prayer; and probably continued so to do, till they were dispersed. Neither Christ nor his disciples ever considered the doctrines of Church-authority, and Succession, and Conformity, as vain words and idle dreams, as our Socinians have done of late years; and after what hath been said, their views want no explanation.

5. In our behaviour toward those who have departed from us, let not us, who honour the Church, fall into the error of those who despise it. Let us not betray any symptoms of pride in censuring with severity, but rather, with hearts full of sorrow and compassion, lament the differences and divisions which expose the Christian religion to the scorn of its enemies. Infidels are delighted to see that Christians cannot understand one another; for thence they are ready to report, that there is no sense amongst them all, nor any reason in their religion; for that, if there were, they would agree about it. In this also the Papists triumph; they boast of their advantage over the Reformed, in that they are preserved in peace and unity*, while we are torn to pieces with factions and divisions. Hence

* But see Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History: where he proves by incontrovertible evidence, that the Romish Church has not always maintained her boasted unanimity.

Hence they reflect upon the whole Reformation, as a natural source of confusion; that they be long to Jerasalem, and we to Babel; that when we leave their Church, the city upon the hill, we never know where to stop, till we get to the bottom: that is, till we have run either into the madness of enthusiasm, or the profaneness of infidelity. How shall we stop this wide mouth. of scandal, while appearances are so much against us?

However, this reproach doth not reach us of the Church of England; who, in doctrine and profession, are where we were two hundred years ago. Let those who have left us try if they can answer the Papists upon this head: it is their business to account for the confusion which they only have introduced *.

If the Clergy of this Church have any desire to preserve it, they must consider for what end the Church is appointed. A Christian Church is a candlestick, to hold forth the Light of the Gospel. When it ceases to answer that end, it

is

* It is too much the fashion of the times to divide the Christian Religion only into two classes, one including the Papists, and the other comprehending the motley herd who are disunited from the Church of Rome, and who are all distinguished by the general name of Protestants.— Whereas the Sectarians are many of them as widely removed from us of the Church of England, as we are from the Papists.

is of no use as a Church; and the world may do as well without it. Great things have been attributed of late times to moral preaching: but there is no such thing as telling people what they are to do, without telling them what they are to believe; because the Christian morality is built upon the Christian faith, and is totally different from the morality of Heathens. Deism, so called, is a Religion without Christianity; it has neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, into whose name Christians are baptized. It has no Sacraments, no Redemption, no Atonement, no Church Communion, and consequently no Charity; for Charity is the love. and unity of Christians as such. Natural Religion is but another name for Deism; it is the same thing in all respects; and I may challenge all the philosophers in Europe to shew the dif ference. Therefore to recommend moral duties on the ground of natural religion, is to preach Deism from a pulpit: and we should ask ourselves, whether God, who upholds his Church, to declare salvation by Jesus Christ alone, wil preserve a Church, when it has left the Gospel, and holds forth the light of Deism in the candlestick which was made, and is supported in the world, only to hold forth the light of Christianity? What else is it that hath made way

for

for the enthusiastic rant of the Tabernacle? When the wise forsake the Gospel, then is the time for the unwise to take it up; but with such a mixture of error and indiscretion, as gives the world a pretence for never returning to it any more: and then the case is desperate.

Deism, properly so called,' (said a certain writer) is the religion essential to man, the true original religion of reason and nature.-s It is in Deism, properly so called, that our • more discerning and rational divines have constantly placed the alone excellency and true glory of the Christian institution--The Gospel (says Dr. Sherlock) was a republica• tion of the Law of Nature, and its precepts declarative of that original religion, which was as old as the creation.-If natural religion (says Mr. Chandler) be not a part of the religion of Christ, 'tis scarce worth while to enquire at all, what his religion is: from ⚫ whence it seems very natural to infer, that the • other parts of the religion of Christ are

scarce worth any thing at all of our notice."' [Deism fairly stated by a moral Philosopher: p. 5, 6, 7.] See the whole book, which proceeds on this principle; that natural religion being admitted, it must be a perfect scheme, a compleat structure; and that Christianity, as a super

a superstructure, is unnecessary: and it is lamentable to see what advantage this author takes of the unguarded concessions of some celebrated Christian preachers and controversialists of the Church of England, who did not foresee, or did not consider, the consequences of their doctrines.

Dr. Taylor, some time since a dissenting teacher at Norwich, a man of considerable learning, was the author of certain Theological Lectures, which I have reason to think have met with a more favourable reception than they' deserved among some of the Clergy of our own Church, and have been even recommended as elementary tracts to young Students in Divinity. In the first chapter of these Lectures, I find a rule of interpretation repugnant to the rule given us by the Scripture itself, which directs us to compare spiritual things with spiritual, that is, to compare the Scripture with the Scripture, that we may keep to the true sense of it. But here it is laid down as a fundamental rule, that we should always interpret the Scripture, in a sense consistent with the laws of natural religion; for that the law of nature, as it is founded in the unchangeable nature of things, must be the basis and ground-work of every constitution of religion which God hath erected. This

VOL. IV.

HH

rule