But, to conclude this point; if, as the law now stands, the priest has, as you affirm,, a power to repel evil livers, pray what is the reason that the rubric and canons, which so solemnly oblige him to it, are not only not faithfully observed, but most shamefully violated, and quite trampled under foot? Whence is it that, among the swarms of notorious evil-livers, heretics, blasphemers, and open unbelievers, who continually come to the Lord's table to qualify for places, we never hear of one rejected by the priest? What! is there no conscience, no integrity, left among those who administer this holy rite of religion? Seeing the rubric requires, and the canons oblige the clergy to reject these evil livers, and the scandal of receiving them (both to deists without and to christians within) is so crying and flagrant, why, in the name of God, whose ministers and stewards you profess yourselves to be, are these ene mies to his government, these aliens from his family, these despisers of his Son, never rejected, but ever tamely received, as his children, at his table?---The reason is obvious. The parish priest feels the difficulty before-mentioned, as having been stated by the lower house of convocation: he ALSO 66 SEES NOT HOW he can repel such persons as are unworthy without exposing him"self to vexatious and expensive suits." And, this being the case, he chooses rather to throw himself upon the mercies of God, than be exposed to the indignation of man. 66 And now, Sir, if, with this dreadful and oppressive yoke upon your neck, whilst scoffing infidels laugh, and discerning christians mourn, you are easy and well-pleased, and bless yourself and your church in the protection of this "could, in many cafes, act conformably to the rubric, &c. with"out expofing themselves to expenfive and vexatious fuits. "See the statement of the cafe, and the answers to it in the Appendix, No. IL.. 46 law, all I shall say at present is, that I envy not your felicity, but most devoutly thank God that I have neither lot nor share in this matter. Only hear the word which God sent by his prophet to certain time-serving priests, Ezek. xliv. 6, 7. Thou shalt say to the rebellious house, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that you have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it; even my house, when ye offer my bread:---they have broken my covenant because of all your abo minations. I have said so much on your first topic of church-power, that I have not either room or occasion to add many things on your last,---our constitution in church and state. Here, indeed, I observe with pleasure, that, amidst the pompous professions you affect to make of confuting my account of the regal. supremacy and of our constitution, you hardly, in one single instance, presume to contradict it. My account, Sir, was founded upon fact and upon law. fact and upon law. After close examination, I suppose you found it to be so; and, therefore, though, to save appearances, you would seem to say something on this subject, yet, in your whole fourteen pages, there is scarcely the show of any opposition to what I had advanced; but, on the contrary, in one instance, a remarkable confirmation of the most material part of my argument: for, though, in page 13 of your Appendix, you charge me "with false 66 play in citing your XXXIVth article, as de"claring expressly that your church ceremonies "were ordained by the civil magistrate; and ask "me---Did you find there any such words?" Yet, with agreeable surprise, I find you were either so incautious, or so honest as, within a few lines, to cite the very words of the article, which support, in the strongest manner, the sense I had given; where an open and wilful violation of these ceremonies is, by the article, declared to be a hurting the authority of the civil magistrate. Can a violation of these ceremonies violate the magistrate's authority, if; by his authority, they had -not been ordained? As for the form of speaking in use among us, our constitution in church and state, that it is really an impropriety, as generally understood, I do not at all hesitate (with due submission to the great authorities by whom it is used) again to insist. It is a form of speaking, no doubt, drawn from the usage of popish times, before the reformation of our religion took place. For then, truly, there was a constitution in church, distinct from, and independent of our constitution in state. The church had then its laws, its rights, its officers and powers, and its sovereign, or supreme head, peculiar to itself, and apart from the state. But, by the reformation, all that independency. and distinction is abolished: it is now become entirely and absolutely a civil system. There are no laws in the church (I mean none of human enaction) but what were made by the civil magistrate, and receive all their obligations and authority from him: nor are there any officers in the church but what are constituted by the authority and direction of the magistrate, and are all liable to be unmade and deprived again by him. But, that our constitution in church is really nothing but a civil, or parliamentary constitution, has with incontestible evidence, been shewn in the preceding letters; and is, indeed, a truth so plain, that no intelligent, or sober member of your church will, I apprehend, so much as attempt to deny it. Our constitution, therefore, having been changed by the happy reformation, this form of speaking ought, in strict propriety, to have been also altered; for, to talk of our constitution in church and state, is not only putting the effect before, the cause, but it is conveying an idea which your authorities could not possibly intend to convey, because not founded in truth, viz.--That the church has a constitution distinct from, independent of, yea, prior, or superior to our constitution in state. However, to abate somewhat of your attachment to this principle, even if could establish it, I must remind you, that the Presbyterian church of Scotland, is as essential, fundamental, and unalterable a part of our present ecclesiastical constitution, as the episcopal church of England can ever pretend to be. you My account of the power which our laws and constitution give to the kings and queens of this realm, in affairs ecclesiastical, to instruct, overrule, direct, controul, all the archbishops, bishops, and priests of this kingdom, in all their sacerdotal and most spiritual concerns, &c. you do not pretend to controvert, but rather attempt to vindicate and explain it. But you unhappily forget the one grand and material point for which it was introduced, and to which, above all other, it concerned you to speak; and that is, to reconcile this constitution of the church of England with the constitution of the church of Christ, and, to shew that Dissenters cannot separate from the one, without the danger and the high crime of separating themselves from the other. This was the point which you asserted, and on which you so copiously flourished; but you are now, I presume, too well instructed to persevere in endeavouring to support it. You must now see them, Sir, to be two distinct and quite different societies: and will be henceforward eased of those painful commiserations, over the souls of your dissenting brethren, with which your generous mind has laboured, and be no longer terrified, on account of our schism, with those direful apprehensions, concerning our salvation. There are some other passages in your Appen dix, on which I must make a few observations. I am pleased to see that you again venture to bring forward the affair of Mr. Whiston.* I thought you would gladly have suffered it to sleep. The case, to be sure, wrung much. You have been once and again flinging to rid yourself of it; but the manner in which you now do it, rather more sorely wounds than gives you relief, "You tax me with misrepresentation, and with "no mean talent that way." Yea, you have the courage to confront me with a citation from Bishop Burnet, to whom I had referred as supporting my account. But, what will the world say, Sir! How will all your friends, if not your own heart, reproach you! and the learned, among whom you rank, hold you in great derision! when they see you undertaking to give the public an account of his lordship's history of that case; but, either carelessly overlooking, or wilfully suppressing the material and important passages which clearly and irrefragably support my account. "His lordship (say you)+ reports it thus: "that "it seeming doubtful whether the convocation. "could, in the first instance, proceed against a "man for heresy; and, it being certain that their proceedings, if not warranted by law, might in"volve them in a premunire; the upper house, "in an address, prayed the queen to ask the opi"nion of the judges, and such others as she thought fit, concerning these doubts, that they might "know how the law stood in this matter." you stop short with the bishop's narration, having either not patience to read, or not honesty to write farther; and then, with a flourish ask,--"Will these accounts now authorise you to re"present, as you do, the two houses of convoca 66 Stated in Letter I. Appendix, page 39. Here |