lation he argues, as we think, less against the value of creeds than in favour of a principle, which yet, we cannot suppose he will adopt,-the depravity of man. Weshould like to know by what principle it is, that every man is to be permitted to mistake the conclusions of his own mind for the immutable decree of truth? To adopt the Reviewer's own simile, "it would be as promising an attempt to dam the ocean, or hold a comet with a kite string," as to ascertain under such circumstances, that truth is consistent with itself. The natural tendency of the human mind is, not to truth but to error,- the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth," and, we think, the Reviewer concedes something to this principle, when he ventures to predict what may occur to the Andover Institution.

66

The Reviewer passes over Mr. Sparks's chapters on the Trinity, with a general commendation, (we suppose, of all that they contain,) and the observation, that "he shall be happy, at some future time, to find an opportunity to recur to them." This is all very well. We are inclined to the opinion, that the Unitarian side of the question is getting somewhat stale, even Predestinarians and Calvinists: for Calvin, nor Augustine, nor any names whatever, are any thing to us, but as they speak to us from, the Holy Scriptures. These are our only oracles. What we find there we believe and profess, though incomprehensible to our weak and shallow minds, which are by no means the measure of truth. And we think we act a perfectly RATIONAL, as well as reverent part before the High God, the infinite intelligence, in bowing our understandings to his revelations respecting truth and duty, even where we cannot answer every scruple or objection for the reconciling seeming oppositions." Signed by Coleman, (Cooper's colleague) Sewall, Prince, Le Mercier, and Webb. April 15, 1740.

in Boston; its novelty is wearing off; and it is in a new field, where the habit of thinking has been different, and where the novelty of the subject will, doubtless, procure it some attention, that it may be discussed to most advantage; a random ray may there, perhaps, fall on some eye not wholly averted, and the happy man may discover, or think that he discovers, more of the nature of God, than he knows of his own.

We are now come to a subject on which we enter with real pain, because it relates to errors and infirmities which we, most willingly, would give to oblivion. We confess we feel much disturbed in the complacency we have hitherto been desirous of feeling towards the Reviewer on all the points of this controversy. But we will strive to be temperate,—we are determined to be just.

The Reformation in England is not to be considered as having attained a settled character, till after the accession of Elizabeth. This we conceive will be admitted it would detain us too long to enlarge upon it. The nation generally was then satisfied. No opposition was made, except by those who still adhered to the Church of Rome. If the principles of the Church at that time were not perfectly satisfactory to the other reformed churches, yet there was, on their part, no opposition to them. This state of harmony was not, however, of long duration, for when those who had been driven by the fear of Mary, to different parts of the continent successively returned, many of them manifested an attachment to the forms of protestantism which they had severally witnessed. It was not, however,

till the 10th year of Elizabeth, that they began to dis play themselves openly, and from this time, notwithstanding the efforts made to check them, till the time of Charles I. they continued to increase. In the 18th of this reign (1643) the famous SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT was framed in Scotland, and subscribed by multitudes both in that country and in England; the person subscribing, at the same time solemnly swore "with his hands lifted up to the Most High God," to endeavour the ENTIRE EXTIRPATION OF PRELACY, or the government of the Church by Archbishops and Bishops and all the ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. Both church and state were brought to the dust by this HORRIBLE league of superstition and tyranny. The profession of Episcopacy was, for a long time, not even tolerated. Even the King, while a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, was prohibited the use of the Common Prayer Book in his own family. Near TWENTY THOUSAND CLERGYMEN were actually turned out to beggary and want, and, as if this was not degradation enough, it was endeavoured to attach epithets of infamy to their persons.* * This course of things

92

*The severities exercised against the Episcopal clergy,' says Hume, "naturally affected the royalists, and even all men of candour, in a sensible manner. By the most moderate computation above one half of the established clergy were turned out for no other crime than their adhering to the civil and religious principles in which they had been educated, and for their attachment to those laws, under whose countenance they had at first embraced that profession. To renounce Episcopacy and the Liturgy, and to subscribe the Covenant, were the only terms which could save them from so rigourous a fate; and if the least mark of malignancy as it was called, or affection to the King, who so entirely loved

did not last many years. In 1660, the Church was re-established, on the return of the King; and the

them, escaped their lips, even this hard choice was not permitted." And in a note, referring to Walker's account of the sufferings of the clergy, he adds: " the Parliament pretended to leave to the sequestered clergy ONE fifth of their revenue, but this author makes it sufficiently clear, that this provision, small as it was, was never regularly paid the ejected clergy." History of England, Baltimore edition, vol. vi. p. 123. These acts of oppression were performed by a committee of the House of Commons, which continued to sit for several years, and was denominated the committee of scandalous ministers. "The proceedings were cruel and arbitrary, and made great havoc, both to the Church, and to the University. They began with harrassing, imprisoning, and molesting the clergy, and ended with sequestrating and ejecting them. In order to add contumely to cruelty, they gave the sufferers the ephithet of scandalous, and endeavoured to render them as odious as they were miserable. The greatest vices, however, which they could reproach to a great part of them, were bowing to the name of Jesus, &c." Ibid. vol. v. p. 359. Afterward came the ordinance of Cromwell in 1654, and swept from their churches the remainder of the Episcopal clergy. The following extracts from the Journal of John Evelyn, Esq. whose character is well known, and who was contemporary with the times alluded to, may be found in the Quarterly Review for April, 1818, and will serve to elucidate the note at the bottom of page 59, of the Review before us. "Dec. 7.-This day came forth the Protector's edict, or proclamation, prohibiting all ministers of the Church of England from preaching or teaching any schools, in which he imitated the apostate Julian.” "25th. I went to London, when Dr. Wilde preached the funeral sermon of preaching, this being the last day, after which Cromwell's proclamation was to take place, that none of the Church of England should dare either to preach, or administer sacraments, teach school, &c. on pain of imprisonment or exile.” The reader will perceive that the "convenient time," which the Reviewer says was allowed for their removal, was from the seventh to the twenty-fifth of December.

Puritans suffered in their turn. Most of those who came into power had felt the effects of the spirit of Puritanism, and, perhaps, were not so lenient as they should have been, placed as they now were above its influence. Endeavours for conciliation were certainly made on the part of the Church, for which there was no precedent on the other side. At the Conference in the Savoy, held by order of the King, it was easy to be seen, that little less was to be required than allowing Baxter to remodel the Church and its Liturgy. Whatever disposition existed on the part of the Church for conciliation there was certainly none on the other side. "They were however," says Bishop Burnet, "divided among themselves. Some were for insisting only on a few important things, reckoning that if they were gained, and a union followed, it would be easy to gain other things afterward. But all this was overthrown by Mr. Baxter. There was a great submission paid to him by the whole party. So he persuaded them that from the words of the commission, they were bound to offer every thing that they thought might conduce to the good, or peace of the Church, without considering what was likely to be obtained, or what effect their demanding so much might have in irritating the minds of those who were then their superiour body, both in strength and number."* This inexorable disposition, was not only manifested by them, at the Conference, but they were also in the habit of speaking and preaching openly against the Church from which they derived their subsistence. No alternative being left to the Church, but, either to tolerate a Babel within itself, by allowing these practi

* History of his own time, vol. i. p. 180,