It is furely fomething fingular, that a Writer who seems so intimately acquainted with the niceties of a dead language should pay fo little attention to the delicacy of his own! Among other refpectable names, we frequently meet with that of Mr. ToUP, fo juftly celebrated for his confummate knowledge in Greek literature, as a contributor to the improvement of the prefent work. An obfervation, however, of this Gentleman's has been admitted, in which we can by no means agree with him. His words are thefe : σε Idem χίμαρος et χείμαρρος, ut χίμετλον et χείμετλον. Utrumque and T8 xíuaros fcilicet. Atque hinc notandus lufus Theocriti Idyl. I. 5. Αἴκα δ' αἶγα λάβῃ τῆνος γέρας, ἔς τε ΚΑΤΑΡΡΕΙ Α ΧΙΜΑΡΟΣ. Nam verbum καταῤῥεῖν de lapfu aquarum five χειμάρρs dicitur. Sed Theocritus femper feftivus eft.” Though it be poffible that χίμαρος and χείμαρρος may have, according to Mr. Tour, the fame derivation, and though there can be no doubt of the primary use of the word xalapptiv, yet furely there can be nothing forced or unnatural in the metaphorical sense in which Theocritus has hitherto been fuppofed to apply it. Had he intended fuch a play upon the words as Mr. Tour imagines, he must have been guilty of a most unmeaning and miferable pun. At the end of the volume are two Appendicula; one containing the Editor's reasons for not prefixing the accentual marks to his own and Mr. Warton's notes, which are judicious and fatisfactory. In the other are given hints at a new method which the Doctor has difcovered, of scanning Greek and Latin hexameters, the ufual method being, as he tells us, erroneous. For a fuller explanation of his fyftem we are to wait for the publication of the Mifcellanea Critica; a work which will fome time or other fee the light. This new fyftem of profody will then not only be illuftrated and explained, but also the objections which he thinks are likely to be made to it will be confidered. ART. II. Confiderations on the prefent State of the Church Etablishment, in Letters to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London. By john Sturges, M. A. Prebendary of Winchester, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty. 8vo. 3 s. fewed. Cadell. 1779. N these Letters, Mr. Sturges confiders how far our ecclefiaftical establishment, as it now fubfifts in this country, is an inftitution fit for the purposes it was meant to answer, both with respect to religion and fociety; how far the clergy of England are worthy minifters of the religion of Chrift, and ufeful members of our civil community. IN Y 2 The The principles, on which eftablishments in general, and our own in particular, are founded; the tolerating spirit of the Church of England, with refpect to Chriftians of other denominations; the jurifdiction affigned to it by the laws of our country; the provifion made for its clergy; their learning and freedom of inquiry; our public forms in which they officiate, their duties, and their manners, are the particulars which naturally offer themselves to his confideration. Mr. Sturges does not enter into a long difcuffion of the different parts of his fubject, and there are fome tender points, which he only touches in a very foft and gentle manner; but it would be the higheft injuftice to him, indeed, not to acknow ledge, that he writes with great candour and liberality of fentiment, with a fpirit of moderation that well becomes his profeffion; in a word, in fuch a manner as will make those, who may differ from him in fome points, entertain a very favourable opinion of his temper and difpofition. He introduces his fecond Letter, wherein he treats of Eftablishments in general, and that of the Church of England in particular, by obferving, that, with fome perfons, the word Eftablifhment is itself criminal; that they reprobate all human authority, all human opinions, which refpect religion, as unlawful; as infringing their own liberty, and derogating from the fupremacy of Chrift. He proceeds to ftate the principles on which, according to his conceptions, all religious focieties muft be founded, and endeavours to fhew, that all, which are defigned for any permanency, muft in effect admit, whatever they may profefs to do, human authority for their regulation; that they must concur in human opinions as a bond of union; and that establishments, as fuch, are not, on that account, unlawfal, inconfiftent with our liberty as men, or with our allegiance to Chrift as his followers. Such authority, he fays, may be ill employed, fuch opinions may be ill founded, and improperly impofed; violence may be exerted by the one, in order to inforce the other; by their abuse they may both become pernicious; but it no more follows from thence, that the principle on which they are ufed is unlawful, than that, because there are in the world many bad civil laws, therefore all legiflation is unjuft. If religion were to fubfitt only in the hearts of individuals, continues he, without the concurrence of others, or any external profeflion of it; if God had not meant, that in this inftance, as well as in all others, we should be Social Creatures, the Truths and Precepts, which we collect by our reason, and which are delivered to us by revelation, would then in their naked ftate be fufficient to make us in this manner religious: we might certainly think of God as we pleased, and offer to him in what manner we pleafed our folitary worship. But if we are not fatisfied with that, if we are prompted prompted by our nature to unite with others in the adoration of the Supreme Being, and feel our religion imperfect without doing fo, we muft in fome refpects agree with thofe others; there must be fome mutual compliances; and certain regulations must be admitted, both with refpect to the Outward Form of Worship, and the Opinions conveyed by it. Without fome regulations of the Outward Form in which the Worshippers are agreed, it is impoffibie that Public Worship can fubfift even in its fimpleft fhape; and as the reafon of this worship, the manner of our addreffing God, and the duties which we fuppofe him to require from us, arile from the Opinions we form concerning him, concerning his attributes and government, it is plain, that without a certain agreement in thefe opinions it is impoffible for dif ferent perfons to join in the worthip of God, and in giving or receiving Religious Inftruction, which ufually makes part of it. A Jew or a Christian could not join with an old Heathen in worship. ping his numerous and imaginary deities. A Proteftant cannot concur with a Papist in offering his prayers to the Virgin Mary, to Angels, and to Saints. The fame prayers alfo, and the fame inftruction, cannot well fuit thofe Proteftants, who differ about the Object of their worship, or about the Neceflity of good works to falvation. Every United Set of Worthippers must therefore agree in certain Forms and Opinions; and they must make fuch Agreement the condition, on which others may be admitted to their Society. They muft prescribe, like all other focieties, thefe conditions for themfelves; and thofe, who do not chufe to comply with them, muft either not enter into fuch a fociety, or retire from it. "But this, it is faid, is an infringement of our Liberty, an oppreffion of Confcience; it is ufurping the Supremacy of Christ; and giving Human Opinions that authority, which is only due to Divine Revelation." That Abfolute Liberty is inconfittent with every fpecies of fociety, whether civil or religious, is moft certain; it can only belong to detached, infulated individuals. The moment we begin to act in concert with any of our fellow-creatures, this liberty is narrowed; we must fubmit to fome rules, and be content to lie under certain reftraints with refpect to others, which it is neceffary for our own good that they should lie under with respect to ourselves. The Liberty of the Freeft States never was and never can be more than this; it can only be a Qualified Liberty, as great as is conflent, not with the good of any one citizen, but of all taken together. And when in any fort of fociety this is poffeffed in fuch a degree, every wife man knows, that he poffeffes all which can from the nature of things be had. If there be any, who chufe to prefer to it the Abfolute Liberty of a folitary State of nature, with them I will not reafon; but leave them to find in that state an equivalent for all the bieflings of Society. "But Confcience is oppreffed by fuch conditions." What, if it be in the power of him, who diflikes them, not to oblige himself to the obfervance of them? if he be at liberty not to make part of that fociety, which requires it? Can any injury be done; can the confcience of any be wounded, where the contract is voluntary; where this alternative is offered, either enter into fuch a fociety and Y 3 accept accept the conditions of it; or abftain from the one, and be exempt from the other? "The interpofition alfo of Human Authority in matters of Religion is ufurping the Supremacy of Chrift." But without certain Regulations no Societies can exift; as the Societies are Human, the regulations made for them must be by Human Authority. We find in the Scriptures the doctrines and precepts of our religion; they are there offered to the reader, who may make what use of them he pleafes; who will understand them in that fenfe, which fhall approve itself to his mind. But if many perfons chufe to join in an external Profeffion of this religion, this profeffion must be administered in a certain form, and by certain perfons; the naked Doctrines and Precepts will not adminifter themselves any more, than the abstract Idea of Juftice will be fufficient to answer the purposes of a State, without applying it, making it effectual, and giving as it were a body to it, by laws. 'Whatever Regulations are made for Chriftian Churches, are fuppofed and profeffed by those who make them, to be agreeable to the commands of Chrift, to be the means of carrying those commands into execution. Is this ufurping Chrift's authority? We all, I prefume, acknowledge God to be the Supreme Governor of the world. We are all I fuppofe ready to allow, that it is from him we derive our notions of Justice; that it is his will we should exercife this virtue towards our fellow-creatures. But did any reafonable man ever conclude from hence, that making Laws for the purposes of Practical Justice amongst men was impious with refpect to God, was intrenching on his fovereignty? The truth is, that without the interpofition of Human Authority, in its different degrees, Public Religion and Public Juftice could not fubfift. There remains another charge on Establishments," that they impofe on men Human Opinions, and give them an Authority, which is only due to Divine Revelation." It has been faid before, and is indifputable, that a certain Agreement of Opinions with refpect to God is neceffary for thofe, who would join in religious worfhip. Now, who is to be judge for any given Society, what those opinions fhall be? The Society must undoubtedly judge for itself. The warmest advocates for Religious Liberty plead for the right of Private Judgement; that men fhould be permitted to judge for themselves. Nothing is more inconteftible. And fhall not a Society have the fame right of judging for itself? Is this commendable in an individual, and unlawful in a Society? They may both be mistaken in forming their opinions; this is the confequence of human infirmity; but they are both the only and the proper judges for themfelves. And this Judgment on Religious Subjects must be exercifed; for men will differ about them, and the Scriptures, which we all allow to be the Revelation of God, will no more interpret themfelves, than the doctrines contained, teach; or the duties prescribed in them, execute themfelves. Each Society therefore will adopt thofe Opinions, which seem to them true; and they will be, like all other conclufions of our minds on the fubjects proposed to them, Human Opinions; they must and can be no other.' Mr. Mr. Sturges goes on to obferve, that without toleration no establishment can be lawful or defenfible. But as the tolerating spirit of our Church is a matter of great importance in the prefent inquiry, and as toleration has been enjoyed in this country fo completely in the prefent age, he makes it the fubject of a feparate letter, and goes on, towards the clofe of his fecond, to give us his fentiments concerning the forms, ceremonies, and opinions of our Church. It is undoubted, he thinks, that the members, and especially the minifters of a Church, muft, to a certain degree, concur in their opinions; but a public collection of these opinions, for the purpose of uniformity fhould be as fhort, he fays, as plain, and as comprehenfive, as the end propofed will admit; that the members of a Church may not be loaded with unneceffary conditions, or others be unneceffarily excluded from it. What he advances on this important fubject appears to us fo fenfible, candid, and judicious, that we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of inferting, or our Readers that of perufing it. In a large collection of Speculative Opinions, fays he, obfcure and difputable by their nature, it is impoffible, that great numbers of perfons can perfectly agree; agree I mean after full inquiry and examination; fome will acquiefce without making fuch inquiry, others will diffemble, and all perhaps will think themfelves entitled to use a latitude, that is not fo much authorised by the terms in which their Affent is expreffed, as by the general principles of our nature and the conftitution of our mind. In the mean time the end proposed will not be answered; and it is probably unneceffary that it should: unanimity in that degree will never in fact be produced. • As Christianity alfo fhould be made as much as poffible in the public profeffion of it, what it is in itfelf, a Religion of benevolence and concord, Chriftians fhould be invited by every conciliating, every accommodating measure to join in one profeffion; all invidious diftinctions, all unneceffary impediments should be removed; Imaller differences fhould be dropped by all parties, provided that in greater things they can be made to agree. Now to multiply the Public Opinions, by which one Church is diftinguished from others, on thofe fubjects especially which are difficult and difputable, is to multiply the conditions required from thofe who would accede to it, and to make their union with it less practicable. I confefs, my Lord, that our Articles appear liable to these objections; the particulars of them are too numerous; the fubjects of fome of them of a moft obfcure and difputable kind, where it may feem unneceffary and perhaps improper to go fo far in defining; on both thefe accounts the Affent required from our Clergy may appear too ftrict, and other Chriftians may be difcouraged from joining in communion with us. That fuch Objections fhould now lie to our Articles, is what might reasonably have been expected, notwithstanding all the abilities of the perfons who compiled them, notwithstanding all their me Y 4 rits |