i — • ^ \c _
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Proteftant Diflenting Minifters, 
 
 With Regard to their late 
 
 APPLICATION to PARLIAMENT. 
 
 •— — fpes fibi quifque, fed, hxc quam augufta, videtis. 
 
 Virgil. 
 
 By ANDREW K I P P I S, D. D. 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for G. Robinson, in Pater-nofter-Row. 
 
 MDCCLXXII. 
 
 9f 8
 
 
 OQ 
 
 CO 
 
 en 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 lis Gi 
 
 >) His Grace the Dpke of RICHMOND, 
 
 The Right Hon. th? Earl of CHATHAM, 
 
 The Right Hon. the Earl of SRELBURNE, 
 
 And 
 The Risht Hon. the Lord LYTTELTON. 
 
 'to' 
 
 In grateful acknowlegement of the Reafon, 
 Eloquence, Learning, and Piety difplaycd by 
 them in Support of the Dissenters Bill, the 
 following Publication is humbly infcribed, by 
 
 Their moft obliged, 
 moft obedient, and 
 
 moll devoted Servant, 
 
 ANDREW KIPPIS. 
 
 'ioim)i
 
 AT3VERTISEMENT. 
 
 THOUGH the author had the honour of 
 being one of the CoiPimittee appointed 
 for conducing the late Application to Farlia-" 
 inent, this performance has not been drawn up 
 under the fandtion of the Committee -, and, to 
 prevent their being, in the lead degree, anfwer- 
 abie for its faults, it has not been communi- 
 cated, previous to its publication, to a fingle 
 member of that body. If, therefore, in any in- 
 ftance, the writer has expreffed himfelf impro- 
 perly, or afforded juft ground of offence, he 
 hopes that nothing of this kind will be convert- 
 ed to the prejudice of a caul'e which he intends 
 toferve. He takes the liberty of adding, that 
 lie thinks he hath a full right of vindicating his 
 brethren who concur with him in fentiment, 
 upon fuch principles as appear to him to be im- 
 portant, though they fhould not be exadly the 
 fame principles on which otherDiffenting Mini- 
 flers may proceed, who are equally well-wifhers 
 to the dcfign of removing the Subfcription 
 required by the Toleration Adt, and of obtain- 
 ing Relief for Tutors and School- mailers. 
 
 A VI N.
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Proteftant Diflenting Minlfters. 
 
 THE queflion concerning the right, 
 expediency, and utility of requir- 
 ing an afTcnt or fubfcription to hu- 
 man articles of religion hath, for nearlixty 
 years, been the frequent matter of debate 
 in this country. It was largely contider- 
 ed in the celebrated controverfy, occa- 
 fioned by bifliop Hoadly's fermon on the 
 kingdom of Chrift ; was vigorouily taken 
 up and purfucd in the great difference 
 which arofe among the DiiTcnters, in 
 1719, and hath often been revived in 
 the difputcs between the nonconfcrmilTs 
 
 B . and
 
 ( o 
 
 and the clergy of the eftabliflied church* 
 But it hath never perhaps been more clear- 
 ly and copioufly difculTed, than from the 
 publication of the Confeffional to the pre- 
 fent time. The fubjed feems, indeed, to 
 be almofl: exhaufted in that mafterjy and 
 celebrated performance ; fo that many 
 perfons may be difpofed to think, that 
 nothing farther need be written or read 
 upon the queflion. It muft, however, 
 be acknowledged, that fubfequent pro- 
 ductions have been of no little fervice. 
 They have tended flill more to elucidate 
 the matter, to fpread the knowledge of it 
 wider, and to expofe the futility of all 
 the arguments which have been urged for 
 human tefls of faith and orthodoxy. Even 
 the writings in favour of fubfcription have, 
 upon the whole, contributed to promote 
 the contrary caufe j for the authors of 
 mod of them have been fo weak in their 
 reafonings, that, in fa6t, they have only 
 afforded occafion of greater triumph to 
 their adverfaries. 
 
 It feems to have been amply fhewn, 
 in the courfe of the controverfy, that no 
 
 Chri-
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 Chrlflian foclety can have a right to im- 
 pofe articles of human compofition on 
 any of its members; becaufe a requifition 
 of this kind is contrary to the authority of 
 our Saviour, as the lord and law-giver of 
 his own church ;_and becaufe it is equally 
 contrary to the principles upon which 
 Proteftantifm can alone be defended, 
 which are the liberty or private judg- 
 ment, and the fufficiency of Scripture. 
 Could it even be proved, which it never 
 can, that fuch a power might be exer- 
 cifed without violating the precepts of 
 the Gofpel, or fubverting the grounds of 
 the Reformation from Popery; ftillthe 
 utility of fubfcrlptions hath juftly been 
 called in queftion : nay, it hath been 
 evinced, that they are hurtful in the 
 higheft degree; that they have been pro- 
 dudive of endlefs debates, animofities, 
 and divifions ; have been one chief caufe 
 of the infidelity which prevails among the 
 great, in aim oft every Chriftian country; 
 and, indeed, have occafioned fuch a mul- 
 titude of evils and miferies, as cannot be 
 receded upon without deeply regretting 
 B 2 that
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 that mankind have not long ago been 
 fenfible of their pernicious nature, ten- 
 dency, and effects. 
 
 Independent of thefe confiderations, 
 relative to human impofitions and tefts 
 of orthodoxy in general, many of the 
 eftabliihed clergy labour under difficulties, 
 with regard "to the Thirty-nine Articles 
 in particular. While they continue o- 
 bliged to fubfcribe thefe articles, it mull 
 be iirjpoffible tor them to vindicate the 
 Chriftian difpenfation, or to conduct their 
 religious enquiries with the freedom and 
 advantage which are neceffary to maintain 
 and fupport the caufe of truth. When 
 they engage with the enemies of revela- 
 tion, they cannot defend the Gofpel on 
 its proper footing, but are embarraffed 
 by doctrines which they may not believe 
 to exift in the New Tellament. This is 
 certainly a great difadvantage to them in 
 their controverfies with infidels, Vv'ho ac- 
 cordingly have gladly availed themfelves 
 of it. Indeed, the grand triumph of infi- 
 delity appears to me to arife from charg- 
 ing certain abfurdities on the religion of 
 
 Jefus,
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 Jefus, which are by no mcstns to be found 
 there J but this the clergy cannot clearly 
 and fully prove, fo long as they are ham- 
 pered with tefts of human compofition. 
 The fame caufe muft be no fmall em- 
 barraffinent to them, in their difputes 
 with the Papids, and their defence of the 
 Proteftant Reformation. It is true, that 
 feveral of the errors, impoiitions, and cor- 
 ruptions of Popery, are condemned in. 
 the Articles ; but then the authority 
 which fupports thefe corruptions is too 
 much favoured by the power arrogated 
 to the church in the Twentieth Article. 
 The pretenlion to fuch a power, and the 
 adlual exercife of it, can never be main- 
 tained but upon principles fubver- 
 five of genuine Proteftantifm. Until, 
 therefore, thefe principles be renounc- 
 ed, the minifters of the eftablifhment will 
 often appear weak and inconfiftent ad- 
 verfaries to the church of Rome. 
 
 Another difficulty, under which many 
 of the clergy are laid by their fubfcrip- 
 tion to the Thirty-nine Articles, arifes 
 from the Calviniftical part of the Me- 
 
 thodifts.
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 thodlfls. It is well known how much 
 the Methodids of this kind triumph ii> 
 the Articles, as being decifive in their 
 favour ', and can it be truly faid, that they 
 do not triumph with reafon ? I am not 
 infenfible what learned pains have been 
 taken to give the Articles in queflion a 
 more liberal explication, i'o as to render 
 them confiftent with the dodlrines of 
 Arminius j but, in fach a caufe as this, 
 the mod: able and celebrated writers muft 
 ever bow to a Toplady and a Bowman*. It 
 feems to be an infatuation that hath feiz- 
 ed numbers of the clergy, who are un- 
 doubtedly Arminians, in being fo zealous 
 for a fubfcription to Articles, which can- 
 not be reconciled with their own fenti- 
 ments. So long as this infatuation fub- 
 fifts, and fubfcription, in its prefent form, 
 maintains its ground, the Methodifls 
 muft increafe. Sendble of their advan- 
 tage, they are of all men the moft viru- 
 lent enemies to the fcheme of the peti- 
 
 * Two gentlemen who have lately written in de- 
 fence of the Calvlniflical fenfc of the Articles. 
 
 tioning
 
 ( 7 ^ 
 
 tioning clergy, as may efpeclally be feeri 
 ih the preface and notes to a late publi- 
 cation of Mr. Martin Madan's -f. 
 
 As thefe, and all the other objed:ions 
 which may be made againfl fubfcjiption to 
 human tells of religion in general, and 
 to the Thirty-nine Articles in particular, 
 have been fo fully difculTed in this inquiii- 
 tive age, and fo often prefented to the 
 confideration of ingenuous and thoughtful 
 minds, it cannot be deemed furprifmg 
 that they have had fome influence in 
 changing the fentiments of men ; that 
 the force of them hath been felt by many 
 of the eftabliflied clergy themfelves, and 
 that it continues to be felt more and more 
 every day. There are numbers, no doubt, 
 who figh for a reformation in fecret, 
 while others have, in various forms, pub- 
 licly expreiled their widics on this head. 
 A feledt few have gone farther, and made 
 an adtual attempt, by petition to parlia- 
 ment, to obtain relief in the matter of 
 fubfcription. I fhall not enter into the 
 
 f His Scriptural Comir.cnt on the TLiity-ninc Articles. 
 
 hi (lory
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 hlftory of the condu(5t or the fate of the 
 petition. It is well known, that the ad- 
 miffion of it was rejected by a large 
 majority of the Houfe of Commons ; nor 
 will this appear extraordinary to thofe 
 who refled: upon the variety of circum- 
 flances which concurred to prevent its 
 obtaining a favourable reception. 
 
 The affair of fubfcription to human 
 dodlrines, though fo much agitated of 
 late years, is far from being univerfally 
 or thoroughly underftood. This feems 
 to be the cafe with regard to a confider- 
 able part of the clergy themfelves, who 
 probably fubmit to the terms of minifle- 
 rial conformity impofed upon them, as a 
 thing of courfe, without having enter- 
 tained the leaft doubt concerning the 
 juftice and wifdom of demanding fuch 
 terms, or having made the leaft enquiry 
 into the competence of the authority by 
 which they are prefciibed. Much lefs 
 then can it be expeded, that the laity 
 in general fhould have paid attention to 
 matters of this nature. Engaged in their 
 bulinefs, their pleafures, their political 
 
 fchemes
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 ichemes and purfuits, the members of 
 Parliament did moft of them proba- 
 bly think that religious concerns ought 
 to be left to thofe who, by their pro- 
 feffion, are imajgined to be befl acquaint- 
 ed with them, and therefore the Houfe 
 was difpofed to give no countenance to a 
 defign whi^h was fupported by fo few of 
 . the clerical order. The fmall number of 
 ihc petitioners muft certainly have been 
 very prejudicial to their caufe. This 
 would have no little influence on the 
 condud of feveral of the clergy, who fe- 
 cretly wifhed well to the fcheme ; would 
 blail its reputation wdth thofe who had a 
 diflike to it; and prevent the generality 
 of the laity from treating it with any re- 
 gard. 
 
 Its originating likewlfe with perfons 
 of no great rank in the church muft have 
 been hurtful to it in the higheft degree. 
 In fadl, it was fo far from originating 
 with, that it was oppofed by the digni- 
 fied clergy, and particularly by almoft 
 the whole bench of bifhops, who, by 
 their characfler and ftation, are cxpcfted 
 C t^
 
 ( lo ) 
 
 to take the lead in what Immediately re- 
 lates to eccleiiaftical matters : nor were 
 their lordlhips influenced folely by dlf- 
 ■guft at the petitioners' mode of proceed- 
 ing, or by the general averfion they 
 may be thought to have to fchemes of re- 
 formation, as not knowing where fuch 
 fchemes may end, but might imagine that 
 too much was afked ; that the precife dif- 
 ficulties laboured under ought to have 
 been ftated ; that the articles complained 
 of fhould have been fpecified, and not the 
 entire abolition of fubfcription demanded. 
 Subfcription to fome teft they might con- 
 sider as a fence abfolutely neceifary to the 
 exigence and fecurity of religious efta- 
 blifhments, or fo important, at leaft, that 
 it could not be wholly removed with- 
 out danger. 
 
 But what had a great cfxed: on many 
 members of the legiflative body was the 
 particular idea they have formed con- 
 cerning the nature of a national eftablidi- 
 ment. The public mode of religion they 
 do not confider in a fpiritual view, as 
 what is folely to be direded by the laws 
 
 of
 
 ( " ) 
 
 of Chrld: and of his Gofpel, but as a cer- 
 tain fyfteni of dodlrine and worfliip, which 
 the flate hath adopted for its own pur- 
 pofes, and for the maintenance of which 
 a number of perfons are paid by the 
 government. It is the opinion, therefore, 
 of political men, that the civil magiftrate 
 has a right of prefcribing what he pleafes 
 with regard to the form of religion em- 
 braced and countenanced by himj that 
 thofe who will not comply with thp 
 terms on which ecclefiadiqal preferments 
 are propofed, have no claim to them j 
 and that fuch perfons fhould either rea- 
 dily perform the duty affigned them, or 
 give up all title to the reward. 
 
 Other reafons, no doubt, concurred to 
 prevent the fuccefs of the petitioning cler- 
 gy : but thefe were probably the chief 
 reafons by which men of the world were 
 determined, whatever effecft fpeculative 
 and dodrinal opinions might have on the 
 minds of individuals, and efpecially of 
 the clergy, whether in higher or lower 
 ilations. 
 
 C 2 Should
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 Should it be afked why thefe things arc 
 mentioned, or what connedtion they have 
 with the fubjed: before us ; I anfwer, that 
 it appears to me to be of importance to 
 mention, them, becaufe it is hence evi- 
 dent, that the motives for rejeding the 
 petition of the clergy are not applicable 
 to the fituation of the Proteftant Difient- 
 ing MInifters. 
 
 Without pretending to approve of the 
 arguments which were fo fatal to the 
 petitioners, without wifhing ill to their 
 caufe, many of us could not but be re- 
 joiced to find that thefe arguments did 
 not difcourage an application to Parlia- 
 ment in our particular cafe. We werq 
 naturally led, both by our fentiments 
 and fituation, to pay a very diligent at- 
 tention to the controverfy between the 
 difiatisfied clergy and the advocates for 
 fubfcription, and to obferve the progrefs 
 and fate of the petitions offered to the 
 legiflature ; and we faw with pleafure, 
 that the reafons alledged for the conti- 
 nuance of fubfcription were applicable 
 only to thofe who are members, and 
 
 receive
 
 ( IJ ) 
 
 receive the emoluments of a national 
 eilabliiliea church. We law, with plea- 
 fvire, that none of thefe reafons militated 
 againft the liberty which may be claimed, 
 and ought to be granted, under a tolera- 
 tion. We faw, with pleafure, that Mr. 
 Tophdy, one of the warmeft defenders 
 of the Thirty- nine Articles, had aflerted, 
 that the fubfcription required of the Dif- 
 fenters is a real grievance, equally op- 
 prefiive and abfurd. Wc faw, with flill 
 greater pleafure, that Dr. Tucker, the 
 ableil: apologill for the church of Eng- 
 land, had declared— r** Let the minifters 
 of DilTcnting congregations, if they will 
 choofe to apoly, be heartily wiihed a good 
 deliverance from the burden of our fub- 
 fcriptions." But what gave us peculiar 
 fatisfadtion was, that our cafe was not 
 involved in the arguments urged againfb 
 the petitioners in the Houfe of Commons, 
 and that it was even fpoken of in a man- 
 ner, which might afford a rational pro- 
 fped: of obtaining redrefs. By all thefe 
 circumftances we were encouraged to 
 hope, that we fhould fucceed in an ap- 
 
 plica-
 
 ( H ) 
 
 plication to be relieved from the rub-* 
 fcription required by the Adl of Tole- 
 ration : nay, fuch an application was 
 highly expedient, becaufc the peculiarity 
 of our fituation becaQie every day more 
 and more notorious. It was declared in fe- 
 veral publications, it was declared in the 
 Houfe of Commons, that the greater part 
 of the DilTenting Miniflers had not fub- 
 fcribed. It was known too, that a large 
 number of us could not polfibly fubfcribe, 
 and that wc flood expofed to very fevere 
 penalties for our refufal. When, there- 
 fore, our danger was evidently increafed, 
 and there appeared, at the fame time, a 
 difpoiition to relieve us, we fliould have 
 been fhamefully deficient in the duty we 
 owe to ourfelves, to our pofterity, and to 
 the divine caufe of religious liberty, if we 
 had not endeavoured to obtain a legal to- 
 leration. 
 
 But though the circumftances I have 
 mentioned encouraged an application to 
 Parliament at this time, and we might 
 otherwife have been contented fome years 
 longer with a flate of connivance, let it 
 
 not
 
 ( '5 ) 
 
 hot be imagined that we were infenfible o{ 
 the infelicity of our condition, or that we 
 did not defirc and aim at procuring a 
 deliverance from it. We were painfully 
 confcious of our difgraceful fituation : we 
 lamented, that, as minifters of the Gofpel, 
 we were not under the protedion of law, 
 and could fcarcely be confidered as mem- 
 bers of civil fociety : we felt that, in our 
 religious capacity, whatever injuftice might 
 be done to our perfons or charrfdters, we 
 were entirely dcftitute of the means of 
 redrefs. Iniiances have occurred amon<r 
 us of men who have been obliged to defifl 
 from a legal pro-fecution for the moft atro- 
 cious injuries, becaufe they. have not qua- 
 lified, and could not qualify according to 
 the terms of the Toleration Adl. It has, 
 therefore, been not only the wifh, but the 
 defign of many Diffenting Minifters to 
 embrace the firfl favourable opportunity of 
 attempting to get a deliverance from the 
 burden of fubfcription. This hath long 
 been my own cafe ; and I know that it 
 hath been the cafe with a number of the 
 mofl refpe(5table of my bfethreii. We have 
 
 often
 
 ( i6 ) 
 
 often convcrfed upon the fubjeft, anei 
 have often regretted, that when the Dif- 
 fenters formerly applied for the repeal of 
 the Teft Adt, they did not dired their 
 attention and zeal to what appears to us a 
 vaftly more dcfirablc and important ob- 
 jedt. The Ted Act only excludes thofe 
 who cannot comply with it, from the 
 enjoyment of certain civil honours and 
 preferments : the Toleration Ad, if we 
 cannot fubmit to its terms, legally de- 
 prives us of what we apprehend to be the 
 common rights of human nature, and of 
 Chriftianity, and fubjed:s us to very fevere 
 penalties.' We muft, therefore, have been 
 deftitute of all the principles and feelings 
 of the mental frame, if we did not regard 
 the amendment and enlargement of fuch 
 an adl of parliament as a matter of un- 
 fpeakable moment. 
 
 In order to fhew this more particularly, 
 it may not be improper to look back a 
 little, to the ftatc of things when the To- 
 leration Adt was obtained, and to the 
 change which hath taken place in the fen- 
 tiraents of many of the DifTenters. 
 
 By
 
 ( '7 ) 
 
 Sy the Toleration Ad, Proteftant Di{*-» 
 fcnting Minifters are exempted from the 
 penal laws made againft nonconformity, 
 only on condition of their taking the oaths 
 of allegiance and fupremacy, making and 
 fubfcribing the declaration againil Popery, 
 and fabfcribing alfo the Articles of the 
 church of England, except the thirty- 
 fourth, thirty-fifth, and thirty-fixth, and 
 part of the twentieth Article. Antipoe* 
 dobaptifts are farther excufed from fub- 
 fcribing that part of the twenty-feventh 
 Article which relates to infant-baptifm* 
 
 All Proteftant DilTenting Minifters, 
 therefore, who cannot fubfcribe the doc- 
 trinal Articles of the church of England, 
 are thereby excluded from the benefit of 
 the Ad: of Toleration, and expofed to the 
 penalties of all the laws before in force 
 againft nonconforming miniflers. " They 
 are not to come or be, unlefs in paffing 
 upon the road, within five miles of any 
 city, or town corporate, or borough that 
 fends burgefles to parliament j or within 
 five miles of any parifh, town, or place 
 where they have taken upon them to 
 D preach;
 
 ( i8 ) 
 
 preach ; upon forfeiture, for every fuch 
 oifence, of the fum of forty pounds; 
 one third to the king, another third to 
 the poor of the parifh, and another to 
 him that fhall fue for it ;" and if fuch per- 
 fon keep a fchool, he fhall forfeit, like- 
 wife, for every fuch offence, ** forty 
 pounds; and any two juftices of the peace 
 may, upon oath made of any of thefe of- 
 fences, commit fuch offender for fix 
 months, without bail or main-prize." 
 They are alfo liable, on convidion upon 
 oath of two witnelTes, before one or 
 more juftices of the peace, of having 
 preached ; for the firfl offence, to a pe- 
 nalty of twenty pounds; and for every 
 fuch offence afterwards, to a penalty of 
 forty pounds. And by another adl, for 
 every fuch offence they are liable to fuifer 
 three months imprifonment in the com- 
 mon jail, without bail or main-prize. 
 And every time they adminifler the Lord's 
 fupper, they are liable to a penalty of 
 one hundred pounds j one moiety to go to 
 the king, another moiety to be divided 
 between the poor of the pariih, and fuch 
 
 perfon
 
 ( '9 ) 
 
 perfon or perfons as (hall fue for the fame 
 by ad:ion of debt, bill, plaint, or informa- 
 tion, in any court of record, wherein no 
 effoign, protection, or wager of law fhall 
 be allowed. 
 
 To thefe fevere penalties, fuch Prote- 
 Aant Diflenting Minifters as have not 
 fubfcribed the Articles before-mentioned, 
 are expofed : and, in the laft cafe, a very 
 ample reward is propofed to every profe- 
 cutor, out of the forfeiture incurred j and 
 the profecution is, at the fame time, 
 made as eafy as poffible *. 
 
 This is the fituation we are left in by 
 the AO: of Toleration. It is only by com- 
 plying with the fubfcription enjoined by 
 it, that we can legally be permitted to 
 condud the worfhip of the God and Fa- 
 ther of mercies in that manner which we 
 think agreeable .to the did;ates of truth. 
 Scripture, and confcience; and the pe- 
 nalties to which we are otherwife fub- 
 jedt are fuch, that every ingenuous and 
 
 * See the Cafe of the Proteftant Diflenting Minifters 
 and Schoolmafters. 
 
 D 2 lb ral
 
 liberal man muft ftart back with horror 
 gt the recital of them. Nay, they are 
 penalties which even bigotry itfelf fcarce 
 dares to call for the exadion of, in the 
 prefent age. 
 
 There is another circumftance, of the 
 greateft importance, for which relief is 
 not provide4 by the A^ of Toleration, 
 even upon any ternis. The right of edu- 
 cating our chil(5ren, accor4ing to our own 
 views of what will be moft conducive 
 to their temporal and eternal felicity, is 
 pne of the deareft rights of human na- 
 ture; one of the laft privileges which a 
 yuan would be wUhng to give i-p, who is 
 endued with the feelings of parental affecr 
 tion, and the principles of piety, integri- 
 ty, and honour. But this is a privilege to 
 which the Proteftant Dillenters have no 
 kgal title. By the cruel laws of king 
 Charles the fecond, every nonconformifl:, 
 of every kind, is difabled from ading in 
 the capacity of a tutor or fchoolmafter, 
 and profecutions cannot be diverted with- 
 out confiderable trouble and expcnce. 
 This is a cafe that includes the Laity, as 
 
 well
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 Well as the Minifters, and which does 
 indeed fpeak loudly for itfelf *. , 
 
 Many perfons will, without doubt, be 
 ready to wonder how it could poffibly 
 come to pafs, that the Toleration Adt 
 ihould be fo very defedive. But this 
 mufl be fought for in the principles and 
 fpirit of the times. 
 
 At the glorious period of the Revolu* 
 tion, religious liberty, in its due extent, 
 was, comparatively fpeaking, very Imper- 
 fedily underftood. Experience had, in- 
 deed, inftrucfted the nation, in the evil 
 confequences which had arifen from per^ 
 fecuting the nonconformifls. It was 
 found that the difunion and animolities 
 of the Proteftants were hurtful to the 
 common caufe, and added flrength to 
 the fchemes and enterprizes of the Pa- 
 pifts. It was neceflary, therefore, to 
 unite the former together; and the lin- 
 cere and zealous concurrence of tlie Dif- 
 fenters, in promoting the late change of 
 
 * Sec the Cafe of the Proteftant Diflenting Minifters 
 ^nd Schoolpafters. 
 
 govern-'
 
 { 22 ) 
 
 government, was an additional reafon for 
 treating them with favour. King WiU 
 liam was delirous of conferring greater 
 marks of diftindion upon them than a 
 bare toleration -, but this was the whole 
 that could be obtained, and it was even 
 debated, whether the Toleration fliould 
 be allowed for more than a certain num-^ 
 ber of years. When its permanency was 
 difputed, it cannot be furprizing that it 
 jdid not in other refpe(fls go upon en- 
 larged principles. The truth of the cafe 
 was, that the nation was not yet fuffi- 
 ciently enlightened upon the fubjed:. 
 Toleration was not, indeed, forgot- 
 ten among the important topics which 
 were difcufled during the time of 
 the civil war : liberty of confcience was 
 pleaded for by the independents ; and 
 Dr. Owen, among others, wrote in its 
 favour: but a due regard was not 
 paid to their principles and reafonings. 
 The obnoxioufriefs of the men to the 
 two great parties of Epifcopalians and 
 Prefbyterians, had prevented the eafy re- 
 ception of any dodtrine which came from 
 8 them.
 
 ( H > 
 
 them, however juft or generous it might 
 in itfelf be. Locke's excellent Letters 
 were but now beginning to make their 
 appearance'; and it was a long time be- 
 fore the admirable fentiments contained 
 in them came to be generally diffufed. 
 It was not doubted, but thatperfons, who 
 entertained certain dodrines called hereti- 
 cal, were by no means fit to be tolerated ; 
 and the principal part of the noncon- 
 formifts, notwithftanding the long per- 
 fecution they had endured, had not yet 
 divefted themfelves of this perfuafion. 
 They 'did not think of queftioning the 
 right of the civil magiftrate to im- 
 pofe fubfcription to human tefts of faith 
 arid orthodoxy : they even believed it to 
 be his duty to reftrain what were appre- 
 hended to be fundamental errors and he- 
 refies : and though fome minifters might 
 entertain more liberal views of" things, 
 they were glad to accept of liberty of' 
 confcience on fuch terms as were offered, 
 and could then be obtained. Thefe terms 
 were the lefs difagreeable to them, as be- 
 ing Calvinifts, or nearly Calvini/ls, they 
 
 had
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 had fcarcc any difficulties with regard to 
 the dodtrinal Articles ; but could chear- 
 fully fubfcribe them, as containing their 
 own real opinions*. 
 } V But lince the period we have been 
 y . fpeaking of, a great, a juft, and impor- 
 ^^ * tant revolution hath taken place in the 
 fentiments of the Proteftant DifTenters 
 upon thefe fubjedts. Moil of the DifTent- 
 ing Clergy ground their feparation from 
 the eftabliftimcnt on principles that dif- 
 fer, in fome confiderable refped-s, from 
 thofe upon which their anceflors proceed- 
 ed. We do, indeed, agree with ti?e ori- 
 ginal Puritans in the defire they had to 
 difcard entirely the corruptions of popery, 
 and to reftore Chriflian worfhip to the 
 fimplicity and purity of the Gofpel 
 flandard. We applaud their condudl ia 
 
 * Some exprefllons in the Articles appearing dubious 
 to Mr. Baxter, he drew up a brief explication, which 
 he gave in for his fcnfe at the time of his fubfcrip- 
 tion, and many of his brethren concurred with hinl 
 in giving the fame explication. It is inferted in Cala* 
 my's Abridgment of the Life of Baxter. Vol. I, p, 
 469-476. 
 
 fefidlng
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 rerifllngfo firmly the unfcnptural terms of 
 conformity impofed upon them, and we 
 retain a grateful remembrance of their in- 
 tegrity and fortitude. We have, in par- 
 ticular, the utmoft veneration for the me- 
 mory of thofe two thoufand men, who, 
 in the year 1662, nobly facrificed their 
 preferments and their fubfiftence for the 
 caufe of God and a good confcience. But, 
 at the fame time, we do not diflent fo 
 much as they did, on account of fcruples 
 with regard to certain ceremonies, habits, 
 and modes of government and difcipline ; 
 nor do we diflent folely on account of 
 fome objections which maybe urged againfl 
 the Liturgy and Offices of the church of 
 England. It is true, that we have our dif- 
 ficulties on thefe heads, and feveral of 
 them are of a ferious and weighty nature. 
 Several of them are fuch as, while theyfub- 
 fifl:, mufl for ever keep us at a diftance from 
 conformity. But befides the particular ob- 
 jecflions we have to a number of the rites 
 and fornis of the national worfliip, we 
 found our difl'cnt on what appear to us to 
 be mod important general reafons. We 
 E difTent,
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 difTent, becaufe we deny the right of any- 
 body of men, whether civil or eccleliafti- 
 cal, to impofe human tefts, creeds, or 
 articles -, and becaufe we think it our 
 duty, not to fubmit to any fuch au- 
 thority, but to proteft againft it, 
 as a violation of our eifential liber- 
 ty to judge and adl for ourfelves in 
 matters of religion. We di (Tent, becaufe 
 we apprehend that the church of England, 
 in the requilition of a fubfcription to 
 her docflrines and ceremonies, claims and 
 exercifes a power which we look upon as 
 derogatory to the honour of our great Ma- 
 fier, the fole legiilator in his own king- 
 dom i and becaufe we believe ourfelves 
 bound, as his profeiTed difciples and fol- 
 lowers, to ftand up for his honour in op- 
 pofition to all encroachments. 
 
 Independently, therefore, of the truth 
 of the Thirty-nine Articles, the generali- 
 ty of DilTenting Miniilers objed: to the 
 impofition of thefe Articles. Perfuaded as 
 they are of the fufficiency of Scripture, 
 and the liberty every one ought to have of 
 following the guidance of his own con- 
 
 fcience
 
 ■ ( 27 ) 
 
 fcience in religious concerns, they will 
 not fubfcribe to formularies, which they 
 themfelves believe, when fuch formularies 
 are prefled upon them by an incompetent 
 and ufurped authority. It is their fixed 
 principle, that the writings of the Old 
 and New Teftament, are the only rule 
 of faith and pradice; and, therefore, were 
 they, in matters of religion, and when 
 alking for a Toleration, to go any far- 
 ther in their fubmiflion to the civil magi- 
 ftrate, than to make this declaration 
 of their Chriftian and Proteftant cha- 
 racter, being the fpecific charader in 
 which they appear before the legiflature, 
 they would be guilty of an a6l of treafon 
 againfl their Lord and Saviour. How far 
 they may be well founded in thefe fen- 
 timents is not my bufinefs, at prefent, to 
 determine. ' Their views of things may 
 appear to fome too refined, to others 
 wholly fanciful; but that has no rela- 
 tion to the queflion before us. Thefe 
 opinions are matters of confcience, and the 
 perfons who entertain them ought to be 
 indulged, ought to be tolerated, provid- 
 E 2 cd
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 cd they arc peaceable members of the 
 community. 
 
 That this is a faithful account of the 
 flate of things among the Proteftant Dif- 
 fenters is evident not only from the ge- 
 neral flrain of their late publications, but 
 from two fads which are worthy of the 
 reader's notice. The firfl is the folemn- 
 declaration of a majority of the Diffenting 
 Clergy, in the year 1719, when a contro- 
 verfy having arifen on the fubjedt of the 
 Trinity, a meeting of the minifters in and 
 about London was held at Salters-hall, to 
 conddtr o^ Articles of Advice for Peace, to 
 be fent to their brethren and to the con- 
 gregations in other places. At this meet- 
 ing, it was propofed to infert in the Advices 
 the firft Article of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and the Anfwers to the fifth and 
 fixth Queftions in the AfTembly's Cate- 
 chifm I but the requifition was nobly 
 withflood by the more enlightened part 
 of the body, and it was carried, by a ma- 
 jority of fifty-feven againil: fifty-three, 
 l^hat no human compofitions or interpreta- 
 tions of the doBrine of the 'Trinity fjouid be 
 
 made
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 made a part of the /Articles of Advice. It is 
 obfervable, that all of thefe fifty-feven 
 minifters were believers, and moft of 
 them zealous afTerters of the commonly- 
 received opinions with regard to the Tri- 
 nity ; but they thought it their duty to 
 ftand up for the liberty wherewith Chrifl 
 has made us free, and to enter their pro- 
 teft againfl: the yoke of human impofi- 
 tions. It is much to the honour of this 
 fmall but illuftrious majority, that it ap- 
 pears to be the iirft instance in which a 
 body of clergymen publicly averted and 
 maintained the caufe of religious freedom, 
 and the facred rights of confcience*. 
 
 That the fifry-feven miiiiflers were real 
 believers of the common opinion concern- 
 ing the Trinity, is evident from the follow- 
 ing pafTige, which is taken from the Letter 
 written by them, in conjunction with fix- 
 tcen more of their brethren, accompany- 
 
 • The author dotli not intend to cart any refledlloa 
 upon the fubfcribing nunifters, who were undoubtedly 
 perfonsof difhinguifiied piety, and afted from a ftrong 
 f'nfe of duty: but he muft be al ov\ed to give the prefe- 
 rence, in hio eflecnijto their more enlightened brethren. 
 
 m 
 
 z
 
 ( 3° ) 
 
 ing the Advices they had agreed to fend 
 to Exeter. 
 
 ** We freely declare, that we utterly 
 difown the Arian dodlrine, and (incerely 
 believe the dodlrine of the blelTed Trinityy 
 and the proper divinity of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, which we apprehend to be clearly 
 revealed in the Holy Scriptures ; but are 
 far from condemning any who appear to 
 be with us in the main, though they 
 fhould chufe not to declare themfelves in 
 other than Chriflian terms, or not in 
 ours." 
 
 This Declaration they farther explained 
 thus: 
 
 ** The human words Trinity and proper 
 divinity i in this Declaration of our faith, 
 are ufed only to notify the things we 
 fpeak of 5 and we do not prefume, in the 
 way of tejly to go into any particular 
 explanations of thofe things, either in 
 our own^ or other 'mens words : but for 
 that we refer to the Holy Scriptures, 
 whence it may appear, that we take the 
 Scripture account of thofe things to be 
 
 the
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 the bejl and fitteft we can ufe on fuch occa- 
 lions." 
 
 The fourth article of the Advices was 
 as follows : 
 
 ** If, after all, a public hearing be In- 
 fifted on, we think the Proteflant princi- 
 ple, that the Bible is the only and the perfect 
 ride of faith, obliges thofe who have the 
 cafe before them, not to condemn any man 
 upon the authority of human deci(ions, or 
 becaufe he confents not to human forms 
 or phrafes : but then only is he to be cen- 
 fured, as not holding the faith neceffary to 
 falvation, when it appears that he contra- 
 dicts, or refufes to own, ^h^ plain and ex- 
 prefs declarations of Holy Sicriptiire, in what 
 is there made neceffary to be believed, 
 and in matters there folely revealed. And 
 we truft that all will treat the fervants of 
 their common Lord, as they who expedt 
 the final decifion at his appearing*." 
 
 Though, 
 
 * The only furviving perfon of the non-fubfcribiPi'T 
 n:iini(Ursis Mr. Henry l\cad, a jrciuleman whom a long 
 life cf irreproachable piety and diflinguifhed ufefulnefs 
 hath rendered truly venerable. He is the father of the 
 prcfcnt body of Proteftant DifTenting Minifters, is in 
 
 i!-.e
 
 , . ( 3* ) 
 
 Through, in 171 9, the Diffentlng Mini- 
 Hers were almoit equally divided in their 
 opinions concerning human tefts, the fitua- 
 tion of things is now happily changed, 
 much for the better in this refpedt, as will 
 be manifeft from the fecond fa<5t I have to 
 produce. It is well known, that Dr. 
 Furneaux hath flated and defended the 
 prefent principles of the Diffenters upon 
 the enlarged grounds I have mentioned, 
 and not upon fcruples relative to particular 
 articles or dodrines. That he hath truly 
 ftated and defended their prefent princi- 
 ples admits of no doubt, from the thanks 
 which, at the motion of one of our mod 
 ancient, eminent, and refpedable mini- 
 flers *, were unanimoufly voted lo him, 
 by the general body of the three denomi- 
 nations of Prefbyterians, Independents, 
 and Baptifls, for his Letters to the Hon. 
 Mr. Juftice Blackftone. I fliall beg leave 
 to lay before the public the minutes of 
 the proceedings with regard to this affair. 
 
 the eighty-feventh year of liis age, and cxpreflt-d his en- 
 tire approbation of the late iippiicailun tu rarllament. 
 * Dr. Prior. 
 
 " At
 
 i 2i y 
 
 *' At a meeting of the general body of the 
 Proteflant DiiTenting Miniflers, of the 
 three denominations, in and about the 
 cities of London and Weftminfter, 
 held at the Library, in Red-crofs- 
 flreet, April i6, 1771. 
 *' Agreed, at the motion of Mr. Prior, 
 that the thanks of this body be given to 
 the Rev. Dr. Furneaux, for the great fer- 
 vice he has done to the caufe of religious 
 liberty in general, and for his able de- 
 fence of the rights and privileges of Pro- 
 teftant DiiTenters in particular, in his ex- 
 cellent Letters to the Honourable Mr. 
 Judice Blackflone ; and that the chair- 
 man do prefent the thanks of this body 
 to the Rev. Dr. Furneaux, in their name 
 with the firil; convenient opportunity." 
 
 *' At a meeting of the general body, 
 Nov. 20, 1 77 1. 
 '* Reported, by Mr. Pitts, chairman of 
 the lad meeting of the general body, that 
 he had, according to order, returned the 
 thanks of this body to the Rev. Dr. Fur- 
 neaux, and received a letter from the doc- 
 tor, which was read. 
 
 F " Agreed,
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 ** Agreed, at the motion of Dr. Harris 
 That Dr. Furneaux's letter to Mr. Pitts 
 be, with Mr. Pitts's leave, tranfcribed 
 into this book -, of which letter the fol- 
 lowing is a copy. 
 
 ** Reverend and dear fir, 
 
 *' I am extremely forry, that I did not 
 happen to be at home, when you did me 
 the favour of a vifit this morning. I hope 
 I fhall have the pleafiire of your company 
 on fome other occafion. 
 
 *' Your two laft favours, the one ac- 
 quainting me with the refolution of the 
 general body of the Proteflant Diflenting 
 Minifters, in and about the cities of Lon- 
 don and Weftminfter, with refped: to my 
 Letters to Mr. Juftice Blackftone, and the 
 other inclofmg that Refolution, as it 
 ftands on the Minutes, conveyed to me 
 an honour of which I had not the leaft 
 apprehenfion, and of the value of which I 
 am very fenfible. This unanimous ap- 
 probation of my brethren of all denomi- 
 nations is, in the prefent cafe, the more 
 
 agreeable
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 agreeable to me, as it is a clear proof that 
 I have not, in any manner, mifreprefented 
 the principles of the Proteftant DifTenters 
 on the head of religious liberty. My aim 
 was only to do them juftice ; and that fo 
 refpedlable a body, who mufl know their 
 own fentiments, and cannot be fuppofed 
 ignorant of thofe which prevail amongft 
 the Diflenting Minifters and people in ge- 
 neral, have declared their opinion that I 
 have not done them injuflice, gives me, I 
 own, no fmall fatisfadtion. All beyond 
 this I efteem (as I ought) to be a demon- 
 ftratlon of their candour and friendihipi 
 I acknowledge, with thanks, the very ob- 
 liging manner, in which you, fir, as chair- 
 man, have acquainted me with the fenti- 
 ments of the body, and am 
 
 " Your very affectionate brother, 
 
 ** and obedient humble Vervant, 
 
 " ^!f:r:y'^ " Philip Furne aux." 
 
 25111, ly/i. 
 
 F 2 5uch
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 " Such then,' as I have flated them, 
 may now be confidered the general prin- 
 ciples of the Didenting Miniftersj fo 
 that however firmly they may believe the 
 doctrinal Articles of the Church of Eng- 
 land, they cannot but be averfe to having 
 a fubfcription to them impofed by hu- 
 man authority, and muil: fincerely defire 
 an enlargement of the Toleration Act, 
 It may, perhaps, be a matter of curiofity 
 to know how fuch an alteration hath been 
 brou2;ht about in the fentiments of the 
 Difienters j and it mufl chiefly be afcrib- 
 ed to the particular attention which hath 
 been paid to the fubjcd: of religious liber- 
 ty, from the period of the Revolution to 
 the prefent time. Mr. Locke's admirable 
 Letters on Toleration, had, no doubt, a 
 confiderable effed: on the minds of 
 thoughtful and philofophical perfons. 
 But the circumftance which much con- 
 tributed to open the eyvS of DilTenting 
 Miniders, was Dr. Calamy's Introdudlioa 
 to the fecond volume of his Defence of 
 Moderate Nonconformity. From hence- 
 forward, the controverfy between the 
 
 Church
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 Church of England and the DiOenters, 
 was placed, in part, on a new footing. 
 The iolid and manly reafonings of Dr. 
 Calamy have been confirmed and purfu- 
 ed through all their confequences. It is 
 an undoubted fad:, that his arouments 
 were approved of by Mr. Locke; and bi- 
 iliop Hoadly himfclf appears to have been 
 enlightened by them. It is certain, at 
 leaft, that he availed himfelf of the fame 
 method of rcafoning in his fubfcquent 
 writings : and from the time of the Hoad- 
 lian controverfy to the prefent day, the 
 objections to the exercife of human au- 
 thority in matters of religion; and the 
 arguments in favour of the right of pri- 
 vate judgment, the fufficicncy of Scrip- 
 ture, and the fole dominion of Chriftovcr 
 his Church, have been exhibited in fuch 
 a variety of unanfvverable performances, 
 that the man who did not ground his fepa- 
 ration from the eflablifliment, chieliy upon 
 thcTc confiderations, would fcarre be 
 thought worthy the name cf a DiiTenter. 
 1 he Prelbyterians in particular, vvi'di re- 
 gard to llieir notioiiS of ccckfiaiiical 
 
 power
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 power and government, are a different fet 
 of men from the Prefbyterians of the laft 
 century. The Englilh Prefbyterians of 
 this age have difcarded all ideas of paro- 
 chial feffiohs, clafTes, provincial fynods, 
 and general alTemblies. Theydifclaim 
 all coercive jurifdi(ftion in fpiritual con- 
 cerns ; and believe, that every diflincft and 
 feparate congregation ought to be the folc 
 direcStor of its religious affairs, without 
 being controulable by, or accountable to 
 any other earthly authority. In (liort, ex- 
 cept their denial of any /criptural didinc- 
 tion between the office of a Bilhop and a 
 Prefbyter, and their uniting in the fame 
 mode of worfhip, they retain little of 
 Prelbyterianifm, properly fo called, but 
 the name. 
 
 I cannot avoid flopping a moment to ob- 
 ferve, that the alterations produced in the 
 fentiments of religious fed:s, while the ori- 
 ginal denominations are continued, ought 
 to be particularly noticed by ecclefiaflical 
 writers; for, unlefs a confiderable degree 
 of attention be paid to thefe things, the 
 accounts which are given of the different 
 
 parties
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 parties that have divided the church of 
 Chrift, muft be very confufed, imperfed:, 
 and diffatisfacftory. I have often had oc- 
 cafion to remark, that even fome of the 
 bed church hiftorians have fallen into er- 
 rors in this refped:. 
 
 But though, from what hath been al- 
 leged, it is apparent that the genera- 
 lity of DiiTenting Minifters, however 
 flrongly they may believe in the particu- 
 lar doctrines contained in the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, muft object to the terms re- 
 quired by the Toleration Ad, and wifh to 
 be exempted from a compliance with 
 them ; it cannot, at the fame time, be 
 denied, and it ought not to be concealed, 
 that a number of perfons among us, dif- 
 like, in many refpeds, the dodrines 
 themfelvesi and, therefore, have a power- 
 ful additional reafon for defiring and 
 foliciting the removal of fubfcription. 
 
 A courfe of time hath produced a great 
 alteration in the fentiments of feveral 
 of our brethren. Dodrines, formerly dif- 
 puted by few, have, during the prefent 
 century, been freely called in queftion ; 
 
 and
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 and opinions Jiave been entertained very 
 different from thofe of Calvin and A- 
 thanafius. "Whether men haveaded right 
 in rejeding the dogmas of the fpirited re- 
 former, and the zealous faint, is of no im- 
 portance to determine. The only quef- 
 tion is, whether thofe vv^ho do not believe 
 the dovtrinal Articles, have not the fame 
 reafonable claim to indulgence as their 
 predecelTors had, with regard to the Ar- 
 ticles more immediately relative to cere- 
 monies, difcipline, and church authority: 
 and here, if the matter be confidered with 
 reference to the great objedl which poli- 
 tical governm.ent hath in view, it will 
 cafily be decided. Suppofing a perfon 
 fhou Id happen to embrace what are deemed 
 the particular and dillinguiflaing tenets of 
 Arminius, Arius, or Socinus, what hath 
 ail this to do with the welfare of the Hate? 
 The bufinefs of the magiftrate, as hath un- 
 anfwerably been fhewn by Mr. Locke, 
 is to take care of the temporal, and not 
 of the eternal interefts of mankind. V/ith 
 regard to the things which concern our 
 future life, we are accountable to God 
 
 alone.
 
 ( 4' ) 
 
 lilone, and tb our great Lord and Mafter 
 Jefus Chrift. With refpedl to religious 
 concerns, the civil power ought to go no 
 farther, in the way of reflraint and punilh- 
 ment, at leaft, than to prevent different 
 fcdts from injuring each other; and to 
 take care that they do not, on any pre- 
 tence, dirturb the public tranquility. It 
 will readily, I imagine, be granted, that 
 Arminians may be valuable members of 
 fociety, and worthy of its protedion ; 
 becaufe, notwithftanding the Calviniftical 
 flru(ftureof the Thirty-nine Articles, the 
 majority of the clergy are profefledly Ar- 
 minians : and why may not Arians and 
 Socinians be equally valuable members of 
 fociety, and equally worthy of its protec- 
 tion ? I fpeak here folcly of them in a civil 
 capacity, the only capacity with which the 
 ftate is properly and juflly concerned. 
 What is there in the opinions of thefe men, 
 which difqualifies them from being good 
 fubje<5ts, or enjoying a legal fecurity ? Do 
 they advance dodrines fubverfive of the 
 general peace and fafety ? Nothing of this 
 kind can be charged upon them, with 
 
 G the
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 the leafi: (hadow of reafoii orjuflice. If 
 they hold anyfentlments that may be fup- 
 pofed to be highly erroneous, or even 
 dangerous to their falvatlon, that is a 
 matter of which the fupreme Being alone 
 hath a right to take cognizance, and 
 which mud; be determined at his tribu- 
 nal. Let not men, therefore, prefume to 
 claim a jurifdicftion over the confciences 
 of their fellow-creatures, but remember 
 that God hath committed all judgment 
 to his Son. 
 
 It appears, then, from what hath been 
 advanced, that if there be Diffenting Mi- 
 niilers who do not believe feveral of the 
 dodrinal Articles of the church of Eng- 
 land, as there undoubtedly are, they 
 ought not to be obliged to fubfcribe ; be- 
 caufe, without doing it, they have a na- 
 tural right to Toleration. The conduft 
 of the ftate, and of the public, for more 
 than fifty years, hath already determined 
 that they have fuch a right. Though it 
 be a known fact, that many of the Dif- 
 fenting Clergy have not fubmitted, and 
 cannot fubmit, to the fubfcription requir- 
 ed
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 ed of them by law, they have been allow- 
 ed to go on quietly in their religious em- 
 ployments j and the experience of half a 
 century hath proved, that the lenity (hewn 
 to them hath been of no prejudice to 
 the community. The change of their 
 fituations and fentiments is fuch, that, if 
 the indulgence they have hitherto met 
 with be withdrawn, they muft be expof- 
 ed to all the perfecutions which difgraced 
 the reign of king Charles the fecond. But 
 the continuation of the indulgence doth 
 not depend merely on the equity and mo- 
 deration of government; it depends, like- 
 wife, on the equity and moderation of 
 every individual in this country : it de- 
 pends on there not being a fingle perfon 
 in the nation, who can be prevailed upon 
 to difturb us, either by the did:ates of bi- 
 gotry, or the ftimulations of avarice. 
 Why then fhould bands be fufFered to 
 remain about us, that are confefledly 
 needlefs and ufelefs 3 and which, though 
 hanging loofe around us at prefent, may, 
 at the pleafure of any one, be drawn fo 
 clofe as to become very painful, and 
 G 2 evea
 
 -. ( 44 ) 
 
 even intolerable ? It is not furely defir* 
 able for penal laws to fubfift, which, at 
 bell, are unneceffiry; and which, if 
 carried into execution, mud: be produc- 
 tive of flagrant injullice and cruelty. The 
 permitting of them to be continued, when 
 a proper application is made for their re^ 
 peal, is contrary to every principle of a 
 wife and equitable legiflation. 
 
 Thofe perfons, who think that we 
 ought to have refted fatisfied with the 
 connivance fo long granted us, do not ap- 
 pear to me to have confidered the matter 
 with due attention. A ftate of conniv- 
 ance is greatly inferior to a ftate of 
 legal fecurity. Will any one aiTert, that 
 the liberties and privileges we enjoy as 
 Britons, are not infinitely more valuable, 
 as founded in law, than if they depended 
 entirely on the chara(fler and difpofition 
 of the fovereign, whatever probability 
 there might be of a fucceflion of wife, 
 yu{\:j and merciful princes ? It is the glory 
 of the Briti(h conilitution, that it is built 
 on more folid foundations than the good 
 intentions of men, and the accidental 
 
 tern -
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 temper of ages. The very confcioufnefs 
 of enjoying the moft invaluable benefits 
 only by the connivance of our fellow- 
 creatures muft be grating to every gene- 
 rous mind. Belides, who can anfwer 
 for it, that a ftate of connivance fhall never 
 be interrupted ? It is poffible at leaf!:, if 
 not probable, that other men and other 
 times may' fucceed to thofe we have now 
 the happinefs of beholding; and, there- 
 fore, 1 cannot but think, that the Diflenting 
 Miniiiers atled wifely, in endeavouring to 
 improve what they believed a favourable 
 opportunity for obtaining a legal fecurity 
 to themfelves and their poftcrily, in the 
 exercife of that liberty of confcience, 
 which they deem the moll: important and 
 facred ble(r>ng that Providence can put 
 into their hands. 
 
 In the late application to Parliament, 
 we grounded our hopes of fuccefs not only 
 on the circumftances which I have already 
 mentioned, but upon avariety of additional 
 confiderations. We were confcious that 
 wc lived under a prince of the Brunfwick 
 line ; a prince, with regard to whom, it 
 
 would
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 would be Hiameful to ailert, that he is not 
 as ready to defend, and even to enlarge 
 the juft and reafonable privileges of his 
 fubje^ts as any of his royal predecefTors. 
 We believed that adminiflration could 
 have no objedion to a requeft that was 
 moft equitable in itfelf, and vt'hich might 
 have been granted v/ithout the fliadow of 
 injury, danger, or diflurbance to thepub- 
 Iic» With regard to the members of both 
 Houfes of Parliament, we trufled that 
 their wifdom and mioderation would dif- 
 pofe them to refcue the Statute Book 
 from penal acts which are a difgrace to it, 
 and to give relief to a peaceable body of 
 men, who did not deferve to be marked 
 cut by the laws, as criminals, hateful to 
 the flate. As to the biiliops in particular, 
 we had been taught to exped every thing 
 from the mild and candid fpirit of the 
 prefent bench. We knew that the fenti- 
 ments of all ranks of men were, for the 
 moft part, averfe to reftraint and feverity in 
 matters of religion ; and we were not ig- 
 norant that TOLERATION had lately lifted 
 up her voice fo loudly in Europe, as to be 
 
 heard
 
 ( 47 ) 
 h-eard and attended to, even in arbitrary 
 and popifli governments. 
 
 Encouraged by fuch a number of flat- 
 tering appearances, we ventured, with all 
 humility and refpeft, to lay our cafe before 
 the Lej^iflature, and to folicit an enlarge- 
 ment of the Toleration Adt. The final 
 refult of the application is well known. 
 Our bill, after having pafled the Houfe of 
 Commons, was rejed:ed in the Houfe of 
 Peers by a large majority. But notwith- 
 flanding the iliortification of our defeat, 
 there are fome circumftances which we 
 can rcfied: upon with pleafure, as not a 
 little honourable to our caufe. It is un- 
 doubtedly a great credit to the bill, that 
 it went through the Lower Houfe with 
 fo general a concurrence. The free and 
 unbiaiTed voice of the reprefentatives of 
 the people was ftrongly in its favour ; and 
 that is a matter which muft appear im- 
 portant in the public eye, and will, we 
 truft, not be deflitute of valuable eftedls.* 
 
 The 
 
 • The motion for leave to bring in the bill was made 
 by fir Henry Hoghton, a gentleman of irreproachable 
 integrity, of a cultivated underftanding, and a liberal 
 
 mind ;
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 The reafonablenefs and equity of our petp' 
 tion were well debated and nobly fupj-r: 
 ported in both houfes ; and none will 
 dare to deny, that with us were the mod 
 able, judicious, and eloquent fpeakers. 
 I proceed not to particular names, becaufe 
 I am incapable of doing juftice to their 
 characters and merit ; but they are fuch as 
 will carry down the hiftory of our appli- 
 cation with honour even to the remotefl: 
 
 mind ; and It was fecondcd by Sir George Savile, whofc 
 eminent abilities and chara£i:cr are univerfal!y known 
 and acknowledged. The fpeakers in favour of the bill, 
 at different times, befides the above-mentioned gentle- 
 men, were Frederick Montagu, Efq. the llight Hon. 
 George Onflow, Efq. the Hon. Conftantine JohnPhipps, 
 Efq. Edmund Burke, Efq. the Right Hon. Lord Vifcount 
 Clare, Jeremiah Dyfon,Efq. John Savvbridge> Efq. Sir 
 Jofeph Mawbey, Bart, the Hon. Stephen Fox, Efq. 
 Charles Wolfrnn^ Cornwall, Efq. Sir William Me- 
 redith, Bart. Colonel Jennings, James Harris, Efq. 
 Richard Whitwortli, Efq. the llight Hon. George 
 Rice, Efq. and the llight Hon. Lard John Cavendifli. 
 Thefe are names which do honour to our caufe. Many 
 other members, of the moft diflinguilhed capacities and 
 merit, were ready to have fpoken in its fupport 5 but 
 the oppofition to the bill in the Houfe of Commons wa» 
 fo feeble as to render a farther difplay of reafon and cJo- 
 quence totally unneceffary. 
 
 times.
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 tiroes. "We had the peculiar fatisfadtion 
 of knowing that the two greateft of the 
 law lords -f* divided for the commitment 
 of the bill; an evident proof that they con- 
 fidered the principle it went upon as the 
 proper objedt of legiflation, and the caufe 
 it was intended to fupport as the caufe of 
 equity and good government. On the 
 one lidc were truth, reafon, eloquence, 
 juftice, and religion; on the other — PU- 
 
 DET BMC OPPROBIA DICI POTUISSE 
 
 moft of the temporal peers, and all the 
 
 BISHOPS.* 
 
 But notwithftanding thefe pleafing and 
 honourable circumftances, our adverfaries 
 have abundant reafon for rejoicing. It 
 might, however, have been expeded that 
 they would have fatisfied themfelves with 
 privately exulting at our defeat ; but that, 
 it feems, was not a fufficient difplay of 
 their triumph. In the pride of parliamen- 
 tary viftory, tbevhave thought proper to 
 draw out the pen againfl us, and to attack 
 
 t Lord Mansfield and Lord Camden. 
 
 * All the bKhops who were prefent in the Houfe of 
 Peers, or who ordered their proxies to be given in oppofi- 
 tion to the bill. 
 
 H us.
 
 ( so ) 
 US, with all the formality of ecclefiaftical 
 pedantry, upon the matter, the man- 
 ner, and the time of our application. It 
 was not, perhaps, wife in them, to move a 
 controverfy which might otherwife have 
 lain dormant. If we had been permitted to 
 return quietly to our minifterial labours 
 and ftudies, we might have waited in 
 filence for a more favourable opportunity 
 of urging our caufe. But fince wc are 
 wantonly provoked to the contefl, let us 
 engage in it with alacrity and temper, and 
 attend fomewhat more particularly to the 
 matter, the MANNER, and the time 
 of our application. 
 
 As to the matter of our application, 
 that fliould feem to be fufficiently vindi- 
 cated by what hath already been offered. 
 The reafons for it were fo ftrong and 
 weighty, that it might have been exped- 
 ed every candid perfon would acknow- 
 ledge that we had jufl caufe for having 
 recourie to Icgifiature. What could 
 be a more proper requeH: to legiilature 
 than to be delivered from a fubjedtion to 
 lav^s, which, confelfedly, cannot be put 
 into execution ? 13at fmce particular diffi- 
 culties
 
 ( 5« ) 
 
 culties have been ftarted upon this head, 
 it may not be amifs to pay them fome de- 
 gree of attention. 
 
 One obje<Slion then, which hath been 
 urged againft the late application of the 
 Diffenting Minifters, is drawn from the 
 Adt of Toleration, as if that adt could not 
 admit of improvement. It is, it feems, a 
 fundamental law of the ftate, which hath 
 fixed bounds for ever to the exercife of 
 liberty of confcience, and determined 
 what do6lrines (hould always be held by 
 the profellbrs of Chriftianity, of every de^ 
 nomination, in this country. But what 
 foundation can there be for fuch a repre- 
 fentation of things ? ^ That toleration is 
 cflential to every well-formed fyftem of 
 government will moft readily be granted ; 
 but that a partial and defedive toleration 
 cannot be extended, is furely a ftrange 
 pofition. 
 
 We have fliewn that the Adl of Indul- 
 gence, which paiTed in the beginning of 
 the reign of king William and queen 
 Mary, evidently partook of the impcrfecft 
 ideas of the times ; that men were not, at 
 1,1 2 that
 
 ( 52 ) 
 
 that period, enlightened enough to grant 
 a greater degree of religious freedom; and 
 that the principal part of the DiiTenters 
 •did hot wi(h to be exempted from doc- 
 trinal fubfcriptions. But what right had 
 thelegiflators of that age fo abfolutely to 
 fettle the limits of toleration, as to fay. 
 Hitherto shalt thou go, and no 
 FARTHER ? If THEY thought that it Was 
 neceflary to fubfcribe certain tefls, in order 
 to be admitted to any liberty of worfhip, 
 they had no authority to determine, that 
 fuch tefls fhould always be confidered as 
 eflential to the enjoyment of the public 
 protedion. The confining of indulgence 
 to the belief of particular tenets, or to a 
 compliance with human articles, was, at 
 that time, contrary to the principles of 
 reafon, legiflation, Chriftianity, and Pro- 
 teftantifm ; but to have pretended to fix 
 thefe terms for future periods, fo that it 
 fhould not be -in the power of fucceeding 
 oenerations to alter or reverfe them, would 
 have been abfurd in the highefl degree. It 
 would have been both contrary to the 
 principles upon which alone the Refor- 
 mation
 
 { 53 ) 
 
 mation could be juftified, and to the very 
 defign and fpirlt of the Toleration Adl. 
 Its intention was, to give relief to fuch 
 fcrupulous confciences as then exifted ; 
 when, therefore, other fcruples of con- 
 fcience arife among men, who are upright 
 and peaceable members of the commu- 
 nity, it is agreeable to the real genius and 
 meaning of that ad:, that fuch cafes fhould 
 be provided for. I Should wifh to be in- 
 formed, how long this idea of its being 
 a padum conventum, never, in any re- 
 fpedt, to be improved, hath been ftarted. 
 I have not before met with it in the courfe 
 of my reading, and believe that it hath 
 not been advanced by any gentlemen 
 learned in the law. It feems to be, evident- 
 ly, an EPISCOPAL invention, produced, 
 without the colour of reafon or equity, to 
 prevent the fuccefs of the late application. 
 However high and refpedable, therefore, 
 may be the rank of the perfons from 
 whom the notion proceeded ; and how- 
 ever largely it may have lately been inlifl:- 
 ed u|,^on ; I beg leave to difmifs it with 
 ccnrenipt, as big with abfurdity and falfe- 
 
 hood;
 
 ( 54 ) 
 
 hood,- as repugnant to every juft idea of 
 the nature of Chriftianity, the end of civil 
 government, and the reafonable demands 
 of Toleration. 
 
 Another thing, v^^hich hath been much 
 infifted upon, is the vaguenefs of the de- 
 claration propofed to the legiflature, in 
 the room of the fubfcription heretofore 
 required; but in no refped: can it be 
 proved to be fo. *' We declare, as in 
 
 THE PRESENCE OF AlMIGHTY GoD, 
 
 that we believe that the holy 
 Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament contain a revej^ation 
 OF the mind and will of God, and 
 that we receive them as the rule 
 of our faith and practice." Now 
 what can be a more explicit declaration of 
 our Chriftian and Proteftant principles? 
 To affert, as hath been afferted, that it may 
 be made by a Deift, a Mohammedan, or 
 a Papift, is very furprizing. Can an infi- 
 del fay, that he believes that the holy 
 Scriptures, of the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment, contain a revelation of the mind 
 and will of God, and that he receives 
 
 them
 
 ( is ") 
 
 them as the rule of his faith and practice? 
 Can a Mohammedan, whofe ftandard of 
 doctrine and wor(hip is the Koran, pre- 
 tend that the holy Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Teftament are the rule of his 
 faith and pradice ? Or can the Roman 
 Catholic, who holds the infallibility of the 
 pope, or of general councils, and who 
 maintains the authority of the traditions 
 of the church, declare that the Scriptures 
 are the rule of his faith and practice? It is 
 impoffible, that any of thefe perfons could 
 fubfcribe the declaration with truth. 
 They could not do it, confidently with 
 the principles they profefs to embrace. In 
 {hort, by this declaration, DilTenting Mi- 
 nillers do, bona fide, proclaim, that they 
 are Chriftians and Proteftants, and may 
 fafely appeal to the great Searcher of 
 hearts for the integrity of their conduct. 
 With regard to any charge, or infmuation 
 to the contrary, 1 beg leave to borrow 
 of Lord Chatham the befl words that 
 can be ufed upon the fubjedt : ■*' Who- 
 *• ever thinks fo, thinks uncharitably ; 
 *' and whoever fays fo, without proof, 
 
 *' is guilty of defamation/' 
 
 With
 
 C 56 ) 
 
 With regard to Popery, the Diflenting 
 Minifters are ready, likewife, to fubfcribe 
 the Declaration required by law -, to 
 which may be added, that they chear- 
 FULLY take theoaths of allegiance and fu- 
 premacy, and are defirous of giving all 
 reafonable fecurity to government, for 
 their behaving in a manner that fliall juft- 
 ly entitle them to its proted:ion. No- 
 thing more, therefore, ought to be re- 
 quired ^ and with refped: to matters of 
 dodrine, they can go no farther in their 
 fubmiffion to the civil magiftrate, than 
 they have already offered to do. Were 
 they to go farther, they would, as hath 
 been fhewn above, depart from their pro- 
 fefTed principles, as Chriftians, Prote- 
 flants, and Proteftant DifTenters. Were 
 they to go farther, they would break the 
 bond which holds them together, and de- 
 fert the caufe of truth and of God, in 
 which they are united. 
 
 Two or three of our brethren have ob- 
 jedted to the Declaration itself, affented 
 to by the committee, not as diibelieving it, 
 but as a demand which the magifirate has 
 
 no
 
 ( 57 ) 
 
 ho right to make, and as a conceflion 
 which ought not to be fubmitted to on 
 our pnrt. In anfwer to thefe gentlemen, 
 I beg leave to cblcrve, that my idea of 
 Toleration is as large as theirs can poffi- 
 bly be, and that 1 wifh to fee it granted 
 in its full extent. Religion is the bufi- 
 nefs of the heart, and to be efficacious 
 muft be voluntary. Religion, in every 
 form of it which is confident with the 
 fafety of the ftate, has an unlltnited 
 title to indulgence. I do not, therefore, 
 think that liberty of confcience ought to 
 be confined to Chriftianity j nor do I 
 think, that the magiftrate hath, proper- 
 ly and (Iricftly, a right to Interpofe in reli- 
 gious matters, fo as to lay any reftraint 
 upon, or to prefcribe any ted, to thofe 
 who behave as peaceable fubjecSs, I con- 
 fider the Declaration as needlefs, with 
 regard to Diffcntlng Minifters; and am 
 fully pcrfuaded, t'lat they have a jufl and 
 i]iH-xceptional>Ie claim to be tolerated 
 witliout it. in the lixlh year of the reign 
 of ki-g (jeorge the fird, a Toleration was 
 granted to the Dilfentcrs in Ireland, on 
 the terms only of fubfcribing the Dccla- 
 1 raiij.a
 
 . ( S8 } 
 
 ration agalnft Popery, and taking th6 
 oaths of allegiance and fupremacy ; and 
 this appears to be a fecurity to the ftate, 
 which is abundantly fufficient. Its fuffi- 
 eiency has been proved, by the experience 
 of more than half a century ; during 
 which, not the leaft difadvantage hath 
 arifen to government from granting li- 
 berty of confcience on fuch generous 
 principles. We know, too, that the 
 Epifcopalians have been tolerated in Scot- 
 land upon the like terms. For thefe rea- 
 sons, I fliould be better pleafed if we 
 could be admitted to the benefit of the 
 Tolefation A61, upon the fame conditions 
 which are annexed to it in Ireland; and 
 I fhould have deemed it_abfolutely my du- 
 ty, tQ refufe conceding to the Declara- 
 tion of the bill, if it had been apprehend- 
 ed, that it would have left any fcrupulous 
 brother in a worfe flate than he was in 
 before. But as the committee were per- 
 fuaded that this would not have been the 
 €afe, and underftood that fome declara- 
 tion was expeded, they were defirous of 
 obtaining an important addition to religi^ 
 cus liberty, in a way which they believ- 
 ed
 
 ( 59 ) 
 
 cd confident with the univerfal principles 
 of the DiOenters. Let it be remember- 
 ed, that it was not the bufincfs of the 
 Diflenting Minifters, in their late appli- 
 cation, to take upon them the caufe of all 
 mankind, however iincerely they might 
 wifli the moft unlimited indulgence to 
 the facred rights of confcience. They 
 were not conflituted deputies of the whole 
 liuman race, but appeared in the particu- 
 lar charadler of Proteftant Diflenting Mi- 
 nifters, and afked the relief which was 
 wifhed for in that particular lituation. 
 Could they, therefore, really objedt, or 
 could they expe<5t that any of their bre- 
 thren would objed: to their declaring the 
 diHinguitliing and univerfal principles of 
 the DifTenting Clergy ? Could they re- 
 fufe to tell their names ? Could they he- 
 fitate, for the fake of receiving an im- 
 portant benefit, to confefs a truth we all 
 glory in, that we believe that the 
 Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
 New TestAxMent contain a reve^ 
 lation of the mind and w^ll op 
 God, and that we receive them as 
 THE rule of our faith and prac- 
 
 I 2 TIC£{'
 
 ( 6o ) 
 
 TiCE ? Whether, the magiflrate has, 
 or has not, a right to afk us who, or 
 what we are, can It be criminal in 
 lis to declare our common denomina- 
 tion and principle ? Can it be criminal 
 in us to fay, that we are Chriftians and 
 Proteftants ? The fubmitting to an unjufl 
 demand, does not imply an acknowledg- 
 ment of the authority by which it is 
 made. Such a demand may be honeftly 
 complied with, when we only teftify a 
 truth, in order to avoid a real evil, and to 
 gain an important good. Befidcs, the De- 
 claration is, in reality, a difavowal of hu- 
 man authority in matters of religion. It 
 is fo far from departing from our allegi- 
 ance to our great Lord and Mafler, that it 
 Js an affertion of it, in the mod explicit 
 terms. What is it that ufually, and as 
 Chriftians, we mean by human authori- 
 ty, in matters of religion ? Is it not the 
 impofitlon of Articles, Creeds, and Con- 
 feffions, and the infiftlng upon terms of 
 Communion, which our blefled Saviour 
 hath not appointed? But by the Declara- 
 tion, we renounce, and enter our protett 
 againft any fuch clal.Ti, and ftand up for 
 
 the
 
 ( 6i ) 
 
 the liberty to which we are called by the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 Having, I hope, by thefe obfervations, 
 fet the condud: of the committee in a jiift 
 light, I return to the objedions of our 
 common adverfaries. Agreeably to their 
 declamations againft the Declaration, as 
 indeterminate and diflatisfacftory, they 
 fcarce treat us as Chrirtians, and would 
 inftnuate that we are Deifts ; but I am to- 
 tally at a lofs to conceive what poffible 
 grounds there can be forfuch an infinua- 
 tion. The charader of Chriftians, and 
 of Chriflian Minii^ers, is a character in 
 which we rejoice and glory. That we are 
 firm believers in the divine religion of 
 the Son of God, appears in our dif- 
 courfes, appears in our writings, and, 
 we trufl, is viiible our lives. Thofe Dif-r 
 fentlngMinifters who have attacked feve- 
 ralof the doctrines of the church of Eng- 
 land, with the greateft freedom and bold- 
 nefs, have given undeniable proofs of their 
 fincere faith in the Gofpel, and have exert- 
 ed themfclves, with ability and zeal, in de- 
 fence of its facred authority. Some of the 
 beft vindications of the Chrlillan revela- 
 tion
 
 ( 62 ) 
 
 tioQ have come from men, who would 
 have facrificed their lives rather thari 
 fubfcribe the Thirty-nine Articles. Ii) 
 fa6l, where are infidels more likely to be 
 found J among the clergy of an eftablifh- 
 ment, who are invited to conformity, by 
 the profped of hono.urs and rewards, or 
 among Proteftant Diflenting Miniilers, 
 who, in general, can have no motives, 
 but confcience, and a regard to a future 
 flate, for embracing a fituation expofed 
 to many temporal inconveniences and dif- 
 couragements ? It would be invidious to 
 enlarge upon this topic, but much might be 
 faid upon it, by one who is acquainted 
 WITH THE WORLD. As to this infamous 
 accufation of Deifm, brought againft the 
 PifTenting Clergy, we might farther ap- 
 peal, in confutation of it, to their nume- 
 rous productions. We miglit appeal to 
 the names of many perfons, of refpefl- 
 able and eminent characters, who are now 
 no more. We rnight appeal to the names 
 of feveral living worthies j but Mr. Mau- 
 duit hath difcuffed this matter fo excel- 
 lently, in the conclufion of the third edi- 
 tion of his valuable pamphlet, that it
 
 ( ^3 ) 
 
 Is needlefs to add any thing upon the fut^ 
 
 Another very extraordinary chargCj 
 wrged againO:u?,is, that if vverefufeto fub- 
 Icribe the doctrinal Articles of the church 
 of England, as required by the Tolera- 
 tion Act, we cut ourfelves off from the 
 title and charader of Proteftants. This 
 is really a curious difcovery, which de- 
 ferves, no doubt, to be treated with all 
 the refpect that is due to the quarter from 
 whence it came. Protest an tChr.isti a- 
 KiTvit feems, was fixed for the DilTenters 
 at the Revolution. It was abfolutely an- 
 nexed to fonie doiftrines, which, at that 
 period, were deemed important and fun- 
 damental y and the Icaft departure from 
 them totally deftroys our Proteftantifm. 
 But what then will become of many of 
 the ellablifhcd clergy, as well as of the 
 DifTenting Miniiters ? A number of the 
 eflabliflied Clergy have as notorioufly de- 
 parted from the (tandard of faith, pre- 
 fcribed to them, ns any of the Noncon- 
 formiHs. The iMIniders of the national 
 form cf rcliinon do. indeed, fubfcribc the 
 
 Thirty-
 
 ( 64 ) 
 
 Thirty-nine Articles ; but that will not 
 render them true Proteftants, becaufe 
 Proteftantifm, according to the notion 
 lately ftarted, confifts in a belief of the 
 dodlrines impofed upon the clergy in the 
 reign of queen Elizabeth, and upon the 
 Diffenters at the acceffion of William 
 and Mary, What havoc will this opi- 
 nion make among many of the brighteft 
 luminaries of the church of England, and 
 what deftrudtion in the writings of thofe 
 who have been juftly efteemed the ablefl 
 adverfaries to Popery ! 
 
 But let us fee what is the true 
 nature of Proteftantifm, and whit the 
 real principles are, on which it is 
 founded. I had always underftood, that 
 a Proteflant was one who appealed to 
 the Scriptures, as the fole rule of faith 
 and pra(^ice ; and who rejected the ab- 
 furdities, corruptions, and abon:iinations 
 of the church of Rome. This I found 
 alTerted in a thouiand writers, and the 
 truth of it I knew to be evident, from the 
 whole hiftory of the Reformation. Tef- 
 timonies to this purpofe might be produc- 
 ed, were it necelTary, from a prodigious 
 
 num-
 
 ( 6j ) 
 
 number of valuable authors, foreign and 
 domeftic, reaching through a period of 
 two hundred and fifty years. But I lliall 
 content myfelf with one late teftimony, 
 and it is a teftiinony which cannot but be 
 thought decidve, as it comes from a dig- 
 nitary of the eftablifiiment, whofe ortho- 
 doxy hath never been called in queflion. 
 I mean the truly ingenious and learned 
 Dr. Hurd, whofe beautiful critical writ- 
 ings, and admirable dialogues, are well 
 known to every man of taflein this coun- 
 try, and who hath lately done confider- 
 able fervice to the caufe of religion by his 
 Introduction to the Study of Prophecy* 
 Jn the twelfth fermon * he obferves, that 
 ** this conclufion, that the Pope is 
 *' AiiTicHRiST, and that other, ~ that 
 ** THE Scripture is the sole rui.e of 
 " Christian faith, were the two 
 *' great principles on which the Re- 
 ** formation was originally founded.'* 
 Jn the latter of tbefe principles the Dif- 
 fenters are united without a fingle excep- 
 tion ; and I believe that they hold the 
 
 * P^-ge 420, fecoiid edition. 
 
 K former
 
 ( 66 ) 
 
 former of them more flronglyand univer-' 
 fally than any other body of Proteftants 
 whatever. 
 
 May we not then, after what hath been 
 produced, fafely afk, whether people may 
 not be genuine Proteftants, though they 
 do not come up to the ftandard of doc- 
 trines required to be fubfcribed by the 
 Ad: of Toleration ? May we not afTert, 
 that fuch of the ffon-fubfcribing Diffent- 
 ing Minifters as are not Calvinifts have a 
 juft claim to this character r We declare, 
 in the moft explicit terms, for the right 
 of private judgment, the fufficiency of 
 Scripture, and the fole religious authority 
 of our Lord and Mafter Jefus Chrift. We 
 proteft againft the impofing fpirit of the 
 Church of Rome, and againft all her pre- 
 tenlions to infallibility and dominion. 
 We proteft againft her monftrous abfurdi- 
 ties, her fliameful corruptions, and her 
 contemptible fuperftitions. We proteft 
 againft her horrid cruelties and bloody 
 perfecutions. We proteft againft the claim 
 and exercife of any fimilar authority over 
 ,the faith and confciences of men- We 
 
 proteft
 
 ( 6; ) 
 
 J^roteil agalnfl: making the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, or other human tefts, the ftand- 
 ards of belief, as a thing which is fubver- 
 live of the eflential principles of the Re- 
 formation : and, finally, we proteft again ft 
 the fcandalous injuftice of not being treat- 
 ed as Proteftants. 
 
 As to the inlinuations which are occa- 
 fionally thrown out with regard to Arian- 
 ifm and Socinianifm, it hath already been 
 fhewn that they are nothing to the pur- 
 pofe. They are, in fa(5t, only the artifices 
 of perfons who want to reduce the prefent 
 queftion, about the Extent of Toleration, 
 to a debate concerning docftrines, with 
 which it has not the leaft connexion. 
 Arians and Socinians, according to every 
 principle of religion and policy, have as 
 full a right to freedom of confcienceas any 
 men, as any profefllng Chriftians what- 
 ever. It is, indeed, totally defirudive of 
 liberty to confine Toleration to certain 
 particular tenets of the Gofpel, however 
 important thefe tenets may be in a reli- 
 gious view. When the civil magiftrate 
 thus limits his protedion and indulgence 
 K 2 to
 
 ( 68 ) 
 
 to his fubjeds, he goes wholly out of his 
 province : he afiumes a power for which he 
 hath no commiffion from the nature of his 
 office, and the exercife of which is equally 
 injurious to the honour of the Supreme 
 Being, and to the happinefs of mankind. 
 It ought ever to be remembered, that God 
 is able to maintain his own caufe -, and 
 that truth only requires a fair and candid 
 hearing in order to preferve its ground, 
 and finally to triumph overall oppofition. 
 To alTer't that the fundamental do(flrrnes of 
 the Gofpcl fland in need of the aid of hu- 
 man laws to fupport them, is the highefl 
 refledion upon thofe doctrines. We have 
 the alTurance of our blefied Saviour, that 
 
 THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PRE- 
 VAIL AGAINST HIS CHURCH * j and this is- 
 an infinitely better fecurity than the arm 
 OF FLESH. It is rafh and impious for 
 men to touch, with their unhallowed 
 htmds, under the vain pretence of keeping 
 it from being (liaken, that ark of God 
 which h fuftained. by almighty power ; 
 »r>'.' it bc'hoves them to reflect how highly
 
 ( 69 ) 
 
 oitenfive fuch a condudt mud be to tll5 
 Majefty of Heaven and earth. In fa(ft, this 
 maintenance of dodrines, by fines and im" 
 prifonments, by penalties and pains, in- 
 Head of being favourable to the intereds 
 of truth and piety, hath been prejudicial 
 to them in the highefV degree. It hath 
 been the fource of numberlefs errors, of 
 endlefs divifions and animofities, and of 
 cruelties *and perfecutions, which are an 
 indelible difgrace to the hiflory of man-^ 
 kind. 
 
 But, in oppofition to this jufl reprefen- 
 tation of things, an alarming pidure is 
 fet before us of the drcadfulconfequences 
 which muft have enfued from an enlarge- 
 
 o 
 
 ment of the Toleration Adl. The refult 
 of it, we are told, would have been the 
 utmoft difcord and confufion. A man, 
 however, who hath any knowledge of the 
 world, cannot help fmiling at fuch terrible 
 apprehenfions, when there is not the leaft 
 fhadow of danger. That there would not 
 have been the leafl; flindow of danger hath 
 been already determined by long expe- 
 rience. The liberty pleaded for hath been 
 
 granted
 
 ( 7«> 5 
 
 granted by connivance; and it is allowed, 
 that it muft be continued to be granted 
 in that manner. How then can that be 
 pernicious which hath already fubfifted 
 for a number of years, and which muft, 
 confefTedly, ftill fubfift ? The truth of the 
 cafe is, that if our requeft had been com- 
 plied with, the conceffion would have 
 been followed by the moft perfed: tran- 
 quility. Had the bill pafTed both Houfes 
 of Parliament, and received the royal af- 
 fent, it would fcarcely have been talked 
 of a few days after, except to the honour 
 of the flate and the church. The minds of 
 Nonconformifts would have been more 
 and more conciliated to the eftablilliment, 
 and lefs difpofed to attack it with feveri- 
 ty. The confequences would have been 
 entirely favourable and friendly to the 
 public mode of religion, but not other- 
 wife fo to Diflentino- Miniflcrs and 
 School-mafters, than as they would have 
 been put into a legal fituation. 
 
 To aflert, however, that fucli a fitua- 
 tion is not likely to produce inconve- 
 niencies, is treated with contempt j and 
 
 it
 
 ( 70 
 
 it is thrown out that the prefent laws aro 
 a reftraint on our paffions. But let us be 
 permitted to fay that this is a miftake. 
 The pcrlifting to threaten, though there be 
 be no intention to ftrike, may irritate, 
 but will not filence a liberal mind. I am 
 perfuaded that feveral of my brethren 
 v.'ill deliver their fentiments the more 
 freely in confequence of the obftinate re- 
 fufal which hath been given to their juft 
 and reafonable requeft; whereas otherwife 
 they might have been induced to hold 
 their peace by the dictates of gratitude, 
 and the obligations of civility and good 
 manners. The lenity of the governors of 
 the church might have foothed us to re- 
 pofe; but we will not be awe-struck 
 by their feverity. If the clergy imagine 
 that they can affright us from an open 
 exhibition of our opinions on every fub- 
 jedt of religion, and on every queftion, in 
 which the rights of confcience are con- 
 cerned, by the vain terrors of penal laws, 
 let them be affured, that they are totally 
 unacquainted with our charadlers. If the 
 prayer of our cafe had been complied 
 
 with.
 
 ( 72 ) 
 
 with, the author of the prefent tra6t, who 
 hath been led, by inclination and duty, to 
 the iludy of critical and hiiloricai learn- 
 ing, would probably never have en- 
 gaged in any dodlrinal controverfy, or i^ 
 any difputes with the national eliablini- 
 ment. But he now efleems himfelf bound, 
 by the mod facred ties, to appear in the 
 injured caufe of humanity and religious li- 
 berty ; and hopes that he fliall always be 
 ready to embrace every proper occaiion of 
 ^landing up for what he apprehends to be 
 the interefts of truth, Chriiiianity, and 
 piankind. 
 
 Among the other evil confequences of 
 an extended Toleration, it is iniinuated, 
 that Diffenting Minifters might become 
 with impunity the preachers of fcdition. 
 But what ground is there for fuch an in- 
 vidious furmife, as it is well known that 
 they are willing to give fccurity for their 
 peaceable fubjedion to the civil magif- 
 trate ? They are- not djfpofed to bring 
 matters of policy and government into the 
 pulpit : and though one worthy brother* 
 
 * ^r. RadclifF, 
 
 hatl^
 
 ( 73 ) 
 hath been provoked to throw out, in a fcr- 
 mon, didtated by genius snd fpirit, the 
 language of manly indignation, let it be 
 remembered that this is the refult of li- 
 berty's being refufed, not of its being en- 
 larged. Our chief, I may venture to fay, 
 our fole political difcourfes, except on the 
 feafons occafionally appointed by the flate 
 for public fafts and thanklgivings, are con- 
 fined to the fifth of November and thefirll 
 of Auguft. On thefe days, we are copious 
 in our celebration of the glorious revolu- 
 tion in 1688, and the happy acceffion of 
 the illuftrious houfe of Hanover in 1714. 
 Our encomiums upon William the Third, 
 George the Firft, and George the Second, 
 are exprcfled with all the ardor of venera- 
 tion and affedion ; nor are we negligent 
 in difplaying our gratitude and zeal v^'ith 
 regard to the prince who now adorns the 
 Britidi throne. Thefe things, we hope, 
 will not be imputed to us as crimes, or be 
 confidered as objections to our enjoying 
 the prote<5tion and favour of the prefent 
 government. 
 
 L But
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 But the clergy, it feems, have reafon to 
 be alamied, left, in the courfe ofhuman 
 events, the DiiTenting Minifters {hould get 
 into power; and then what would become 
 of the Church of England ? The members 
 of it, it is intimated, might ht in danger of 
 being expelled, or even exterminated, as 
 idolaters. If there be a likelihood of our 
 ever fifing to be formidable, wifdom and 
 policy, perhaps,, would fay, that men who 
 may poflibly one day be uppermoft, ought 
 to be treated with lenity and indulgence 
 while in a flate of fubjedion, that they 
 may be difpofed to make fuitable returns 
 of aitecftion and regard. But our worthy 
 friends of the ertablifhment may difmifs 
 every kind of fear for two reafons. In 
 the firft place, there is no probability of 
 Qur obtaining any fuperiority or dominion ; 
 fo that the bifliopi and dignitaries, of the 
 prefent age at leaft, may reft in perfe(ft 
 tranquillity. Secondly, if ever we Ihould 
 get into power, and even thought the 
 Church of Encrland to be idolatrou^s, 
 which is by no means a general or com- 
 mon
 
 ( 75 ) 
 
 mon fentlment among us, we are firmly 
 perfuaded that Toleration ought to be ex- 
 tended to idolaters. In this point we 
 have the honour of agreeing with a pre- 
 late * of diftingiiifhed genius and litera« 
 tare ; and in this point we difagrec with 
 another great prelate, though, in many 
 refpedts, we have the higheft cftecm f6r 
 his abilities, chiracfter, learning, and writ- 
 ings -f'. 
 
 It is farther objeded to the late appli- 
 cation, that only a fmall number ofMini- 
 flers were concerned in it, fo that, in re- 
 ality, it might be confidered as afking a 
 favour, which may almofc be called per- 
 fonal. The beft anfwcr to this rcprefen- 
 tation of things is briefly to mention a 
 few plain fadis. At a meeting of the 
 general body of the three denominations 
 of Prefbyterians, Independents, and Anti- 
 poedobaptifts. In and about London, held 
 at the Library in Red-crofs-ftreet, March 
 4th, i'/y2, fifty being prefcnt, it was re* 
 
 • Dr. Warburton, bifiiop of GJouccncr. 
 f Dr. L'jWthj blHicp cf Oxford. 
 
 L 2 folvcd,
 
 ( 76 ) 
 
 lolved. That the taking off the Sub- 
 fcription required of Proteftant Diffenting 
 Miniflers, and the obtaining relief forTu- 
 tors and School-mailers, are very defir-t 
 able and important objedsj that applica- 
 tioa (liould be made to Parliament for 
 thefe purpofes ; and that a committee be 
 chofen to manage the affair, with power 
 to fummon the general bocj^v as they (hould 
 fee occadon. To thefe refolutions only 
 one perfon difagreed. On the following 
 day, about twenty other mini(l:ers met at 
 the Library, and exprefTed to the chair- 
 man of the committee their approbation 
 of, and concurrence with the defign ; nor 
 do I recoiled: that the original vote hath 
 been impugned at any fubfequent affem- 
 bly, by the few vv^ho have appeared the 
 mod diffatisfied with the condudl of the 
 committee. The approved miniflers of 
 the three denominations, in and about 
 London, are ninety-five, Bclides thofe 
 who concurred from the beginning in the 
 ?ipplication to Parliament, there were 
 others who appeared on the fame fide of 
 the quefiion at fucceeding meetings ; and 
 
 feve^
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 feveral, who by age, illnefs, or various cir^ 
 cumftances, were prevented from attend- 
 ing at all, have given undoubted proofs 
 of their hearty aflcnt to the fcheme. It 
 happened, indeed, that, during the profe- 
 cution of the affair, a fmall number ob- 
 jeded to the management of the com- 
 mittee. One gentleman difliked the hav- 
 ing of any Declaration at all, as being an 
 improper conceffion to the (late in matters 
 of religion. Others were difpleafed that 
 the Declaration precluded an open pro- 
 feflion before the civil magiftrate of their 
 firm belief of the dodrinai articles of the 
 Church of England; nor did they ap- 
 prove of the Tedimonial required by the 
 bill, apprehending it might be conv.erted 
 to the prejudice of fome worthy men of 
 the Methodiftical {lamp, who, though not 
 regularly admitted among us, might 
 defire to qualify under the character of 
 DilTenting Minifters ; an apprehenfion 
 which, to me, appears not to have the 
 leaft foundation. Be that as it may, it is 
 certain that, on no account, in no quef- 
 tion whatever, were there more hands 
 held up than fix in the way of oppofition ; 
 
 an
 
 ( 7^ ) 
 
 an union this, which, I believe, hath not 
 been found in any other meafure of fo 
 public a nature ; to which may be added, 
 that there is not a fingle perfon in the 
 body, who profefTes to wiih that his bre- 
 thren, who He under difficulties with re- 
 gard to the Toleration Ad, may be left 
 fubje<5l to its penalties. 
 
 This great unanimity is by no means 
 confined to the DifTenting Clergy in or 
 near the city of London. Thejuftand 
 important reafons which determined the 
 Minifters of the metropolis and of the 
 places adjacent, to take up the matter 
 fomewhat fuddenly, and late in the fef- 
 fion of Parliament, prevented that uiii- 
 verfal application to their brethren in 
 the country, which was originally in- 
 tended ; but the members of the com- 
 mittee, and other perfons, had an op- 
 portunity of applying to a confiderable 
 number of them in different parts of the 
 kingdom, and received, in return, their 
 entire approbation and hearty encourage- 
 n^ent. Many of their letters might be 
 produced to this purpofe ; and it ap^ 
 peared by ftriking fadls how zealous they 
 
 were
 
 ( 79 5 
 
 were in the caufe. The moH: agreeable 
 proofs have fince been tranfmitted of their 
 uniting with us in the fame wifhes, and 
 of their having the fame fentiments with 
 regard to the propriety of an applica- 
 tion for the removal of Subfcription. 
 Should, therefore, a fecond application to 
 Parliament be thought advifeable, it will 
 be fully feen how univerfally the DifTent- 
 ing Miniflers in England and Wales are 
 folicitous for an enlargement of the To- 
 leration A(ft, and how entirely they ap- 
 prove of proper meafures being taken to 
 efFed: fo defirable and important an ob- 
 je(5t. The laity have raanifefted, likewife, 
 their zeal in the cau(e, though immediate- 
 ly interefled in that part alone of the late 
 bill, which was intended to provide for 
 the free education of their children, and 
 which, indeed, is a matter of great im- 
 portance to the whole body of Noncon- 
 formifls. 
 
 But were it a fadt, that only a minority 
 of the DifiTcnting Minifters had foliciled 
 relief in the matter of Subfcription, this 
 ought not to have been an hindrance to 
 their fuccefs. Their caufe reAs on its own 
 
 rea-
 
 ( go ) 
 
 reafonablenefs and equity. Independent of* 
 numbers. The grievance is perfonal, 
 and therefore every fingle man hath a 
 right to feek redrefs. He hath a title too, 
 on the principles of juftice and found po- 
 licy, to be heard, and attended to, in his 
 petition. The arguments in favour of a li-* 
 beral Toleration apply to all, hov^^ever few, 
 who cannot confcientioufly fubfcribeTefls 
 of human compofition. 
 
 With regard to the very fmall number 
 of Minifters who were unfriendly to their 
 brethren in the late affair, and endeavoured 
 to obftrud: the folicited relief, let me be 
 permitted to give them a hint for the re- 
 gulation of their future conduct. It be- 
 hoves them to take care, that they do not 
 inadvertently injure themfelves. The time 
 is probably approaching when the Thirty- 
 nine Articles will be revifed and altered, 
 A fcheme of this kind is in agitation 
 nmong the governors of the church -, and 
 fhould it be carried into execution, there 
 can be little doubt but that ftridl Cal- 
 vinifm will be excluded, and an Armi-* 
 nian turn be given to the eflabliOied doc- 
 trines.
 
 ( 8i ) 
 
 trirtes. In that cafe, a number of DiiTent* 
 ing Minirters, who are zealousC alvinirts, 
 may labour under fimilar difficulties with 
 thofe who now obje(ft to particular parts 
 of the prefent Articles. They may be ob- 
 liged by law to fubfcribe opinions which 
 they apprehend to be contrary to the truth 
 of the Gofpel, and, in order "to obtain re- 
 lief, may wifh for the affiftance of their 
 brethren who are in different fentimcnts. 
 Nor need they be afraid of a retaliation i 
 for all poffible aid will, I doubt not, be 
 granted them, upon the great principles 
 which unite the whole body of the Dii- 
 fenters*. 
 
 * Should the proje^led Reformation of the Church of 
 England be carried into execution, among other difRcul- 
 tics attending the undertaking, one will umloubtedly be, 
 how to fettle the laws with refpe^l to Proteflant Diflent- 
 ing Miniflers. Muft they accommodate their con- 
 fcicnces to the f]u£luations of the public opinion, and 
 be obliged to fubfcribe Articles ditTercnt from, perhaps 
 contrary to thofe impofod upon them before ? or will 
 they be entirely freed from the burden of human im- 
 pofitions ? I hope that it will net be found foeafy to 
 enacl new penal ftatutcs in matters cfrcligionj as it hath 
 been to retain the old ones. 
 
 M It
 
 ( 82 ) 
 
 It IS in vain, however, to attempt the 
 removal of particular objections to the ex- 
 ten (ion of the Toleration AO:, lince we a-re 
 told, that the " nature and delign of civil 
 ** fociety are clearly against us." 
 
 In anfwer to this bold and groundlcfs 
 poiition, it is fuflicicnt to affert, that the 
 nature and delign of civil fociety are clear- 
 ly FOR us : but if any clergyman be dif- 
 pofed to reft the caufe on a fair, full, and 
 didinit difcuffion of the point, fome or 
 other of my brethren will, I doubt not, 
 undertake it with pleafure. Indeed,' 
 the farther confideration of the queftioii 
 is needlefs, becaufe it hath already been 
 determined in the itr.mortal v>'ritings of 
 Locke, Hoadly, and other friends to ci- 
 vil and religious liberty. It is the inten- 
 tion of every juft and well formed fydem 
 of government to protect its fubjedls in the 
 exercife of their moft facred rights, among 
 which tlie right of worihipping God ac- 
 cording to the didates oi confcience, is 
 effential and unalienable. To fay, there- 
 fore, that the nature and dcfign of civil 
 fociety are clearly againft repealing the
 
 ( 83 ) 
 
 penalties of the Toleration Ad, if it be 
 faid with fincerity, can only be the refult 
 of uncommon ignorance. 
 
 In fupport of a dodtrlne fo contrary to 
 every principle of reafon, religion, and 
 found policy, it is alledged that *• the 
 ** ftate hath an undoubted right to control 
 ** overt adts, and that preaching is an overt 
 ** a6l of fome importance to the ftate." But 
 has the meaning of an overt a(fl been at- 
 tended to in this aflertion ? Accordin": to 
 the idea here given of it, it might be ex- 
 tended to almoft every circumflance in 
 human life. The tranfadlions of indivi^ 
 duals in their neareft and deareft private 
 concerns, in the management of their af- 
 fairs, the reg-uUtion of their families, the 
 education of their children, and a thou- 
 fand particulars befides, may be confider- 
 ed, in their tendencies and eiteds, as im- 
 portant to the community. But are thefe 
 things to be controlled by penal laws ? i^^i. 
 that cafe, perfonal and domedic liberty 
 and happinefs, on v/hich public felicity is 
 founded, would be totally dcilroyed, and, 
 by confequence, every thing which ren- 
 JM 2 Gcr.
 
 ( 84 ) 
 
 ders our prefent exiilence valuable and de- 
 lightful. 
 
 The true and proper notion of an overt 
 adt is an ad: done with a rpalicious inten- 
 tion, an a6l criminally injurious to the 
 public, and which can be proved to be 
 fuch by juil and legal evidence. This I 
 appreheiad is the fenfe of the word, as it 
 occurs in law-books, and as it is ufed in 
 judicial proceedings. In this fenfe of the 
 word, the civil magiitrate hath not only 
 an undoubted authority, but it is a prime 
 part of his bufinefs, to. control overt 
 ads ; and here may be drawn the line of 
 Toleration. Whatever religious princi- 
 ples any man may pretend to, whatever 
 pleas of confcience may be urged by him, 
 if he hurts his neighbour in perfon or 
 property, if he difturbs his fellow-crea- 
 tures in the exercife of their rights and 
 privileges, he ought to be reflrained and 
 punifhed. This is the precife point at 
 which it becornes the duty of the flate to 
 interfere ; and if the ftate fhould interfere 
 fooner, and extend its jurifdidion to the 
 tendencies of opinions, it will be impof- 
 
 fible
 
 ( 85 V 
 fjble to know where to Aop. Spequlations 
 and fancies about the tendencies of opinions 
 might be carried on to the entire deftruc- 
 tion of Toleration, and the vindication of 
 every fpecies of perfecution and tyranny. 
 An over-zealous Arminian will be ready 
 to contend, that feveral dodrines are con- 
 tained even in the Thirty-nine Articles of 
 the Church of England, which are calcu- 
 lated to have a bad eiFecfl on the morals 
 and happinefs of mankind. An over- 
 zealous Calvinift will as warmly plead, 
 that the power afcribed to man by fome 
 divines, and other tenets held by them, 
 are extremely prejudicial to the interefls 
 ofholinefs. Things of this kind are too 
 apt to be thrown out on both fides, which 
 have a ftronger tindlure of paflion than of 
 reafon. Accufations of the like fort might 
 be produced againft a variety of religious 
 fentiments, till, at length, not liberty 
 only, but piety and charity, would be loll 
 in the conteft. But I fay the lefs on the 
 fubjecl, as my ingenious and valuable 
 friend, Dr. Furneaux, who hath been par- 
 ticularly attacked upon it, will do ample 
 
 juiHce
 
 ( 86 ) 
 
 juftlce to himfclf and to the caufe la 
 which he is engaged. 
 ' I (hall leave it to the fame gentleman to 
 vindicate himfelf and the Proteftant Dif- 
 fenters, uith regard to what is alleged 
 againfl him and them, concerning the de- 
 iign of appointing bifiiops in America. 
 The charge of holding intolerant prin- 
 ciples upon this head is unfair in the 
 higheft degree; for fuch principles are 
 difclaimed and abhorred by the whole 
 body of Proteflant DifTenters. With re- 
 fpedt to the American Epifcopalians, if 
 they aflc for abifliop as a religious officer, to 
 ORDAIN, CONFIRM, and perform the Other 
 SPIRITUAL duties belonging to that cha- 
 racter, they have a right to be indulged in 
 their requeft ; and to deny that they have 
 fuch a right would be a departure from 
 the fundamental Ideas of Toleration. 
 Should it, therefore, be thought needful 
 to fend bifhops to the colonies, who fhall 
 have no power oj prerogative, of any 
 KIND, that may be detrimental to their 
 fellow Chriftians, and who (hall only be 
 put on a fair and equal footing vvith every 
 
 dif-
 
 ( 87 ) 
 
 different fed In matters of rellijion and 
 confciencc, fuch an inftitution ought not 
 to be oppofed, and will not, I am perfuad- 
 cd, be oppofed by the DiiTenters in Eng- 
 land. Neither ought it to be obje<fted to 
 barely on accoiint of fufpicions, jcalcufies, 
 and ibrmifes, that it may be converted to 
 the prejudice of the liberty of others, pro- 
 vided a .reafonabie fecurity be given that 
 this fliall not be the cafe, if the fcheme 
 hath any view to the obtaining for the 
 Church of England fuch an afcendency 
 and dominion in America as fliali be in- 
 jurious to the privileges of the religious 
 bodies of men already fettled tliere^ which 
 I would by no means infinuats^ the affair 
 may fafely be left to be aJjufted bet'vveeii 
 the government and tlie colonifls them- 
 felves. Let me, however, be permitted to 
 add, that if the Americans have entertain- 
 ed groundlefs prejudices on the fubje-ft, 
 the conduct of tlie Engliiii biiliops, with 
 regard to the late bill, h.uh liot been at 
 all calculated to remove them. 
 
 Having gone throi.-gh the principal ob- 
 jc'^aons to tlic MATT:.:ii of our ai)plica- 
 
 tion.
 
 ( S8 ) 
 
 tion, it will be necefTary briefly to confidef 
 the MANNER in which it has been carried 
 on, becaufe this, likewife, is pretended to 
 be very improper and indefenfible. In- 
 deed, if the objed:, on account of which 
 we had recourfe to Legiflature, was alto- 
 gether unreafonable, it is of little impor- 
 tance to enquire how it was conda(fled, 
 lince, in that cafe, no prudence or de- 
 licacy of behaviour ought to have been 
 of any avail in our behalf. On the other 
 hand,if our petition was, in itself, moft 
 juftifiable and equitable, fome little irre- 
 gularities in the mode of urging it ought 
 not to have been converted to its preju- 
 dice. But let us fee what the improprie- 
 ties were which reflected fuch a difgrace 
 on the MANNER of our application. 
 
 One accufation is, that the committee 
 PERSONALLY applied to members of Par- 
 liament in favour of the bill. It is true, 
 that they did fo,. and they were fully juf- 
 tified in fuch a conduct. They had a 
 right to reprefent their cafe to theperfons 
 "who v.'ould condefcend to hear it ; nor 
 was there, by that means, an undue influ- 
 ence
 
 ( 89 ) 
 
 chce exerted. The Diflenting MlnlHers 
 did notdire<5tly folicitany member's vote: 
 they did not attempt to move his palHons, 
 or to lay a reflraint upon his conltience. 
 They only begged that noblemen and gen- 
 tlemen would give their prefence in the 
 Houfe, and their attention to the fubjed:. 
 They only requefted a fair and candid 
 hearing of their caufe, and that the Peers 
 and Reprefentatives of the People would 
 adl agreeably to what {hould appear to be 
 juft and equitable, after fuch a hearing of 
 the queftion before them. The commit- 
 tee were ready, likevvife, to anfwer, as far 
 as lay in their power, any queflions which 
 might be propofed to them, or to remove 
 any difficulties that might lie in the 
 minds of the great and refpedtable men 
 on whom they had the honour of wait- 
 ing. All this might be done in almofl 
 every cafe, and it might reafonably be 
 done in our particular cafe. If, therefore, 
 there was any impropriety in this part 
 of our condu(ft, it is an impropriety whi^.h 
 muft be repeated on a future occafion. 
 
 But we are told, that the Manner in 
 ■which the DiiTenting Minifters carried on 
 
 N their
 
 ( 9° ) 
 
 their application to-Parliament was, in a.tr-» 
 other refpedl, ftill more flrikingly indefen- 
 fible ; ** Letters were fent from perfons in 
 " the country to their reprefentatives ear- 
 ** neftly requefling their votes." How far 
 votes were diredly follicited I am not able 
 to fay, not having feen any letters of that 
 kind j but, with regard to the having of 
 recaurfe to members of Parliament, and 
 even afking their fupport of the bill, I fliaU 
 not fcruple to aflert, that it is capable of an 
 entire juftification. Who are the gentle- 
 men with whom the Dillenters are ufual- 
 ly connedled, and in whofe favour they 
 exert their influence at the time of an 
 eled:ion ? They are, undoubtedly, fuch 
 gentlemen as are undcrftood to be the 
 known and approved friends of civil and 
 religious liberty. When, therefore, a 
 queftion arofe of great importance to the 
 rights of confcience in general, and to the 
 Nonconformifts in particular, it was natu- 
 ral for Diffenters, it was their duty, to apply 
 to thofe reprefentatives whom they be- 
 lieved to be friendly to their caufe, and 
 whofe concurrence and aid they had a title 
 to hops for and expert. It might other- 
 wife
 
 ( 9« ) 
 
 wife have been thought, that they did not 
 wi{h for an extenfion of the Adl of Tole- 
 ration. 
 
 I will go farther, and fay, that fuch 
 members of Parliament as refufcd their af- 
 fiftance to the larc bill ouiiht not to be 
 encouraged by Diffenters at any fu-ture 
 eledlion. The gentlemen who were averfe 
 to our caufe might be honeft men, who 
 acted under the direction of a mifguided 
 Gonfcience. I have no doubt but that 
 this was the cafe with regard to the mod: 
 zealous of our adverfaries in the Houfe of 
 Commons : but fuch gentlemen muft ex- 
 cufe me in faying, that thofe who will op- 
 pofetherepeal of unjuft and inhuman penal 
 liatutes mud be very improper and infuffi- 
 cient guardians of the public liberty, and 
 cfpecially of the liberties of the people 
 who are afTetled by thofe ftatutes. For 
 my own part, I have no hefitation in de- 
 claring, that I would not, on any account, 
 give my vote for a reprefentative who 
 hath refufed to concur in improving the 
 Toleration Ad: -, and I think myfelf fully 
 vlndicable in this refolution. A man of 
 fuch narrow principles can never be con- 
 N 2 fidered
 
 ( 92 ) 
 
 fidered, by genuine Diflenters, as worthy 
 to be entrufted with the protedlion of the 
 privileges of a free nation. A friend to 
 intolerance, if he be really fuch from the 
 di(^ates of his underftanding, mud be de- 
 ftitute of wifdom ; if he adopts the cha- 
 ra(fter from motives of intereft or ambi- 
 tion, he mufl: be deflitute of integrity and . 
 humanity: and furely it mufl bejuftifiable 
 to deny our encouragement to perfons 
 who are deBcient in fuch important and 
 eflential qualifications for a feat in the Le- 
 giflature, as wifdom, integrity, and hu- 
 manity. 
 
 In fad, the declamation about the im- 
 propriety of applying to members of Par- 
 liament is futile to the laft degree. Such 
 an application muft be made, in cafes 
 whether of a partial or a general 
 good. It is honourable to plead in an 
 honourable caufe. The prefent courfe of 
 the world requires a conducl of this kind, 
 and the moft equitable buiinefs cannot 
 otherwife be tranfaded. With regard to 
 the DilTenting Committee, the liberty we 
 took of perfonallv waiting upon noblemen 
 and gentlemen, was not at the hazard of 
 
 our
 
 ( 93 ) 
 
 our INGENUOUS CHARACTERS. It WaS 
 
 peculiarly neceffary, as our view? and 
 principles were not fufficiently known. It 
 was proper to explain them, becaufe they 
 required only to be explained, in crder to 
 fet the reafonablenefs of our petition in a 
 clear and (Iriking point of view. This, 
 indeed, is the circumflance which feems 
 to have rendered our vifitS to the members 
 of Parliament particularly difagreeable to 
 the enemies of the bill. 
 
 HjERET LaTERI ARUNDO. 
 
 But as the wound is fo flight, as the Arundo 
 is not Lethalis, there is thelcfs occafion 
 for fo much offence being taken. 
 
 After all, was there no influence, no 
 power exerted on the other fide of the 
 queflion ? Is it true, that the Diffenting 
 Miniflers had nothing to contend with but 
 the arguments which might occur 
 against them ? In this cafe, they 
 would have thought themfelves engaged 
 in a very favourable conteft. Were not 
 the Bifhops able to apply to all ranks of 
 men with a weight which could not poffi- 
 bly be exerted on our part ? Could they 
 not, by the advantage of their eminent 
 
 flation.
 
 ( 9+ ) 
 
 flation, have immediate rccourfe to every 
 temporal Lord ? Have they not an eafy 
 accefs to the higheft perfonal authority in 
 this kingdom ? And did they really con- 
 tinue totally inactive, trufting folely to the 
 goodnefs of their caufe* ? Did they not 
 fpeak to a fingle Peer ? Did they not go 
 FARTHER ? Was there no influence 
 reaching upwards to the very summit 
 OF Pov^ER, and then defcending with 
 great force againft us ? Will any man lay 
 his hand upon his heart, and fay, that it 
 was the mere recflitude of continuing the 
 penal laws againft the Nonconformifts 
 which brought down the whole weight of 
 government upon us in the Houfe of 
 Lords ? It is true, that we are limple 
 men, who are precluded, by our lituation, 
 from much knowledge of the world : but, 
 ignorant as we are, this is one of the cre- 
 DENDA, which our faith will never be able 
 to digeft. An inhabitant of the Ultima 
 
 * Fa£ts might here -be mentioned ; but the author 
 purpoleiy declines infifting upon them. Should the 
 charge of having endeavoured to exert an undue influ- 
 ence be renewed againft the DifL^nting J^.Iinifters, the 
 condudl of their opponents may perhaps hereafter, be 
 more fully confidered. 
 
 Thule,
 
 ( 95 ) 
 
 Thule, if he had but an opportunity o( 
 perufing fometimes an Englifh news*pa- 
 pcr, would be incapable of believing, that 
 a majority of Britifh Peers, could, in the 
 year 1772, be induced, by reafon and ar- 
 gument ONLY, to difplay their zeal againil 
 the repealing of flatutes which are a re- 
 proach to juflice, to religion, and to hu- 
 manity. 
 
 As the Proteftant Difientino; Minifters 
 have conducted themfelves fo imprudent- 
 ly in the late" affair, they are advifed to 
 return quietly to their ftudies and mi- 
 nifterial labours. It is with pleafure 
 that they engage in the more imme- 
 diate bufinefs of their profeflion, and they 
 wifh to be drawn from it as little as pof- 
 flble. When, however, they are called out 
 of the common line of duty by fome 
 great occalion, intereding to Chridianity 
 and mankind, they think themfelves am- 
 ply juftified in stepping forth with alacrity 
 into a wider field of a<iHon j but it is not 
 their ambition to go farther out of their 
 accuftomed limits, or to continue longer 
 in a fituation which does not ufually be- 
 long to them, than neccfTity and honour 
 
 may
 
 ( 96 ) 
 
 may demand. Let them be indulged id 
 their rcqueft for legal fecurity and protec- 
 tion, and they will thankfully retire ta» 
 their private employments. They do 
 jiot delire to be troublefome to men of 
 rank, or to haunt the levees of the great. 
 If they can obtain a Toleration which is 
 fettled on the folid balis of law, and 
 not held by the precarious tenure of con- 
 nivance and compaffion, they will have 
 nothing more to afk of the ilate. 
 
 This may ferve as an anfwef to thofe 
 perfons who imagine that the Diffenting 
 Clergy had aims beyond the objedls of 
 their late application to Parliament. It is 
 not true, that they had any farther de- 
 iigns. Their fole purpofes were to be de- 
 livered from the burden of Subfcription, 
 and to procure relief for Tutors and 
 School- mafiers ; and they had not the 
 moft diftant thoughts of applying hereaf- 
 ter for privileges and benefits of a diffe- 
 rent nature. The fuppofition that they 
 were adluated by ambitious views, is 
 grounded on an ignorance of their charac- 
 ters and intentions. They were animated 
 ly no regard to the honours and profits 
 
 of
 
 ( 97 ) 
 
 ©f tTi-e prefent world. Their ambition is 
 to go on quietly and fecurely in worfliip- 
 ping God agreeably to the dilates of their 
 confciences ; and if they can be fervice- 
 ablc, by their labours and their writings, 
 to the caufe of religion or of literature, it 
 is the highefl glory to which they afpire. 
 The lad inftance of irnpropriety charg- 
 ed upon the DiiTenti ng Minillers, is their 
 
 CHOICE OF THE TIME IN WHICH THE 
 APPLICATION TO PARLIAMENT WAS 
 
 MADE. The TIME, howevcr, is a con- 
 fideration that ought not to be attended to, 
 when any thing is folicited which is a 
 matter of right. In that cafe, redrefs 
 oiight, in duty, to be granted at theinftant 
 in which it is afked. It never can be too 
 foon to do what is always efTentially right 
 and fit to be done. It never can be an 
 improper feafon for expunging penal laws 
 from the flatute book which are a dif- 
 grace to legiflaturc and to humanity. 
 The only real ohjcdion that can be urged 
 againfl: the Time of the Jate application 
 is, that it was not made before ; that laws 
 have been fo \or.^ ncniuefccd in which are 
 unjuft and barbarous, a;id the repeal of 
 O which
 
 ( 98 ) 
 
 which ought to have taken place from the 
 earlieft period wherein it was {q^d. that; 
 the execution .of them was contrary to 
 every principle worthy of men orofChrif-r 
 tians. 
 
 But it is faid, that the Church had al- 
 ^•eady been attacked by the Clergy's Peti- 
 tion, by the Nullum Tempus Bill, and by 
 the Quaker's JBill. Were we to admiip 
 that thefe things vvere unjullifiable attack? 
 upon the national eftablifliment of reli- 
 gion, (and how far they were fo I am not 
 capable of judging in the two lafl: cafes, 
 as not having attended to them) what 
 connection have they with the affair of 
 the Diffcnters? The requeH: of the Dif- 
 fenting Minifters was, in no view, an acft 
 of hoflility againft the Church of Eng- 
 land. She had, properly fpeaking, no 
 concern in the queftion, nor could (he be 
 injured by its being determined in their 
 favour. V^as it an attack Opon the 
 Church of England, to endeavour to free 
 the Britilli conlHtution of government 
 from intolerant laws and a perfecuting 
 fpirit ? Was it an attack upon the 
 Church of England, to folicit the removLjl 
 
 of
 
 ( 99 ) 
 
 of penalties which {he herself owns 
 Cannot be carried into execution ? The 
 very fuppolition is the fevereft reflecftioii 
 upon lier- that her mod inveterate enemies 
 could fuggeft. Had the Bin:iops been for- 
 tunate enough to have feen the DilTcnting 
 Clergy's application in a favourable light, 
 they might have had the glory of giving a 
 reputation to the religious eftabliHiment 
 of this kingdom which hath never been 
 obtained by any religious eftablillimcnt in 
 Chriftendom. They might have wiped 
 ofFthe reproach of having it alierted, that 
 Toleration is moce perfevft, and fcriptural 
 Chriftianity upon a better footing in Tur- 
 ky than in any other country of Europe. 
 They might have had the power of ap- 
 pealing to their enemies, and of faying, 
 that the Church of England h-^ad difcovcr- 
 ed fuch a decifive mark of her being the 
 true church of our blefTcd Saviour, as no 
 Chrillian, no Proteflant nation befides 
 could afford. It would have been, as a 
 great* prelate hath exprefTcd it, the 
 
 SKAL OF THE LIVING GoD UPON HER. 
 
 * Dr. Wnrburton, 
 
 O 2 With
 
 ( ICO ) 
 
 With regard to the Time in- general o£ 
 applying to Parliament for an enlarge- 
 ment of the Toleration A61, v/hat could- 
 be a more proper one than the prefent ? 
 Are we likely to have hereafter a more jufl 
 and more gracious Prince ? Are we like- 
 ly to find a milder and more liberal bench 
 of Prelates ? Are we likely to meet witk 
 a period, which, upon the whole, will be 
 lefs favourable to perfecution ? Certainly, 
 fuch a ftate of things was the very feafon 
 in which the Diflenting Minifters might 
 hope and expe^ft to obtain a compliance 
 with their very reafonable petition. It 
 would be too late for them to afk relief, 
 fhould evil days approach, and govern- 
 ment become unequitable and ungenerous. 
 They gave the bed proof of their good 
 opinion of, and of their good difpofition 
 to, the ftate, by making their application 
 at this particular juncture j and, what- 
 ever narrow politicians may think, the 
 admiflion of their claim would have been: 
 honourable and advantageous to the 
 public, 
 
 Th^
 
 ( lOI ) 
 
 Irhe Impropriety of tHe Time is the 
 common topic of llatefmen and of church- t 
 men, when they are unwilling to grant a 
 reafonablc rcqueft : but it is unworthy 
 of being mentioned by an ingenuous 
 mind, efpecially when the requeft is 
 founded on the great principles of truth 
 and humanity. A topic it is, which 
 hath fo often been infided upon, that 
 it is become difgraceful, and carries with 
 it an idea of contempt and ridicule. 
 
 But after all the infinuations thrown 
 out againft the DilTenting Minlilers ; 
 after all the obje(5lions to the matter, 
 the MANNER, and the time of their late 
 application ; after all the fuggeflions of 
 their difbelief of fundamental dodrines ; 
 after all the invidious hints at the danger- 
 ous principles fuppofed to be held by 
 them, it is acknowledged that they are 
 very worthy men ; and fome of them, it 
 is faid, if they were conformifts to tlie 
 cftabliflied church, would adorn any 
 station which might fall to their 
 lot. They cannot but be flattered, that 
 fo favourable an opinion Ihould at lalf be 
 
 en-
 
 C 102 ) 
 
 critel*tained of them : nor are they fo iri- 
 fenlible of the advantages of life, as not ib 
 think it ^defirable to partake of the emo- 
 luments of the national form of worfhip^, 
 provided they could do it confiilently 
 with the prefervation of a good confciencc. 
 But they mufl: be permitted to fay, that the 
 Church hath not taken the proper method 
 of inviting them to enter into her com- 
 munion. They are perfuaded, with the 
 eminent bifliop Warburton, that no reli- 
 gious eftablifliment can be vindicated, but 
 upon the footing of its being conned:ed 
 with an equal and an extenfiveToleration; 
 and while the religious eftabliiliment of 
 this country continues averfe to fuch a 
 Toleration, they are obliged, in honour 
 and duty, to remain feparated from it. 
 So long as the Church of England retains 
 the very efTence of Popery, by contending 
 for the fubfiftence of penal laws, in mat- 
 ters that relate only to confcience, and the 
 interefts of another world j they imagine 
 that they hear the voice of God fpeaking 
 to them in his word, " Come out of her, 
 my people." Whereas, if flie were willing 
 
 to
 
 ( iP3 ) 
 
 Jo grant a free indulgence to all who differ 
 from her, many DiiTenting Minifters would 
 be better difpofed to unite with her, when 
 certain alterations are made in the terms of 
 her admiffion, and in the modes and 
 forms of her difcipline and worHiip. 
 
 The determined oppofition of the Bi- 
 shops to the requefl: of the Proteftant Dif- 
 fenting Clergy might afford room for 
 many obfervations. The fubje(5t is capable 
 of being confidered in a variety of refpecfls, 
 which would not, perhaps, exhibit the 
 condudt of their Lordn:^ips in fo favourable 
 a light as a candid and liberal mind might 
 wiQi to put it in ; but I have no inclina- 
 tion to enlarge upon a difagreeable and 
 invidious topic. Whatever may be my 
 fentiments with regard to the part they 
 aded in the late affair, I am not infenfible 
 that, in general, they are men of decent 
 and amiable characters, and of foft and 
 gentle manners. 5ome of them are emi- 
 nent for their talents in bufinefs : others 
 of them are diftinguifhed ornaments of 
 the republic of literature, and have done 
 fignal fervlce to the caufe of Chriftianty. 
 
 I re-
 
 ( 1^4 ) 
 f recollect that a Pearce, a Warburton, % 
 Lowth, a Law, a Newton, and a Mofs, 
 have a feat on the Epifcopal Bench ; and 
 I wiih that all who belong to that bench 
 may obtain a reputation that fliall be fixed 
 on the moil folid bafis. Should, there- 
 fore, a.fecond application be made to Par- 
 liament, I hope that the venerable body 
 of Prelates will candidly and fully recon- 
 fider the matter. I hope that they will 
 reconfider it, not according to the princi- 
 ples of a narrov/ and miftaken policy, bat 
 in the grand •points of view which alone 
 are worthy of their attention and their 
 €hara<5ler. The queftions with them 
 ought to be, and, I truu, will be, what 
 are the dictates of true Chriftianity on the 
 fubje<5l ; what are the .demands of a juft 
 and equitable Toleration ; and what are the 
 directions of that found wifdom *' which 
 ** is^from above, which looks not at the 
 •* things which are (ecn and temporal, but 
 *' at the thinQ;s which are unfeen and eter- 
 ** nal ;" their Lordiliips, I flatter myfelf, 
 will keep in mind the admirable words of 
 the carl of Chatham, that, '' in this free 
 
 *' couii-
 
 ( '05 ) 
 
 ** country, twenty benches of Bidiops 
 •* ought not to fet law and humanity at 
 " variance." They will remember, I am 
 perfuaded, that, in order to (hew their real 
 liberality of fcntiment, and their real aver- 
 fion to perfccution, it is not fufficient for 
 us to be told, as we often are, that they 
 are mild and tolerant in their fpirit and 
 temper; for our Saviour hath left another 
 criterion from which to judge of the dif- 
 pofitions of men, when he faith, ** By 
 ** their fruits ye fliall know them*" The 
 Billiops have not only a political, but a 
 Christian character to maintain ; and 
 the Christian charader is infinitely the 
 moft important. The Chriilian chara<fter 
 alone it is which will be of any avail, 
 when all human fplendors Hiall ceafe ; 
 when the humble Nonconformill teacher 
 and the exalted prelate will be no other- 
 wife diftinguifhed, than as they diftin- 
 gujfhed themfelves upon earth, by their 
 confclentious adherence to truth and in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 Though the ProtcPiant Diffenting Mi- 
 
 niders have been unruccelsful in their en- 
 
 P deavours
 
 ( «o6 ) 
 
 deavours to obtain, a jufl: enlargement of 
 Chriftian Toleration, they have no reafoft 
 to look back upon their condud: with dif- 
 approbation or regret. On the contrary, 
 they have caufe for rejoicing in the part 
 they have acfled.. They have dilehargcd 
 that duty which they owed to themfelves, 
 to their people, and pofterity. They have 
 entered their public proteft againft laws 
 which are injurious to their juft rights, as 
 men and asChriftians. They have obtained 
 the verdidl of the British Houfe of Com- 
 mons in their favour. They have had the 
 concurrence and fupport of the mofl ho- 
 nourable and illuftrious characflers in this 
 country ; and the general voice of the 
 public hath approved of their proceedings. 
 Their upright principles and views have 
 been better known than they ever were 
 before ; and, with regard to the Diflent- 
 ing intereil: in particular, which they 
 believe to be the intercft of fcriptural 
 Chriftianity, it hath, perhaps, been more 
 promoted by the denial, than it would 
 have been by the grant of their petition. 
 Perhaps, it has fared no worfe with Chrif- 
 
 tianity,.
 
 ( ^^7 ) 
 tianity, that (he has always had the feculaf 
 arm againft her, as it is at this day ; and 
 that (he has never yet been, I fay not 
 cftab] idled, but e%'err legally tolerated, in 
 any country of Chrillendom. 
 
 The providence of God docs not always 
 accomplifli its ends in the manner which 
 may feem the mod defirablc to weak and 
 fallible men. The oppofition that is made 
 to the caufe of truth and righteoufnefs is 
 ©ften the very clrcum{i:ance which renders 
 it, in the final refult of things, more illuf- 
 trioufly confpicuous, and more completely 
 vid:orious. Were flio-ht conceffions made 
 
 o 
 
 as foon as afked, n:iankind would much 
 longer be contented with a partial and de- 
 fcvftive reformarlon. But that timid and 
 finifter policy, which fets itlelf againd the 
 fmalltft degree of alteration and improve- 
 n:ent, defeats its own nurooks. It occa- 
 fions the fpirit of enquiry to be puflicd 
 much farther than was originally intended. 
 This fpirit gains flrength by refiilance, till;, 
 at kngth, it lirc.iks through the barrier* 
 creeled ai^aind: it by bigotry, intolerance, 
 iiid vv'orldly cunning. The period will 
 
 come.
 
 ( i°8 ) 
 
 come, in which penal flatutej, in matters 
 that belong to confcicnce and to God, will 
 be difmifled with univerfal abhorrence : 
 and when Biography {hall relate, in future 
 ages, the eminent virtues and the learned 
 labours of fome of the prefent bench of 
 Bifhops, fhe will, at the fame time, be 
 obliged to record it with ihame, as an 
 aftoni{hing blot in their charadlers, that 
 they were capable of pleading for the 
 continuance of laws, which are repugnant 
 to every didlate of wifdom, every precept 
 of the Gofpel, and every fentiment of hu- 
 manity. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 €
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped helow 
 
 
 .r- :^vr 
 
 i/IY 301981 
 JUL 15 '93S 
 
 ■7S 
 v7fi 
 
 >iWa^ 
 
 ■\0^" 
 
 Form L-9 
 2»m-a2, '39(33 S6) 
 
 UKIVKRSITY OF CAUFORIBa 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 HBKARY
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIB^^^^^^ 
 
 AA 000 093 716 9 
 
 3 1158 01186 8360 
 
 J 
 
 t 
 
 PLEA55 DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARD ' 
 
 .^,^^t•LIfeRARYQ 
 
 University Research Library
 
 ^sSsi 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 IPUH 
 
 
 
 HJlfSigij! 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 I^J 
 
 
 ^1^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 WmiSHSSm 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 SB 
 
 
 
 ^ffi 
 
 ifflSffi^MffM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^H| 
 
 
 
 
 HI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 ^^S^^ffii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^B 
 
 
 Mff§fji!Jbj^'|^ 
 
 Syj^gj^ligwllrjf^'j"^ 
 
 ii5iS5iSSIT 
 
 iiXJiSSjiiS tnr- 
 
 ^sS"" 
 
 '»«5' 
 
 ?5?r? 
 
 ■iS*i55 
 
 ^?^^^s 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 gcggg 
 
 ix^y-i tau JL