quifitions into the customs and manners of the ancients, as well before, as after the birth of Chrift, have happily, illuftrated many particulars in the facred writings, which had occafioned no little perplexity to former commentators. Even the writings of unbelievers, though undefignedly on their part, have been of great fervice to the caufe of christianity, by exciting the fpirit of examination in its profeffors, and by giving occafion to many rational and truly valuable defences of revelation. Nor has a rational knowledge of our bible been improved and increased among us, by any thing more than the obfervance of that canon of fcripture-criticism laid down by the immortal Locke, of making the scriptures their own interpreters.*

When,

* See his Reasonablenefs of chriftianity, and his two Vindications of it: "Wiclift," alfo, fays his ele gant biographer, Mr. Gilpin (2d edit. 1776. p. 4.) "feems to have chalked out for himfelf a fimpler path "He took the naked text of fcripture into his hands, " and became his own annotator. The writings of the "fchoolmen, he foon found, were calculated only to

"make

When, exclufive of the confideration of any fcriptural grounds for the institution of human formularies of religious faith and doctrine, we are told of their utility and expedience in other respects, it is not easy to fee the force of the argument. To conclude that fuch fuppofed utility and expedience were intended to be referred to the emoluments and interefts annexed to our feveral ftations, would be to harbour uncharitable and disparaging sentiments of the proposers, and would argue almost as malevolent a mind in the person who should give it credit, as it would doubtless argue a profligate avarice in

the

"make fectaries, the bible alone to make a rational "chriftian"—" The day will come, I hope, faid "Wicliff, (ib. p. 63.) when men will be wife enough "to fhake from their necks the dominion of human ordi

66 nances; and disdain fubmiffion to any ecclefiaftical

injunctions, but such as are plainly authorised by the "word of God." Lord Cobham, concluding his account of his faith, fays, Finally my faith is, that God "will ask no more of a christian in this life, than to

66

obey the precepts of his bleffed law. If any prelate of "the church requireth more, or any other kind of obe"dience, he contemneth Chrift, exalteth himself above "God, and becometh plainly antichrift." Ib. p. 121.

the person who should advance it. It would be afcribing to them the fpirit of Demetrius, who had the affurance to proclaim, that by his craft or employment, he and his fellow-craftsmen had their wealth, and joining in the cry against Paul, “ great is Diana "of the Ephefians." For this idea then we will fubftitute a more candid one, and fuppofe that fuch utility and expedience are referred to the spiritual interests of the body of christians, or, in other words, to the fupposed true interests of christianity.

But we may immediately fuggeft, in behalf of the reverse of this, plea, one unanfwerable truth. The uniform and concurrent experience of all ages fince chriftianity was firft connected, or taken into alliance, with the civil power, declares against both this utility and expedience. I do not confine myself to the latter periods of our own church-history,for the fact is equally evident with respect to former ages, and with reference to every christian church. The prefumptive argument carries on its very face. the fuppofition of the lefs utility of the christian scrip

*Acts xix. 24-28, &c.

tures

tures to the doctrines and explications of men. If it be urged that it promotes consent touching true religion; I not only deny the fact from experience, but the poffibility of it from the nature of the thing itself: and will venture to oblerve, that human formularies of religious faith and doctrine, esta→ blished in chriftian and protestant countries, have caufed numberless inconveniencies to the profeffors of true religion. And might not inftances be brought of writers in our own church, who, to accommodate themselves and their works to the reigning system, have been obliged to mifrepresent the genuine doctrines of the gospel, and thereby have afforded triumph to their adverfaries of different denominations, and matter of doubt, perplexity, and offence to many of their own communion, who might be otherwife defirous to edify by their labors ?

These expedients then not only fail of fecuring an uniformity of opinion, but even of fecuring an uniformity of profeffion. Each ingenuous inquirer abounds in his own sense, and it is no more unusual to see a number of

members

members of our own church as far from agreement with each other in their opinions on fome points, on which, however, the church has decided with tolerable precifion, as we find them unanimously difagreeing with diffenters or feparatifts from the church of England upon certain other topics. It will not be foreign to this part of my argument, and more particularly after the foregoing confiderations, to afk, Why this diverfity of opinions may not as fafely be exprefsly allowed by the fupreme authority of the state, as left to be enjoyed on the, precarious tenure of connivance; in apparent contradiction to the avowed defign of the impofition, to the prejudice of truth, fincerity, and freedom of inquiry; and to the great unhappiness of many worthy and confcientious men?

Whatever arguments in favour of an establishment of human formularies of religious faith and doctrine are acknowledged to owe their rife and force to mere political wisdom, will be found upon inquiry to have originated from a fource in no connection with VOL. I.

C

the