66 66 a blood," are falsehoods, as gross as they are wilful. The author must suppose his readers to be totally ignorant of all histories of our country, even the most partial. As to the political principles of the venerable puritans, let our historian, Mr. Hume, who was by no means partial to their opinions or characters, answer. "The precious spark of liberty was preserved by the puritans alone, and it was to this sect, "that the English owe the, whole "freedom of their constitution." The author of the "Notes," with his usual violation of truth, charges the whole body of the dissenters with having begun that noble and constitutional resistance to despotic tyranny which he insolently terms "the great rebellion," and with "the crime of murdering the King!" But the house of Commons which restored Charles II. so far from deeming the constitutional resistance to his father " great rebellion," had one of its members (Mr. Lenthall) reprimanded on his knees for using similar language, and the SPEAKER declared it as the sense of the house," That those who drew the sword did it to bring delinquents to punishment, and to vindicate their just liberties; and that Mr. Lenthall's words, are an high reflection upon the justice and proceedings of the Lords and Commons in their actings before 1648." That the puritans as a body, cannot claim the honour of beginning the resistance to Charles I. or bear the dishonour of beheading him, we assert on the authority of Lord Clarendon, Rapin, and various other historians." They were members of the church of England who began the quarrel with the King, and first drew the sword against him. The Earl of Essex, the parliament's general, and whose very name raised an army, was episcopal; and as Lord Clarendon observes, was much devoted as any man to the book of Common Prayer, and obliged as 1 all his servants to be constantly present with him at it." The principal officers in the army and the navy during the civil war were episcopalians. Dr. Williams, Archbishop of York accepted a commission from the parliament, and was commander in chief of their forces in North Wales. Lord Clarendon adds—“ So that I think it is past dispute with reasonable men, if there was any fault in opposing the king's measures, and taking up arms against him, it must be imputed to the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, for they were the FIRST and the DEEPEST in the quarrel.”, So far from the presbyterians, or indeed any other denomination of dissenters being instrumental to the death of the king, that they were very much against it, and were as Bishop Burnet observes, " every were fasting and praying against it." The bishop adds-" It was the crime of but a few hot-headed enthusiasts, or ambitious soldiers. Many of the most considerable dissenters, did even then when it was not so safe to do it as now, (1680) openly declare against it both in their sermons and writings. This is what in justice cannot be denied them!"-The body of London dissenting ministers (upwards of 50) presented a solemn and bold protest to the parliament, against "doing the least hurt to the person of the king," and carnestly petitioned" that instead of bringing his Majesty to justice as some speak, they would put him in a better condition to do justice." The plain fact is, that the dissenting ministers were the only persons of the sacred order who actively endeavoured to preserve the monarchy, and the person of the king. What can the author of the "Notes" reply to this incontrover * * See a collection of evidence on this subject, in-An Essay towards attaining a true idea of the character and reign of Charles I. &c. By the late M. Towgood of Exeter. A new edition of this work will speedily be published. hell without redemption! Horrible as is the supposition, every clergyman has given his unfeigned assent and consent to this infernal falsehood, and solemnly proclaims it every time he reads in public worship that most abominable creed. Other instances might be mentioned, but this is sufficent to prove that the foundation stone of the church of England is DISHONESTY, and amongst other cogent reasons, were there this only remaining, a dissent from such a church is the imperious duty of every friend to real christianity and genuine integrity. We challenge the "Annotator," or any one of his brethren to confute what we now declare, and what we have repeatedly declared to the christian world, on this awful subject. The author of the Notes in his usual superficial manner glances at another most solid reason for dissent tible evidence, convicting him of igrance the most consummate, or falsehood the most wilful and malignant? He has dared to appeal to history. "What trick, what device, what starting hole, canst thou now find out, to hide thee from this open and apparent shame?" With respect to the controversy relative to the precise sense of the 39 articles, although it is an important truth, that no man or body of men, have a right to impose 39, any more than 390 article, on any member of the christian church, we do not think it necessary to enter on this part of the subject, for this plain reason, that we deem it impossible for any man to vindicate the subscription of ALL and EVERY thing in the articles, and in the book of Common Prayer, on any principle of common sense or common honesty. All the apologics made by Dr. Paley, or others for signing the articles in different senses, (thirteen senses have been discovered,) or as articles of peace, that is in no. sense at all, are a disgrace not only to the first principles of christianity, but to those inculcated by the light of nature heathens would have blushed at the subscription required of all the ministers of the church of England, and at all the various apologies made for ecclesiastical prevarication and falsehood. We do not believe there is a thinking man amongst the whole body of the clergy who gives the unfeigned assent and consent required. Does the author of the "Notes" believe, that some of the most illustrious members of his own church,--Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Burnet, Drs. Clarke, Jortin, &c. &c. and the equally il-ou the gallows? Let him make the lustrious members of our dissenting same inquiry respecting the dissenchurches, Drs. Watts, Doddridge, ters.-Verbum sat. Lardner, &c. &c. who all disbelieved the Athanasian Creed, and abhorred its damnatory clauses, are now suffering the eternal torments of * Shakespear's Hen. IV. 1st. part. The manner in which ministers are appointed by the establishment. Whatever he may have hinted about the established church, he dare not deny the plain facts,-That the sale of church livings is legalised; that some of them are mere sinecures; that many of the clergy are plura. lists, and the majority non-residents; and that for several centuries after the promulgation of christianity, the pastors of the church, ordinary and extraordinary, were chosen by the people. When he talks of the superior moral qualifications of the clergy, he is requested just to examine how many of the reverend body have, during the present reign, been convicted of adultery, and other crimes, and how many have ended their lives The Annotator adds, as a reason for depriving the people of their just right of choosing their own pastors: "In the Old Testament we find, under the institution of God himself, a separated order of men for the priesthood, in whose appointment most assuredly the people had no voice. And in the New Testament, the council of the apostles in Jerusalem, after the resurrection of our Saviour, sent forth by their own especial appointment preachers; and instituted bishops, presbyters, and deacons in the several churches and congregations of their extended proselytes. Thus therefore the appointment of preachers by the suffrages of separate congregations, is not scriptural, nor has it any foundation in the sacred writings ! ! !" As to any argument from the Old Testament, it is sufficiently answered by the Annotator himself, who remarks that "The Almighty did not see good to establish a theocracy, upon the christian revelation;" to which he might have added, Jesus Christ absolutely prohibited any member of the christian church from having dominion over the faith of another, or calling in religion, any one his master or father. That the apostles sent forth preachers to publish the gospel no one denies; and that the primitive christians when formed into societies, chose their own bishops or overseers, that is pastors of their respective churches, and other officers as they might judge necessary, no honest man acquainted with ecclesiastical history will dispute. When we add that these officers of the primitive churches did not arrogate any sacred titles, nor exterior distinc. tions from the laity, nor were even paid for their services, we are persuaded we shall "harrow up" the feelings of the Annotator and of every priest who reflects for a moment on truths so disagreeable: plain truths however must be told. In confirmation of what we have advanced, we might refer to various ecclesiastical historians; but a quotation or two, not from a dissenting minister, but from a modern clergyman of the establishment will be sufficient for the purpose. "ALL ecclesiastical officers from the beginning, and for the first three hundred years, were elected by the people. Even Mathias was thus chosen to fill VOL. XI. : : up the number of the apostles. . . . . In the primitive churches it appears that all might preach or prophecy. 2. Cor. XIV. 24. and it is evident by the effects produced on strangers, who came in during their worship, that some were convinced and converted thereby this therefore being so desirable an object, a wise regulation is enjoined respecting the preachers; that they seek the edifying of the church, and speak to be understood.... No church ruler appears to contioul this liberty, nor his license asked and I can see no scriptural reason or injunction to hinder any man with the approbation of the congregation, from speeking for their instruction: the exclusion of women (v. 34.) from becoming public teachers, seems to admit the right of any man who is qualified and approved and this qualification every christian brother (v. 39) should covet earnestly to obtain. Origin, when a layman thus preached, even before bishops in the third century. . . . . During the first ages, the ministry was not appropriated to gentlemen or scholars; no man was bred to it as a profession, or went into it for a maintenance they were pastors of a different stamp. . .. A learned and in genious age prides itself in its superiority, in defences of revealed religion, and apologies for the bible; these will be read with admiration and applause by scientific men, and those who are initiated in all the learned lore: but what hath this arguing proved? The telling of the sufferings of Christ, and plain story of a poor, unlettered man the glory which hath followed, with their consequences, hath done more in the way of conversion to real and vital christianity, than all the writings of our great polemics put together... He is the best doctor who cures me. cords with a farrago of rites and cere"The simplicity of Gospel truth ill acmonies: nothing could be more una dorned than the primitive worship. A plain man chosen from his fellows, in his common garb, stood up to speak, or sat down to read the scriptures, to as many as chose to assemble in the house appointed: the particulars of their worship recorded, were those still observed in the true churches throughout the world. Hymns sung to Christ, as their God, appeared to the heathens a striking feature of the christian worship: the holy scriptures were read; and the G 3 presbyter or bishop, or two or three of the congregation, who were endued with prophetic or preaching talents, spoke a word of exhortation to the people. Prayer from the heart without a prompter followed. We have yet no trace of any form or established ritual: the mode of worship was left to the discretion of the several churches and its minister. The sacrament of the Lord's supper closed the devotions of the day. ... Then also I apprehend, every man produced, according to his ability, weekly, what he had laid by for charitable purposes, which formed a fund of oblations under the controul of the church for all the various purposes of general good. . . . As yet (in the 2d century,) I can perceive no part of this fund appropriated to pay the salaries of any minister of the sanctuary, unless as he came under the title of an itinerant evangelist; and being incapable of providing his own maintenance, and wholly occupied in the gospel work, was justly entitled, as preaching the gospel, to live by the gospel. I very much doubt if the bishop or presbyters, and deacons, received at first any thing for their labours of love: I am persuaded they thought their work the best wages. As pride and worldly mindedness must go hand in hand, assumed pomp and dignity required a sort of maintenance very different from the state when the pastor wrought with his own hands the idea of priesthood had yet scarcely entered into the christian sanctuary; as there remained no more sacrifice for sin, and but one high priest of our profession, Jesus Christ: but on the dissolution of the whole Jewish priesthood under Adrian, when the power of the associated clergy began to put forth its bud, the ambitious and designing suggested, what many of the rest received in their simplicity, that the succession to those honours now devolved upon them, and that the bishop stood in the place of the high priest; the presbyters were priests, and the deacons levites, and so a train of consequences followed: thus a new tribe arose completely separated from their brethren, of CLERGY distinct from LAITY: men sacred by office, exclusive of a divine call and real worth the altar indeed was not yet erected, nor the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist perfected; but it approached by hasty : strides, to add greater sanctity to the priesthood, and the not unpleasant adjunct of the divine right of TYTHES attached to the divine right of EPISCOPACY. . . These abuses indeed grew not up at once: the remaining piety and purity of the true church, and multi-* tude of its primitive pastors retarded the progress of worldly-mindedness and ambition, till the UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the establishment of christianity under Constantine, pretty nearly completed the worldly system. . . It is always observable that the forms of religion increase just in proportion as the power of godliness is lost." These quotations are fully sufficient to overturn all that the author of the Notes has said respecting the different orders of ministers, the nature of their commission, the necessity of forms of prayer &c. and to prove his utter ignorance of the constitution of the primitive churches as recorded in the New Testament, or Ecclesiastical History. We should have scarcely thought it possible that any person in the 19th century, would have dared to vindicate the test, so subversive of the principles of the British constitution passed in the reign of Charles II. but repealed shortly afterwards: "I. A. B. do swear that it is not lawful on any pretence to take arms against the King or against those commissioned by him, and that I will not at any time endeavour any church or state." alteration of government either in This oath is defended by our" Note" writer; one proof, amongst others, that he is an enemy to the principles of the Britis Constitution, and a libeller of the glorious Revolution. The author of the Protestant Dissenter's Catechism had remarked con *See, An Impartial and Succinct History of the Rise, Declension, and revival of the Church of Christ; from the birth of our Saviour to the present time. By the Rev. T. Haweis, L. L. B. and M. D. Rector of All Saints, Aldwinckle. Vol. I. p. 73, 94, 95, 165, 169, 202-6. cerning the Schism Bill, which he justly terms a bill for enslaving the dissenters, "Thut the Queen (Anne) died the very day on which this iniquitous act was to have taken place." On which the "Note" writer has this most curious observation :“This judgment is enforced by Italics, and when expressed viva voce in a tone still more lively and energetic, is NO DOUBT intended to prove the ETERNAL DAMNATION of Queen Anne for the impious intention!"This modern Sacheverel, as well as all his clerical brethren, being in the habit of pronouncing, "without doubt" the eternal damnation of all who do not receive the absurdities of the Athanasian creed, seems to imagine that no one can mention even a remarkable providence, in defeating the projects of the enemies of civil and religious liberty, without at the same time exercising a disposition as unchristian as his own. This Reverend calumniator has not scrupled to slander the memory of Dr. Watts; a man, as superior to him in every respect, as an angel is to a toad.—After sneering at this most excellent man, as a Dissenting Apostle," he has the effrontery to charge him "with garbling the word of God; like the Romanists curtailing and mutilating the ten commandments according to his fancy, and dealing out the scriptures according to his own discretion as it may suit his purpose!"-comparing him, with the dissenters in general, "to the Dissenting and rebellions Israelites, who raised up the molten calf, the monster of their own imagination, opposing it to the voice of God himself, calling to them amidst the thunders of Sinai !" The reader will doubtless with astonishment enquire, on what such an heinous charge is grounded? Why truly-Dr. Watts in his second catechism, thought proper to give a summary of the commandments only: but why had not the reverend libeller the ho nesty to assign the doctor's reason? "It is thought more proper in a catechism for children, to give the ten commandments in short, and not to write them down here at full length; which is not so needful for children, and would burden their memories. Christ himself and St. Paul have done the same thing, when they rehearsed several of these commands. See Mat. xix. 18. and Rom. xiii. 2." And for this that great ornament of our dissenting churches, and of the world, the admiration of even high churchmen themselves, (witness Dr. Johnson's well-known encomium) is compared to the Roman catholics, who in some of their catechisms mutilate the second com-," mandment, which bears hard on their image worship, and who at the same time, prevent the word of God from being read by the common people; whereas, as the calumniator well knows, every dissenter constantly appeals to it as the rule of his faith and practice, and encourages the reading of it in his family. This bitter enemy of the dissenters in his complaints against the Toleration act, observes as follows::- "Any man, without exception, may as the law now stands, declaring himself to be a dissenter of any denomination, demand, a license from the magistrates, and for the fee of six-pence, become a thus stand qualified, not only to preach privileged minister of the gospel, and any doctrine which a supposed inspiration may dictate, but to set at deñance the laws of the land, which call upon every man to serve or find a substitute in the militia of his county. This appears to be so shameful an abuse of an act of Toleration, that a noble peer lately thought it worthy parliamentary investigation, and the ill success of his efforts is to be attributed to a popular cry artfully fabricated and most jesuitically cloaked." To this mass of priestly malice, misrepresentation, and falsehood, we reply, that the six-penny licence of the magistrate although it protect a man from persecution, does not con |