66

The principles of Independency are, indeed, the ' principles of depraved human nature, instilled into man and fostered in him by his great enemy the Devilthe first Dissenter. It was with the promise of their being Independents, that he deceived our first parents, and brought death into the world and all our woe." "Ye shall be as Gods," says he, meaning that they should be Independent. And they believed him, and as one God of course would not obey another, they immediately shook off their allegiance to their kind and beneficent Creator. And all their degenerate offspring have been imbued with the very same principles of pride, Dissent, and licentiousness, and beguiled by the same promise of the Devil in some way or other. Ye shall be as Gods," says he, to our modern Dissenters; and puffed up with the idea, they immediately and proudly respond, "We will be as Gods"-we will enjoy full liberty of conscience-we will do as we please-no man has any right to exercise any authority over us-we will choose our own Teachers; and as we are as Gods, they shall preach and act as we please-they are our servants, we hire them, and pay them their wages, and they shall do as we please; we have heaped them to ourselves, and they shall scratch our itching+ ears;" if not, we will dismiss them, and choose others who will. Such are the unholy sentiments by which Dissenters are actuated; and the effects of which Dissenting Teachers constantly and deservedly feel. And can any one deny that the very same principles which now induce some to choose their own Teachers have induced others to choose their own Gods? If, as Dissenters contend, a man has a right to worship as he pleases, why has he not an equal right to worship what he pleases? And if a man has a right to choose his own Teacher, why has he not a right to choose his own God? Prove if you can that the former does not include the latter; and

66

* Genesis iii, 5.

+2d Timothy iv, 3.

that when a man chooses his own Teacher, he does not choose his own God. Every Dissenter, in choosing his own Teacher, rejects and despises the commissioned and duly authorized Ministers of God, and through them God himself. When those old Dissenters, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whom the Apostle Jude considers as a kind of type of Dissenters under the Christian Dispensation, dissented from Moses and Aaron, Moses viewed their Dissent as an offence against God; for, in addressing Korah as their leader, he said, "thou and all thy company are gathered together against the Lord." And that the Almighty viewed their offence in the same light is certain, from his destroying them. Our blessed Saviour also says to hisMinisters, "He that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me."+ Every Dissenter, therefore, in choosing his own Teacher, despiseth and rejecteth God in despising and rejecting his regularly appointed Ministers, who are his representatives acting in his name, and in virtue of the authority which he has committed to them through a medium of his own appointment.

In short, "the principles of Dissent" or Independency, influence every son and daughter of Adam, more or less, and are the source of all the evil of every kind on earth. Drunkenness, adultery, robbery, and murder, and every species of iniquity and vice, pro

* Numbers xvi, 11.

+ Luke x, 16.

Allow the Clergy to be regularly appointed Ministers, and this argu. ment is unanswerable. And if THEY be not, who are? Can ALL Dissenting Ministers put in their claim to Divine appointment? And if not ALL, where is the line of distinction to be drawn? Has God cautioned us so repeatedly against false teachers, and yet given us no rule whereby we may know false teachers from the true ones? If he has given us no rule whereby we may know them, what is the use of all the cautions he has given us against false teachers? If he has given us a rule, what is that rule? If it is not regular unbroken succession from the Apostles, what is it? Tell us what it is, for without knowing it, a great portion of the Scriptures are useless. Without this rule we cannot know whether or not, we are despising the true Ministers of Christ, and through them Christ himself, which is certainly a most dangerous state to be in. We cannot at any rate be blamed for considering regular unbroken succession the rule, until you shall have told us what the rule is, if that be not it.

ceed from those infernal principles of licen and libertinism, for which Dissenting Teachers under the specious names of "liberty of consci and liberalism. I know that they do not allow t principles to carry them to such lengths, but I also know that others do, and consistently so too; for some, alas! too many, claim and take liberty of conscience sufficient to allow them to practise deceit, falsehood, cheating, robbery, and even murder itself. And were it not for the wholesome restraints imposed upon the consciences of men, and their liberty circumscribed by ecclesiastical and civil laws, their number would be so great, that the state of society would be intolerable. The consciences of some we know are "seared with a hot iron,' ,"* and will, therefore, allow them to break the laws of God and man with impu

nity; and yet such persons have just as much right to enjoy full liberty of conscience as any others-if not, what is the reason? It may be said, that the liberty of conscience for which Dissenters plead only relates to religious matters, and is not licentiousness; but, then, who is to determine what is religious, and what is not? and what is licentiousness, and what is not? Every man must of course be left to determine this for -himself; if not, there is an end of his liberty of conscience at once; and as every man will always judge favourably for himself, just judgment will never be done. What one man would consider full liberty of conscience, another would not; neither, indeed, would the same man at another time. There would thus, never be any certainty. The fact is, the laws of God revealed in his Holy Word, are to be the rule of men's whole conduct, and not their own consciences; neither are their consciences to be the interpreters of those laws: to admit that they are, would be just as absurd as to say that every man is to be his own interpreter of our civil laws: and, indeed, if he be the interpreter

*.2d Timothy iv, 3.

of the laws of God for himself, surely he may be of the laws of the King, which are in every respect far inferior. The interpretation of the civil laws of England, however, belongs exclusively to the judges and magistrates of the land, who are orderly and regularly appointed by the King; and if the interpretation of the laws of the Church, contained in the Word of God, does not belong exclusively to the judges and magistrates the Ministers-" those that have the RULE' in the Church, tell me unequivocally, distinctly, positively, and decisively, to whom it does belong. If it does not belong to the Church-if every man is to be allowed, according to the principles of Dissent, to interpret those laws for himself, a door is opened for the practise of all kinds of libertinism and licentiousness whatever. One man, in the liberty of his conscience, would break one law, and another, another law, till none would be obeyed. I caught a man myself, a short time ago, in the very act of breaking the laws of both God and man at once. I remonstrated with him on the sinfulness and impropriety of his conduct; he endeavoured to palliate the offence, and made excuses; but on my pressing him a little more closely, he at once rudely replied, "You have no business with me, Sir, if you have a mind to go to Heaven, go;and if I have a mind to go to Hell, I'll go-you have nothing to do with it." I then said, " I spoke to you civilly; ; but I assure you that if you have a mind to : go to Hell you shall not go quietly, for if ever I catch you acting in the same manner again, I will most assuredly bring you to justice.. The truth is, the man was influenced by the "principles of Dissent;" he thought that I had no right to interfere with the liberty of his conscience; and that as he had not chosen me to be his spiritual Teacher, I had no right whatever to teach him. And if the licentious principles of Dissent be correct, he was perfectly right; neither

Hebrews xiii, 17.

I nor any one else had any right to interfere with him; and I defy you to point out wherein he was at all inconsistent with your Dissenting principles.

I could further show both the absurdity and iniquity of the "principles of Dissent."-I could easily point out that even the preaching and teaching of Dissenting Teachers, and the public worship of Dissenters, are inconsistent with their own foolish principles.-I could demonstrate that those wicked principles have a tendency to destroy Christianity itself, and to abolish true religion from the face of the earth; but I must, bring this letter to a close, I have already extended it very far beyond what I at first intended. I will, however, just observe, that I do sincerely wish and trust that what I have advanced and may hereafter advance, may be instrumental in opening the eyes of the well-disposed, sincere, and moderate Dissenters, to the very unscriptural nature of their system, and in leading them to unite with the Church, where they would not only avoid the common, though heinous, sin of schism, but enjoy true religion without excitement, piety without ostentation, and peace without disturbance. I know many of them see great evils in Dissent, and some of the bad effects of its principles, and are tired of the system; but habits and connexions have great influence over them, and being prejudiced against the Church, they unjustly condemn it without giving its doctrines and discipline any thing that can be called, careful attention. But I would earnestly entreat them once again, to cast aside their prejudices, and shake off the trammels of Dissent if but for a moment, and give the Church a fair and candid examination, and I doubt not in the least, that they would themselves be highly gratified at the result.

With regard to you, Sir, to whom as a Minister and leader of the sect, I have addressed myself, and for whom, together with your Teaching Brethren, these remarks, and those which may follow, are more particularly intended, I well know the extreme difficulty of

D