ph AN APPEAL IO PUBLIC IMP4RTIALITY, OK THI MANNER. IN WHICH THE DISPUTE CONCERN1N* '* The Important Question at Issue, &c" HAS BEEN' CONDUCTED* By THO'. T. BIDDDLPH, M. A. Minifter of St. James's, Briftol, and of Bfcngworth, in Worcefter- Jhire ; Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Dowager Lady Bagotj and late oHQueen's-CoUege, Oxford. " HORRESCO JlEFERENS."^ — VIRG. BRISTOL: printed and sold by w. bttlgin; solo also by e. palmer, wive^street} &ivingtons, st. pai'l's church-yard, mathewf, Strand; and west and hughes, pater. SOSTE.R -ROW, LONDON; ANDj S. HAZARD, BAT.I. ibot. AN APPEAL TO PUBLIC IMPARTIALITY, &c. rT,HE unprejudiced reader of that addrefs t> ~ me, which Mr., Hey has lately publifhed, muft difcern, that I am precluded by the grci's i 1 liberality with which it is loaded, from entering any farther into a correspondence with its author. Banter, fcurrility and falfhood conftitute fuch a mode of attack as much difcourage any Chriftian from a continuance in the field of controverfy. And if I were to perfiff. in the difpute, I fliould have nothing to expeft but a repetition of calum nious and unfounded tales refpefting my perfonal con'dqQ, fimilar to thofe which he has already publifhed ; and the world would fay, I deferved it. I have no intention, in this appeal, of again difcuffing at large, " The important point at " iffue," viz. whether the clergy of this land are perjured or not, in confequence of their oath o£ B canonical canonical obedience. Mr. Hey fays that in his opinion they are. {Address, p. 8. 1. 1.) I contend that they are not; and have'proved that the ground on which Mr. Hey builds the tremendous accufation is untenable, in a letter which a few weeks fince I addreffed to him from the prefs. 1 fee no reafon, after a repeated perufal of Mr. Hey's laft pamphlet, to retraft any thing which I£have written. For when his addrefs is ftripped of themifquotauons,mifconfti"u£tions, citations from contemptible anonymous publications, &c. &c. (See Address, p. 33, 34.) with which he has gar- nifhed it ; nothing will be' left that at all (hakes the foundation on which I reft my own innocence, and that of my brethren in the miniftry. The reader of Mr. Hey's pamphlet is defired to remember, that " The important queftion at iflue" is, not whether thofe ecclefiaftical canons, which have not been actually or virtually repealed by fubfequent ftatutes, are binding on the clergy ; but whether the clergy are bound BY oath to an obfervation of them. For, accord ing to Mr. Hey, " the violation of no canon can " confti.tu^e perjury, except that law be rendered " obligatory by the intervention of an oath." All therefore which Mr. Hey ha's faid to prove the obligation of tome parts of the canon-law, is to be fet afide; becaufe it is unconnected with the point point in debate, and tends to fix the reader's at tention 0T1 a new object.* I beg leave farther to remark, that Mr. Hey has not anfwered the queftion on which 1 laid much ftrefs, whether, in his opinion, the clergy are bound by oath to the obfervalion of the whole canon-law, or only to the code of 1603. The confufion, of which I ventured to complain, and on which he has difplayed fomuch wit, refpe&ed thefe two things, which are clearly diftinguifh- able from each other as a part from the whole. He has alfo paffed over in profound filence, of * The Editors of the Theplogical Magazine for Auguft, p. 315, have afferted, that " the driftof Mr. Biddulph's publica- •' tion is to prove that — the canons are not binding on the " clergy, &c." Either I muft be very deficient in perspicuity, conformably to their infinuation; or they muft be very deficient in ;difcernment or integrity. I muft leave the public to deter mine which is the fact. That the canons, with thofe exceptions which I have fpecified, are not binding on the clergy, is a pa ction that never entered into my head, till Mr. Hey and thofe Gentlemen perverfely charged me with maintaining the un founded aflfertion. Let them point out any palfage or parages, paragraph or paragraphs, in my letter, from which fuch an in ference can be gathered. From thefe Gentlemen, conncfled as thev are with Mr. Hey in the direction of the Theological Ma gazine, I had no reafon to expect impartiality; but furely from men profeffing godlinefs I had a right to look for veracity. They might as well have faid, that it is the drift of my pamphlet to prove that the canons are not binding on the inhabitanis of the moon. B 2 which which the reader may guefs the reafon, my re- mark on the date of the oath of canonical obedi ence, that it exifted and was adminiftered prior to the exiftence of the canons of 1603.* I can * It is highly probable that the oath of canonical obedience was coeval with the exiftence of parzs/t-chmches. For Dr. Burn (vol. 1. p. 68,) fays, when he is fpeaking of " the original of " the appropriation of churches," " As each inferior tenant" un der the feodal fyfiem " was admitted with fome oath of fidelity " to the prime lord ; fo every parifh prieft had admiflion to his " church, wilh a like obligation of obedience to his bifhop." Now although it is extremely difficult to fix the precife sera of the original foundation of />am/;-churches in this kingdom ; it neverthelefs clearly appears, by the writings of feveral eminent hiftorians, civilians, and common lawyers, that tlieie were no />aratchurchcs in England before the year 630. According to one author,* the inftitution commenced about that year j accord ing to others,+ hot till the council of Lateran in the year 1179: and according to others,:}: about the year 970, during the Saxon Heptarchy. If therefore we take the laft mentioned period, as being the moft corrcft and beft fupported by hiftorical evidence, we {hall arrive at the following material conclufion, viz. that the oath of obedience to the bifiiop was in ufe 633 years before the canons of 1603 were made. Mr. Hey, in fupport of his hypothefis, has adverted to the late debate in the houfe of lords on the eligibility of the clergy to fit in the houfe of commons. But not one of the arguments,ufed on that occafion, either in the houfe of lords or in the houfe of com mons, affords the leaft countenance to his novel affertion. For no one of the honorable members, who argued againft the eligibility * Camden's Britannia. + Hobart, 296. t Wilf. Rep. 14. t i.Bl. Cera, ua, Ayliffe's Parergon, 167. of I can -aliure thofe, who may condefcend to eaft their eyes on thefe pages, ,that I feel no difficulty whatever in giving an anfwer with " ftp rn inte- " §Tlly" of heart, to the feveral queftions which Mr. Hey, arbitrarily affuming the office of. my father-confeffor, has'prqpofed to my conference. It is wholly "unpolluted with perjury." lam fully fatisfied that no criminality has been attached to my conduft in thofe inftances of. it, to which Mr. Hey has feen fit to call the public attention. I cannot indeed fay, that I do not acutely feel the cruel neceffity under which lam laid, of entering on a formal refutation of thofe heavy and un founded accufations with which the pen of ca lumny has loaded mp. Glad fhould. I be to dif cover any method of relief from the pain which. of the fitting member for the borough of Old Sarum, had the temerity to charge him with perjury, or to affert that, on hisjnftj- tution to the benefice to which they alluded, he had fworn obe- .diene to the canons of 16.03; although they cited the 76th 1 canon, by which any perfon who has been admitted a deacon or. minifter is. prohibited from " voluntarily relinquifhiog the fame, " or afterwards ufing himfelf in the courfe of his life as a lay- " man. "Now if an oath of obedience to the canons of *6.q3 had been taken by the fitting member, or if thofe canons had been con firmed by aft of parliament, no doubt could have exifted of hi"! total ineligibility; Tnor would the Legiflature have deemed it. neceffary to pafst " an aQ to rtmove doubts refpefling the eligi- " bility of perfons in holy orders to fit-in the houfe of ¦commons.?* 4. 41. G. 3. c. 63. b 3 attends 8 attends an introduction of myfelf on the ftage of public obfervalion. But how can I avoid it ? A filent fubmiffion to the deprivation of charac ter is a tacit acknowledgment that it is deferved. " Who fleals my purfe, fteals trafb ; 'tis fomething, nothing ; " 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been flave to thoufands ; " But he that filches from me my good name,. " Robs me of that, which not enriches him, " And makes me poor indeed." Shakespeare's Othello, AB 3, Scene 5. It is a matter of real concern to me, that I can not vindicate- myfelf and my brethren from the crimes which are laid to our charge, without erimi- mating the author ofthe accufation. A relu&ance to do this has been one chief caufe of the delay which has taken place, of an anfwer to Mr. Hey's addrefs. Itis however right that every man fhould bear his own burden. Having premifed fo much refpecling the con troverfy at large.I proceed to the mere imme diate objecl: of this appeal to public impartia lity, which is the difhonorable manner in which Mr. Hey has managed the debate, efpecially in his laft addrefs. And as he has favored his readers with feyeral dialogues in his two pamphlets, in which he has exhibited his talent of witticizing (which can never be to me an objeft of emulation;) I fhall alfo lay my remaiks before the world in a dialoeiftic form. DIALOGUE 9 DIALOGUE I. INTERLOCUTORS, MR. HEY ; TRUTH. Mr. Hey. ' Mr. Biddulph has fuggefted ' that I encourage assassins, by requefting me to * ufe my influence to prevent their operations in ' future/* Address, p. 4. Truth. Mr. Biddulph, on the contrary fays, " I am fure you will concur with me in condemn- " ing the anonymous letter which I here fubjoin." Biddulph' s Letter, p. 52. Mr. Hey. Mr. Biddulph fuppofes ' refpeQing ' myfelf and my brethren, the diflenting minifters ' in this kingdom, having been guilty of perjury, ' in evading the glove ttj.x. Address, p. 4. Truth. Mr. Biddulph's pofitive declaration is, " I mean not to infinuate that Mr. Hey " or any other diffenter, ever evaded the glove " or any other tax. The fuppofition is only in- " troduced by way of illuftration." Letter, p. 18. Mr. Hey. ' Your words are,' " But furely " if we are perjured, becaufe we have taken an * If a minifter were requefted to difcourage any inftance of immorality, would the requeft be a fuggeftion that he had before encouraged it ? Could I defcend from the dignity of a gentleman folow as to talk about " a wooden bottom chair," (fee Addrefs, p. 9.) I fhould on this, and many other occafions, find abundant •pportunities of retaliation. But Non tali auxilio, tion defenforibus iftis. u oath " oath to the bifhop" '(you might. have addedthe ' king too)' " whenever we have infringed the " directions of the canons, Mr. Hey and other " diffenting minifters may on a similar ground " be charged with perjury, whenever they have " infringed the ftatute laws of this kingdom, be- " caufe they have taken an oath of allegiance to " the king." ' This, Sir, is coming to the point, and granting ' us all we plead for. God grant, that you may ' feel the impprt of your own conceflion, and aft ' agreeably to its weighty meaning.' Address; p. g. Truth. Your/reafoning on Mr. B.'s words is a grofs mifconftruftion of his plain meaning. He neither grants that the clergy would be per jured by an infraction of the canon-law, nor that you would be perjured by an infraction of the ftatute-law. He only ftates the matter hypo- thetically, without the flighteft conception that the guilt of perjury would be attached-in either cafe, and without the fhadow of a concession. Surely, Sir, this is not fair dealing. What you affert in the fecond paragraph of p. S2-. is alfo totally falfe. , Mr. Hey. ' Pages 7, io, 11, 17, you repre- ' fent me as having afferted that the clergy are * bound toan" Unlimited obfervation of all the *' canons," and " the whole canon law." This, ' Sir, is not true ; and I might iuftly demand of ' yoa 11 E y<5u, either a proof or a con'ceffion. What I ' have faid is this; that all the clergy, bifhops-, ' and archbifhops not excepted,, are, under the^ ' authority of ecclefiaftical law.'* ' Many of the canons relate to churchwardens, 4 parifh-clerks, &c. Thefe of courfe do not imme- ' diately concern the clergy : but I do affirm, what ' I am prepared to prove.t viz. that thofe canons which relate to the clergy are, in confequence of their canonical oath, to all intents and pur- ' p-ofes binding upon them.' Address, p. 7. Truth. No candid perfon could fuppofe that Mr. B. meant to reprefent you to have af ferted, that the clergy are fworn to perform the duty of churchwardens, conftables, fchoolma Iters, and parifh-clerks. It muft be evident that, in the ufe of the word unlimited, he referred only to the canon law, fo far as it relates to the clergy. And you have here afferted, that ' thofe canons which ' relate to the clergy are,' (without any limitation * This is not the fubjefl of the controverfy. + Then why is it not proved ? For not a fingle argument appears, fo far as my dull underftanding can perceive, in its fupport, throughout the whole of Mr. Hey's addrefs ; unlefs the mere fuppofition, (note, p. 19.) (that, if this had not been the meaning ofthe oath of canonical obedience, it would have received fome other appellation) be confidered as an argument. He has taken up an uncontroverted fubjeS, ind then crowns himfelf victor. How far this is " fair and manly," let the pub lic decide, ' either 12 either now or before fpecified) * in -confequence * of their canonical oath, to aH intents and pur- • pofes binding upon them.' Why then do you complain of Mr. B.'s injuftice fp- 8.) when you fay, * P. 14. Referring to the old popifh •' canon-law, you afk, " can it be fuppofed that a «' whole body of proteftant clergy are fworn to an " obfervalion of this huge mafs ?" ' Why in ' the name of common honefty do you attribute ' this fuppofition to me ?' Why, Sir ? becaufe you have made it. For the mafs of popifh canon- law has never been repealed, except in particular cafes ; and you reprefent the clergy as bound by oath to an obfervation of the canon law, without any diftinftion of the various parts which Mr. B. has enumerated in p. 14. of his letter. , How juftly might the latter fentences of your paragraph above referred to, be applied to yourfelf ! Mr. Hey. ' I have ftated it as my opinion ' that the clergy are perjured." — And one of your • own bifhops' (Burnet) ' has recorded the opi- ' nion of multitudes to the fame effeft.' Address, p. 8. (Then follows a quotation from Burnet's history of his own times. J Truth. Pray, Sir, is the conclufion oi many in Bifjhop Burnet's time, that the clergy " would " fwear and pray againft their confeiences, rather " than lofe their benefices," " to the fame effeft" with your opinion ? It is " the behavior of many " clergymen" *3 " clergymen" of which the bifhop fpeaks. If hd had referred to the oath of canonical obedience, he Would have faid of all beneficed', clergymen, including himfelf before he was made a bifhop. You have grofsly mifconftrued the meaning of the hiftoriari's' words, which are .totally uncon nected with the objeft which you have in view. Mr. HeY. ' You fay, " the canon-law has *' undergone ho review fince the times -of po- " pery.". ' O, Sir, how could you > com- « mit yourfelf in this flagrant manner, &c.' Address, p. 8. .'..-.- Truth. Sir, you might have fpared thefe violent exclamations, and the wretched attempt at a witticifm with which the paragraph conw eludes. For, though the canons of 1603 were " taken, in the main, out of the injunctions and <* canons that had been made in the three fore- " g°ing protestant reigns," * it does, not follow that the whole body of the canon law was then reviewed. And,!in confirmation of the negative1 fide of the queftion, Dr. Burn fays (Preface to Ecclef. Law) that " until , fuch reformation as .' aforefaid take effeft, .the canon-Jaw, + fo far a's " the fame was received here befor-e the'faid * Grey's Ecclef. Law. + Not the code of 1603 ; for that had, then.no exiftence. ,, ' " flatutes, 14 " ftatutes,* &c. is recognized and enafted to be " in force by authority of parliament." Mr. Hey. ' I pafs on to expofe the fallacy of ' your arguments, pages 11, 12, to prove that the * canons of 1603 are not in force, you cite the 115th canon, which you fay has been fet" ' afide by laws " since made." But, my good Sir, ' what need of an aft of parliament to fet afide ' that which was not binding ? AH the femina- '. ries of learning in the world never produced '.logic like this, &c.' Address, p. 9. Truth. Mr. B neither in pages ii, ii, nor in any other pages has attempted to prove that the canons of 1603 are not in force ;+ his objeft is to prove that they do not bind under the obligation - of the oath of canonical obedience. Here, Sir, you write in your ufual unfair manner. I truft that no diffenting feminary has ever before pro? duced fuch fcandalous mifconftruftion as this. Mr. Hey. * To exhibit one proof more of • your logical Ikill.' " Pages 31, 32, you declare * Is not this a farther confirmation of what Judge Black- ftone fays, that the canons of 1603 were " never confirmed in " Parliament?" Ayliffe, in his Parergon, aflerts the fame thing. + 1 have indeed denied that the canons of 1603 were ever fanftioned by parliament, and have proved that the/ are not. But I admit that there was no kind- bf neceflity for fuch a fenBion to make them obligatory on the clergy. " the i5 " the clergy are not, by the canon, ftatute, or any *' other law, required to adminifter the facrament " to a candidate for office." Addres , p. 12. Truth. Mr. B had rather be deftitute of " logical fkill" than of integrity. You have mif- quoted his words, leaving out an important one, which would have difappointed you of the effu- fion of thofe low-bred jefts which follow. His words are, " Ti e clergy are not by the canon, " ftatute, or any other law, expressly required " to" adminifter* &c." Was the omiffion of the word " expressly" confiftent with " ftern inte- " g"ty " . Mr. Hey. By the 25th of Henry VIII.' the ' authority of the Pope in this realm was entirely ' fet afide, and the king declared to be supreme ' HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.' Address, p. 14. Truth. Mr. Biddulph may quietly fubmit to the injuftice of mifquotation, fince even afts of parliament do not efcape the fame treatment. In this fhort citation, confifting only of feven words, you have fuppreffed two, which were clearly introduced to remove captious objections to this title. The words properly cited are, "fu- " preme head in earth of the church of England." * Let Mr, Hey produce the canon, or ftatute, by which it is required. c Mr. 16 Mr. Hey. • Pray, Sir, did you not aft. on ' the authority of the 91ft canon, when you put ' your fon into the lucrative poft of cler.k of St. ' James's ? Only the clerk ought to have been at ' leaft twenty years of age.' Address, p. =18. Truth. Indeed, Sir, Mr. B never put either ot his fons into the poft of clerk of St; James's ; and therefore in this fuppofed inftance, did not aft on the authority of any canon at all. For | was at St. James's. church at the time when a perfon above twenty years of age was nominated to that office ; and I diftinftly heard a very dif ferent same announced. But pray, Sir, on what authority did you aft, when you thus bore falfe witnefs againft your neighbour, and publicly pro claimed to the world a notorious falfehood ?* Have you difcovered any canoq, either Divine or human, which j.uftifies you in thus taking away your neighbour's reputation ? If you have, ." it " is expefted, re two queftions in reply.' ' Pray, Sir, have you any fcriptural knowledge, ' faith, and humility ? And, provided you havek ' are thefe your graces perfeft ? Methinks I heac 1 you whifper to yourfelf, faying, " I wifh I had " not written that foolifh paragraph." ' Well* ' Sir, moderate your farrow, I will pafs it over.' Address, p» 27, 28.. Truth. To " pafs over" the extreme inde licacy and infolence of this paragraph, the futi lity, Sir, is all your own ; unlefs you can prove that there is a perfeft parallelifm between an or der of church-government prefcribed by God Himfelf, and framed exaftly according to His model, and a glimmering ray of knowledge, faith, or humility, lighted up in the bofom of a finful creature, and almoft overwhelmed with fur-. rounding corruption. If the parallelifm be de* feftive, on whom will your wretched banter •eft? Mr. Hey. ' I muft remind yon of one grand! ' impropriety in your loofe harangue on the fub- * jeft.' (viz. of church-government) ' P. 37, yon ' afk, "If I join myfelf toyou, may they" (the bap. tifts) " riot fay that I am still no chriftian ?'* * what baptift, Sir, has faid,you are no chriftian ? C3 ' And 20 ' And how could you infinuate they would still ' fay fo, were you to become an independent ? ' If you charge me with bearing falfe^witnefs in ' ten thousand inftances, .though I have proved ' the falfity of that charge ; might I not double ' that number, and affert, that you have borne ' falfe witnefs in twenty thoufand inftances ; as I ' believe there are many more than that number * who have not faid, and who would not fay, that * you are no chriftian. I forbear to enlarge on ' your illiberality, perceiving you are in the very ' condition of which you complain' — " In a " cruel dilemma." Address, p. 28. Truth. In the quotation, which you here make from Mr. Biddulph's pamphlet, you have l. put two words in italics and fmall capitals, which had been printed in common roman letters, and, in reafoning on it, have mifplaced the word Still. 2. You have left outthatpart ofthe fentence, ¦wijich would have prevented your perverfion of his meaning. But this is not the worft, for 3. All that Mr. B ¦ has done is to afk a queftion, whether, on the fuppofition which he had ftated, a baptift might not fay, &c. His words are,- may he not. He has neither afferted nor infinuated, that any baptift had faid fo, or would fay fo; and yet you perverfely and dishonorably reafon on bis words as if he had, and then bring your accufation for defamation in twenty thoufand inftances. Indeed, Sir, ri Sir, it requires no fmall degree of patience to read the produftion of a pen that will go fuch lengths, for the purpofe of making good an unfounded opinion. v • Mr. Hey. ' Your party made the attack, in ' one of the moft Icurrilous and . contemptible ' fcrawls* the world ever beheld : and fo long as ' you continue to intimate the contrary, the pub- ' Kc will charge you with uttering falfehood.' Address, p. 28. Truth. " Mr. Hey is req.uefted to remem- " ber, that the ac'cufation of perjury in his faft- " day-fermon,f was prior to the late publication " of the anfwer to Dr. Gill's reafons, and alfo to " that of the pamphlet, intituled, Why are you a " Churchman : ihe first edition of which was not " edited till April, 1800, who then was the " aggressor ?" Biddulph's letter, p. 28. You ought, Sir, to have difproved the veracity of your opponent's ftatement of fafts, by a refe rence to the dates, before you ventured to charge him with falfehood. And, till you do this, the public will hardly deem your affertion to be fup ported by " ftern integrity," Mr. Hey. ' The following are some of the * On the contrary fee the Britifh Critic for July, 1801. + Mr. Hey's faft-dayifermon was preached on March 12, 1800. oaths 22> ' oaths which the clergy muft take before they ' can poffefs livings in the church. On taking, ' their firft academical degrees, they fwear ' l. That they will not enter into any conven- * tide ; but do all in their power to hinder or sup- ' press it.' Address, p. 38. Truth. Produce your authority for this af fertion ; and when you have done this, be fo good to juftify to the world your frequent admiffion of a graduate of the univerfity of Cambridge into your pulpit. Mr. Hey. ' 2. They fwear that if any fhall ' acknowledge, there are within this realm, other ' meetings, affemblies, or congregations, than fuch ' as by the laws* of this land are held, &c. he fhall ' be excommunicated, &c. Truth. I muft again call for your authority, Mr. Hey, ' 3. Afterwards, they swear that ' they believe all the 39 articles to be agreeableto ' the word of God.' Address, p. 39. Truth. No fuch oath is taken. Mr. Hey. ' 4. They fwear that there is ' nothing in the book of common prayer con. ' trary to the word of God.'- Ibid. Truth. They take no fuch oath. Mr. Hey. ' 5. They fwearthat the king is * The laws of this land, firice the toleration aft, fanction re ligious aflemblies in licenced places of worfhip. ' head 23- ' the head and fupreme governor of the church of ' England'.' Ibid. Truth. No fuch oath is taken. In citing the above form of subscription, you have fuppref- fed the two important words, " under God." - Mr. Hey. ' 6. The oath of uniformity.' Truth. No fuch otth is taken. Mr. Hey. ' 7. The oath againft fimony.' Truth. This is not the cafe with refpeft to all clergymen, who are admitted to ecclefiaftical preferments. Mr. Hey. ' 8. Theoath ofrefidence.' Ibid. Truth. This is not take~n by reftors. Mr. Hey. ' I not only say, but write, print, ' and publish to the world, that I never folicited ' any perfon, man, woman nor child, " to leave " their own place of worfhip and come to mine." Address, p. 37. Truth. Pray, Sir, do you recolleft a gen. tleman, who was once a temporary refident in Briftol, and who now lives at Stone, in Glocefter- fhire? And now, though I. have not by any means ex hibited all the inftances of prevarication, mifquo tation, mifconftruftion, and falfehood, with which Mr. Hey's forty pages abound, (for it would be no very difficult tafk to contraft almoft every pa ragraph in it with the languageof Truth.; I fhall conclude the foregoing dialogue with his own fo lemn 24 lemn words. ' " The day is approaching, when " the fecrets of all hearts fhall be laid open, and " happy will that man be, who is found to have " hated, whatsoever worketh abomination,, or. " maketh a- lie." Mr. Hey's first pamphlet, p. 53. 54- DIALOGUE II. interlocutors, Mr. Hey ; the Law of En clan d. ' Mr. Hey. ' I have ftated it as my opinion ' that the clergy are perjured.' Address, p. 8.. Law of England. "If a minifter is de- " famed in any. article relating to the difcharge pf " his minifterial funftion ; this is agreed, by the " books' of Ci mmon law tu. be duly triable in th«- " Spiritual court." Gib.ua 1025. Bum's Eccks. Law, vol. 2. Mr. Hey. ' Pray, Sir, did you- not aft on th# ' authority of the 91ft canon, -when you put y.ur ' fon into the lucrative- -pe-ft- of clerk of Sf. ' James's? Only the clerk pught to have been ' at leaft twenty years of'age,' Address, p. 18. ' Law of En'Gland. " Slander is defaming " a maninhis reputation by fpeaking or writing " words which affeft his life, office, or trade: or " which tend to his lofs of preferment' in mar- " riageor fervice, or to .his difinheritance ; or " which 25 " which occafion any other particular damage." Builer's Nisi Prius, p. 3. " Injuries, affefting a man's reputation or good " name are, firft, by malicious or fcandalous " words tending to his damage or derogation : " as if a man mahcioufly and falfely utter any " (lander or farfe tale of another; which may " endanger him in law, by impeaching him of " fame -heinous crime ; ,as to fay that a man-hath " poifoned another, or is perjured." For fuch fcandalous words (that may affeft one in public truft; " an aftion on the cafe may be had, with- " out proving any particular damageito have hap- " pened, but merely upon the probability that it " might happen." Black. Com. vol. 3. p. 123,. 124. i ,ii: Mr. Hey. ' When we rcfleft ferioufly on • -epifcopal confirmation, as pr,aclifed in this ' .country, we cannot forbear faying, that it is ' one of the moft dangerous and delufive cere- ', monies, with which our nation is encumbered.' Address, p. 33. , (See the.wh.ole of this and the two subsequent paragraphs.) !Law of England. " Seditious words, in " derogation of the eflablifhed religion, are in- " diftable, as tending to a breach of the pe'ace." Burn's Eccles.: Law, vol. 1. Mr. Hey. ' This ecclefiaftical constitution' (viz. that ofthe church ofEnglandJ' is not agree- « able to the word God.' Address, p, 35. Law 26 Law of England. "Whoever fhall af- " firm that the government of the church of " England under his Majefty, by archbifhops, " bifhops, deans, archdeacons, and the reft that " bear office in the fame, is antichriftian, or re- " pugnant to the word of God ; let him be excom- " municated ipfo faflo, and fo continue until he •' repent, and revoke fuch his wicked errors." Burn's Eccles-. Law, vol. i. p. 365. Mr. Hey. ' What ! Is it poffible for. an en- ' lightened minifter to believe, that a modern ' Lord bishop is capable of imparting fpiritual ' benediftions ! Be aftoniffied all ye lovers bf ' truth and righfeoufnefs.' Address, p. 32. (The context shews that the reference is to the present Bishop of Bristol. J Law of England. " Scandalum mag- " natum is a defamatory fpeech or writing to the " injury of a person of dignity ; for which a writ " that bears the fame name, is granted for the " recovery of damages. By ftatute, no perfon-is, " either by writing or fpeaking, to publifh any " falfe or fcandalous news of any lord, prelate, " officer of the government, judge, &c. on pain " of imprifonment till he produce his author, " and if the fame be publifhed in a libel, the " publifher is indiftable, and may be fined and " imprifoned." Croker's Diilionary. "> The £7 " The fcandal which is expreff J i-t a fcof- " fing and ironical manner, is as properly a ma. " licious defamation, as that which is expreffed " in direft terms." Burn's Justice. With perfeft fatisfaftion in the juftice ofthe caufe which, I have efponfed, I now fubmit its deteiminatiori to public impartiality. From the contents of the few preceding pages, the reader will be induced to fcrutinize what each party has affirmed, before he draws his conclufion. I have only again to requeft, that he would keep in mind " The important queftion at iffue," left he fhould;be led to admit that a vift ly has been gained on a point that has not been the fubject of difcuflion. For the true point of difference is this, whether the clergy of Great-Britain are bound by oath to an obfervation Of the canon- law. That th'" ancient can^n-law, except any part of it which is contrary to the laws, ftatutes, "and cuftoms of this realm, or the king's preroga tive, is obligatory both on the clergy and laity, as they are feverally interefted in it, is readily ad mitted. And that the canons of 16)3, as an acl ef the convocation, with the like exceptions, are obligatory on the clergy ris alfo admitted.* Nei- " ther * I have here however granted more than the editors ofthe Critical Review feem willing to admit, as the following paragraph) D from s8 ther of thefe pofitions has been denied. "But that the clergy smear obedience either to the antientcanori- from their number for July, 1 801 , when they are fpeaking of Ear! ' Temp'e'sfpeech on the fuhjeft of Mr. John Home Topke's " eligibility to a feat in parliament," will fhew. " The fpeaker (viz. Earl Temple) introduces the 76th canon, in which it is faid, that no minifter 'fhall ufe himfelf as a lay. * man,' and obferves upon it, ' Let me not be io'd that the canon ' is wafte paper'. — 'it is no fuch thing.' Againft this affenion we beg leave eagerly to enter our proteft. It is wafte paper, Or a very great and very ufeful portion of the clergy muft be un frocked. Every one who is a juftice of the peace, commiflioner cf turnpikes, receiver of taxes, &c. ufes himfelf as a layman. But the penalty ofthe canon cannot be inflifled for this very plain reafon, that the canon is only a general direction to the diocefas, and is not neceffarily to be enforced. Like the canon on the drefs of the clergy, it is become obfolete. The heads of the church, who are the fole judges in this refpeft, have confented that it fliould be fo." To this I venture to add, that Mr. Hey's propofition, that the clergy are perjured in confequence of their oath of canonical obe dience, by an infraction of the canons, is one of the moft abfurd and ridiculous proportions that was ever made. The following extraft from an inftrument of inftitution will, I conceive, fully eftablifh ihe propriety of, what Mr. Hey calls, my "paraphraftic explanation of the oath of canonical " obedience." " You b.ing fiift fworn in our prefence on " the holy Evangelifts, not only to" renounce and deny all and " all manner of foreign jurifdiflion, power, aulhority, and fu— " periority, and to bear faith and true allegiance to his ma" " jefty — — according to the fotqc, tenor and effeft of art ¦ « Aa 2$ ftill pifnively deny, and refer to my letter to Mr. Hey for the juffification of that denial. I need not remind a candid umpire, that perfonal inveftive, and anecdotes of perfonal conduft, whether true or falfe, have nothing to -do wi:h the argument ; and tend only to demon- ftrate a weaknefs on that fide, which employs fuch weapons. The impropriety (not to ufe a much harfher term) of what Mr. Hey has intro duced at'the bottom of.his 23d page, is too glaring to need an index. It is well known that the mo tives of the ftep there alluded to were n t lucra tive ones. But, whether they were proper cr net, (a queftion which I can refolve fully to my own fatisfaftion) they are wholly irrelevant to the im portant point in difpute. What outcries of in juftice would have been made, had I brought for ward the reports which have been circulated con cerning Mr. Hey, or endeavoured, without any data, to develope the motives of his threatened emigration to America ? Such a line of conduft " AQ of Parliament of this kingdom of Great-Britain in that " cafe made and provided, and to pay and {hew true and ca- " nonical obedience to us and our fucceffois, bifhops of— — — " in all legal and honest commands." I con- go I conceive, would juftly have deferved an hifs of general contempt. If to be a member of the church of England, to be her affeftionate fon and devoted ; fervant, in volve a charge of folly or criminality ; " In every •' accident which may happen through life, in '" pain, in fonow, in depreffion and diftrefs ; I " will call to mind this accufation and be com. " for ed."* And if I am indebted to Mr. Hey for nothing elfe, I am at leaft for this, that he has been the inftrument of confi.ming me in an attachment to our ecclefiaftical eftabltfhment, * Mr. Burke. W. BULGIN, .PRINTER, BRISTOL The reader is requested to correUthe following errata irt my letter to Mr. Hey : P. 9. 1. 14. for of fupremacy read againft fimony. P. 43. I.