ftatement. At the interview between the priest and the prelate, (fee p. 365,) the former did not, it feems, abruptly declare to the latter that he never would read the prayer for the fuccefs of his Majefty's arms; but affumed a respectful and even fubmiffive tone. So far, our statement may be deemed inaccurate, and we take shame to ourselves for fuch inaccuracy. But no attempt has been made to invalidate our conclufions; for, the refpect and fubmiffion of the prieft went no farther than his tongue: he never did, he never would, read the prayer, which it was his duty to read, and the compromise which we noticed actually took place. Having entered into this explanation, and difcharged our duty to the public, we shall now bid adieu to this ungrateful fubject, expreffing our fovereign contempt for the individual, who, to the profligacy of refufing to pray for his Sovereign, can add the meannefs of belying the fentiments of his heart for the promotion of his interest.

One other matter for explanation remains. The learned prelate in queftion conceiving himself to have been attacked in the Review, for having favoured the growth of Schifin, by the encouragement of fectaries, has, through the fame medium, peremptorily denied the fact of having given fuch encouragement. This denial we record with pleafure, and, we truft, it will be confidered, by the Clergy of his diocefe, and more particularly by fuch of them as attended the late meeting at SiON COLLEGE, as a full and fatisfactory confutation of all the reports which envy or malevolence may have raised on that fubject. We here take a refpectful leave of his Lordfhip. It has been whispered to us, in another quarter, that the harsh appellation of " a foul calumny has been applied to the Review which has excited fo much notice. This, if true, is an attack on our character which we should deferve were we to fuffer it to pass unnoticed. We not only repel the foul accufation, with the indignant fpirit of upright independence, but throw down the gauntlet to our accufers, and dare them to the field. If they will manfully ftand forward we are prepared to fubftantiate our facts by irrefragable proofs. While we fcorn to perfevere in error, no confideration fhall induce us to defert the ftandard of truth. We fhall now fuffer our correfpondents to fpeak on the interesting topic of Schifm and Schifmatics.

SIR;

To the Editor,

THE cafe of the two lectureships to which the AntiJacobin Review for April refers, is more pointed and more fingular, 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 inftitution for the Thursday evening, The defign did not originate with the parishioners; and it was uniformly oppoked by the worthy Rector.

It is well known that feveral of the parishioners difapproved of the appointment of a lecturer, though they were weak enough to fign a paper in recommendation of Mr. Gunn, because they said they knew the Rector would reject it.-And, therefore, they made this compromife.

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, Lothbury, rejected Mr. G. from a novel appointment, unelected by the parishioners.

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

The one cafe was not near fo 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 feems to have been greater than in the prefent cafe.

In the cafe of the late Rector of Chelsea I have heard the following Statement. As foon as the election clofed, fome warm, but not judi cious, friends of Mr. H. fet off to the Rector, than at Reading, to afk for the pulpit. Mr. C. was not pleafed, and faid, Gentlemen, do you ask for the pulpit as a matter of right, or as a matter of fa vour?' They were embarraffed, and imprudently infifted on the right, which Mr. C. denied. I have no doubt but the pulpit would have been equally refufed had they returned a different anfwer. CLERICUS.

SIR,

To the Editor.

AS your obfervations refpecting 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 tranfaction which reflects a peculiar difgrace upon a Rector of one of the most populous parishes in London. At a meeting of the veftry to declare a lecturethig vacant, he told them, that he thought it would be more conducive to the interefts 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 chofe an improper perfon, he had, by the law of the land, a negative upon their choice; and the cafe of Cadogan against the parish of Chelfea was cited as a cafe in point. The Vetry determined that an election fhould take place, and several candidates preached their probationary fermons. As the Rector was so very cir cumfpect, it was very natural to have imagined that he would have heard the preachers, in order that he might decide who was the fittest perfon to preach to his congregation. However, he did not think proper to attend the church, and at the day of election Mr. S. was chofen by a confiderable majority. Mr. Gurney faying that the leftion was not legal, and threatening to bring it before the King's Bench, the Rector helitated for fome time to fign Mr. S.'s certificate,

to

to enable him to get the Bishop of London's licence. As the majo. rity of the parishioners are of the lower clafs, they had the effrontery to fay, that they were certain that the Rector would appoint Mr. S. as the period of collecting the Eafter 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 Veftry, and his Lordship took occafion, for a confiderable time, to reprove him, both for the matter and manner of his discourse, and faid, that he never heard fuch preaching in his life.' I have related thefe circumstances to fhew you how ill the interefts of the eftablished church are confulted by thofe who are appointed its guardians. You feem to me in your last Review to have blamed our diocefan more than he deferves. He certainly is a timid man. But, in my 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 folemn and decifive negative upon the choice of the people. The law has wifely faid, that none fhall enter the Rector's pulpit without his exprefs approbation. Mr. Cadogan acted firmly, and confitently, in fuffering none but Calvinists to enter his pulpit. Our tame pufillanimous Rectors, like children, go to the Bithop to learn their leffon, and are afraid to do what is right for the fake of a little temporal advantage. The Bishop of C. has difobliged the greater part of his parishioners; and, I am afraid, Sir, that whenever the election of lecturers is in the people, our churches will be filled with Methodists, and the pure rational and fimple doctrines of the gospel be discarded. I feel a peculiar degree of anxiety in communicating thefe obfervations through the channel of your excellent work, and remain, Sir, A Friend to the Church of England.

SIR,

To the Editor.

I read, with much pleasure, your remarks on the Life of Mr. Cadogan, in addition to which, permit me to obferve, that it would be easy to prove that those who arrogate to themselves, exclufively, the title of Evangelical Preachers, are not true members of the Church of England, in doctrine; and are Separatifts in practice. They preach up the doctrine of John Ca'vin, free, fovereign, difcriminating Grace, which are called the peculiar doctrines of the Gofpel. Now what fays the Church of England, founded on the literal fenfe of the holy Scripture?-The child is taught to fay in the Catechifm, that "Christ hath redeemed me and all mankind.” In the adminiftration of the Lord's Supper, the Prieft fays, "the body and blood of Chrift, which were given for you"-addreffing himfelf individually to every communicant. The third article afferts that, "Chrift's offering once made is a perfect redemption, propitiation, and fatisfaction for all the fins of the whole world, both original and actual."

If, then, the Calvinistic fenfe of Scripture fhould be the true fenfe, I would afk, how can the Prieft, with a safe confcience, adminifter the Sacrament, when he is perfuaded, as fome are, that the perfon to whom he gives it and utters these words, is not a believer, because not pr.deftinated, and therefore, that the confecrated elements cannot do him good, but harm.

Mr. Romaine was looked up to as more than a Bifhop: the writer of this was prefent when the following dialogue paffed between him and a young man just from Oxford, which was the first time he faw Mr. R.- -Mr. R. "You are from Oxford, Sir?”—A. “Yes, Sir."-R. Of what college.”—A. "Magdalen College."--R. " Do you know Dr. Horne, the prefident?"-A. " Yes, Sir, very well.” -R. "I knew Dr. Horne many years ago, and he then knew me and my mafter. Dr. Horne sticks now just where I was 40 years ago. I once went to hear him preach at Court, the fermon was Redeeming the Time, fuch ftuff, that I would not have picked it out of the duft if it had been under my feet: not one word of Jefus Chrift in the whole." I have seldom witneffed a greater inftance of incivility, fpiritual pride, and infolent contempt The young Academic muft have been weak, indeed, if fuch abuse made any impreffion on him. The fermon in quellion is before the public. (See Vol. II. P. 239.) Let any one read it for himself, and he will experience no lofs of time. If it was not a fort of ap infult to the memory of Dr. Horne, I would defire any one to compare his Commentary on the Pfalms, with Mr. Romaine's Commentary on Solomon's Song. One of the Reviewer's faid on Mr. Romaine's Life of Faith." It was a pity that the Life of Faith fhould be the death of Common Senfe." But I would go farther, and fay, that the life of fuch FAITH, fuch folitary, modern, antinomian Faith, is the death of all reafon, all piety, all humility, all meekness. A few favourite notions are denominated Faith, and this Faith is exalted above every Christian grace, and may exclude every moral virtue; and yet this fhall be looked on as doing the greatest honour to the Gospel of Chrift. I knew Mr. Romaine well. He had certain abilities; but he was the idol and the tyrant of HIS people (as they were called): they flattered while they feared him. He infulted while he exercifed his influence over them, and received their liberal favours. He was a proud, infolent, peevith man. He loved money; though he would occafionally do a generous action in his own way. On being applied to relieve a perfon in much diftrefs, he rudely difmiffed the application with "Pfhaw, what is that to me?" And the fame day fent the diftreffed perfon a iol. note. A Friend to the Efablishment

To the Editor.

SIR,

I perufal. It would trefpals too much upon your room to pay the commendations it deferves, and it is with pleature 1 perceive

T is but very lately your Anti-Jacobin has come under my

that,

that, not a few of the leaven of the old lump of last century gnash their teeth at it, and fmile horribly a ghaftly grin. In one of the numbers I have feen, there is a fomething which would put on the fhape of a defence of the Quakers.

Are there any men to egregioufly abfurd (not to use a harsher expreffion) as to deny that every member of a community who is enriched under the protection of, and fecured in his profperity by, its government ought to contribute to the defence of that community and government? Yes, the Quakers. And their objection is confcience, a very convenient quality for feveral defcriptions of men befides them. Without defcending to perfonality, I fhall confider them only collectively, as a body, whofe principles and tenets were originally derived (but fince confiderably altered) from the moft horrid bafphemer and impoftor that ever infulted the underftanding of mankind, not excepting Mahomet himself.

Upon the occafion of their refufing to contribute towards the. defence of their country it may not be improper to confider whether this delicate confcience of theirs be not the offspring of avarice rather than principle. I will afk them a few questions. Do they confider George Fox their original founder? Do they believe that he was infpired, as he himself pretended? If they do, let us hear what George lays upon the subject of war.

In his letter to Oliver Cromwell, he advifes him to make war upon the Turks, and the all of Europe: his words are these, "O, Oliver, thou fhouldft not have ftood trifling about fmall things. Do not ftand cumbering thyfelf about dirty Priefts;" had he taken his advice, he adds, "Hollanders had been thy fubjects, Germany had given up to thy will, and the Spaniards had quivered like a dry leaf: the King of France fhould have bowed under his neck, the Pope fhould have withered as in the winter, the Turk in all his fatness fhould have fmoaked; thou shouldft have crumbled nations to duft, therefore let thy foldiers go forth with a free and willing heart, that though mayeft rock nations as a cradle. For a mighty work hath the Lord to do in other nations, and their quakings and fhaking are but entering. So is the word of the Lord God to thee, as a charge to thee from the Lord God." Here is a famous bottle holder to Old Noll!

But in

Now the charge is from the Lord God thro' his oracle George Fox, to Oliver, to let his foldiers go forth. Is this peace or war? Was it to fight or to preach? It was to crumble nations to duft, to rock nations as a cradle. The letter was dated the 11th Month, 1659. their plea printed 1661, a diftance of only two years, they lay, "fuch of us whole principles were once fo, are changed even from that principle and practice of going to war and fighting." It is curious to remark the circumftances of the two periods, and the causes of fo fudden a change of fentiment. A very fhallow obferver will immediately perceive, that when they had an opportunity to fight against kings and dirty priefts, they would go forth as foldiers with a free and willing heart, but lo! when kings and priests obtain the dominancy again, they became as meek as lambs.

The matter comes to this; George Fox pretended to inspiration,

and