CHAPTER FOURTH.

Of the decline of Calvinism.-Of Conventicles.

I Now pass to the third fact, which I have taken upon me to establish: the decline of Calvinism, amounting almost to a total extinction of it, among our English dissenters, who, no long time since, were generally Calvinists.

2. This fact is of no great importance in our controversy; as it is but very remotely connected with the question about the opinions of the first ages. The rapid decline of Calvinism, here in England, was alleged by me as an instance, in which Dr Priestley's theorem about the rate of velocity, with which the opinions of great bodies of men change, would lead, in the practical application of it, to very erroneous conclusions. If my instance was ill-chosen, it will not immediately be a consequence, that Dr Priestley's theorem is a false principle for the reformation of the history of the primitive church, in defiance of the testimony of the earliest writers extant. It would give me great pleasure to find myself in an error with respect to this fact; and to see reason to believe Dr Priestley, in his assertion, that the body of our dissenters at this day are Calvinists. So

many Calvinists as are among them, so many friends there are to the Catholic faith in all its essential branches; for the peculiarities of Calvinism affect not the essentials of Christianity. But I am sorry to say, that I must still believe, that the genuine Calvinists among our modern dissenters, are very few; unless, in a matter, which hath so lately fallen under the cognisance of the British legislature, I could allow Dr Priestley's assertion, to outweigh the plain testimony of facts of public notoriety.

3. If the great body of the dissenters are, at this day, Calvinists; upon what pretence was it, that the dissenting ministers, who, in the years 1772 and 1773, petitioned Parliament to be released from the subscriptions to which they were held by the 1st of William any Mary, arrogated to themselves the title of the GENERAL BODY of dissenting ministers of the three denominations in and about London? No true Calvinist could concur in that petition. For although I cannot admit, that the articles of our church, in the doctrinal part, affirm the strict tenets of Calvinism; yet they are in this part, what, as I conceive, no true Calvinist would scruple to subscribe; and, with respect to the great doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Justification, and Grace, every genuine Calvinist would start at the very thought of being supposed, even tacitly to concur in a re

quest to be released from a confession of his faith: for none better understands, than the genuine Calvinist, the force of that sacred maxim, "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Would Dr Priestley insinuate, that his brethren of the Rational dissent approached the august assembly of the British Parliament, with a petition founded upon false pretensions? Will he say, that they were, in fact, the minority of the body, of which they called themselves the generality? Will he say, that the Thirteen,* who in the meeting of the General Body at the Library, in Red-cross Street, on Wednesday, December the 23d, 1772, divided against the vote for an application to Parliament to remove the restraints, which the wisdom of our forefathers, by the Act of Toleration, had imposed, were the representatives of a more numerous body, than the Fifty-five who gave their suffrages for the motion:† who, at a subsequent meeting, suffered not the protest of the thirteen orthodox ministers, to be recorded in the minutes of the business of the day; and with difficulty permitted their reasons to be read.‡ A proceed

See a pamphlet entitled, "A Collection of the several Papers relating to the Application made to Parliament, in 1772 and 1773, by some of the Protestant Dissenters, for Relief in the matter of Subscription, &c." London, printed for J. Wilkie, No. 71, St Paul's Church-yard. MDCCLXXIII.

+ See Wilkie's Collection, No. III.

+ Ibid. No. II.

ing, by the way, which clearly shews, how cordially these pretended friends of general toleration would delight, were they in power, to tolerate opinions which might differ from their own; and evinces the propriety of the prayer, which a sense of such wrongs, drew from a member of the orthodox minority," From the power of such pretenders to superior reason, may GoD and THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ever defend the orthodox dissenters."* These thirteen spake only the sentiments of every Calvinist, when they said, "We believe the doctrines of the articles to be both true and important. We dare not therefore consent, to be held up to view as those, who indulge any doubts respecting their truth, or at all hesitate about their importance. We consider them as the basis of our hope, the source of our comfort, and the most powerful incentive to a course of sincere, stedfast, cheerful obedience." It were injustice to these worthy men, to let any occasion pass of mentioning their names with the reverence which is due to them. David Muire, John Rogers, Thomas Towle, Samuel Brewer, Edward Hitchin, Thomas Oswald, John Potts, John Trot

See "Candid Thoughts on the late Application of some Protestant dissenting ministers, &c. By an Orthodox Dissenter." London, printed for W. Goldsmith, No. 20, PaternosterRow, 1772.

+ See Wilkie's Collection, No. II. sec. 3.

66

ter, John Macgowan, George Stephens, Joseph Popplewell, Henry Hunter, John Kello; these were the venerable confessors, who, on the 23d of December, 1772, and on the 27th of January in the following year, in meetings of the General Body of the three denominations, stood for the faith once delivered to the saints. They thought themselves bound, they said, to contend earnestly for it against all who should oppose it." For this purpose they formed, as I gather from the documents of the times, * into a distinct association. When the petition of the Rationalists was laid before the Parliament, they were firm and active in their opposition to it; considering the request as little less than a blow craftily aimed at the very vitals of the reformed religion, and of Christianity, indeed, itself. They presented a cross petition, † signed, as they themselves said, by the ministers, as well as the laity of the most respectable congregations of real Protestant dissenters in town and country. But, when they wished to give credit and authority to their opposition, by boasting of their numbers, the most that they could say of the number of ministers, who had signed the cross petition was this: that they were "upwards of Fifty." The number of dissenting ministers in the whole kingdom, was

See Wilkie's Collection, No. III. and IV.

+ Ibid. No. V.