaft. But in a public teacher it is a spreading evil; it is an infection which by the nature of his office he is obliged to communicate to others, and to circulate as far as his influence reaches.'

The author of the Confeffional thinks, that the reformers ought to have been contented with " a folemn declaration on the part of the teachers and pastors, that they received the fcriptures

N 4

fcriptures as the word of God, and would instruct the people out of them only."

• This indeed, fays the writer before us, would be a very comprehenfive teft; a teft which would let in a jarring multitude, that could never be reconciled or reduced into order. It would bring together men of belief fo oppofite, that no real union could ever take place amongst them. It is certainly better that fuch men fhould be feparated from each other, and formed into diftinct focieties, than by a pretended comprehenfion and union to lay the feeds of certain confufion and difcord. A fociety which is at variance within itself can never last long ; at least it can never long enjoy peace and order, but will labour under a perpetual inward agitation and ferment. The confe quence of which will be, either a total diffolution of the body, or, what is the best effect that can happen, a feparation of parts fo unfit, difagreeing, and ill connected.

That this is no empty theory, all ecclefiaftical history will bear witness. For what else are thofe continual divifions and fubdivifions into which churches have been rent, but the efforts of men of different principles, when drawn together by fome constrained and unnatural union, to repel each other, to feparate from their oppofites, and to unite with those with whom they agree?

Amongst those who profefs a belief of the scriptures, there are men who understand them very differently; and fome who certainly give them a fenfe oppofite to their real meaning, and depart very far from their true defign. There are fome who use them in a manner even worse and more profane than by denying their truth, For no declared infidel is so much an enemy to the fcriptures, as he who turns their truth and purity into falfehood and corruption.

For the exclufion of men like thefe, it is necessary to call for the teacher's affent, not only to the fcriptures in general, but to the true and genuine sense of those paffages which have been thus depraved and perverted. A fubfcription in general terms to the truth of the fcriptures, and an engagement to teach out of them only, would let in the Papists, to name no others; who pretend to teach out of the fcriptures all their corruptions, and upon their authority to establish all their ufurpations. Out of the fcriptures they would teach their tranfubftantiation and their seven facraments. Out of the fcriptures they would teach their pope's fupremacy and infallibility.

A fubfcription therefore to a specific sense of these abused parts of fcripture, feems to be a neceffary confequence of an effectual feparation from the church of Rome.'

From

From these extracts the reader may form a judgment of this performance. Many of the author's obfervations are pertinent and ingenious, and conveyed in a clear and agreeable stile. But we cannot suppose that an impartial reader will look upon his work as a refutation of all that is advanced in the Confeffional. He has indeed undertaken to fupport the whole fabric of the church; but in this attempt, he often reminds us of those prophets in the days of Ezekiel, who are reprefented as daubing a wall with untempered mortar.

V. An Examination of an Efay on Eftablishments in Religion. With Remarks upon it, confidered as a Defence of the Church of England, and as an Answer to the Confeffional. By Benjamin Dawfon, L.L.D.Rector of Burgh, in Suffolk. 8vo. Pr. 2s. 6d. Johnfon.

HE author of this performance is a ftrenuous defender

To the confeffional. He has lately fhewn his abilitics in

an examination of Dr. Rutherforth's argument, respecting the cafe of fubfcription to articles of faith; and he has now attacked the Effay on Establishments in Religion with equal spirit and fuccefs.

He introduces his remarks with the following epitome of the plan laid down by the author of the Essay:

Christianity, it is afferted, hath fet apart an order of men, and dedicated them to this very purpose of public inftructionThese the magiftrate will naturally make use of, and encourage them in their labour, by conferring upon them temporal benefits and civil advantages-This is no more than an act of justice -They are labourers of the state, and ought by the state to be provided for.-The Church (fo the dedicated order is termed) thus acting under the protection of the magistrate, will fet cn foot all the most effectual methods of inftruction" Thefe effectual methods are, 1. "Conftant leffons. 2. Creeds of two forts; the one fort, to be a compendium of christian doctrines and fundamental principles of faith; the other to be characteristic of the church established, ferving as fymbols to diftinguish it from all others-3. A larger fcheme or fyftem of doctrines, agreeably to which the clergy are to be bound to frame their public inftructions"-And laftly, "To give all these institutions the greater ftrength and permanency, the magiftrate will incorporate them with his civil conftitution. By means like these will the chriftian magiftrate endeavour to eftablish among his fubjects true and genuine christianity—and lay

the