A  Letter  to  the  Lay-Expoftory 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 His  Expofition  of  the  orthodox  fyftem 
 
 O  F 
 Civil  Rights  and  Church  Power y  8cc, 
 
 In  which 
 
 The  merits  of  his  fyftem  are 
 
 examined  and  ftated. 
 
 Truth  and  Religion,  reje£led  by  the  Alliance  ;  the  fup- 
 ports  of  a  Prote/Iant-di/ft-nt. 
 
 <Ui\<^^  c     r  ;.:   1.      :     ■ 
 
 By  the  Author  of  the  Comment  on  Mr.  Warburton's 
 Alliance  between  Church  and  State. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Sold  by  J.  Noon  at  the  White-Hart  in  the  Poul- 
 try, and  J.  Robinson  at  the  Golden-Lion  in 
 Ludgate-Jireet.     1 749 . 
 
 (Price  Six-Pence.) 
 
( J ) 
 
 SIR, 
 
 IH A V E  read  your  Expof.tton  of  the  or- 
 thodox fyftem  cf  civil  rights  and  church 
 power,  &c.  and  have  obferv'd,  that  if 
 your  pen  was  not  guided  by  the  very  hand 
 of  Mr.  Warburton,  you  well  deferve  the 
 reputation  of  an  exa(S  accomplifli'd  mimic. 
 There  is  a  wonderful  agreement  in  the  Spirit 
 of  your  writings :  and  the  manner  of  your 
 treating  the  author  0^2.  piece,  call'd.  Acorn- 
 ment  upon  the  Reiierejid  Mr.  Warburton's 
 Alliafice,  greatly  refembles  Mr.  TF — 's  treat- 
 ment of  his  anfwerers.     This   may    be  (ttn 
 
 in   your   conclufion,    which  is,  *'  For 
 
 •*  I  fliould  think  my  time  flrangely  mif- 
 "  employ'd,  and  the  Reader's  patience  as 
 *'  much  abufed,  to  take  the  leaft  notice  of 
 "  a  thing  called  a  Cornmeiitary  on  the  Book  of 
 **  Alliance-,  in  which  the  namelefs  Writer 
 **  has  not  only  proclaimed  his  profound  ig- 
 "  norance  of  the  principles  of  that  Book, 
 (a  cafe  pretty  general  amongil  anfwerers)  but 
 cf  all  others  principles  whatfoevcr,  even 
 "  thofe  of  his  own  trade,  which  is  calumny." 
 If  youinfift  upon  the  greater  propriety  of  the 
 term,  commentary,    than  that  of  comment,    I 
 
 will    not  difpute   it   with  you. And   now 
 
 B  let 
 
 (.(■ 
 
(2    ) 
 
 let  me,  Sir,  be  free,  in  my  turn,  to  tell  yoil 
 that  this  rude  ufage  of  a  man,  in  whom 
 you  are  not  able,  in  a  fingle  inilance  to  fix 
 the  charge  of  calumny  ;  is  a  dcmonftration  of 
 fomething  not  very  favourable  to  yourfelf.  As 
 to  my  profound  ignorance  of  the  principles  of 
 the  book  of  alliance,  the  reader  may  judge  of 
 it,  from  the  comment  itfelfj  as  well  as  from 
 the  following  remarks  on  the  expofition.  And 
 I  afk,  is  there  not  the  effrontery  of  a  hair- 
 brain'd  church-man,  in  this  affertion,  ijiz. 
 that  the  comment  has  proclaimed  a  profound 
 ignorance  in  its  author,  of  all  other  principles 
 whatfoever^  The  principles  defecrated  by  the 
 JExpofition,  would  naturally  lead  to  fuch  fcan- 
 dal  and  defamation ;  for  therein  you  have 
 eccho'd  to  the  alliance,  in  excluding  triLth 
 and  religion  from  your  church-eflablifliment. 
 Therefore  the  utility  of  a  fcandal  is  fuffi- 
 clentjWith  you,  to  warrant  and  fandify  anymca- 
 fure  oi cahminy.  The  principle  of  calumny,  is 
 not  received  or  admitted  in  my  religion,  how- 
 ever it  is  in  the  defence  of  your  eflablifli- 
 ment.  This  you  call  fuy  trade  j  yet  com- 
 pliment me  with  a  profound  ignorance  of  its 
 principles!  which  is  much  more  than  I,  or 
 any  man  can  fay  of  you,  wlio,  by  this  fpe- 
 cimen  have  {hewn  you  to  have  a  profound 
 knowledge  of  the  principles.  -^ 
 
 In  this  collection  of  choler,  you  throw  up, 
 
 iiamelefs  writer. if  you   dcfign'd  it  as 
 
 a  ftigm<i  of  contempt,  I  would  afk.  why  the 
 Expofition  has  appeared  under  no  other  name, 
 
 1  than 
 
(  3  ) 
 
 than,  hyalaymaji? — doubtlefs,  you  dependr 
 ed  upon  the  reputation  of  your  orthodox  Sy^ 
 ll:cm.  And,  if  I  miftake  not,  this  protean 
 appearance  has  induig'd  your  fondnefs  of  of- 
 fering (o  much  incenfe  to  your  own    (hrine. 
 
 or,  becaufe  your  reputation  has   funk   ^s 
 
 a  divine  J  you  have  chofen  to  appear  under  the 
 more  acceptable  character   of  a  layfnan. 
 
 Thus  much  is  due  to  you  from  the  cruelty 
 of  your  thruft  at  the  vitals  of  my  charader. 
 -r—Had  you  polTeiTed  the  lead  degree  of  hu  • 
 manity,  or  known  the  facrednefs  of  every 
 man's  reputation,  you  could  not  have  thus  in- 
 tentionally aifafllnated  mine,  without  any  jufl 
 provocation.  For  nothing  can  be  more  malig- 
 nant than  to  iscy^  a  man  has  betray'd  a  pro- 
 found ignorance  of  all  principles   ivbaffoever^ 
 
 even  thofe  of  his  o'i^n  trade  ! If  the  world 
 
 fhould   give  you  credit,    what    muft   be  the 
 
 confequences    I  may  expe^ft  from  it  ? But 
 
 Mr.  Layman^  allure  yourfelf,  that  I  ftand  a 
 better  chance  for  credit  with  the  virtuous, 
 than  you  do :  fmce  your  Expofition,  and 
 your  orthodox  Syftem,  profeiledly  difcard 
 truth,  and  turn  folely  on  the  hinge  o^ utility : 
 a  principle  that  the  thief  or  murderer  does 
 daily  avail  himfelf  of.  — This  is  your  plan  ; 
 and  let  who  will  give  you  credit  upon  it : 
 1  fhould  not  chufe  to  entrufl  you  with  any 
 part  of  my  fmall  property. 
 
 B'Jt  one    thing  more,  good  Mr.  Layman  ; 
 
 hov/  came  it  to   pafs,    that  your    great  faga- 
 
 city  fhould   fail   you   fo  much,  in  this  your 
 
 B  2  fovereign 
 
(4) 
 
 fovereign  contempt  of  the  comment  ?  of  which 
 fay  you,  "  I  fl:ould  think  my  time  flrangely 
 '*  mifemploy'd,  and  the  reader's  patierice  as 
 **  much  abus'd,  to  take  the  leaft  notice  of  a 
 *'  thing  called  a  Commentary  on  the  book  of 
 alliance.*'— If  you  had  behav'd  v/ith  pru- 
 dence, and  not  been  impofed  upon  by  your 
 evil  genius,  you  would  not  have  taken  the 
 leaft  notice,  /.'  e.  vou  wouki  not  have  men- 
 tion'd  the  comment  at  all.  And  I  have  the 
 vanity  to  think,  that  the  more  ignorant  the 
 world  is  of  that  performance,  the  better  it 
 may  fare  with  your  orthodox  Jyjlcm,  and  the 
 expo  fit  ion  of  it. 
 
 Thus  far  I  have  been  guided  by  that  maxim 
 of  wifdorn,  ajifwer  a  fool  according  to  his  Jolly, 
 lef  he  be  ivije  in  his  own  conceit.  And  I  have, 
 at  the  fame  time,  conformed  to  that  other,  viz. 
 cnjwer  ?20t  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  leji 
 thou  alfo  be  like  unto  him  :  fmce  what  I  have 
 recriminated,  has  truth  for  its  fupport ;  and 
 can  boldly  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the 
 public.  It  is  a  piece  of  neceflary  felf-defence, 
 to  difarm  a  mad-man,  who  throws  about  ar-^ 
 rows,  firebrands  and  death !  tho'  all  the  while 
 lie  pretends  to  be  defending y/^^r/;',  as  her 
 mighty  advocate  1 
 
 Farther  I  would  afk  you,  Sir,  afide,- 
 
 whether  that  thing  called  the  Comment,  has 
 not  occafion'd  the  pains  you  have  taken  in 
 your  Expoftion  ?  tho'  you  have,  under  co- 
 lour, directed  your  Reader's  eye  to  the  per- 
 formances of  Dr.  Stebbinz.     But   enou2:h    of 
 
 this 
 
is) 
 
 this 1  will  proceed  to  examine  your  Ex- 
 
 pofition.      You  thus  addrefs   the  Friends   of 
 the  Church,  /».  76.  "  Let  them  recolledl,  that 
 "  the   Church    is  furrounded   with  enemies, 
 **  ever  ready  to  difpute   the  reafonablenefs  of 
 *'  the  privileges  poiTefs'd  by  her,  and  to  en- 
 *'  quire  into  the  grounds  and  foundation,  up- 
 •'  on  which  (he  claims  them.     Let  it  be  re- 
 "  member'd,  that  the  Gentlemen  they  have 
 "  to  do  with,  make  no  fcruple  to  attack  the 
 -'  Legiflature ;  and  to  call  for   the  repeal  of 
 **  laws,  when   not  fatisfied  with   the    fitnefs, 
 "  equity,  and  juftice  of  them.     If  therefore 
 "  we   are  prefs'd  with  objedions,  it  will  be 
 "  to  no  purpofe    to  flicker  under  the  fanc- 
 "  tion  and    authority  of  cuftom  and  ufage. 
 *'  If  we  would  offer   any   thing  decifive   in 
 "  the  prefent  queflion,  we  muil   fhew  that 
 ^'  the  privilege  in  difpute  ^  derived  from  the 
 *'  nature   and   reafon  of  the   thing  j  or  that 
 **  it   is   the  necelTary  confequence   of  an   al- 
 "  liance  between  the   two  focieties,"     So  ap- 
 parent  is  it,  that  my  profound  ignorance  pro- 
 ciaim'd  in    the  Comment  has  led   you  to  re- 
 nounce the  fandion  and  authority  of  ciiftom 
 or  ufage ;  for  you  know,  Sif\  that  the  alliance 
 you  expound  has  defended    the  tejl  law^  upon 
 the  Game  Law^  and  upon  that  of  pre] crip- 
 tion.      To    decide    the   queflion    in   difpute, 
 you  are  to  fhew,  that   the  privilege  is  derived 
 from  the  nature  and  reafon  of  the  thing  j  or 
 that  it  is  the  neceiTary   confequence  of  an  al- 
 liance between  the  two  focjeties. 
 
 But, 
 
(6) 
 
 But,  your  way  of  deciding  the  queflion  in 
 difputc,  I  fancy  will  not  be  fufficient  to  fatisfy 
 the  Gentlemen  who  call  for  the  repeal  of 
 laws,  when  not  fatisfied  with  ihtjitnefs^  equity^ 
 and  jujhiejs  of  them  j  unlefs  you  could  prove 
 that  the  alliance  is  itfelf  founded  on  the  na- 
 ture and  truth  of  things,  or  upon  fitnefs, 
 equity,  and  juftice  :  and  therefore  for  yon 
 to  pretend  to  fliew,  thi^t  the  privilege  in 
 difpute  is  derived  from  the  nature  and  rea- 
 fon  of  the  thing  ;  or  that  it  is  the  neceffary 
 confequence  of  an  alliance  between  the  two 
 focieties,  is  very  filly ;  and  not  a  whit  better 
 thcin  fophiilical  church-declamation.  Nor 
 ibculd  only  the  alliance  be  piov'd  to  have 
 its  foundation  in  reafon  and  nature,  but  alfo 
 the  pri'ullcge  in  difpute  (liould  be  fliewn  to 
 be  fairly  deriv'd  from  the  reafon  and  nature 
 of  tlie  tiling. 
 
 But  what  have  you  done  in  the  Expofi- 
 tion,  to  ilicw  this  ?  why,  vtrily,  in  the  lanr 
 giiage  of  the  man  you  adore,  you  fcparale 
 iritth  from  utility  in  the  idea  of  the  church, 
 which  has  a  national   eftabliilTment,  p.  13. 
 
 P.  35.  You  apprehend,  '*  that  it  will  not 
 '*  b?  cafy  to  vindicate  even  our  own  conftitu- 
 **  tion,  according  to  the  Bifispof  Londoijs  rea- 
 "  fining ;  that  is,  on  the  fimple  principle  of 
 *'  truth.''  Yea,  that  *'  an  cjlahlifr.mcnt  and 
 **  a /f/Z/^'ti:;  may  be  confidcred  either  as  77Krc 
 "  utilities^  or  asdefigned  to  propagate,  counte- 
 *'  nance  and  fupport  ^r^^//?.  In  this  lal'i  light, 
 **  what  has  theMagiftratetodo  with  them,  (ince 
 "  it  does  not  appear,  that  religion,  as  fuch,is  his 
 
 "  proper 
 
(  7  ) 
 
 ^'  proper  and  dircdt  buimefs,  p.  21.  To  aficrt 
 **  the  rearonabkncfs  of  the  tejl:  law  upon  the 
 *'  principle  of  irut!.\  would  be  juft  as  pru- 
 "  dent  and  feafonablc,  as  to  prove  the  being 
 *'  of  a  God  frcni  innate  ideas."  p.  64. 
 
 Mere  utility  you  avow,  as  the  Magiflrate's 
 fole  view  in  an  cftablilhment  and  teft  law : 
 and  I  am  of  opinion,  it  will  by  and  by  be 
 evident,  that  the  Church  has  no  more  regard 
 to  truth  or  religion  than  the  Magiilrate  is 
 fuifered   to  have  in  your  new fyftem. 
 
 But,  iS/r,  what  idea  can  one  poffibly  form 
 of  an  eftablilliment  of  religion,  the  truth 
 t)f  which,  is  difcarded  by  the  alliance  ?  Nof- 
 withftanding  you  make  much  pother  about 
 religion^  as  not  the  proper,  immediate,  and 
 diredt  bufir.efs  of  the  Magiflrate  j  yet  you 
 rave  about  a  Church-eftabliihmcnt,  and  about 
 an  alliuuce  between  Church  and  State  !  Your 
 church  muft  confequentlyjbea  church  without 
 religion.  For  becaufe  Dr.  Stebbing^  and  thofc 
 in  t!:e  co7nmonfyjiem  were  for  having  religion 
 one  end  ot  civil  government  ^  you  fiy,  />.  33. 
 *'  It  has  no  real  and  natural  foundation  j  as 
 *'  religion  is  not  the  proper,  immediate,  and 
 *'  dired  bufmefs  of  the  Magillrate." 
 
 Nay,  you  firihcr  f'.y,  *'  that  if  the  Magl- 
 "  itrate  eftablillits  a  religion,  merely  becaufe 
 *'  he  conceives  it  to  be  true ;  he  does  too 
 "  afiign  the  Clergy  a  public  maintenance,  pure- 
 **  ly  for  the  fupport  of  the  true  religion^  or  for 
 *'  the  defence  of  certain  opinions,  confidered,  as 
 '' fucb,"  p.  22.  a  Schenu^  you  reject.     This 
 
 vou 
 
(8  ) 
 
 you  found  needful  to  juftify  the  fame  power, 
 efta'olifhingof  Eng lijb  Epiicopacy  on  this  fide 
 thcTiveed^  and  Scotch  Presbytery  on  the  other. 
 More  than  this  you  afhrm, — "  that  the 
 *'  Magiftrate  is  not  fuppofed  to  endow  the 
 *'  Clergy  confider'd  as  Minifters  of  this,  or 
 "  that  religion,  but  only  as  they  become  a 
 *^  public  order  in  the  State '' p.  71.  "  And  you 
 "  recommend  it  to  the  conlideration  of  the 
 "  Clergy,  whether  it  will  not  be  moft  pru- 
 **  dent  to  claim  their  Revenues  on  the  prin- 
 "  ciple  above-mention'd."  p.  ji^. 
 
 So  far,  it  feems,  are  the  endowments  of  the 
 Clergy  from  being  matter  of  divifie  rights  as 
 fome  fanatical  Churchmen  have  dreamed,  that 
 to  Ihew  your  moderation,  you  fay, — *'  with 
 *'  refpetfl  to  that  part  of  the  public  proper- 
 *'  iy  afUgned  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Cler- 
 "  gy,  I  would  know,  whether  it  would  not 
 **  fometimes  be  ufeful  to  the  State,  to  apply 
 **  it  to  civil  purpofes  ^  or  whether  the  con- 
 "  fiderable  fums  raifed  on  this  fcore,  might 
 "  not,  at  certain  junctures,  be  employ 'd  in 
 *•*  the  defence  of  the  State,  to  the  great 
 "  advantage  of  the  public." />.  19.  Yet,  this 
 is  the  acquifition  which  the  Ciiuich  has  made 
 by  pawning  her  independency,  and  con- 
 ferring the  high  honour  of  li<pr-?nac\\  up- 
 on   the  civil  Magiflrate. ■  lijt   lagacious 
 
 Sir,  how  does  this  prove  that  there  has  been 
 fjch  a  flipulation  and  contract  between  the 
 State  and  Church,  as  your  Aihancc  ?  The 
 State  has  yet,  you  own,  a  fovereign  right   of 
 
 dif^  oial 
 
(9) 
 
 difpofal  even  of  that  part  of  the  public  pro- 
 perty affigned  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
 clergy.  The  above  declaration  is  urged  in  proof 
 of  the  Magiftrate's  having  regard  to  the 
 ufe  and  ftrvice  v^hich  religion  is  oi  to  the  ftate, 
 as  the  reaion  of  his  affurding  it  proted:ion 
 and  fupport. 
 
 Another  inftance  of  the  imprefiion  the  cofn» 
 tnent  has  made  upon  you.  for  you  fay  that  the 
 church's  moft  inveterate  enemies  f^iiem  ready 
 to  allow  the  juftice  of  this  plea,  ib,  * 
 
 Yet,  your  expojition  of  the  orthodox 
 fyftcm,  after  having  excluded  truth  and  re^ 
 ligion  from  the  church  eftablifhmcnt  and 
 alliance,  fpeaks,  p.  jy.  *'  of  an  alliance  be- 
 tween the  two  locitties  form'J  upon  the  com- 
 inon  principles  of  equity  2s\d  fi  eedom  /" 
 
 The  expofitor  is  blcis'd  with  no  fmall  ihare 
 of  the  fame  abfurdity  which  runs  through 
 the  book  of  alliance :  as  appears  by  his  talk- 
 ing of  an  alliance  of  two  focicties  form'd  upon 
 the  common  principles  of  equity  and  free- 
 dom. The  ilate  and  church  in  alliance 
 are  one  fociety,  compofed  of  the  fame  indi- 
 viduals ;  actuated  by  the  fame  principles  3  the 
 clergy  being  no  other  than  what  tney  are, 
 under   the  Magiftrate's  appointment. 
 
 If  we  attend  to  your  reafuning,  againfl:  Dr. 
 Stebbi?ig,  we  fhall  be  told,  "  that  a  re- 
 *'  ligious  fociety  has  one  peculiar,  feparate, 
 "  and  diftinct  end^  and  fo  the  civil  too.  — « 
 
 C  "  that 
 
 *    The  reader  may  fee  this  very  argument  in  the  comment 
 fi?r  the  Qi^i-ikers  paying  tythes.    fed.  31, 
 
(    10    ) 
 
 **  that  we  muft  not  look  upon  civil  fociety  in 
 "  two  different  capacities,  both  as  religious  and 
 "  civil  animals  j  and  as  intending  to  provide 
 "  both  for  their  religious  and  civil  interefts. 
 **  But  if  your  obfervations  have  any  weight, 
 "  you  fay,  they  muft  be  coniidered  under  the 
 "  lajl  charaSler  only."  p.  ii.  I  would  here 
 ask,  that  if  one  end,  peculiar,  feparate,  and 
 diftin(fl  is  to  be  conlidered,  as  appertaining 
 only  to  each  diftinct  fociety,  how  are  they 
 capable  of  an  alliance  ?  But  if  they  retain, 
 notwithftanding  the  alliance,  their  peculiar 
 and  diftinft  ends ;  then  they  remain  to  all 
 intents  and  purpofes  two  diJiinSi^  feparate  fo- 
 cietics.  and  the  mutual  rcfignations  import 
 juft  nothing  at  all.  The  alliance  is  as  great 
 a  foUcifm  as  can  be  imagined  :  for  furely 
 too  ends  that  are  diflindl  and  peculiar  to  church 
 and  ilate,  can  never  become  the  commonprin- 
 ciples  of  equity  and  freedom,  to  the  two  dif- 
 tin(fl  and  fepnrate  focieties,  that  are  faid  to  be 
 civil  and  religions. 
 
 Good  Mr.  Layman^  you  feem  to  under- 
 hand as  little  of  La\i\  as  the  Author  of  the 
 alliance  does,  pray  what  fenfe  is  there  in  an 
 alliance  formed  between  two  focieties  upon  the 
 f(?ww5«  principles  oi  equity  znd.  freedom?  It 
 might  furely  have  fufficed  you  to  have  at- 
 tempted a  proof  of  the  jujfice  and  legality  of 
 the  alliance,  without  prefuming  to  make  a 
 ch;incerv  decree  in  favour  of  it.  But  do 
 you  think,  that  his  Lordfliip,  the  prefent 
 Cnanceiior,  would   make  a  decree   in   favour 
 
 c^ 
 
(" ) 
 
 of  any  contracft,  where  truth  was  not  re^ 
 garded  ?  would  he  own  it  equitable  that  a 
 religious  fociety  fliould  make  a  bargain  with 
 the  ftate,  as  fuch,  or  under  the  merits  of  a 
 religious  fociety  j  and  yet,  that  the  magiflrate 
 fhould  not  be  allowed  to  grant  the  privilege 
 flipulated  for,  from  any  fuch  confideration 
 of  that  fociety  ?  which  is  the  new  fcheme  you 
 doat  uponc 
 
 The  common    principles    of    equity   and 
 
 freedom^  require  a  farther  expofition. • 
 
 Equity^  properly  means,  a  reflraint  of  the 
 rigorous  claims  of  right  or  juftice  3  in  pre- 
 vention of  fome  apparent  injury  arifing  from 
 thofe  rigorous  claims,  how,  is  your  Al- 
 liance founded  on    the  common  principle    of 
 
 equity^  befides,   the  common  principles 
 
 of  equity  and  freedom,  has  as  great  impro- 
 priety in  it,  as  to  call  the  court  of  com- 
 mon  pleas^  the  court  of  equity.  we  of- 
 ten fay,  the  courts  of  common  law,  when  we 
 fpeak  of  the  inferior  courts ;  one  of  which 
 is  called  the  court  of  Commoi  PI 'as. 
 
 I  wiih  you  would  explain  yourfelf,  and 
 not  haftily  conclude,  that  becaufe  the  author 
 of  the  Alliance  has  his  chapel  fo  near  the 
 hall  where  the  Lord  Chancelkr  frequently 
 holds  a  court  of  equity;  that  therefore  truly, 
 your  favourite  alliance  is  made  upon  the  com- 
 mon principle  ot  equity  1 
 
 What  do  you  mean  by  the  common  prin- 
 ciples of  equity  and  freedom  ?    are  your  two 
 focieties  at  liberty  to  purfue  reciprocally  their 
 C  2  didlna 
 
(    12    ) 
 
 diftin6:  ends  ?  may  the  church  in  alliance  look 
 upon  beYirlf  at  liberty  to  purfue  the  end  either 
 of  the  civil  or  religious  fociety  at  pleafure  ? 
 and  V.  Vi  may  the  ftate  do  the  fan:ie  ?  this 
 you  deny  in-  your  expolition ;  and  affirm, 
 **  that  it  has  been  clearly  and  inconteftibly 
 *'  proved,  by  the  excellent  author  ofthe  Al- 
 "  liance,  that  the  Church  is  a  real  fociety ; 
 **  and   a  fociety,  in,  and  of,  itfelf,  fovereign, 
 
 *'  and  independent  on  any  other. So  that 
 
 *'  the  civil  community  could  not  iiwcfl  the 
 **  Magiflratc  with  church-fupremacy."  p.  17. 
 Bat  if  this  real  fociety,  in,  and  of  itfelf, 
 fovereign,  and  independent,  has  made  an  al- 
 liance with  the  ftate  upon  the  commjon  prin- 
 ciples of  equity  and  freedom :  then  fuiely 
 upon  the  principles  of  truth,  muft  we  con- 
 clude church  and  fiate  remain  no  longer 
 two  focieties.  but  by  the  alliance  muft  be 
 as  truly  one  fociety,  as  Eftglafid  and  Scot- 
 land^  formerly  two  feparate  and  diflind: 
 kingdoms,  are  become  one  kingdom  by  the 
 union,  even  \\-\2Xoi  Great-Britain.  Nay  the 
 church  and  flate  are  become  more  fl:rid:Iy 
 one  ly  alliance  ;  fince  it  is  form'd  upon  the 
 common  principles  of  equity  and  freedom, 
 whereas  by  the  ad  of  union,  fomc  pecu- 
 liar, diftinit  and  feparate  articles  were  flipu- 
 lated  for  North-Britain  :  fo  that  one  can- 
 not fay  of  Great-Britain  that  the  union 
 was  form'd  upon  the  common  principles  of 
 equity  and  freedom.  You  give  an  infiance 
 oi  this,  p.  23.  "  The  Magiitrate  has  thought 
 
 **  fit 
 
<c 
 
 (   '3  ) 
 
 fit  to  eflablilh  Englijlo  Epifcopacy  on  this 
 fide  the  Tweedy  and  given  it  the  prefe- 
 rence to  Scotch  Presbytery.  '  But 
 on  the  other  fide,  he  has  chofe  [chofen] 
 "  to  efiablifii  Scotch  Presbytery,  and  given  it 
 "  the  pafs  before  EngliJJo  Epifcopacy." 
 
 This  has  been  done  by  the  Magiftrate,  to 
 whom,  you  fay,  your  church  has  rehgned  her 
 independency,  and  aUb  inverted  with  fuprema- 
 cy.  or,  it  has  been  done,  by  the  two  focieties 
 which  are  in  an  alliance,  form'd  upon  the  com- 
 mon principles  of  equity  and  freedom. — "done 
 by  the  reigning  Queen,  Lords  and  Commons. 
 But  did  not  your  Bifhops  concur  in  this  adt 
 of  union  ?  '*  whofe  only  end  and  purpofe  of 
 "  their  fitting  in  Parliament,  you  fay,  Mr. 
 IV.  has  declared,  is  to  reprefent  the  church." 
 p.  y^.  And  yet,  thefe  very  Bifhops  gave  fcotch 
 presbytery  the  pafs  before  englijh  epifcopa- 
 cy on  the  other  fide  the  river  !  To  clear  your- 
 felf,  and  fcheme,  you  rtje(ft  the  common 
 fyfiem,  by  faying,  *'  it  has  no  real  and  na- 
 *'  tural  foundation,  as  religion  is  not  the  pro- 
 *'  per,  immediate,  and  diredl  bufinefs  of  the 
 **  Magiftrate,  It  is  an  unreafonable,  unrightc- 
 **  ous  and  opprefiive  fcheme. — It  blackens  and 
 *'  defimes  the  credit  of  our  own  Legiflature, 
 *'  as  it  arraigns  the  Efiablilhment  fettled  in 
 *'  North-Britain  %  an  eftablirhment  declared 
 "  perpetual   by    the   adl  of  union."  p.  33. 
 
 How  did  your  Bifiiops,  whofe  end  in  fit- 
 ting in  parliament  is  only  to  reprefent  the 
 church,     give    their  fufFrage     in   the   ad:   of 
 
 union. 
 
(  J4  ) 
 
 union,  confenting  thereby  that  the pafs  htforc 
 englijh  epifcopacy  fhould  be  granted  to 
 Jcotch  presbytery  on  the  other  fide  thcTweeJ? 
 and  yet,  was  not  this  one  of  the  moft  fla- 
 grant inftances  of  the  alliance  of  the  two 
 focieties  being  formed  on  the  common  priti' 
 ciples   of  equity  and  freedom  ? 
 
 It  may  be  proper  to  examine  the  me- 
 rits of  what  you  call  the  church,  or  what 
 the  foundation  of  her  claim  to  ftate-favour 
 and  protection  is.  this,  you  fay,  with  Mr. 
 W,  "  was  her  refignation  of  her  fovereignty 
 "  and  independency.  Of  which  fhe  could  not 
 "  be  depriv'd,  but  by  her  own  voluntary  and 
 "  free  adt.  That  fhe  did  refign  this  privilege 
 "  in  favour  of  the  ilate."  p,  40.  what  this 
 fovereignty  and  independency  is,  that  the 
 church  refign'd  to  the  ftate,  does  not  appear 
 either  from  the  alliance,  or  the  expofition. 
 what,  or  wherein  docs  the  right  of fupremacy 
 confift,  which  the  church  has  fo  willingly 
 refigned  to  the  flate  ?  has  the  church  here- 
 by enabled  the  civil  magiflracy  by  new  mo- 
 delling civil  laws,  to  reftrain,  and  punish  fin, 
 as  fuch?  this  you  will  not  allovt>,  *'  for,  as 
 "  things  now  ftand,  'tis  the  crime  and  not 
 "  the  fm^  which  is  properly  confider'd  by 
 **  them  i  or  they  proportion  and  adjuft  their 
 **  punifhments  to  the  efFeds  of  acftions,  mere- 
 *«  iy  as  they  affed  the  peace  and  welfare  of 
 "  the  ftate." />.  15.  fo  that  the  Magiftrate 
 has  acquired  no  additional  or  new  pov/er  of 
 puniiliing    or  rewarding,  by   this  refignation 
 
 which 
 
(  15) 
 
 which  the  church  has  made, 1  would  then 
 
 ask,  had  the  church  here  in  England  ever 
 any  fuch  thing  as  a  right  of  independency  and 
 fupremacy  ?  and  when  was  the  time  of  her 
 refi^nation. 
 
 Farther,  you  fay  in  yourexpofition,  **  That 
 **  you  find  both  State  and  Church  ad:ualiy 
 "  pofTefled  of  fuch  powers,  as  do  not  pro- 
 "  perly  belong  to  them  ;  or  to  which  they 
 **  have  no  natural,  immediate,  and  inherent 
 **  right." />.  58.  And  you  mention  the  church 
 coiiftituting  the  MagiArate  her  fupreme  head. 
 at  the  fame  time,  '*  you  find  her  poflelTed 
 **  of  temporal,  coadive.  power,  to  which  {he 
 "  could  have  no  pretence,  or  even  (hadow 
 *'  of  pretence,  in  her  natural  and  indepen- 
 "  dent  ftate."/>.  59.  which,  you  think,  (hews 
 the  reality  of  the  alliance  in  queftion. 
 
 But  how  will  this  chimerical  reprefenta- 
 tion  faiisfy  any  man,  who  wants  to  know  the 
 meaning  of  thefe  things?  what  fitnefs,  equity, 
 or  julVice  is  there  in  them  ?  Truth  is  exclud- 
 ed from  being  the  balls  of  the  eflablifliment  ; 
 Religion  itfelf  is  denied  any  place  in  the  idea 
 of  the  civil  magiflrate,  as  the  reafon  of  his 
 favour  and  prote(5lion  :  the  Clergy  are  only 
 confidered  by  him  as  a  public  order  in  the 
 /late :  and  you  '*  take  the  liberty  to  add, 
 *'  that  if  the  Magiflrate  do  not  affign  it  on 
 "  this  (core,  he  cannot  on  the  principles  of 
 **  equity  znd  juftice  affign  it  at  all."  p  72. 
 
 1  fretly  own,  that  I  am  profoundly  igno- 
 rant of  the  principles  of  the  orthodox  fcheme, 
 
 and 
 
(  i6  ) 
 
 and  of  your  expofition  j  if  the  church  you  arc 
 pleading  for,  from  your  own  defcnpcion  of  its 
 alliance,  can  be  conlidercd  in  any  other  iight 
 whatever,  biit  merely  as  a  creature  oj  the  State, 
 
 You  are  confcious  that  the  term,  church, 
 when  it  has  a  religious  fcnfe,  is  not  capable 
 of  any  human  eftablifhment.  both  the  al- 
 liance  and  expofition  betray  this  appreheniion 
 of  the  impoilibility  :  which  has  led  vou  to 
 the  fcandalous  diilindion  oi  Truth  and  Utility* 
 For  in  religion,  Sir,  they  are  eternally  in- 
 feparablc.  And  hence  what  you  have  ob- 
 ferv'd  from  the  alliance,  is  not  capable  of  any 
 defence,  viz.  "  that  the  Church,  in  her  na- 
 **  tural  and  independent  Siat-%  has  no  claim 
 *>  to  the  protection  of  the  civil  power  j  and 
 **  therefore  cannot  but  be  difpofed  to  refigri 
 *'  her  independency,  and  enter  into  an  alliance 
 *'  with  the  State,  upon  rcafonable  and  proper 
 *'  motives,"  ^.  70.  what  an  adept  mull:  you 
 be  in  fophiftry,  who  can  talk  of  reafonable 
 and  proper  motives  to  fuch  alliance,  after  you 
 have  tiripped  your  cliurch  bare  of  all  that  is 
 virtuous  and  valuable,  by  taking  away  from 
 her  truth  and  religion. 
 
 Yet  this  alTertion  of  yours  is  falle  in  fadl  j  as 
 well  as  from  fome  propofitions  both  in  the 
 alliance  and  in  the  expofition.  for  if  the 
 church  be  juftly  detin'd,  as  diftindl  fiom  ci- 
 vil fociety,  it  muft  denote  2.Jociet)'  of  faith- 
 ful men  J  who  fear  God  andivork  rightcoufnefs, 
 now  fuch  fociety  has  a  claim  to  civil  pro- 
 tesflion,  from  the  very  nature  and  end  of  civil 
 «  I  government. 
 
(  17  ) 
 
 rgovernment.  You  c\it  ihc  BiP^op  of  London 
 infifting  upon  it,  "  that  the  iVIagiftrafv'  lias 
 "  no  right  to  punifli  any  one  in  hi<^  fortune, 
 *'  or  even  exclude  him  from  civil  pov/er, 
 *'  on  account  of  his  religion."  />.  51. 
 
 The  F r ot efi ant -dijj enters^  if  allow'd  to  be 
 capable  of  religious  chaiader,  may  be,  and 
 are  a  part  of  the  Church  of  Chriii^,  as  tru- 
 ly as  any  other  men  under  the  heavens. 
 /.  €.  if  they  fupport  that  character.  They 
 therefore  muft  be  confider'd  as  the  Churchy  in 
 a  religious  fenfe  ;  becaufethey  have  notrefipn- 
 ed  their  independency,  neither  have  entered 
 into  an  alliance  with  the  ftate :  and  yet,  they 
 have  a  claim  to  the  protedion  of  the  ft  te, 
 and  do  a(5tually  enjoy  that  protection.  You 
 muft  allow  this,  .S/r,  though  they  acknow- 
 ledge no  fupreme,  legiflative  authority  in  their 
 religious  character,  but  that  only  of  Jesus. 
 
 You  are  aware  of  this,  and  fay,  "  the 
 "  Queftion  is,  whether  the  fupremacy  of  tne 
 *'  Magiftrate  be  a  real  difgrace  to  a  national 
 "  church  profefting  its  faith  in  J. fus ;  and  an 
 "  invaiion  of  the  natural  an. i  proper  rights 
 "  of  the  Church  of  Chrift."  />.  '^3.  But  then, 
 you  trample  upon  the  difficuliy  thus :  "  If 
 *'  indeed  we  can  prove,  that  the  M.igiftrate 
 *'  adually  derives  this  power  from  theCr.urch ; 
 **  and  that  tlie  Church  has  conferred  it  upon 
 "  him,  on  rcafunable  and  proper  motives ;  this 
 "  v/iil  come  up  to  the  point  in  qutftion, 
 "  for  what  ground  will  then  remi^in,  ro  in- 
 .**  fult  and  reproach  the  Church   for  pa    ng 
 
 D  "  with 
 
(   i8  ) 
 
 •*'  with  her  independency,  if  (he  has  refign'd 
 ?'  it  upon  realbnable  and  proper  terms  ?  And 
 **  who  hath  proved  fhe  hath  done  fo,  but 
 "  the  author  of  the  alliance  hetweenChurch 
 "  and  State  ?"  p.  84. 
 
 This  is  fuch  a  piece  of  profound  reafoning, 
 that  a  perfon  of  profound  ignorance  may  dif- 
 cover  the  fallacy  of.  For  the  church  of  Chrift 
 having  but  one  head  and  Lord,  and  he  in  hea- 
 ven ;  never  was  in  a  ftate  of  independency 
 on  this  its  head,  any  more  than  a  natural 
 body  can  be  independent  on  its  natural  head, 
 confcquently  the  Church  of  Chriji  never  had 
 a  power  of  refigning,  or  transferring  the  fu- 
 premacy  of  its  head.  This  will  and  muft  ever 
 remain  the  fame,  however  men,  who  are  cal- 
 led by  you  the  Churchy  fancy  themfelves  in 
 alliance  with  the  ftate,  from  a  refignation  of 
 their  independency.  Indeed  it  is  poffible 
 for  any  number  of  men,  who  profefs  to  be- 
 lieve in  Ghrift;  to  difavovv  the  authority  and 
 binding  force  of  his  laws,  and  call  other  men 
 Loj'dSj  and  Majlers  j  and  be  under  their  edidls 
 and  prefcriptions.  But  this  muft  be  their  own 
 voluntary  a6l  ;  and  it  may  be  done  from  world- 
 ly confiderations  :  yet,  by  no  means  can  fuch 
 mciT  he  ^aid  to  own  no  other  Law-giver  but 
 Jefus. — -the  churches  in  alliance,  by  your  fyflem, 
 don't  reiign  their  independency  on  Jefus,  but 
 thcii  depe?idency  :  and  they  put  themfelves  out 
 
 of  a  relieious,  into  a  civil  State. 
 
 .The  Proteilant-diflenterthen  is  not  charge- 
 able   with  liolding  a  notion  that  implies  an  Im- 
 
 periufn 
 
_       (   '9  ) 
 
 perliim  in  hnperio^  an  empire  within  an  empirfi 
 tho'  you  fay  it.  p.  84.  But  it  is  this  orthodox- fy^ 
 Jlem  that  is  chargeable;  by  pretending  to  profeft 
 taith  in  Jefus,  at  the  fame  time  the  Church 
 has  refigned  her  independency,  and  conferred 
 2.  fupremacy  upon  the  civil  magiftrate. 
 
 If  a  man,  whom  you  brand  with  profound 
 ignorance  may  inform  you,  the  Protejiant- 
 dijfenter,  who  is  conlillent  in  his  fpirit  with 
 the  principles  of  his  diflent,  envies  you  not 
 the  emoluments  your  Church  enjoys,  upon 
 the  terms  of  your  alliance.  He  knows,  that 
 Chrifl's  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.  That 
 the  riches  and  honours  of  the  world  are  no 
 part  of  the  reward  of  Chrifl's  fubjcd.  He 
 knows  that  the  friendship  of  the  world  is  en- 
 mity with  God.  His  religion  confirts  in  righ- 
 teoufnefs,  peace,  and  joy.  He  is  clothed  with 
 humility.  And  he  is  crucifying  the  world 
 with  its  afFed:ions  and  lufts. 
 
 So  that  by  a  citation  you  have  made 
 from  Dr.  Stebbing,  p.  53.  it  mufl  be  a  truth, 
 *'  that,  that  which  prejudices  men  againd 
 *'•  the  faith,  is  commonly  fome  worldly  inte- 
 ^*  refi  or  other  which  presents  itfelt  in  op- 
 "  pofition  to  it.  That  there  are  very  few 
 **  who  rejed:  or  depart  from  the  truth  through 
 *'  the  fault  of  their  understandings,  compa- 
 *'  ratively  to  the  number  of  thofe  who  are 
 *'  led  alide  by  the  prevalency  of  thz'w  Jle/h- 
 "  ly  appetites."  From  whence  you  julily  in- 
 fer, *'  whatever  may  he  the  cafe  of  lome  par- 
 ^■^  ticulars,    it   will,    I    think,    be  difficult   xo 
 
 Da  "  prove 
 
(    20    ) 
 
 **  prove  t?iat  the  body  of  the  feveral  feds- 
 *'  is  tempted  to  continue  in  its  reparation,  by 
 **  any  fecular  or  worldly  intereft  whatfoever." 
 
 In  this  declaration  you  have  unanfwerably 
 acquitted  the  body  of  the  feveral  feds  from 
 worldly  motives  in  their  feparation.  And  fo 
 far  they  are  fecure  of  the  moft  manifeft  m- 
 terion  of  their  belonging  to  the  Church  of 
 Chrift  5  fince  they  are  not  of  the  ivorld^  even 
 as  their  Lord  was  not  of  the  world. 
 
 Hence  lorw^ard,  you,  and  all  other  Church- 
 defenders,  may  excufe  yourfelves  the  trouble 
 of,  recovering  the  Protejiant-dijjenters  to  the 
 Bojbm  of  the  Churchy  which  you  fo  ardently 
 wifli,  p.  ^y.  Since  your  Church  has  no  one 
 advantage  over  ours,  except  you  reckon  upon 
 titles  of  honour^  temporal  dignities^  riches^ 
 and  worldly  power.  All  which  our  Church 
 difclaims.  And  you  yourfelf  own,  that  your 
 Church  could  not  be  confidered  as  a  religi- 
 ous fociety,  in  her  obtaining  the  alliance. 
 
 But  then,  for  what  reafon  do  you  ftig- 
 matize  and  reproach  them  as  enemies  to  the 
 church  ?  is  it  becaufe  they  are  obliged  by  their 
 religion,  not  to  love  the  world,  nor  the  things 
 of  it  J  which  you  have  obtained  by  a  refignation 
 of  your  independency  and  fupremacy  ?  Be  it 
 fo  ;  the  prize  is  your  own.  For  a  Proteflant- 
 diffenter,  as  a  conliftent  Chrii^ian  cannot  rc- 
 figa  or  transfer  the  fupremacy  of  his  one 
 Lord,  It  is  then  their  not  being  influenced 
 by  worldly  motives  in  their  feparation,  that 
 is  the  infedlious  dijlemper  which  makes   your 
 
 teft^ 
 
(    2'    ) 
 
 tejl-law  neceffary  to  keep  them  out  of  your 
 family  ?  p.  44.  note,  "  That  law\  being 
 *'  merely  a  Security  to  the  Church  from 
 "  thofe  who  would  deftroy  it,"  is  but  an 
 imaginary  reafon  of  it,  whilft  the  diflenting 
 body  preferve  their  virtue  3  or  remain  feparatifts 
 upon  no  worldly  principle,  which  you  have  al- 
 ready allow'd  they  do. —  no  danger  can  take 
 place.  Yet  I  mull  ask  you,  Sir,  how  you  can 
 reconcile  the  Bifhop  of  London  s  opinion  with 
 your  defence  of  the  teji-law  ?  an  account  of 
 which  you  give  us, with  your  approbation  of  it, 
 **  My  Lord  of  London  himfelf  agrees  to  this 
 ^^  idea  of  the  Magiftrate's  office ;  yet  infills, 
 *'  that  the  Magiitrate  has  no  right  to  punifh 
 **  any  one  in  his  fortune,  or  even  exclude 
 *'  him  from  civil  power,  on  account  of  his 
 
 reli2;ion. 
 
 How  will  you  make  it  appear  that  the 
 Magiftrate  has  no  right  to  exclude  any  one 
 from  civil  power,  on  account  of  his  religion, 
 whilft  you  defend  the  TeJi-law^  which  in  its 
 very  nature  and  defign  does  exclude  men  from 
 civil  power,  on  no  other  account  than  that  of 
 their  not  being  of  your  church^ 
 
 You  have  affirmed,  **  that  the  teji-law  is 
 *^  neceflary,  as  the  peace  and  tranquility  of 
 '*  the  public,  both  in  Church  and  State,  would 
 *'  be  greatly   endanger'd,  without   fome    pro- 
 
 "  vifion  of  this  kind. and  that  diverfity 
 
 "  of  Seds  in  the  public  adminiftration,  would 
 '*  be  a  real  evil."  — p.  64.  65.  But  is  this 
 coniiftent  with  my  Lord  of  London^   infift- 
 
 ing. 
 
(    22    ) 
 
 ing  upon  it,  tliat  the  Magiflrate  has  no  riglit 
 to  exclude   any    one   from    civil  power,    on 
 
 account  of  his  religion  ? were  the   cha- 
 
 raders  of  mtn  canvafs'd,  and  thoroughly 
 known  that  have  been  and  are  in  the  ad- 
 miniilration  of  civil  power,  under  the  fub- 
 fiftence  of  the  Teji-iaw,  I  am  perfuaded, 
 greater  danger  to  the  peace  and  tranquility 
 of  the  public  could  not  be  apprehended  from 
 the  repeal  of  it.  Are  there  not  as  profligate 
 and  abandon'd  men  occupying  fpheres  of  in- 
 fluence in  the  civil  adminii^ration,  as  are  to  be 
 found  among  thofe  whom  the  Teft-law  ex- 
 cludes ?  I  am  perfuaded  there  are.  And  as 
 different  in  religious  and  political  fentiment  too. 
 even  fodifferent  thatchriftians  and  unbelievers,- 
 loyalijis  and  known  yacobites^  are  admit- 
 ted. Difference  of  religious  opinion  cannot,- 
 in  the  leaft  be  prevented,  by  an  cftablifh- 
 ment  and  a  tefl-law ;  as  I  have  fhevvn  more 
 at  large  in  the  Comment.  And  yet  the  Church 
 is  not  alarm'd  with  the  danger  of  the  public 
 peace  and  tranquility  being  diflurb'd  \  fo  that 
 you  may  fee,  Sir^  that  the  reafonings  of  the 
 Alliance  and  Expoiition,  as  well  ai>  thofe  of 
 your  other  church- writers,  have  no  founda- 
 tion in  truth. 
 
 The  'Tejl-law  you  imagine  ntcefi'uy  to  fe- 
 cure  the  Church-E.jiciblij}:mcnt .  V/hy  fo  ? 
 you  have  not  the  leaft  realbn  to  fu[.pofe  that 
 the  Government  will  neglect  to  avail  itfelf 
 of  all  thofe  important  advantages,  which  you 
 are  confident  you  have  demonfl;rated  to  arife 
 2  from- 
 
(  23   ) 
 
 from  the  alliance  between  Church  and  State. 
 
 You  need  not  be  afraid no  Protefbnt- 
 
 diflenter  preferving  his  virtue  will  hurt  you. 
 he  is  not  a  more  obnoxious  animal,  than  thofe 
 of  your  own  church.  His  principles  will  lead 
 him  to  loyalty,  to  peace,  and  to  do  all  he  can 
 to  ferve  the  intereft    of  truth  and   liberty. 
 
 Speak  out,  Mr.  Expofnor,  and  let  the 
 world  know,  what  are  thofe  ineftimable  jewels 
 of  independency  and  fapremacy,  thit  your 
 Church  has  refigned  to  the  State. — How  (he 
 became  pofTcffed  of  them. — what  was  the  i  fe 
 Ihe  made  of  them  before  the  refignation, — 
 and  make  it  appear  that  the  privilege  which 
 the  ftate  has  gain'd  by  that  refignation  h  a 
 quantum  meruit,  hereby  you  will  do  honour 
 both  to  the  ftate  and  your  church. 
 
 Upon  the  whole,  the  laugh  at  your  fyflem, 
 js  not  void  of  grace  ;  hnce  one  is  not  able 
 to  confider  j^our  EftabUdiment  under  the  idea 
 of  a  national  religious  inftitution.  For  as  to 
 the  principle  of  truths  you  ask,  "  wijat  is  it 
 "  but  an  aukward  prop  in  the  old  fyftem, 
 "  which  effciftually  undetermines  one  lide  of 
 "  the  edifice,  while  it  only  bears  up  the 
 *'  other  hi  imagination."  />.  36.  Truth  will 
 not  fcrve  citlier  the  Church  or  the  State  in 
 your  fyftem.  And  religion  is  quite  unfit  to 
 become    a  principle  of  the  alliance. 
 
 And  yet,  panegyric  is  beflow'd  with  a  li- 
 beral hand  upon  t'ie  book  of  alliance,  and 
 its  incomparable  author.  Merit  is  afcnbed  to 
 him  at  the  exp^nce  of  the  credit  of  the  alliance 
 stfelf,  and  that  cf  all  its  defenders.  For  hav- 
 ing 
 
(    24    ) 
 
 ing  mentioned  the  Church's  reilgning  her  in- 
 dependency upon  reafonable  and  proper  terms ; 
 you  ask,  "  who  hath  proved  fhe  hath  done 
 *'  fo,  but  the  author  of  the  alhance  between 
 *«  Church  and  State  ?"  p.  84. 
 
 But  is  it  not  incredible,  that  this  public 
 C0fitra5l,  which  church-men  have  long  rav'd 
 about,  and  fwell'd  in  their  boaftings  of  the 
 church's  claims,  (hould  never  be  entered  in- 
 to, nor  underftood,  till  Mr.  W,  made  the 
 difcovery  ?  And  which,  probably,  had  been 
 the  fcandal  even  of  his  attempt,  but  for  the 
 profound  knowledge  he  had  acquired  of  the 
 Efoteric  dodtrine  of  the  antients. 
 
 You  might  well  "  not  wonder,  that  the 
 "  author  fhould  chufe  to  leave  this  work 
 *^  as   a  monument  of  his  love  to  his  Country ; 
 
 **  or  that  the  fineft  genius  of  the  age, 
 
 *'  fhould  with  fatisfadion  and  pleafure,  fee 
 **  it  addrefled  to  him,  as  to  one  who  un- 
 *'  derftood  the  principles  beft,  and  had  the 
 *'  confequences  moft  at  heart."  The  elegant, 
 the  fubhme  jBnilhing  period  of  the  Expofition. 
 
 But  good  Mr.  Layman^  did  Lord  Chefter- 
 field  underftand  the  principles  of  the  alliance 
 before  your  Apollo  made  the  difcovery  ?  If 
 he  did,  and  had  the  confequences  moft  at  heart, 
 how  will  you  account  for  his  not  difcloling 
 them  to  the  public  ?  If  his  Lordjhip  and  the 
 world  owe  the  difcovery  entirely  to  your 
 Apollo^  how  did  he  underfland  them  at  all  ? 
 If  not  till  the  book  of  alliance  came  forth, 
 how  know  you,  that  he  underflood  them  befl  ? 
 
 And 
 
(    25    ) 
 
 And  are  there  no  Churchmen  who  have  the 
 confequences  jnore  at  heart  than  that  noble 
 Lord  ?  can  you  prove  it  to  be  any  /hade  caft 
 en  the  luftre  of  his  genius,  that  he  has  lefs 
 at  heart  the  confequences  of  the  orthodox  prin- 
 ciples than  you  have,  or  than  the  author  of  the 
 alliance  ? 
 
 However  I  will  place  before  you  the  fen- 
 timents  of  a  genius,  to  which  I  am  perfuaded, 
 that  noble  Lord  will  vail ;  and  confefs  an  in- 
 competency of  judgment  in  the  comparifon  : 
 I  mean,  Sir,  one  Jefus^  the  only  lord  of  the 
 Chriflian-church,  who  in  his  prayer,  fays,  '*  I 
 **  have  given  them  thy  word  :  and  the  w^orld 
 '*  hath  hated  them,  becaufe  they  are  not  of 
 **  the  world.  I  pray  not  that  thou  fhouldeft 
 *'  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou 
 "  fhouldeft  keep  them  from  the  evil.  They 
 "  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of 
 *'  the  world.  Sanftify  them  by  thy  truth, 
 "  thy  word  is  truth." 
 
 The  task  therefore  which  devolves  upon 
 the  expofitor,  is,  to  fhew  the  public  what 
 concord  there  is  between  the  dodrine  of  this 
 prayer,  and  the  orthodox  fyftem.  If  you  do 
 this,  or  can  {hew  any  countenance  given  to 
 your  Church-eftabliflitr.ent  in  the  gofpe!,  I 
 will  anfwer  for  the  addition  of  one  member  to 
 your  Society, 
 
 Till  then,  the  calm  fatisfadion  I  enjoy  in 
 my  dijjent^  is  not  in  any  danger  of  being  un- 
 fettled  or  difcompoled  by  the  attempts  you 
 are  making  to  defend  your  alliance. 
 
 E  As 
 
(  26  ) 
 
 As  I  am  clofing  this  letter;  be  affured,  tba  t 
 your  caiumny  has  not  ruffled  the  peace  of  my 
 mind.  I  attribute  the  rancour  only  to  the 
 pride  and  malice  of  your  fpirit.  —  you  have 
 my  pity,    if  you  repent^  you  have  vnv pardon. 
 
 One  word  more  of  confolation,  and  adieu, 
 defpair  not  of  the  influence  of  thofe  principles^ 
 on  which  you  build  the  alliance.  They  are 
 not  the  lefs^  but  the  more  popular  as  they 
 exclude  truth  and  religion  !  and  in  the  eye  of 
 the  world,  you  may  depend  upon  it,  they  will 
 certainly  have  the  force  of  demonftration.— 
 would  you  have  more  ? 
 
 J  am, 
 
 the  author  of  the  Comment,  gf^.