But what the fervice expected from the Church may be in grateful return for this kindnefs, would be hard to fay, unless we may be allowed to conjecture, that the Rev. Dr. Nowell was her Spokesman on the thirtieth day of January, 1772. And that being prefuppofed, we can hardly wonder that thanks for his performance were discovered ex poft facto, to have been misplaced, and that he fhould be referred to those who had greater obligations to him, to comfort him. for his disappointment.

As this discovery was made after the Petition for relief in the matter of subscription was rejected, I could not help mufing a little on the very different impreffions the fame fubject, considered in different lights, will make, fometimes within a very few days, upon the fame audience.

It is probable Dr. Nowell might, on this occafion, adopt his doctrine more immediately from a certain Decree of the University in which he enjoys an honourable diftinction. Nevertheless, had he been heard by his Counsel, a very indifferent Advocate might have fhewn, that the Doctor's inferences are strictly deducible from the doctrine of our Homilies against Rebellion, which are appointed to be read on every folemn commemoration of the Martyrdom, and to which every Clerk, and every Graduate, is obliged to fubscribe his unfeigned affent and confent, as agreeable to the word of God.

I apprehend the Gentlemen who ftigmatized the Petitioners as disturbers of the public peace, and fomenters of Controverfy, were not a little interested to keep the Doctor and his principles in credit. Why did they not exert themselves to fcreen the preacher from a difgrace, which, by falling upon him, fell unavoidably at the fame time upon the Thirty-fifth Article of the Church of England? Why fhould the

Petitioners

Petitioners be deemed mad and frantic, for attempting to remove those Articles, whofe doctrine, in a most important point, Dr. Nowell was deemed mad and frantic for espoufing?

I freely own, that, in my poor opinion, the continuing fo general a Subscription to these Homilies, is no great act of friendship to the Crown, or to the gracious head which wears it; especially confidering the law by which it is there placed. Prevarication in a point of that national concern, has but an untoward afpect upon the allegiance which the fame fubfcribers are obliged to pledge to the present Royal Family. The Laity honestly insure their fidelity to his Majesty, by a plain oath without any referve or drawback. Can a clerical fubfcription to a doctrine which implies, that the Revolution of 1688, was neither rightful or lawful, serve to any other purpofe, when contrafted with the oath of abjuration, than to hint to the public, the convenience of leaving open a door of retreat for the clerical fociety, in cafe the crown fhould come into circumstances of embroilment with the church? And ought the Petitioners to become obnoxious to any friend of the crown, for endeavouring to fhut the door against a pretence of that kind?

There is another matter, canvaffed with no little warmth among our political guardians fince the fate of the Petition, which does no difcredit to the cause of the Petitioners.

Order and good government feem to a plain understanding to require, that where there is a fyftem of Religion (fo called) adopted by the Magistrate for the practical ufes of his people, care fhould be taken, that there be no contradiction or difagreement between the established civil policy, and the doctrines of that fyftem. This has, I hope, fufficiently appeared

L

appeared from the cafe stated in the inftance just mentioned. And it will be no less apparent from that I am going to give.:

Were I difpofed to give any opinion concerning the late law which lays a restraint upon the Royal Family with refpect to their marriages, I fhould not perhaps condemn it with that severity which fome writers have expreffed. A Law of that fort may, for ought I know, be highly expedient for the public. But furely, before it was finally enacted, fome courfe fhould have been taken with the Thirty-fecond of our Articles of Religion, which most expressly teaches, that, "It is lawful for ALL CHRISTIAN MEN to marry at their own difcretion, as they fhall judge the "fame to ferve better to Godliness."

66

This Thirty-fecond Article, or at least the laft claufe of it, fhould indeed have been difpofed of near twenty years ago, before the Act to prevent clandeftine marriages took place. As things are now circumstanced among us, our confeffion allows us, as Chriftian men, i. e. fubject to the Laws of the Gospel, to marry at our own difcretion, as we shall judge the fame to ferve better to Godliness. But,

your Pa

1. The law of the land fays, "No; you fhall not marry at your own difcretion, but at the difcretion of rents or Guardians, on the peril of having your mar"riages declared null and void, your iffue baftardized, and the fucceffion of your posterity defeated."

2. The Antipetitioners fay, that the intent of requiring fubfcription of the clergy is, that they may all preach the uniform doctrine of the Articles. The law fays, that, in the prefent instance at least, the Judge upon the bench shall preach a doctrine contrary to that of the 32d Article.-The Article leaves the marriage of the Chriftian man to his own difcretion, as he himself fhall judge the fame to ferve better

to

to Godliness, that is, the article leaves it to his confcience. But the law interferes, and fays, that in certain cafes (where however confcience is a very capable judge) the man's confcience has nothing to do in the matter with respect to the Godliness or Ungodliness of his views, but the Conscience of his Guardian, or of my Lord Chancellor.

3. The clergyman fubfcribes his affent and confent to the Article as agreeable to the word of God. But if he acts according to the doctrine of the Article, in the faid cafes, and celebrates a marriage approved and authorised by it, he fhall be tranfported as a felon.

4. The Petitioners are told, that their request cannot be complied with, as it would break in upon the Uniformity of the establishment. If therefore fubfcription is ftill to be continued as a means of preferving Uniformity, fhould not the latter part of this Thirty-fecond Article run thus ? "It is not "lawful for all Christian men to marry at their own dif"cretion, or as they themselves fhall judge the fame to "ferve better to Godliness, but fhall govern themselves "herein at the difcretion of a Parent or a Guardian, as the "Parent or the Guardian fhall judge the fame to ferve bet* ter to" whatever he or fhe pleafes to fubstitute in

the room of Godliness.

It does not appear (at least from any minutes I have seen of the debates on the occafion) that the authority of this Article was exprefsly alledged in oppofition to what is called the Royal Marriage Act. And yet this might have been expected from fome of the epifcopal bench, which, in general is understood to maintain, that all and every of the Thirtynine Articles are agreeable to the word of God.

This filence of their Lordships is the more furprifing, as the doctrine of the Article is pretty strongly afferted in certain Remonftrances

L 2

Remonftrances, retailed in the public prints, as part of the Proceedings of that illuftrious Affembly of which their Lordships are members.

"We conceive," fays one of them, "the right of con"ferring a difcretionary power to prohibit all marriages, (whether vested in the Crown alone,— or in the manner now enacted by the Bill) to be above the reach of any legislature, as contrary to the original inherent rights of "human Nature, which, as they are not derived from, or "held under civil Laws, by no civil Laws can be taken "away.""To difable a man during his whole life, "from contracting marriage, or what is tantamount, to "make his power of contracting fuch marriage, dependant, "neither on his own choice, nor upon any fixed rule of law, "but on the arbitrary will of any man, or fet of men, is exceeding the power permitted by the divine Providence to human Legislatures. It is directly against the earliest command given by God to mankind, contrary to the right of domestic fociety and comfort, and to the defire of law"ful Pofterity, the first and best of the instincts planted in us by the Author of our nature, and utterly incompatible "with all Religion, natural and revealed, and therefore a mere act of power, having neither the nature nor obliga ❝tion of law.'

66

66

66

A

Again, another of these Remonftrances affirms, that the "liberty of Marriage is a natural right inherent in man"kind,—that this right is confirmed and inforced by the "Holy Scriptures, which declare marriage to be of Divine "institution, and deny to none the benefit of that Inftitu❝tion, that the Law of Nature and Divine Institutions, are not reversible by the power of human Legislatures." This language, I apprehend, is ftrictly conformable to

66

the