rule of Dr. Taylor prejudges the Scripture before we come to it, and inculcates into inexperienced Students of Divinity the very principle that hath ruined us, and given us up as a prey to the Deists; it allows them the advantage they have contended for against the peculiar doctrines of Revelation, as scarce worth any thing at all of our notice, in comparison of natural religion. For here, I say, before we descend to the Scripture, we are possessed of a system, founded in the unchangeable nature of things; from which, whatsoever the bible may seem to reveal, we are never to depart. Let us then suppose, that our Christian baptism teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: what have we to do? Natural Religion hath already determined, from the unchangeable nature of things, that God is but one person*. Therefore we must interpret the form of Baptism to such a sense, as will still leave this doctrine of nature in possession; either by teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are, in reality, but one person; or that Jesus Christ is no person in the Godhead, but a mere man, like ourselves; or,

that

* "This (says Dr. Clarke) is the first principle of Natural "Religion." See Mr. Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity p. 15, of the sixth Edition; where this is considered more at large.

that Christianity is not true, &c. So in like manner, by another anticipation, natural religion makes every man his own Priest and his own Temple: therefore it cannot possibly admit the true and proper Priesthood of Jesus Christ; but must reject the whole doctrine of atonement, and the corruption of man's nature; for this is incompatible with the idea of a natural religion; inasmuch as corrupt nature must produce a corrupt religion. If we say that nature is not corrupt, we overturn the foundations of the Gospel; which teaches us, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them.Man, it seems, is so far from knowing the spiritual things revealed to him in the Scripture, that, as he now is by nature, he is not in a condition to receive them (they will be foolishness to him) till he is enabled so to do by a new faculty of discernment, which is supernatural and spiritual. It is therefore easy to foresee what must be the consequence, when Dr. Taylor's rule is admitted; and the younger Clergy of this Church take him for their guide. They will take the doctrines of nature, and work them up with the doctrines of the Scripture: that is, they will throw natural Religion into the Scripture, as Aaron threw the gold of

Egypt into the fire: and, what will come out? Not the Christian Religion, but the philosophical calf of Socinus.

Mr. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity may be read with safety, by those who are already well learned in the Scripture: but what a perilous situation must that poor young man be in, who, perhaps, when he can but just construe the Greek Testament, or before, is turned over to be handled and tutored by this renowned veteran; who, with a shew of reasonableness, and some occasional sneers at orthodoxy, and affecting the piety and power of inspiration itself, has partly overlooked, and partly explained away, the first and greatest principles of Christianity, and reduced it to a single proposition, consistent with Heresy, Schism, Arianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE ABUSE OF THE REFORMATION, &c.

.

To the doctrines which are pleaded in defence of separation, I might have added the use which has been made of the historical event of our Reformation from the errors of the Church of Rome. Here the Dissenters are in confederacy with the Papists against us. The Papists object, that by the fact of our separation from their Church, the principle of separation is admitted; and being once admitted, it will multiply sects and divisions amongst us, and justify them all, as much as it justifies us. This is the very argument, which the Dissenters have repeated an hundred times; and they borrowed it originally from Rome, whose emissaries were detected

HH 3

detected among the Puritans in the days of Elizabeth, feeding them with reasons and objections for the multiplying of schism, and the weakening of the Episcopal Church of England; and God knows, they succeeded but too well, However, the link which unites these two parties may easily be broken. They both agree, that the Reformation of the Church of England was a separation from the Church of Rome, of the same kind, and on the same principles, with the separation of our Dissenters. But to say this, is to assert, that the Pope had a legal authority over the Church of England; when in fact it was an usurped authority; and the Church of England reformed itself, as a national Episcopal Church, on the ground of its original independence on the See of Rome. Therefore, till our Sectaries have given up this point to the Papists, and made the Church of England legally dependent on the authority of Rome, the case of our Reformation affords no precedent to their separation. This Bishop Hoadley knew; therefore he allowed the authority of the Church of Rome, and made the Reformation of this Church a forcible separation, or schism, that all the Sectaries might be justified by our example. But he goes to a greater length: he maintains, that we did not reform,

because