Abbildungen der Seite

Casement. At the interview between the priest and the prelaw, {see p. 365,) the former did not, it seems, abruptly declare to the latter that he never would read the prayer for the success of his Majesty's arms; but assumed a respectful and even submissive tone. £0 far, oar statement may be deemed inaccurate, and we take shame. 1 to ourselves for such inaccuracy. But no attempt has been made to invalidate our conclusions; for, the respect; and submission' of tht priest went no farther than hjs tongue: he ne\>er did, he never would, r.cad the prayer, which it was his duty to read, and the compromise which we noticed actually took place. Having entered into this explanation, and discharged out duty to the public, we (hall now bid adieu to this ungrateful subject, expressing our sovereign- contempt for the individual, who, to the profligacy of refusing to pray for his Sovereign,, can add the meanness of belying the sentiments of his heart for the promotion of his interest.

One other matter for explanation remains. The learned prelate in question conceiving himself to have been attacked in the Review, for having favoured the growth of Schism, by the encouragement of sectaries, has, through the fame medium, peremptorily denied the fact of having given such encouragement. This dental we record with pleasure, andt we trust, it will be considered, by the Clergy of his diocese* and more particularly by such of them as attended the rate electing at Sion College, as a full and satisfactory confutation of all the reports which envy or malevolence may have raised on that subject. We here take a respectful leave of his Lordship. It has been whispered to us, in another quarter, that the harsh appellation of "a fatl calitvfny" has been applied to the Review which has excised so much notice. This, if true, is an attack on our character which we should deserve were we to suffer it to pass unnoticed. We cot only repel the foul accusation, with the indignant spirit of upright independence, but throw down the gauntlet to pur accusers, and dare them to the field. If they will manfully stand forward we areprepared tq substantiate our facts by irsefragable proofs. While u» scorn to persevere in error, no consideration shall induce us to desert the standard of truth. We shall now suffer our correspondents to fj>eak on the interesting topic of Schism and Schismatics.

Tq the Editor,


THE cafe of the two lectureships to which the Anti. Jacobin Review for April refers, is more pointed and more singular, than even there stated.

The lectureship at Chelsea was an old established lectureship on the. Sunday afternoon. The lectureship at St. Margaret's, Lothbury, was a totally new institution for the Thursday evening. The design did not originate with the parishioners; and it was uniformly opposed by the worthy Rector.


It is well known that several of the parishioners disapproved of the appointment of a lecturer, though they were weak enough to sign a paper in recommendation of Mr. Gunn, because they said they knew the Rector would reject it.—And, therefore, they made this torn, promise.

The Rector of Chelsea rejected Mr, H. a decent fair character, though legally elected by the majority of the parishioners.

The Rector of St. Margaret's, Lothbuiy, rejected Mr. G. from a novel appointment, unckcted by the parishioners.

Did the Bishop of the diocese interfere with the Rector of Chelsea i Why then should he interfere with the Rector of St. Margaret's?

The one cafe was not near so strong as the other.

Why should the church of St. Margaret's be fixed on for an intruder? Why might not the Cathedral of St. Paul's have been applied for? Here the right of interference seems to have been greater than in the present case.

In the case of the late Rector of Chelsea I have heard the following statement. As soon as the election closed, some warm, but not judicious, friends of Mr. H. set off to the Rector, than at Reading, to ask for the pulpit. Mr. C. was not pleased, and said, 'Gentlemen, do you ask for the pulpit as a matter of right, or as a matter of favour?' They were embarrassed, and imprudently infilled on the right, which Mr. C. denied. I have no doubt but the pulpit would Jiave been equally refused had they returned a different answer.


To the Editor.


AS your observations respecting the conduct of some Rectors, during the vacancy of lectureships, are highly interesting and important, I think it my duty to inform you of a transaction which reflects a peculiar disgrace upon a Rector of one of the most populous parishes in London. At a meeting of the vestry to declare a lectureship, vacant, he told them, that he thought it would be more conducive to the interests of the parish, not to proceed to an election, but for him to pay an afternoon preacher out of his own pocket; that if they chose ah improper person, he had, by the law of the land, a. negative upon their choice; and the case of Cadogan against the parish os Chelsea was cited as a cafe in point. The Vcilry determined that an election should take place, and several candidates preached their probationary sermons. As the Rector was so very circumspect, it was very natural to have imagined that he would have heard the preachers, in order that he might decide who was the fittest person to preach to his congregation. However, he did not think proper to attend the church, and at the day of election Mr. S. was chosen by a considerable majority. Mr. Gurney frying that the flection was not legal, and threatening to bring it before the King's stench, the Rector hcljtated for some time to sign Mr. S.'s certificate, to enable him to get the Bishop os London's licence. As the majority of the parishioners are of the lower class, they had the effrontery to sav, that they were certain that the Rector would appoint Mr. S. as the period of collecting the Easter offerings approached. He did as they conjectured. The Bishop of C. went one Sunday afternoon to hear the lecturer, who preached near an hour, afterwards they went into the Vestry, and his Lordship took occasion, for a considerable time, to reprov e him, both for the matter and manner of his discourse, and said, * that he never heard such preaching in his life.' I have related these circumstances to shew you how ill the interests of the established church are consulted by those who are appointed its guardians. You seem to me in your last Review to have blamed our dioceran more than he deserves. He certainly is a timid man. But, in mv opinion, the Rectors are more to be blamed than he. They wish to throw the onus upon him, when the law has given them a solemn and decisive negative upon the choice of the people. The law has wisely said, that none shall enter the Rector's pulpit without his express, approbation. Mr. Cadogan acted firmly, and consistently, in suffering none but Calvinists to enter his pulpit. Our tame pusillanimous Rectors, like children, go to the Bilhop to learn their lesion, and are afraid to do what is right for the fake of a little temporal advantage. The Bilhop of C. has disobliged the greater part os his parishioners; and, I am afraid, Sir, that whenevy the election of lecturers is in the people, .our churches will be filled with Methodists, and the pure rational and simple doctrines of the gospel be discarded. I feel a peculiar degree of anxiety in communicating these observations through the channel of your excellent work, and remain, Sir,

A Ericnd to the Church of England.

To the Editor.


I read, with much pleasure, your remark son the Life of Mr. Cadogan, in addition to which, permit me to observe, that it would be easy to prove that those who arrogate to themselves, exclusively, the title of Evangelical Preachers, are not true members of the Church of England, in doctrine; and are separatists in practice. They preach up the doctrine of John Ca'viti, tree, sovereign, discriminating Grace, which are called the peculiar doctrines of the. Gospel. Now what fays the Church of England, founded on the literal sense of the holy Scripture?—The child is taught to fay in the Catechism, that "Christ hath redeemed me and all mankind." In the administration of the Lord's Supper, the Priest, fays, " the bedy and blood of Christ, which were given for you"—addressing himself individually to every communicant. 1 lie third article asserts that, " Christ's offering once made is a perfect ledempt'on, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and a&ual."


Is, then, the CalvinilHc sense of Scripture should be she true sense, I would afle, how can the Priest, with a safe conscience, adminiller the Sacrament, when he is persuaded, as some are, that the person to whom lie gives it-and utters these words, is not a believer, because not predestinated, and therefore, that the consecrated elements cannot do him good, but harm.

Mr. Romaine was looked up to as more than a Biihop: the writer of this was present when the following dialogue passed between Iiim and a young man just from Oxford, whirl) was the first time

he saw Mr. R. Mr. R. "Youare from Oxford, ^ii ?"—A. " Yes,

Sir."—R. Of what college."—A. "Magdalen College."—R. " Do you know Dr. Home, the president?"—A. " Yes, Sir, very well." —R. " I knew Dr. Home many years ago, and he then knew me and my master. Dr. Home sticks now just where I was 40 years ago. I once went to hear him preach at Court, the sermon ■was Redeeming the Time, such stuff, that I would not have picked it out of the dust if it had been under my feet: not one word of jesus Christ in the whole." I hare seldom witnessed a greater instance of incivility, spiritual pride, and insolent contempt The young Academic must have been weak, indeed, if such abuse made any impression on him. Thest-rmon in quell ion is before the public (See Vol. II. p. 239.) Let any one read it for himself, and he will experience no loss of time. If it was not a sort of ap insult to the memory of Dr. Home, I would desire any one to compare his Commentary on the Psalms, with Mr. Romanic's Commentary on Solomon's Song. One of the Reviewer's said on Mr. Romaine's Life of Faith.—" It was a pity that the Life of Faitii should be the death of Common Sense.'' But I would go farther, and say, that the life of such Faith, such solitary, modern, antinemian Faith, is the death of all reason, all piety, all humility, all meekness. A few favourite notions are denominated Faith, and this Faith is exalted above every Christian grace, and may exelude every moral virtue; and yet this stiall be looked on as doing the greatelt honour to the Gospel of Christ. I knew Mr. Romaine well. He had certain abilities; but he was the idol and the tyrant »f His people (as they were called): they flattered while they fearers him. He insulted while he exercised his influence over them, and received their liberal favours. He was a proud, insolent, peevish man. He loved money; though he would occasionally do a geneTous action m his own way. On being applied to relieve a person in much distress, he rudely dismissed the application with "TiTiaw, what is that to me?" And the fame day sent the distressed person* 10I. note.

A Friend lo tbe EJabfiJbmcnt

To the Editor.


IT is but very lately your Anti-Jacobin fns come under 1717 perusal. It would trespass too much upon your room to pay *he commendations it -delcrvcs, and it is with ylcisorc 1 perceive

that, that, not a few of tTie leaven of the old lump of last century gnash their teeth at it, and smile horribly a ghastly grin. In one of tlit numbers I have seen, there is a something which would put on the. shape of a defence of the Quakers.

Are there any men lo egregioufly absurd (not to use a harsher expression) as to deny that every member of a community who is enriched under the protection of^ and secured in his prosperity by, its government ought to contribute to the defence of that community and government? Yes, the Quakers. And their objection is conscience, a very convenient quality for several descriptions of men besides them. Without descending to personality, I shall consider them only collectively, as a body, whose principles and tenets vere originally derived (but since considerably altered) from the most horrid basphemer and impostor that ever insulted the understanding of maiikind, not excepting Mahomet himself.

Upon the occasion Q/ their refusing to contribute towards the . defence of their country it may not be improper tq consider whether this delicate conscience of theirs be not jhe offspring of avarice rather than principle. I will ask them a sew questions. Do they consider George Fox their original founder? Do they believe that Le was inspired, as he himself pretended? If they do, let us hear what George fays upon the subject of war.

In his letter to Oliver Cromwell, he advises him to make was upon the Turks, and the all os Europe: his words are these, "G*, Oliver, thou stiouldst not have stood trifling about small things. Do not stand cumbering thyself about dirty Priejls;" had he taken bis advice, he adds, " Hollanders had been thy subjects, Germany had given up to thy will, and the Spaniards had quivered like a diy least the King os France should have bowed under his neck, the Pope should have withered as in the winter, the Turk in all his fatness ihould hwefmoakcd; thou shouldst have crumbled nations to dust, therefore let thy soldiers go forth with a free and willing heart, that though mayest rock nations as a cra<!le. For a mighty work hath the Lord to do in other nations, and their quakings and shaking are but entering. So is the word of the Lord Cod to thee, as a charge to thee from the Lord God." Here is a famous bottle-holder to Old Noll!

Now the charge is from the Lord God thro' his oracle George Fox, to Oliver, to let hissoldiers go forth. Is this peace or war? Was it to fight or to preach r It was to crumble nations to dust, to rock nations as a cradle. The letter was dated the nth Month, 1659. But in their plea printed 1661, a distance of only two years, they lay, "iuch of us whole principles were once so, are changed even from that principle ana practice of going to tear and fighting." It is curious to remark the circumstances of the two periods, and the causes of so sudden a change of sentiment. A very shallow observer will immediately perceive, that when they had an opportunity to fight against kings and dirty pritfis, they would go forth as soldiers aith « free and willing heart, but lu! when kings and priests obtain the dominancy again, they became as meek as lambs.

The natter ccoies to this; George Fox pretended to inspiration,


« ZurückWeiter »