449 
ftrong attachment to thofe principles of 
Englifh liberty, which called in the Prince 
of Orange, and placed the prefent illuf- 
trious family on the.throue ; but the oc- 
cafion of their appearance being tem- 
porary, any further notice of thele pam- 
phlets isnow become unneceffary. 
Mr. Towers’s next publication appeared 
in 1772, and was entitled “*A Letter 
addreffed to Dr..Nowell, Principal of &t. 
Mary Hall, King’s Profefior of Modern 
Hiflory, and Public Orator in the Uni- 
verfity of Oxford ; eccafioned by his 
very. extraordinary Sermon, preached be- 
fore the Houfe of Commons on the 30th 
of January, 1772." Mr. Towers has in 
this letter, with juft feverity, animad- 
verted on the ftatement of faéts, the fen- 
timents and affeitions, contained in Dr. 
Nowell’s difcourfe; many of which were 
generally confidered as illiberal, unfound- 
ed, and indefenfible, and therefore merit- 
ing cenfure. Asa matter of courfe, the 
preacher received the thanks of the Houfe 
of Commons for his fermor ; but it is 
' remarkable, that the houfe afterwards, and 
fublequently to our author's letter, refol- 
ved, that this vote of thanks fhould be 
expunged out of their journals. In the 
courfe of this year Mr. Towers alfo pro- 
duced anothrr ahonymous pamphlet, 
being “ A Dialogue between Two Gen- 
thmen concerning the late Application 
to Parliament for Relief in the Matter of 
Subf{cription to the Thirty-nine Articles 
and Liturgy of the Church of England ;” 
to which is prefixed, an extract from a 
work of the venerable and truly Ji- 
beral prelate, Dr. Hoadly, Bithop of 
Wincheiter; who, by a fermon which 
gave much offence many years ago toa 
cenfiderable number of the clergy, occa- 
fioned what was called the Bangorian 
controverfy, from his then holding the 
bifhopric of Bangor; and who, as_ is 
well known, ata later period had a con- 
troverfy with Bifhop Shericck, on the fub- 
ject of reiigious tei's ; and which extra@, 
being very appofite, to our author’s pur- 
pofe is inferted below.* This fmall 
pamphlet was occafioned, by the Jeg‘fla- 
ture having recently retufed the applica- 
- 
* «Tf the Scriptures be the rule of my 
faith, in decd, and not in words only ; how 
can it be fo, if I be not to judge fer myfelf, 
what isin it, and what is not? For, if the 
determinations of others are to bind me up, 
‘or tie me down, to fuch a particular interpre- 
tation 5 then it is not the Scripture which js 
the rule of my faith; but thofe determinations 
ef cthers.” 
_ Memoir of the late Dr. ‘Fofeph Towers. 
[Dec.t, 
tion of a very refpectable number of cler-. 
gymen, who affociated at the Feather’s- 
tavern in Cheapfide, for the purpofe of 
preparing and prefenting a petition, pray- 
ing for the relief which the tile exprefles ; 
it is a fenfible and. temperate produétion, 
the dialogue-ftyle is fupported with much 
ftrength and animation, and the arguments 
againit the requirement of {ubf{cription to 
articles of faith from the clergy of the 
eflablifhment, are placed in a perfpicuous. 
and firiking point of view; fo as .to 
render the fubject perfectly intell gible 
to readers of ordinary capacities. Our 
author dees not in this performance fiand 
forward as a Diffenter, or notice the then 
requirement of fub{cription to nearly the, 
whele of thofe articles, by Diffenting 
minifters and {chooimatters, in order to 
their beg entitled. to the benefit of-the 
Toleration Act : but it may not be impro- 
per to oblerve, that, although they had 
alfo prior to this time failed in a fimilar 
application to parliament, yet from what 
pafied in the debate in the Houle of Com- 
mons on the petition of thefe aflociated 
clergymen and the argumenis urged a-. 
gaint the relief prayed for, being granted . 
to them; the Duiflenting miniflers faw_ 
reafon, {von after, torenew their appulca- 
tion to the legiflature, when to a certain 
degree their petition was attended with 
foccefs ; the general acknowledgement of 
a belief in the truth and divine authority 
of the Scriptures, being fubfituted infead 
of the fubicription before required ; hence 
it may be reafonably inferred, that this 
production of our author’s pen was not 
written altogether in vain. ; 
Tn the year 1773, appeared another 
pamphlet trom the pen of Mr. Towers, 
entitied ‘* An Examinatiom into the Na- 
ture and Evidence of the Charges brought 
againft Lord William Ruffel and Alger- 
nen Sydney by Sir John Dalrymp'e, 
bart. in his Memoirs of Great Brita.” 
It contains fome ju and acute obferva- 
tions, calculated to weaken, if not de- 
Rroy the credibility, of the charges, by 
pointing out the infufficiency of the evi- 
dence on which they are founded. The 
chareéters. and conduét of the two noble 
perfons, againf whom the accufations are 
br. ught forward, were not’enly vegetaellt 
as uvexceptionable, but as highly exem- 
piary, by all the friendsof the Revolution ; | 
they could not therefore but be furprifed, 
and ieel hurt, at this attack on their poft-_ 
humous fame; «and whoever reads thefe 
Memoirs of Sir John Dalrymple, with a. 
view of obtaining information,  fhould. 
not make up his mind on this fubjeé,- 
witiowt 
