fee; and we apprehend it would be difficult for Dr. Warburton to fhew. The test-act, we allow, does not forbid our receiving the facrament, for the ends for which it was originally inftituted; but it mixes with them other, and very improper, views, by which the fincerity of the receiver is greatly endangered; and, confequently, the act itfelf is chargeable with the abufes occafioned by it: the facramental teft, indeed, has a most obvious tendency to weaken the power of religious principles in the minds of men, and thereby to make void the most effectual fecurity of focial happiness, and to destroy the surest foundation that can poffibly be laid for the fupport of government and human laws. But this by the bye*.

We come now to give fome account of our author's two fermons on church authority. In the firft, which, upon the whole, is an honeft, candid, and fenfible one, he takes occafion from thefe words,-Call no man your father upon the earth, &c. to explain the equity and wifdom of the precept in his text, and to point out the good which follows from the obfervance, and the evils which arife from the violation of it.

In the fecond he difcourfes from the following words;-The feribes and pharifees fit in Mofes's feat. All therefore, whatsoever they bid you obferve, that obferve and do: but do not ye after their works; for they fay and do not, Matt. xxiii. 2, 3. In another place of the fame evangelift, our Saviour feems to infinuate a very different doctrine, where he bids us be on our guard againft falfe prophets, who come in sheeps cloathing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. These two places of fcripture Dr. Warburton attempts to reconcile, by obferving, that very different perfons and characters are the fubjects of the two dif ferent directions, and that there is a perfect agreement between the two rules; he then enquires into the reafons of them.

Of all the delufions into which licentious men are apt to fall, the most unhappy, he observes, is that which, from the vices and imperfections of the minifters of the gospel, inclines them to reject, or entertain fufpicions of, that religion itself. they are intrufted to teach; and yet, he thinks, nothing has more contributed to keep men attached to their infidelity than this foolish prejudice.

Did the gofpel,' fays he, deliver, or was it fufpected to deliver, any doctrines, even of the remoteft tendency to en< courage its minifters in their vices, much might be faid for this ftrange conclufion. But when it is by thofe very doctrines, that the people difcover the true nature and enormity.

The best arguments against this teft, that we have feen, are contained in the learned Mr. Abernethy's volume of tracts.

• of

of vice; when it is by thofe doctrines they hear the preacher's condemned out of their own mouths, it feems ftrangely perverfe to think amifs of religion on that account. Surely thefe men of reafon have not brought themselves to expect, that, in the ordinary courfe of God's providence, a mere knowledge of his will, and of the truths arifing from it, fhould have a refiftlefs force to bear down inveterate habits, and fubdue the strongest bent of human inclination.'

He acknowledges, how confiftently we may hereafter enquire, that the guilt of immoral preachers admits of no excuse, and concludes with feveral confiderations, that aggravate the crime of a profligate life in the fewards of the mysteries of God.

The two fermons on church authority are followed by two on church communion, in the firft of which Dr. Warburton expofes the vain opinion of inherent fanctity, fuperiority, or exclufive privilege, in one church above another, merely becaufe founded by a Paul, a Peter, an Andrew, or a James; or because adminiftred by an hierarchy, an equal miniftry, or a moderate epifcopacy. In the fecond, he takes occafion, from thefe words-Endeavouring to keep the unity of the fpirit in the bond of peace, to fhew, that concord and uniformity in opinions, after a careful examination of their truth, does, in a fupreme degree, fecure the peace of the church, and advance. the honour of religion. After this he proceeds to explain how the unity of the ípirit has been violated, and to fhew by what means it is to be restored. The means he propofes for restoring it are these :

1. By retrenching all unneceflary articles, to which the animolity of parties, the fuperftition of barbarous ages, and even the negligence of time, have given an imaginary importance and by reducing the formula of faith to the primitive fimplicity: leaving all difputable points, together with fuch other as no party deems neceffary, to the free decifion of every man's private judgment: whereby the terms of church communion will be made as wide as is confiftent with the welfare and good government of a SOCIETY.

2. As divifions, long kept up, have inflamed the paffions, ftrengthened the prejudices, and biaffed the judgments of the contending parties, another, and indeed principal means of reftoring unity, is the mutual compliance with one another's weakneffes. And this, methinks, would not be difficult amongst well-difpofed men, as we must needs esteem thofe to be, who feck to regain this unity of the fpirit: for tho' thefe long contentions have made us blind to our own infirmities, yet they have rather fharpened our fight towards

Ff3

thofa

those of our adverfaries; fo that a general weakness being • mutually seen and pitied, the very paffions raised by our differences, may be naturally brought to promote our recon• cilement.

But notwithstanding this apparent ease in bearing with one another's weakneffes, it deferves a more than ordinary care to put the difpofition in practice; as ecclefiaftics of all • denominations are but too apt to reafon wrong, in applying it to their mutual endeavours for reconciliation. The "demands of our adverfaries," say the established party, "are "for matters owned by themselves to be no duties; and against "others they confefs to be indifferent; why then should we "alter the flated order of things, to comply with their per"verseness or imbecillity?" But thofe who reafon thus, feem not to confider, that they themselves become guilty of the very mifcarriage of which they accufe, and rightly accufe, their adverfaries. For if the thing in queftion be of matters indifferent, why are they not complied with, for the fake of fo great a bleffing as the unity of the fpirit, how foolishly or obftinately foever demanded? Allow them to be weak or wilful for infifting on indifferent things, as the terms of fellow-membership in church communion; do we fhew less of this imbecillity, in refufing to comply with them in these indifferences? which, because they are fo, we pretend our oppofites fhould not be indulged in. For wherein confifts. their fault or folly, but in treating indifferent points as duties, by an obftinate demand of them? And wherein confifts our wisdom, but in treating indifferent points as fins, by as • obftinate a refufal? Now when this mutual miscarriage hath defeated, as it often hath done, the repeated endeavours of good men on all fides to reflore the violated unity of the fpirit, each party may reafonably blame the conduct of the other, but it is impoffible he can juftify his own. Indeed it would be hard to fay who are moft to blame; those who oppose established authority for the impofition of matters indifferent; or that authority which rigidly infifts on them, and will abate nothing for the fake of tender uninformed confciences: I fay, it would be hard to refolve this, had not the holy apostle done it for us, where he fays, We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and NOT TO PLEASE OURSELVES. I myself, fays he, do fo, and all for the gofpel's fake. This is the man who tells us, he had fought a good fight and overcome. And we may believe him; for, in this contention, the party that fubmits is always • conqueror.

.

• But

But now, tho' the UNITY OF THE SPIRIT cannot be purchased at too high a price, yet UNIFORMITY of established worship may be bought too dear. Here then, in purfuit of this fpiritual bleffing, we muft ftop; and not ven<ture to go one step further: we must not dare to procure it either at the expence of TRUTH OF JUSTICE. It mult be now left to the good care of providence.'

In the remaining part of this fermon, our author tells us, that when the unity of the fpirit cannot be preferved or restored, the only remaining care then is, the keeping faft the BOND OF PEACE. Now the only means of fecuring this, we are told, is by a general toleration, or full liberty to all chriftian fects (who give fecurity for their good behaviour to the civil vernment) of worshipping God according to the dictates of their own confciences, without let or moleftation from the eftablished religion. The diftractions and iniquities of thefe latter ages, he obferves, give us no reasonable grounds to hope for a better condition of the church, and he offers fome confiderations, to fhew, that the late COMPREHENSION SCHEME was both impracticable and mifchievous.

In the fermon following thofe on church communion, he confiders the influence of learning on revelation. The late Lord Bolingbroke alledged, that fince the revival of learning in the weft, and the confequent practice of thinking for ourfelves, the chriftian faith hath kept gradually decaying, and men have given lefs and lefs credit to its pretenfions. This point Dr. Warburton debates with him: a point of the utmost importance to the honour of revelation.

His lordship's propofition he expresses in plainer terms thus : the more the world has advanced in real knowledge, the more it has difcovered of the intenable pretenfions of the gospel. In oppofition to this, our author fhews, that christianity made its first way against the highest powers and prejudices, in the very center of the most flourishing age of knowledge; that at the last revival of learning, it received the strongest aid from human fcience, and the fincereft homage from the most illuftrious names that ever adorned or cultivated letters; that the only enemies it found among the learned, were either fuch as were immoral in their lives, or were tied down by a falfe philofophy to inveterate prejudices, or were carried away by vanity, or were incompetent judges, by their unacquaintance with the nature of the proofs; or laftly, fuch as pretended only to a knowledge they indeed had not. From all this he concludes, and justly, that let infidelity be rifen to what height it will, it is not yet of that kind which brings any real difcredit to revelation.

Ff 4

In the last fermon he takes occafion, from those words What God hath joined together, let no man put afunder, to enquire into the nature of the marriage-union. Marriage, we are told, is of a mixed nature, in part a facred ordinance, in part a human inftitution. It hath,' fays Dr. Warburton, both a natural and a facial efficacy; confidered in a natural light, as an union of male and female, from whence all the charities of human life arife, it is a religious contract: con*. fidered in a focial light, as creating new relations and con•nections, all of which have their diftinct rights and privileges affigned them in civil life, it partakes of a civil con

tra.

This diftinction is marked out to us by the nature of things and confirmed by laws divine and human.

What then, it may be afked, are the diftinct parts which GOD and the MAGISTRATE claim, as their peculiar in this ⚫ folemn contract? It is from God that two are made one by C an indiffolvable tie: and this is the LAW OF RELIGION. It is from the magiftrate that this union, ordained by heaven, is executed by a folemn form, prescribed by the state: and this is the LAW OF SOCIETY.

From all this it neceffarily follows, that till this facred union, inftituted by God in Paradife, be fealed and confirmed by fuch rites and ceremonies, as the wifdom and po⚫licies of civil ftates direct to be obferved, God hath not joined any pair together, according to his holy ordinance: and that the obfervance of fuch rites and ceremonies is effential to that union which he declares to be indiffolvable.

To fuppofe this union may be authentically made, in the prefent state of religion and fociety, without the intervention of the civil magiftrate, leads either to fanaticifm or l centioufnefs.

From thefe clear principles, and this certain deduction, we collect the juftice and religion, as well as expedience and true policy of a late falutary law, folely calculated for the fupport and ornament of fociety; by which the just rights and authority of parents are vindicated; the peace and harmony of familics preferved; the irregular appetites of youth restrained; and the worst and baseit kind of feduction encountered and defeated. I mean that fage provifion, whereby all pretended marriages, not folemnized as the WISDOM OF OUR ANTIENT CONSTITUTION directs, are rendered null and • void.'

In the remaining part of this fermon, our author examinės a material objection to his general argument, fuppofed to arife from