that it is a treatise wholly devoid of wit or learning, under the most violent and weak endeavours and pretences to both that it is replenished throughout with bold, rude, improbable falsehoods, and gross misinterpretations; and supported by the most impudent sophistry, and false logic, I have anywhere observed. To this he has added a paltry, traditional cant of priestrid and priest craft, without reason or pretext as he applies it. And when he rails at those doctrines in popery, (which no Protestant was ever supposed to believe,) he leads the reader, however, by the hand, to make applications against the English clergy; and then he never fails to triumph, as if he had made a very shrewd and notable stroke. And because the court and kingdom seemed disposed to moderation with regard to dissenters, more perhaps than is agreeable to the hot unreasonable temper of some mistaken. men among us; therefore, under the shelter of that popular opinion, he ridicules all that is sound in religion, even Christianity itself, under the names of Jacobite, Tackers, High Church, and other terms of factious jargon. All which, if it were to be first rased from his book, (as just so much of nothing to the purpose,) how little would remain to give the trouble of an answer! To which let me add, that the spirit or genius, which animates the whole, is plainly perceived to be nothing else but the abortive malice of an old neglected man who has long lain under the extremes of obloquy, poverty, and contempt, that have soured his temper and made him fearless. But where is the merit of being bold to a man that is secure of impunity to his person, and is past apprehension of any thing else? He that has neither reputation nor bread has very little else to lose, and has therefore as little to fear. And as it is usually said, "Whoever values not his own life, is master of another man's," so there is something like it in reputation: he that is wholly lost to all regards of truth or modesty, may scatter so much calumny and scandal that some part may perhaps be taken up before it fall to the ground; because the ill talent of the world is such that those who will be at pains enough to inform themselves in a malicious story will take none at all to be undeceived, nay, will be apt, with some reluctance, to admit a favourable truth.

To expostulate, therefore, with this author for doing mischief to religion, is to strew his bed with roses : he will reply in triumph, that this was his design; and I am loath to mortify him, by asserting he has done none at all. For I never yet saw so poor an atheistical scribble which would not serve as twig for sinking libertines to catch at. It must be allowed in their behalf, that the faith of Christians is not as a grain of mustard-seed in comparison of theirs, which can remove such mountains of absurdities, and submit with so entire a resignation to such apostles. If these men had any share of that reason they pretend to, they would retire into Christianity, merely to give it ease. And, therefore, men can never be confirmed in such doctrines until they are confirmed in their vices; which last, as we have already observed, is the principal design of this and all other writers against revealed religion.

I am now opening the book which I propose to examine; an employment, as it is entirely new to me, so it is that to which of all others I have naturally the greatest antipathy. And indeed, who can dwell upon a tedious piece of insipid thinking and false reasoning, so long as I am likely to do, without sharing the infection?

But, before I plunge into the depths of the book itself, I must be forced to wade through the shallows of a long preface.

This preface, large as we see it, is only made up of

such supernumary arguments against an independent power in the church, as he could not, without nauseous repetition, scatter into the body of his book: and it is detached, like a forlorn hope, to blunt the enemy's sword that intends to attack him. Now I think it will be easy to prove, that the opinion of imperium in imperio, in the sense he charges it upon the clergy of England, is what no one divine of any reputation, and very few at all, did ever maintain; and that their universal sentiment in this matter is such as few Protestants did ever dispute. But if the author of the "Regale," or two or three or more obscure writers, have carried any points further than Scripture and reason will allow, (which is more than I know or shall trouble myself to inquire,) the clergy of England is no more answerable for those than the laity is for all the folly and impertinence of this treatise. And, therefore, that people may not be amused, or think this man is somewhat, that he has advanced or defended any oppressed truth, or overthrown any growing dangerous errors, I will set in as clear a light as I can what I conceive to be held by the established clergy and all reasonable Protestants in this matter.

Everybody knows and allows, that in all government there is an absolute, unlimited, legislative power; which is originally in the body of the people, although, by custom, conquest, usurpation, or other accidents, sometimes fallen into the hands of one or a few. This in England is placed in the three estates, (otherwise called the two houses of parliament,) in conjunction with the king. And whatever they please to enact, or to repeal in the settled forms, whether it be ecclesiastical or civil, immediately becomes law or nullity. Their decrees may be against equity, truth, reason, and religion, but they are not against law: because law is the will of the supreme legislature, and that is themselves. And there is no manner of doubt but the same authority whenever it pleases, may abolish Christianity, and set up the Jewish, Mahometan, or heathen religion. In short, they may do anything within the compass of human power. And, therefore, who will dispute that the same law which deprived the church not only of lands, misapplied to superstitious uses, but even the tithes and glebes, (the ancient and necessary support of parish priests,) may take away all the rest whenever the lawgivers please, and make the priesthood as primitive as this writer or others of his stamp can desire.

But as the supreme power can certainly do ten thousand things more than it ought, so there are several things which some people may think it can do, although it really cannot. For it unfortunately happens, that edicts which cannot be executed will not alter the nature of things. So, if a king and parliament should please to enact that a woman who has been a month married is virgo intacta, would that actually restore her to her primitive state? If the supreme power should resolve a corporal of dragoons to be a doctor of divinity, law, or physic, few, I believe, would trust their souls, fortunes, or bodies to his direction; because that power is neither fit to judge or teach those qualifications which are absolutely necessary to the several professions. Put the case, that walking on the slack-rope were the only talent required by an act of parliament for making a man a bishop; no doubt, when a man had done his feat of activity in form, he might sit in the house of lords, put on his robes and his rochet, go down to his palace, receive and spend his rents; but it requires very little Christianity to believe this tumbler to be one whit more a bishop than he was before, because the law of God has otherwise decreed; which law, although a nation may refuse to receive it, cannot alter in its own nature.

And here lies the mistake of this superficial man,

For my own part, I must confess that this opinion of the independent power of the church, or imperium in imperio, wherewith this writer raiseth such a dust, is what I never imagined to be of any consequence, never once heard disputed amongst divines, nor remember to have read, otherwise than as a scheme in one or two authors of middle rank, but with very little weight laid on it. And I dare believe there is hardly one divine in ten that ever once thought of this matter. Yet to see a large swelling volume written only to encounter this doctrine, what could one think less than that the whole body of the clergy were perpetually tiring the press and the pulpit with nothing else?

I remember some years ago a virtuoso writ a small tract about worms, proved them to be in more places than was generally observed, and made some discoveries by glasses. This having met with some reception, presently the poor man's head was full of nothing but worms; all we eat and drink, all the whole consistence of human bodies, and those of every other animal, the very air we breathed, in short, all nature throughout, was nothing but worms; and by that system, he solved all difficulties, and from thence all | causes in philosophy. Thus it has fared with our author, and his independent power. The attack against occasional conformity, and the scarcity of coffee, the invasion of Scotland, the loss of kerseys and narrow cloths, the death of king William, the author's turning papist for preferment, the loss of the battle of Almanza, with ten thousand other misfortunes, are all owing to this imperium in imperio.

It will be therefore necessary to set this matter in a clear light, by inquiring whether the clergy have any power independent of the civil, and of what nature it is.

Whenever the Christian religion was embraced by the civil power in any nation, there is no doubt but the magistrates and senates were fully instructed in the rudiments of it. Besides, the Christians were so numerous, and their worship so open before the conversion of princes, that their discipline, as well as doctrine, could not be a secret: they saw plainly a subordination of ecclesiastics, bishops, priests, and deacons : that these had certain powers and employments different from the laity that the bishops were consecrated, and set apart for that office, by those of their own order: that the presbyters and deacons were differently set apart, always by the bishops: that none but the ecclesiastics presumed to pray or preach in places set apart for God's worship, or to administer the Lord's supper: that all questions, relating either to discipline or doctrine, were

66

prince or state which admitted the Christian religion: and consequently, what they could not justly alter afterward, any more than the common laws of nature. And therefore, although the supreme power can hinder the clergy or church from making any new canons, or executing the old; from consecrating bishops, or refuse those that they do consecrate; or, in short, from performing any ecclesiastical office, as they may from eating, drinking, and sleeping; yet they cannot themselves perform those offices, which are assigned to the clergy by our Saviour and his apostles; or, if they do, it is not according to the divine institution, and consequently, null and void. Our Saviour tells us, His kingdom is not of this world ;" and therefore, to be sure, the world is not of his kingdom; nor can ever please him by interfering in the administration of it, since he has appointed ministers of his own, and has empowered and instructed them for that purpose: so that I believe the clergy who, as he says, are good at distinguishing, would think it reasonable to distinguish between their power and the liberty of exercising this power. The former they claim immediately from Christ, and the latter, from the permission, connivance, or authority of the civil government; with which the clergy's power, according to the solution I have given, cannot possibly interfere.

But this writer, setting up to form a system upon stale, scanty topics, and a narrow circle of thought, falls into a thousand absurdities. And for a further help, he has a talent of rattling out phrases, which seem to have sense, but have none at all; the usual fate of those who are ignorant of the force and compass of words, without which it is impossible for a man to write either pertinently, or intelligibly, upon the most obvious subjects.

So, in the beginning of his preface, page 4, he says, "The Church of England, being established by acts of parliament, is a perfect creature of the civil power; I mean the polity and discipline of it, and it is that which makes all the contention; for as to the doctrines expressed in the articles, I do not find high church to be in any manner of pain; but they who lay claim to most orthodoxy can distinguish themselves out of them." It is observable in this author, that his style is naturally harsh and ungrateful to the ear, and his expressions mean and trivial; but whenever he goes about to polish a period, you may be certain of some gross defect in propriety or meaning: so, the lines just quoted seem to run easily over the tongue, and upon examination they are perfect nonsense and blunder : to speak in his own borrowed phrase, what is contained in the idea of established? Surely, not existence. Does establishment give being to a thing? He might have said the same thing of Christianity in general, or the existence of God, since both are confirmed by acts of parliament. But the best is behind: for in the next line, having named the church half a dozen times before, he now says, he means only the polity and discipline of it; as if, having spoken in praise of the art of physic, a man should explain himself, that he meant only the institution of a college of physicians into a president and fellows. And it will appear that this author, however versed in the practice, has grossly transgressed the rules of nonsense, (whose property it is neither to affirm nor deny,) since every visible assertion gathered from those few lines is absolutely false: for where was the necessity of excepting the doctrines expressed in the articles, since these are equally creatures of the civil power, having been established by acts of

parliament as well as the others? But the church of ❘ England is no creature of the civil power, either as to its polity or doctrines. The fundamentals of both were deduced from Christ and his apostles, and the instructions of the purest and earliest ages; and were received as such by those princes or states who embraced Christianity, whatever prudential additions have been made to the former by human laws, which alone can be justly altered or annulled by them.

What I have already said would, I think, be a sufficient answer to his whole preface, and indeed to the greatest part of his book, which is wholly turned upon battering down a sort of independent power in the clergy, which few or none of them ever claimed or defended. But there being certain peculiarities in this preface that very much set off the wit, the learning, the raillery, reasoning, and sincerity of the author, I shall take notice of some of them as I pass.

But here, I hope, it will not be expected, that I should bestow remarks upon every passage in this book that is liable to exception for ignorance, falsehood, dulness, or malice. Where he is so insipid that nothing can be struck out for the reader's entertainment, I shall observe Horace's rule:

Quæ desperes tractata nitescere posse, relinquas." Upon which account I shall say nothing of that great instance of his candour and judgment in relation to Dr. Stillin gfleet, who (happening to lie under his displeasure upon the fatal test of imperium in imperio) is high church and jacobite, took the oaths of allegiance to save him from the gallows, and subscribed the articles only to keep his preferment: whereas the character of that prelate is universally known to have been directly the reverse of what this writer gives him. But before he can attempt to ruin this damnable opinion of two independent powers, he tells us, page 6, "It will be necessary to show what is contained in the idea of government." Now, it is to be understood that this refined way of speaking was introduced by Mr. Locke; after whom the author limps as fast as he is able. All the former philosophers in the world, from the age of Socrates to ours, would have ignorantly put the question, Quid est imperium? But now, it seems, we must vary our phrase: and since our modern improvement of human understanding, instead of desiring a philosopher to describe or define a mouse-trap, or tell me what it is, I must gravely ask, what is contained in the idea of a mouse-trap? But then, to observe how deeply this new way of putting questions to a man's self makes him enter into the nature of things: his present business is to show us what is contained in the idea of government. The company knows nothing of the matter, and would gladly be instructed; which he does in the following words, p. 6.

"It would be in vain for one intelligent being to pretend to set rules to the actions of another, if he had it not in his power to reward the compliance with, or punish the deviations from, his rules, by some good or evil, which is not the natural consequence of those actions; since the forbidding men to do or forbear an action, on the account of that convenience or inconvenience which attends it, whether he who forbids it will or no, can be no more than advice."

I shall not often draw such long quotations as this, which I could not forbear to offer as a specimen of the propriety and perspicuity of this author's style. And indeed, what a light breaks out upon us all as soon as we have read these words! how thoroughly are we instructed in the whole nature of government! what mighty truths are here discovered, and how clearly conveyed to our understanding! and, therefore, let us melt

Artful he knows each circumstance to leave
Which will not grace and ornament receive."

FRANCIS.

this refined jargon into the old style, for the improvement of such who are not enough conversant in the

new.

us,

If the author were one who used to talk like one of he would have spoken in this manner: "I think it necessary to give a full and perfect definition of government, such as will show the nature and all the properties of it; and my definition is thus: One man will never cure another of stealing horses, merely by minding him of the pains he has taken, the cold he has got, and the shoe-leather he has lost, in stealing that horse; nay, to warn him that the horse may kick or fling him, or cost him more than he is worth in hay and oats, can be no more than advice. For the gallows is not the natural effect of robbing on the highway, as heat is of fire; and, therefore, if you will govern a man, you must find out some other way of punishment than what he will inflict upon himself."

Or, if this will not do, let us try it in another case, (which I instanced before,) and in his own terms. Suppose he had thought it necessary (and I think it was as much so as the other) to show us what is contained in the idea of a mouse-trap, he must have proceeded in these terms: "It would be in vain for an intelligent being to set rules for hindering a mouse from eating his cheese, unless he can inflict upon that mouse some punishment, which is not the natural consequence of eating her cheese. For to tell her it may lie heavy on her stomach, that she will grow too big to get back into her hole and the like, can be no more than advice; therefore, we must find out some other way of punishing her, which has more inconveniences than she will ever suffer by the mere eating of cheese." After this, who is so slow of understanding as not to have in his mind a full and complete idea of a mouse-trap? Well.The freethinkers may talk what they please of pedantry, and cant, and jargon of schoolmen, and insignificant terms in the writings of the clergy, if ever the most perplexed and perplexing follower of Aristotle, from Scotus to Suarez, could be a match for this author.

that

Thirdly, p. ix. They have no legislative power, because Mr. Washington, in his "Observations on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England, shows, from undeniable authorities, that in the time of William the Conqueror, and several of his successors, there were no laws enacted concerning religion, but by the great council of the kingdom." I hope, likewise, Mr. Washington observes, that this great council of the kingdom, as appears by undeniable authorities, was sometimes entirely composed of bishops and clergy, and called the parliament, and often consulted upon affairs of state, as well as church, as it is agreed by twenty writers of those ages; and if Mr. Washington says otherwise, he is an author just fit to be quoted by beaux.

Fourthly. But it is endless to pursue this matter any further; in that it is plain, the clergy have no divine right to make laws; because Henry VIII., Edward VI., and queen Elizabeth, with their parliaments, will not allow it them. Now, without examining what divine right the clergy have, or how far it extends; is it any sort of proof that I have no right, because a stronger power will not let me exercise it? or, does all that this author says through his preface, or book itself, offer any other sort of argument but this, or what he deduces the same way?

But his arguments and definitions are yet more supportable than the grossness of the historical remarks, which are scattered so plentifully in his book, that it would be tedious to enumerate, or to show the fraud and ignorance of them. I beg the reader's leave to take notice of one here just in my way; and the rather, because I design for the future to let hundreds of them pass without further notice. "When," says he, p. x. "by the abolishing of the pope's power, things were brought back to their ancient channel, the parliament's right in making ecclesiastical laws revived of course." What can possibly be meant by this "ancient channel?" Why, the channel that things ran in before the pope had any power in England: that is to say, before Austin the monk converted England; before which time, it seems, the parliament had a right to make ecclesiastical laws. And what parliament could this be? Why the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, met at Westminster.

I cannot here forbear reproving the folly and pedantry of some lawyers, whose opinions this poor creature blindly follows, and renders yet more absurd by his comments. The knowledge of our constitution can be only attained by consulting the earliest English histories, of which those gentlemen seem utterly ignorant, further than a quotation or index. They would fain derive our government, as now constituted, from antiquity and because they have seen Tacitus quoted for his majoribus omnes; and have read of the Goths' military institution in their progress and conquests, they presently dream of a parliament. Had their reading reached so far, they might have deduced it much more fairly from Aristotle and Polybius; who both distinctly name the composition of rex, seniores, et populus; and the latter, as I remember particularly, with the highest approbation. The princes in the Saxon Heptarchy did indeed call their nobles sometimes together upon weighty affairs, as most other princes of the world have done in all ages. But they made war and peace, and raised money, by their own authority: they gave or mended laws by their charters, and they raised armies by their tenures. Besides, some of those kingdoms fell in by conquests before England was reduced under one head, and therefore could pretend no rights but by the concessions of the conqueror.

Further, which is more material, upon the admission of Christianity, great quantities of land were acquired by the clergy, so that the great council of the nation

was often entirely of churchmen, and ever a considerable part. But our present constitution is an artificial thing, not fairly to be traced, in my opinion, beyond Henry I. Since which time it has in every age admitted several alterations; and differs now as much, even from what it was then, as almost any two species of government described by Aristotle. And it would be much more reasonable to affirm, that the government of Rome continued the same under Justinian as it was in the time of Scipio, because the senate and consuls still remained, although the power of both had been, for several hundred years, transferred to the emperors.

REMARKS ON THE PREFACE.

Page iv.; v. "IF men of opposite sentiments can subscribe the same articles, they are as much at liberty as if there were none." May not a man subscribe the whole articles, because he differs from another in the explication of one? how many oaths are prescribed that men may differ in the explication of some part of them? Instance, &c.

Page vi. "Idea of government." A canting pedantic way, learned from Locke; and how prettily he

shows it. Instance

Page vii. "25 Hen. VIII. cap. 19. is a bar to any such divine right [of legislative power in the clergy.]" Absurd to argue against the clergy's divine right, because of the statute of Henry VIII. How does that destroy divine right? The sottish way of arguing; from what the parliament can do; from their power, &c.

Page viii. "If the parliament did not think they had a plenitude of power in this matter, they would not have damned all the canons of 1640." What does he mean? A grave divine could not answer all his playhouse and Alsatia cant, &c. He has read Hudibras, and many plays.

Ibid. If the parliament can annul ecclesiastical laws, they must be able to make them." Distinguish and show the silliness, &c.

Ibid. All that he says against the discipline, he might say the same against the doctrine, nay, against the belief of a God, viz., that the legislature might forbid it. The church forms and contrives canons; and the civil power, which is compulsive, confirms them.

Page ix. "There were no laws enacted but by the great council of the kingdom." And that was very often, chiefly only bishops.

Ibid. "Laws settled by parliament to punish the clergy." What laws were those?

Page x. "The people are bound to no laws but of their own choosing." It is fraudulent; for they may consent to what others choose, and so people often do.

Page xiv. paragraph 6. "The clergy are not supposed to have any divine legislature, because that must be superior to all worldly power; and then the clergy might as well forbid the parliament to meet but when and where they please, &c." No such consequence at all. They have a power exclusive from all others. Ordained to act as clergy, but not govern in civil affairs; nor act without leave of the civil power.

Page xxv. "The parliament suspected the love of power natural to churchmen." Truly, so is the love of pudding, and most other things desirable in this life; and in that they are like the laity, as in all other things that are not good. And therefore they are held not in esteem for what they are like in, but for their virtues. The true way to abuse them with effect, is to tell us some faults of theirs, that other men have not, or not so much of as they, &c. Might not any man speak full as bad of senates, diets, and parliaments, as he can do about councils; and as bad of princes as he does of bishops? Page xxxi. "

They might as well have made cardi