>^" ■^^- yjT^^j ^.:i^^:vfl^^w^, ^ ^^ V. Z- I U oaatJ (fieTeticJ I}. Uf^&itc/u on ^uU^'^/ie^&}c^ eyT-7^07ty Publi/lied by the fame author. !• j/\ SCALE of firft principles, re- Xjw ligious and moral, proper for the fentiment and life of man. fecond edit, price 6d. II. A Survey of the fearch after Souls. with an ElTay to afcertain the condition of the chriftian, during the mediatorial King- dom of Jefus, &c. price 4s. IIL A defence of the confcious fcheme, againft that of the mortalift. wherein an immediate refurredion of the juft, is (hewn to be confident with a general refurredion and judgment of all the dead, price is. TJoe Claims of the Church of England ferioiifly examined : I N A LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF AN ANSV/ER T O Dr MATHEW^B OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHARTER, and CONDUCT OF THE Society for Propagating the Gofpel in Foreign Parts. By a Protestant Dissenter of Old England, J -. \.-. ' f^o,- LONDON: Printed for W. Nicholl in St Paurs Church-yard. 1764. [ Price Sixpence. ] Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/claimsofchurchofOOflem i^^^ ^:^ jd)^ K7i ^\^ ^:^ j«fk ra F^i >k.jt)( ^:^ '^}^ !^:^ '^^^^^S^€ ^^ "^A The C L A I M S of the CHURCH O F E N G L A N D, SERIOUSLY EXAMINED, &c. .^.^^^1^ OUR anfwer to Dr Mayhews Obfer- % Y ^ vatiom difcovers you to have a very /ij Jl able pen j and would incline the ^,^^,^ reader to conclude you a perfon of no common influence or intelligence. Whatever you may be, is a confideration that has nothing at all to do v^ith the juftnefs or conclufivenefs of the argument : yet, fnice you are pleafed to be anonymous, your readers have thereby the more unbiafled attention. A 2 As 4 TZ'^ Claims of the Church of England As a Protejlant Difjenter^ though an inhabi- tant of Old Efighmdy I think myfelf deeply in- terefled in the l"ubje6l- matter of your Anfwer ; and fliall, accordingly, take the liberty of this epiftolary addrefs. It appears, to me, that your principal defign is to fupport the Englip:> ecclefia/lical lyjiem, as the mod perfect ftandard of a religious chriflian profeffion. If you are right, I am egregioufly wrong. You will there- fore allow it to be in character for me, to invef- * tigate the merits of your plea, and to examine into thofe claims of reverence which you will have to be due to a civil church>eflablifliment. You affe61: to ufe the flile of, otir church ; and to lay an emphafis on the church of England, But w^hen the terms are once fairly underllood, what do they, what can they mean more '* than ** the peculiarities of a public profeihon, to *' which the civil power has annexed certain " fecular motives, or temporal privileges and ** emoluments?" — And as to \!\\^ forms of pro- feffion, whence were they taken ? and who did determine their expediency ? — were they derived from the New Tejtamcfit writings ? or did apof- tolical, or divinely infpired men determine the expediency and ufefulnefs of thofe forms ? or, by what authority are thofe forms rendered more facred than other different forms of wor- fhip, in which Societies are agreed, as, in their opinion, more conformable to the Gofpel ftandard ? If numbers be an argument of their fuperior ferioujly examined^ Stc, ^ fuperlor importance, will not Popery have much the advantage of the EngliJJj church-eftabHfh- ment ? and if the countenance of civil power, and the advantage of temporal motives s then, perhaps, the papal fyftem will again as clearly claim the preference. But you fay, Our church has ever been highly honoured by foreign protejlants, The Lutherans prefer it to the Calvinift communion, the Calviniil to the Lutheran, the Greeks to both ; which may fuficiently juflijy the exprefjion, underjiood in a lati- tude not uncomynon^ that all other perjuafiom ejieetn it next to their own. Admit this to be the cafe, the fuperiority or greater perfeclion of your church is not acknowledged by either the Lu- thcran, th.^ Calvinift^ or the Gr^'t'^ church j fince they each do profeiTedly give a preference to their own. However, it uihers in and fup- ports a heavy univerfal charge : Andfirther^ 7noft, if not all of them, blame the Englijh-difjhitcrs for feparating from it. Here you point your weapon, and would cut deep into the heart of the cidprit. But, Sir, are not thefe foreign proteftants very impertinent, to pretend to fit in judgment upon us who diflbnt from your church ? would they not feverely cenfure us, fhould we blame them for dilfenting from the Romilh Church ? or, for not conforming them- felves to your Church fyiiem, in their credenda and ritual. Or, why do they prefume to think differently from one another r —They, Sir^ are not 45 ^oe Claims of the Church of England not to be fuppofed capable or competent judges of our proteftant-diiFent. And they manifeflly lie under flrong prejudices, from the public aid which has been given to foreign proteftants by the £?7g-///'7j Government ; which has occafioned fuch a railed idea of the E?iglifh church-efta- blifliment. For though the proteftant diflen- ters do contribute their fliare to the civil power, in all its exertions, they have not the lead con- fideration given them, on account of fuch fa- vourable acts of national fuccour. But I add, did foreign proteflants underftand the true prin- ciples of proteftantifm, they would never have once thought of blaming us diffenters, for our not fubmitting, in religious charader, to a public confcience. — The argument, you fee. Sir, fairly turns its edge another way than what you defigned, when you introduced ** moft, if not all of the foreign proteftants, " blaming our feparation from your eflabliflied " churchy" They might eafily have concluded, v^e could have no temporal inducement, nor any civil convenience, as the reafon of our fepa- ration. You go on faying, — That Dr May hew feems to entertain the worje cpinio?i of it, becaufethe mem- bers of the Church o/'Rome likewife ejlccm it mo7'e than they do others. But we have to reply, that they hate it more alfo, as the mojl dangerous enemy to their caufe, and Jlrongejl bulwark of the refor- mation.'-^Thb indeed, 1 muft take the liberty of ferloujly examined ^ &c. j of faying, prefumes to confront a thoufand obfeivations, and ten thoufand teiiimonies. — Surely, 5/r, it is no better than mere declama- tion ; it has not any thing in the truth of fa(5ls to fupport upon. One might appeal to the papiiis themfelves, if they had virtue enough to own in lobat way they make the numerous perverfions of EngliJJj proteftants to the popifh luperftition. Among the ten thoufands praRifed upon, I myfelf have been witnefs to the argu- ment made ufe of by the feducing prieft. He pleads the Credenda of the eitab'iiihed Englijh Church, in order to reconcile to the abfurdity of tranfubftantiation j and will have it, that the one is every whit as contradictory to our reafon and fenfes, as the other : nor does he think it at all difficult for anv to admit the creed of Pope Fim, who can fwallow \hzAtha- najian and Nicene creeds ; or devoutly ufe the Litany in the public fervice. And in the article of Church auttonty^ he apprehends the advan- tage lies with him ; fmce his vifible judge of controverfies openly claims infallibility, in ab- folvingand condemning Whereas theChurch of England only fpeaks of thefe powers with fome ambiguity of expreffion.— And as to the Church hierarchy, he pleads the greater propriety in his fovereign pontiff's being head of the church, than in a church's having a civil head. This he rallies with fpirit > and efpecially, when a woman is declared to be head of the church. At the fame time, he is capable of improving this 8 The Claims of the Church of England this conftitution of the Englifd church to the purpofe of reconciling his convert to the idea of giving fupreme honours to the Virgin Mo- ther. You, Sir, have mentioned an hierarchy, of which, verily, I had no conception till I found it in ^o\xx An\wer% where you thus exprefs your- felf : — That there are different ranks of jnen in civil governmeiit^ was never held to be an objeBion ugainji it : and where is the harm of it ifi ecclefi- aflical ? In the Prefiytcrian hierarchy, one is raifed confiderably above another , thrjiigh the preference tifually may be temporary : and their a£ls of power have been as enormous as thofe of the Englif:) BifJjops formerly y and are much greater than thofe of the Ejiglifi Bifhcps now. — So very ignorant am I, as to confefs, that this Prcfiyteiian hierarchy ne- ver before reached either my e-es or my ears. — • I'he confufions of the i?iterregnum may not furely be called, a P refhyterian hierarchy — and what enormous a6fs of power Preibyterians fince have been or can be guilty of, equal to thofe of RngUjh Bifhops more ancient or mo- dern, I am not able to fay any thing concern- ing them, except by it Ihould be meant, the Scotch civil church eftahUfment. — This however I aflu redly know, that thofe people, called Pref- hyterians in England^ have nothing like any ac- knowledged hicparchy. The people choofe their own minifters ; and the minifters with their people choofe who fhall ordain, or feparate them, ferioujly exnmhied^ &zc, 9 them, by prayer and exhortation, to the office of pa/krs and teachers , i.e. in the modern fenfe with us of thole terms. — On all occafions, that I have known, they difclaim any power or dominion over the faith of one another. And notwithftanding they have had a cullom of making a profcihon o. their faith, they do not engage to hold the opinions they have, any longer than they can fee their evidence. If I am not greatly miftaken, this is the true dating of what is called, Frefo-:tcrianifm in England. What the meaning can be " of one being raifed con- *' (iderably above another, in the prefbyterian *' hierarchy," I underftand not. 'That there are different ranks of men in chil go- vernme?jt, (you fay) ivas never held to be an ob- jetlion to it : and where is the harm of it in Eccle- fiajlical? ,~~.\nd\Ji\gQ me in anfwering, poiTibly none at all: i.e. \ihy Ecclefiajiical, you do not mean any thing relative to the Kingdom of Chrifl, or to his church. — But if you do, either there is an apparent and notorious harm, /". e, a very manifeft repugnancy to his exprefs pro- hibition ; elfe, to me, the Gofpel teachings are not intelligible. Need I give you information ? I am firmly perfuaded you muft know what Jefus Chrift has faid. Matt. v. 3 xviii. 1,2, 3. —XX. 25, 26, 27 xxih. 8 — 12. Luke xii. 14. 'John xvii. 16. — xviii. 36. B If lo Tloe Claims of the Church of England If thefe teachings of Jefus are intelligible, there is harm in fuppofing an hierarchy in his church, for, it is impoflible there fhould be onci i.e. if he has given a fair and jufl account of its nature, fpirit, and conftitution. But if, by an ecclefiaflical hierarchy, you would be underftood to mean, fomethiiig of a crcil com- plexion, far ami from being inclined to debate with you, either the wrong or the right of fuch an inftitution. At the fame time, if I under- hand the Gofpel canon, all, and every thing that looks like an hierarchy is excluded the church of Chrift. Whether therefore, there be found any fuch refembiance of civil govern- ment, in a difference of rank, and claims of title and pov/er, either in the church q{ England^ or in that oi Scotland, or of any other proteftant church, fo far all fuch churches muft be faid to differ from the church of Chriil. You likewife ipeak much of church-authority y and fay, All church-authority was formerly too heavy ; but furely the Epifcopal now is as moderate as any : and it is propofed to be reduced yet lower in America ; and dif- fe?iters will be no way fnbjcB to it. — Perhaps, «S/r, one may fafely allow that you have evidence with you, in what you here fay of church- authority. And more than this, upon the fup- pofition of your having influence in the fcheme of appointing an American Bifliop, we protef- tant- diiTenters cannot but be pleafed with that farther ferioiijiy exafmned^ &c. ii farther reform intended in thofe eplfcopal ap- pointments. May v/e not hope for a reduction of epifcopal power nearer home ? — I am led farther to take notice of fomcthing lefs agree- able, which relates to your ecclefiallical hierar- chy. Havinof mentioned Dr Ma^hcw^ favourite comparifon of your church to the Romifi ; you declare, the Doctor quite miflakes the matter. — For verily, 7iGt one, but two prelates, prefide over the church of England -J and Jour over her fifter church of Ireland : ivhich grievoufly fpoils the fmilitude. And all thcfe prefide in fuhordinatlon to the King. The Romifli priefl takes great advantage from, the fimilitude which your Hierarchy has to his own. But about this, Dr May hew thinks the Church o^ England has too little concern ; fince fhe feems to be more folicitous about epifcopizing the American colonies, than flie is in guarding againft the depredations of Popery at home.— . To invalidate fuch obfervations, you, Sir, are pleafed to boaft of the lenity and tolerant fpirit of the Englijh Church. Which you do in terms that mult Ihock the minds of all proteftants, who are perfuaded of the horrid fyftem and fpirit of popery ; and cannot but greatly alarm the proteftant diflenter. Your words are thefe. We confefs indeed, that we cannot perceive why the prejhyterians and congregationalijls in New England, might 7iot asfafely breathe the jame air with a Bifoop^ as their brethren in Qld England do^ However ^ we B 2 are 12 The Claims of the Church of England are unwilimg to di [quiet any of them, by importing andfetilmg among them a creature^ 'uohich it perns they^ fome of them., account to be obnoxious. Only we hope, that his occajlonally travelling through the country cannot infeB it "cery danger ou fly. Moravia?! BiJJjops arc authorized by law to live, and a5f as fuch, ivhere they will in our plantations. PopiJJj Bifops refde here, and go about to exercife every fart of their funSl ion ^ without offence and without ohfervation. Diffenting Minifters refde here, and hold their meetings for ordi?2atiom, and whatever purpofes they think ft, and thefe affemblies give us no umbrage.' — Give me leave to remonltrate a little on this tremendous account of your lecurity ; and alfo on the unkind, ungenerous treatment you give the proteftant diilenters — How is it that fo much countenance can be given to the popifli fuperftition, by a church which calls herlelf, proteftant'^ Is not popery an avowed, mercilefs, mortal enemy to all proteftants ? you tell us, that you are friendly to a toleration of the vioft intolerant., fo far as you can do it with fafety. But how is it pofTible you fhould be fafe, in hugghig the viper in your bofom, that is prey- ing daily upon your vitals ; and cannot be fa- tisfied with any thmg lefs than the extirpation of herefy ? has popery changed either its prin- ciples, or fpirit ? have the many laws againft popifh recufants, rriade by our Legillature, no reafon at all on which they fupport ? and why have the moft celebrated pens of your own clej'gy, fo much dilated upon the deformity and ferioujly examined^ &c. 13 and malignity of popery ; if you can look upon that fuperftition with {o much eafe and quiet, and allow her Bifhops to exercife every part of their fundion, without offence and without obfervation ? — Thefe, Sir, are very unaccount- able things, in our conceptions. Altogether myfterious. And why muft Dijfc?7ting MtJiifters be put into the fame category or predicament with Morcroian and PopiJJj BiJJjops ? 1 take leave to remind you, that your church or clergy have known the time, when they have been glad of the concurrence and united affiftance of pro- tefcant diflenters againft the efforts of popery. And however you may affe6l to throw 2i J}?ade on the civil war and interregiium^ and emblazon on the power abufed by Se^faries, in the time of Cromwel j there was no linall probability of popery recovering her tyranny, had not Charlesl. been cut Ihort of his intentions. His favourite, Land^ was very little removed from popery, in his church-fyffem ; and the King himfelf ex- tremely well affe6fed to popery. — Moreover, whether you will own it or not, thtfafefy of the Church ol England^ is, to this day, owing greatly to a proteftant-diffent. And fo thought the late Dr Arroizfmith^ one of your own Divines, of excellent character, when he publickly faid, at the rebellion of 1745, '* that he looked upon *' xht proteflant-diJfentersmEngland, as the great *' kittrefs of the proteftant caufe." — So far as the Church oi England retains the principles and fpirit of proteftantifm, we are and ever were 14 *r/6^ Claims of the Church of England . were her moft cordial friends, and fliall be al- ways willing to defend her againfl popery. But if flie can once think of carefling popi/h Bifhops, and allow them to exercife every part of their fundion againfl ftatute-law, without offence and without obfervation — You may not won- der, if we fill with the darkeft apprehenfions for you, for ourfelves, and for pollerity ! — . Nor fnould you think it unreafonable, that a complaint is made of your being more folicitous to guard againil prefoyteriaiiifn than againfl popery : fmce we are fully perfuaded, that pagamfm itfelf is much preferable to popery. Which latter is a fyflem of profeQion, that pro- claims open war with all mankind; and claims a fpiritual tyranny over the fouls of men. How notorious are her infults on the reafon, under- ilanding, and fenfes of mankind ! how cruel her maffacres ! how diabolical her inquifitions 1 and how impudent her execrations of all the proteftant world ! What reafon have we then to put up this prayer for you ? " from blindnefs of mind and ** from hardnefs of heart, good Lord deliver " him." After all, I could heartily wlfli that Dodor Mayhew had had lefs reafon for the comparifon he has made. Yet, to ihew you he is not fin- gular, pleafe to take the following pafTage from Voltaire y who tells us, ^[ that the French pro- ** phets ferioujly examined^ &c.' 15 '^ phets went to England^ but finding that the " Epifcopal church there had too much re- " lemblance with that of Rome^ they lirove to *' fet up their own*." It feems however, at all events, the hierarchy of the Englijh Church muft have a defence— For, you fay, if Bi/J:ops are ftiled Lords, it is brcaufe by the ancient conjiitiition of our country, they fit in the upper houfe of Parliament ; ivhcj-e, I believe^ they are thought as ufeful members as the rejl This v/ell accounts for the origin and fource of epifcopal dignity. So Rapin fays. Very probably, from the beginning of the monarchy, till about the end of the reign of Henry III. the Parham.ents confifted only of Lords^ who were in pofleffion of all the lands in the kingdom, for which they did homage to the King. And indeed it appears, the Lords, before that time, granted the King the money neceffary for the fupport of the Government, without any m.ention of the Commons. It may therefore be faid, that the Lords fat in parliament by a double title, vix. for themfelves, and as reprefentatives of the nation. But after the Commons v/ere introduced into parliament, and had a fepa- rate houfe, the Lords loft the latter of thefe titles, and fat only for themfelves, the reft of the people having other reprefentatives. The Bijhops and Abbots who belonged to the body *' of * Works, Vol, IX. p. 80. izmo. Er.gl. edit. 1 6 TJoe Clams of the Church of England " of the Lords, had probably their feat too by ** a double title, as polTefFors of Baronies, and *' as reprefentatives of the Clergy, fecular and " regular*." Thus the ancient conftitution of our coun- try, whether pagan or papal, gave the Bifhops a feat in the upper houfe of parliament j where, doubtlefs, both Kings and their firft miniffcers of State have found them as ufeful and conve- nient members as any of the reft : and we have no reafon to que/lion but they will continue to be fo. But, to remove from Dr Mayhew all anxiety for the liberties of his dear country, you. Sir, are kind enough to aflure him, that though a Bifiop JJ:ould be placed in America, no one either is, or ever was iiitefided or defiredfor New England. // /i only defred he may refort thither from time to iifne^ to officiate among thofe of our own communion. His conjiant abode wiii be in whatever province is williitg to receive him^ with his Majejiys approba-^ tion : who will ce?'tainly, J or reajons of every kifid, fndfuch perfons in this charaBer, as are leaf likely to caufe uneafnefs More than this. He is not to bold Courts to try tnatrimonial or tejlamejitary caufes^ or be invefed with any authority 7iow exercifed either by provincial governors or fubordinate magifrates^ or injringe or diminifi any privileges or liberties enjoyed by any of the Laity y even of our own communion. The ♦ Uijl. of England, Vol. If. p. 360. lUEng.eJU. folio. fcrioujiy exam'meJy &c. ly The gracious meaning of which is, " only ** let a Bifliop be once admitted, without any *' oppofition, allow him but a peaceful entry " into l\\Q American colonies, and leave the reil *' with us, we will be fatisfied with the confe- " quences." — Perfons, capitally concerned in this fcheme, are too well acquainted with the ' fuperjlitious ply or bent of mankind, to be doubt- ful, as to any depending events. But, 5/r, may I afk, Is the American Bifliop to touch or afFe6l no man's property ? is he to make no al- teration in the civil condition of any of the people? on what then muft he maintain his epifcopal port and dignity ? — on Ajnerican air only ? — Surely there muft be fome provilion made, fuitable to his high appointment. — Here it may not be improper to put the queflion, concerning the end of his appointments — cut bom ? of what advantage ? — You anfwer, to ordain and confirm. — Thefe are the capital things mentioned by you, as making needful the exe- cution of fuch a fcheme for the American colo- nies. As to Ordination — It is owned, that Epifco- palians do lay much ftrefs upon it. But may I not fay, it is, at leaft, a moot point : and v/hat none of you have been able to clear from much objeftion ? you are not able to produce any thing like a lineal uninterrupted fucceffion from the Apoftles, And you know. Sir, we C are \ i8 The Claims of the Church ofEngland are able to prove, from undoubted hiftorical teftimony, that in fo late a time as the reign of Q^Elizabeth, fome prelates had no fuch thing as epifcopal ordination, unlefs it was from popifh Bifliops. — And we alfo obje6l to the form in which you ordain, as having in it neither truth, fpirit, nor enei'gy. You fay, when you ordain, 7'eceroe thou the holy Ghoji ; — but are not able to prove that you convey one fingle mental or fpi- ritual ability — And though you add, ivhatfoever fim ye remits they are r£7mtted'y and whatfoever Jim ye retam^ they are retained: — yet, it does not appear, that you have, or ever had ability of conveying fuch power to any one clergyman whom you thus ordain. — And we prefume to fay, that any Layman whatfoever, has as much real ability to abfolve or cenfure efficacioufly even the Bifliops themfelves, in whofe diocele he happens to have his refidence. If you, 6'z>, can confute this aflertion, you will have the fatisfa^lion of your humble fervant earneftly fohciting fuch epifcopal bkfling. In the article of Confirmation, the other capi- tal advantage propofed to his yi^t'^'s'^ American fubjeifts; you will allow me to aflc, 'vchat it meaneth? or, how we are to underiland any real benefit can pofTibly accrue from your epif- copal hands?— 1 will take the liberty of placing before you, each of the feveral texts in the Neiv Teftament where the Greek word, eT/s-«pf^«, is rendered, confirm^ and applied to the miniftra- tions ferloiijly examined^ &c." 19 tions of Apoflles or apoftolical men, who had the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. The firft is in A^s xv. 32. " And ^itdas and Silas^ being " prophets themfelves, exhorted the brethren, " and confirmed." — Which could mean no more than their giving them full alfurance, that the chriftian doctrine did fet them entirely free from all Jewifh ritual and ceremony. For this was the principal defign of their being fent to Antioch^ by the apoftolic council held at Je- riifakm, as St Luke informs us. In chap. xiv. 22. Paul and Barnabas are faid ** to confirm the fouls of the Difciples j ex- " horting them to continue in the faith, and " that we muft through much tribulation en- " ter into the kingdom of God." The occafion of this was, " certain Jews from Antioch and " Iconium had perfuaded the people" — to what ? why to fubmit to ciraimcifion. Compare chap. XV. I. which they did, in order to cover them from perfecution ; as St Faul has informed us. Gal. vi. 12. — The confi'nning here, muft be un- derftood, of the having their minds eftablifhed in the fimpUchy of the Gofpel profefiion. And in this fenfe we muft interpret Faul and Silass confirming the churches throughout Syria and Cilicia^ chap. xv. 4 1 . They, by their continued teachings of the fame pure and uncorrupt doc- trines of the Gofpel, and by miracle, did efta- blifh and confirm the churches in the faith ; ^nd as they delivered them the apoftolical de- C 2 crees 20 Tbe Claims' of the Church of England crees for to keep, which fet them free from all ceremonious ritual. See chap. xvi. 4, 5. Once more: The word t-Tn^^'t^a^ is rendered ftrengtheny chap, xviii. 23. and has, as in the other places, the idea of encouraging the Chrif- tians to perfevere in their profefiion, under all the difcouragements and terrors of perfecution. I would now afk, and I hope I am not im- pertinent, what fort of fimihtude has confirnia- tion, in the church fenfe and practice, with the apofloiicai confirmations ? — I add, we are in- formed, by ecclefiaftical hiftory, that confirma* ticfi was anciently given immediately after bap- tifm, as well to infants as to adult perfons. Surely here was no fmiilitude with the apofloiicai confirmation. Moreover, there was the con- fecration of the chrijni, which was always the Bifliop's a6l ; then there was the undtion itfelf, with confignation, or the fign of the crofs on the forehead, or other parts of the body j then impofition of hands *. In all ordinary cafes, the Biiliop was the only Handing and regular niinifter of this part of confirmation, which confided in impofition of hands and prayer, to invocate \ki^ gift of the bolyGhoJi. — But in fome jpecial and extraordinary caies, a Prefbyter might a6l by fpecial commifiion from his Biiliop. Nay, even Deacons, as it was in the cafe of Energimie7iSy • So "Fingham informs us in his Church Antiquities, Book XII. C. z. -^ctSl. I. ferioujly examine d^ &c. 21 Energume?iSy or perfons poflefled with evil fpirits after baptiHn *. — The /w^^/o;? was conceived of, as the feal of the gift of the holy Spirit -f." As to impofition of hands^ this is faid to be apoftolical. And no doubt they did lay ou hands, and they did it with efficacy too, as they were enabled to confer fpiritiial gifts. Of which we have an account, in Ads viii. and xix. chapters. — So they did not only connrm the faith of the chriftians, by thefe expreffions of divine power, but alfo by raifing the dead j •on whom they laid on hands for that purpofe ; and alfo by removing maladies from the fick and the miferable. But do any chriflian Bifliops difcover divine abilities, either of conveying any fpiritual gift, or of performing any miraculous cure ? if they do not, how does it appear, that they are capable of any thing like an apoflolical cidi of confirming the people ? Poflibly, you may fmile at my reafoning, and be inclined to conclude, that I have not viewed confirmation through any epifcopal tele- fcope, or rather magnifying optic glafs. —This I have not done ; but if I may not be trouble- fome, would put another queftion, — Is there any precept or example for fuch condu6l in all the New 'Tefiament f — You fay indeed, that Epif-- copacjy (by which I underfland you to mean, dioccfan epifi:opacy) is as provable from fir ipiiire^ as either infant- baptipn^ or the obfiervation of the Lord's- * See Seft. 3, 4, 5. f Chap. 3. Sect, 3. 22 The Claims of the Church of England Lord's-day, This, Sir^ is to afiert roundly, but has nothing in it that is convincing ; iinlefs you expect, that an implicit confidence fliould hang on your mere afTertion. — But fmce I am fo un- happy as not to be able to pay you that homage, you will not be offended at my faying, that if infant-baptifm and the obfervation of the Lord's-day, are not more clearly provable from the New Teftament writings, they have very little in thofe writings that will countenance their obfervance. But then here you will again fay, that if there be fome appointments in your churchy which the fcripture does not require y fo have there been in other churches j iiay^ in all the churches cf the world. — I cannot here much differ from you 5 for churches of the worlds I prefume muft be worldly churches; and all fuch churches have much in them that is no way agreeable to the fcriptures.— -Or, fhould you choofe to be underftood, cf all the churches in the worlds it will be no fort of defence of what is wrong, or unfcriptural. Every chriftian-church is obliged to conform to the New Teftament Scriptures in all and every of its appointments, and fo far as it does not, it is no chriftian-church, but a church cfthe world. You add. Our church has not many things of this kindy nor lays great flrefs upon them : a?id to think i?7dijferc?it things unlawful^ is at unreajonahle and Juperfitious, as to think them necefj'ary.'-'^ What, Sir, you may call or imagine many things f I know notj but this I know, the thini^s fcrioufiy examined^ Sec* 23 things that you lay ftrefs upon, have long been too many for vaft numbers of confcientious men to comply withal. — Were there not nearly t-ii'o thotifcmd minilfers, who refigned their Liv- ings at the aB of uniformity, foon after the Re- ftoration ?— And have you diminiHied much of the number of fuch things, or of the ftrefs laid upon them, in your more moderate times ? — Is there not fomething Jefuitical in faying, — That to think indifercnt things unlawful, is as un- reafonahk and as fuperjlitioiis, as to think them ne- cejfary F — You well know, Sir, that thofe very things which you call, indifferent, are what al- together lofe their indifference by your making them necefTary. This is what juftifies our thinking them unlawful 3 the unreafonable- nefs and fuperftition belongs to you alone, v/ho make them necelfary. - — And I am con- fl rained to fay, this diftinction you have art- fully hid from your Readers, in order to fix an cdiu?n upon a confcientious and religious Pro- teftant-difient e. g. What flrefs do you lay upon Confirmation ? and yet, we prefume, you have no New Teftament authority for diocefan epifcopacy. And Confirmation by the hands of a Bifhop, has with us Proteftant-dilfenters, no better appearance than a popiih facrament; and can have no better tendency than to create a fuperflitious reverence of the Bifhop, and give the confirmed a falfe and dangerous foundation of his foul's dependence. Whether thoufands and ten thoufands are not greatly mifled and deluded by this epifcopal a(ftion, is what may be 26 TZv Claims of the Church of England derftand how they can think ill of one another, vviLhout v'ifhing ill.— The refinement does not lie level with common capacities : and a man ought to be well acquainted v/ith nice, fcolafiic dillindions, in order to form his conduct upon any fatisfa6lory fenfe of thefe propofitions. A farty-fpirit that thinks ill of another, will be extremely apt to wilh ill. And, with .me, a party -jYirit and 2i chriftian-jpirit 2XQ difparates; they, by no means are reconcilable Whether the warm advocates of epifcopacy or indepen- dency may not highly approve the diflindion you have made, I cannot tell j but all who do avow the diftindtion, fliould rather feem to be of a party, than of a chriftian-ipirit. You farther fay,— y^?/^ in bodies ofinen^ whofe opinions differ^ there mufi be mutual condefcenjionSy mid ti?ne allowed for onefde to come over into the fentiments of the other, el fe -they cannot proceed to- gether. However plaufible, I am unhappy in again difagreeing with you. ChriHianity not only fuppofes, but allows of difference of opi- nion J nay, it aflerts the unavoidable necefTity, For, lays an Apofde, it 7?iuji needs be that there be herefes among you, that they which are approved may be made manfef. Befides, the divine canon is as intelligible to one man, as it is to another. And every individual man muft form a judg- ment for himfelf, and only for himfelf. Nor are there to be found any bodies of men who think at all, but what have among themfelves different ideas and conceptions. But no two bodies ferioujly examined^ &c. 25 You will yet plead the il:rong defire in any party or denomination to make profelytes — for thefe are vour words, fpesking of the New £77^/^/7^ epifcopalian people, — Undoubtedly ^ they would be very gltid, if all the inhabitants loere of the communion of the Church of England 3 as un- doubtedly th" Do^lor woiddj if they ijuere all of his commmion. — However conclufive this may be thought to be, or an argumentum ad kominem^ it does '^ot appear to be jufl, or of weight, when carefully examined. Our bufinefs, as Chriftians, moil certainly is, to keep at the utmoft diftance from ail party zeal i and not fuffer that hurtful unreafonable pallijn to govern us. Our foh- , citudes are not to be, the making men of the fame perfuafion or mode of profeffion with ourfelves ; but to lead them to an honeft and unbiafTed ufe of their own powers i to per- fuade them to make the befi: judgment they poffibly can for themfelves of the divine canon; and not to fuffer any fmiffer aim or worldly motive to v/arp their attentions. Flere then, Sir^. you. perceive that I think you capitally v/rong in another of your firft principles. Unlefs you allow of the juftnefs of this ob- servation, you will deftroy the fpirit of all ge- nuine religion. For though you are pleafed to fay, — That per fo?is of different parties in religion may think too td of each other ^ ^without wifoing ill to each other at all : and fo may mean very well, though they judge greatly ami fsr — ^Yet, there are few, if any can fathom your meaning, or un- D dertland 26 The Claims of the Church of England derfland how they can think ill of one another, without wifhing ill— The refinement does not lie level with common capacities: and a man ought to be well acquainted with nice, fcolajlic diflinftions, in order to form his conduct upon any fatisfa<5lory i'^n^Q of thefe proportions. A party-fpirit that thinks ill of another, will be extremely apt to wifh ill. And, with me, a party fpirif and 2i chriftian-jpirit 2St difparates; they, by no means are reconcilable — Whether the warm advocates of epifcopacy or indepen- dency may not highly approve the diftinAion you have made, 1 cannot tell ; but all who do avow the diftindion, fhould rather feem to be of a party, than of a chriftian-fpirit. You farther fay,— ^W in bodies of men y whofe opinions differ, there muji be mutual condejcenfions^ and time allowed for one fide to come over into the fentiments of the other , elje they cannot proceed to- gether. However plaufible, I am unhappy in again difagreeing with you. Chriftianity not only fuppofes, but allows of difference of opi- nion J nay, it afferts the unavoidable neceffity. For, fays an Apoftle, it muft needs be that there he herefes among you, that they which are approved may be made ma?iifejl. Befides, the divine canon is as intelligible to one man, as it is to another. And every individual man muft form a judg- ment for himfelf, and only for himfelf. Nor are there to be found any bodies of men who think at all, but what have among themfelves different ideas and conceptions. But no twp bodies ferioujly examined^ &c. 27 bodies of chriflian men, who as fuch differ in their religious profeffions, have any right to ex- pedl that the one body fliould come over into the fentiments of the other body ; for if they had, then this right of expeftation would be reciprocal -, the mutual condefcenfions are there- fore filly and ftupid, if formed upon this ex- pectancy. — And I prefume to affirm, there is an infinitely better ground and reafon of mutual condefcenfion ; and that is, the ^^W right which thofe two bodies of chriflian men have of form- ing their judgments, and directing their own religious pra6lice, upon that diftmcft interpre- tation made by them of the divine canon. I may not omit to notice your being an advo- cate for toleration. And here, />S/>, you exprefsly afcribe the merit of the act of toleration to the members of the eftablifhed church i and claim Mr Locke as a member of that church If I have been well informed by an intimate of Mr Locke s^ fo far from being a conformift to the church o^ England, he, whilil at \^2.^^ MarJ}:am% ufed to prefer the hearing of a lay- preacher among the diffenters, becaufe there was no other non- conforming church conveniently near for him. But however, this I will not farther debate with you ; any more than by faying, " I believe he was not a member of the Church of England!' As to the AB of toleration being afcribed to the members of the Church of England, there does not feem to have been a whit more merit in 28 TJje Clai?m of the Church of England^ &c. in it, than there is in a fmner's renouncing fome of Ills fins. — The members of the Church oiF.ngland firft laid ^^vti't pe7ial-laws on the pro- teftant difienters, and afterwards repealed iome of them. Why they are not become thorough penitents j not I, but they are to anfwer. As aconclufion of this Letter, I would hum- bly propofe a iew queftions, and I beg the fo- lution of them J ijiz. Whether it can be fhcwn that the Church of England has any claim to infallibility ? and what right fhe has to give law to confcience, by making her articles of faith, and her forms of worfliip, the flandard of an univerfal E7iglifi conformity ? whether, if fhe has no fuch claim, a difTent from her fyftem of opinion and ritual can be deemed, in the eye of reafon and truth, either heretical or fchifmati- cal ? and whether a confcientious difient, upon the principle of a right of private judgment con- cerning the fenfe and meaning of the divine New Teftament canon, be not as properly a farther reform from popery, as her original feparation was a reform from that corrupt fyftem ? If any thing in this Letter fliould difcover a temper or fpirit that deferves reproof, fix no blame on any oneProteftant-diiTenter, except the Author of this Addrefs 5 for truly, aS;>, not any of the contents have ever been communicated to any perfon whatever, but to the Printer, By, SIR, Tour ?noJi lumhle Servant, ferioujly examined^' &c.' 27 bodies of chriflian men, who as fuch differ in their rehglous profeffions, have any right to ex- pect that the one body fliould come over into the fentiments of the other body j for if they had, then this right of expeftation would be reciprocal j the mutual condefcenfions are there- fore filly and ftupid, if formed upon this ex- pe6lancy.' — And I prefume to afhrm, there is an infinitely better ground and reafon of mutual condefcenfionj and that is, the t^^z/j/ right which thole two bodies of chriftian men have of form- ing their judgments, and directing their own religious pra6lice, upon that dillind: interpre- tation made by them of the divine canon. I may not omit to notice your being an advo- cate for toleration. And here, /6Vr, you exprefsly afcribe the merit of the a61: of toleration to the members of the eftabliflied church j aijd claim Mr Locke as a member of that church.— If I have been well informed by an intimate of Mr Locke Si fo far from being a conformift to the church oiE?igla?id, he, whiifl at Lady MarJJjmiiSy uied to prefer the hearing of a lay-preacher among the dilTenters, becaufe there was no other non-conforming church conveniently near for him. But hov>'ever, this I will not fardier debate with you 5 any more than by laying, " I believe he was not a member of the Church of £/:'^/^W." As to the AB of toleration being afcribed to the members of the Church oi England, there does not feem to have been a whit more merit in 28 T'he Claims of the Church of England^ &c. in it, than there is in a finner's renouncing fome of his fins. — The members of the Church of Efiglafid firft laid kvQi'Qpe72aI-/aws on the pro- teftant difTenters, and afterwards repealed ibme of them. Why they are not become thorough penitents j not I, but they are to anfwer. As a conclufion of this Letter, I would hum- bly propofe a few queftions, and I beg the fo- lution of them; tiz. Whether it can be fliewn that the Church of Efiglajid has any claim to infallibility ? and what right flie has to give law to confcience, by making her articles of faith, and her forms of worfliip, the flandard of an univerfal Englijh conformity ? whether, if fhe has no fuch claim, a diffent from her fyftem of opinion and ritual can be deemed, in the eye of reafon and truth, either heretical or fchifmati- cal ? and whether a confcientious dilTent, upon the principle of a right of private judgment con- cerning the fenfe and meaning of the divine New Teftament canon, be not as properly a farther reform from popery, as her original feparation was a reform from that corrupt fyflem ? If any thing in this Letter fliould difcover a temper or fpirit that deferves reproof, fix no blame on any oneProteilant-diiTenter, except the Author of this Addrefs; for truly, &>, not any of the contents have ever been communicated to any perfon whatever, but to the Printer, Byy SIR, Tour mojl humble Servant. >-**A