fhould in this manner foresee a future event, there would be nothing in it more fupernatural or prophetical, than in an inftance of waking forefight, only the former being more uncommon would be more obferved, especially confidering that in fleep, as well as in darknefs, there is fomething awful and myfterious.

Our dreams are much influenced by our bodily habit; when our ftomach is overcharged with food, or our blood overheated, our dreams are wilder and more frightful than at other times. This is a plain proof that our dreams are not caufed by the agency of Invifible Beings, as fome have imagined. For how is it poffible that fuch Beings could be influenced by our bodily habit? And is it not abfurd in the higheft degree and even impious to fuppose that the Supreme Being would commiffion invifible agents to fuggeft to us fuch infignificant trifles as our dreams are generally made up of? We hear, indeed, that in antient times, dreams were prophetical, and men were, fometimes, for wife purpofes, endued by God with the gift of prophecy. But furely it cannot follow from this, that in modern times every man, or even any man, is a prophet; that every dream or even any dream, is a prophetical vision.

The Supreme Being, for the most benevolent purpofes, has concealed from us the knowledge of futurity.

To endeavour, therefore, to pry into future events, must be both vain and impious vain, because we cannot fruitrate the purposes of God ; and impious, becaufe all attempts to difcover what he has been pleafed to conceal, proceed from a fecret diffatisfaction with that measure of capacity, which he has thought proper to confer upon us.

To the Author of the Confeffional.
SIR,

EXCUSE the liberty I take in addreffing myfelf to you, by Mr. Baldwin's permition, through the channel of his Magazine; and permit me to write, I have lately read the Confeffional, and muft allow you to have the pen of a ready writer. But pardon me, fir, I think you have waded through many fanatical authors,

as well as the church of England, and wafted much ink and paper; in order to prove, that fubfcription to our articles of religion has drove fome pious young men farving into the world; and not a little affected the conjciences (the flexible confciences, I prefume) of fame clergymen of our church. All which, I apprehend, might have been contained within the compafs of a fix-penny pamphlet. As you have proceeded, you have highly applauded all diflenting writers; your Baxters, Honeft Old Rogers, James Peirce, Jofeph Hallet, &c. and have endeavoured to ridicule fome, and certainly have abufed many of our eminent divines. The good Archbishop Wake has been feverely cenfured by you. But a late writer, if I am not mistaken, has cleared the archbishop's character, and proved, that his grace was in hopes of reconciling the Gallican Proteftant diffenters, not the papifts, to the church of England; and he was duped, as you obferve. What then? Was he the firft whofe lenity and charity has laid him open to worldly-minded and defigning men? No, I believe he will not be the laft. As to his behaviour in the fchifm bill, I will not pretend to defend, but upon your own doctrine, that a man may preach a doctrine one Sunday, which upon better information he may deny the following. P. 19. Excellent advice! Pray allow his grace the fame liberty. For my own part, I moft fincerely with with St. Paul, that we could with one mouth and one mind glorify God, and with you, that fubfcription to articles of our faith aud the Sacraments, was the only, if it was, a fufficient telt of our religion, and religious worship; but certain I am, this is impoffible. Does not daily experience prove the affertion? One fect ftarts up like a mushroom, upon fome different teft. Another day produces a new doctrine, a new ceremony, and fo on to the great group of diffenters among us. Each has its teft, not only to ceremonies, but even to religion, and by thofe tefts theyare diftinguished; and who perfecutes or oppofes them? To the honour of our prefent happy establishment, they are tolerated.

You have taken great pains in reviving the perfecuting history of James's and Charles's days, but you have skimmed over the perfecutions the church

of

of England fuffered when diffenters were triumphant. Have they at this time any reafon to complain? have we a perfecuting James, or Charles on the throne? No, a K. George the Third; a pater patriæ; a pater familia, makeing all the allowance for human prejudices, failings and infirmities, that diffenters can defire. Have we a Laud at Lambeth? the reverfe, I believe, as to his zeal for ceremonies. In that Laud was over righteous; in every thing elfe (fevere as you are on that great man's character) he was a most amiable prelate Pious, learned, upright, and fincere; humble in his private deportment, but attached to trifling ceremonies, and ready to lay down his life, rather than give them up; fo writes a late noble hiftorian, in aleries of letters on English history, to his fon, and I believe he was as good a judge of Laud's character as yourself. Permit me here to afk you, why you take fo much pains, at this time, renovare dolorem of our forefathers? are you afraid of fuch perfecutions as formerly? You need not; love and charity are the characteristicks of our church. Here let me afk another queftion: do diffenters grant us that toleration, which we fo religiously grant them? No, witnefs where they have power, there witness their intolerant fpirit. Let us turn our thoughts to wards America. Can there be even in Scotland a more intolerant fpirit against epifcopacy than in America? though they have the ftrongeft af furance that our bishops fhall not be concerned with them either in temporals or ipirituals. Our bishops there are only to take care of the church, which the American diffenters, in general, and a late chriftian, in particular, reprefents in a low, mean and contemptible light the clergy, as moft illiterate and even abandoned in fin and iniquity. Are not thefe the very reafons why we fhould have a perfon of authority to prefide over them; to inftruct, to ad vife, to rebuke with all authority; to ordain proper minifters, and to fee they are instructed in every good work? But this mult not be allowed. Another of their chriftians had the infolence lately to afk, how we could think of fending a bishop to America at this time, when there is fuch a spirit of

oppofition, even against our rulers and governors? Excellent! how confequential are thefe colonists in their own opinion! Permit me to afk, must they be indulged in fpirituals as well as temporals; and their mother country fubmit to them?

Let us proceed a little farther with your Confeffional: To remove all fubfcriptions to articles, and all tests to church government, you observe with Mr. Locke, That a church is a voluntary fociety of men, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the publick worshipping of God, in fuch a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the jalvation of their fouls. Preface p. xiii. Agreed! In fuch a manner as they think acceptable. Is not this affertion against you? does not this imply a teft, not only to religion, but even to ceremony? In another place, you obferve with the fame author that where three are gathered together for religious duties, they make a church. Agreed, but even these three must have a teft, a fort of fubfcription to fome articles of faith and even ceremonies, or they will not conftitute a church. Can we fuppofe, pardon me for diffenting fo frequently from you, that the three following perfonages would have come under that denomination, of Mr. Locke's church; Bolingbroke, Secker, Clark? Your own judgement will, I imagine, prevail, and you will anfwer in the negative. Certainly thefe three could never with one mouth, one mind, glorify God. Had thefe perfons one faith, one baptiim, one hope of our calling? Neither could they agree even in the manner of worthiping God.

In order to fet afide all tefts, all fubfcriptions, you obferve that the pope fupports his authority by thefe. Not only, I prefame, by tefts and fubfcriptions. No, he has many other ways; by indulgences; mafles for the dead; extreme unction, and fending fouls inftantaneously into the regions of blifs, wicked as they were while in the body, provided the perfons died in their communion and bequeathed largely to the church. Thefe are the general ways by which his holinefs fupports his authority; for certain I am, where ten fubfcribe to his holiness's tefts or church articles, among the papists, R 2

there

there are thoufands that never heard of fuch fubfcriptions, but believe his fupremacy and infallibility from other motives. Excufe me again; in my , opinion, if there were not fome telts, fome fubfcriptions, religion would be vox et præterea nilil, not only in the church of Rome, but in all other churches and kirks; and muft his holinefs lay down all fences about his vineyard for the fake of keeping fome pious young men from farving? and permit to pluck and fuck the choiceft grapes, and give the gleanings to cardinals, arch-bithops, &c. for I do not in the leaft queftion, but fuch there are in Rome and its environs, &c. But to apply this to a church, mutt we lay afide all jubler ptions for the fake of fuch pious young men, who would certainly, upon fuch conceffions, increafe in numibers, like Charles's parliament in 1641, which from a fall beginning foon increased, and were of the fame opinion in religion (puritan:) to a man; fo fays a late nobie hiftorian; and then forced down the wort of tests, the folemn league and covenant. Remember this, oli proteftants of the church of England! what has been may be. In another letter, I fhall conclude this fubject: for the prefent, I am,

D. B.

To the AUTHOR of the LONDON MAGAZINE.

SIR,

Have fent you anfwers to the two queftions in your last Appendix, with a new queftion: your infertion thereof will greatly oblige, fir,

Your moit humble fervant,

J. Howe. Flookburgh in Cartmel, Feb. 20, 1771.

Solution to the first Question. Let x=tail, Then 2x=x+ 18 the equation reduced makes x = 18 the til, and 27 the body, and the whole fish 54 inch.

Solution to the Second.

Let a 500, e 2000, and x x = Intereft per Annum. Then 2axx + ax e the equation reduced makes

in length with refpect to the horizon on which it ftands, fo that the length of its thadow may be a maximum.

Lord Mansfield's Speech in the Caufe of the Diffenters.

S it is poffible that centuries A hence the importance of this fpeech will render it highly agreeable to pofterity, we think it too valuable not to be preferved in the London Magazine:

My Lords,

"AS I made the motion for ta

king the opinion of the learned judges, and propofed the question your lordfhips have been pleafed to put to them, it may be expected, that I should make fome further motion, in confequence of the opinion they have delivered.

In moving for the opinion of the judges, I had two views: the first was, that the house might have the benefit of their affittance, in forming a right judgement in this caufe now before us, upon this writ of error. The next was, that the queftion being fully difcuffed, the grounds of our judgement, together with their exceptions, limitations, and restrictions, might be clearly and certainly known, as a rule to be followed hereafter, in all future cafes of the like nature: and this determined me as to the manner of wording the question, "How far the defendant might, in the prefent cafe, be allowed to plead his difability in bar of the action brought against him?"

The question, thus worded, fhews the point upon which your lordships thought this caufe turned; and the anfwer neceffarily fixes a criterion, under what circumitances, and by what perfons, fuch a difability may be pleaded, as an exemption from the penalty inflicted by this bye-law, upon thofe who decline taking upon them the office of theriff.

In every view in which I have been able to confider this matter, I think this action cannot be fupported.

If they rely on the corporation-act; by the literal and exprefs provifion of that act, no perfon can be elected, who hath not within a year taken the facrament in the church of England; the defendant hath not taken the facrament within a year: he is not therefore elected. Here they fail.

If they ground it on the general

defign of the legiture in paffing the corporation act, the design was to exclude diffenters from office, and difable them from ferving. For in thofe times, when a spirit of intolerance prevailed, and severe measures were purfued, the ditenters were reputed and treated as perfons ill-affected and dangerous to the government: the defendant therefore, a diffenter, and in the eye of this law a perfon dangerous and illaffected, is excluded from office, and difabled from ferving. Here they fail. If they ground the action on their own bye-law; fince that bye-law was profeffedly made to procure fit and able perfons to ferve the office, and the defendant is not fit and able, being expressly difabled by ftatute-law. Here too they fail.

If they ground it on his difability being owing to a neglect of taking the facrament at church, when he ought to have done it; the toleration-act having freed the diffenters from all obligation to take the facrament at church, the defendant is guilty of no neglect, no criminal neglect. Here therefore they fail.

These points, my lords, will appear clear and plain.

The corporation-act, pleaded by the defendant as rendering him uneligible to this office, and incapable of taking it upon him was moft certainly intended by the legislature to prohibit the perfons therein defcribed being elected to any corporation-offices, and to difable them from taking fuch offices upon them. The act had two parts: firft it appointed a commiffion for turning out all that were at that time in office, who would not comply with what was required as the condition of their continuance therein, and even gave a power to turn them out though they fhould comply: and then it further enacted, that from the termination of that commiffion no perfon hereafter who had not taken the facrament according to the rites of the church of England, within one year preceding the time of fuch election, thould be placed, chofen, or elected, into any office of or belonging to the government of any corporation and this was done, as it was exprefly declared in the preamble to the act, in order to perpetuate the fucceffion in corporations in the hands of perfons well af

fected to the government in church and ftate.

It was not their defign, as hath been faid, " to bring fuch perfons into corporations, by inducing them to take the facrament in the church of England," the legislature did not mean to tempt perfons who were ill-affected to the government, occafionally to conform it was not, I fay, their defign to bring them in; they could not truft them, left they fhould use the power of their offices to distress and annoy the ftate. And the reafon is alledged in the act itfelf: it was because there were

"evil fpirits" amongst

them; and they were afraid of evil fpirits, and determined to keep them out: and therefore they put it out of the power of electors to choose such perfons, and out of their power to ferve; and accordingly prescribed a mark or character, laid down a defcription, whereby they fhould be known and diftinguished by their conduct previous to fuch election, instead of appointing a condition of their ferving the office, refulting from their future conduct, or fome confequent action to be performed by them: they declared fuch perfons incapable of being chofen, as had not taken the facrament in the church within a year before fuch election, and without this mark of their affection to the church, they could not be in office, and there could be no election.

But as the law then flood, no man could have pleaded this difability, refulting from the corporation-act, in bar of fuch an action as is now brought against the defendant; because this dilability was owing to what was then in the eye of the law a crime; every man being required by the canon-law, received and confirmed by ftatute-law, to take the facrament in the church at leaft once a year: the law would not permit a man to fay, that he had not taken the facrament in the church of England; and he could not be allowed to plead it in bar of any action brought against him.

But the cafe is quite altered fince the act of toleration it is now no crime for a man, who is within the defcription of that act, to say he is a diffenter; nor is it any crime for him not to take the facrament according to the rites of the church of Eng

land:

land: nay, the crime is, if he does it contrary to the, dictates of his conscience.

If it is a crime not to take the facrament at church, it must be a crime by fome law; which must be either common or ftatute-law, the canon-law, inforcing it, depending wholly upon ftatute-law. Now the ftatute-law is repealed, as to perfons capable of pleading that they are fo and to qualified; and therefore the cannon-law is repealed with regard to thofe perfons. If it is a crime by common-law, it must be fo either by ulage or principle. There is no ufage or cuftom, independent of pofitive law, which makes nonconformity a crime. The eternal principles of natural religion are part of the common-law: the effential principles of revealed religion are part of the common-law; fo that any perfon reviling, fubverting, or ridiculing them, may be profecuted at commonlaw. But it cannot be thewn from the principles of natural or revealed religion, that, independent of politive law, temporal punishments ought to be inflicted for mere opinions with refpect to particular modes of worship.

Perfecution for a fincere, tho' erroneous confcience, is not to be deduced from reafon or the fitnefs of things; it can only ftand upon pofitive law.

It hath been faid, that "the toleration-act only amounts to an ex. emption of proteftant diflenters from the penalties of certain laws therein particularly mentioned, and to nothing more; that if it had been intended to bear, and to have any operation upon the corporation-act, the corporationact ought to have been mentioned therein; and there ought to have been fome enacting claufe, exempting diffenters from profecution in confequence of this act, and enabling them to plead their not having received the facrament according to the rites of the church of England, in bar of fuch action." But this is much too limited and narrow a conception of the toleration-act: which amounts confequentially to a great deal more than this; and it hath confequentially an influence and operation upon the corporation-act in particular. The toleration-act renders that which was illegal before, now legal; the diffenters way of worship is

* Mr. Baron Perrot.

permitted and allowed by this act; it is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful: it is eftablished, it is put under the protection, and is not merely under the connivance of the law. In case those who are appointed by law to regifter diffenting places of worship, refuse on any pretence to do it, we must, upon application, fend a mandamus to compel them.

Now there cannot be a plainer pofition, than that the law protects nothing, in that very refpect in which it is in the eye of the law, at the fame time, a crime. Diffenters, within the defcription of the toleration-act, are restored to a legal confideration and capacity; and an hundred confequences will from thence follow, which are not mentioned in the act. For inftance, previous to the toleration-act, it was unlawful to devite any legacy for the fupport of dif fenting congregations, or for the benefit of diffenting minifters; for the law knew no fuch affemblies, and no such perfons; and fuch a device was ablo-. lutely void, being left to what the law called fuperftitious purposes. But will it be faid in any court in England, that fuch a device is not a good and valid one now? and yet there is nothing faid of this in the toleration-act. By that act the diffenters are freed, not only from the pains and penalties of the laws therein particularly ipecified, but from all ecclefiaftical cenfures, and from all penalty and punishment whatfoever on account of their nonconformity; which is allowed and protected by this act, and is therefore in the eye of the law. no longer a crime. Now, if the defendant may fay he is a diflenter; if the law doth not ftop his mouth; if he may declare, that he hath not taken the facrament according to the rites of the church of England, without being confidered as criminal; if, I fay, his mouth is not ftopped by the law, he may then plead his not having taken the facrament according to the rites of the church of England, in bar of this action. It is fuch a difability as doth not leave him liable to any action, or to any penalty or punishment whatfo