openly denying the use of reafon in religion to the bulk of mankind. Dr. BALGUY ftands fingle, as yet, in declaring to the world, that he means to defend popery.'

After a fhort, but pertinent addrefs to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Winchester, Dr. Dawson proceeds to fhew, and, in our opinion, fhews, in a very fatisfactory manner, that every thing Dr. Balguy has faid in difparagement of the Petition is either mere afperfion, or proceeds from the groffeft misconstruction of its nature, or refts on such reasonings as must difcredit the understandings of thofe who can be impofed upon by it, He confines his remarks to the first fifteen pages of the Charge, the remainder of it referring, for the fentiments of what Dr. BALGUY terms the Party, to a printed paper unau thorized by the Petitioners.

It would give us pleasure to accompany our Author through the whole of his Letter, but we must content ourselves with laying before our Readers the following extract, which, we apprehend, will give fuch of them as are unacquainted with Dr. Dawfon's character as a Writer, no unfavourable opinion of his abilities.

We are now arrived, fays-our Author, (p. 40) at the last effort of your Archdeacon, which I propofed to confider, to prejudice the public against the Petition; and it is made fomewhat in the fhape of an Argument for Subfcription, as here followeth-" All forms of religion are not to be favoured equally by the civil magiftrate-To ubat forms the preference is due, he only is the proper judge-He is equally a judge of the evidence, by which the opinions of men are to be known-But, as in many cafes thefe opinions may not be immediately discoverable from actions, it feems to follow, that they ought to be openly declared in fome public and authorized form of words-The Subfcription of men's names is, or ought to be, the teft of their doctrines."

That we may do all poffible juftice to your Archdeacon in our examination of this argument for Subfcription to human forms of. religion, we will be as liberal in our conceffions to him as he can defire-To return to the first of his Pofitions.

"ALL forms of religion are not to be favou ́ed EQUALLY by the Civil Magiftrate."-We allow it; and that fome fhould be established in preference to others. Then fays he, "To WHAT forms the preference is due, HE ONLY is the proper judge.". For arguments fake we will indulge him thus far alfo, and fuppofe that, though the Magistrate might be juftified, and could by your adroit Archdeacon be defended in establishing Paganism, Judaism, Mahometanifm, or any religion under heaven, yet, that he has established in preference to any other, the Chriftian religion. What next? Well, this farther Poftulatum-" He is EQUALLY a judge of the evidence by which the opinions of men are to be known "-What fay you to this, Gentlemen? May we venture with fafety any farther in our conceifions ?-Or fhall we ftop here?-We will proceed; Nay, we will venture farther than this, and grant him all he demands of us, on this term, however, that if we

like not the complexion of the argument in the issue, we will be at liberty to recede.

Let the Civil magiftrate, then, be allowed" the only proper judge of the evidence by which the opinions of men are to be known;" and farther be it allowed that "their opinions ought to be openly declared in some public and authorized form of words;" and finally, that a Subfcription of their names thereto ought to be taken, as a test of their doctrines”There! We have now granted all. And what follows his follows-That the Decrees of the Council of Trent MAY be that public form of Words to which the Magiftrate is authorized to require subfcription.

Whether this is not a just and regular deduction from your Archdeacon's premiffes, I appeal to you, Gentlemen. Does the argument, on this foot, conclude more in favour of an establishment of our prefent fyftem, than of the above-mentioned-more in favour of a proteftant, than of a popije formulary of religious faith?-If he should fay, that the 39 articles, being more rational, are therefore to be preferred, this would be to retract the power which he allows to the Civil Magiftrate in this matter, and to make himself, not the Magiftrate, the proper judge, to what forms the preference is due.

The argument, therefore, you fee, cannot conclude in favour of a requifition to fubfcribe the 39 Articles, or any other unfcriptural formulary of religion, without bringing us as directly to Popery. That indeed, you are too well affured, is an objection against the argument of no great moment with your Archdeacon. With you, I truft it is a very strong objection. And, therefore, let us now try if we cannot admit that authority which Dr. Balguy allows to Civil Magiftrates, and apply it, in pleading the caufe of the Petitioners, more confitently with the general principles of our prefent Religious eftablishment, and without fuch a fhameful revolt from proteftantifm.

The Civil Magiitrate being, we now grant, the only proper judge to what form of religion the preference is due, has preferred that of Chriftianity But, because the profeffion of Chriftianity, as it is eftablished at Rome, appears to him unfit for his fubjects, fubverfive of their liberties, and dangerous to his own juft authority, and he only being the judge of the evidence by which the opinions of his fubjects are to be known, He has therefore preferred Holy Scripture to every other form of Words, as the teft of their religious doctrines, judging it alfo to be the Word of God.

Having thus got the Civil Magiftrate on the fide of the Scripture, and the argument on its right and protestant footing, we can fafely proceed with your Archdeacon to a conclufion in favour of Subfcription-a Subfcription, however, on a much more equitable and creditable plan, than that on which he would vindicate it. Does he contend, that "as, in many cafes, the opinions of men may not be immediately discoverable from actions, they ought to be openly declared in fome public and authorized form of Words ?-Holy Scripture, we fay, is that public and authorized form of Words. Does he farther contend; that "the Subfcription of men's names is, or ought to be, the tell of their doctrines?"-Let this be the teft. Let Subjcription be required to that public and authorized form of Words, which the Magiftrate has preferred for that purpofe. Will he ill in

fift upon the propriety and expediency of requiring Subscription to, fome buman form of words, rather than to the Holy Scriptures at large ? -Let this alfo be done. We are not, (though we are often repre⚫ fented in that invidious light) either fo averfe to all Subfcriptions, or fo fcrupulous about fubfcribing to any buman formulary whatso ever, but we can indulge your Archdeacon, confiftently with our principles, in this point too. Only let this be done in confiftence with the preference already made by the Magiftrate. For a teft of the religious opinions of his fubjects, he has preferred Holy Scripture to any other form of words declarative of mens religious opinions. If, then, an human form of words can, in this cafe, be admitted as expedient to be fubfcribed, it must be fuch a form as refers to Holy Scripture, not to the determinations of men, fuch a form as binds upon the Subfcriber the exclufive authority of Scripture, as a rule of his religious faith and doctrines. And thus we are come by just steps to a conclufion full in favour of our Suit to Parliament, and equally confiftent with the rights of Civil Magiftracy, with every claim, which, in the matter of religion can be justly laid to an authority over the fubjects of this free proteftant State.

If, Gentlemen, in being the more particular on this part of my fubject, I have trefpaffed on your patience, the peculiar propriety and importance of difcuffing this point must be my apology. Becaufe the authority of the Church, or Church governors, to impofe unfcriptural articles of faith, as pleaded in the outfet of this debate by Dr. Rutherforth, being of fome time given up, the argument for fuch an Impofition from the rights of Civil Magiftracy is ftill continued. And, though enough has been faid in a general way, to evince the weakness of the argument on that ground alfo, yet it was ftill left to our opponents (but it was all that was left them) to try to render our attempt fulpicious to the Civil Power. Indeed, our applying to the Legiflature itfelf for its fanction to our caufe, as it feems to have offended certain churchmen of the antiquated caft of thinking on these matters, might, one would think, have prevented all apprehenfions of a defign on the other hand.'

What reply Dr. Balguy will be able to make to this Letter, or whether he will think it neceffary or prudent to make any reply, we pretend not to know; this, however, we will venture to fav, that it will be extremely difficult, or rather impoffible for him, to make any fatisfactory reply, confiftently with the genuine and univerfally acknowledged principles of Proteftantifm.

ART. VII. An Efay on Toleration: With a particular View to the late Application of the Proteftant Diffenting Ministers to Parliament, for amending, and rendering effectual, the Act of the ift of William and Mary, commonly called the 4 of Toleration. By Philip Furneaux, D. D. 8vo. 1 s. 6 d. Cadell. 1773. THE

HE application of the Proteftant Diffenting Ministers to parliament, for legal protection, has occafioned the publication of feveral judicious and valuable treatifes upon the fub

ject

ject of Toleration; and it would be great injustice to the Author of this Effay not to rank him among the ablest advocates for religious liberty, and the facred and unalienable rights of confcience and private judgment. He appears to have ftudied his fubject with the greatest attention; he writes like one who is mafter of it; places it in a clear, diftinct, and fatisfactory point of view; applies general principles to particular cafes, and illuftrates them with great perfpicuity and ftrength of reafoning. The Effay is divided into feven fections, in the two first of which he ftates and examines the argument for Toleration from the nature of religion, and the origin and ends of civil government, and then proceeds, in the third, to fhew that Toleration not only extends to the open profeffion of every religion, confiftent with the fafety of the ftate, but to the giving, and receiving, of public inftruction in fuch religion. This point, which certainly deferves a very attentive confideration, Dr. Furneaux enlarges upon particularly, and makes it clearly appear, that it is an effential branch of Teleration, for a man to be permitted to avow, explain, and, if he be fo difpofed, fupport by arguments, the religious fentiments which he profefles, and thinks important.

It is generally admitted, that religion is not to be controuled by the magistrate, as far as it is a principle exifting in the mind; and that he is not to fearch out concealed errors, in order to punish them; but fhould allow all perfons to enjoy their own fentiments. Yet it does not follow from hence, it is faid, that he is not to controul the actions which flow from thofe principles. Our Author's answer to this is as follows:

I am ready to admit, that if thofe actions are real injuries to fociety at large, or to any individuals, the magiftrate should controul, and punish them; because he is the confervator of the rights of all his fubjects. But, if they are merely of a religious nature, I then affert, that he is not to controul them. For if we do not include in the idea of Toleration, that the magiftrate is not to coerce, or controul, by temporal penalties, any merely religious profeffion, reafoning, or action; we may boaft, in theory, of maintaining Toleration, but, in practice, we deftroy it altogether. If religious liberty is confined to inward fentiments, and does not comprehend the actions which flow from them, I mean thofe which are not injurious to fociety; it then amounts only to this futile notion, that the magiftrate is to tolerate what, while it is concealed, he hath no power over.

But, in order to obtain a pofitive proof of that right of public profeffion and public inftruction, which I am pleading for, as belonging to all good fubjects, though of very different religious opinions;

ak, whether the dictates of confcience, and a fenfe of duty, may not induce men to worthip God publicly? May not induce fome to give, and others to attend on, religious inftructions? And if so, it plain, this can be done by fach perfons in no other way than they

think acceptable to God, agreeable to truth, and conducive to their future happiness? On what pretence, then, is the magiftrate in fuch cafes to interfere, and reftrain them by pains and penalties from fo doing; unless fomething more than mere religion, I mean the fafety of the ftate, is concerned?

That I have not made an extravagant fuppofition, in prefuming, that confcience may lead men to the actions I have just mentioned, perfons of religion and virtue will eafily apprehend. I would not be underflood therefore, as fpeaking now to merely political men, but to those who join religion with politics; to whom, confequently, it would be injurious to fuppofe, they have not always the stricteft regard to confcience. They will tell us, that we are obliged to the performance of public worship, to difcover our veneration of the Deity, and uphold it, by our example at leaft, in the world around us; that we are obliged to promote truth, virtue, and happiness among men, according to our ability and opportunity; especially among our children and dependants; and among thofe, who defire and encourage us to affift them in the knowledge and practice of religion. And they know, that this cannot be done by any in a way contrary to the dictates of their own confciences.

They will also inform us, that those men of undiffembled piety, and inflexible virtue, who have in any ages risen up, and been inftruments in the hand of God of reforming both the church and the world, delivering them in many inftances from worse than Egyptian darkness, by the light of their inftruction and their example, have done this on a principle of confcience, often in oppofition to human laws, and human terrors; and are worthy of the highest honour for fo doing. Far be it from me, to compare the perfons, whofe caufe I am now pleading, with thofe great men; or the prefent occafion, with fuch great occafions. All I mean is, that perfons, used to reflection, will eafily perceive, that the principle, which vindicates those renowned inftructors of mankind, will apply in a proportionable degree to an inferior, but fimilar, cafe; and that it is not poffible to maintain the rectitude of their conduct, in endeavouring to enlighten whole nations and kingdoms, but upon the fame principles, which will vindicate any perion in attempting to inftruct a fmall neighbourhood, who defire his fervices: They have a right to afk them, he hath a right to give them; and both are injured, if their refpective rights are defeated by penal laws.

Thus, I think, it appears, that Toleration cannot be complete; nor the natural inherent rights of mankind, with refpect to religion, be preferved inviolate, and maintained in that degree, in which it is the duty of the magiftrate to maintain them; if every good fubject be not allowed a full liberty of profeffing his own religion, and every religious fociety permitted to worship God, and to be instructed by perfons whom they shall choose, under the fecurity of law; provided nothing be done by the teacher, or his hearers, contrary to the rightful authority of the magiftrate, and the fafety of the itate. For this reafon, the worship, and the inftruction, fhould be public, that all may have an opportunity of feeing, and hearing, what paffes. Now it is, in my judgment, a very groundless imagination, that fuch public places of divine worship, and religious instruction, are likely