book in the world, except ONE, was a treatife published in Ireland, about forty years ago, entitled, True Blue Prefbyterian Loyalty.

Were we not too well affured that dead men write no books, we fhould have suspected our deceased friend to have been the Author of this Palladium, as it is called; there appears in it so much warmth of head and honefty of heart: fo much true Blue Prefbyterian Zeal for unbounded Liberty of Conscience, for univerfal Toleration of Opinion and Practice, in all things regarding the worship of Almighty God.

But who or what the Author of this work may be, is not our bufinefs to enquire; it is fufficient, that he really appears to be, what he profeffes himfelf, a Proteftant Diffenter: and a ftanch one too. Some, however, may be at a loss to conceive, wherefore he hath now taken the alarm, and why he hath chosen this critical juncture, for the publication of a Defence of religious Toleration? Hath this invaluable privilege been attacked? Is the Diffenting Intereft in danger? Hath either the eclefiaftical or fecular Power prefumed, in any inftance, to lift the hand of AUTHORITY against that heavendefcended LIBERTY, which is, indeed, the facred Palladium of every Proteftant Community? God forbid!

But waving all enquiry into the Author's reasons for a publication which poffibly may not be altogether fo unseasonable as at fuft fight it may have appeared, we fhall proceed to a fhort view of the plan and contents of the performance before us.It confifts then, chiefly of extracts from a variety of our most approved Writers in defence of religious Freedom, and the rights of Confcience; connected by his own obfervations, and illuftrated by Notes; in which, it muft be acknowleged, that although his language is not elegant, he fays many ftrong things; and we fhould deem his zeal and warmth in fo good a caufe, very commendable, had he preferved more temper in mentioning the established Church, and her Clergy,-whom he accufes of constantly manifefting a fpirit of intolerance and perfecution: from whence we conclude our Author to be but little acquainted

In allufion to the Palladium, or ftatue of the Goddess Pallas, which dropt from heaven, and was religiously preferved in Troy, under the notion (founded on the declaration of an Oracle) that the city could never be taken while that ftatue remained within the walls. It is faid, there was also another Palladium at Rome, of equal confequence to that city.

л

with

with the prefent race of Church of England-Clergymen, who, certainly, are not generally chargeable with fuch unchristian principles, and fo unbenevolent a difpofition.

In his Preface, the Author gives his Readers fome preliminary ideas of his plan. He obferves, that the propofition which ferves as the ground-plot of thefe hiftorical Strictures, is, "Liberty, civil and religious, in these islands, does owe its being and preservation to the principles and efforts of a Proteftant-Diffent.". This, he avers, "cannot be denied by any judicious and impartial Reader of English History."

Among the teftimonies which he has collected in favour of the Prefbyterians, that of Lord Clarendon is mentioned as the more extraordinary, becaufe tho' he "faid as much to their honour as they themselves could have wifhed from his pen; at the fame time he owns he did hate them, and alfo could openly approve a perfecution of them." Befides this noble Hiftorian, he cites the exprefs words of other "Sons of the church establishment," viz. "Hale, Jeffery, Wake, Hoadley, &c. among the Clergy; and the divine Herbert, Sir William Petty, &c. among the Laity:" but we think our Author mistaken in mentioning Herbert as a Layman; the Writer, we apprehend, he means, having been (if our memory does not fail us) a Clergyman. He was one of those quaint and quibbling Verfifiers fo much admired among the Puritans in the days of Charles I. and II. But, being a verypious man, and writing with great warmth of devotion, he. obtained the title of, the Divine Herbert.

The fpirit of our Author will be pretty clearly difcerned from the following paffage in his preliminary ideas; where he informs the Reader, that he has not always ftrictly confined himself to direct proof, in the hiftorical inftances cited to fupport the propofition; but has fometimes thrown in fomething collateral, when it had an auxiliary relation or connection e. g. when he is fhewing that perfecution will inevitably follow the princely prerogative exercifed in the province of Religion, he was tempted to introduce the Prief, that principal tool of princely tyranny." Page x.-Again, to the fame effect, p. v. "Wherever the Prince will exercise his prerogative in the province of religion, there will ever be the cruel marks of perfecution. To the truth of which all hiftory, facred and prophane, bears teftimony."

Whatever may be thought of our Author's manner, the fubject, as he obferves, is extremely interesting. Our prinREV. Dec. 1762.

Ee

cipal

cipal concern, fays he, is with religious Liberty; and he ads, (by way of opening the fcheme of his book) "our profeffed aim is, to fhew its nature, energy, and importance to in 'ividuals, and to fociety; the oppofition it has met with; by what and by whom occafioned; who have been its most feady Advocates, faithful Guardians, and what their fuccefs;" -He goes ón. The nature and weight of the argument may be eftimated by an arrangement of our ideas in the method propofed, viz. by firft fixing that sense of religion which is univerfal, immutable, and everlafting; which, perhaps, is not very commonly done, either by the Prieft, the Prince, or the People. When the divine Principle is once discovered, in its fimple genuine character, it will be feen to demand, in every age and nation, an unlimited or univerfal Toleration."

In his first fection, he defines Religion; and infifts, that fo far as coercive power, carnal motive, and fecular advantage, have any influence, Religion has no place; for Religion, fays he," is a fpiritual and heavenly difpofition of the mind, converfing only with Truth and God, and incapable of any fecular aid-fo that a political establishment can never be made of religion; as this can only confult the fecular ends of the Prince, or, rather the good of the Church."-He adds a harfh reflection on the Clergy; which we think too rude for us to tranfcribe.

A farther reafon, fays he, "why Religion cannot come under a civil eftablishment, is, the human heart is not cognizable by either the Prince or the Prieft. Neither of them are competent Judges in affairs which lie only between a man and his Maker. In Religion every man is upon a level; the Prince has no fuperiority to the Peafant, nor the most learned Cleric to the unlettered Laic. Men, he adds, have not attended to the nature of true Religion, elfe they would as foon have aflumed a deification of themfelves, as an exercife of dominion over Confciences in matters of faith and worship."

There is fomething manly and laudible in the following reflection.

"Amazing it is, that in a land where men value themfelves as free-born Britons, the favourite fons of Liberty fhould ever countenance a fyftem which is in violent oppofirion to the nobleft exertions of mental freedom: men, who would refent, with indignation, any arbitrary attempts on the civil liberty of their perfons, on the exercise of their iatellectual faculties, or any infringements on the liberty of

the

the prefs.-Englishmen are wont to plead an unalienable right of expreffing their apprehenfion of danger, and their sense of injury. In afferting these civil and natural rights, we do, indeed, act the part of rational creatures, who know what are the proper claims and natural privileges of humanity. How aftonishing then is it, that in the moft facred capacity of man, we fhould ever once admit the ufurpation; and be fo unaccountably ftupid, as to fancy our fouls the flaves of Princes, and vaffals of Priests; who fhall prefcribe for us, what we fhall believe, and how we shall worship!"

His fecond section, fhewing that Religion demands an unlimited Toleration, clofes with the following remarkable paffage from the addrefs of a French Writer, to the Bishop of Meaux.

"I must tell you, my Lord, that in all history, as well ancient as modern, all ways of violence exercised by Princes on the score of religion, have never been otherwife looked upon than as spectacles of horrour! and that the names of these Princes are not mentioned to this day without execration."

Were this paffage read to all Princes, (and others who affume to exercife authority over the confciences of men, and to lord it over God's heritage) and well impreffed on their minds, it might, perhaps, have a great tendency to prevent thofe cruel and fcandalous profecutions that have difgraced every government, and every scheme of religion, under the fanction of which they have been carried on. How oppofite to all fuch fpiritual tyranny were the fentiments of our late excellent Sovereign, as recorded by this Author; who affures us, that the late reverend and learned Mr. Whiston informed him, that King George the fecond did declare, in the early part of his reign, to him, (the faid Mr. Whifton) that "NOT A HAIR OF THE HEAD OF ANY ONE OF HIS SUBJECTS SHOULD BE HURT, ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGI OUS OPINION, SO LONG AS HE WORE THE BRITISH "CROWN."A great and glorious declaration! worthy a truly wife, a truly patriotic, a truly Christian King! May his Succeffors deferve the fame grateful acknowlegements!

cr

In the third fection our Author enquires into the nature and fource of Religious Liberty; and in the fourth and subsequent fections, he fhews, among a variety of other points, the independence which an ecclefiaftical Hierarchy affects on the State, from the pretence of exercising a spiritual jurifdiction; that penal laws on Proteftant Diffenters never were the

Ee 2

fenfe

fenfe of true Patriots; and that the plea for their continuance is highly unreasonable.

In fection X. he gives an historical narrative of what he calls the restraints on defpotifm by Proteftant Diffenters, throughout most of the reigns of the Stuarts;" chiefly taken from an anonymous MS. which feems to be judiciously drawn up, and well digefted.

In fection XI. he fuppofes a decline of the diffenting intereft; and endeavours to afcertain the caufes of it. The work concludes, in the twelfth fection, with an Appendix, which he entitles An Examen into the Apoftolicel Idea of God's Church, or Kingdom. It is not the leaft fenfible or useful part of his work of which we take leave with the following friendly hint to the unknown, Author, viz. That he would learn to think more charitably, and to speak with lefs afperity, of the Clergy of our cftablifhed Church; and that he would impartially allow them at least the fame toleration, which he fo warmly, we might even fay, enthufiaftically contends for, in behalf of the Diffenters:left it be faid of him, as was pleafantly obferved of our Belfast Acquaintance, mentioned at the beginning of this article,-That he was not only a flave to Liberty, but quite furious for Moderation.

A careful and frit Enquiry into the modern prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will, which is fuppofed to be effential to mo ral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praife and Blame. By Jonathan Edwards, A. M. Paftor of the Church in Stockbridge. Bofton printed; London reprinted. 8vo. 5s. Field.

W

E have here a very elaborate differtation, tending to difprove the doctrine of Free-will, as adopted by the Arminians and others, in oppofition to the principles of Calvinifm. Indeed, we know not any Champion for this caufe, who hath entered more deeply into the difpute, or has acquitted himself with more logical fubtilty, than the Author of the prefent work. Our Readers will excufe us, therefore, from entering on a metaphyfical difcuffion of thofe points we may, nevertheless, think controvertible; as fuch difquifition must neceffarily extend this article beyond the limits prescribed by our plan.

Our