content to argue against any abuse or miscon ception of authority, he proceeded at once to deny that there was any authority whatever given by Christ to any person to rule or to govern his church: he asserted that what our Lord said of "his kingdom not being of this world" was to be taken most strictly, as interdicting every man from being a judge or lawgiver in religious matters; and thus he, by necessary inference, condemned or materially impeached the very establishment in which he held so distinguished a situation',

Inconsistent as this conduct might appear; yet while the doctrine was patronized by the government, and the supporters of it were rewarded with the preferments and the dignities, of which they thus seemed to doubt the propriety, it is no wonder that the tenet should have continued to gain ground. It was more particularly received with great favour by the dissenters, with many of whose positions it not only agreed, but even seemed in a great degree to be borrowed from them. It further opened to them a pròspect of being set at liber

It is true the bishop afterwards endeavoured to explain away or to narrow his positions, but it was clearly shewn by his oppo nents that this could not be done without destroying the whole of His argument. See particularly William Law's third letter, under the head of "A remarkable evasion of your lordship's in relation to church authority."

ty from those restraints to which by the policy of the civil legislature they had been subjected; and they appear from that time to have shewn a disposition to unite as one body in their ge neral views of hostility against the national church.

In consequence of this too, and in order to preserve consistency in the maintenance of the doctrine, the Arians and Socinians began from that time also to be taken into favour by the other dissenters; and were admitted by them. to be entitled to the same degree of indulgence and the same privileges as the other sects.

How far this was from being the case with their predecessors, no man who has looked ever so superficially into ecclesiastical history, can be ignorant. From the earliest appearance of the puritans down to the times of Baxter, and even of his biographer Calamy, the Socinians, and all those who denied the proper divinity of our Lord, were considered as hardly deserving even to be classed among Christians. Calvin, it is notorious, shewed it by causing Servetus to be burned, and Baxter spoke of Biddle's followers as men who were little better than Deists or Infidels'. In the toleration act passed

1 "The Socinians also in these times made some increase by the "means of one Mr. Biddle, sometime schoolmaster in Gloucester, "who wrote against the godhead of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards of "Christ. His followers inclined much to mere Deism and Infidelity.”

under King William, a clause was inserted requiring a subscription expressly calculated to exclude this class of sectaries from taking advantage of its provisions; and by another statute it was declared to be an offence highly penal to deny the godhead of any of the persons of the blessed trinity; as also to affirm that there is more than one God". To neither of which enactments was any opposition made by the dissenters of those days, nor did they shew the least apprehension that they could ever become subject to the penalties which were thus imposed. Not long after this, however, the consequences of their own principles, when pushed to the utmost, began to press upon them, and they or most of them manifested a

Calamy's abridgment of Baxter's life, Vol. 1. p. 104. Peirce in his Vindication of Dissenters blames the churchmen as too easy in this respect. Why," says he, "do they not, as well as we, keep "heretics and profligate sinners out of their communion." Part iii. p. 273.

11

This was extended to the Quakers. Vid. Stat. 1. W. & M. c. xviii. sec. 13. and 9. and 10. W. iii. c. 32.

Among the many. clamours raised about this time (anno "1704) among the Dissenters, one was that they did not deserve "to have liberty themselves, because they were enemies to the

liberty of others. This was started as a maxim that they that "would be for straining others if they were able, could not reason

ably expect liberty from those that were in power, when they "differed from them. I shall not set myself to debate this maxim "or consider what might be objected to it; but shall let the world understand that the Dissenters took another way to answer it, "&c." Calamy's abridgment of Baxter's Life, Vol. i. p 670. The

disposition to unite with all sectaries without any distinction of doctrine any more than of discipline. But as some of them continued to think that the proper atonement of our Saviour, and of course his divinity, were articles of faith essentially interwoven with Christianity, this was not carried either universally or without opposition"; though it is now I believe very generally entertained.

way taken was to write a letter to some ministers of reputation in New England on behalf of the Quakers, who complained of some severe laws of a long standing, not repealed, from which they desired to be screened. The letter was signed by several of the other three denominations of Dissenters: I suppose Presbyterian, Independent, and Socinian. If it was so, this was a beginning of

union.

**

13 Dr. Kippis in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica, Art. CALAMY, (Edmund) speaks of this event and particularly of Dr. Edmund Calamy's conduct at the time, in the following words:" In the great disputes which were carried on among the "Dissenters in 1718 and the following years, concerning subscrip"tion to the first article of the church of England, relative to the "doctrine of the trinity, Dr. Calamy acted a neutral part. He I distinctly foresaw the quarrel and its consequences; and before "it rose to an height, took up a resolution to have no hand in it. "He was indeed at one private meeting, but saw so much there, as determined him to engage no farther, though he was earnestly pressed both by the subscribers, and those who were afterwards "called the non-subscribers, to give them his company. We be*lieve that most of the present race of dissenting clergy will think "that Dr. Calamy lost some credit by not being one of the seventy "three ministers who carried it against sixty-nine for the bible "in opposition to human formularies." I have never met any where with further particulars of this transaction, by which as it seems the presbyterians and independents formally agreed to give

D

From that time, indeed, the opinions of Arius and Socinus began to acquire a degree of credit not only greater than they had ever possessed, but in a quarter where it might least have been expected, even in the bosom of the church. The learned and ingenious prelate, of whom we have been speaking, was by many persons supposed to be much inclined to the Socinian Another extremely eminent, and otherwise respectable divine put forth such an

14

tenets11.

the right hand of fellowship to the Socinians. Nor am I aware what were "the quarrel and its consequences" which followed. But I think there was good reason for this caution of Dr. Calamy. Possibly he remembered what his grandfather, (as quoted by his uncle Benjamin) had said, that he that separates from the "public worship, is like a man tumbling down a hill, and never leaving till he comes to the bottom of it. I could relate," he goes on," many sad stories of persons professing godliness, who "out of dislike to our church-meetings began at first to separate "from them, and after many changes and alterations are turned "some of them anabaptist, some quakers, some ranters, some di"rect atheists!" Ib. Art. Calamy (Benjamin.) Note A.

66

14 In the Biographia Britannica, art. HOADLY, it is supposed that this charge rests merely upon his "account of Dr. Clarke, "and his extraordinary veneration for that divine;" but this is an evident, if not a wilful mistake. When I say wilful, I mean it with a reference to what is said afterwards of the plain account of the sacrament, that "it was not unjustly said to have met with "much warm and weak opposition." The man who wrote this must, or should therefore have known that upon that publication more than any other, was founded, the impeachment of his lordship's orthodoxy respecting the divinity of our Saviour. As this is a point of some consequence and that may well deserve to be considered at length, I must refer my readers for further particulars to additional note A.