For the prefent, it seems somewhat unaccountable to me (allowing to all other perfons their just freedom of judgment) that fince the time of the aforefaid Union, now near threescore years paft, many men of great understanding and knowledge in the laws, have confidered the matter in a different light, as not having the leaft apprehenfion that any obftruction to a moderate and reasonable revifal of our liturgy, could arife from the act now in view.

I propofe no more in this imperfect sketch I give you, than to fet down what fhall occur to me, upon recollection, in the public declarations of fuch learned and worthy men; obferving no methodical rule of diftribution, but taking them all indifcriminately, as they fhall happen to fall in my way."

Our author proceeds to lay before his readers the sentiments of Dr. Nicholls the commentator on the Book of Common Prayer, and thofe of bishop Burnet in favour of a farther reformation in the church; and adds,

'I could here fubjoin a confiderable number of other ref pectable and weighty authorities, all pointing out the neceffity, or, to fay the leaft, the expedience and utility, of a review of our ritual and other ecclefiaftical matters that are now in a state of fome diforder for want of fuch a timely remedy. Men of the greatest wisdom and fagacity, and of the most extensive knowledge in the affairs of our conftitution, and the means of its fafety and profperity, have made these observations, and that even fince the union; and they express their fentiments in fuch a manner, as if they had never heard a fyllable, nor ever in the least imagined, that the act of union could create any impediment to a farther and juft reformation. It must have appeared to them, to be contrary to all reason, as indeed it is, that any legislature fhould knowingly and deliberately tie itself down, by an act of its own, to be for ever in bondage, and never make the least attempt afterwards to re-infpect any part of the constitution, in order to strengthen and improve it, where found to be weak and defective. Laws of this kind, if any fuch can well be supposed to have paffed a fenate, are, I think, univerfally allowed, by all reafonable men, to be ab initio, and ipfo fallo, void and of no force; their authority in regard to all fuch claufes as are point blank contrary to right reason, and inconfiftent with the good of the community, being null and ineffectual from the moment that fuch laws are enacted. Which furely, in calm reafon, equity and candor, can never be fuppofed to have been the defign of our English legiflature, when they drew up and inforced that act of union.

It may, I prefume, be very pardonable, upon this occafion, to produce the determination of a gentleman of the law, whom

Bb 3

every

every one will allow to be a competent judge of his own meaning, and every one may hope, that he intended confiftency therein.

This is one of his general rules and maxims relating to acts of parliament.

"Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments, bind not.” And the reafon he gives, a valid one I conceive, is this: "Because, faith he, the legiflatuṛe, being in truth the fovereign power, is always of equal, always of abfolute authority. It acknowledges no fuperior upon earth; which the prior legislature muft have been, if its ordinances could bind the prefent parliament. And upon the fame principle Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, treats with a proper contenupt these refiraining claufes, which endeavour to tie up the hands of Jucceeding legislatures. When you repeal the law itfelf, fays he, you at the fame time repeal the probibitory claufe, which guards against fuch a repeal." Introd. Sect. 3. 90, 91.—Again: "If out of acts of parliament there arife collaterally any abfurd confequences, manifeftly contradictory to common reason, they [rboje acts are, with regard to thofe collateral confequences, vid.”— And further, "Over and above the laws of England, equity is alfo frequently called in to affift, to moderate, and to explain i" [them, viz. the laws.]

"

So that we may now freely join with the same learned gentleman in his obfervation. That fometimes through baste and inaccuracy, fometimes through mistake and want of skill, many bave published very crude and imperfect (perhaps contradictory) accounts" of fome things.'

The fecond and third letters contain queries and obfervations upon the fubject of a review; and the fourth, heads of fome additional arguments, which may be urged, in oppofition to the profeffor's interpretation of the ftatute to defeat the hopes of a revifal of our liturgy.

In the fifth letter fome claufes in the act, relating chiefly to Scotland, and certain alterations made there, fince that act, are confidered and applied to the foregoing subject.

From the arguments which this able and judicious writer has advanced upon the point in queftion, it seems to be very clear (as indeed it does upon the flightest confideration) that the church of England, as well as every other community whatever, has an abfolute right to revise, reform, and improve its own conftitution, in all matters that any way concern the advancement of the gospel in its purity and truth.

To thefe letters the author has fubjoined a Poftfcript, in which he takes notice of fome new publications relative to the

fame

fame fubject, and fome candid declarations of Dr. Blackstone, which appear much to his credit, in his reply to Dr. Prieftly's Remarks.

XI. Letters to the honourable Mr. Juftice Blackstone, concerning bis Expofition of the Act of Toleration, and fome Pofitions relative to religious Liberty, in his celebrated Commentaries on the Laws of England. By Philip Furneaux, D. D. 8vo. Pr. 2s. 6d. Cadell.

WH

Hoever confiders the various lights in which the act of to. leration has been viewed by men of different perfuafions amongst us; the difficulty, perhaps we may fay, the impoffibility of determining what are the proper boundaries of religious. liberty; and above all the different paffions of men, operating in this inftance under the influence of their refpective fituations, prejudices, and interefts, will not be furprised to find the controverfy revived upon every little incident which may alarm the apprehenfions of those who are in any degree concerned in the difpute. But though we have had a multitude of tracts on toleration and religious freedom, yet when the debate is conducted by writers of learning, ingenuity, and candour, we may reasonably expect, that their productions will throw additional light upon the subject and in this cafe every fenfible and unprejudiced reader will regard only truth and reafon, on whatever fide they appear.

The author of these letters opens his charge against the learned commentator on the Laws of England in this manner:

In the fourth volume of your Commentaries, chapter the fourth, p. 53. I am forry to find the following paffage: The penalties (viz. thofe which are laid upon the Diffenters by abundance of statutes, in particular by 3 Eliz. c. 1. 17 Char. II. c. 2. 22 Char. II. c. 1.) are all of them fufpended by the ftatute Will. & Mar. ft. 2. c. 18. commonly called the toleration act, which exempts all Diffenters (except Papits, and fuch as deny the Trinity) from all penal laws relating to religion, provided they take the oaths of allegiance and fupremacy, and fubfcribe the declaration against Popery, and repair to fome congregation, registered in the bishop's court or at the fellions, the doors whereof must be always open and diffenting teachers are alfo to fubfcribe the thirty-nine articles, except thofe relating to church government and infant-baptifm. Thus are all perfons, who will approve themselves no Papifts or oppugners of the Trinity, left at full liberty to act as their confciences fhall direct them in the matter of religious worship." • This

Bb4

This is all you fay of the toleration-act in your Commentaries; and before I make any observations upon it, I beg leave to mention a paffage in your answer to Dr. Priestley; who had obferved, that he did not know that MERE nonconformity was any crime at all in the laws of England-fince the act of toleration :"-You fay, that you beg leave to inform Dr. Priestley, fince it feems he is yet to learn it, that nonconformity is ftill a crime by the laws of England, and hath fevere penalties annexed to it, notwithstanding the act of toleration, (nay expressly referved by that act) in all fuch as do not comply with the conditions thereby enjoined. In cafe the legislature had intended to abolish both the crime and the penalty, it would at once have repealed all the penal laws enacted against nonconformifts. But it keeps them expressly in force against all Papifts, oppugners of the Trinity, and perfons of no religion at all: and only exempts from their rigour fuch ferious, fober minded Diffenters, as fhall have taken the oaths, and fubfcribed the declaration at the feffions, and shall regularly repair to fome licenfed" (registered)" place of religious worship. But though these ftatutes oblige me to confider nonconformity as a breach of the law, yet (notwithstanding Dr. Priestley's ftrictures) I shall ftill continue to think, that reviling the ordinances of the church is a crime of a much groffer nature than the other of mere nonconformity."

So that, in your opinion, Sir, mere nonconformity is a crime, though not fo great as fome others, and is fo confidered in the eye of the law, notwithstanding the tolerationact. The penalties, indeed, by that act are sUSPENDED, but the CRIME fubfifts still.”

The author proceeds to prove, that the crime of noncon formity is abolished together with the penalties, with respect to those who are qualified as the act directs. This proof he deduces, 1. from the mode of expreffion in that clause of the act, which repeals the penal ftatutes with regard to fuch perfons; 2. from thofe claufes which protect the diffenting worship; 3. from the unanimous judgment of the commiffioners delegates, and of the houfe of lords in the fheriff's cafe; the grounds of whofe judgment, he fays, appears to be, that Diffenters are freed from the crime as well as the penalties of nonconformity.

In the fecond letter the author examines the fentiments of the commentator, concerning the punishment of heresy, and fhews that temporal penalties are improperly applied to cafes of herefy.

In the third he confiders Dr. Blackftone's account of the penal ftatute against the deifts, and affigns feveral reasons against the punishment of infidels by the magiftrate.

In the fourth he fhews, in oppofition to Dr. Blackstone, that the penal statute against speaking in derogation of the Common Prayer is too fevere and intolerant.

The fifth letter contains an examination of Dr. Blackstone's opinion, that an alteration of the church-conftitution or liturgy, would be an infringement of the act of union; and the fixth confifts of remarks on the teft law, fhewing, that it is unjust to exclude any good fubjects from civil privileges on a religious account, that such exclufion is not conducive to the good of the state, and that a facramental teft is little or no fecurity to the church, &c.

In the last letter the author confiders a paffage in Dr. Blackftone's chapter of premunire, which he thinks contains an unjust reflection on the principles of the Diffenters, with respect to fociety.

In the course of this work, Dr. Furneaux appears to be an ingenious and respectable writer; and has made a number of obfervations which denote an enlarged and liberal mind. Yet fometimes, if we are not deceived, he seems to have betrayed an undue prejudice and partiality in favour of his own perfuafion. Of this nature is the following obfervation:

Submitting to the decifions of human authority in matters of faith, is fometimes prejudicial to, and even fubverfive of, true religion, where it does not iffue in downright hypocrify. For as, on the one hand, by the exercise of our rational faculties in searching after truth, we are not only likely to arrive at it, but to improve in the love of it, in candor, docility, and openness to conviction; and are difpofed to fubmit to its influence: fo, on the contrary, in proportion as we resign ourselves to the conduct of human authority, truth lofes its charms, and its influence over us; and we become blind to its clearest evidences, and brightest characters, and are thus prepared to be led into the moft abfurd fuperftitions, and vilest corruptions of religion.'

If we were to take our opinion of the Diffenters from this paffage, we should fuppofe, that, as they pretend to disclaim all human authority in matters of religion, fo they are equally

improved in the love of truth, in candor, docility, and opennefs to conviction;' and that, on the other hand, the clergy of the church of England, who have subscribed to the XXXIX Articles, and declared their afsent and consent to the CommonPrayer, are proportionally infenfible to the charms and influence of truth, blind to its cleareft evidence and brightest characters, and prepared to be led into the most abfurd fuperftitions, and vileft corruptions of religion.'