"Your Proteftant, having established, as he imagines, a right of avowing his Principles in any manner he thinks proper, proceeds to exercite it in its utmoft latitude; and accordingly he afferts," that each man is at liberty to worship God according to that specific ceremonial which in his own confcience he fhall approve."-Hence it will follow, that man may not only be a Law, but likewife a Religion to himself.-Hence may arife as many Religions as Individuals; Gods many and Lords many. If this was ever to be admitted, we might, indeed, have much fhew of religious worship; but I fear little religion. And that we might juftly apply to ourselves, what was faid by one on being asked his opinion of the ftate of Philofophy at Athens; "Philofophantes ibi vidi plurimos, Philofophum nullum." "If it be argued, "That it is a right inherit in our common nature," I answer. There are many rights we have voluntarily refigned, many that we are better without; and from the exercife of which, it is well we are happily reftrained. Befides, as we have now subjected ourfelves to the controul of Laws, to no purpofe do we talk of rights that were prior to their exillence. We have certainly refigned, in fome mealure, to Society, our religious as well as civil rights; and this claim of worship, however fubfifting in full force before the exiftence of civil government, muft now be regulated by it, "To extend the principle of Chriftian Toleration beyond the profeffion of Christianity itself," has certainly the appearance of a great and noble Idea, But it feems to me, that in the fenfe your Proteftant means to apply this, it is juft as reafonable to talk of extending a thing beyond itfelf. If it were only meant, that Chriftianity hould extend its toleration to any one without the pale of its Church, in the highest degree imaginable, I anfwer, This it profeffedly does to Jews, Turks, and infidels of every denomination. But if it be farther contended, that any one, wo fhipping God according to his own fpecific Ceremonial, (if that be effentially repugnant to the principles of the Chriftian Inftitution) has yet a right to be confidered as a Chriftian, nothing ever was lefs true. Chriftianity, like every other institution, has its laws, its privileges, its limits. It cannot, therefore, contradict and be at variance with itfelf-It cannot permit any of its own Members to worThip God in any other manner than that which its own Laws prefcribe. This Chriflianity itself cannot tolerate. Your Proteftant, then, has only this alternative; if his religious worship is in no refpect fentially different from the Chriftian model, he will be juftly entitled to that appellation; but if he claims a right of worship, differing from the Chriftian in any material or fundamental points, the principle of Toleration may be extended to him as to other Unbelievers, but he is certainly no longer a Chriftian." The Letter-writer proceeds next to obviate the objections, made by the oppofite party to the Teft-act: giving an anfwer to the questions, "Is not a fubfcription to the Bible fufficient?-Why is the original charter of Christians violated by requiring any other "-It," fays he, the facred Text could not poffibly be mifunderstood, or if Interpreters had nothing in view but a lincere regard for truth, to the Bible at large would I refer them. But when we fee the plainest text defignedly perverted, and particular paffages, without any respect to the 4 tenor tenor of the Context, preffed into the fupport of particular Systems, it is become neceflary to direct not only that the Bible fhall be our guide, but in what fenfe it is to be understood: to affix a precife and fpecific fenfe to fuch parts of Scripture as may be abufed to the very deftruction of the Chriftian Church. A fubfcription, in general terms, would undoubtedly give great fatisfaction to many but I fear it would make but few friends. Who fees not that Sects of every denomination would fhew the fanction of Scripture for their ufurped au thority? Cannot Papifts prove from thence Tran substantiation, and their feven Sacraments, as clearly as the Anabaptifts the infenfibility of the foul after death, or the Turlupins their liberty of fpirit? What an heterogeneous mixture of Semi-Arians and Pelagians, Socinians, and Herrenhutters, Sublapfarians, and Supralapfarians, Verschorifts and Hattemifts, by this comprehenfive fcheme would flow in unto us! And if Antichrift himfelf fhould defire admittance, I fee not how he can civilly be refufed. Perhaps, by thus throwing open our gates, fome few profelytes might be gained. But as there is lefs evil in excluding one honeft man, than in admitting an hundred fufpicious character, I fhould be rather for ftrengthening than removing the barriers of defence. For how pernicioufly may this unreferved liberty operate in the hands of defigning men, when it has fo evidently milled one, who folemny profeffes to venerate the amiable form of Truth? "Thus difengaged from all incumbrances civil and religious, your Proteftant hopes he fhall be allowed to attach himself to any Sect he fhall think proper. And though he is fenfible That every confiderable error refpecting the object of religion is attended with pernicious confequences, he immediately acts but inconfiftently with his own opinion. It will be acknowledged I believe, that the Athanafian, the Arian, the Socinian, differ much in the Effentials of Religion. An yet he maintains, That the perfons who embrace any of them, or any other fyftem, (which by the bye is taking things in their utmoft latitude) if they teftify only an obedience to the precepts of the Gofpel, and live in the practice of Chriftian duties, are all equally Christians, and as fuch entitled to their reward. "This has ever been the language of those who would reduce the whole of religion to practical piety and virtue, and willingly promote the one at the expence of the other. The love of God and the love of man undoubtedly form the fubitance of true religion. But these virtues were not only understood but practifed by the unenlightenend Heathens. To what purpofe then was a difpenfation given to mankind, but to teach us the way of God more perfectly? And are there no additional duties required, no new object of gratitude propofed, nothing delivered in this laft and most perfect revelation of God's will to man, but what Heathen moralifts before had taught? It should feem, indeed, to be nothing but an improved fyftem of morality, when we hear it afferted, that its most effential articles of faith are unjustifiably contended for among Chriftians, and that the inherent dignity of its author is falfely fuppoled to be neceffary to falvation. But the fulleft evidence in this cafe will avail little. What men are determined not to fee, can never be made clear. But let it be remembered, that he who errs through ignorance, stands in a very different F2 fituation fituation from him who wilfully fhuts his eyes against the truth. To err is the infirmity of our nature, but the act of the will is our own. "We have not yet clearly feen to what particular Sect the conceflion of thefe privileges would more immediately lead us. But the scene now opens upon us. And when I perceive the mysterious doctrines of Chriftianity ridiculed under the expreffion of an intelligable religion, it is eafy to defcry the favourite doctrine of the the Racovian Academy. It was the plausible tenet of Socinus," that our knowledge of "divine things was folely derived from the Holy Scriptures." But in giving to reafon the full right of deciding on the nature, and expounding the various doctrines of religion, he did, in fact, establish the fuperiority of reafon to the fcriptures. It was not then fo much the fcriptures which inftruct us in the nature and perfections of the Deity, as human reafon, which was to fhew us the fyftem of religion that we ought to feek in, and deduce from them. This prereminence being allotted to reafon, or as the Socinians affect to call it, right reason, they established this fundamental rule, "that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true or divine, that "was not level to the comprehenfion of the human understanding." Hence your commendations of an intelligible religion and a well-informed mind hence the fource of thofe pernicious tenets which muft neceffarily lead to univerfal fcepticifm and infidelity." A fhrewd and fenfible expofition is next made of the artifice of the Socinians. The doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of our Saviour are next treated; to the difcuffion of which the writer adds the following reflections. "Moft fincerely do I lament with you the prefent imperfect state of fcriptural knowledge, and the unhappy occafions of it. But how then is this to be improved? by what means more effectually promoted? Learn wisdom, fay you, from the material world. Let but the fources of religious truth be explored in the fame manner with the laws of nature; and the fame fuccefs, the fame juft and eafy explication, will follow. But would you recommend a fimilar procefs in cafes widely different? In the one, indeed, the vanity of fyitem will certainly miflead us, and the flow but regular procefs of experiment alone can clear. ly lead us to found philofophy. With revelation it is otherwife. There we find doctrines propofed to our belief, which must reft folely on the credit of that revolation for no train of experiments whatever, no critical patience or attention, could ever have fuggefted to our minds, thofe fublimer doctrines of our religion, which nevertheless we are bound mot implicity to believe. If no revelation had been made, the other had been the most natural method, and the only one fuited to our finite capacities: but we have now ground given us whereupon to ftand; an eminence, from whence the most amazing profpects open to our view; and to the difcovery of which we could not poflibly have been led, but from this advantageous fituation. "Yet is our cafe very unfairly stated, when you say, that we affume a fet of religious tenets, which we undertake to prove. The truth is, that we find them delivered in the fcriptures, and, being required to give an account of our belief, we produce from thence our evidence; but not fo much with a view of explaining thefe doctrines, as of con vincing vincing our adverfaries that thus it is written, and confequently thus we believe." But having allowed more room for this article than our customary limits, notwithstanding its fuperior importance, can well admit, we must difmifs it with part of the concluding paragraph, addreffed immediately to M. Jebb. "Before I conclude thefe remarks, I must once more return to that particular measure which gave occafion to them. Every one will doubtlefs form their own judgement on the circumftances of your late re fignation: and if the conclufions are justly drawn, I care not how much they are in your favour. I mean not hereby to influence others, much lefs to call in question your fincerity on the contrary, I am willing to believe, that you have acted on the fullest conviction. But on this, as on all other occafions, let every circumstance go for its full worth; but for no more. POETRY. ART. XVIII. Infancy, a Poem. Book III. By Hugh Downman 4to. Is. Kearly. This is the continuation of a Poem, the first part of which was publifhed before the commencement of our Review. It relates to the education of children; in the first part treating of the care of them while at the breast, the fecond on the weaning of them, and the third on their management immediately afterwards. SPECIMEN. From thy more strict attendance, now thy child With guardian mind, ftill heed our ftrains, for thee, Inferior claims. Nine moons are past, twelve more Which doth, or ought t'inform the female breaft. Exciting fenfibility, but chief By that internal fing which goads the soul I charge thee mother, friend with strict regard, F 3 0, O, as thou would'st th'invenom'd adder shun And thus unknowing but with liberal hand The hapless beings they would die to fave. How many more books, the author means to give the public, on the fubject, we are not told; but he appears in the present not to have compleated his defign. As far as he has hitherto gone, he appears in the light of a good phyfician, a fenfible moralift and`a pleafing poet. This poem is, indeed, one of the best performances of the didactic fpecies; that have lately appeared, and will afford much pleasure to the poetical reader, who is pleafed or intrusted in the subject. ART. XVII. An Election Ball in Poetical Letters, in the Zomerzetshire dialect from Mr. Inkle a Freeman of Bath, to his Wife at Glocefter: with a Poetical Addrefs to John Miller, Efq. at Bathcafton Villa. By the Author of the New Bath Guide. S. Hazard, Bath: Dodfley, London. One of the poetical contributions to the charitable fund depofited in the Vafe at Batheafton. The fubject given out for the amusement of the week, being, "The ancient and modern drefs and manners of the English nation compared."-Our readers will, we doubt not, be entertained with the following defcriptions given by Mr. Inkle of his daughter's dreffing herfelf in the bon ton. "You must know too, that Madge has a wonderful paffion To appear like a lady of very high vashion. Zo I'll tell thee, dear Dinah, how well the contriv'd, The very first moment her ticket arriv'd; She was pleas'd to be xure-but as often I've bid her In weigty concerns he took time to conzider, Then with prefence of mind flying up to the garret, Brought down my old wig, that's as red as a carrot, Then with dripping and flower did fo bafte it and frizzle, Thofe curls which a barber would view with defpair, She did coax, twift, and twine, with zuch skill, and zuch care, With combs, pins, and paste, make fuch frequent attacks on, She triumph'd at length-and fubdu'd the old caxon; Which done, fhe the front in a cushion did wrap, Till the voretop stood up like a grenadier's cap; Bought of Zoloman Zmouch-who was leaving off trade; Not a diamond, or pearl, that was lefs than my thumb ! And ftuck with a pofie as thick as a bezom, What |