the right." He replies, "that there is no pro"mife in Scripture, that the majority of paftors "shall be in the right; on the contrary, it is cer"tain, that truth feparated from intereft, has but "few votaries. Now as it is not reasonable, that the "fmaller part fhould depart from their fentiments, "because oppofed by the majority, whose interest "lead them to oppofe the reformation, therefore "they might take fanctuary in the authority of "the Prince and the Law." But who may not fee the abfurdity of this reafoning: for there is no promife in the Scriptures which affures us, that Kings fhall always be in the right; nor is it reafonable, that the majority fhould conform to the fentiments of the minority, because they and the King think differently from them. Our state reformers of religion affumed an authority over the confciences of the fubjects, and enacted penal laws to oblige them to worship God in their manner; and they pretended to found this power on the practice of the Jewish magiftrates: 'but they fhould have remembered, that the Jewish ftate was a theocracy; that God himself was their King, and their chief magiftrates only deputies, or God's vicegerents; that the laws of Mofes were divine laws, and the penalties annexed to them, as much of divine appointment as the laws themselves. It is therefore highly abfurd, to make the fpecial commiffion of the Jewish magiftracy, a pattern for the rights of christian princes. Bishop Burnet is under fo much difficulty to make good his point, that he is obliged to leave the Scriptures altogether, and betake

J

betake himself to a law in the Juftinian code, made by Theodofius the Emperor, which declares, that all perfons every where, fhould, under the feverest pains, follow that faith which Damafus, Bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria had received; and his Lordship fays, why might not the King and the laws of England give the like Authority to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York? His Lordship ought to have remembered, that bad precedents ought not to be followed; and that Theodofius's incroachment upon the laws of nature, the rights of mankind, and the liberty alJowed chriftians in divine revelation, was never intended by providence as an example to be obfer→ ved, but a beacon to warn others from fplitting on the fame rock. The infpired apoftles of our Lord and Saviour, claimed no fuch dominion over the confciences of men; and it is the highest degree of prefumption in chriftian princes to claim a jurifdiction over the confciences of chriftians, contrary to both the law of nature and the New Teftament.

Burnet obferves, " that it is not to be ima"gined how any changes in religion can be made

by fovereign princes, unless an authority be lodged with them of giving the fanction of a law to the founders, though the leffer part of "the church; for as princes and lawgivers are "not tied to an implicit obedience in clergymen, "but are left to the freedom of their own difcerning, fo they have a power to choose which "fide to be of, where things are much enquired

" into."

"into." The notion of the magiftrate's interfering in the fettlement of religion is derived originally from a principle of infidelity; for it implies a disbelief of the promise of God, to protect and defend his church to the end of the world. The magiftrate's authority can never inforce any principle of religion upon the confciences of men, which the truth and evidence thereof have not inforced before, and in that cafe all civil authority in behalf of religion is needlefs and abfurd. The paftors, and members of chriftian churches, have as good a right to judge for themfelves what they ought to believe, as any fupreme magistrate, or prince upon earth. There is no fecurity that princés or lawgivers fhall not err, or that they fhall judge right concerning the founders of religion : for they may be as ready to take fides with thofe who are on the wrong, as thofe who are on the right fide of the queftion. All that is incumbent on the civil magiftrate to do in behalf of religion, is to choose his own profeffion, and protect all the rest of his fubjects in the free exercife of theirs, as long as they live foberly, and behave as good members of civil fociety. It is highly reafonable that the prince fhould have power to chufe which form of religion may appear to him to be best, but his fubjects ought to have the fame privilege, and neither the majority nor minority be fuffered to impofe upon one another, while they entertain no principles inconfiftent with the fafety of government. The bifhop obferves, "that when the chriftian belief had not the

" fupport

"fupport of law, every bishop taught his flock the "best way he could, and gave his neighbours fuch << an account of his faith, at, or foon after, his "confecration as fatisfied them ;" and fo fays his lordship "they maintained the unity of the church." This was undoubtedly a better method than to force people to profefs what they cannot believe, or to propagate religion by fire and fword, as was too often the practice of our reformers.

From the time that Hooper was confecrated, the contest concerning veftments had continued. The ftricter party looked upon the diftinctions of garments as altogether fuperftitious, and fragments of popery, and on that account refused to use them from a principle of conscience. The chief of the clergy who were in power, looked upon them as indifferent, but impofed them upon others on pain of deprivation, and fevere cenfure. This was certainly very unchristian; for as they themselves declared them to be indifferent, they ought not, according to the laws of chriftianity, to have impofed them upon their brethren. The only plaufible pretence they had for their conduct was, that the magiftrate commanded them; but as their brethren made it a matter of confcience, and they themselves accounted it indifferent what fort of robes they wore, it lay beyond the magiftrate's jurifdiction. As thefe vestments could neither make them better men, nor more loyal fubjects, it was cruel to impofe them upon them, when their confciences would not permit them to use them.

During the reign of Edward, the reformation promised fair to go on, and the King did all he

could

1

could to promote it; but the clergy were fo full of pride and popish sentiments, that they opposed it with all their might. The greatest length that the leaders of the reformation could attain to, was, to retrench fomething of popery, and leave the form of the Romish religion in as decent order as they could. One thing which hindered the progrefs of the reformation of religion in England, and ftopt it fooner than it ought to have been, was the great anxiety of the clergy to be obfequious to the King and court. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the rest of the reformers, always concluded that they should proceed in nothing, unless the court went along with them; and whenever the King and council found it inconfiftent with their private ends to proceed, the reformers looked upon it as a call in providence for them to wait, until the civil powers fhould again begin to move in the reformation. In this respect the clergy were mere creatures of the civil powers, and made it their study to form religion in England, according to the tafte of the powers which were then in being; fo that the reformation and the fyftem of religious policy, which was established thereon, has never amounted to any thing more then a ftate religion, or a part of the conftitution of England. The very articles of what was then called the chriftian religion, were compofed according to the taste of the court, and the humour of the King; and the clergy were fo obfequious to the orders of the council, that in process of time it became natural to them to think that religion fhould keep pace with the pleasure of civil governors. Vol. II.

B