It behoveth all those then who diffent from the established Church, seriously to confider, that Agree

ment

Appearance, and speak by Deputation in the first Chapter of the Revelations, as much as the supreme God is reprefented to do throughout the Old Teftament, by the Hypothefis under present Question?—I turned to fee the Voice that fpake with me; and being turned, I faw feven golden Candlesticks; and in the midst of the feven Candlesticks, ONE LIKE UNTO the Son of Man, &c. (Ver. 12. &c. See Dan. xii. 8. See likewife the Account of the Converfion of St. Paul, Acts ix. 3. &c. xxvi. 13.) (See Review for January 1757. p. 1. &c.)

Whether, although the Paffages which declare the Perfonality, and Divinity of the Holy Ghost, be not so numerous, or even, generally speaking, fo ftriking, as thofe from which we demonftrate the Divinity of Jefus Chrift, this Circumftance can fairly be urged in bar to our Faith; if it be duly confidered, ist. that the clear Afcertainment of (I will take leave to fay) a Binity of Perfons in the Godhead, renders the Doctrine of a Trinity credible upon proper Authority from Scripture, and that the Scriptures abfolutely limit and reftrain us to a Belief of a Trinity of Perfons, and no more; (See Review for March 1757. p. 198.) and 2dly, that it was neceffary the Divinity of the fecond Perfon should be more particularly and circumftantially afferted and maintained, lest his Afsumption of the Humanity should furnish Infidels and Gain-fayers (as indeed we find to this Day it does) with Arguments and Exceptions derogatory to his infinite Excellency, and the Perfection of his divine Nature?-Upon the whole then, does it not appear that the Doctrine of the Trinity is at least abundantly defenfible from SCRIPTURE? If fo, is it not abfurd and ridiculous, as well as uncharitable and unjuft, to afcribe it to ecclefiaftical Policy, or human Invention ?-Is it candid and reasonable to depreciate and vilify all Church Authority in Disgust, principally, to the Doctrine before us? Is it reasonable to object the Character of Athanafius, or any Peculiarities in his Creed, to the Difcredit of the Doctrine of the Trinity itself?Is it not crafty and difingenuous to fuffer without

ment and Unity of religious Sentiment, as far as may be, and Uniformity of public Worship, are highly defireable in themselves: That mere Doubts, Scruples, and Conceits, are, without Reluctance, to be parted with for the Sake of them: That in all Societies and legal Governments whatsoever, an implicit Deference and Submiffion is, and ought to be, in many Inftances paid to Acts of Power, and the Appointments of Authority: That though the Church of England be not therefore a true without Reproof the Advocates of this Doctrine to be loaded with all the Odium which the Terms Bigotry, Party-Zeal, ecclefiaftical Tyranny, Scholaftic Jargon, inexplicable Nonsense, &c. &c. &c. can poffibly import, (and even to aid and abet the Scandal) and at the fame time to reprefent the AntiTrinitarians as Lovers of Truth, Friends to Liberty, and even Defenders of Chriftianity ?—But it is unnecessary to enlarge yet farther upon this Subject, which might easily be done, or to put as many Questions as the Occafion would fuggeft.—I shall therefore finish this Note, (the Length of which will, I hope, be overlooked in it's Importance) with defiring the Authors of the MONTHLY REVIEW either fairly and unfophiftically to difprove what I have here, and elsewhere advanced, not by Church, but Scriptural Authority, upon this great Doctrine, or to retract, in as full and effectual a Manner as may be, all the Contempt, Abuse, and Calumny which they have thrown upon it, and the orthodox Believers of it.-Far be it from me to arrogate to myself any extraordinary Abilities as a Writer, and far be it too from me to defert my Profeffion, and give up what I am verily perfuaded is the great Basis, and grand Fundamental of the Chriftian Religion, to the Pride and Infolence of Infidelity. I do not write with a View to the Praise of these Gentlemen, which I covet not, but with an Expectation of their Anfwer, which I am entitled to.

Church

Church purely because it is established, yet that it's legal Establishment is at least a prefumptive Argument in it's Favour: That Obedience and Conformity to that Establishment may, as fuch, be more easily proved to be a rightful Duty, than Separation and Nonconformity can be demonstrated not to be fchifmatical and finful in itself: That though no Chriftian ought to comply with any human Inftitution against his Conscience (for whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin) yet, in the Cafe before us, a Man ought to be fully affured that it is his Confcience that cannot comply: That the Question is not, whether he can confcientiously diffent from, but whether he cannot confcientiously submit to the established Church; and that he is not induftriously to hunt after Pretences for Separation, but impartially to weigh the Reafons for Conformity: That Conscience may unfairly be brought over to a Man's Opinion, while that Opinion might probably have been facrificed confiftently with Conscience: That as Confcience is oftentimes, and in many Cafes, really tender and delicate, fo Opinion is as often obftinate and perverfe; and that one Man may be as much bigotted to his own way of thinking, as another can be to any Establishment whatsoever: That there is a material Difference between a Man's declaring his full Affent and Confent to the Ufe of all Things contained in, and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and to

the

the main Substance of the Articles, Offices, Ufages, and Conftitutions of the Church; and his fubscribing to every Jot and Tittle thereof as undoubtedly and unalterably right and true: That the Church requires the first from all her Members, but does by no means infift upon the latter: That the Church of England is, as a Church, the great Bulwark of the Proteftant Religion against the Church of Rome: That he triumphs in our religious Divisions and Diffentions, nay, has been proved to have been often at the Bottom of them, and that these do indeed give the most plaufible Occafion to our Enemy to blafpheme: That a true Zeal for the Gofpel of Chrift, in Oppofition to the Incroachments of Rome is better manifested by a steady Attachment to a Church confessedly orthodox in her Faith, and independent in her Authority, than by the bare Affumption of the Name of Proteftants, under the Sanction of which venerable Denomination Infidelity itself has but too often drawn it's Sword. Lastly, that as the Church of England does not pretend to Infallibility, fo much less should any private Perfon or Perfons and that even fuppofing it to be a Matter of reafonable Doubt, whether a Man should conform or not, it would be a Proof both of his Wisdom and Humility, to run the Risque rather of erring on the Side of Authority, than against it.

A

If these and the like Confiderations were meekly and seriously attended to, not by the Passions and Prejudices, but by the Hearts and Confciences of Men, furely we might hope to fee all those that confefs the holy Name of Chrift agreeing in the Truth of his holy Word, and living in Unity and godly Love: or however, though fuch Confiderations may probably be bestowed in vain upon those, whose Errors and Prejudices are, from many concurrent Causes, invincible, we might at least expect, if duly regarded, they would have a good Effect upon others, who have not an Averfion fo irreconcileable to the Church of England, but they can fometimes, or upon fome Occafions communicate with her. There seems indeed to be always fomething extravagantly whimsical, and often fuperlatively wicked in occafional Conformity. When Men communicate with the Church merely with lucrative Views, and to qualify themselves for Offices, they give the Church falfe Security, (than which nothing can be more hypocritical) they prostitute Conscience to the vileft End, (than which nothing can be more irreligious) and while they appear to ferve God in our Way, are really ferving Mammon in their own. These Men give Offence to all Perfuafions, and do Credit to none. In short, it may be truly a Question with them, whether it be just and warrantable to make any Act of Religion a temporal Qualification; but it VOL. I.

can