Book 2. p. 57.

Footnote 313:

Beza, Epist. 1.

Lubieniecius,[314] a Polish Unitarian, was, through the practices of the Calvinists, banished with his brethren from Poland, his native country; and forced to leave several protestant cities of Germany, to which he had fled for refuge, particularly, Stetin, Frederickstadt, and Hamburg, through the practices of the Lutheran divines, who were against all toleration. At Hamburg he received the orders of the magistrates of the city to depart the place on his death-bed; and when his dead body was carried to Altenau to be interred, though the preachers could not, as they endeavoured, prevent his being buried in the church, yet they did actually prevent the usual funeral honours being paid him. John Sylvanus,[315] superintendant of the church of Heidelberg, was put to death by order of Frederick Elector Palatine, anno 1571, being accused of Arianism.

Footnote 314:

Vit. Lub. Præf. Hist. Reformat. Polon.

Footnote 315:

Lub. Hist. l. 2. c. 5.

SECT. IV. _Persecutions in Holland, and by the Synod of Dort._

If we pass over into Holland, we shall also find that the reformers there were most of them in the principles and measures of persecution, and managed their differences with that heat and fury, as gave great advantages to the Papists, their common enemies. In the very infancy of the reformation the Lutherans and Calvinists condemned each other for their supposed heterodoxy in the affair of the sacrament, and looked upon compliance and mutual toleration to be things intolerable. These differences were kept up principally by the clergy of each party. The Prince of Orange, and States of Holland, who were heartily inclined to the reformation, were not for confining their protection to any particular set of principles or opinions, but for granting an universal indulgence in all matters of religion, aiming at peace and mutual forbearance, and to open the church as wide as possible for all Christians of unblameable lives; whereas the clergy being biassed by their passions and inclinations for those masters, in whose writings they had been instructed, endeavoured with all their might to establish and conciliate authority to their respective opinions; aiming only at decisions and definitions, and shutting up the church by limitations in many doubtful and disputable articles; so that the disturbances which were raised, and the severities which were used upon the account of religion, proceeded from the bigotry of the clergy, contrary to the desire and intention of the civil magistrate.

Before the ministers of the reformed party were engaged in the controversy with Arminius,[316] their zeal was continually exerting itself against the anabaptists, whom they declared to be excommunicated and cut off from the church, and endeavoured to convert by violence and force, prohibiting them from preaching under fines, and banishing them their country, upon account of their opinions. And the better to colour these proceedings, some of them wrote in defence of persecution; or, which is the same thing, against the toleration of any religion or opinions different from their own; and for the better support of orthodoxy, they would have had the synods ordain, that all church officers should renew their subscriptions to the confession and catechism every year, that hereby they might the better know who had changed their sentiments, and differed from the received faith. This practice was perfectly agreeable to the Geneva discipline; Calvin himself, as hath been shewn, being in judgment for persecuting heretics; and Beza having wrote a treatise, anno 1600, to prove the lawfulness of punishing them. This book was translated from the Latin into the Low Dutch language by Bogerman, afterwards president of the synod of Dort, and published with a dedication, and recommendation of it to the magistrates. The consequence of this was, that very severe placarts were published against the anabaptists in Friesland and Groningen, whereby they were forbidden to preach; and all persons prohibited from letting their houses and grounds to them, under the penalty of a large fine, or confinement to bread and water for fourteen days. If they offended the third time, they were to be banished the city, and the jurisdiction thereof. Whosoever was discovered to re-baptize any person, should forfeit twenty dollars; and upon a second conviction to be put to bread and water, and then be banished. Unbaptized children were made incapable of inheriting; and if any one married out of the reformed church, he was declared incapable of inheriting any estate, and the children made illegitimate.

Footnote 316:

Brandt. Hist. V. 2. l. 17.

But the controversy that made the greatest noise, and produced the most remarkable effects, was that carried on between the Calvinists and Arminians. Jacobus Arminius, one of the professors of divinity at Leyden, disputing in his turn about the doctrine of predestination, advanced several things differing from the opinions of Calvin on this article, and was in a few months after warmly opposed by Gomarus his colleague, who held, that “It was appointed by an eternal decree of God, who amongst mankind shall be saved, and who shall be damned.” This was indeed the sentiment of most of the clergy of the United Provinces, who therefore endeavoured to run down Arminius and his doctrine with the greatest zeal, in their private conversations, public disputes, and in their very sermons to their congregations, charging him with innovations, and of being a follower of the ancient heretical monk Pelagius; whereas the government was more inclinable to Arminius’s scheme, as being less rigid in its nature, and more intelligible by the people, and endeavoured all they could to prevent these differences of the clergy from breaking out into an open quarrel, to the disturbance of the public peace. But the ministers of the predestinarian party would enter into no treaty for peace: the remonstrants were the objects of their furious zeal, whom they called mamelukes, devils, and plagues; animating the magistrates to extirpate and destroy them, and crying out from the pulpits, “We must go through thick and thin, without fearing to stick in the mire: we know what Elijah did to Baal’s priests.” And when the time drew near for the election of new magistrates, they prayed to God for such men, “as would be zealous even to blood, though it were to cost the whole trade of their cities.” They also accused them of keeping up a correspondence with the Jesuits and Spaniards, and of a design to betray their country to them.

These proceedings gave great disturbance to the magistrates, especially as many of the clergy took great liberties with them, furiously inveighing against them in their sermons, as enemies to the church, and persecutors; as libertines and free-thinkers, who hated the sincere ministers of God, and endeavoured to turn them out of their office. This conduct, together with their obstinate refusal of all measures of accommodation, and peace with the remonstrants, so incensed the magistrates, that in several cities they suspended some of the warmest and most seditious of them, and prohibited them from the public exercises of their ministerial function; particularly Gezelius of Rotterdam, and afterwards Rosæus, minister at the Hague, for endeavouring to make a schism in the church, and exhorting the people to break off communion with their brethren. Being thus discarded, they assumed to themselves the name of the persecuted church, and met together in private houses, absolutely refusing all communion with the remonstrant ministers and party, in spite of all the attempts made use of to reconcile and unite them.

What the ministers of the contra-remonstrant party aimed at, was the holding a national council; which at length, after a long opposition, was agreed to in the assembly of the States-General, who appointed Dort for the place of the meeting. Prince Maurice of Orange, the Stadtholder, effectually prepared matters for holding the said assembly; and as he declared himself openly for the contra-remonstrant party, not for that he was of their opinions in religion, being rather inclined to those of Arminius, but because he thought them the best friends to his family, he took care that the council should consist of such persons as were well affected to them. In order to this his excellency changed the government of most of the towns of Holland, deposed those magistrates who were of the remonstrant persuasion, or that favoured them in the business of the toleration, and filled up their places with contra-remonstrants, or such as promoted their interests; making use of the troops of the states, to obviate all opposition.

The consequence of this was the imprisonment of several great men of the remonstrant persuasion, such as the advocate Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius, and others; and the suspension, or total deprivation of a considerable number of the remonstrant clergy, such as Vitenbogart, of the Hague, Grovinckhovius, of Rotterdam, Grevius, and others, by particular synods met together for that purpose, and to prepare things, and appoint persons for the ensuing national one at Dort. The persons fixed on were generally the most violent of the contra-remonstrant party, and who had publicly declared, that they would not enter into communion with those who differed from them, nor agree to any terms of moderation and peace. There were also several foreign Divines summoned to this council, who were most of them in the Calvinistic scheme, and professed enemies to the Arminians.

The lay commissioners also, who were chosen by the States, were most of them very partial contra-remonstrants; and two or three of them, who seemed more impartial than the others, were hardly suffered to speak; and if they did, were presently suspected, and represented by letters sent to the states, and Prince Maurice, at the Hague, as persons that favoured the remonstrants; which was then considered as a crime against the government, insomuch, that by these insinuations, they were in danger of being stripped of all their employments.

The session and first opening of this venerable assembly,[317] was Nov. 13, 1618. John Bogerman was chosen president of it; the same worthy and moderate Divine, who had before translated into Low Dutch Beza’s Treatise, to prove the lawfulness of punishing heretics, with a preface recommendatory to the civil magistrate; chosen not by the whole synod, but by the Low Country divines only, the foreigners not being allowed any share in the election.

Footnote 317:

The Council of Dort, A. C. 1618.

At the fifth session the remonstrants petitioned the synod, that a competent number of their friends might have leave to appear before them, and that the citation might be sent to the whole body, and not to any single person, to the end that they might be at liberty to send such as they should judge best qualified to defend their cause; and particularly insisted, that Grovinckhovius and Goulart might be of the number. One would have thought that so equitable a request should have been readily granted. But they were told, that it could not be allowed that the remonstrants should pass for a distinct body, or make any deputation of persons in their common name to treat of their affairs; and agreeably to this declaration, the summons that were given out were not sent to the remonstrants as a body or part of the synod, but to such particular persons as the synod thought fit to choose out of them; which was little less than citing them as criminals before a body of men, which chiefly consisted of their professed adversaries.[318] When they first appeared in the synod, and Episcopius in the name of the rest of them talked of entering into a regular conference about the points in difference, they were immediately given to understand, that no conference was intended; but that their only business was to deliver their sentiments, and humbly to wait for the judgment of the council concerning them.

Footnote 318:

Act Syn. Dord. Sess. 22.

Episcopius, in the name of his brethren, declared, that they did not own the synod for their lawful judges, because most of that body were their avowed enemies, and fomenters and promoters of the unhappy schism amongst them; upon which they were immediately reprimanded by the president, for impeaching and arraigning their authority, and presuming to prescribe laws to those whom the States-General had appointed for their judges. The Divines of Geneva added upon this head, “That if people obstinately refused to submit to the lawful determinations of the church, there then remained two methods to be used against them; the one, that the civil magistrate might stretch out his arm of compulsion; the other that the church might exert her power, in order to separate and cut off, by a public sentence, those who violated the laws of God.” After many debates on this head, between the synod and the remonstrants, who adhered to their resolution of not owning the synod for their judges, they were turned out of it, by Bogerman the president, with great insolence and fury; to the high dissatisfaction of many of the foreign Divines.

After the holy synod had thus rid themselves of the remonstrants, whose learning and good sense would have rendered them exceeding troublesome to this assembly, they proceeded to fix the faith; and as they had no opposition to fear, and were almost all of one side, at least in the main points, they agreed in their articles and canons, and in their sentence against the remonstrant clergy, who had been cited to appear before them; which was to this effect: “They beseeched and charged in the name of Christ, all and singular the ministers of the churches throughout the United Netherlands, &c. that they forsake and abandon the well-known five articles of the remonstrants, as being false, and no other than secret magazines of errors.—And whereas some, who are gone out from amongst us, calling themselves remonstrants, have, out of private views and ends, unlawfully violated the discipline and government of the church—have not only trumped up old errors, but hammered out new ones too—have blackened and rendered odious the established doctrine of the church with impudent slanders and calumnies, without end or measure; have filled all places with scandal, discord, scruples, troubles of conscience—all which heinous offences ought to be restrained and punished in clergymen with the severest censures: therefore this national synod—being assured of its own authority—doth declare and determine, that those ministers, who have acted in the churches as heads of factions, and teachers of errors, are guilty, and convicted of having violated our holy religion, having made a rent in the unity of the church, and given very great scandal: and as for those who were cited before this synod, that they are besides guilty of intolerable disobedience—to the commands of the venerable synod: for all which reasons the synod doth, in the first place, discharge the aforesaid cited persons from all ecclesiastical administrations, and deprive them of their offices; judging them likewise unworthy of any academical employment.—And as for the rest of the remonstrant clergy, they are hereby recommended to the provincial synods, classes, and consistories—who are to take the utmost care—that the patrons of errors be prudently discovered; that all obstinate, clamorous, and factious disturbers of the church under their jurisdiction, be forthwith deprived of their ecclesiastical and academical offices.—And they the said provincial synods are therefore exhorted—to take a particular care, that they admit none into the ministry who shall refuse to subscribe, or promise to preach the doctrine, asserted in these synodical decrees; and that they suffer none to continue in the ministry, by whose public dissent the doctrine which hath been so unanimously approved by all the members of this synod, the harmony of the clergy, and the peace of the church may be again disturbed—And they most earnestly and humbly beseech their gracious God, that their High Mightinesses may suffer and ordain this wholesome doctrine, which the synod hath faithfully expressed—to be maintained alone, and in its purity within their provinces—and restrain turbulent and unruly spirits—and may likewise put in execution the sentence pronounced against the above mentioned persons—and ratify and confirm the decrees of the synod by their authority.”

The states readily obliged them in this christian and charitable request; for as soon as the synod was concluded, the old advocate Barnevelt was beheaded, who had been a zealous and hearty friend to the remonstrants and their principles, and Grotius condemned to perpetual imprisonment; and because the cited ministers would not promise wholly, and always to abstain from the exercise of their ministerial functions, the states passed a resolution for the banishing of them on pain, if they did not submit to it, of being treated as disturbers of the public peace. And though they only begged a respite of the sentence for a few days, to put their affairs in order, and to provide themselves with a little money to support themselves and families in their banishment, even this was unmercifully denied them, and they were hurried away next morning by four o’clock, as if they had been enemies to the religion and liberties of their country.

Such was the effect of this famous presbyterian synod, who behaved themselves as tyrannically towards their brethren, as any prelatical council whatsoever could do; and to the honour of the church of England it must be said, that they owned their synodical power, and concurred by their deputies, Carleton Bishop of Landaff, Hall, Davenant, and Ward, in condemning the remonstrants, in excommunicating and depriving them, and turning them out of their churches, and in establishing both the discipline and doctrines of Geneva in the Netherlands. For after the council was ended, the remonstrants were every where driven out of their churches, and prohibited from holding any private meetings, and many of them banished on this very account. The reader will find a very particular relation of these transactions, in the learned Gerard Brandt’s History of the Reformation of the Low Countries, to which I must refer him.

SECT. V. _Persecutions in Great-Britain._

If we look into our own country, we shall find numerous proofs of the same antichristian spirit and practice. Even our first reformers, who had seen the flames which the papists had kindled against their brethren, yet lighted fires themselves to consume those who differed from them. Cranmer’s hands were stained with the blood of several.[319] He had a share in the prosecution and condemnation of that pious and excellent martyr John Lambert, and consented to the death of Ann Askew, who were burnt for denying the corporal presence; which, though Cranmer then believed, he saw afterwards reason to deny.

Footnote 319:

Burnett’s Hist. Ref. Vol. II. p. 106, 107.

In the year 1549, Joan Bocher was condemned for some enthusiastical opinions about Christ, and delivered over to the secular power. The sentence being returned to the council, King Edward VI. was moved to sign a warrant for her being burnt, but could not be prevailed with to do it. Cranmer endeavoured to persuade him by such arguments, as rather silenced than satisfied the young king: so he set his hand to the warrant with tears in his eyes, saying to the archbishop, that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer for it to God. Though this struck Cranmer with horror, yet he at last put the sentence in execution against her.

About two years after one George Van Pare, a Dutchman, was accused, for saying, “That God the Father was only God, and that Christ was not very God.” And though he was a person of a very holy life, yet because he would not abjure, he was condemned for heresy, and burnt in Smithfield. The Archbishop himself was afterwards burnt for heresy; which, as Fox observed, many looked on as a just retaliation from the providence of God, for the cruel severeties he had used towards others.

The controversy about the Popish habits was one of the first that arose amongst the English reformers. Cranmer and Ridley were zealous for the use of them, whilst other very pious and learned Divines were for laying them aside, as the badges of idolatry and antichrist. Amongst these was Dr. Hooper, nominated to the bishoprick of Gloucester; but because he refused to be consecrated in the old vestments, he was by order of council first silenced, and then confined to his own house; and afterwards, by Cranmer’s means, committed to the Fleet prison, where he continued several months.

[320]In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, A. C. 1559, an act passed for the uniformity of common prayer, and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments; by which the queen and bishops were empowered to ordain such ceremonies in worship, as they should think for the honour of God, and the edification of his church. This act was rigourously pressed, and great severities used to such as could not comply with it. Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, made the clergy subscribe to use the prescribed rites and habits; and cited before him many of the most famous Divines who scrupled them, and would allow none to be presented to livings, or preferred in the church, without an intire conformity. He summoned the whole body of the London pastors and curates to appear before him at Lambeth, and immediately suspended 37, who refused to subscribe to the unity of apparel; and signified to them, that within three months they should be totally deprived, if they would not conform. So that many churches were shut up; and though the people were ready to mutiny for want of ministers, yet the archbishop was deaf to all their complaints, and in his great goodness and piety was resolved they should have no sacraments or sermons without the surplice and the cap. And in order to prevent all opposition to church tyranny, the Star Chamber published a decree for sealing up the press, and prohibiting any person to print or publish any book against the queen’s injunctions, or against the meaning of them. This decree was signed by the bishops of Canterbury and London.

Footnote 320:

Queen Elizabeth.

This rigid and fanatical zeal for habits and coremonies, caused the Puritans to separate from the established church, and to hold private assemblies for worship. But the queen and her prelates soon made them feel their vengeance. Their meetings were disturbed, and those who attended them apprehended, and sent in large numbers, men and women, to Bridewell, for conviction. Others were cited into the spiritual courts, and not discharged till after long attendance and great charges. Subscriptions to articles of faith were violently pressed upon the clergy, and about one hundred of them were deprived, anno 1572, for refusing to submit to them. Some were closely imprisoned, and died in jail, through poverty and want.

And that serious piety and christian knowledge might gain ground, as well as uniformity, the bishops, by order of the queen, put down the prophesyings of the clergy, anno 1574, who were forbid to assemble as they had done for some years, to discourse with one another upon religious subjects and sermons; and as some serious persons of the laity were used to meet on holidays, or after they had done work, to read the scriptures, and to improve themselves in christian knowledge, the parsons of the parishes were sent for, and ordered to suppress them.

Eleven Dutchmen, who were anabaptists, were condemned in the consistory of St. Paul to the fire, for heresy; nine of whom were banished, and two of them burnt alive in Smithfield. In the year 1583, Copping and Thacker, two Puritan ministers, were hanged for non-conformity. It would be endless to go through all the severities that were used in this reign upon the account of religion. As the queen was of a very high and arbitrary temper, she pressed uniformity with great violence, and found bishops enough, Parker, Aylmer, Whitgift, and others, to justify and promote her measures; who either entered their sees with persecuting principles, or embraced them soon after their entrance, as best befitting the ends of their promotion. Silencings, deprivations, imprisonments, gibbets, and stakes, upon the account of religion, were some of the powerful reasonings of those times. The bishops rioted in power, and many of them abused it to the most cruel oppressions. The cries of innocent prisoners, widowed wives, and starving children, made no impression on their hearts. Piety and learning with them were void of merit. Refusal of subscriptions, and non-conformity, were crimes never to be forgiven. A particular account of these things may be seen in Mr. Neal’s history of the Puritans, who hath done some justice to that subject.

I shall only add, that the court of high commission established in this reign, by the instigation of Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, by which the commissioners were impowered to inquire into all misdemeanors, by all such ways and means as they could devise, and thought necessary; to examine persons upon oath, and to punish those who refused the oath by fine or imprisonment, according to their discretion, was an high stretch of the prerogative, and had a very near resemblance to the courts of inquisition; and the cruelties that were practised in it, and the exorbitant fines that were levied by it in the two following reigns, made it the universal abhorrence of the nation, so that it was dissolved by parliament, with a clause that no such court should be erected for the future.

[321]King James I. was bred up in the kirk of Scotland, which professed the faith and discipline of those called Puritans in England; and though he blessed God, “For honouring him to be king over such a kirk, the sincerest kirk in the world,” yet, upon his accession to the English throne, he soon shewed his aversion to the constitution of that kirk; and to their brethren, the puritans in England. These were solicitous for a farther reformation in the church, which the bishops opposed, instilling this maxim into the king, [322]“No Bishop, no King;” which, as stale and false a maxim as it is, hath been lately trumped up, and publicly recommended, in a sermon on the 30th of January. In the conference at Hampton Court, his Majesty not only sided with the bishops, but assured the puritan ministers, who were sent for to it, that “he had not called the assembly together for any innovations, for that he acknowledged the government ecclesiastical, as it then was, to have been approved by God himself;” giving them to understand, that “if they did not conform, he would either hurry them out of the kingdom, or else do worse.”[323] And these reasonings of the king were so strong, that Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, with an impious and sordid flattery said, “He was verily persuaded that the king spoke by the spirit of God.”

Footnote 321:

James I.

Footnote 322:

Wilson.

Footnote 323:

Heylin’s Life of Laud, p. 58.

It was no wonder that the bishops, thus supported by an inspired king, should get an easy victory over the puritans; which possibly they would not have done, had his majesty been absent, and the aids of his inspiration withdrawn; since the archbishop did not pretend that himself or his brethren had any share of it. But having thus gotten the victory, they strove by many methods of violence to maintain it; and used such severities towards the non-conformists, that they were forced to seek refuge in foreign countries. The truth is, this conference at Hampton Court was never intended to satisfy the puritans, but as a blind to introduce episcopacy into Scotland, and to subvert the constitution and establishment of that church.

His majesty, in one of his speeches to his Parliament, tells them, that “he was never violent and unreasonable in his profession of religion.” I believe all mankind will now acquit him of any violent and unreasonable attachment to the protestant religion and liberties. He added in the same speech, it may be questioned whether by inspiration of the spirit, “I acknowledge the Roman church to be our mother church, although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions.” And he did behave as a very dutiful son of that mother church, by the many favours he shewed to the papists during his reign, by his proclamations for uniformity in religion, and encouraging and supporting his bishops in their persecutions of such as differed from, or could not submit to them.

Bancroft, promoted to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury, was, as the historian[324] calls him, “A sturdy piece,” a cruel and inflexible persecutor, treating the non-conformists with the greatest rigour and severity; and who, as Heylin tells us, [325]“was resolved to break them, if they would not bow.” He put the canons and constitutions agreed on A. C. 1603, furiously into execution, and such as stood out against them, he either deprived or silenced. And indeed, as the aforementioned author says, [326]“Who could stand against a man of such a spirit, armed with authority, having the law on his side, and the king to his friend? During his being archbishop he deprived, silenced, suspended, and admonished, above three hundred ministers. The violencies he and his brethren used in the high-commission courts, rendered it a public grievance.” [327]“Every man must conform to the episcopal way, and quit his hold in opinion or safety. That court was the touchstone, to try whether men were metal for their stamp; and if they were not soft enough to take such impressions as were put upon them, they were made malleable there, or else they could not pass current. This was the beginning of that mischief, which, when it came to a full ripeness, made such a bloody tincture in both kingdoms, as never will be got out of the bishop’s lawn sleeves.”

Footnote 324:

Wilson.

Footnote 325:

Life of Laud, p. 58.

Footnote 326:

Wilson.

Footnote 327:

Wilson.

But nothing displeased the sober part of the nation more, than the publication of the Book of Sports, which the bishops procured from the king, and which came out with a command, enjoining all ministers to read it to their parishioners, and to approve of it; and those who did not, were brought into the high commission, imprisoned, and suspended; this book being only a trap to catch some conscientious men, that they could not otherwise, with all their cunning, ensnare.

[328]“These, and such like machinations of the bishops,” says my author, “to maintain their temporal greatness, ease, and plenty, made the stones in the walls of their palaces, and the beam in the timber, afterwards cry out, moulder away, and come to nothing; and caused their light to go out offensive to the nostrils of the rubbish of the people.”

Footnote 328:

Ibid.

Indeed many of the king’s bishops, such as Bancroft, Neal, and Laud, who was a reputed papist in Oxford, and a man of a dangerous turbulent spirit, were fit for any work; and as they do not appear to have had any principles of real piety themselves, they were the fittest tools that could be made use of to persecute those who had. Neal, when he was Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, prosecuted one Edward Wightman, for broaching erroneous doctrine, and having canonically condemned him, got the king’s warrant for his execution; and he was accordingly burnt in Litchfield. One Legat also was prosecuted and condemned for heresy, by King Bishop of London, and expired in the flames of Smithfield. He denied the divinity of our Saviour, according to the Athanasian mode of explaining it; but as Fuller tells us, he was excellently skilled in scripture, and his conversation very unblameable. But as these sacrifices were unacceptable to the people, the king preferred, that heretics hereafter, though condemned, should silently and privately waste themselves away in prison, rather than to amuse others with the solemnity of a public execution.

In the reign of the Royal Martyr,[329] the church grew to the height of her glory and power; though such is the fate of all human things, that she soon sickened, languished, and died. Laud, carried all before him, and ruled both church and kingdom with a rod of iron. His beginning and rise is thus described by Archbishop Abbot, his pious and worthy predecessor.

Footnote 329:

Charles I.

[330]“His life in Oxford was to pick quarrels in the lectures of the public readers, and to advertise them to the then Bishop of Durham, that he might fill the ears of King James with discontents against the honest men that took pains in their places, and settled the truth, which he called puritanism, in their auditors.

Footnote 330:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 278. 2d edit.

“He made it his work to see what books were in the press, and to look over epistles dedicatory, and prefaces to the reader, to see what faults might be found.

“It was an observation what a sweet man this was like to be, that the first observable act he did, was the marrying the Earl of Devonshire to the Lady Rich, when it was notorious to the world that she had another husband, and the same a nobleman, who had divers children then living by her. King James did for many years take this so ill, that he would never hear of any great preferment of him: insomuch that the Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Williams, who taketh upon him to be the first promoter of him, hath many times said, that when he made mention of Laud to the King, his Majesty was so averse from it, that he was constrained oftentimes to say, that he would never desire to serve that master, who could not remit one fault to his servant. Well, in the end he did conquer it, to get him to the Bishoprick of St. David’s; which he had not long enjoyed, but he began to undermine his benefactor, as at this day it appeareth. The Countess of Buckingham told Lincoln, that St. David’s was the man that undermined him with her son. And verily, such is his aspiring nature, that he will underwork any man in the world, so that he may gain by it.”

[331]He had a peculiar enmity to Archbishop Abbot, a man of an holy and unblameable life, because he had informed King James that Laud was a reputed papist in Oxford, and of a dangerous, turbulent spirit; and as James I. was wrought up into an incurable animosity against the puritans, “this was thought to be fomented by the papists, whose agent Bishop Laud was suspected to be: and though the king was pleased with asservations to protest his incentive spirit should be kept under, that the flame should not break out by any preferment from him; yet getting into Buckingham’s favour, he grew into such credit, that he was thought to be the bellows which blew those flames that were every where rising in the nation.

Footnote 331:

Wilson.

“For the papists used all the artifices they could to make a breach between the king and his people; and to accomplish this, amongst other methods, they sowed the seeds of division betwixt puritan and protestant; for all those were puritans, with this high grown Armenian popish party, that held in judgment the doctrine of the reformed churches, or in practice live according to the doctrine publicly taught in the church of England. And they attributed the name of protestant,

“1. To such papists, as either out of policy, or by popish indulgence, held outward communion with the church of England.

“2. To such protestants, as were either tainted with, or inclinable to their opinions.

“3. To indifferent men, who embrace always that religion, that shall be commanded by authority. Or,

“4. To such neutrals as care for no religion, but such as stands with their own liking; so that they allow the church of England the refuse both of their religion and ours.”

Thus far Wilson: and though Laud might be, as the same historian relates, of “a motley form of religion” by himself, yet the whole course of his tyrannical administration gave but too just reason for suspicion, that his strongest inclinations were towards Rome and Popery.[332] The first parliament of Charles I. re-assembled at Oxford in 1625, complained that Popery and Arminianism were countenanced by a strong party in the kingdom; and Neal Bishop of Winchester, and Laud, then of St. David’s, were chiefly looked upon as the heads and protectors of the Arminians, nay, as favourers of Popery.

Footnote 332:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 240. Com. Hist. vol. III. p. 35.

The reasons of this suspicion were many. He was drove on by a rigid, furious, and fanatical zeal for all the ceremonies of the church of England, even for such as seemed the least necessary. And not content with these, he promoted and procured the introduction of many others, which never had been enjoined by lawful authority.

January 16, 1630, he consecrated, as Bishop of London, St. Catharine Creed Church, with all the fopperies of a popish superstition. [333]“At the bishop’s approach to the west door, some that were prepared for it, cried with a loud voice, “Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the king of glory may enter in.” Immediately enters Laud. Then falling down upon his knees, with his eyes lifted up, and his arms spread abroad, he cried out “This place is holy: the ground is holy: in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I pronounce it holy.” Then he took up some of the dust, and threw it up into the air several times, in his going up towards the chancel. When they approached near to the rail, and communion table, the bishop bowed towards it several times; and returning, they went round the church in procession, singing the 100th psalm; after that the 19th psalm; and then said a form of prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” concluding, “We consecrate this church, and separate it unto thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more to common use.”

Footnote 333:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 286.

“After this the bishop being near the communion table, and taking a written book in his hand, pronounced curses upon those that should afterwards profane that holy place, by musters of soldiers, or keeping profane law courts, or carrying burdens through it; and at the end of every curse he bowed towards the east, and said, “Let all the people say,” Amen. After this he pronounced a number of blessings upon all those who had any hand in framing and building of that sacred and beautiful church, and those that had given, or should hereafter give any chalices, plate, ornaments, or utensils; and at the end of every blessing he bowed towards the East, saying, “Let all the people say,” Amen.

“After this followed the sermon; which being ended, the bishop consecrated and administered the sacrament in manner following.

“As he approached the communion table, he made many lowly bowings, and coming up to the side of the table, where the bread and wine were covered, he bowed seven times; and then, after the reading of many prayers, he came near the bread, and gently lifted up the corner of the napkin wherein the bread was laid; and when he beheld the bread, he laid it down again, flew back a step or two, bowed three several times towards it; then he drew near again, and opened the napkin, and bowed as before. Then he laid his hand on the cup, which was full of wine, with a cover upon it; which he let go, then went back, and bowed thrice towards it. Then he came near again; and lifting up the cover of the cup, looked into it, and seeing the wine, he let fall the cover again, retired back, and bowed as before. Then, he received the sacrament, and gave it to some principal men; after which many prayers being said, the solemnity of the consecration ended.”

In this manner have I seen high mass celebrated pontifically. And from whence did the pious Laud learn all these kneelings, bowings, throwings of dust, cursings, blessings, and adorations of the sacramental elements; from the sacred scriptures, or the writings of the primitive fathers? No: it was an exact copy of the Roman Pontifical, which was found in his study; and though he alledged in his defence that it was a form communicated by Bishop Andrews to him, it was ridiculous, since Andrews himself had it from the same pontifical.

[334]The next year, 1632, Henry Sherfield, Esq. recorder of Sarum, was fined in the Star Chamber £500. on the following occasion. There was in the city of Salisbury a church called St. Edmund’s, whose windows were painted with the history of the creation; where God the Father was represented in the form of an old man, creating the world during the first six days, but painted sitting on the seventh, to denote the day of rest. In expressing the creation of the sun and moon, the painter had put in God’s hand a pair of compasses, as if he was going to measure them. The recorder was offended with this profaneness; and, by an order of vestry, took down those painted glasses, and broke some of the panes with his stick, and ordered others to be put up in their room. Upon this an information was exhibited against him in the Star Chamber, by the attorney-general; where Sherfield was for this reason charged with being ill-affected to the discipline of the Church of England, and the government thereof by bishops, because he had broken excellent pictures of the creation, and fined for his crime in the sum above mentioned, committed to the Fleet, removed from his recordership, and bound to his good behaviour. Nor was Laud ashamed, in justification of such pictures, to urge, as the papists continually do, that place in Dan. vii. 9, in which God is described as “the ancient of days;” shewing himself a worse divine, or a more popishly affected one, than the Earl of Dorset, who then sat with him in the court, and said, that by that text was meant “the eternity of God, and not God to be pictured as an old man, creating the world with a pair of compasses. But I wish” added the Earl, “there were no image of the Father, neither in the church, nor out of the church; for, at the best, they are but vanities and teachers of lies.”

Footnote 334:

Rushw. Tom. II. p. 153, 156.

In 1633,[335] Laud was made Archbishop of Canterbury; and having observed that the placing the communion table in the body of the church, or at the entrance of the chancel, was not only a prostitution of the table to ordinary and sordid uses, but the chancel looked like an useless building, fit only for a schooling and parish-meeting, though originally designed for the most solemn office of religion; to redeem these places, as he termed it, from profaneness, and restore them to the primitive use of the holy sacrament, the archbishop used his utmost diligence to remove the communion table from the body of the church, and fix it at the upper end of the chancel, and secure it from the approach of dogs, and all servile uses, by railing it in, and obliging the people to come up to those rails to receive the sacrament with more decency and order. This affair, says Lord Clarendon, he prosecuted more passionately than was fit for the season, and created disputes in numberless places;[336] so that the high commission had frequent occasions to punish the ministers, who were suspected of too little zeal for the Church of England. And as since the reformation the altars were changed into communion tables, and placed in the middle of the chancel, to avoid superstition; many imagined, and that with too much reason, the tables were again turned into altars with intent to revive a superstitious worship.

Footnote 335:

Com. Hist. vol. III. p. 73.

Footnote 336:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 291.

In the year 1634,[337] he set up and repaired Popish images in the glass windows of his chapel at Lambeth; particularly one of God the Father, in the form of a little old man. This Laud himself owned, that he repaired the windows at no small cost, by the help of the fragments that remained, and vindicated the thing. He introduced also copes, candlesticks, tapers, and such like trumperies. So that L’Estrange, whom no man will charge with partiality against the archbishop, says of him: [338]“The Archbishop of Canterbury stands aspersed, in common fame, as a great friend at least, and patron of the Romish Catholics, if he were not of the same belief. To which I answer by concession: true it is, he had too much and long favoured the Romish faction—though not the Romish faith. He tampered indeed to introduce some ceremonies, bordering upon superstition, disused by us, and abused by them. From whence the Romanists collected such a good disposition in him to their tenets, as they began not only to hope, but in good earnest to cry him up for their proselyte.”

Footnote 337:

Rush. ad An. 1634, p. 270, 280.

Footnote 338:

Id. v. III. p. 1326.

Under the year 1635,[339] the author of the notes to the Complete History tells us, that one of the great offences taken by wise and good men against the archbishop, was the new attempt of reconciling the Church of England to the Church of Rome. The design was to accommodate the articles of the Church of England to the sense of the Church of Rome, for the reconciliation of the two churches. Davenport, an English Franciscan Friar, published a book to this purpose, under the name of Franciscus de Sancta Clara, which was dedicated to the king, and said to have been directed to Archbishop Laud. And it was an article objected against him, that for the advancement of popery and superstition in this realm, he had wittingly and willingly harboured and relieved divers popish priests and jesuits, and particularly Sancta Clara, who hath written a popish and seditious book, wherein the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England are much traduced and scandalized, the said archbishop having divers conferences with him, while he was writing the said book. The archbishop did not seem to deny his acquaintance with the man, nor with the design of the book; but was rather afraid the book would not answer the design.

Footnote 339:

Vol. III. p. 82.

The same author farther adds, that the best observations on this matter were made by Mr. Rous, in a speech against Dr. Cosin, March 16, 1640, “A second way by which this army of priests advanceth this popish design, is the way of treaty. This hath been acted both by writings and conference. Sancta Clara himself says, ‘Doctissimi eorum, quibuscunque egi.’ So it seems they have had conference together. And Sancta Clara, on his part, labours to bring the articles of our church to popery, and some of our side labour to meet him in the way. We have a testimony that the great arch-priest himself hath said: ‘It were no hard matter to make a reconciliation, if a wise man had the handling of it.’”

Such was the good opinion which the papists had of Laud, and of his inclinations to popery, that it is certain they offered him a cardinal’s cap. Eachard and others say he refused it.

[340]But the Lord Wiquefort, as cited by Mr. Oldmixon, informs us, in his Treatise of the Ambassador and his Function, that Laud treated with Count Rosetti, the popish agent in England, for a pension of 48,000 livres a year; which if the Pope would have settled upon him, he would not only have accepted the cardinal’s cap, but have gone to Rome, and have dwelt with the Pope and his cardinals as long as he lived.

Footnote 340:

Hist. of Stuarts, p. 118.

The bitter and relentless fury with which he treated the puritans, and others, who were friends to the Church of England, and some of the best protestants in the kingdom, is a demonstration that he was more papist than protestant. Of the puritans he used to say, as Heylin tells us, that “they were as bad as the papists;” and indeed he used them in a much worse manner.

In the Considerations he presented to the King, “Anno 1629, for the better securing the Church Government,” he prayed his Majesty, amongst other things, that Emanuel and Sydney Colleges in Cambridge, which are the nurseries of puritanism, may from time to time be provided of grave and orthodox men for their governors. In the several accounts of his province, which he sent to the King, we read almost of nothing but conformity and non-conformity to the church, refractory people to the church, peevish and disorderly men, for preaching up the observation of the sabbath, breach of church canons, wild, turbulent preachers, for preaching against bowing at the name of Jesus, and in disgrace of the common prayer book; and in consequence of these things, presentments, citations in the high commission court, censures, suspensions from preaching, and other like pious methods, to reduce and reform them.[341] And so grievous and numerous were the violencies he exercised on these and the like occasions, in the star chamber, high commission, and spiritual courts, that many excellent and learned men were forced to leave the kingdom, and retire to the West-Indies. And yet even this was unmercifully forbidden them. For in the year 1637, a proclamation was issued to stop eight ships going to New England; and another warrant from the council, of which Laud was one, to the Lord Admiral, to stop all ministers unconformable to the discipline and ceremonies of the church, who frequently transport themselves to the summer islands, and other plantations; and that no clergyman should be suffered to go over, without approbation of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London. These prohibitions, as the Complete Historian observes, increased the murmurs and complaints of the people thus restrained, and raised the cries of a double persecution, to be vexed at home, and not suffered to seek peace or refuge abroad.

Footnote 341:

Com. Hist. vol. III. p. 90.

But how were the papists treated all this while? why with brotherly mildness and moderation. For whilst these severities were exercising against protestants, there were many pardons and indulgencies granted to popish offenders. The papists were in reality his favourites and friends.

On July 7, 1626,[342] Montague’s books, intitled, “An Appeal to Cæsar,” and “A Treatise of the Invocation of Saints,” were called in question by the House of Commons, and reported to contain false, erroneous, papistical opinions. For instance: “That the Church of Rome hath ever remained firm, upon the same foundation of sacraments and doctrines instituted by God. That the controverted points (between the Church of England and that of Rome) are of a lesser and inferior nature, of which a man may be ignorant, without any danger of his soul at all. That images may be used for the instruction of the ignorant, and excitation of devotion. [343]That there are tutelar saints as well as angels.” The House of Commons voted his books to be contrary to the established articles; to tend to the King’s dishonour, and to the disturbance of church and state. And yet this zealous protestant Bishop Laud was, as the Complete Historian assures us, “a zealous friend to the person and opinions of Mr. Montague;”[344] and made this entry in his diary on this affair. “Jan. 29. Sunday. I understand what D. B. had collected concerning the Cause, Book, and Opinions of Richard Montague, and what R. C. had determined with himself therein. Methinks I see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of England;” viz. because the popish opinions of this turbulent priest were censured as contrary to the established articles of the church of England. He was fit to be made one of Laud’s brethren; and accordingly was preferred to the Bishoprick of Chichester, anno 1629.

Footnote 342:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 244.

Footnote 343:

Com. Hist. vol. III. p. 30.

Footnote 344:

P. 32.

[345]The author of the Remarks on the Complete Historian farther tells us, under the year 1632, that great prejudice was taken against some of Bishop Laud’s churchmen, by one of them protesting to die in the communion of the Church of Rome; Dr. Theodore Price, prebendary of Winchester, and sub-dean of Westminster. Mr. Prynne affirmed, that this man, very intimate with the archbishop, and recommended by him specially to the King to be a Welch Bishop, in opposition to the Earl of Pembroke, and his chaplain Griffith Williams, soon after died a reconciled papist, and received extreme unction from a priest. The remarker adds, “It is strange partiality in the Oxford Historian, to question this matter, when Laud himself, in his MS notes upon that relation given by Mr. Prynne, doth by no means deny the fact, but excuses the using his interest for him; and says, ‘he was more inward with another bishop, and who laboured his preferment more than I.’”

Footnote 345:

Vol. III. p. 67.

In the same year, 1632,[346] Mr. Francis Windbank was made secretary of state by the interest of Bishop Laud, who hath entered it in his Diary. “1632. June 15. Mr. Francis Windbank, my old friend, was sworn Secretary of State; which place I obtained for him of my gracious master King Charles.” He proved so much a creature of the queen’s, and such an advocate and patron of all suffering papists and jesuits, that he had the character of a papist, and brought a very great odium upon Laud who preferred him. That which created him the more envy, was the turning out the old secretary, Sir John Coke, who was displaced by Laud “for his honest firmness against popery,” as the author of the remarks on the complete historian assures us, and for his hatred and opposition to the jesuits. This job was labouring for three years’ space and at last obtained by Laud’s influence on the King.

Footnote 346:

Com. Hist. p. 67.

These instances, and many others which might be mentioned, are sufficient to discover what sort of a protestant Laud was, and how he stood affected to the church of Rome. I shall now consider his character for piety, which was exactly of a piece with his protestantism.

He was a creature of the Duke of Buckingham, who was one of the lewdest men in the kingdom. This man, as Archbishop Abbot said of him, was the only inward counsellor with Buckingham; “sitting with him sometimes privately whole hours, and feeding his humour with malice and spite.” His marrying the Earl of Devonshire to the Lady Rich, though she had another husband, is a glorious argument of his regard to the laws of God, and particularly of his reverence for the seventh commandment.

He gave, also, notable proofs of his zeal to maintain the honour of the fourth. The liberties taken at Wakes, or annual feasts of the dedication of churches, on Sundays, were grown to a very high excess, and occasioned great and numerous debaucheries. The lord chief justice Richardson,[347] in his circuit, made an order to suppress them, Laud complained of this to the king, as an intrusion upon the ecclesiastical power; upon which Richardson was severely reprimanded, and forced to revoke the order. The justices of the peace upon this drew up a petition to the king, shewing the great inconveniences which would befal the country, if those revels, church-ales and clerk-ales, upon the Lord’s-day, were permitted. But before the petition could be delivered, Laud published by the king’s order, the declaration concerning recreations on the lord’s-day, “out of a pious care for the service of God,” as that declaration expresses it towards the conclusion of it. However, this “pious care” of Laud and the king was resented by the soberest persons in the nation, as irreligious and profane, as those revels had been the occasion of an “infinite number of inconveniences;” and the declaration for publishing the lawfulness of them through all parish-churches, [348]“proved a snare to many ministers, very conformable to the church of England, because they refused to read the same publicly in the church, as was required: For upon this many were suspended, and others silenced from preaching.” An instance of great piety, unquestionably this; first to establish the profanation of the Lord’s-day by a public order, and then to persecute and punish those ministers who could not, in conscience, promote the ends of “so godly a zeal,” by reading the king’s order for wakes and revels on the Lord’s-day out of that very place, where perhaps they had been just before publishing the command of the most high God, not to profane but to keep it holy.

Footnote 347:

Rushw. vol. I. p. 196.

Footnote 348:

Rushw. vol. I. p. 196.

His treatment of Mr. Prynne may also be added, as another instance of this prelate’s exemplary love of virtue, and pious zeal for the service of God. [349]That gentleman published in the year 1632 his Histrio-Mastix, or book against stage-plays; in which, with very large collections, he exposed the liberties of the stage, and condemned the lawfulness of acting. Now, because the court became greatly addicted to these entertainments, and the queen was so fond of them, as meanly to submit to act a part herself in a pastoral; therefore this treatise against plays “was suspected” to be levelled against the court and the queen; and it “was supposed an innuendo,” that in the table of the book this reference was put, “women actors notorious whores.” Now mark the christian spirit, the burning zeal of the pious Laud. Prynne was prosecuted in the star chamber by Laud’s procurement, who shewed the book to the king, and pointed at the offensive parts of it; and employed Heylin to pick out all the virulent passages, and “N. B. to give the severest turn to them;” and carried these notes to the attorney general for matter of information, and urged him earnestly to proceed against the author.

Footnote 349:

Com. Hist. p. 67.

Prynne was accordingly prosecuted; and being sufficiently convicted by suspicions, suppositions, and innuendoes, he was sentenced, Laud sitting as one of his judges, to have his book burnt in the most public manner; to be himself put from the bar, and made for ever incapable of his profession; to be excluded from the society of Lincoln’s Inn, and degraded in Oxford; to stand in the pillory in Westminster and Cheapside, and lose both his ears, one in each place; with a paper on his head, declaring his offence to be “an infamous libel” against both their majesties, the state and the government; to pay a fine of five thousand pounds, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment. Good God! what cruelty and barbarity is here? what insolent sporting with men’s fortunes, liberties, and bodies? What was the occasion of this bloody severity? A gentleman’s writing against the abuses of plays. Who ordered the prosecution against him for writing against plays? Archbishop Laud. Who sat at the head of his judges, who pronounced this infamous sentence? Archbishop Laud. Excellent archbishop! how christian, how commendable his zeal! How gloriously must religion flourish under his archiepiscopal inspection, and by his becoming “the most reverend” abettor, encourager, and great patron of plays on week days, and revels on sundays?

[350]’Tis true, he was for building colleges, repairing churches, settling statutes for cathedrals, annexing commendams to small bishoprics, settling of tithes, building hospitals, aggrandizing the power, and encreasing the riches of the clergy; and these things may be esteemed arguments of his piety, and of “the greatness of his soul above the ordinary extent of mankind:” This I do not take on me to deny; but it puts me in mind of the Carthusian monk, mentioned by Philip de Comines, in his “Commentaries of the Neapolitan war:” Comines was looking on the sepulchre of John Galeacius, first duke of Milan of that name, in the Carthusian church of Pavia, who had governed with great cruelty and pride, but had been very liberal in his donations to the church and clergy. As he was viewing it, one of the monks of the order commended the virtue, and extolled the piety of Galeacius. Why, says Comines, do you thus praise him as a saint? You see drawn on his sepulchre the ensigns of many people, whom he conquered without right. “Oh,” says the monk, “it is our custom to call them saints, that have been our benefactors.”

Footnote 350:

Com. Hist. p.

But let us pass on from his piety to his christian tenderness and compassion, of which there are many very remarkable instances on record.

[351]The case of Mr. Prynne, I have already mentioned. Another instance is that of the Rev. Mr. Peter Smart, who, July 27, 1628, preached on the Lord’s Day against the innovations brought by Dr. Cosins into the cathedral church of Durham; such as fonts, candles, pictures, images, copes, singings, vestments, gestures, prayers, doctrines, and the like. Cosins demeaned himself during the sermon very turbulently, and immediately afterwards summoned him before the high commission; by whom he was censured by two acts of sequestration, and one of suspension. After this they unlawfully transmitted him to London, to answer there in the high commission, for the same cause, before the inquisitors general for the kingdom; who sent him back again with proper instructions to the high commission at York, where they fined him £500. committed him to jail, detained him under great bonds, excommunicated him, sequestred all his ecclesiastical livings, degraded him, “ab omni gradu et dignitate clericali;” by virtue of which degradation, his prebendship and parsonage were both taken from him, and himself kept in jail. By these oppressions his life was several times endangered, and himself and children lost and spent above fourteen thousand pounds of real estate, whereby they were utterly undone. The hand of Laud was in all this evil, as appears by the book published by Mr. Smart himself, with the title of “Canterbury’s Cruelty.”

Footnote 351:

Com. Hist. p. 58. Notes.

The truth is, many of the most worthy and learned protestant gentlemen and divines were treated by him with the utmost indignity and barbarity; some of them dying in jail, and others being made to undergo the most cruel bodily punishments, for daring to oppose his arbitrary and superstitious proceedings. No man of compassion can read his treatment of Dr. Leighton, without being shocked and moved in the same tender manner as the House of Commons were, who several times interrupted, by their tears, the reading of the Doctor’s petition, which I shall here present my reader with entire, and leave him to form what character he pleases of the man that could contrive and carry on such a scene of barbarous and execrable cruelty.

-------

_To the Honourable and High Court of Parliament._

_The humble Petition of ALEXANDER LEIGHTON, Prisoner in the Fleet_;

HUMBLY SHEWETH,

“How your much and long distressed petitioner, on the 17th of February gone ten years, was apprehended in Black-Fryers, coming from the sermon, by a high commission warrant (to which no subject’s body is liable), and thence, with a multitude of staves and bills, was dragged along (and all the way reproached by the name of jesuit and traitor) till they brought him to London-House, where he was shut up, and, by a strong guard, kept (without food) till seven of the clock, till Dr. Laud, then Prelate of London, and Dr. Corbet, then of Oxford, returned from Fulham-House, with a troop attending. The jailer of Newgate was sent for, who came with irons, and with a strong power of halberts and staves; they carried your petitioner through a blind, hollow way, without pretence or examination; and opening up a gate into the street (which some say had not been opened since Queen Mary’s days) they thrust him into a loathsome and ruinous dog-hole, full of rats and mice, which had no light but a little grate; and the roof being uncovered, the snow and rain beat in upon him, having no bedding, nor place to make a fire, but the ruins of an old smoky chimney; where he had neither meat nor drink, from the Tuesday at night, till the Thursday at noon. In this woeful place and doleful plight, they kept him close, with two doors shut upon him, for the space of fifteen weeks; suffering none to come at him, till at length his wife was only admitted.

“The fourth day after his commitment, the high commission pursuivants came (under the conduct of the sheriffs of London) to your petitioner’s house, and a mighty multitude with them, giving out that they came to search for jesuit’s books. There these violent fellows of prey laid violent hands upon your petitioner’s distressed wife, with such barbarous inhumanity, as he is ashamed to express; and so rifled every soul in the house, holding a bent pistol to a child’s breast of five years old, threatening to kill him, if he would not tell where the books were; through which the child was so affrighted, that he never cast it. They broke open presses, chests, boxes, the boards of the house, and every thing they found in the way, though they were willing to open all. They, and some of the sheriffs’ men, spoiled, robbed, and carried away all the books and manuscripts they found, with household stuff, your petitioner’s apparel, arms, and other things; so that they left nothing that liked them; notwithstanding your petitioner’s wife told the sheriffs, they might come to reckon for it. They carried also a great number of divers of your petitioner’s books, and other things, from one Mr. Archer’s house, as he will testify.

“Farther, your petitioner being denied the copy of his commitment, by the jailor of Newgate, his wife, with some friends, repaired to the sheriff, offering him bail, according to the statute in that behalf; which being shewed by an attorney at law, the sheriff replied, that he wished the laws of the land, and privileges of the subject, had never been named in the parliament, &c. Your petitioner (having thus suffered in body, liberty, family, estate, and house) at the end of fifteen weeks was served with a subpœna, on information laid against him by Sir Robert Heath, then his Majesty’s attorney general; whose dealing with your prisoner was full of cruelty and deceit. In the mean time it did more than appear, to four physicians, that poison had been given him in Newgate; for his hair and skin came off in a sickness (deadly to the eye) in the height whereof, as he did lie, censure was passed against him in the star chamber, without hearing (which had not been heard of) notwithstanding of a certificate from four physicians, and affidavit made by an attorney, of the desperateness of the disease. But nothing would serve Dr. Laud, but the highest censure that ever was passed in that court to be put upon him; and so it was to be inflicted with knife, fire, and whip, at and upon the pillory, with ten thousand pounds fine; which some of the lords conceived should never be inflicted, only it was imposed (as on a dying man) to terrify others. But the said doctor and his combinants, caused the said censure to be executed the 26th day of November following (with a witness) for the hang-man was armed with strong drink all the night before in prison, and, with threatning words, to do it cruelly. Your petitioner’s hands being tied to a stake (besides all other torments) he received thirty-six stripes with a treble cord; after which, he stood almost two hours on the pillory, in cold frost and snow, and suffered the rest; as cutting off the ear, firing the face, and slitting of the nose; so that he was made a theatre of misery to men and angels.” [Here the compassion of the house of commons was so great, that they were generally in tears, and ordered the clerk to stop reading twice, till they had recovered themselves.] “And being so broken with his sufferings, that he was not able to go, the warden of the Fleet would not suffer him to be carried in a coach: but he was forced to go by water, to the farther endangering of his life; returning to the jail after much harsh and cruel usage, for the space of eight years, paying more for a chamber than the worth of it (having not a bit of bread, nor a drop of water allowed). The clerk of the Fleet, to top up your petitioner’s sufferings, sent for him to his office, and without warrant, or cause given by your petitioner, set eight strong fellows upon him, who tore his clothes, bruised his body, so that he was never well, and carried him by head and heels to that loathsome and common gaol; where, besides the filthiness of the place, and vileness of the company, divers contrivances were laid for taking away the life of your petitioner, as shall manifestly appear, if your honours will be pleased to receive and peruse a schedule of that subject.

“Now the cause of all this harsh, cruel, and continued ill usage, unparalleled yet upon any one since Britain was blessed with christianity, was nothing but a book written by your petitioner, called “Sion’s Plea against the Prelacy; and that, by the call of divers and many good Christians in the parliament time, after divers refusals given by your petitioner; who would not publish it being done, till it had the view and approbation of the best in the city, country, and university, and some of the parliament itself: In witness whereof he had about 500 hands; for revealing of whose names he was promised more favors by Sir Robert Heath than he will speak of: But denying to turn accuser of his brethren, he was threatened with a storm, which he felt to the full; wherein (through God’s mercy) he hath lived, though but lived; choosing rather to lay his neck to the yoke for others, than to release himself by others’ sufferings.

“Farther, the petitioner was robbed of divers goods, by one Lightborn, Graves, and others, officers and servants of the Fleet, amounting towards the value of thirty pounds, for which Lightborn offered composition (by a second hand) upon the hearing of the approach of parliament; but your petitioner (notwithstanding his necessity) refused to hearken to any such illegal and dangerous way. To innumerate the rest of your petitioner’s heavy pressures, would take up a volume; with which he will not burden your honours, till further opportunity.

“And therefore, he humbly and heartily entreateth, that you would be graciously pleased to take this his petition into your serious thoughts, and to command deliverance, that he may plead his own cause, or rather Christ’s, and the state’s. As also to afford such cost and damages as he has suffered in body, estate, and family; having been prisoner (and that many times) in the most nasty prisons, eleven years, not suffered to breathe in the open air: to which, give him leave to add his great sufferings in all those particulars, some sixteen years ago, for publishing a book, called, ‘The Looking-Glass of Holy War.’

“Farther, as the cause is Christ’s and the states, so your petitioner conceiveth (under correction) that the subject of the book will be the prime and main matter of your agitation, to whose wisdom he hopeth the book shall approve itself.

“Also your petitioner’s wearing age, going now in seventy-two years, together with the sicknesses and weakness of his long distressed wife, require a speedy deliverance.

“Lastly, the sons of death, the jesuits and jesuited, have so long insulted in their own licentious liberty, and over the miseries of your servant, and others; who, forbearing more motives, craves pardon for his prolixity, being necessitated thereto from the depth and length of his miseries. In all which he ceaseth not to pray, &c. and,

“Kisseth your hands.”

PROV. xxiv. 11.

“Wilt thou not deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain?”

When this merciless sentence on Leighton was pronouncing, Laud stood up in public court, and “pulled off his cap, and gave God thanks for it;” and in his diary he makes this remark on the execution, without one word to discover that his bowels yearned, or his heart relented. “Friday, Nov. 16. He (Leighton) was severely whipped; and being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and branded on one cheek with a red-hot iron. And on that day sevennight his sores upon his back, ear, nose and face, not being cured, he was whipped again at the pillory in Cheapside, and there had the remainder of his sentence executed upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of his nose, and branding the other cheek.”

These, and the like instances are specimens of this most reverend prelate’s humanity, compassion, and christian moderation. I shall only consider him in one view more, viz. his constant regard to the laws and liberties of his country.

He justified, and did all he could to support Charles I. in all the illegal and arbitrary measures of his government. In 1626, after he had dissolved his Parliament, because they were too intent upon the redress of grievances, though they had voted four subsidies, and three fifteenths, he resolved to raise money by the illegal method of a loan. And to promote this, who so fit as Laud; who, with others of his brethren, were, as the complete historian expresses it, unhappily “engaged in the interest of Buckingham, and very forward in those measures which the king unfortunately took.” Accordingly Laud received a command from the king to draw up instructions to shew the urgency of the king’s affairs, and his occasions of supply. These instructions Laud soon got ready; and the king sent them as letters of precept to the two archbishops, to be communicated to their suffragans, to be published in all the parishes of the kingdom. This was justly looked upon as a stratagem of state to promote the raising of money without a parliament, and Laud was employed as the fittest tool to promote these arbitrary measures of the king. The papists joined with the bishops, and were very forward in the loan: whilst the puritans were backward in it; and some of the best gentlemen in the kingdom, upon their refusal to lend money, were immediately committed to several jails.

Besides this, the court had their parsons to preach up absolute obedience to the king’s commands. Sibthorp, in his sermon at Northampton, laid it down as gospel, that “It is the king’s duty to direct and make laws; that he doth whatever pleaseth him; and that it is the subject’s duty to yield a passive obedience.” Manwaring, in a sermon, spoke more plainly, and affirmed, that “the king was not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subject’s rights and liberties; but that his royal will and command, in imposing loans and taxes, without common consent of Parliament, doth oblige the subject’s conscience, upon pain of eternal damnation;” and that those who refused the loan, became guilty of impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion. And yet infamous as this doctrine was, and subversive of all the laws of the kingdom, Laud was their patron and advocate; and in contempt of the censure of the House of Lords on Manwaring, gave him first as his reward a good benefice, and afterwards advanced him to the Bishoprick of St. David. And because this parliament, which had censured Manwaring, had also complained of Laud himself, and passed a vote against innovations in religion, and against such as should counsel and advise the levying of tonnage and poundage without grant of parliament; Laud, out of his great love for the liberties of the kingdom, advised the king to dissolve it; which he accordingly did, to the great discontent of the nation in general.

Another illegal project for raising money, was by a tax to provide and maintain a certain number of ships to guard the seas; and writs were sent all over the kingdom, An. 1636, for this purpose. Laud was peculiarly active in this affair; and as several persons refused to pay the sums they were rated at, they were summoned before the council table, where they were brow-beaten, and sentenced to jail by Laud, and others of the council.[352] Laud acknowledges he gave his vote with the rest, and he had an hand in these and almost all other illegal pressures for ship-money; and in his diary he tells us, that “Dec. 5, 1639. A resolution was voted at the council board,” when he was present, “to assist the king in extraordinary ways, if the parliament should prove peevish, and refuse, &c.”

Footnote 352:

Wharton, vol. II. p. 233.

[353]The endeavouring arbitrarily to reduce the kirk of Scotland to the discipline of the church of England, was also by Laud’s persuasion and advice; who was ordered by the king to hold continual correspondence with the bishops and council of Scotland, and to take with them the necessary measures to accomplish the design. [354]The Scots bishops were so lifted up, says Burnet, with the king’s zeal, and so encouraged by Archbishop Laud, that they lost all temper. And when the violent measures that were used to impose the liturgy, &c. drove the Scots to an open rupture, he forwardly procured an order of council, directed to the two archbishops, to write their several letters to the bishops, that they might incite their clergy to assist the king to reduce the Scots. Laud accordingly wrote to his several suffragans, and raised by the clergy a very great sum on this occasion. The queen also wrote letters to promote contributions amongst the Roman catholics, to further the same good cause. So that Laud and his clergy, the queen and her papists, joined hand in hand to destroy or enslave the protestants of Scotland; who rose in their own defence, and to preserve themselves from the arbitrary measures of this tyrannical archpriest.

Footnote 353:

Rapin, vol. II. p. 300.

Footnote 354:

Vol. I. p. 26.

But it would be endless to reckon up all the instances of his illegal proceedings. He was a confederate with all the enemies of the liberties of these kingdoms, and pushed on the unhappy king to such fatal measures, as at last produced the civil wars and the subversion of the constitution. He was chief counsellor and minister after Buckingham’s death; so that as Sir Edward Deering said of him, to the parliament, “Our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and vast circumference, yet so that from every part our lines of sorrow do lead unto him, and point at him the centre, from whence our miseries in this church, and many of them in the commonwealth, do flow.” Sir Harbottle Grimstone was more severe, who called him, “The sty of all pestilential filth—The great and common enemy of all goodness, and good men—A viper near his majesty’s person, to distill poison into his sacred ears.”

These and the like violences of Laud and his creatures, drew down the just vengeance of the parliament on his head, and involved the church of England itself in his ruin. Bishops and common prayer were now no more. The church was formed after a quite different model, and the presbyterian discipline received and established, both the lords and commons taking the solemn league and covenant, which was intended for the utter abolishing prelatical government. The writers of the church party think this an everlasting brand of infamy upon the presbyterians. But how doth this throw greater infamy upon them, than the subversion of presbytery in Scotland, and the imposing canons and common prayer on that nation, doth on Laud and his creatures? If the alteration of the established religion, in any nation, be a crime in itself, it is so in every nation; and I doubt not but the Scotch presbyterians, think that that archbishop, and the prelatical party, acted as unjustly, illegally, and tyrannically, in introducing the English form of church government and worship into Scotland, contrary to their former settlement, and the inclination of almost the whole nation, as the high-church party can do with respect to the presbyterians, for altering the form of the establishment in England; And, indeed, the same arguments that will vindicate the alterations made in Scotland by the king and the bishops, will vindicate those made in England by the parliament and the presbyterians.

[355]It would have been highly honourable to the presbyterian party, had they used their power, when in possession of it, with moderation, and avoided all those methods of persecutions and suspensions they had themselves felt the effects of in former times. But to do them justice, they had no great inclination for moderate measures, or allowing any form of religion but their own; as appears from the larger catechism of the Westminster divines, approved by the general assembly of the kirk of Scotland; in which the “tolerating a false religion” is ranked amongst the sins forbidden in the second commandment. And accordingly as soon as they came into the church, all others must out who would not comply, and submit to sequestrations and imprisonments.

Footnote 355:

Presbyterians.

“The solemn league and covenant” was imposed, and rigorously exacted of all people, as they would escape their brand and penalty of malignants. Many of the episcopal clergy, both in the city and country, were expelled their livings; though by a generosity, not afterwards imitated by them, provision was made for the support of their wives and children. The lord-mayor, aldermen, and common-councilmen of London, presented a remonstrance to the parliament, desiring a strict course for suppressing all private and separate congregations; that all anabaptists, heretics, &c. as conformed not to the public discipline, may be declared and proceeded against; that all be required to obey the government settled, or to be settled; and that none disaffected to the presbyterian government, be employed in any place of public trust.

An ordinance of parliament was also made; by which every minister that should use the common prayer, in church or family, was to forfeit five pounds for the first time, ten pounds for the second, and to suffer a year’s imprisonment for the third. Also every minister, for every neglect of the directory, was to pay forty shillings; and for every contempt of it, by writing or preaching, to forfeit, at the discretion of those before whom he was convicted, any sum not under five pounds, nor above fifty pounds. The parliament also appointed elderships to suspend, at their discretion, such whom they should judge to be scandalous, from the sacrament, with a liberty of appeal to the classical eldership, &c. They set up, also, arbitrary rules about the examination and ordination of ministers by Triers, who were to be sound in faith, and such as usually received the sacrament. And in these things they were quickened by the Scots, who complained that reformation moved so slowly, and that sects and errors encreased, and endeavours were used for their toleration. Great restraints also were put upon the liberty of the press, by several ordinances made for that purpose. And, to say the truth, when they once got presbytery established, they used the same methods of suspensions, sequestrations and fines, that the prelatical party had done before, though not with equal severity; and were as zealous for uniformity in their own covenant and discipline, as the bishops were for hierarchy, liturgy, and ceremonies.

[356]But the triumphs of the presbytery and covenant were but short. Upon the restoration of the “royal wanderer,”Charles II. prelacy immediately revived, and exerted itself in its primitive vigor and severity. In his majesty’s first declaration to his loving subjects, he was pleased to promise “a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion; and that he would consent to an act of parliament for the full granting that indulgence.” But other measures soon prevailed. In the second year after his restoration, the act of uniformity was passed; by which all ministers were to read, and “publicly declare unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in, and prescribed by the book of common prayer,” before the feast of St. Bartholomew then ensuing, under the penalty of immediate and absolute deprivation. The consequence of this act was, that between two and three thousand excellent divines were turned out of their churches; many of them, to say the least, as eminent for learning and piety as the bishops, who were the great promoters of this barbarous act; and themselves and families, many of them, exposed to the greatest distress and poverty.

Footnote 356:

Charles II.

This cruel injustice obliged the ejected ministers, and their friends, to set up separate congregations; and occasioned such a division from the established church, as will, I hope, ever remain, to witness against the tyranny of those times, and the reverend authors and promoters of that act, to maintain the spirit and practice of serious religion, and as a public protestation for the civil and religious liberties of mankind, till time shall be no more; or till the church shall do herself the justice and honour to open wide her gates, for the reception of all into her communion and ministry, who are not rendered incapable of either, by Jesus Christ the great shepherd and bishop of souls. But however, measures were then soon taken to disturb their meetings. In 1664, the bill against frequenting conventicles passed, the first offence made punishable with five pounds, or three months imprisonment; the second offence with ten pounds, or six months imprisonment; and the third with banishment to some of the foreign plantations; sham plots being fathered on the dissenters, to prepare the way for these severities.

But some of the bishops, such as Sheldon, Ward, Wrenn, &c. did not think these hardships enough; and therefore, notwithstanding the devastations of the plague, and though several of the ejected ministers shewed their piety and courage, in staying and preaching in the city during the fury of it, the five mile act was passed against them the next year at Oxford; by which all the silenced ministers were obliged to take an oath, that it was not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king, or any commissioned by him; and that they would not, at any time, endeavour an alteration in the government of church and state. Such who scrupled the oath were forbid to come within five miles of any city or parliament borough, or of the church where they had been ministers, under penalty of forty pounds, or six months imprisonment, for every offence.

After these things, several attempts were set on foot for a comprehension, but rendered ineffectual by the practices of the bishops; and particularly by Ward, bishop of Salisbury, who had himself taken the solemn league and covenant: But having forsaken his first principles, it is no wonder he became a bitter persecutor. In the year 1670, another severe act was passed against them: by which it was provided, that if any person, upwards of sixteen, should be present at any conventicle, under colour of exercising religion in any other manner than according to the practice of the church of England, where there were five persons or more, besides those of the said household, the offenders were to pay five shillings for the first offence, and ten shillings for the second; and the preacher to forfeit twenty pounds for the first, and forty pounds for the second offence, and those who knowingly suffered any such conventicles in their houses, barns, yards, &c. were to forfeit twenty pounds. The effect of these acts was, that great numbers of ministers and their people were laid in jails amongst thieves and common malefactors, where they suffered the greatest hardships and indignities; their effects were seized on, and themselves and families reduced to almost beggary and famine.

But at length this very parliament, which had passed these severe bills against protestant dissenters, began themselves to be awakened, and justly grew jealous of their religion and liberties, from the increase of popery: and therefore, to prevent all dangers which might happen from popish recusants, they passed, in 1673, the test act; which hath since been, contrary to the original design of the law, turned against the protestant dissenters, and made use of to exclude them from the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which they have a natural claim to. In the year 1680, a bill passed both houses of parliament, for exempting his majesty’s protestant dissenting subjects from certain penalties; but when the king came to the house to pass the bills, this bill was taken from the table, and never heard of more; And though this parliament voted, that the prosecution of protestant dissenters, upon the penal laws, was grievous to the subject, a weakening the protestant interest, an encouragement to popery, and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom; yet they underwent a fresh prosecution, their meetings were broken up, many ministers imprisoned, and most exhorbitant fines levied on them and their hearers.

In the beginning of King James’s (II.) reign, these rigorous proceedings were continued, but as the design of that unhappy bigotted prince was to subvert the religion and laws of these kingdoms, he published in the year 1687, a declaration for a general liberty of conscience to all persons, of what persuasion soever; not out of any regard or affection to the protestant dissenters, but for the promoting the popish religion and interest. He also caused an order of council to be passed, that his declaration of indulgence should be read, in all churches and chapels, in the time of divine service, all over England and Wales. But though the dissenters used the liberty which was thus granted them, and had several opportunities to have been revenged on their former persecutors; yet they had too much honour, and regard to the protestant religion and liberties, ever to fall in with the measures of the court, or lend their assistance to introduce arbitrary power and popery. And as the divines of the church of England, when they saw King James’s furious measures to subvert the whole constitution, threw off their stiff and haughty carriage towards the dissenters, owned them for brethren, put on the appearance of the spirit of peace and charity, and assured them that no such rigorous methods should be used towards them for the future; things that never entered into their hearts whilst they were triumphant in power, and which nothing but a sense of their own extreme danger seems then to have extorted from them; the dissenters, far from following their resentments, readily entered into all measures with them for the common safety, and were amongst the first and heartiest friends of the revolution, under King William III. of glorious and immortal memory.

Soon after the settlement of this prince upon the throne, an act was passed for exempting their majesty’s protestant subjects, dissenting from the church of England, from the penal laws; and though the king, in a speech to the two houses of parliament, told them, “That he hoped they would leave room for the admission of all protestants that were willing and able to serve him;” agreeable to which, a clause was ordered to be brought into the house of lords, to take away the necessity of receiving the sacrament to make persons capable of offices; yet his majesty’s gracious intentions were frustrated, and the clause rejected by a great majority. Another clause also that was afterwards added, that the receiving the sacrament in the church of England, or in any other protestant congregation, should be a sufficient qualification, met with the same fate as the former: so that though the dissenters were freed from the penal laws, they were left under a brand of infamy, and rendered incapable of serving their king and country. And the Lord’s Supper laid open to be prostituted by law to the most abandoned and profligate sinners; and an institution designed for the union of all christians, made the test of a party, and the means of their separation from each other; a scandal that remains upon the church of England to this day. It is indeed but too plain, that when the established church saw itself out of danger, she forgot her promises of moderation and condescension towards the dissenters, who readily and openly declared their willingness to yield to a coalition. But as the clergy had formed a resolution of consenting to no alterations, in order to such an union; all the attempts made to this purpose became wholly ineffectual. Indeed, their very exemption from the penal laws was envied them by many; and several attempts were made to disturb and prosecute them in this reign, but were prevented from taking effect by royal injunctions.

Upon the death of King William, and the succession of Queen Anne, the hatred of the clergy towards the dissenters, that had lurked in their breasts, during the former reign, immediately broke out. Several sermons were preached to render them odious, and expose them to the fury of the mob. A bill was brought in and passed by the house of commons, for preventing occasional conformity, imposing an hundred pounds penalty upon every person resorting to a conventicle or meeting, after his admission into offices, and five pounds for every day’s continuance in such offices, after having been present at such conventicle: but upon some disagreement between the Lords and Commons, the bill dropped for that time. The same bill, with some few alterations, passed the house of commons the two next sessions, but was rejected by the lords. During this reign several pamphlets were published, containing bitter invectives against the dissenters, and exciting the government to extirpate and destroy them. Several prosecutions were also carried on against them for teaching schools, &c. with great eagerness and malice. In 1709, an open rebellion broke out, when the mob pulled down the meeting-houses, and publicly burnt the pews and pulpits. Sacheverell was trumpet to the rebellion, by preaching treason and persecution; and the parliament that censured him, was hastily dissolved. The parliament that succeeded, 1711, was of a true tory spirit and complexion; and, in its second session, passed the bill against occasional conformity. The next parliament, which met in 1714, was of the same disposition, and passed a bill to prevent the growth of schism; by which the dissenters were restrained from teaching schools, or from being tutors to instruct pupils in any family, without the license of the archbishop or bishop of the diocese where they resided; and the justices of the peace had power given them finally to determine in all cases relating thereto. Another bill was also intended to be brought in against them, to incapacitate them from voting in elections for parliament men, or being chosen members of parliament themselves.

But before these unjust proceedings had their intended effect, the protestant succession, in his late majesty king George I. took place; Queen Anne dying on the first of August, the very day on which the schism bill was to have commenced; which, together with that to prevent occasional conformity, were both repealed by the first parliament called together by that excellent prince. And I cannot help thinking that if the church of England had then consented to have set the dissenters intirely free, by repealing the test and corporation acts; it would have been much to its own honour and reputation, as well as a great strength and security to the national interest. But the time was not then come. We still labour under the oppression of those two acts; and notwithstanding our zeal for his majesty’s person and family, must sit down as easy as we can, with the inclination to serve him, whilst by law we are denied the opportunity and power.

The sentiments of his late majesty, of glorious memory, with respect to moderation, and the tolerating of dissenters, were so fully understood by the whole nation, as kept the clergy in tolerable good order, and from breaking out into many outrages against them. But a controversy that began amongst themselves, soon discovered what spirit many of them were of. The then bishop of Bangor, the now[357] worthy and reverend bishop of Winchester, happened in a sermon before his majesty, to assert the supreme authority of Christ as king in his own kingdom; and that he had not delegated his power, like temporal lawgivers, during their absence from their kingdoms, to any persons, as his deputies and vicegerents. Anno 1717. He also published his preservative; in which he advanced some positions contrary to temporal and spiritual tyranny, and in behalf of the civil and religious liberties of mankind. The goodness of his lordship’s intentions to serve the family of his present majesty, the interest of his country, and the honour of the church of God, might methinks have screened him from all scurrilous abuses. But how numerous were his adversaries, and how hard the weapons with which they attacked him! Not only the dregs of the people and clergy opened against him; but mighty men, and men of great renown, from whom better things might have been expected, entered the lists with him, and became the avowed champions for spiritual power, and the division of the kingdom between Christ Jesus and themselves. His lordship of Bangor had this manifest advantage upon the face of the argument. He pleaded for Christ’s being king in his own kingdom: his adversaries pleaded for the translation of his kingdom to certain spiritual viceroys. He for liberty of private judgment, in matters of religion and conscience: they for dominion over the faith and consciences of others. He against all the methods of persecution: they for penal laws; for corporation and test acts, and the powerful motives of positive and negative discouragements. He with the spirit of meekness and of a friend to truth: they with bitterness and rancour, and an evident regard to interest and party.

Footnote 357:

In 1736.

However, the lower house of convocation accused and prosecuted him, for attempting the subversion of all government and discipline in the church of Christ, with a view undoubtedly of bringing him under a spiritual censure, and with impeaching the regal supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, to subject him to the weight of a civil one. Of the bishop it must be said, to his everlasting honour, that the temper he discovered, under the opposition he met with, and the slanders that were thrown on him, was as much more amiable than that of his adversaries, as his cause was better, his writings and principles more consistent, and his arguments more conclusive and convincing. But notwithstanding these advantages, his lordship had great reason to be thankful to God that the civil power supported and protected him; otherwise his enemies would not, in all probability, have been content with throwing scandal upon his character, but forced him to have parted with SOMETHING, and then delivered him unto Satan for the punishment of his flesh, and made him have felt the weight of that authority, which God made him the happy and honourable instrument of opposing; especially if they were all of them of a certain good archdeacon’s mind, who thought he deserved to have his tongue cut out.

The dissenters also have had their quarrels and controversies amongst themselves, and managed them with great warmth and eagerness of temper. During their persecution under King Charles II. and the common danger of the nation under his brother James, they kept tolerably quiet; the designs of the common enemy to ruin them all, uniting them the more firmly amongst themselves. But after the revolution, when they were secure from oppression by the civil power, they soon fell into eager disputes about justification, and other points of like nature. The high-flown orthodox party would scarce own for their brethren those who were for moderation in these principles, or who differed in the least from their doctrine concerning them. [358]And when they could no longer produce reason and scripture in their defence, they, some of them, made use of infamous methods of scandal, and endeavoured to blast the character of a reverend and worthy divine, Dr. Williams, in the most desperate manner; because they could no otherwise answer and refute his arguments. But his virtue stood the shock of all their attempts to defame it; for after about eight weeks spent in an enquiry into his life, by a committee of the united ministers, which received all manner of complaints and accusations against him; it was declared at a general meeting, as their unanimous opinion, and repeated and agreed to in three several meetings successively, that he was intirely clear and innocent of all that was laid to his charge.

Footnote 358:

Nelson’s Life of Bp. Bull, p. 275, 276.

Thus was he vindicated in the amplest form, after the strictest examination that could be made; and his adversaries, who dealt in defamation and scandal, if not brought to repentance, were yet put to silence. It was almost incredible how much he was a sufferer for his opposition to Antinomianism, by a strong party, who left nothing unattempted to crush him, if it had been possible. But as his innocence appeared the brighter, after his character had been thoroughly sifted, he was, under God, greatly instrumental in putting a stop to those pernicious opinions which his opposers propagated; which struck at the very essentials of all natural and revealed religion. His Gospel Truth remains a monument of his honour; a monument his enemies were never able to destroy. However, nothing would serve, but his exclusion from the merchant’s Lecture at Pinners-Hall. Three other worthy divines, who had been his partners in that service, bore him company; and their places were supplied with four others, of unquestionable rigidness and sterling orthodoxy. Many papers were drawn up on each side, in order to an accommodation; so that it looked as Dr. Calamy tells us, as if the creed-making age was again revived. It was insisted, that Arminianism should be renounced on one side, and Antinomianism on the other. But all was in vain; and the papers that were drawn up to compose matters, created new heats, instead of extinguishing the old ones. These contentions were kept up for several years, till at last the disputants grew weary, and the controversy thread-bare, when it dropped of itself.

The next thing that divided them was the Trinitarian controversy, and the affair of subscription to human creeds and articles of faith, as a test of orthodoxy. In the year 1695, a great contest arose about the trinity, amongst the divines of the church of England, who charged each other with Tritheism and Sabellianism; and according to the ecclesiastical manner of managing disputes, bestowed invectives and scurrilous language very plentifully upon each other. The dissenters, in the reign of his late majesty, not only unfortunately fell into the same debate, but carried it on, some of them at least, with equal want of prudence and temper.

In the west of England, where the fire first broke out, moderation, christian forbearance, and charity, seemed to have been wholly extinguished. The reverend and learned Mr. James Peirce, minister in the city of Exeter, was dismissed from his congregation, upon a charge of heresy; and treated by his opposers, with shameful rudeness and insolence. Other congregations were also practised with, to discard their pastors upon the same suspicion, who were accused of impiously “denying the Lord that bought them;” to render them odious to their congregations, merely because they could not come up to the unscriptural tests of human orthodoxy. And when several of the ministers of London thought proper to interpose, and try, if by advices for peace, they could not compose the differences of their brethren in the west; this christian design was as furiously opposed as if it had been a combination to extirpate christianity itself; and a proposal made in the room of it, that the article of the church of England, and the answer in the assembly’s catechism, relating to the trinity, should be subscribed by all the ministers, as a declaration of their faith, and a test of their orthodoxy.

This proposal was considered by many of the ministers, not only as a thing unreasonable in itself, thus to make inquisition into the faith of others, but highly inconsistent with the character of protestants, dissenting from the national establishment; and dissenting from it for this reason amongst others, because the established church expressly claims “an authority in controversies of faith.” And, therefore, after the affair had been debated for a considerable while, the question was solemnly put, and the proposal rejected by a majority of voices. This the zealots were highly displeased with, and accordingly publicly proclaimed their resentments from the pulpits. Fasts were appointed solemnly to deplore, confess, and pray against the aboundings of heresy; and their sermons directly levelled against the two great evils of the church, Nonsubscription and Arianism. Through the goodness of God they had no power to proceed farther; and when praying and preaching in this manner began to grow tedious, and were, by experience, found to prove ineffectual, to put a stop to the progress of the cause of liberty, their zeal immediately abated, the cry of heresy was seldomer heard, and the alarm of the church’s being endangered by pernicious errors, gradually ceased; it being very observable, that though heresy be ever in its nature the same thing, yet that the cry against it is either more or less, according as the political managers of it, can find more or fewer passions to work on, or a greater or lesser interest to subserve by it.

SECT. VI. _Of Persecutions in New England._

It hath been already remarked, in the foregoing section, that the rigours with which Laud, and his persecuting brethren treated the puritans, occasioned many of them to transport themselves to New England, for the sake of enjoying that liberty of conscience, which they were cruelly denied in their native country. And who could have imagined, but that their own sufferings for conscience sake must have excited in them an utter abhorrence of these antichristian principles, by which they themselves had so deeply smarted? But though they carried over with them incurable prejudices against persecuting prelates, yet they seem many of them to have thought that they had the right of persecution in themselves; and accordingly practised many grievous cruelties towards those who did not fall in with their doctrine and discipline, and church order.

I shall not here mention the severities practised on great numbers of persons for supposed witchcraft, to the great blemish and dishonour of the government there, those prosecutions being carried on not properly upon a religious account; but I am obliged, in justice, not to pass by the cruel laws they made against the persons called Quakers, who felt the weight of their “independent discipline,” and were treated with the utmost rigour by their magistrates and ministers.

[359]In the year 1656, a law was made at Boston, prohibiting all masters of ships to bring any quakers into that jurisdiction, and themselves from coming in, “on penalty of the house of correction.” When this law was published, one Nicholas Upshal, who was himself an independent, argued against the unreasonableness of such a law; and warned them to take heed “not to fight against God,” and so draw down a judgment upon the land. For this they fined him twenty-three pounds, imprisoned him for not coming to church, and banished him out of their jurisdiction.

Footnote 359:

Sewel’s Hist. p. 161.

[360]But though this law was executed upon many persons with unrelenting and extreme rigour; yet, as it did not entirely prevent the quakers from coming into New England, a more cruel law was made against them in the year 1658. “That whosoever of the inhabitants should, directly or indirectly, cause any of the quakers to come into that jurisdiction, he ‘should forfeit one hundred pounds to the country, and be committed to prison,’ there to remain till the penalty should be satisfied: and whosoever should entertain them, knowing them to be so, ‘should forfeit forty shillings to the country for every hour’s entertainment’ or concealment, and be committed to prison till the forfeiture should be fully paid and satisfied. And farther, that all and every of those people, that should arise amongst them there, should be dealt withal, and suffer the like punishment as the laws provided for those that came in: viz. That for the first offence, if a male, ‘one of his ears should be cut off, and he kept at work in the house of correction,’ till he should be sent away at his own charge. For the second, ‘the other ear, and be kept in the house of correction,’ as aforesaid. If a woman, then ‘to be severely whipped,’ and kept as aforesaid, as the male for the first; and for the second offence, to be dealt withal as the first. And for the third, ‘he or she should have their tongues bored through with an hot iron,’ and be kept in the house of correction close at work, till they be sent away at their own charge.”

Footnote 360:

Id. p. 1

Could it be imagined that the authors of these bloody laws had been forced from their own native country by the terrors of persecution? or that after all their complaints, about the violences and oppressions of the prelates against themselves, they should yet think persecution for conscience-sake a lawful thing; and that they had a right, as soon as ever they could get power, to persecute others? The making such laws, and the execution of them, was certainly more detestable in them than others; who should have learnt forbearance and compassion towards others, by the things which they themselves had suffered. And yet they seem to have been as devoid of these virtues, as Laud or any of his brethren, against whom they had so bitterly and justly exclaimed.

[370]In pursuance of the before-mentioned law, one William Brend, and William Leddra, were committed to the house of correction at Boston; where they were kept five days without food, and after that received twenty blows each with a three-corded whip. The next day Brend, who was an elderly man, was put in irons, and tied neck and heels close together for sixteen hours. The next morning the jailer took a pitched rope, about an inch thick, and gave him twenty blows over the back and arms with as much force as he could, so that the rope untwisted. But he fetched another thicker and stronger, and gave him fourscore and seventeen more blows, and threatened to give him as many more the next morning. Brend had nothing on but a serge cassock upon his shirt, so that his back and arms were grievously bruised, and the blood hung as in bags under his arms; and so cruelly was his body mangled, that it was reduced almost to a perfect jelly.

Footnote 370:

Id. p. 195.

The same year J. Copeland, Christ. Helder, and J. Rous, were apprehended and imprisoned, and condemned to have each of them their right ear cut off by the hangman; which was accordingly executed; after which they were whipped.

But things did not stop here. Norton and others of his brethren the ministers, petitioned the magistrates to cause the court to make some law to banish the quakers, upon pain of death. The court consisted of twenty-five persons; and the law being proposed, it was carried in the affirmative, thirteen to twelve. As the law is very peculiar, and contains the reasons given by these “Independent Persecutors,” and shews the severity of their discipline, I shall give the substance of it; which is as follows:

[371]“Whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called quakers, lately risen, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do take on them to change and alter the received laudable customs of our nation, in giving civil respect to equals, or reverence to superiors, whose actions tend to undermine the civil government, and also to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing from orderly church fellowship, allowed and approved by all orthodox professors of the truth—whereby divers of our inhabitants have been infected;—for prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact, that every person or persons of “the cursed sect” of the ‘Quakers,’ who is not an inhabitant of, but is found within this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner, or select man—who shall commit the said person to close prison, there to remain without bail until the next court of assistance, where they shall have a legal trial: and ‘being convicted to be of the sect of the quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished, upon pain of death.’ And that every inhabitant of this jurisdiction, being convicted to be of the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending the horrid opinions of the quakers, or the stirring up mutiny, sedition, and rebellion against the government, or by taking up their absurd and destructive practices, viz. denying civil respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof frequent meetings of their own, in opposition to our church order, or by adhering to, or approving of any known quaker, and the tenets and practices of the quakers, that are opposite to “the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavouring to disaffect others to civil government, and church orders, or condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the quakers, manifesting hereby their complying with those, whose design is to overthrow the order established in church and state; every such person, upon conviction before the said court of assistants, in manner as aforesaid, ‘shall be committed to close prison for one month;’ and then, unless they choose voluntarily to depart this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behaviour, and appear at the next court; where continuing obstinate, and ‘refusing to retract or reform the aforesaid opinions,’ they shall ‘be sentenced to banishment, upon pain of death:’ And any one magistrate, upon information given him of any such person, shall cause him to be apprehended; and shall commit any such person to prison, according to his discretion, until he come to trial, as aforesaid.”

Footnote 371:

Id. p. 199.

“Here endeth,” says my author, “this sanguinary act, being more like to the decrees of the Spanish inquisition, than the laws of a reformed christian magistracy; consisting of such who themselves, to shun persecution (which was but a small fine for not frequenting the public worship) had left Old England.” And what was it occasioned this bloody law? Why, because the poor quakers refused to pull off their hats, and withdrew from the church assemblies of these independent persecutors, and frequented their own meetings, in opposition to their church order; and because the quakers held tenets opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, i. e. opposite to their own opinions, who by flying from England seem to have imagined that they carried away with them all the orthodoxy and godliness out of the kingdom.

And to shew the rigidness of their discipline, and that they did not intend this law merely “in terrorem,” they wickedly murdered several innocent persons under the cover of it, several of their priests standing with pleasure to see them executed. Thus William Robinson, merchant, Marmaduke Stephenson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra, were hanged at Boston for being quakers; and they would have proceeded to more executions, had it not been for the Mandamus of Charles II. who, though a papist, yet was of a more merciful disposition than these New England disciplinarians, and ordered all proceedings against the quakers immediately to stop.

It would be endless to recount all the cruelties they used to these poor people, whom they imprisoned, unmercifully whipped, oppressed with fines, and then condemned them to be sold to the plantations, to answer the fines they had laid upon them. But enough hath been said to shew the inhumanity of their spirit and practice, and to raise in the reader an abhorrence and detestation of such a conduct in men, who, though they had been persecuted themselves, carried the principles of persecution with them into the place of their banishment, and used worse severities towards others for conscience-sake, than what they themselves had experienced from the bitterness of their enemies; and thereby made it appear, that they complained against the persecutions of the prelatical party, not because they were for moderation and christian charity in their own conduct, but because they thought the right of persecution only in themselves, and that violence ought not to be made use of to support any but the orthodox opinions of such as they themselves esteemed to be godly, and to maintain what they called the order and fellowship of their own churches.

[372]I have only to add, that I find also from the same author, that the quakers were much persecuted in Scotland; but as he hath given no particular account of that affair, I have nothing farther to enlarge upon that subject.

Footnote 372:

p. 567.

And thus have I brought the History of Persecution down to our own times, and nation; and shewn how all parties have, in their turns of power, been sharers in this guilt. If church history would have afforded me a better account, I assure my reader he should have had it told with pleasure. The story, as it is, I have told with grief. But it is time to dismiss him from so ungrateful an entertainment, and see what useful reflections we can make on the whole.

CONCLUSION.

SECT. I. _The Clergy the great promoters of persecution._

It is a truth too evident to be denied, that the clergy in general, throughout almost all the several ages of the christian church; have been deep and warm in the measures of persecution; as though it had been a doctrine expressly inculcated in the sacred writings, and recommended by the practice of our Saviour and his apostles. Indeed, could such a charge as this have been justly fixed on the great author of our religion, or the messengers he sent into the world to propagate it; I think it would have been such an evidence of its having been dictated by weak or wicked, or worldly-minded men, as nothing could possibly have disproved.

But that christianity might be free from every imputation of this kind, God was pleased to send his son into the world, without any of the advantages of worldly riches and grandeur, and absolutely to disclaim all the prerogatives of an earthly kingdom. His distinguishing character was that of “meek and lowly;” and the methods by which he conquered and triumphed over his enemies, and drew all men to him, was “patience and constancy, even to the death.” And when he sent out his own apostles, he sent them out but poorly furnished, to all human appearance, for their journey;[373] “without staves, or scrip, or bread, or money,” to let them know that he had but little of this world to give them; and that their whole dependence was on Providence.

Footnote 373:

Luke ix. 3.

One thing however he assured them of, that they should be “[374]delivered up to the councils, and scourged in the synagogues, and be hated of all men for his sake.” So far was he from giving them a power to persecute, that he foretold them they must suffer persecution for his name. This the event abundantly justified: And how amiable was their behaviour under it? How greatly did they recommend the religion they taught, by the methods they took to propagate it? “The arms of their warfare were not carnal, but spiritual.” The argument they used to convince those they preached to, was the “demonstration of the spirit, and of power.” They “approved themselves as the ministers of God, by much patience, by afflictions, necessities, distresses, stripes, imprisonments, tumults, labours, watchings, fastings, pureness, knowledge, long-suffering, kindness; by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, and by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.” Oh how unlike were their pretended successors to them in these respects! How different their methods to convince gainsayers! Excommunications, suspensions, fines, banishments, imprisonments, bonds, scourges, tortures and death, were the powerful arguments introduced into the church; and recommended, practised, and sanctified by many of the pretended fathers of it.

Footnote 374:

Matt. x. 17.

Even those whom superstition hath dignified by the name of saints, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory, Cyril, and others, grew wanton with power, cruelly oppressed those who differed from them, and stained most of their characters with the guilt of rapine and murder. Their religious quarrels were managed with such an unrelenting, furious zeal, as disturbed the imperial government, threw kingdoms and nations into confusion, and turned the church itself into an aceldama, or field of blood. Some few there have been who were of a different spirit; who not only abstained from persecuting counsels and measures themselves, but with great justice and freedom censured them in others. But as to your saints and fathers, your patriarchs and bishops, your councils and synods, together with the rabble of monks, they were most of them the advisers, abettors, and practisers of persecution. They knew not how to brook opposition to their own opinions and power, branded all doctrines different from their own with the odious name of heresy, and used all their arts and influence to oppress and destroy those who presumed to maintain them. And this they did with such unanimity and constancy, through a long succession of many ages, as would tempt a stander-by to think that a bishop or clergyman, and a persecutor, were the same thing, or meant the self-same individual character and office in the christian church.

I am far from writing these things with any design to depreciate and blacken the episcopal order in general. It is an office of great dignity and use, according to the original design of its institution. But when that design is forgotten, or wholly perverted; when, instead of becoming “Overseers” of the flock of Christ, the bishops “tear and devour” it, and proudly usurp “Dominion over the Consciences of” Christians, when they ought to be content with being “helpers of their joy.” I know no reason why the name should be complimented, or the character held sacred, when it is abused to insolence, oppression and tyranny; or why the venerable names of fathers and saints should screen the vices of the bishops of former ages, who, notwithstanding their writing in behalf of christianity and orthodoxy, brought some of them the greatest disgrace on the christian religion, by their wicked practices, and exposed it to the severest satire of its professed enemies: and for the truth of this, I appeal to the foregoing history.

If any observations on their conduct should affect the temper and principles of any now living, they themselves only are answerable for it, and welcome to make what use and application of them they please. Sure I am that the representing them in their true light, reflects an honour upon those reverend and worthy prelates, who maintain that moderation and humility which is essential to the true dignity of the episcopal character, and who use no other methods of conviction and persuasion but those truly apostolical ones, of sound reasoning and exemplary piety. May God grant a great increase, and a continual succession of them in the christian church!

SECT. II. _The Things for which Christians have persecuted one another generally of small importance._

But as the truth of history is not to be concealed; and as it can do no service to the christian cause to palliate the faults of any set of christians whatsoever, especially when all parties have been more or less involved in the same guilt; I must observe farther, as an aggravation of this guilt, that the things for which christians have persecuted each other, have been generally “matters of no importance in religion,” and oftentimes such as have been “directly contrary” to the nature of it. If my reader would know upon what accounts the church hath been filled with divisions and schisms; why excommunications and anathemas have been so dreadfully tossed about; what hath given occasion to such a multitude of suspensions, depositions and expulsions; what hath excited the clergy to such numberless violencies, rapines, cruelties, and murders, he will probably be surprised to be informed that it is nothing of any consequence or real importance, nothing relating to the substance and life of pure and undefiled religion; little besides hard words, technical terms, and inexplicable phrases, points of mere speculation, abstruse questions, and metaphysical notions; rites and ceremonies, forms of human invention, and certain institutions, that have had their rise and foundation only in superstition: these have been the great engines of division; these the sad occasions of persecution.

Would it not excite sometimes laughter, and sometimes indignation, to read of a proud and imperious prelate excommunicating the whole christian church, and sending, by wholesale, to the devil, all who did not agree with him in the precise day of observing Easter? Especially when there is so far from being any direction given by Christ or his apostles about the day, that there is not a single word about the festival itself. And is it not an amazing instance of stupidity and superstition, that such a paltry and whimsical controversy should actually engage, for many years, the whole christian world, and be debated with as much warmth and eagerness, as if all the interests of the present and future state had been at stake; as if Christ himself had been to be crucified afresh, and his whole gospel to be subverted and destroyed.

The Arian controversy, that made such havoc in the christian church, was, if I may be allowed to speak it without offence, in the beginning only about words; though probably some of Arius’ party went farther afterwards, than Arius himself did at first. Arius, as hath been shewn, expressly allowed the son to be “before all times and ages, perfect God, unchangeable,” and begotten after the most perfect likeness of the unbegotten father.

This, to me, appears to bid very fair for orthodoxy; and was, I think, enough to have reconciled the bishop and his presbyter, if there had not been some other reasons of the animosity between them. But when other terms were invented, that were hard to be understood, and difficult to be explained, the original controversy ceased; and the dispute then was about the meaning of those terms, and the fitness of their use in explaining the divinity of the Son of God.

Arius knew not how to reconcile the bishop’s words, “ever begotten,” with the assertion, that the Son, co-exists “unbegottenly with God;” and thought it little less than a contradiction to affirm, that he was “unbegottenly begotten.” And as to the word “consubstantial,” Arius seems to have thought that it destroyed the personal subsistence of the Son, and brought in the doctrine of Sabellius; or else that it implied that the Son was “a part of the Father;” and for this reason declined the use of it. And, indeed, it doth not appear to me that the council of Nice had themselves any determinate and fixed meaning to the word, as I think may be fairly inferred from the debates of that council with Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, about that term; which, though put into their creed, in opposition to the Arians, was yet explained by them in such a sense, as almost any Arian could have, bona fide, subscribed.

On the other hand, the bishop of Alexandria seems to have thought, that when Arius asserted that the son existed “by the will and counsel of the Father;” it implied the mutability of his nature; and that, when he taught concerning the Son, “that there was a time when he was not,” it inferred his being a temporary, and not an eternal being; though Arius expressly denied both these consequences. In short, it was a controversy upon this metaphysical question, “[375]whether or no God could generate or produce a being, in strictness of speech, as eternal as himself? Or, whether God’s generating the Son doth not necessarily imply the pre-existence of the Father, either in conception, or some small imaginable point of time;” as Arius imagined, and the bishop denied.

Footnote 375:

Theod. E. H. l. 18. c. 5.

This was, in fact, the state of this controversy. And did not the emperor Constantine give a just character of this debate, when he declared the occasion of the difference to be very trifling; and that their quarrels arose from an idle itch of disputation, since they did not contend about any essential doctrine of the gospel? could these hard words and inexplicable points justify the clergy in their intemperate zeal, and in their treating each other with the rancour and bitterness of the most implacable enemies? What hath the doctrine of real godliness, what hath the church of God to do with these debates? Hath the salvation of men’s souls, and the practice of virtue, any dependance upon men’s receiving unscriptural words, in which they cannot believe, because they cannot understand them; and which, those who first introduced them, were not able to explain?

If I know my own heart, I would be far from giving up any plain and important doctrine of the gospel. But will any man coolly and soberly affirm, that nice and intricate questions, that depend upon metaphysical distinctions, and run so high as the most minute supposeable atom or point of time, can be either plain or important doctrines of the gospel? Oh Jesus! if thou be “the Son of the everlasting God, the brightness of thy Father’s glory, and the express image of his person;” if thou art the most perfect resemblance of his all-perfect goodness, that kind benefactor, that God-like friend to the human race, which the faithful records of thy life declare thee to be; how can I believe the essential doctrines of thy gospel to be thus wrapped up in darkness? or, that the salvation of that church, “which thou hast purchased with thy blood,” depends on such mysterious and inexplicable conditions? If thy gospel represents thee right, surely thou must be better pleased with the humble, peaceable christian, who when honestly searching into the glories of thy nature, and willing to give thee all the adoration thy great Father hath ordered him to pay thee, falls into some errors, as the consequence of human weakness; than with that imperious and tyrannical disciple, who divides thy members, tears the bowels of thy church, and spreads confusion and strife throughout thy followers and friends, even for the sake of truths that lie remote from men’s understanding, and in which thou hast not thought proper to make the full, the plain decision. If truth is not to be given up for the sake of peace, I am sure peace is not to be sacrificed for the sake of such truths; and if the gospel is a rule worthy our regard, the clergy of those times can never be excused for the contentions they raised, and the miseries they occasioned in the christian world, upon account of them.

The third and fourth general councils seem to have met upon an occasion of much the like importance. The first council of Nice determined the Son to be a distinct hypostasis, or person from, but of the same nature with the Father. The second at Constantinople, added the Holy Ghost to the same substance of the Father, and made the same individual nature to belong equally and wholly to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; thus making them three distinct persons in one undivided essence. But as they determined the Son to be truly man, as well as truly God, the bishops brought a new controversy into the church, and fell into furious debates and quarrels about his personality.

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, with his followers, maintained two distinct persons in Christ, agreeable to his two distinct natures. But St. Cyril, the implacable enemy of Nestorius, got a council to decree, that the two natures of God and man being united together in our Lord, made one person or Christ; and to curse all who should affirm that there were two distinct persons or subsistencies in him.

It is evident, that either Cyril and his council must have been in the wrong in this decree, or the two former councils of Nice and Constantinople wrong in theirs; because it is certain, that they decreed the word PERSON to be used in two infinitely different senses. According to those of Nice and Constantinople, one individual nature or essence contained three distinct persons; according to Cyril’s council, two natures or essences infinitely different, and as distinct as those of God and man, constituted but one person. Now how “one nature should be three persons, and yet two natures one person,” will require the skill even of infallibility itself to explain; and as these decrees are evidently contradictory to one another, I am afraid we must allow that the Holy Ghost had no hand in one or other of them.

This some of the clergy very easily observed; and therefore, to maintain the unity of the person of Christ, Eutyches and Dioscorus maintained, that though Christ consisted of two natures before his incarnation, yet after that he had but one nature only. But this was condemned by the council of Chalcedon, and the contradictions of the former councils declared all to be true, and rendered sacred with the stamp of orthodoxy. This was also ratified by the fifth council under Justinian, who also piously and charitably raked into the dust of poor Origen, and damned him for an heretic.

But still there was a difficulty yet remaining, about the person of Christ: for as Christ’s being one person did not destroy the distinction of his two natures, it became a very important and warm controversy, whether Christ had any more than one will, as he was but one person in two natures? or, whether he had not two wills, agreeable to his two distinct natures, united in one person? This occasioned the calling the sixth general council, who determined it for the two wills; in which, according to my poor judgment, they were very wrong. And had I had the honour to have been of this venerable assembly, I would have completed the mystery, by decreeing, that as Christ had but one person, he could have but one personal will; but however, that as he had two natures, he must also have two natural wills.

I beg my reader’s pardon for thus presuming to offer my own judgment, in opposition to the decree of the holy fathers; but at the same time I cannot help smiling at the thought of two or three hundred venerable bishops and fathers thus trifling in council, and solemnly playing at questions and commands, to puzzle others, and divert themselves. Were it not for the fatal consequences that attended their decisions, I should look on them as “Bishops in masquerade,” met together only to ridicule the order, or to set the people a laughing at so awkward a mixture of gravity and folly. Surely the reverend clergy of those days had but little to do amongst their flocks, or but little regard to the nature and end of their office. Had they been faithful to their character instead of “doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof came envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness, “they would have” consented to, and taught wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness.

But this was not the temper of the times. It would have been indeed more tolerable, had the clergy confined their quarrels to themselves, and quarrelled only about speculative doctrines and harmless contradictions. But to interest the whole christian world in these contentions, and to excite furious persecutions for the support of doctrines and practices, even opposite to the nature, and destructive of the very end of christianity, is equally monstrous and astonishing. And yet this is the case of the seventh general council, who decreed the adoration of the Virgin Mary, of angels and of saints, of relicts, of images and pictures, and who thereby obscured the dignity, and corrupted the simplicity of the christian worship and doctrine. This the venerable fathers of that council did, and pronounced anathemas against all who would not come into their idolatrous practices, and excited the civil power to oppress and destroy them.

SECT. III. _Pride, ambition, and covetousness, the grand sources of persecution._

Surely it could not be zeal for God and Christ, and the truth and honour of christianity; no real love to piety and virtue, that prompted and led the bishops and their clergy on to these acts of injustice and cruelty. Without any breach of charity, it may be asserted of most, if not all of them, that it was their pride, and their immoderate love of dominion, grandeur and riches, that influenced them to these unworthy and wicked measures. The interest of religion and truth, the honour of God and the church, is I know the stale pretence; but a pretence, I am afraid, that hath but little probability or truth to support it.

For what hath religion to do with the observation of days? or, what could excite Victor to excommunicate so many churches about Easter, but the pride of his heart, and to let the world see how large a power he had to send souls to the devil? How is the honour of God promoted, by speculations that have no tendency to godliness? Will any man seriously affirm, that the ancient disputes about “Hypostasis, Consubstantial, &c.” and the rest of the hard words that were invented, did any honour to the name of Christ, or were of any advantage to the religion of his gospel? Or, can he believe that Alexander, Arius, Athanasius, Macedonius, and others, were influenced in all their contentions and quarrels, in all the confusions they were the authors of, and the murders they occasioned, purely by religious motives? Surely the honour of religion must be promoted by other means; and genuine christianity may flourish, and, indeed, would have flourished much better, had these disputes never been introduced into the church; or had they been managed with moderation and forbearance. But such was the haughtiness of the clergy, such their thirst of dominion over the consciences of others, such their impatience of contradiction, that nothing would content them but implicit faith to their creeds, absolute subjection to their decrees, and subscription to their articles without examination or conviction of their truth; or for want of these, anathemas, depositions, banishments, and death.

The history of all the councils, and of almost all the bishops, that is left us, is a demonstration of this sad truth. What council can be named, that did not assume a power to explain, amend, settle, and determine the faith? That did not anathematize and depose those who could not agree to their decisions, and that did not excite the emperors to oppress and destroy them? Was this the humility and condescension of servants and ministers? Was not this lording it over the heritage of God, seating themselves in the throne of the Son of God, and making themselves owned as “fathers and masters,“ in opposition to the express command of Christ to the contrary?

[376]Clemens Romanus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 44. tells us, That “the apostles knew, by the Lord Jesus Christ, that the episcopal name and office would be the occasion of contention in the christian church; a noble instance,” says the learned Fell, in his remarks on the place, “of the prophetic spirit of the apostolic age. Formerly,“ he adds, that, “men’s ambition and evil practices to obtain this dignity, produced schisms and heresies.” And it was indeed no wonder that such disorders and confusions should be occasioned, when the bishoprics were certain steps, not only to power and dominion, but to the emoluments and advantages of riches and honours.

Footnote 376:

Apud Cotel. p. 173. Edit. Amstel.

Even long before the time of Constantine, the clergy had got a very great ascendant over the laity, and grew, many of them, rich, by the voluntary oblations of the people: But the grants of that emperor confirmed them in a worldly spirit, and the dignities and vast revenues that were annexed to many o£ the sees, gave rise to infinite evils and disturbances. So they could but get possession of them, they cared not by what means; whether by clandestine ordinations, scandalous symony, the expulsion of the possessors, or through the blood of their enemies. How many lives were lost at Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, by the furious contentions of the bishops of those sees; deposing one another, and forcibly entering upon possession? Would Athanasius, and Macedonius, Damasus, and others, have given occasion to such tumults and murders, merely for words and creeds, had there not been somewhat more substantial to have been got by their bishoprics? Would Cyril have persecuted the Novations, had it not been for the sake of their riches, of which he plundered them, soon after his advancement to the see of Alexandria? No. The character given by the historian of Theodocius, bishop of Synada, may be too truly applied to almost all the rest of them; who persecuted the followers of Macedonius, not from a principle of zeal for the faith, but through a covetous temper, and the love of money. This St. Jerome observed with grief, in the passage cited page 86, of this history; Ammianus Marcellinus, an heathen writer, reproached them with, in the passage cited page 102.

SECT. IV. _The decrees of councils and synods of no authority in matters of faith._

I think it will evidently follow from this account, that the determinations of councils, and the decrees of synods, as to matters of faith, are of no manner of authority, and can carry no obligation upon any christian whatsoever. I will not mention here one reason, which would be itself sufficient, if all others were wanting, viz. That they have no power given them, in any part of the gospel revelation, to make these decisions in controverted points, and to oblige others to subscribe them; and that therefore the pretence to it is an usurpation of what belongs to the great God, who only hath, and can have a right to prescribe to the consciences of men.

But to let this pass; what one council can be fixed upon, that will appear to be composed of such persons, as, upon an impartial examination, can be allowed to be fit for the work of settling the faith, and determining all controversies relating to it? I mean, in which the majority of the members may, in charity, be supposed to be disinterested, wise, learned, peaceable and pious men? Will any man undertake to affirm this of the council of Nice? Can any thing be more evident, than that the members of that venerable assembly came, many of them, full of passion and resentment; that others of them were crafty and wicked, and others ignorant and weak? Did their meeting together in a synod immediately cure them of their desire of revenge, make the wicked virtuous, or the ignorant wise? If not, their joint decree, as a synod, could really be of no more weight than their private opinions; nor perhaps of so much; because, it is well known, that the great transactions of such assemblies are generally managed and conducted by a few; and that authority, persuasion, prospect of interest, and other temporal motives, are commonly made use of to secure a majority. The orthodox have taken care to destroy all the accounts given of this council by those of the opposite party; and Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, hath passed it over in silence; and only dropped two or three hints, that are very far from being favourable to those reverend fathers. In a word, nothing can be collected from friends or enemies, to induce one to believe that they had any of those qualifications which were necessary to fit them for the province they had undertaken, of settling the peace of the church by a fair, candid and impartial determination of the controversy that divided it: So that the emperor Constantine, and Socrates the historian, took the most effectual method to vindicate their honour, by pronouncing them inspired by the Holy Ghost; which they had great need of, to make up the want of all other qualifications.

The second general council were plainly the creatures of the emperor Theodosius, all of his own party, and convened to do as he bid them; which they did, by confirming the Nicene faith, and condemning all heresies: [377]A council of “geese and cranes, and chattering jackdaws;” noisy and tumultuous, endlessly contending for episcopal sees and thrones. The third general council were the creatures of Cyril, who was their president, and the inveterate enemy of Nestorius, whom he condemned for heresy, and was himself condemned for his rashness in this affair, and excommunicated by the bishop of Antioch. The fourth met under the awes of the emperor Marcian; managed their debates with noise and tumult, were formed into a majority by the intrigues of the legates of Rome, and settled the faith by the opinions of Athanasius, Cyril, and and others. I need not mention more; the farther we go, the worse they will appear.

Footnote 377:

Greg. Naz. Vol. II. p 81.

Now may it not be asked, how came the few bishops, who met by command of Theodosius, this council of wasps, to be stiled an oecumenical or general council? As they came to decree, as he decreed they should, what authority, with any wise man, can their decisions have? As they were all of one side, except thirty-six of the Macedonian party who were afterwards added, what less could be expected, but that they would decree themselves orthodox, establish their own creed, and anathematize all others for heretics? And as to the next council, I confess I can pay no respect or reverence to a set of clergy met under the direction and influence of a man of Cyril’s principles and morals; especially as the main transaction of that council was hurried on by a desire of revenge, and done before the arrival of the bishop of Antioch, with his suffragan brethren, and condemned by him as soon as he was informed of it; till at length the power and influence of the emperor reconciled the two haughty prelates, made them reverse their mutual excommunications, decree the same doctrine, and join in pronouncing the same Anathemas. Cannot any one discern more of resentment and pride in their first quarrel, than of a regard to truth and peace; and more of complaisance to the emperor, than of concern for the honour of Christ, in their after reconciliation? And as to the next council, let any one but read over the account given of it by Evagrius; what horrible confusions there were amongst them; how they threw about anathemas and curses; how they fathered their violences on Christ; how they settled the faith by the doctrines of Athanasius, Cyril, and other fathers; and if he can bring himself to pay any reverence to their decrees, I envy him not the submission he pays them, nor the rule by which he guides and determines his belief.

I confess I cannot read the account of these transactions, their ascribing their anathemas and curses to Christ and the Holy Trinity, and their decisions as to the faith, to the Holy Ghost, without indignation at the horrid abuse of those sacred names. Their very meeting to pronounce damnation on their adversaries, and to form creeds for the consciences of others, is no less than a demonstration that they had no concurrence of the Son of God, no influence of the Holy Spirit of God. The faith was already settled for them, and for all other christians, in the sacred writings, and needed no decision of councils to explain and amend it. The very attempt was insolence and usurpation. Infallibility is a necessary qualification for an office of such importance. But what promise is there made to councils of this divine gift? or, if there should be any such promise made to them; yet the method of their debates, their scandalous arts to defame their adversaries, and the contradictions they decreed for truth and gospel, prove, to the fullest conviction, that they forfeited the grace of it. And indeed, if the fruits of the spirit are love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness and meekness, there appeared few or no signs of them in any of the councils. The soil was too rank and hot to produce them.

I wish, for the honour of the former times, I could give a better account of these assemblies of the clergy, and see reason to believe myself that they were, generally speaking, men of integrity, wisdom, candour, moderation and virtue. The debates of such men would have deserved regard, and their opinions would have challenged a proper reverence. But even had this been the case, their opinions, could have been no rule to others; and how great a veneration soever we might have had for their characters, we ought, as men and christians, to have examined their principles. There is one rule superior to them and us, by which christians are to try all doctrines and spirits; the decision of which is more sacred than that of all human wisdom and authority, and every where, and in all ages, obligatory. But as the ancient councils consisted of men of quite other dispositions; and as their decisions in matters of faith were arbitrary and unwarranted; and as those decisions themselves were generally owing to court practices, intriguing statesmen, the thirst of revenge the management of a few crafty interested bishops to noise and tumult, the prospects and hopes of promotions and translations, and other the like causes, the reverence paid them by many christians is truly surprising; and I cannot account for it any way but one, viz. that those who thus cry up their authority, are in hopes of succeeding them in their power; and therefore would fain persuade others that their decrees are sacred and binding, to make way for the imposing of their own.

It would be well worth the while of some of these council-mongers to lay down some proper rules and distinctions, by which we may judge what councils are to be received, and which to be rejected; and particularly why the four first general councils should be submitted to, in preference to all others. Councils have often decreed contrary to councils, and the same bishops have decreed different things in different councils; and even the third and fourth general councils determined the use of the word PERSON in an infinitely different sense from what the two first did. Heretical councils, as they are called, have been more in number than some orthodox general ones, called by the same imperial authority, have claimed the same powers, pretended to the same influence of the Holy Ghost, and pronounced the same anathemas against principles and persons. By what criteria or certain marks then must we judge, which of these councils are thieving, general, particular, orthodox, heretical, and which not? The councils themselves must not be judges in their own cause; for then we must receive, or reject them all. The characters of the bishops that composed them will not do, for their characters seem equally amiable and christian on each side. The nature of the doctrine, “as decreed by them,” is far from being a safe rule; because, if human authority, or church power makes truth in any case, it makes it in every case; and therefore, upon this foot, the decrees at Tyre and Ephesus are as truly binding, as those at Nice and Chalcedon. Or, if we must judge of the councils by the nature of the doctrine, abstracted from all human authority, those councils can have no authority at all. Every man must sit in judgment over them, and try them by reason and scripture, and reject and receive them, just as he would do the opinions of any other persons whatsoever. And, I humbly conceive, they should have no better treatment, because they deserve none.

SECT. V. _The imposing Subscriptions to Human Creeds unreasonable and pernicious._

If then the decrees of fathers and councils, if the decisions of human authority in matters of religion are of no avail, and carry with them no obligation; it follows, that the imposing subscriptions to creeds and articles of faith, as tests of orthodoxy, is a thing unreasonable in itself, as it hath proved of infinite ill consequence in the church of God.

I call it an “unreasonable custom,” not only because where there is no power to make creeds for others, there can be no right to impose them; but because no one good reason can be assigned for the use and continuance of this practice. For, as my Lord Bishop of London admirably well explains this matter[378], “As long as men are men, and have different degrees of understanding, and every one a partiality to his own conceptions, it is not to be expected that they should agree in any one entire scheme, and every part of it, in the circumstances as well as the substance, in the manner of things, as well as in the things themselves. The question therefore is not in general about a difference in opinion, which, in our present state, is unavoidable; but about the weight and importance of the things wherein christians differ, and the things wherein they agree. And it will appear, that the several denominations of christians agree both in the substance of religion, and in the necessary inforcements of the practice of it. That the world and all things in it, were created by God, and are under the direction and government of his all-powerful hand, and all-seeing eye; that there is an essential difference between good and evil, virtue and vice; that there will be a state of future rewards and punishments, according to our behaviour in this life; that Christ was a teacher sent from God, and that his apostles were divinely inspired; that all christians are bound to declare and profess themselves to be his disciples; that not only the exercise of the several virtues, but also a belief in Christ is necessary, in order to their obtaining the pardon of sin, the favour of God, and eternal life; that the worship of God is to be performed chiefly by the heart, in prayers, praises, and thanksgivings; and, as to all other points, that they are bound to live by the rules which Christ and his apostles have left them in the holy scriptures.” Here then, adds the learned bishop, “is a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, containing all the most necessary points of religion, established by a divine sanction, embraced as such by all denominations of christians, and in itself abundantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world. As to points of greater intricacy, and which require uncommon degrees of penetration and knowledge; such indeed have been subjects of dispute, amongst persons of study and learning, in the several ages of the christian church; but the people are not obliged to enter into them, so long as they do not touch the foundations of christianity, nor have an influence upon practice. In other points it is sufficient that they believe the doctrines, so far as they find, upon due enquiry and examination, according to their several abilities and opportunities, that God hath revealed them.”

Footnote 378:

Bishop of London’s 2d Pastoral Letter, p. 24, 25.

This incomparable passage of this reverend and truly charitable prelate, I have transcribed intire; because it will undoubtedly give a sanction to my own principles of universal benevolence and charity. His lordship affirms, that “all denominations of christians agree in the substance of religion, and in the necessary enforcement of the practice of it;” inasmuch as they do all believe firmly and sincerely those principles which his lordship calls, with great reason and truth, “a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, as containing all the most necessary points of religion, and in itself abundantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world.”

My inference from this noble concession, for which all the friends to liberty, in church and state, throughout Great Britain, will thank his lordship, is this; that since all denominations of christians do, in his lordship’s judgment, receive his fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith, and embrace all the most necessary points of religion; to impose subscriptions to articles of faith and human creeds, must be a very unreasonable and needless thing: for either such articles and creeds contain nothing more than this same rule of faith and practice, and then all subscription to them is impertinent, because this is already received by all denominations of christians, and is abundantly sufficient, by the bishop’s own allowance, to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world; or such articles and creeds contain something more than his lordship’s fixed rule of faith and practice, something more than all the most necessary points of religion, something more than is sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world, _h. e._ some very unnecessary points of religion, something on which the preservation of religion doth not depend; and of consequence, subscriptions to unnecessary articles of faith, on which religion doth not depend, can never be necessary to qualify any person for a minister of the church of Christ, and therefore not for the church of England, if that be part of the church of Christ. And this is the more unnecessary, because, as his lordship farther well observes, “the people are not obliged to enter into them, so long as they do not touch the foundations of christianity,” i. e. so far as his lordship’s certain, fixed and uniform rule, which contains all necessary points of religion, is not affected by them. And if the people are not obliged to enter into points of great intricacy and dispute, I humbly conceive the clergy cannot be obliged to preach them; and that of consequence it is as absurd to impose upon them subscriptions to such things, as to oblige them to subscribe what they need not preach, nor any of their people believe.

Upon his lordship’s principles, the imposing subscriptions to the hard, unscriptural expressions of the Athanasians and Arians, by each party in their turns, and to the thirty-nine articles of the church of England, must be a very unreasonable and unchristian thing; because, the peculiarities to be subscribed, do not one of them enter into his specified points of religion, and of consequence are not necessary to preserve religion in the world; and after so public a declaration of charity towards all denominations of christians, and the safety of religion and the church, upon the general principles he hath laid down, there is no reason to doubt but his lordship will use that power and influence which God hath entrusted him with, to remove the wall of separation in the established church, in order to the uniting all differing sects, all denominations of christians, in one visible communion; and that he will join in that most christian and catholic prayer and benediction of one of his own brethren; though disapproved of by another of narrower principles, “[379]blessed be they who have contributed to so good a work.”

Footnote 379:

Bishop of Bangor’s answer to the Dean of Worcester, postscript, p. 207.

Subscriptions have ever been a grievance in the church of God; and the first introduction of them was owing to pride, and the claim of an unrighteous and ungodly power. Neither the warrant of scripture, nor the interest of truth, made them necessary. It is, I think, but by few, if any, pretended that the sacred writings countenance this practice. They do indeed abound with directions and exhortations to “adhere stedfastly to the faith, not to be moved from the faith, nor tossed about with every wind of doctrine.” But what is the faith which we are to adhere to? What the faith established and stamped for orthodox by the bishops and councils? Ridiculous! If this was the case, our faith must be as various as their creeds, and as absurd and contradictory as their decisions. No: The Faith we are to be grounded and settled in, is that “which was at once delivered to the saints,” that which was preached by the apostles to Gentiles as well as Jews; “the wholesome words we are to consent to are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness.” This all genuine christians receive, out of regard to a much higher authority than belongs to any set of men in the world; and therefore the sanction of fathers and councils in this case, is as impertinent as a man’s pretending to give a sanction to the constitutions of the great God. And as to all other articles of faith, neither they, nor any others, have any commission to impose them on the consciences of men; and the moment they attempt to do it, they cease to be servants in the house of God, and act as the true and proper lords of the heritage.

But it may be said, that “the church hath power to determine in controversies of faith; so as not to decree any thing against scripture, nor to enforce any thing to be believed as necessary to salvation besides it;” _i. e._ I suppose the church hath power to guard the truths of scripture; and in any controversies about doctrines, to determine what is or is not agreeable to scripture, and to enforce the reception of what they thus decree, by obliging others to subscribe to their decisions. If this be the case, then it necessarily follows, that their determinations must be ever right, and constantly agreeable to the doctrine of holy writ; and that they ought never to determine but when they are in the right; and are sure they are in the right; because, if the matter be difficult in its nature, or the clergy have any doubts and scruples concerning it, or are liable to make false decisions, they cannot, with any reason, make a final decision; because it is possible they may decide on the wrong side of the question, and thus decree falsehood instead of truth.

I presume there are but few who will claim, in words so extraordinary a power as that of establishing falsehood in the room of truth and scripture. But even supposing their decisions to be right, how will it follow that they have a power to oblige others to submit to and subscribe them? If by sound reason and argument they can convince the consciences of others, they are sure of the agreement of all such with them in principle; and, upon this foot, subscriptions are wholly useless: If they cannot convince them, it is a very unrighteous thing to impose subscriptions on them; and a shameful prevarication with God and man for any to submit to them without it.

Decisions made in controversies of faith, by the clergy, carry in them no force nor evidence of truth. Let their office be ever so sacred, it doth not exempt them from human frailties and imperfections. They are as liable to error and mistake, to prejudice and passion, as any of the laity whatsoever can be. How then can the clergy have any authority in controversies of faith, which the laity have not? That they have erred in their decisions, and decreed light to be darkness, and darkness light; that they have perplexed the consciences of men, and corrupted the simplicity of the faith in Christ, all their councils and synods are a notorious proof. With what justice or modesty then can they pretend to a power of obliging others to believe their articles, or subscribe them? If I was to speak the real truth, it will be found that those numerous opinions which have been anathematized as heretical, and which have broken the christian world into parties, have been generally invented, and broached, and propagated by the clergy. Witness Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and others; and therefore if we may judge, by any observations made on the rise of heresy, what is a proper method to put a stop to the progress of it, it cannot be the clergy’s forming articles of faith, and forcing others to subscribe them; because this is the very method by which they have established and propagated it.

The truth is, this method of preventing error will suit all religions, and all sorts of principles whatsoever; and is that by which error maintains its ground, and is indeed rendered impregnable. All the different sorts of christians, papists, and protestants, Greeks, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians, cannot certainly be right in their discriminating principles. And yet where shall we find any clergy that do not pretend a right to impose subscriptions, and who do not maintain the truth of the articles to which they make such subscription necessary? Upon this foot the doctrines of the council of Trent, the thirty-nine articles of the church of England, and the assemblies confession of faith, are all of them equally true, christian and sacred; for they are in different places embraced as standards of orthodoxy, and their sacredness and authority secured and maintained by the subscriptions of the clergy to them: and therefore I think it as little agreeable to prudence, as it is to justice, for christians to keep up a practice that may be so easily, and hath been so often turned into a security for heresy, superstition and idolatry; and especially for protestants to wear any longer these marks of slavery, which their enemies, whenever they have power, will not fail to make use of, either to fetter their consciences, or distinguish them for the burning.

But it may be said, that the abuse of subscriptions is no argument against the use of them; and that as they are proper to discover what men’s sentiments are, they may be so far sometimes a guard and security to the truth. But as all parties, who use them, will urge this reason for them, that they are in possession of the truth, and therefore willing to do all they can to secure and promote it; of consequence, subscriptions to articles of faith can never be looked on properly as guards to real truth, but as guards to certain prevailing principles, whether true or false. And even in this case they are wholly ineffectual.

The clergy of the church of England are bound to subscribe the thirty-nine articles, i. e. to the truth of Athanasian and Calvinistic principles. But hath this subscription answered its end? Do not the clergy, who are all subscribers, and who often repeat their subscriptions, differ about these heads as much as if they had never subscribed at all? Men that have no principles of religion and virtue, but enter the church only with a view to the benefices and preferments of it, will subscribe ten thousand times over, and to any articles that can be given them, whether true or false. Thus the Asiatic bishops subscribed to the condemnation of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and inform Basiliscus the emperor that their subscriptions were voluntary. And yet when Basiliscus was deposed, they immediately subscribed to the truth of those decrees, and swore their first subscription was involuntary. So that subscriptions cannot keep out any atheists, infidels, or profligate persons. And as to others, daily experience teaches us, that they either disbelieve the articles they subscribe, subscribing them only as articles of peace: or else, that after they have subscribed them, they see reason, upon a more mature deliberation, to alter their minds, and change their original opinions. So that till men can be brought always to act upon conscience, never to subscribe what they do not believe, nor ever to alter their judgment, as to the articles they have subscribed; subscriptions are as impertinent and useless as they are unreasonable, and can never answer the purposes of those who impose them.

But I apprehend farther, that this imposing of subscriptions is “not only an unreasonable custom,” but attended with many very pernicious consequences. It is a great hindrance to that freedom and impartiality of inquiry which is the unalterable duty of every man, and necessary to render his religion reasonable and acceptable. For why should any person make any inquiries for his own information, when his betters have drawn up a religion for him, and thus kindly saved him the labour and pains? And as his worldly interest may greatly depend on his doing as he is bid, and subscribing as he is ordered; is it not reasonable to think that the generality will contentedly take every thing upon trust, and prudently refrain from creating to themselves scruples and doubts, by nicely examining what they are to set their hands to, lest they should miss of promotion for not being able to comply with the condition of it, or enjoy their promotions with a dissatisfied and uneasy conscience?

Subscriptions will, I own, sometimes prove marks of distinction, and as walls of separation: For though men of integrity and conscience may, and oftentimes undoubtedly do submit to them; yet men of no principles, or very loose ones, worldly and ambitious men, the thoughtless and ignorant, will most certainly do it, when they find it for their interest. The church that encloses herself with these fences, leaves abundant room for the entrance of all persons of such characters. To whom then doth she refuse admittance? Why, if to any, it must be to men who cannot bend their consciences to their interest; who cannot believe without examination, nor subscribe any articles of faith as true, without understanding and believing them. It is in the very nature of subscriptions to exclude none but these, and to distinguish such only for shame and punishment. Now how is this consistent with any thing that is called reason or religion?

If there could be found out any wise and reasonable methods to throw out of the christian church and ministry, men who are in their hearts unbelievers, who abide in the church only for the revenues she yields to them, who shift their religious and political principles according to their interest, who propagate doctrines inconsistent with the liberties of mankind, and are scandalous and immoral in their lives; if subscriptions could be made to answer these ends, and these only, and to throw infamy upon such men, and upon such men only, no one would have any thing to alledge against the use of them. Whereas, in truth, subscriptions are the great securities of such profligate wretches, who by complying with them, enter into the church, and thereby share in all the temporal advantages of it; whilst the scrupulous, conscientious christian, is the only one she excludes; who thinks the word of God a more sure rule of faith than the dictates of men; and that subscriptions are things much too sacred to be trifled with, or lightly submitted to.

They are indeed very great snares to many persons, and temptations to them too often to trespass upon the rules of strict honesty and virtue. For when men’s subsistence and advantages in the world depend on their subscribing to certain articles of faith, it is one of the most powerful arguments that can be, to engage them to comply with it. It is possible indeed they may have their objections against the reasonableness and truth of what they are to subscribe: But will not interest often lead them to overlook their difficulties, to explain away the natural meaning of words, to put a different sense upon the articles than what they will fairly bear, to take them in any sense, and to subscribe them in no sense, only as articles of peace?

It must be by some such evasions that Arians subscribe to Athanasian creeds, and Arminians to principles of rigid Calvinism. This the clergy have been again and again reproached with, even by the enemies of christianity: and I am sorry to say it, they have not been able to wipe off the scandal from themselves. I am far from saying or believing that all the clergy make these evasive subscriptions: those only that do so give this offence; and if they are, in other cases, men of integrity and conscience, they are objects of great compassion.

As far as my own judgment is concerned, I think this manner of subscribing to creeds and articles of faith, is infamous in its nature, and vindicable upon no principles of conscience and honour. It tends to render the clergy contemptible in the eyes of the people, who will be apt to think that they have but little reason to regard the sermons of men, who have prevaricated in their subscriptions, and that they preach for the same reason only that they subscribed, _viz._ their worldly interest. It is of very pernicious influence and example, and in its consequences leads to the breach of all faith amongst mankind, and tends to the subversion of civil society. For if the clergy are known to prevaricate in subscribing to religious tests of orthodoxy, is it not to be feared that others may learn from them to prevaricate in their subscriptions to civil tests of loyalty? and, indeed, there is a great deal of reason to imagine, that if men can tutor and twist their consciences so as to subscribe articles of faith, contrary to their own persuasion, and only as articles of peace, or a qualification for a living, they would subscribe for the same reason to Popery or Mahometanism: For if this be a good reason for subscribing any articles which I do not believe, it is a reason for subscribing all; and therefore I humbly apprehend that a practice, which gives so much occasion to such scandalous prevarications with God and man, should be cast off as an insufferable grievance, and as a yoke upon the necks of the clergy, too heavy for them to bear.

Let me add farther, that this practice of imposing subscriptions, hath been the occasion of innumerable mischiefs in the church of God. It was the common cry of the orthodox and Arians, and all other heretics, in their turns of power, “either subscribe, or depart from your churches.” This enflamed the clergy against each other, and filled them with hatred, malice and revenge. For as by imposing these subscriptions, inquisition was made into the consciences of others; the refusal to submit to them was a certain mark of heresy and reprobation; and the consequence of this was the infliction of all spiritual and temporal punishments. It was impossible but that such procedures should perpetuate the schisms and divisions of the church, since the wrath of man cannot work the righteousness of God; and since civil punishments have no tendency to convince the conscience, but only to enflame the passions against the advisers and inflicters of them. And as ecclesiastical history gives us so dreadful an account of the melancholy and tragical effects of this practice, one would think that no nation who knew the worth of liberty, no christian, protestant, church, that hath any regard for the peace of the flock of Christ, should ever be found to authorize and continue it.

SECT. VI. _Adherence to the Sacred Scriptures the best Security of Truth and Orthodoxy._

What security then shall we have left us for truth and orthodox, when our subscriptions are gone? Why, the sacred scriptures, those oracles of the great God, and freedom and liberty to interpret and understand them as we can; the consequence of this would be great integrity and peace of conscience, in the enjoyment of our religious principles, union and friendship amongst christians, notwithstanding all their differences in judgment, and great respect and honour to those faithful pastors, that carefully feed the flock of God, and lead them into pastures of righteousness and peace. We shall lose only the incumbrances of religion, our bones of contention, the shackles of our consciences, and the snares to honesty and virtue; whilst all that is substantially good and valuable, all that is truly divine and heavenly, would remain to enrich and bless us.

The clergy would indeed lose their power to do mischief; but would they not be happy in that loss, especially as they would be infinitely more likely to do good? They would be no longer looked on as fathers and dictators in the faith; but still they might remain “ambassadors for Christ, beseeching men in Christ’s stead, to become reconciled to God.” And was all human authority, in matters of faith, thus wholly laid aside, would not the word of God have a freer course, and be much more abundantly glorified? All christians would look upon scripture as the only rule of their faith and practice, and therefore search it with greater diligence and care, and be much more likely to understand the mind of God therein. The main things of christianity would, unquestionably, be generally agreed to by all; and as to other things, points of speculation and difficult questions, if christians differed about them, their differences would be of no great importance, and might be maintained consistent with charity and peace.

Indeed, a strict and constant adherence to scripture, as the only judge in controversies of the christian faith, would be the most likely method to introduce into the church a real uniformity of opinion, as well as practice. For if this was the case, many disputes would be wholly at an end, as having nothing to give occasion to them in the sacred writings; and all others would be greatly shortened, as hereby all foreign terms, and human phrases of speech, by which the questions that have been controverted amongst christians have been darkened and perplexed, would be immediately laid aside, and the only inquiry would be, what is the sense of scripture? What the doctrine of Christ and his apostles? This is a much more short and effectual way of determining controversies, than sending men to Nice and Chalcedon, to councils and synods, to Athanasius, or Arius, to Calvin or Arminius, or any other persons whatsoever that can be mentioned, who at best deliver but their own sense of scripture, and are not to be regarded any farther than they agree with it.

It was the departure from this, as the great standard of faith, and corrupting the simplicity of the gospel-doctrine by hard, unscriptural words, that gave occasion to the innumerable controversies that formerly troubled the christian church. Human creeds were substituted in the room of scripture; and according as circumstances differed, or new opinions were broached, so were the creeds corrected, amended and enlarged, till they became so full of subtleties, contradictions, and nonsense, as must make every thoughtful man read many of them with contempt. The controversy was not about scripture expressions, but about the words of men; not about the sense of scripture, but the decrees of councils, and the opinions of Athanasius, Leo, Cyril, and the venerable fathers. And upon this foot it was no wonder their disputes should be endless; since the writings of all fallible men must certainly be more obscure and intricate than the writings of the infallible spirit of truth, who could be at no loss about the doctrines he dictated, nor for proper words suitably to express them.

It is infinite, it is endless labour, to consult all that the fathers have written; and when we have consulted them, what one controversy have they rationally decided? What one christian doctrine have they clearly and solidly explained? How few texts of scripture have they critically settled the sense and meaning of? How often do they differ from one another, and in how many instances from themselves? Those who read them, greatly differ in their interpretation of them; and men of the most contrary sentiments, all claim them for their own. Athanasians and Arians appeal to the fathers, and support their principles by quotations from them. And are these the venerable gentlemen, whose writings are to be set up in opposition to the scripture, or set up as authoritative judges of the sense of scripture? Are creeds of their dictating to be submitted to as the only criterion of orthodoxy, or esteemed as standards to distinguish between truth and error? Away with this folly and superstition! The creeds of the fathers and councils are but human creeds, that have all the marks in them of human frailty and ignorance. The creeds which are to be found in the gospel are the infallible dictates of the spirit of the God of truth, and as such claim our reverence and submission; and as the forming our principles according to them, as far as we are able to understand them, makes us christians in the sight of God, it should be sufficient to every one’s being owned as a christian by others, without their using any inquisitory forms of trial, till they can produce their commission from heaven for the use of them. This, as it is highly reasonable in itself, would do the highest honour to the christian clergy; who, instead of being reproached for haughtiness and pride, as the incendiaries and plagues of mankind, as the sowers of contention and strife, and disturbers of the peace of the church of God, would be honoured for their work’s sake, esteemed for their characters, loved as blessings to the world, heard with pleasure, and become succesful in their endeavours to recommend the knowledge and practice of christianity.

SECT. VII. _The Christian Religion absolutely condemns Persecution for conscience sake._

Were the doctrines of the gospel regarded as they should be, and the precepts of the christian religion submitted to by all who profess to believe it, universal benevolence would be the certain effect, and eternal peace and union would reign amongst the members of the christian church. For if there are any commands of certain clearness, any precepts of evident obligation in the gospel, they are such as refer to the exercise of love, and the maintaining universal charity. In our Saviour’s admirable discourse on the mount, this was the excellent doctrine he taught: [380]“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.” And in another place, describing the nature of religion in general, he tells us, that [381]“the love of God is the first commandment; and that the second is like unto it—thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” This he enjoins upon his disciples as his peculiar command: [382]“This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you;” and recommends it to them as that whereby they were to be distinguished from all other persons. [383]“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. [384]By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

Footnote 380:

Matt. v. 5, 7, 9.

Footnote 381:

Matt. xxii. 35.

Footnote 382:

John xv. 12.

Footnote 383:

xiii. 84.

Footnote 384:

35.

This was the more needful for them, considering that our Lord foreknew the grievous persecutions that would befal them for his sake; to encourage them under which, he pronounces them blessed: [385]“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness-sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;” whilst, at the same time, he leaves a brand of infamy on persecutors, and marks them out for the vengeance of God: [386]“Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you. [387]Woe unto you, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them; therefore, saith the wisdom of God, I will send you prophets and apostles, and they will slay and persecute them, that the blood of all the prophets—may be required of this generation.”

Footnote 385:

Matt. v. 10.

Footnote 386:

12.

Footnote 387:

Luke xi. 47, &c.

And indeed, so far was our Lord from encouraging any persecuting methods, that he rebuked and put a stop to all the appearances of them. Thus when his disciples would have called down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, who refused to receive him, he rebuked them, and said, [388]“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them;” and when one of those who were with Christ cut off the ear of one of the high priest’s servants, upon his laying hands on him, he severely reproved him: [389]“Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” And, in order to cure his apostles of their ambition and pride, and to prevent their claiming an undue power, he gave them an example of great humility and condescension, in washing and wiping their feet, and forbid them imitating the [390]“gentiles, by exercising dominion and authority; but whoever will be great amongst you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief amongst you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” And as the Jewish teachers took on them the name of Rabbi, to denote their power over the consciences of those they instructed, he commanded his disciples, [391]“Be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man father upon earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven. But he that is greatest amongst you, shall be your servant.” From these, and other passages of like nature, it is very evident, that there is nothing in the life of Jesus Christ that gives any countenance to these wicked methods of propagating and supporting religion, that some of his pretended followers have made use of, but the strongest directions to the contrary.

Footnote 388:

Luke ix. 55, 56.

Footnote 389:

Matt. xxvi. 52.

Footnote 390:

xx. 25, &c.

Footnote 391:

Matt. xxiii. 8, &c.

[392]It is indeed objected, that Christ says, “compel them to come in, that my house may be full:” but that this compulsion means nothing more than invitation and persuasion, is evident from the parallel place of scripture, where what St. Luke calls, [393]“compel them to come in,” is expressed by, “bid them to the marriage,” _i. e._ endeavour, not by force of arms, but by argument and reason, by importunity and earnestness, and by setting before men the promises and threatnings of the gospel, and thus addressing yourselves to their hopes and fears, to persuade and compel them to embrace my religion, and become the subjects of my kingdom; and in this moral sense of compulsion, the original word is often used.

Footnote 392:

Luke xiv. 23.

Footnote 393:

Matt. xxii. 9.

[394]But farther, it is, by a late writer, reckoned very surprising, that Christ should say, [395]“Think not I am come to send peace, I came not to send peace, but a sword; for I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, &c.” But how is this so very surprising? or what man of common sense can mistake the meaning of the words, who reads the whole discourse? In the former part of it, it is expressly declared, that the most grievous persecutions should befal his disciples for his sake; that “brother should deliver up brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Can any man understand this of an intention in Christ to set people at variance? when it is a prediction only of what should be the consequence of publishing his gospel, through the malice and cruelty of its opposers; a prediction of what his disciples were to suffer, and not of what they were to make others suffer.

Footnote 394:

Christianity as old, &c. p. 305.

Footnote 395:

Matt. x. 34, 35.

And as to that passage in Luke, [396]“I am come to send fire on the earth: and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division.” How is it explained by Christ himself? Why, in the very next words: “For from henceforth,” _i. e._ upon the publication of my religion and gospel, “there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three, &c.” Can any man need paraphrase and criticism to explain these passages of any thing, but of that persecution which should befal the preachers and believers of the gospel? or imagine it to be a prophetic description of a fire to be blown up by Christ to consume others, when the whole connection evidently refers it to a fire, that the opposers of his religion should blow up, to consume himself and followers? Jesus knew it was such a fire as would first consume himself. “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?” or, as the words should be translated, “How do I wish it was already kindled? How do I wish it to break out on my own person, that I might glorify God by my sufferings and death?” For as it follows, “I have a baptism to be baptised with,” a baptism with my own blood: “and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” After this account of his own sufferings, he foretels the same should befal his followers: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division;” _i. e._ as I myself must suffer to bear witness to the truth, so after my decease, such shall be the unreasonable and furious opposition to my gospel, as shall occasion divisions amongst the nearest relations, some of whom shall hate and persecute the other for their embracing my religion. And of consequence [397]“Christ did not declare, in the most express terms,” as the fore-mentioned writer asserts, “that he came to do that which we must suppose he came to hinder.” He did only declare, that he came to do what he was resolved not to hinder, _i. e._ to publish such a religion as his enemies would put him to death for, and as would occasion divisions amongst the nearest relations, through the unreasonable hatred and opposition that some would shew to others upon account of it. This matter is elsewhere clearly expressed by Christ: [398]“These things have I spoken to you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the father nor me,” _i. e._ have not understood either natural religion, or the religion of my gospel.

Footnote 396:

Luke xii. 49, 51.

Footnote 397:

Ibid.

Footnote 398:

John xvi. 1, 2, 3.

There is therefore nothing in the conduct or doctrines of Jesus Christ to countenance or encourage persecution. His temper was benevolent, his conduct merciful; and one governing design of all he said, was to promote meekness and condescension, universal charity and love. And in this all his apostles were careful imitators of his example: [399]“Let love,” saith St. Paul, “be without dissimulation; be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love, in honour preferring one another. [400]If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” And the love he recommended was such, [401]“as worketh no ill to his neighbour;” and which therefore he declares “to be the fulfilling of the law.”

Footnote 399:

Rom. xii. 9, 10.

Footnote 400:

18.

Footnote 401:

xiii. 10.

And, lest different sentiments in lesser matters should cause divisions amongst christians, he commands, [402]“to receive him that is weak in the faith, not to doubtful disputations,” not to debates, or contentions about disputations, or disputable things. Upon account of such matters, he orders that none should [403]“despise or judge others, because God had received them;” [403]and because every man ought to be “fully persuaded in his own mind,” and because [404]“the kingdom of God was not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the holy ghost;” and because every one was to [405]“give an account of himself to God,” to whom alone, as his only master, he was to stand or fall. From these substantial reasons he infers, [406]“We then that are strong,” who have the most perfect understanding of the nature of christianity, and our christian liberty, [407]“ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves;” and having prayed for them, that the God of patience and consolation would grant them to “be like-minded one towards another,” according to, or after the example of Christ, that, notwithstanding the strength of some, and the weakness of others, they might, [408]“with one mind, and with one mouth, glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;” he adds, as the conclusion of his argument, [409]“Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

Footnote 402:

Rom. xiv. 1.

Footnote 403:

Ibid. 3, 5.

Footnote 404:

17.

Footnote 405:

4.

Footnote 406:

xv. 1.

Footnote 407:

5.

Footnote 408:

6.

Footnote 409:

Rom. xv. 7.

In his letters to the [410]Corinthians, he discovers the same divine and amiable spirit. In his first epistle he beseeches them, “by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they would all speak the same thing, and that there should be no schism amongst them, but that they should be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment;” _i. e._ that they should all own and submit to Christ, as their only lord and head, and not rank themselves under different leaders, as he had been informed they had done; for that they were [411]“the body of Christ,” and all of them his members, and ought therefore to maintain that charity to one another, “which suffereth long, and is kind; which envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; which is greater and more excellent than faith and hope, which fails not in heaven itself,” where faith and hope shall be at an end; and without which, though we could [412]“speak with the tongue of men and angels, should have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and could remove mountains; yea, though we should bestow all our goods to feed the poor, and give our bodies to be burned, we should be only as sounding brass, and as a tinkling cymbal;” nothing in the account of God, nothing as to any real profit and advantage that will accrue to us. And, in his second epistle, he takes his leave of them, with this divine exhortation, and glorious encouragement: [413]“Finally brethren, farewell; be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind,” be affectionate, and kindly disposed to one another, as though you were influenced by one common mind: “Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you.”

Footnote 410:

1 Cor. i. 10, &c.

Footnote 411:

xii. 27.

Footnote 412:

xiii. 1, &c.

Footnote 413:

2 Cor. xiii. 11.

In his epistle to the Galatians,[414] he gives us a catalogue of those works of the flesh which exclude men from the kingdom of God; such as “adultery, fornication,—hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings,” and the like; and then assures us, that “the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, against which there is no law:” and, after having laid down this as an essential principle of christianity, that [415]“neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;” as it is expressed in another place, “Faith which worketh by love;” he pronounces this truly apostolic benediction, [416]“As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Footnote 414:

Gal. v. 19, &c.

Footnote 415:

Chap. vi. 15.

Footnote 416:

16.

The same divine and excellent strain runs through his letter to the Ephesians: [417]“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace;” and the term of this union, which he lays down, is the acknowledgment of one catholic church, one spirit, one Lord and Mediator, and “One God, even the Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all.” The contrary vices, of [418]“bitterness and wrath, and anger and clamour, and evil-speaking and malice, are to be put away,” as things that “grieve the Holy Spirit of God?”[419] and we must “be kind one to another, forgiving one another even as God, for Christ’s sake, hath forgiven us;[420] and be followers of God, by walking in love, even as Christ hath also loved us, and hath given himself for us.”

Footnote 417:

Eph. iv. 1, &c.

Footnote 418:

31.

Footnote 419:

Eph. iv. 32.

Footnote 420:

Chap. v. 1, 2.

His exhortation to the Philippians,[421] is in the most moving terms: “If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy; that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

Footnote 421:

Phil. ii. 1, &c.

In his exhortation to the Colossians, he warmly presses our cultivating the same disposition, and abounding in the same practice: [422]“Put off all these, anger, wrath, malice;—put on as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, even as Christ forgave us. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness: and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also ye are called in one body.”

Footnote 422:

Col. iii. 8, &c.

In his directions to Timothy, he gives him this summary of all practical religion: [423]“The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned;” and he ascribes men’s turning aside to vain jangling, to their having swerved from this great principle.

Footnote 423:

1 Tim. i. 5, &c.

And, to mention no more passages on this head, I shall conclude this whole account with that amiable description of the wisdom that is from above, given by St. James: [424]“The wisdom that is from above is pure, and peaceable, and gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. But if we have bitter envying and strife in our hearts, we have nothing to glory in, but we lye against the truth,” _i. e._ belie our christian profession; for whatever false judgment we may pass upon ourselves, this “wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish; for where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”

Footnote 424:

James iii. 14, &c.

I have thrown all these excellent passages of the sacred writings together, that it may appear, in the most convincing light, that the scriptures have nothing in them to countenance the spirit, or any of the methods of persecution; and to confront the melancholy account I have given before of the progress and ravages caused by this accursed evil. Good God, how have the practices of christians differed from the precepts of christianity! Would one imagine that the authors of those dreadful mischiefs and confusions were the bishops and ministers of the christian church? That they had ever read the records of the christian religion? Or if they had, that they ever believed them?

But it may be objected, that whatever may be the precepts of the christian religion, yet the conduct even of the apostles themselves gives some countenance to the spirit and practice of persecution, and particularly the conduct of St. Paul; and that such powers are given to the guides and bishops of the christian church, as do either expressly or virtually include in them a right to persecute. Let us briefly examine each of these pretensions.

As to the practice of the apostles,[425] Beza mentions two instances to vindicate the punishment of heretics. The first is that of Ananias and Sapphira, struck dead by Peter; and the other that of Elymas the sorcerer, struck blind by Paul. But how impertinently are both these instances alledged? Heresy was not the thing punished in either of them. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for hypocrisy and lying; and for conspiring, if it were possible, to deceive God. Elymas was a jewish sorcerer, and false prophet; a subtle, mischievous fellow, an enemy to righteousness and virtue, who withstood the apostolic authority, and endeavoured, by his frauds, to prevent the conversion of the deputy to the christian faith. The two first of these persons were punished with death. By whom? What, by Peter? No: by the immediate hand of God. Peter gave them a reproof suitable to their wickedness; but as to the punishment, he was only the mouth of God in declaring it, even of that God who knew the hypocrisy of their hearts, and gave this signal instance of his abhorrence of it in the infancy of the christian church, greatly to discourage, and, if possible, for the future to prevent men thus dealing fraudulently and insincerely with him. And, I presume, if God hath a right to punish frauds and cheats in another world, he hath a right to do so in this; especially in the instance before us, which seems to have something very peculiar in it.

Footnote 425:

De Hæret. a Magist. pun. p. 161, &c.

Peter expressly says to Sapphira, [426]“How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?” What can this tempting of the spirit of the Lord be, but an agreement between Ananias and his wife, to put this fraud on the apostle, to see whether or no he could discover it by the spirit he pretended to? This was a proper challenge to the spirit of God, which the apostles were endued with, and a combination to put the apostolic character to the trial. Had not the cheat been discovered, the apostle’s inspiration and mission would have been deservedly questioned; and as the state of christianity required that this divine mission should be abundantly established, Peter lets them know that their hypocrisy was discovered; and, to create the greater regard and attention to their persons and message, God saw fit to punish that hypocrisy with death.

Footnote 426:

Acts v. 9.

As to Elymas the sorcerer,[427] this instance is as foreign and impertinent as the other. Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, had entertained at Paphos one Barjesus, a jew, a sorcerer; and hearing also that Paul and Barnabas were in the city, he sent for them to hear the doctrine they preached. Accordingly they endeavoured to instruct the deputy in the christian faith, but were withstood by Elymas, who by his subtleties and tricks, endeavoured to hinder his conversion. St. Paul therefore, in order to confirm his own divine mission, and to prevent the deputy’s being deceived by the frauds and sorceries of Elymas, after severely rebuking him for his sin, and opposition to christianity, tells him, not that the Proconsul ought to put him in jail, and punish him with the civil sword, but that God himself would decide the controversy, by striking the sorcerer himself immediately blind; which accordingly came to pass, to the full conviction of the Proconsul.

Footnote 427:

Acts xiii. 6, &c.

Now what is there in all this to vindicate persecution? God punishes wicked men for fraud and sorcery, who knew their hearts, and had a right to punish the iniquity of them. Therefore men may punish others for opinions they think to be true, and are conscientious in embracing, without knowing the heart, or being capable of discovering any insincerity in it. Or God may vindicate the character and mission of his own messengers, when wickedly opposed and denied, by immediate judgments inflicted by himself on their opposers. Therefore the magistrate may punish and put to death, without any warrant from God, such who believe their mission, and are ready to submit to it, as far as they understand the nature and design of it. Are these consequences just and rational? or would any man have brought these instances as precedents for persecution, that was not resolved, at all hazards, to defend and practise it?

But doth not St. Paul command to [428]“deliver persons to satan for the destruction of the flesh?” Doth he not [429]“wish that they were even cut off who trouble christians, and enjoin us to mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to his doctrine, and to avoid them, and not to eat with them?” Undoubtedly he doth. But what can be reasonably inferred from hence in favour of persecution, merely for the sake of opinions and principles? In all these instances, the things censured are immoralities and vices. The person who was delivered by St. Paul to satan, was guilty of a crime not so much as named by the gentiles themselves, the incestuous marriage of his father’s wife; and the persons we are, as christians, commanded not to keep company and eat with, are men of scandalous lives; such as fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters, or railers, or drunkards, or extortioners, making a profession of the christian religion, or, in St. Paul’s phrase, “called brethren;” a wise and prudent exhortation in those days especially, to prevent others from being corrupted by such examples, and any infamy thrown on the christian name and character. As to those whom the apostle “wishes cut off,” they were the persecuting Jews, who spread contention amongst christians, and taught them to bite and devour one another, upon account of circumcision, and such like trifles; men that were the plagues and corrupters of the society they belonged to. Men who caused such divisions, and who caused them out of a love to their own belly, deserved to have a mark set upon them, and to be avoided by all who regarded their own interest, or the peace of others.

Footnote 428:

1 Cor. v. 5.

Footnote 429:

Gal. i. 9. v. 12. Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. v. 9.

What the apostle means by delivering to satan, I am not able certainly to determine. It was not, I am sure, the putting the person in jail, or torturing his body by an executioner, nor sending him to the devil by the sword or the faggot. One thing included in it, undoubtedly was his separation from the christian church; [430]“put away from amongst yourselves that wicked person:” which probably was attended with some bodily distemper, which, as it came from God, had a tendency to bring the person to consideration and reflection. The immediate design of it was the destruction of the flesh, to cure him of his incest, that, by repentance and reformation, his “spirit might be saved in the day of Christ;” and the power by which the apostle inflicted this punishment, was peculiar to himself, which God gave him [431]“for edification, and not for destruction:” So that whatever is precisely meant by delivering to satan, it was the punishment of a notorious sin: a punishment that carried the marks of God’s hand, and was designed for the person’s good, and was actually instrumental to recover and save him. _2 Cor._ ii.

Footnote 430:

1 Cor. v. 13.

Footnote 431:

2 Cor. x. 8.

But what resemblance is there in all this to persecution, in which there is no appearance of the hand of God, nor any marks but those of the cruelty and vengeance of men; no immorality punished, and generally speaking, nothing that in its nature deserves punishment, or but what deserves encouragement and applause. And it is very probable that this is what St. Paul means by his “wishing those cut off” who disturbed the peace of the Galatian christians, by spreading divisions amongst them, and exciting persecutions against them; though I confess, if St. Paul meant more, and prayed to God that those obstinate and incorrigible enemies to christianity, who, for private views of worldly interest, raised perpetual disturbances and persecutions wherever they came, might receive the just punishment of their sins, and be hereby prevented from doing farther mischief, I do not see how this would have been inconsistent with charity, or his own character as an inspired apostle.

It may possibly be urged, that though the things censured in these places are immoralities, yet that there are other passages which refer only to principles; and that the apostle Paul speaks against them with great severity: as particularly, [432]“If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” And again, [433]“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” As to the first of these, nothing can be more evident, than that the apostle pronounces an anathema only against those who subverted the christian religion; such who taught that it was insufficient to salvation, without circumcision, and submission to the Jewish law. As the gospel he taught was what he had received from Christ, he had, as an apostle, a right to warn the churches he wrote to against corrupting the simplicity of it: and to pronounce an anathema, _i. e._ to declare in the name of his great Master, that all such false teachers should be condemned who continued to do so: And this is the utmost that can be made of the expression; and therefore this place is as impertinently alledged in favour of persecution, as it would be to alledge those words of Christ, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” The anathema pronounced was the divine vengeance; it was Anathema Maranatha, to take place only when the Lord should come to judgment, and not to be executed by human vengeance.

Footnote 432:

Gal. i. 9.

Footnote 433:

Tit. iii. 10.

As to heresy, against which such dreadful outcries have been raised, it is taken indifferently in a good or a bad sense in the scripture. In the bad sense, it signifies, not an involuntary error, or mistake of judgment, into which serious and honest minds may fall, after a careful inquiry into the will of God; but a wilful, criminal, corruption of the truth for worldly ends and purposes. Thus it is reckoned by [434]St. Paul himself amongst the works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, variance, strifes, and the like; because heresy is embraced for the sake of fleshly lusts, and always ministers to the serving them. Thus St. Peter: [435]“There were false prophets also amongst the people, even as there shall be false teachers amongst you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction; and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and through covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandize of you; whom he farther describes as walking after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness,” and as given to almost all manner of vices. This is heresy, and “denying the Lord that bought us,” and the only meaning of the expression, as used by the apostle; though it hath been applied by weak or designing men to denote all such as do not believe their metaphysical notion of the Trinity, or the Athanasian creed. Hence it is that St. Paul gives it, as the general character of an heretic, that [436]“he is subverted,” viz. from the christian faith; “sinneth,” viz. by voluntarily embracing errors, subversive of the gospel, in favour of his lusts, on which account he is “self-condemned,” viz. by his own conscience, both in the principles he teaches, and the vile uses to which he makes them serve. So that though sincere and honest inquirers after truth, persons who fear God, and practise righteousness, may be heretics in the esteem of men, for not understanding and believing their peculiarities in religion; yet they are not and cannot be heretics, according to the scripture description of heresy, in the notion of which there is always supposed a wicked heart, causing men wilfully to embrace and propagate such principles as are subversive of the gospel, in order to serve the purposes of their avarice, ambition, and lust.

Footnote 434:

Gal. v. 20.

Footnote 435:

2 Pet. ii. 1, &c. v. 10.

Footnote 436:

Tit. iii. 11.

Such heresy as this is unquestionably one of the worst of crimes, and heretics of this kind are worthy to be rejected. It must be confessed, that heresy hath been generally taken in another sense, and to mean opinions that differ from the established orthodoxy, or from the creeds of the clergy, that are uppermost in power: who have not only taken on them to reject such as have differed from them, from their communion and church, but to deprive them of fortune, liberty, and life. But as St. Paul’s notion of heresy entirely differs from what the clergy have generally taught about it, theirs may be allowed to be a very irrational and absurd doctrine, and the apostle’s remain a very wise and good one; and though they have gone into all the lengths of wickedness to punish what they have stigmatized with the name of heresy, they have had no apostolic example or precept to countenance them; scripture heretics being only to be rejected from the church, according to St. Paul; and, as to any farther punishment, it is deferred till the Lord shall come.

As to the powers given to the guides, or overseers, or bishops of the church, I allow their claims have been exceeding great. They have assumed to themselves the name of the church and clergy, hereby to distinguish themselves from the flock of Christ. They have taken on them, as we have seen, to determine, mend, and alter the faith; to make creeds for others, and oblige them to subscribe them; and to act as though our Savior had divested himself of his own rights, and given unto them “all power in heaven and earth.” But these claims have as little foundation in the gospel as in reason.

The words clergy and church, are never once used in scripture to denote the bishops, or other officers, but the christian people. St. Peter advises the presbyterers [437]“to feed the flock of God, and to exercise the episcopal office willingly, not as lording it over the heritages,” or clergy of God. And St. Paul, writing to his Ephesians, and speaking of their privileges as christians, says, that “by Christ they were made God’s peculiar lot,” or heritage, or clergy. In like manner the body of christians in general, and particular congregations in particular places, are called the church, but the ministers of the gospel never in contra-distinction to them. It is of all believers that St. Peter gives that noble description, that they are “a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices; a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people,” or a people for his peculiar heritage, or “purchased possession,” as the word is rendered. Eph. i. 14. So that to be the church, the clergy, and the sacred priests of God, is an honour common to all christians in general by the gospel charter. These are not the titles of a few only, who love to exalt themselves above others.

Footnote 437:

1 Pet. v. 3.

Undoubtedly, the order of the christian worship requires that there should be proper persons to guide and regulate the affairs of it. And accordingly St. Paul tells us, [438]“that Christ gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers;” different officers, according to the different state and condition of his church. To the apostles extraordinary powers were given, to fit them for the service to which they were called; and, to enable them to manage these powers in a right manner, they were under the peculiar conduct of the spirit of God, Thus our Saviour, after his resurrection, breathed on his disciples the Holy Ghost, and said, [439]“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;” a commission of the same import with that which he gave them before, Matt. xviii. 18. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” To “bind, is to retain men’s sins; and to loose, is to remit their sins.” And this power the apostles had; and it was absolutely necessary they should have it, or they could never have spread his religion in the world.

Footnote 438:

Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 439:

John xx. 23.

But wherein did this binding and loosing, this retaining and remitting sins, consist? What, in their saying to this man, I absolve you from your sins; and, to the other, I put you under the sentence of damnation? would any considerate man in the world have ever credited their pretensions to such an extravagant power? or can one single instance be produced of the apostles pretending to exercise it? No: their power of binding and loosing, of retaining and remitting sins, consisted in this, and in this principally, viz. their fixing the great conditions of men’s future salvation, and denouncing the wrath of Almighty God against all, who, through wilful obstinacy, would not believe and obey the gospel. And the commission was given them in the most general terms, “whose soever sins ye retain, &c.” not because they were to go to particular persons, and peremptorily say, “you shall be saved, and you shall be damned;” but because they were to preach the gospel to gentiles as well as jews, and to fix those conditions of future happiness and misery that should include all the nations of the earth, to whom the gospel should be preached.

This was their proper office and work, as apostles; and, in order to this, they had the spirit given them, to bring all things that Christ had said to their remembrance, and to instruct them fully in the nature and doctrines of the gospel. And as they have declared the whole counsel of God to the world, they have loosed and bound all mankind, “even the very bishops and pastors of the church, as well as others,” as they have fixed those conditions of pardon and mercy, of future happiness and misery for all men, from which God will not recede, to the end of time. This was a power fit to be entrusted with men under the conduct of an unerring spirit, and with them only; whereas the common notion of sacerdotal or priestly absolution, as it hath no foundation in this commission to the apostles, nor in any passage of the sacred writings, is irrational and absurd, and which the priests have no more power to give, than any other common christian whatsoever; no, nor than they have to make a new gospel.

I would add, that as the apostles received this commission from Christ, they were bound to confine themselves wholly to it and not to exceed the limits of it. They were his servants who sent them; and the message they received from him, that, and that only, were they to deliver to the world. Thus St. Paul says of himself, that [440]“God had committed to him the world of reconciliation,” and that he was “an ambassador for Christ;” that he [441]“preached not himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and himself the servant of others for Jesus’ sake;” that he had [442]“no dominion over others faith,” no power to impose upon them arbitrary things, or articles of faith, which he had not received from Christ; and that accordingly he [443]“determined to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified,” _i. e._ to preach nothing but the pure and uncorrupted doctrines of his gospel; and that this was his great comfort, that he had “not shunned to declare the counsel of God.”

Footnote 440:

2 Cor. v. 20.

Footnote 441:

iv. 5.

Footnote 442:

i. 24.

Footnote 443:

1 Cor. ii. 2.

If then the inspired apostles were to confine themselves to what they received from God, and had no power to make articles of faith, and fix terms of communion and salvation, other than what they were immediately ordered to do by Christ, it is absolutely impossible that the clergy can have that power now; who have, as I apprehend, no immediate commission from Christ, nor any direct inspiration from his Holy Spirit. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the world to render such a power desirable; because the apostles have shewn us all things that we need believe or practise as christians, and commanded the preachers of the gospel to teach no other doctrines but what they received from them. Hence St. Peter’s advice to the elders, that they, [444]“should feed the flock of God, not as lording it over the heritage.” And St. Paul, in his epistles to Timothy, instructing him in the nature of the gospel doctrines and duties, tells him, that [445]“by putting the brethren in remembrance of these things, he would approve himself a good minister of Jesus Christ;” and commands him to [446]“take heed to himself, and to the doctrines” he had taught him, “and to continue in them;” charging him, [447]“in the sight of God, and before Christ Jesus, to keep the commandment given him, that which was committed to his trust, without spot, unrebukeable, till the appearance of Christ Jesus.” These were the things to which Timothy was to confine himself, and to commit to others, that they might be continually preached in the christian church; and, of consequence, it is the same apostolic doctrine that the bishops, or elders, or ministers of the church, are to instruct their hearers in now, as far as they understand it, without mixing any thing of their own with it, or of any other persons whatsoever.

Footnote 444:

1 Pet. v. 3.

Footnote 445:

1 Tim. iv. 6.

Footnote 446:

vi. 13, 14, 20.

Footnote 447:

2 Tim. ii. 2.

The great end and design of the ministerial office, is for the [448]“perfecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ.” Hence the elders are commanded “to take heed to themselves, and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, to feed the church of God.” They are likewise exhorted to “hold fast the faithful word, as they had been taught, that by sound doctrine they may be able to exhort and convince others.” They are to “give attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine,” and to put others in remembrance of the great truths of the gospel: charging them, before the Lord, not to strive about unprofitable words, but to “be gentle to all men,” and “in meekness to instruct even those who oppose.” They are to “contend earnestly for the faith,” as well as other christians, but then it is for “that faith which was once delivered to the saints,” and, even for this, [449]“the servant of the Lord is not to fight.” He is not to use carnal but spiritual weapons; nor to put on any armour but that of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left. They are to [450]“speak the truth,” but it must be [451]“in love.” They should be “zealously affected,” but it should be always “in a good thing.” They must “stop the mouths of unruly and vain talkers,” but it must be by “uncorruptness of doctrine, gravity, sincerity, and sound speech, that cannot be condemned.”

Footnote 448:

Acts xx. 28.

Footnote 449:

2 Tim. ii. 24.

Footnote 450:

Eph. iv. 15.

Footnote 451:

Tit. i. 11. ii. 8.

Upon these, and the like accounts, they are said to be “over us in the Lord”, “to rule us,” and to be “our guides;” words that do not imply any dominion that they have over the consciences of others, nor any right in them to prescribe articles of faith and terms of communion for others. This they are expressly forbidden, and commanded to preach the word of God only, and pronounced accursed if they preach any other gospel than that which they have received from the apostles. And, of consequence, when we are bid “to obey” and “submit ourselves“ to them, it is meant then, and then only, when they “rule us in the Lord;“ when they speak to us the word of God, and “labour in the word and doctrine.” In all other cases, they have no power, nor is there any obedience due to them. They are to be respected, and to “be had in double honour for their work sake,” _i. e._ when they “preach not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord,” and when their faith and conversation is such, as to become worthy our imitation. But if “they teach otherwise, and consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus; if they doat about words whereof come envy, strife, and railing, supposing that gain is godliness, from such we are commanded to withdraw ourselves.” The episcopal character, however otherwise greatly venerable, then forfeits the reverence due to it, and becomes contemptible.

So that there are no powers or privileges annexed to the episcopal or ministerial character, in the sacred writings, that are in the least favourable to the cause of persecution, or that countenance so vile and detestable a practice. As to the affair of excommunication, by which the clergy have set the world so often in a flame, there is nothing in the sacred records that confines the right of exercising it to them, nor any command ever to exercise it, but towards notorious and scandalous offenders. The incestuous Corinthian was delivered over to satan by the church in full assembly, on which account his punishment or censure is said to be [452]“by many.” And though St. Paul bids Titus to “reject an heretic,” he also bids the Corinthians to [453]“put away that wicked person from amongst them,” which had brought such a scandal upon their church; and the “Thessalonians, to withdraw themselves from every brother that should walk disorderly.” So that as the clergy have no right, from the new testament, to determine in controversies of faith, nor to create any new species of heresy, so neither have they any exclusive right to cut off any persons from the body of the church, much less to cut them off from it for not submitting to their creeds and canons; and, of consequence, no power to mark them out by this act to the civil magistrate, as objects of his indignation and vengeance.

Footnote 452:

1 Cor. v. 4.

Footnote 453:

2 Cor. ii. 6.

I have been the longer on this head, that I might fully vindicate the christian revelation from every suspicion of being favourable to persecution. Notwithstanding some late insinuations of this kind that have been thrown out against it, by its professed adversaries, let but the expressions of scripture be interpreted with the same candour as any other writings are, and there will not be found a single sentence to countenance this doctrine and practice. And therefore though men of corrupt minds, or weak judgments, have, for the sake of worldly advantages, or through strong prejudices, entered into the measures of persecution under pretence of vindicating the christian religion; yet, as they have no support and foundation in the gospel of Christ, the gospel ought not to be reproached for this, or any other faults of those who profess to believe it. Let persecution be represented as a most detestable and impious practice, and let persecutors of every denomination and degree bear all the reproaches they deserve, and be esteemed, as they ought to be, the disturbers, plagues, and curses of mankind, and the church of God; but let not the religion of Jesus Christ suffer for their crimes, nor share any part of that scandal, which is due only to those who have dishonoured their character and profession, and abused the most beneficent and kind institution that ever appeared in the world.

It is in order to expose this shameful practice, and render it the abhorrence of all mankind, that I have drawn up the foregoing sheets; and, I presume, that no one who hath not put off humanity itself, can read them without becoming sentiments of indignation. The true use to be made of that history, is, not to think dishonourably of Christ and his religion; not to contemn and despise his faithful ministers, who, by preaching and practice, by reason and argument, endeavour to propagate knowledge, piety, righteousness, charity, and all the virtues of private and social life. The blessing of the Almighty God be with them. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ succeed and prosper them. I say therefore, the use of the foregoing history is to teach men to adhere closely to the doctrines and words of Christ and his apostles, to argue for the doctrines of the gospel with meekness and charity, to introduce no new terms of salvation and christian communion; not to trouble the christian church with metaphysical subtleties and abstruse questions, that minister to quarrelling and strife; not to pronounce censures, judgments, and anathemas, upon such as may differ from us in speculative truths; not to exclude men from the rights of civil society, nor lay them under any negative or positive discouragements for conscience-sake, or for their different usages and rites in the externals of christian worship; but to remove those which are already laid, and which are as much a scandal to the authors and continuers of them, as they are a burden to those who labour under them. These were the sole views that influenced me to lay before my reader the foregoing melancholy account; not any design to reflect on the clergy in general, whose office and character I greatly reverence; and who, by acting according to the original design of their institution, would prove the most useful set of men in every nation and kingdom, and thereby secure to themselves all the esteem they could reasonably desire in the present world; and, what is infinitely more valuable, the approbation of their great Lord and Master in another.

========

= Finis.=

========

========

_The following APPENDIX by the Editor, contains hints on the recent persecutions in this country; a brief statement of the circumstances relating to LORD SIDMOUTH’S BILL; a circumstantial detail of the steps taken to obtain the new TOLERATION ACT, with the Act itself, and other important matter._

========

_APPENDIX, BY THE EDITOR._

Since the accession of King William and Queen Mary, to the throne of Great Britain, and the Act of Toleration, made in the first year of their reign, a degree of religious liberty, unknown to former ages, has been enjoyed by the inhabitants of this highly-favoured country.

In the latter part of the reign of Queen Anne, the religious privileges of Protestant Dissenters were threatened, but by the happy accession of the illustrious house of Brunswick to the throne, their fears were soon dissipated, and their privileges secured.

In the commencement of the late revival of pure and undefiled religion, in this land, about the year 1739, lawless mobs arose, in different parts of the kingdom, and grievously maltreated and persecuted the Rev. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, the Rev. George Whitefield and others. But as my limits will not permit me to enlarge on the persecutions which these illustrious men endured for a season, I must beg leave to refer the reader, who wishes for further information on the subject, to “Mr. Wesley’s Journals,” the “case, or journal, of John Nelson,” one of the first Methodist preachers, and to a pamphlet entitled, “Modern Christianity exemplified, at Wednesbury, and other adjacent places in Staffordshire.”[Aa]

Footnote Aa:

These publications may be had at No. 14, City Road, London.

I might here also record the persecutions endured by Robert Carr Brackenbury Esq. and Mr. (now Dr.) Adam Clarke, in the Norman Isles, about the year 1786;[A1] of Mr. Matthew Lumb, in the island of St. Vincent;[A2] Mr. John Brownell, in the island of Nevis, and of Mr. Daniel Campbell, and others, in the island of Jamaica, in the West Indies;[A3] also, the recent persecutions at Wye, in Kent;[A4] at Pershore, in Worcestershire;[A5] at Childrey, near Wantage, in Berkshire;[A6] at Wickham Market,[A7] in Suffolk, and at Drayton, in Shropshire.[A8] These, with others that might be adduced, were they particular, would fill a volume; but I forbear, I wish I might for the honour of my country, and of the nineteenth century, to cast a veil over them, and to bury them in everlasting oblivion.

Footnote A1:

Wesley’s Life by Coke &c. page 429.

Footnote A2:

Meth. Mag. vol. 16, page 441.

Footnote A3:

Ibid ... vol. 27, page 95.

Footnote A4:

Evan. Mag. for May, 1811.

Footnote A5:

Meth. Mag. vol. 35, 396.

Footnote A6:

Evan. Mag. for March, 1811.

Footnote A7:

Ibid.... Ibid.

Footnote A8:

Ibid.... Nov. 1811.

His late Majesty King George the Second, was a firm friend to religious toleration, and was often heard to say, “no man should be persecuted for conscience-sake in his dominions.” His present Majesty King George the Third, has walked in the steps of his royal grandfather. He declared in his first speech from the throne, “that it was his invariable resolution to preserve the toleration inviolate;” a declaration, I am happy to say, which he has religiously fulfilled, through a long and beneficent reign.

When any disturbances, or persecutions, have arisen in any of the British colonies, or extreme parts of the empire, his Majesty has invariably asserted his royal prerogative in redressing the grievances of his subjects; and has always peremptorily refused to recognise any colonial law, which infringed on religious liberty. This will appear from the following authentic documents. In the island of St. Vincent, in the year 1792, the Legislature passed an act “that no person, (the regular clergy excepted) should preach without a licence from them, and that this licence should not be granted to any who had not previously resided for twelve months on the island.” For the first offence the punishment was to pay a fine of ten Johannes, or imprisonment, for at least, thirty days. For the second, such corporal punishment as the court should think proper to inflict, and banishment; and lastly, on return from banishment, death!! were the edicts of the Heathen Emperors more cruel or severe than this! But in the month of October, 1793, his Majesty, in council, was graciously pleased to disannul the act of the Assembly, of St. Vincent, and thus restored liberty of conscience to his persecuted subjects.

An act having passed the House of Assembly, in the island of Jamaica, in December 1802, “prohibiting preaching by persons not duly qualified by law;” after the passing of which act, one minister, though duly qualified at home, by the Act of Toleration, was, for preaching at Morant Bay, cast into prison! This occurred in May 1803, but his Majesty in council, disallowed of that act also, and on the 12th of December, 1804, the following messuage appeared in the Royal Gazette, Kingstown, Jamaica:—

_House of Assembly, December 12, 1804._

A Messuage from his Honour, the Lieut.-Governor, by his Secretary, as follows:

“Mr. SPEAKER,—I am directed by the Lieut.-Governor, to lay before the House, an extract of a letter from Earl Camden, dated Downing-Street, 7th of June, 1804, together with the draught of a bill, which his Honor has been instructed to be proposed to the house to be passed into a law.”

========

Extract of a letter from the Rt. Hon. Earl Camden, to Lieut. General Nugent, dated Downing-Street, June 7, 1804,—

“SIR,—I herewith transmit to you an order of his Majesty in council, dated April 23d last, disallowing an act passed by the Legislature of the Island of Jamaica, in December 1802,” entitled, “An act to prevent preaching by persons not duly qualified by Law;” and a further order of his Majesty in council of the same date, to which is annexed, the draught of a bill upon the same subject, which, in compliance with the direction contained in the said order, I am desired you will take an early opportunity of proposing to the Assembly to be passed into a law.”

“Ordered, that the above message and the papers sent down therewith, do lie on the table, for the perusal of the members.”

In December 1807, the Legislative Assembly of the island of Jamaica, passed another law, of a similar nature to the above; but his Majesty in council, on the 26th of April, 1809, was graciously pleased to disallow that law also; thereby fully evincing to the world, his fixed determination to prevent persecution in every part of his dominions, and to shew himself a “nursing father” to the church and people of God. Notwithstanding, however, his Majesty’s most gracious interference in the above instances, such is the persecuting spirit of the government of Jamaica, that they have recently passed an Act plainly intended to prevent, if possible, the instruction of the Negroes, by those who alone will take the pains to bestow it.

This Act was passed November 14th, 1810, entitled, “An act to prevent preaching and teaching by persons not duly qualified, and to restrain meetings of a dangerous nature, on pretence of attending such preaching and teaching.” But as his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, is treading in the steps of his Royal Father, and manifesting the same regard for the religious liberties of the people in this vast empire, we feel confident this persecuting law will meet with the same fate as the former, and will never receive the royal sanction.

We are emboldened to expect this from the recent conduct of his Royal Highness, in the case of Demerary, where a Proclamation had been issued subversive of religious liberty, under the administration of Governor Bentinck, but which his Royal Highness was graciously pleased to discountenance.

The following Proclamation was issued by Major-General Carmichael, who succeeded Governor Bentinck in the government of Demarary, and is copied from the Essequibo and Demarary Royal Gazette, of Tuesday March 7, 1812.

‘Whereas, I have received instructions from his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to recall the Proclamation issued on the 25th of May, 1811, and to give every aid to Missionaries in the instruction of religion, the Proclamation of the above date is hereby recalled; and the following regulations will take place from this date:—

‘First,—It is to be understood, that no limitation or restraint can be enforced upon the right of instruction, on particular estates, provided the meetings for this purpose take place upon the estate, and with the consent and approbation of the proprietor and overseer of the estate.

‘Secondly,—As it has been represented, that on Sundays inconvenience might arise from confining the hours of meeting in chapels, or places of general resort, between sun-rise and sun-set, the hours of assembling on that day shall be between five in the morning and nine at night. And on the other days the slaves shall be allowed to assemble for the purpose of instruction, or divine worship, between the hours of seven and nine at night, on any neighbouring estate to that to which they belong; provided that such assembly takes place with the permission of the overseer, attorney, or manager of the slaves, and of the overseer, attorney, or manager of the estate on which such assembly takes place.

‘Thirdly,—All chapels and places destined for divine worship, or public resort, shall be registered in the colonial Secretary’s office; and the names of persons officiating in them shall be made known to the Governor; and the doors of the places shall remain open during the time of public worship or instruction.

‘Given under my Hand and Seal-at-Arms, at the Camp-House, this 7th Day of April, 1812, and in the 52d Year of His Majesty’s Reign.

H. L. CARMICHAEL.

In the year 1789, some of the preachers and people connected with the Rev. John Wesley, were harrassed by some Justices of the peace on a pretence entirely new. They were told, “You profess yourselves members of the Church of England, therefore your licences are good for nothing; nor can you, as members of the church, receive any benefit from the Act of Toleration.” Mr. Wesley saw, that if the proceedings on this subtle distinction were extended over the nation, the Methodists must either profess themselves dissenters, or suffer infinite trouble. He certainly did not wish his societies to alter their relative situation to the national church without absolute necessity; and yet he wished them to be relieved from this embarrasment. He therefore stated the case to a member of parliament, (I believe to Mr. Wilberforce,) a real friend to liberty of conscience; hoping that the Legislature might be prevailed upon to interpose, and free the Methodists from the penalties of the Conventicle Act.

The following is an extract from Mr. Wesley’s letter:—

“Dear Sir,—Last month a few poor people met together in Somersetshire, to pray, and to praise God, in a friend’s house: there was no preaching at all. Two neighbouring Justices fined the man of the house twenty pounds. I suppose he was not worth twenty shillings.—Upon this, his household goods were distrained and sold to pay the fine. He appealed to the Quarter Sessions: but all the Justices averred, ‘The Methodists could have no relief from the Act of Toleration, because they went to Church; and that, so long as they did so, the Conventicle Act should be executed upon them.’

“Last Sunday, when one of our Preachers was beginning to speak to a quiet congregation, a neighbouring Justice sent a Constable to seize him, though he was licenced; and would not release him till he had paid twenty pounds—telling him, his licence was good for nothing, ‘because he was a Churchman.’

“Now Sir, what can the Methodists do? They are liable to be ruined by the Conventicle Act, and they have no relief from the Act of Toleration! If this is not oppression, what is? Where then is English liberty? The liberty of christians, yea of every rational creature? who as such, has a right to worship God according to his own conscience. But waving the question of right and wrong, what prudence is there in oppressing such a body of loyal subjects? If these good Magistrates could drive them, not only out of Somersetshire, but out of England, who would be gainers thereby? Not his Majesty, whom we honour and love: not his Ministers, whom we love and serve for his sake. Do they wish to throw away so many thousand friends? who are now bound to them by stronger ties than that of interest.—If you will speak a word to Mr. Pitt on that head, you will oblige, &c.”

Mr. Wesley also addressed the following letter to the Bishop of ________, on the same subject:—

“My Lord,—I am a dying man, having already one foot in the grave. Humanly speaking, I cannot long creep upon the earth, being now nearer ninety than eighty years of age. But I cannot die in peace, before I have discharged this office of christian love to your Lordship. I write without ceremony, as neither hoping nor fearing any thing from your Lordship, or any man living. And I ask, in the name and in the presence of him, to whom both you and I are shortly to give an account, why do you trouble those that are quiet in the land? Those that fear God and work righteousness? Does your Lordship know what the Methodists are? That many thousands of them are zealous members of the church of England? and strongly attached, not only to his Majesty, but to his present Ministry? Why should your Lordship, setting religion out of the question, throw away such a body of respectable friends? Is it for their religious sentiments? Alas my Lord, is this a time to persecute any man for conscience-sake? I beseech you, my Lord, do as you would be done to. You are a man of sense: you are a man of learning: nay, I verily believe (what is of infinitely more value) you are a man of piety. Then think, and let think—I pray God to bless you with the choicest of his blessings.

I am, my Lord, &c.”

To another Bishop, who, I suppose, had forbidden his Clergy to let Mr. Wesley preach in their Churches, he wrote in his own laconic way as follows:

“My Lord,—Several years ago, the church-wardens of St. Bartholomew’s informed Dr. Gibson, then Lord Bishop of London, ‘My Lord, Mr. Batemen, our rector, invites Mr. Wesley very frequently to preach in his Church.’ The Bishop replied, ‘And what would you have me do? I have no right to hinder him. Mr. Wesley is a clergyman regularly ordained, and under no ecclesiastical censure.’

I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient Servant, JOHN WESLEY.”

========

Though the horrible and persecuting laws, known by the names of the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts, had never been repeated, yet, for upwards of a century, they lay nearly dormant, and were generally considered as virtually dead. But, I am sorry to have it to record, that those Acts have been recently roused from their long slumber, to life and action.

In the spring of the year 1811, a bill was introduced into the House of Lords, (which had long been in contemplation) by the Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount Sidmouth, the object of which was said to be the “amending and explaining the Toleration Acts, as far as they applied to Protestant Dissenting Ministers;” but which in fact, had it passed into a law, would have been a violation of the laws of religious liberty, and subversive of the most valuable rights and privileges of the Methodists and Dissenters.

I give the Right Hon. mover of this bill full credit for the purity of its motives, nor do I think he was at all aware that it would eventually operate against the people whom he professed to serve; however, much real good to the cause of religious toleration, whether intended or not, has ultimately ensued from the introduction of this bill into the House of Lords. It excited considerable interest in the nation at large, especially among the dissenters of all denominations. Committees were formed, and various meetings were held by them, and also by the “Committee of Privileges” belonging to the societies founded by the late Rev. John Wesley; a detail of which I shall here beg leave to lay before the reader, by inserting an extract from a narrative of their proceedings respecting Lord Sidmouth’s bill, and the speeches delivered by several noble Lords when the second reading of that bill was moved.

“Lord Viscount Sidmouth, it is well known, had long had the present measure in contemplation, and as a foundation for the proceeding, he had made several motions in the House of Lords within the last two or three years, which had for their object the procuring of information relative to the number of licenced teachers, and places of worship, and the state of the Established Church. Returns of the Archbishops and Bishops on these subjects having been laid before the House of Lords; on the 9th of May, 1811, his Lordship rose to call the attention of the House to certain abuses of the act of William and Mary, and that of the 19th of the present reign, and to move for leave to bring in a bill for amending and explaining the same, as far as they applied to Protestant Dissenting Ministers.

“After what he had to say, their Lordships would see whether the correction of these abuses should not be a matter of anxious solicitude to all persons of all persuasions, and to every one who felt what was due to the dignity, the honour, and the sanctity of religion itself. It was to be regretted, that, up to the period of the Revolution, the history of religion was, in this country, a history of intolerance and persecution. Whatever party was uppermost, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Puritan, the same want of Toleration for diversity of opinion was displayed. The Revolution was the æra of religious liberty in this country, and William III. accomplished that which would ever remain a monument of his wisdom: he meant the Toleration Act. That act, while it removed the penalties to which Dissenters were subject, declared that all the Ministers in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, upon subscribing twenty-six of the thirty-nine articles, upon taking the oaths, and signing a declaration, may officiate in any chapel or meeting-house. By an act of the nineteenth of the King, their signing any of the thirty-nine articles was dispensed with, and they were only to express their belief in the Holy Scriptures. Within the last thirty or forty years, these acts had received a novel interpretation. At most of the Quarter-Sessions, where the oaths were taken and the declaration made, it was now understood, that any person whatever, however ignorant or profligate, whether he descended from the chimney or the pillory, was at liberty to put in his claim to take the oaths before the Justices, to make the declaration, and also at liberty to demand a certificate which authorised him to preach any doctrine he pleased; which exempted him besides from serving in the militia, and from many civil burdens to which his fellow-subjects were liable.

“Now, if religion be the best foundation of all the virtues, was it not a matter of the last importance that it should not be tainted at its very source, and that men who did not choose to follow the regular pursuits of honest industry, should not have it in their power to poison the minds of the people by their fanaticism and folly? He would appeal to any man who had officiated at the Quarter Sessions, whether he had not seen men totally illiterate, without education, without one qualification of fitness, demanding to take the oaths, and obtaining a licence to preach? He did not wish to state particular instances of gross deficiency as to intellectual qualification, and of gross abuses in other respects, which it was in his power to do. He did not mean to lay much stress on illiteracy; but it was the self-assumption of the office, without bringing any testimony of fitness, to which he particularly meant to object, as inconsistent with the Act of Toleration.

“He had seen the returns of Dissenting Preachers from two Archdeaconries; and many of them, he must say, ought not to have been allowed to constitute themselves the ministers of religion. Amongst the list there were men who had been blacksmiths, coblers, tailors, pedlars, chimney-sweepers, and what not. These men were totally out of their place: they were not, in fact, at liberty, by law, to take upon themselves the functions of teachers. There were counties in this kingdom where a different interpretation was put on the Toleration Act. In the county of Devon, and in Buckinghamshire, the Magistrates admitted no person to qualify, unless he shewed that he was in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, and the preacher and teacher of a congregation. This he conceived to be according to the real meaning of the Toleration Act; and it was in this way that the Bill he proposed to introduce would explain that Act. He should propose, that, in order to entitle any man to obtain a qualification as a Preacher, he should have the recommendation of at least six reputable householders of the congregation to which he belonged, and that he should actually have a congregation that was willing to listen to his instructions. With regard to preachers who were not stationary, but itinerant, he proposed that they should be required to bring a testimonial from six householders, stating them to be of sober life and character, together with their belief, that they were qualified to perform the functions of preachers.

“The noble Lord then noticed the great increase of dissenting preachers of late years. Those who would be affected by his Bill did not belong to any sect of dissenters; they were of the worst class of the Independants, and distinguished by their fanaticism and a certain mischievous volubility of tongue. In the first fourteen years of the present reign, the average annual increase of dissenting teachers was limited to eight, but now it amounted to twenty-four. The causes of this increase, he considered to be partly the increase of population, and the greater prevalence of religious feelings among the people; but there were other and powerful causes, in the numerous pluralities and non-residence of the clergy. Another great cause was the want of churches to accommodate a numerous population, and, therefore, his Lordship seriously called the attention of the House to consider how this deficiency could be remedied, and recommended the example of parliament in the reign of Queen Anne, who had ordered the erection of fifty-two new churches in London. He regarded the Church of England as the great preservative of the principles and the morals of the people. Unfortunately, at present, we were in danger of having an established church, and a sectarian people.

“On the question being put, LORD HOLLAND said, that even what had fallen from his noble friend, impressed more strongly on his mind, that no necessity existed for the desired interference. The whole seemed to go upon a fundamental error, that it was only by the permission of government that individuals were to instruct others in their religious duties. He, on the contrary, held to be the right of every man who thinks he can instruct his fellow-creatures, so to instruct them. He was sorry that something slipped from his noble friend, as if he held it improper that persons of low origin, or particular trades, should attempt to teach the doctrines of Christianity. On this point he held a different opinion. Might not even they be inspired with the same conscientious feelings of duty which were required to be felt by those of the higher orders of clergy, to whom the state had given such large emoluments? It was his strong feeling, that it was neither wise nor prudent to meddle with the Act of Toleration. For the measure itself, he did not think a sufficient case was made out, as to the existence of any real practical evils or inconveniences, to require such an interposition on the part of the Legislature. His Lordship then referred to some calculations as to the increase of dissenting teachers of late years, which he did not seem to regard as a misfortune, or an alarming consideration. With respect to what was said of the established church, he agreed in the opinion, that a want of sufficient number of places of religious worship was injurious. This was a point in which the established religion was essentially concerned; it should take care that no insufficiency in this respect should exist. He had no objection that the public purse should, to a certain extent, contribute to the expences of the necessary erections; but he thought the immediate funds of the Church should also contribute. Such was the uniform custom of the Church of Rome, and the established Church in this country should shew itself no less mindful of its duty in so essential a point. With respect to his noble friend’s Bill, he repeated his opinion, there was not a sufficient ground laid for its adoption.

“EARL STANHOPE acquiesced in every thing that had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Holland.) That noble Lord, on whatever question he spoke, whether wright or wrong, wise or unwise, always spoke from principle. But on the present occasion, he did not think that his noble friend, or the noble viscount had gone far enough. They did not, or would not, touch the real state of the question. They must know, or if they did not, he would tell them, that in most parts of England, where the parishes did not consist of more than a thousand souls, the places of worship, exclusive of private houses, barns, &c. were as three to four of those of the established church; and that if Scotland and Ireland were to be included, the proportion between the Dissenters and the established Church would be found as two to one. Lord Sidmouth had told the House, that hardly more than one half of the clergy were resident on their livings. It would be much better for his noble friend to bring in a Bill to correct this evil, than be dabbling with the Dissenters. The noble Lord had expressed his fears, lest there should be an established Church and a sectarian people—the truth was, that this was the case already, and he would advise his noble friend not to be meddling with that class of men, who had, according to him, the mischievous gift of the tongue, and who might be canvassing among the farmers at elections, and hinting to them that they had tithes to pay. It was better to let these people alone, and for the noble Lord to exert his magnificent abilities in correcting the abuses which existed in the Church. It was well known, that the tide of opinion was running strong a certain way, and it was as vain to think of stopping the current of opinion, as to stop the stars in their course.”

The Bill was then presented, and read a first time, a Copy of which which I here here insert.

A BILL,

_Intituled, an Act to explain and render more effectual certain Acts of the first Year of the Reign of King William and Queen Mary, and of the 19th Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, so far as the same relate to Protestant Dissenting Ministers._

Whereas, by an Act made in the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary, intituled, An Act for exempting their Majesties’ protestant subjects dissenting from the church of England from the penalties of certain laws, persons dissenting from the church of England in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, and preachers or teachers of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, in order to their being entitled to certain exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages, by the said Act granted, are required to declare their approbation of and to subscribe to certain articles of religion: and whereas, by another Act, made in the nineteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, An Act for the further relief of Protestant Dissenting ministers and schoolmasters, it is enacted, that every person dissenting from the church of England in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, being a preacher or teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, if he shall scruple to declare and subscribe, as required by the said first recited Act, may make and subscribe the declaration in the said last recited Act set forth, in order to his being entitled to the exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages, granted by the said first recited Act, and to certain other exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages, granted by the said last recited Act: and whereas doubts have arisen as to the description of persons, to whom the said recited provisions were intended to apply, and it is expedient to remove the said doubts; may it therefore please your Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that every person being a Protestant, dissenting from the church of England in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, who shall be appointed or admitted to be the minister of any separate congregation of dissenting Protestants, duly certified and recorded or registered according to law, shall be, and is hereby declared to be, a person entitled to qualify himself to be a dissenting minister, within the intent and meaning of the said recited provisions of the said Acts; and that no other than such person, is so entitled, within the intent and meaning of the same.

And be it further enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, upon the appointment of any person, being a Protestant, dissenting from the church of England, and being in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, to be the minister of any separate congregation of dissenting Protestants, duly certified and recorded or registered according to law, and upon his admission to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the place of minister of the said congregation, it shall be lawful for any __________ or more substantial and reputable householders belonging to the said congregation, in order that the said minister may duly qualify himself according to this Act, to certify the said appointment and his admission to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the said place, by writing under their hands and proper names, in a certain form to be directed to the Justices of the Peace at the General Session of the Peace, to be holden for the county, riding, or place where such congregation shall be established; and every such minister, who shall cause the certificate to him granted as aforesaid, to be recorded at any General Session of the Peace to be holden as aforesaid, within _________________ after the date of the said certificate, in the manner directed by this Act, (proof being first made on the oath of __________________ or more credible witness or witnesses of the hand-writing of the several persons of the said congregation whose names are subscribed to the said certificate,) shall be and is hereby allowed, without further proof, to take the oaths, and to make and subscribe the declaration against Popery, required to be taken and made by the said Act passed in the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary, and also the declaration set forth in the said Act, passed in the nineteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty; and, after taking the said oaths, and making and subscribing the said declarations, in manner and upon proof aforesaid, every such minister, shall be, and is hereby declared to be entitled to all the exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages granted to Protestant dissenting ministers by the said recited Acts or either of them, or by any Act in the said recited Acts or either of them mentioned or referred to.

Provided always, and be it further enacted, that, nothing hereinbefore contained shall affect or impeach, or be construed to affect or impeach, any provision or exemption, or any qualification or modification thereof, contained in any statute made since the said recited Acts, and now in force, relating to the militia, or the local militia, of this kingdom.

Provided also, and be it further enacted, that nothing hereinbefore contained, shall affect or impeach, or be construed to affect or impeach, the title or claim of any dissenting minister, who before the passing of this Act, shall have taken the oaths, and subscribed the declarations mentioned or set forth in the said recited Acts, or either of them, to have and enjoy the exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages, granted by the said Acts, or either of them.

And whereas it is expedient to exempt from certain penalties, other persons hereinafter described, who shall make and subscribe the declaration set forth in the said act of the nineteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty; be it further enacted, that in case any person being a Protestant, dissenting from the Church of England, and in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, but who shall not have been appointed or admitted the minister of any separate congregation of dissenting Protestants, shall be desirous of qualifying himself according to this act, to preach and officiate as a dissenting minister, it shall be lawful for any ______ or more substantial and reputable householders being respectively dissenting Protestants of one and the same sect of persuasion with the person applying, to certify, on their consciences and belief, by writing under their hands and proper names in a certain form, to be directed to the justices of the peace at the general sessions of the peace to be holden for the county, riding, or place, where the said householders or the major part of them shall reside, that such person is a Protestant dissenting minister of their sect or persuasion, and has been known to them and every of them for the space of ________________ at the least before the date of the said certificate, and that such person is of sober life and conversation, and of sufficient ability and fitness to preach or teach and officiate as such dissenting minister; and every person to whom such last mentioned certificate shall be granted, who shall cause the same to be recorded at any general session of the peace to be holden as aforesaid, within ____________ after the date of the said certificate, in the manner directed by this act, proof being first made on the oath of __________ or more credible witness or witnesses of the hand writing of the several persons whose names are subscribed to the said certificate, shall be, and is hereby allowed without further proof to take the said oaths, and make and subscribe the said declarations in the said recited Acts mentioned or set forth; and every such person, after taking the said oaths and making and subscribing the said declarations in manner and upon the proof aforesaid, may from thenceforth preach and officiate as a dissenting minister in any congregation of dissenting Protestants duly certified and registered or recorded according to law; and every person so qualifying himself as last aforesaid, shall be wholly exempted from all and every the pains, penalties, punishments, or disabilities inflicted by any statute mentioned in the said recited Acts or either of them, for preaching or officiating in any congregation of Protestant dissenters for the exercise of religion permitted and allowed by law.

And be it further enacted, that upon the appointment or admission of any person of sober life and conversation to be a probationer for the exercise during a time to be limited of the functions of a protestant dissenting minister, it shall be lawful for any _____ or more dissenting ministers who shall have taken the said oaths, and made and subscribed the said declarations pursuant to the said recited Acts or either of them, or this Act, to certify the said appointment or admission by writing under their hands, in a certain form, to be directed to the justices of the peace, at the general session of the peace to be holden for the county, riding, or place where the said ministers, or the major part of them, shall reside, and that the person so appointed or admitted is of sober life and conversation, and has been known to them for the space of ________________ before the date of the said certificate; and every person to whom such last-mentioned certificate shall be granted, who shall cause the same to be recorded at any general session of the peace to be holden as aforesaid, wherein ____________ after the date of the said last-mentioned certificate in the manner directed by this Act, (proof being first made on the oath of __________ or more credible witness or witnesses of the hand writing of the said ministers whose names are subscribed to the said certificate,) shall be and is hereby allowed without further proofs to take the said oaths, and to make and subscribe the said several declarations, in the said recited Acts mentioned or set forth; and every such person after taking the said oaths, and making and subscribing the said declarations, may from thenceforth during the period specified in such certificate, and not exceeding ________ next ensuing, preach and officiate as such probationer in any congregation of dissenting Protestants duly certified and registered or recorded according to law; and every person so qualifying himself as last aforesaid shall be and is hereby declared to be during the space of ____________________ exempted from all and every the penalties, punishments, and disabilities inflicted by any statute mentioned in the said recited Acts, or either of them, for preaching or officiating in any congregation of dissenting Protestants, for the exercise of religion permitted and allowed by law.

Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize or enable any person to qualify more than ____________ as such probationer.

And be it further enacted, that the Justices of the Peace, to whom any such certificate as aforesaid shall within the time herein limited, be tendered at their general session, shall, and they are hereby required, after such proof in verification thereof as is herein directed, to administer the said oaths and declarations to the person producing such certificate, upon his offering to take and make and subscribe the same respectively, and thereupon to record the said certificate at the said session, and therefore to keep a register; provided always, that any declaration required to be subscribed by the said recited Acts, or either of them, shall be subscribed in open court, with the proper christian and surname, and names of the person making such declaration in his own hand writing, and in the usual manner of his writing, the same in words at length, and not otherwise: provided always, that in the body of every certificate granted by the said officer or officers of the said court to any person as such probationer and not as minister, there shall be expressed the limitation of time for which such certificate shall be in force by virtue of this Act.

And be it further enacted, that every certificate of appointment or admission of any such minister, or of any person to officiate as such minister, or of any such probationer pursuant to this Act, shall be subscribed with the respective proper names of the several persons granting the same in their own hand writing, and in the usual manner of their writing and subscribing the same, and in the presence of the person or persons who is or are to be the witness or witnesses to verify the same before the Court of General Session of the Peace in the manner herein directed.

And be it further enacted, that this Act shall be deemed and taken to be a public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by all Judges, Justices, and others, without being specially pleaded.”

========

The reader will immediately see, that this Bill would have had a strong operation upon the economy of the Methodists, but the extent of that operation it was impossible to foresee. However, no sooner was the Bill read, than its effects were sufficiently understood to fill them with great alarm and apprehension for their societies, upon which it would have had the most destructive influence. The members of their “Committee of Privileges” were immediately summoned to meet, which they did, May 14, 1811, when they formed, and afterwards published the following resolutions:

AT A MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETIES OF THE LATE Rev. JOHN WESLEY.

Convened for the purpose of taking into consideration a Bill, brought into the House of Lords by the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Sidmouth, intituled, “An Act to explain and render more effectual certain Acts of the first year of the Reign of King William and Queen Mary, and of the nineteenth year of the Reign of his present Majesty, so far as the same relate to Protestant dissenting ministers,”

_Held at the New-Chapel, City-Road, London_, _The 14th of May, 1811_;

IT WAS RESOLVED,

I. THAT the said Bill, if carried into a law, will be a great infringement of the laws of religious toleration, and will be subversive of the most valuable rights and privileges which we as a religious society enjoy.

II. That the said Act will, in future, curtail the privileges and exemptions of our regular preachers, who are wholly devoted to the functions of their office, and to which they are legally entitled under the letter and spirit of the Act of Toleration.

III. That the said Act will render it very difficult, if not impracticable, to obtain certificates for the great body of local preachers and exhorters, and who are not only an useful part of our society, but whose aid is essentially necessary in the very numerous chapels and meeting-houses, in which our congregations assemble.

IV. That with great grief of heart we have observed of late a growing disposition, in different parts of the country, to disturb our meetings, even those which are held only for prayer to Almighty God, and to enforce the penalties of the Conventicle Act upon those who officiate in them: the great inconvenience and heavy expences of which we have already felt. If this system of persecution should be persevered in, the subordinate teachers of our body, to the amount of many thousands of persons in the united kingdom, will be driven to apply for certificates to protect them from the penalties of the Conventicle Act, which indeed they can obtain under the existing laws without obstruction; but if the present Bill should be passed into a law, it will be utterly impossible to consider such persons as dissenting ministers, and to certify them under the said Act: therefore, either an end will be put to the functions of a most valuable and useful part of our community, or they will be exposed to all the penalties of the Conventicle Act; the consequence of which will be, that as the people cannot, and ought not, to refrain from Acts of social worship, and meetings for religious instruction, the penalties cannot be paid, and the prisons will be peopled with some of the most peaceable and pious characters in the country.

V. That a great number of the persons mentioned in the last resolution (as well as a large proportion of our societies) considering themselves as members of the established Church, to which they are conscientiously attached, will feel it quite incompatible with their sentiments to apply for certificates under the terms of the said Act, which requires them to be certified and to declare themselves as dissenting ministers.

VI. That the offices alluded to in the fourth resolution, are an essential part of the economy of our societies, which has for its object the instruction of the ignorant, and the relief of the miserable, rather than the creation or extention of a distinct sect of religion; and without whose aid, the various chapels of our societies in the united kingdom, which have cost an immense sum of money in their erection, cannot be supported.

VII. That our chapels have been built, and large sums of money, due upon the same, for which the respective trustees are now responsible, have been lent and advanced under the most perfect confidence that our system so necessary for their support, would remain undisturbed; and that those rights of conscience, which our most gracious Sovereign on his accesion to the throne declared should be maintained inviolable, would, in this happy and enlightened country, ever be held sacred, and preserved uninfringed.

VIII. That it does not appear to us, that the present toleration laws are either so ineffectual, or the interpretation of them so uncertain, as to render any Bill necessary to explain them, much less to curtail the benefits intended to be conveyed by them; but on the other hand we are satisfied, that if the present Bill should pass, the whole law of religious toleration will become more obscure, and its meaning more uncertain; and thus a fruitful source of litigation and oppression will be opened.

IX. That the returns of the archbishops and bishops, of the number of places for divine worship, &c. in their respective dioceses, upon which the present measure appears to be founded, are far from furnishing evidence of the necessity of restricting the operations of religious societies; but on the contrary, they contain the most decisive proofs (from the inadequacy of the parish churches to contain the inhabitants of the kingdom) that the increasing population calls for all the means of religious instruction, which well-disposed persons of all denominations of christians, have in their power to afford.

X. That from the manifest effect which the diffusion of religion has had for the last fifty years, in raising the standard of public morals, and in promoting loyalty in the middle ranks, as well as subordination and industry in the lower orders of society, which so powerfully operate upon the national prosperity and public spirit, we dread the adoption of any measure which can in the least weaken these great sinews of the nation, or restrain the patriotic efforts of any of the religious communities of the country.

XI. That as we deprecate the consequences of the Bill as it now stands, so we cannot see that any modification of it can meet the views of its Right Honourable and noble proposer, (whose character we highly respect) without essentially deteriorating, the indefeasible rights and privileges of those who are the objects of the toleration laws.

XII. That inasmuch as this Act will most deeply affect our societies, whose moral character and loyalty are unimpeachable, we feel it our duty to declare, that we do not believe there exists among them any practice or disposition, to warrant a legislative measure, which would abridge our rights and privileges.

XIII. That the introduction of the present measure is as unseasonable, as it is needless and oppressive. At any time, religious rights form a most delicate subject for legislative interference, but at such a time as this, when not only unanimity, but affection for the government and laws of our country are more than ever essential, for the patient endurance of the pressure of the times, and the repulsion of the bitterest enemy with which this country had to contend, the discussion of these rights is most feelingly to be deprecated. Much irritation,—even worse than political irritation, would be produced, and the ardent affection of many a conscientious and loyal subject would be involuntarily diminished. We are impressed with these sentiments the more deeply, as not a shadow of a charge is brought against our very numerous body, and we can challenge the most rigid enquiry into the moral and political character of our preachers and our people.

XIV. That, abstaining from all observations on the abstract rights of conscience, but with the views and feelings thus expressed, we are most decidedly of opinion that the present measure is radically objectionable, and does not admit of any modification; and we cannot but feel it our duty to oppose the Bill in all its stages by every constitutional means.

XV. That we reflect with high satisfaction on the liberal, enlightened, and religious declaration of our most gracious Sovereign, on the commencement of his Reign. “Born,” said his Majesty, in his first speech from the throne, “and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Briton, and the peculiar happiness of my life will ever consist in promoting the welfare of a people, whose loyalty and warm affection to me I consider as the greatest and most permanent security of my throne; and I doubt not, but their steadiness in those principles will equal the firmness of my invariable resolution to adhere to, and strengthen this excellent constitution in church and state; AND TO MAINTAIN THE TOLERATION INVIOLABLE. The civil and RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF MY LOVING SUBJECTS ARE EQUALLY DEAR TO ME WITH THE MOST VALUABLE PREROGATIVES OF MY CROWN; and as the surest foundation of the whole, and the best means to draw down the divine favour on my reign, IT IS MY FIXED PURPOSE TO COUNTENANCE AND ENCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF TRUE RELIGION AND VIRTUE.” This declaration of our beloved Sovereign has been religiously fulfilled during a long and benificent reign, and has been humbly met by our societies with the affection it was calculated to inspire. We have built with confidence upon this gracious declaration, and our confidence has not been misplaced. His Majesty has been a shield to the religious of all persuasions, and he has respected the rights of conscience in all. And we cannot doubt that His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, with those just sentiments of truth and sincerity, which he has graciously declared shall be the guide of his character and every action of his life, will feel it is happiness to recognize the high natural rights of conscience; and should it please the wise disposer of all events to restore his afflicted Father to the personal exercise of his royal functions, His Royal Highness will feel it amongst the many blessings of his benevolent and liberal administration, that he has, agreeably to the ardent wishes of a great portion of His Majesty’s loyal subjects, preserved those sacred rights entire, and returned to his beloved Father the Toleration inviolate. We have too much confidence in the wisdom and justice of Parliament, to imagine that a measure will be adopted so obnoxious to such a large proportion of the nation, as our societies and congregations constitute: but if unhappily we should be disappointed, and in the dernier resort, we should be driven to submit our case to His Royal Highness, we have already the gratification of his royal assurance, that he will “be ready to listen to the complaints of those who may think themselves aggrieved, and regulate his conduct upon the established principles of that ancient and excellent constitution, under which the people of this country have hitherto enjoyed a state of unrivalled prosperity and happiness.”

========

The following were some of the reasons which induced the committee to adopt the foregoing resolutions:—

I. At present every man may choose his own mode of religious instruction, and every man who is impressed with the belief that it is his duty to preach or teach, has the liberty to do so, on making oath and subscribing certain declarations. These are points fully recognized by the Toleration Laws, and if they were not, religious toleration would, indeed, be confined within narrow bounds. But the proposed Bill is quite a measure of condition and restraint, and would so operate to a very extensive decree.

II. The magistrate now acts ministerially; he will then, we contend, act judicially. This is a point of the very highest consequence to all ranks of christians. At present, the magistrate has no discretion as to the administering the oaths &c.: he is required to administer them to those that offer, &c. But, if the present Bill should pass, he will, of course become the judge of the qualities of the householder who certifies, _i. e._ how far he is substantial and reputable. It appears to us also, that he might probably be the judge of the truth of the certificate: and, therefore, how far the persons certifying were dissenting Protestants, and were of the same sect or persuasion. This would be a most fruitful source of difference of opinion, and, consequently, the hardship would fall upon the applicant for a qualification, who would be exposed to infinate vexation. The very terms are open to difference of opinion in magistrates, as must every other subject upon which they are to decide judicially. This would be the subversion of a principle which has been acknowledged since the first statute on the subject of toleration. Would the power thus given to the magistrate, be any thing less than that which he has in licensing public houses? and can we suppose this to be fitting in religious matters?

III. At present, the Court of King’s Bench will grant a mandamus to admit a dissenting teacher where the chapel is endowed, as in the case of Rex, _v._ Barker, 3 Burr. 1264.... But if this Bill passes, it will, it is presumed, deprive the first class of persons, named in the Bill, of the benefit of this writ. At present, a person must shew that he is legally qualified, according to law, to act as a dissenting teacher, before he can have the benefit of the mandamus; but under the present Bill, a person must first be admitted to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the place of minister of a congregation before he can qualify. Now, if there be a contest between two persons, as was the case above-mentioned, and one of them, who, according to the terms of the deed of endowment, is entitled to the possession of the chapel, has occasion to apply to the court for a mandamus to be admitted, how is it possible that the court can grant it, unless he can shew that he is a legal minister, qualified according to the existing laws? This he could not do for want of a qualification under the Act, and this qualification he could not get, for want of the peaceable possession of the very situation which formed the subject of contest. It is obvious, then, what a situation the congregations of endowed chapels would be placed in. The trustees being in possession of the property, might, in most cases, appoint whom they might think proper, and the congregation, and their chosen minister, would have no redress.

IV. There is a phraseology used in the second section, which we have never yet seen adopted, and the mode of wording adds another trait of character before unknown in the law of toleration. It speaks of the appointment of a person, not only being a Protestant, dissenting from the Church of England, and being in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders; but the applicant must have an additional character to be entitled to the immunities of William and Mary, and of 19th Geo. III, that is, he must be the minister of a separate congregation. This word separate, whatever be its meaning, as applied to this subject, was never used till the 43d of Geo. III.

V. With respect to the exemptions, the first class are entitled to all the existing immunities contained in the exemption from militia services and offices. The second class, who are intended, it is presumed, to compromise the itinerant preachers of the Methodist societies, are only exempted by the proposed Bill from pains and penalties, whereas, at present, they are, we contend, entitled to all the privileges of the most regular dissenting minister, presiding over one congregation only. The third class are intended, we presume, to comprise the young student, who is preparing for his office, and preaching to a congregation on trial. These are also only exempted from pains and penalties, whereas, at present, they also are entitled to the privileges of the most regular minister.

VI. At present, the cost of the certificate is but sixpence, besides the journey to the sessions to take the oaths; but by the proposed law, the applicant must be at the expence of taking a witness with him to verify the certificate. This, when the sessions are at a distance, will sometimes be of importance to a poor candidate for the ministry; but when it is coupled with the circumstance, that this Bill proposes to give the magistrate a judicial power, which will leave him at liberty, more or less, to reject the certificate, on account of the want, as he may suppose, of substance or reputation in the certifier, the disappointment, vexation, and expence may be endless. If the Magistrate have power thus to determine and to reject on the first application, so he may on the second, and ultimately, the applicant may never be considered as properly qualified; and he at length may be obliged to make an application to the superior courts, the determination of which, as it would be a question of fact, might be very expensive. The consequence of this clause, we apprehend, will be very serious.

These being their conclusions, they looked at the proposed Bill with dread and dismay, as being calculated to make the most alarming inroads upon the rights and privileges they had enjoyed since the foundation of their societies in the year 1739.

========

I shall here also record some of the very judicious and laudable proceedings of the committees of Protestant dissenters on this business.

The Ministers of the three denominations of Protestant dissenters (Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists,) resident in and about London, have, for nearly a century, regularly associated, and have assembled, at least, annually, for the management of their affairs. A committee was appointed by them, about two years ago, to attend to the progress of the Bill which the noble lord had signified his intention to introduce. As soon as the provisions of this Bill were made known, the committee called a general meeting of the whole body, on Thursday, May 16. The meeting was uncommonly numerous; and the discussions which took place were conducted with candour and harmony.

_Library, Red-Cross-Street, May 16, 1811._—At a numerous meeting of the general body of Protestant dissenting ministers, of the three denominations, residing in and about the cities of London and Westminster, regularly summoned to deliberate on the means of opposing the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by Viscount Sidmouth, which has a tendency to narrow the provisions of the Toleration Act, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:—

1. That the right of peaceably assembling, for the purposes of religious worship and public instruction, according to the dictates of our own consciences, belongs to us as men, as christians, and as members of civil society; that this right ought not to be abridged or controled, by any secular authority; and that we cannot consent to the alienation or surrender of it, without criminality on our own parts, disrespect to the memory of those from whom we have, under providence, received it, and injury to the best interests of our descendants and successors; to whom it is our duty, as far as we are able, to transmit it inviolable.

2. That this right has been recognized and maintained, from the Revolution to the present day, partly by a liberal construction of the Toleration Act, and partly by the protection of the illustrious Princes of the House of Brunswick; and that it would betray a want of confidence in the favour of our Sovereign, in the justice of the legislature, and in the spirit of the times, to submit to any proposed restrictions of this right, in passive silence.

3. That as faithful and loyal subjects, attached to the civil constitution of our country, and desirous of contributing to that tranquility and union on which its permanence and prosperity very much depend, we cannot forbear expressing our regret that any measures should be proposed which have a tendency, by abridging our liberty as Protestant dissenters, and restraining the exercise of social worship among those with whom we have connected, to excite dissatisfaction and discontent at the present interesting crisis; and, more especially at a time when we had reason to hope that our liberty would have been enlarged instead of being restrained; though we are peaceably waiting for that period in which this happy event shall take place, and penal laws no longer have any operation in the province of religion.

4. That the Bill now introduced into the House of Lords appears to us inconsistent with the unmolested liberty which we have long thankfully enjoyed; repugnant to our principles and profession as Protestant dissenters, who disavow the authority of the civil magistrate in the province of religion, and imposing restrictions which will be in various respects, injurious and oppressive.

5. That it is our duty, on our own behalf, and on behalf of our brethren, as well as with a view to the cause of religions liberty in general, to make every constitutional effort in our power for preventing this Bill from passing into a law; and that for this purpose a petition be presented by this body to the House of Peers.

DAN. TAYLOR, Chairman.

========

At a Meeting of the Deputies appointed for supporting the Civil Rights of Protestant dissenters, held at the King’s Head Tavern, in the Poultry, London, May 15, 1811, WILLIAM SMITH, Esq. M. P. in the Chair:

_Resolved_, That liberty of conscience, comprehending the freedom of public assemblies for religious worship and instruction, in such forms and under such teachers as men shall for themselves approve, is the unalienable right of all; in the peaceable exercise of which they are not justly controlable by the civil magistrate.

_Resolved_, That this liberty has been generally recognized in the practice of the British Government since the æra of the Revolution, under the construction of the statute commonly called the Toleration Act; whatever may have been the letter of the law, the spirit of toleration has been extended, and a large portion of religious liberty actually enjoyed.

_Resolved_, That we have beheld, with great concern, a Bill lately brought into Parliament, designed, as appears to us, to abridge such religious liberty, and having a tendency to deprive the lower classes of the community of those opportunities which they have so long enjoyed, to attend public worship and religious instruction under teachers of their own choice.

_Resolved_, That, as deputies appointed by large and respectable bodies of Protestant dissenters to attend to their civil rights, it becomes our bounden duty immediately to protest against the principle of such measure, and to point out the unjust and vexatious operation of the aforesaid Bill, as now brought into Parliament.

_Resolved_, That a Petition against the said Bill, grounded on the principles of the foregoing resolutions, be signed by the members of this meeting, and presented to the legislature.

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be signed by the chairman, and inserted in all the public papers.

W. SMITH, Chairman.

========

At a Numerous and Respectable Meeting of Protestant Dissenters of various Denominations, and other Friends to Religious Liberty, residing in different parts of the United Empire, held at the London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street, May the 15th, 1811, SAMUEL MILLS, Esq. in the Chair.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED,

I. THAT this meeting believe that there are at least two millions of Protestant dissenters in the kingdom of England and Wales, including persons of opulent fortunes, high literary attainments, and active benevolence: that their exertions have contributed to promote industry, knowledge, good morals, social order, and public prosperity. That they are not inferior to any of their fellow-subjects in fervent love to their country, nor in ardent loyalty to their venerable sovereign, whose early promise, ‘TO PRESERVE THE TOLERATION INVIOLATE,’ has made an indelible impression on their hearts;—and that any measures which might excite their discontent and enfeeble their attachment, would, therefore, at any time, and especially at this period, be inconsistent with the national interest, and with wise and liberal policy.

II. That although this meeting consider the right to worship God according to individual judgment as an inalienable right superior to all social regulations; and, although they have long anticipated a period when all penal laws for worshipping God according to their consciences would be abolished, they have been unwilling to agitate the public mind for the attainment of their hopes; and presuming that no persons would, in this age, venture to assail the Act of Toleration, after the ever-memorable declaration of the King, they have been content to regard it with grateful emotions, and to esteem it as an effectual protection against the recurrence of former persecutions.

III. That the persons assembled at this meeting have received, with great anxiety, the communications frequently made by the Right Hon. Viscount Sidmouth, of his intention to propose legislative enactments, interfering with the laws relating to Protestant dissenters; that they did hope the applications he has received, and the information communicated, would have prevented his perseverance. But they have learned the disappointment of their hopes, and have ascertained the provisions of the Bill which he has at length introduced into parliament with extreme regret, and with painful apprehension.

IV. That this Bill declares that all the provisions relating to dissenting ministers, contained in the Toleration Act, and in the subsequent Act for their further relief, were intended to be limited only to ministers of separate congregations; and enacts, 1. That such ministers upon being admitted to the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the place of minister of a separate congregation, may, on a certificate in writing, under the hands of substantial and reputable householders belonging to such congregation, signed in the presence of some credible witness, who is to make proof of their signatures upon oath at a general Sessions of the Peace, be permitted to take the oaths, and to sign the declaration previously required; and shall then, and then only, during their continuance to be ministers of such separate congregation, be intitled to all the privileges and exemptions which the former acts had conferred. 2. That any other person who may desire to qualify himself to preach as a dissenting minister, must procure several substantial and reputable householders, being dissenters of the same sect, and of the same congregation, to certify on their consciences, in writing, to his being a Protestant dissenting minister of their sect, and of the same congregation, and to their individual and long knowledge of his sobriety of conversation, and of his ability and fitness to preach; and that such certificate must be proved, as before stated, before he be exempt from the pains, penalties, and punishments to which he would otherwise be liable as a dissenting minister. And, 3. That any person of a sober life and conversation, admitted to preach on probation to any separate congregation, must produce a certificate from several dissenting ministers (who have taken the oaths, to be also proved on oath at a general Session) of his life and conversation, and to their long previous knowledge, before he can be permitted to take the oaths and subscribe the declaration; and that he may then, during a limited period, to be specified in the certificate, officiate as a probationer to any dissenting congregation, and be during a limited period, exempt from prosecution and punishment. But neither of the two last mentioned classes of persons, will be entitled to any privileges, or to the exemptions from offices conferred on dissenting ministers by the Toleration Act.

V. That the principle assumed as the foundation of the Bill is incorrect:—That the Toleration Act authorised any persons to become dissenting ministers who conceived themselves to be called and qualified to preach, upon giving security to the State for their loyalty and christian principles, by taking certain oaths and subscribing certain declarations; and not only prevented their persecution under laws made in times less favourable to civil and religious liberty, but conceiving their labours to be of public utility, granted to them exemptions from all parochial offices and other duties which might interfere with their more important exertions:—That such construction of the Act of Toleration has been sanctioned by the general practice of a century, and has never been impugned by any decision in a superior court of law; and that even if such construction be incorrect, and legislative exposition be required, such declaratory Bill ought to follow the intention of the Act which has subsequently passed; and should extend and not contract,—protect and not impair, the relief afforded by the former ancient and venerable statute.

VI. That the Bill introduced into parliament is not justified by any necessity, and will be highly injurious; that it is unnecessary, because the evils presumed to result from the abuses of the existing laws, by a few persons who may have improperly taken the oaths required from dissenting preachers and teachers, do not exist but to a most inconsiderable extent; and because the extension of all such abuses has been anxiously, and would be effectually discountenanced by every class of Protestant dissenters—and that it must be injurious, because it will introduce forms unprecedented, inconvenient, or impracticable; will render itinerant preachers, students of divinity, ministers on probation, and many persons to whose ardent piety and disinterested labours multitudes are indebted for religious instruction, liable to serve all civil offices, ... and will expose all ministers, or the witnesses to their certificates, to be harrassed by repeated attendances at different sessions, and to capricious examinations, and unlimited expence,—because, by limiting the right of persons to become dissenting ministers, it will impose new restrictions on toleration; and because it will create a precedent for future attempts at even more dangerous or fatal experiments against religious liberty.

VII. That, although most reluctant to interference with political affairs, they cannot but regard the present attempt with peculiar sensations of alarm; and that veneration for their ancestors, regard to their posterity, respect for rights which they can never abandon, and the sacred obligations which they feel, will therefore compel them to disregard all doctrinal and ritual distinctions, and to unite by every legitimate effort to prevent the pending Bill from passing into a law, and to oppose the smallest diminution of the privileges secured by the Act of Toleration.

VIII. That from the noble declaration of the liberal-minded and illustrious Prince Regent of the Empire, that he will deliver up the constitution unaltered to his Royal Father, this meeting are encouraged to indulge confident hope that a measure so innovating and injurious can never obtain the sanction of his high authority; and they also rejoice that it has not been introduced by his Majesty’s government; that respectful application be therefore made to them for their wise and continued protection; that a petition to the House of Lords against the Bill be signed by all the persons present at this meeting, and that all congregations of Protestant dissenters, and other friends of religious liberty throughout the empire, be recommended to present similar petitions, and that a committee consisting of persons resident in London, be appointed to effectuate these proceedings, and to adopt any measures they may deem expedient to prevent the successful prosecution of this Bill; and that dissenting ministers of every denomination resident in the country, be also members of this committee: and that such committee may increase their number, and that any three members be competent to act.

S. MILLS, Chairman.

========

I now return to the proceedings of the general committee of the societies of the late Rev. John Wesley.

On Thursday they were closely engaged all day in carrying the aforesaid measure into effect, and sending a copy of the resolutions into every circuit throughout the kingdom, that their friends might know the opinion of the committee on the subject, and be prepared to co-operate with it, in every future measure which might be deemed necessary to the preservation of our religious rights.

As Lord Sidmouth had fixed on Friday the 17th for the second reading of the Bill, there was but little time for obtaining signatures to a petition; however, this little time was improved, and on Friday morning, before eleven o’clock, upwards of two thousand signatures were obtained to petitions from their different societies and congregations in the two London circuits.

Application was made to Lord Erskine, who paid the utmost attention to their case; at the same time he most readily engaged to present their petitions to the House, and to oppose the Bill; as did also Lords Grey and Holland.

In the evening, Lord Stanhope moved, that the second reading of the Bill should be deferred till some future day, which motion was seconded by Earl Grey, and acceded to by Lord Sidmouth; who in a short speech informed the House, that on Tuesday the 21st he should bring the subject forwards for discussion.

This delay was considered a favourable interposition of Providence, as it afforded the Committee opportunity for procuring parchments, and preparing a copy of a petition, to be sent into those circuits from whence they could be returned before Tuesday noon. Special messengers were sent to Bristol, Birmingham, and into some parts of Kent and Sussex; and these were provided with directions and parcels, to be left in every circuit through which they passed, that the urgency of the business might be understood, and every energy exerted to accomplish their purpose.

To evince the zeal and activity which prevailed on this occasion, I here give an extract from a letter written by a gentleman of high respectability, who was actively engaged in this business.

“_May 23, 1811._

“Since last Thursday I have been fully occupied, by the “Committee of Privileges,” on the business of Lord Sidmouth’s Bill. On Saturday night at eight o’clock two post chaises and four, set off on this important business, one to Birmingham, and the other to Bristol. At half past eleven the same night, I was sent to seek another, but after going all over the city, was obliged to return to the committee room without one. At half past twelve o’clock, I procured a coach in Aldersgate-street, and, with a friend, drove all over the town in search of a conveyance. A little before three o’clock in the morning while we were knocking up the people at the _fifteenth_ Inn, a respectable looking man came up with a lanthorn and enquired, “what was the matter?” we answered ‘we wanted a post chaise and four, and must have it, it being on parliamentary business.’ He replied “he could have supplied us had we come at a more seasonable hour, but now he had only one post boy in the house, and he was gone to bed.” We begged of him to do what he could for us, and at length persuaded him to drive us _himself_. The horses were put to in a trice, and we set off full speed for Bromley, which we reached in an hour and a quarter. Here we again knocked up the people at the Inn, but lost half an hour before they were ready. Having left our petitions, with solemn orders to deliver them as soon as it was light, we set off for Sevenoaks, which we reached before seven o’clock. Here, while we were explaining the nature of the business we came on, to Mr. ______ we partook of a hasty breakfast. We then jumped into the chaise and started for Tunbridge; having delivered our parcels and given suitable directions, we drove on to the Wells; after delivering our message there, with steady course we pursued our way to Rye, and drove up to the chapel. The morning service was concluded and the people were just coming out; we instantly desired them to stop, telling them, we had come express from London on very important business. Having ascended the pulpit stairs, with every eye fixed upon us, we laid before them the purport of our mission, by informing them of the Bill, and explaining its nature. We then informed them of the Committee appointed for guarding their privileges, and read their resolutions: we told them also of whom the Committee consisted, and that we had travelled the whole night to reach them at that time. We then requested those to stay who wished to sign the petition; not a dozen went away till they had signed. One man indeed, when he heard none was permitted to sign who was under sixteen, whispered to another, and said, “he should not sign, for he thought it was a scheme to take them by surprise to get them drawn for the Militia.”

“We dispatched messengers to the places adjacent, to be ready for the evening service: one went out thirteen miles, and did not return until midnight. I left my friend Mr. _______ at Rye, while I went to Winchelsea, about three miles off. The minister had just concluded his sermon when I arrived; having informed him of my design, he requested the whole congregation to stop when the service was ended. I then stated the case, and most of the people signed the petition: one man came and said, “pray Sir, let somebody sign for me.” “My good man,” said I, “it will not be allowed, you must assist us by your prayers.” “Really Sir,” said another, “I could wish to sign, but l never wrote my name in my life, but do give me the pen and I will try!”

“At twelve o’clock on Monday we bent our course homeward, and on Tuesday about the same hour, we reached town. We sat close till five o’clock in the afternoon, sending off petitions, in alphabetical order, by coaches, till a message came down express from the House of Lords to inform us, that the business was about to begin. Every one therefore took his arms full and conveyed them to the coach, which instantly drove off with all speed to the House. I and two other friends had three good loads of those remaining ones which were taken from us at the door of the anti-chamber of the House.

“We had at that time above a thousand petitions on the road. The operations of the Bill were not known beyond the environs of the Metropolis, and yet a mighty flood of petitions poured in. Lord Erskine undertook the cause of our societies.

“After bringing into the House many bags full, the petitions were still so numerous, that his Lordship was obliged to fetch the rest from the anti-chamber in his arms, and he came down to the House several times in this manner loaded like a porter.”

I was myself at Leeds at the time when this Bill was pending in the House: the petitions for that Town and neighbourhood arrived on Wednesday morning May 22nd. The Committee which had been previously formed was sitting at the time, and they immediately dispatched messengers into different parts of the town, and the adjacent villages, to obtain signatures. In the course of that afternoon and the forenoon of the following day some thousands had signed the petitions, and had not the business been stopped on the Thursday afternoon by the arrival of the pleasing tidings that the Bill was lost, many thousands more signatures would have been obtained in a few days.

The different denominations of Dissenters in that large and populous Town, formed a Committee of respectable gentlemen, who also manifested great zeal and activity in this noble cause; they deputed several persons to go to their respective congregations in the country, to obtain signatures to their petitions, which they likewise obtained in abundance. Indeed, such unity of sentiment I never witnessed on any subject before; the pious and candid members of the established Church, cordially united with the Methodists and Dissenters to shew their decided disapprobation of the obnoxious Bill, and all, as with one heart and voice, avowed their determination to oppose, to the uttermost, all restrictions on Religious Liberty.

The same activity was manifested, and similar exertions made, in every part of the kingdom where the nature of the Bill was thoroughly understood, its effects were deeply deplored and deprecated by all classes of people in the land.

“In every place the Messengers met with the most zealous co-operation of the people, who dreading the loss of their religious privileges, came forwards to sign the petitions with an eagerness which was highly honourable to their feelings. At Bristol, the Mayor granted the use of the Town-Hall, and although the notice was so short, yet between twelve and five o’clock on Monday, the petition received upwards of 1900 signatures, and this was in addition to separate petitions from all the dissenting congregations in the city, which were numerously signed. By these means the committee had procured before Tuesday noon upwards of 250 petitions, bearing 30,000 Signatures. The Committee was incessantly employed in examining and taking an account of them. And that every thing might be conducted with the utmost regularity, almost every petition was separately rolled up, tied with red tape, and the place from whence it came, together with the number of signatures it contained, legibly written on one end of the roll, so that when it was presented, the noble Lord had no difficulty in announcing these particulars to the House. It required the utmost exertions of the committee to prepare all things in readiness before the House met; however, this was accomplished, and the petitions were delivered to Lord Erskine in one of the anti-chambers. His Lordship was pleased to express his satisfaction with what had been done, and whilst he was carrying his burthens into the House, appeared to feel a noble pride in the office he had undertaken to perform.”

EARL STANHOPE said, he held in his hand a petition against the Bill, signed by upwards of 2000 persons; and he had no doubt that if the Bill was persisted in, the petitioners against it, instead of thousands, must be counted by millions.

The petition having been received, and ordered to lie on the table,

The Earl of LIVERPOOL rose, and after bearing his testimony to the good intentions of his noble friend who had introduced the Bill, and who, he was confident, had nothing in view dangerous to the wholesome and wise system of toleration in this country, expressed his doubts respecting the prudence of his farther pressing the measure. If it were pressed, the good that would result, would be comparatively much less than was expected in any view of the subject. But if it were pressed under the present misconceptions of its object, and the alarm and apprehension thereby created, the evils produced by it might far preponderate. The Toleration Laws, he was ready to say, were matters on which he thought the Legislature should not touch, unless it were from causes of great paramount necessity. Under all these circumstances, he trusted that his noble friend would see the propriety of not farther pressing his Bill.

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH said he was placed in a situation of considerable difficulty, as he must consider the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl as the sentiments of the Government of which he was a principal part. Yet, if his noble friend confessed that misconceptions had gone abroad on the object of his measure, that could not be a reason sufficient for him to withdraw his Bill in the present stage of it. The greatest misconceptions, misapprehensions, and he might add, misrepresentations of the Bill had been made without doors; so that although it was not regular in that stage to enter into particulars, he should for convenience, if not regular, take that opportunity of stating what the Bill was and what it was not.

Earl GREY spoke to order. He would be the last person to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it was certainly quite out of order to enter into the details of the question on the presentation of the petitions, when the opportunity of addressing the House would so soon occur on the second reading. He was convinced of the purity of intention by which his noble friend was actuated, and that he entertained no design of infringing on the just and liberal toleration of every man’s opinion and worship; but he thought that the present was not the time for discussing the question when they were receiving petitions, unless the reception of them was to be objected to.

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH said he should not farther trouble the House at that time. It had not been his intention to take up their time long; but he should reserve himself till the second reading, then more fully to explain himself.

Earl STANHOPE presented fifteen other petitions from different dissenting congregations in various parts of England, (Castlecary, Market Harborough, &c.) which were severally ordered to lie on the table.

Lord HOLLAND rose, and said he had numerous petitions to present to the House against the present Bill, the first of which he should move to be read. It was the joint petition of the three denominations of the dissenters in, and in the vicinity of, the metropolis, namely, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, and the Independent. He should say little by way of preface, except that he believed that that, as well other petitions, would shew that the people of this country were not so ignorant of the nature and character of a Bill brought into Parliament as not to see and appreciate its consequences on their civil or their religious liberty. He was happy to hear from the noble Secretary of State what he had heard from him that night on the impolicy of such a measure. But, he must say, that the noble Viscount had very fairly shaped his course in the proceedings both last session and this. He (Lord Holland) had last June stated his intention to look with much care and great jealousy at any attempt to meddle with or impair the provisions of the Toleration Act, and he thanked the noble Viscount for having so fully explained his views this session. He could not, however, avoid expressing his surprise and regret that the noble Secretary of State had not taken an opportunity, either last session or this, of stating his prudential objection to the adoption of this measure, instead of leaving that to the present occasion, when the petitions against it were crowding in from all parts of England. He then presented the petition, which was received, and ordered to lie on the table.

Lord HOLLAND then stated that he had a great number of other petitions.

The Earl of MORTON said it was desirable to know whether any of those petitions contained matter which reflected upon, or was irregular to be presented to that House.

Lord HOLLAND said he had been unable to read them all. Several he had read, which contained no such matter. But he should feel pleasure in having them all read to the House, if it would not be too inconvenient in respect of time.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE said that he also had many petitions to present. Such was, however, the opinion he entertained of the respectability of character of the persons who had framed them, that, if there was any intention shown of casting doubt or reflections on them, he certainly should move that every one of those which he should present should be read.

The Earl of MORTON was satisfied with the explanation of the noble Baron (Lord Holland.)

The petitions presented by Lord Holland, 65 in number, were then received, the preambles read, and ordered to lie on the table. They were from congregations in a number of places in Wiltshire, Essex, Dorset, Berks, Middlesex, &c.; one petition we believe, was signed by above 4000 persons.

The EARL of MOIRA rose, and after some observations on the respectability of the petitioners, declared his readiness to stake his responsibility for the propriety of the sentiments they contained. His Lordship then presented a great number of petitions from different places in London, Westminster, Surrey, Middlesex, Kent, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Berks, Sussex, Bucks, Wilts, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Hants, Herts, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, &c. amounting to about seventy, all which were ordered to lie on the table.

The EARL of LAUDERDALE then rose, and presented twenty petitions from Bath, the Isle of Wight, Kent, and various other places, with signatures to the amount of more than 10,000 names, all which were taken as read, and ordered to lie on the table.

EARL GREY presented a petition from a Meeting at Bristol, which his Lordship said was intended to have been presented by the High Steward of that city (Lord Grenville.) His noble friend could not attend in the House that night, but he was confident, from what he knew of his opinions respecting the important subject of Toleration, that he was favourable to the prayer of the petition. Ordered to lie on the table.

The Duke of NORFOLK observed, that persons not dissenters, but friends to the principle of Toleration, had signed the petition.

Earl GREY then presented seventy-seven other petitions from Lewes, Portsmouth, Daventry, Colnbrook, Gloucester, and other places, which were also ordered to lie on the table.

The Earl of ROSSLYN presented twenty-five similar petitions from different places. Ordered to lie on the table.

Lord ERSKINE stated, that he had two hundred and fifty-five petitions to present on the same important subject. He should make no other prefatory remark, but to say, that they contained the same opinions on that question which he himself maintained on the subject of the Toleration Act. After having read one of the petitions, his Lordship proceeded to present them to the House, when it was a little amusing to see him engaged for more than half an hour, in lifting up his bags full of rolls one after another, and laying them on the table, then drawing them out and announcing the place from whence each came, and the number of signatures affixed. They were from many parts of the south of England, and some of them had an immense number of signatures.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then stated, that he had above 100 different petitions to present to their Lordships on the same subject, and of the same tenor. The first petition he presented, his Lordship stated, was signed by many persons not Protestant dissenters; several of them beneficed clergymen of the established church, who, equally with the Protestant dissenters, deprecated any interference with the Toleration Laws; and was signed by 896 persons. All these petitions were also received, and ordered to lie on the table.

The number of all the petitions received was about 629.

The order of the day was then called for by several Lords, when

Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH rose, and said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, he should make no remarks on the number of the petitions which had been presented against it, as he readily supposed that the petitioners sincerely believed what they had expressed with respect to the operation of it. His noble friend (Lord Liverpool) had truly stated, that great misconception and misapprehension had gone forth respecting the Bill, and he must add, great misrepresentation. The various public resolutions were, for the greater part, inapplicable to the real objects of his Bill. When the intelligent mind of his noble friend was not quite free from misconception, he could not wonder at seeing the misapprehensions of others. It seemed to be thought that some change was intended in our Toleration Laws. What was it? The object of the Bill, the clauses of which might be amended in the Committee, was merely to give uniformity to the two Acts on which our system of toleration was founded; its object was not to exclude any class of dissenters, but to comprehend all, according to the spirit and meaning of those Acts. This was the sole purpose of the Bill. He was led to propose it, from information, he had a considerable time since received, of what was and is the prevalent mode of executing those Acts. He lamented to think that the effect of those Bills was, that any persons of depraved morals should be able by taking the oath of allegiance, by making the declaration against popery, and subscribing to certain articles of the church, or declaring himself, under the 19th of the present King, a christian and protestant, and a believer that the Old and New Testaments contained the revealed will of God, to claim his licence, and that his certificate should enable him to preach any where any doctrines he pleased; and that this did, in fact, till 1802, exempt him from many civil and from all military services. At first he could hardly credit that interpretation of the laws. He could state, but that he feared fatiguing their Lordships, informations from many magistrates, of numerous applications at Quarter Sessions, evidently to obtain these exemptions. He had heard of what he confessed was creditable to a sect of Dissenters, wherein they acknowledged these abuses, and expressed their desire to correct them by the expulsion from among them of such unworthy persons; (the Wesleyan connexion was here alluded to.) He had learned with satisfaction, that though the prevalent interpretation of the law was as he had stated, yet with many well-informed and respectable persons it was not so. In Devon, Norfolk, Bucks, and in Suffolk too, he learned that that interpretation was not admitted. Feeling the abuses that were committed, learning the opinions of enlightened men, and the practice of many respectable magistrates on this subject, he had felt it necessary to bring the consideration of it before parliament. He had been encouraged to do so by the opinions of respectable persons, of magistrates, and judges; and he had stated, in June, 1809, that he intended to do nothing but what was with a view to secure the toleration of Protestant dissenters, as well as the support of the church of England, of which he gloried in being a member. By this fair standard he had proceeded, and in his Bill there was nothing to be found inconsistent with it.—He had not contented himself with the authorities he had mentioned, but had sought further information, and even communications with various dissenters. From some of them he had received voluntary communications, and with others he had had conversation; and though many wished he should take no steps in the business, few objected to the measure he proposed. They thought merely, though the measure was innocent, yet that it might excite in other quarters a disposition to introduce into it objectionable clauses. They did not seem, on the whole, to think there was any thing in it materially objectionable. Every class of dissenting preachers, in fact, who had separate congregations, were left by this Bill in the same state as before, with the removal of all sorts of impediments, and the magistrate would know better what was his duty on such subjects. What better mode of attestation could there be than that of several persons of the congregation for those who sought for licences? As to the question of substantial and reputable householders, or householders merely, that was a consideration for the Committee. There was no other regulation but to relieve them from different practices at different Quarter Sessions.

The second point applied to such as had not separate congregations. He did not expect to meet with any difficulty on this subject from the quarter whence it rose. It would be a farce to talk of toleration, he confessed, and at the same time to exclude this class of persons from the rights allowed to other Protestant dissenters, though he must say, that he knew they had often given great pain and vexation to many most excellent and meritorious beneficial clergymen. Yet he must in candour admit, that hundreds and thousands of people would, through our own unpardonable and abominable neglect, be deprived of all moral and religious instructions, were it not for the services of these persons. Millions in this country were indebted to them for their religious instruction. (_Hear!_) We are not at liberty to withhold the only means of moral and religious knowledge. He had not, therefore, excluded such persons, which would have been contrary to indispensible and eternal justice. The third point of his Bill related to probationers. He had on that point, proposed that six persons should sign their belief of the sober and exemplary life, of the capacity, &c.; of the individual. What test could be more moderate? His object was to follow up the principles of the toleration laws, which never meant that any person should assume to himself the privilege of a preacher and teacher, and exercise such important functions, without some attestations.—(_Hear!_) Any person under the Bill might then be chosen, nay, he might be said even to choose himself, if he procured such attestations. He confessed he did, confidently, but, as he had found, vainly, expect, that he should have had the consent of all the sects and descriptions, who felt what was due to the purity, sanctity, and dignity of religion. All he was apprehensive of was, that some friends to the established church might think the Bill would be inefficient for what was requisite; but he never thought that any Protestant dissenter would consider it inconsistent with the wise and just enactments of the toleration laws. He learned that in the customs of dissenters, probation was requisite for the proof of the gifts necessary for the ministerial office; therefore, he had merely proposed that three dissenting preachers should sign a testimony in the probationer’s favour. In our own church, by our ecclesiastical laws, there were certain probations and attestations to be made. A Deacon must have the testimonials of three clergymen to his life, gifts, &c. His name must also be read three times in church. He did not mean to say that this always prevented improper introductions, but that such were the precautions that were observed by law. Though he had received much information on the subject, no man should be placed by him in an unpleasant situation by his stating his name, though there were noble Lords present who knew what information he had received. From the itinerant Methodists, of whom he did not wish to speak disrespectfully, he had grounds on which he expected their approbation. He had formed his opinions from those of magistrates and respectable gentlemen of various descriptions. Objections had been started at first by his noble friend, for whom he had much respect, (Lord Holland) who seemed to think that any man had a right to take on himself the office of teacher, on making the declarations, &c. and that it was not a question for the Legislature to take up. He would say, that this opinion was utterly inconsistent with the meaning of the Toleration Act. That Act, right or wrong, was a measure of condition. (_Hear, hear!_ from the opposition side.) He never could agree to those broad principles. But in some respects, he thought these laws intolerant; where, for instance, they limited religious doctrines. (_Hear, hear!_) His noble friend had called the Toleration Act the palladium of religious liberty. What did he admire in it? Its beneficent effects, he had said, in its providing freedom of worship. Could he deny, that it was differently acted upon in different counties? In proportion to his admiration of it, his wish should be to render its operation universal. It was not so at present. There was no case, wherein when the licence had been refused, the party had, at least for many years, resorted to the Court of King’s Bench. He went to another county. Thus, there was a different interpretation in counties bordering upon each other. Let the benefit, therefore, be made universal. If this measure were improper, come at once to the assertion of the broad principle, and try to alter the laws in that way. That broad principle had never existed in any age or in any country.

History, both sacred and profane, shewed the importance that had been always attached to the priesthood, which had never been assumed, but conferred. He was not so read in the sacred writings as he ought to be, and he could touch on them only with great deference. But he had read, “Lay hands suddenly on no man;” and also that persons chosen for such situations should be “of good report.” He could not think of the argument taken from the low condition of those who, in earlier days, received their divine missions, as applicable to present times, and as giving authority to the persons he had alluded to, to lay their claims to divine influence, without any attestation to their character and qualifications. The early ages of the church shewed that purity of character was held indispensible to him who attempted to enter into the solemn offices of the priesthood. His noble friend had said, that no case had been made out. He appealed to their Lordships on that point. He then stated a circumstance that recently happened at Stafford, when the magistrate, certainly not regularly, required the applicant to write his name, but who answered, that he came there not to write, but to make the declaration. He was convinced he had now made out sufficient grounds for the second reading, and for going into a committee. The noble Lord proceeded to state, from a paper he held in his hand, in which the writer mentioned as an instance of the laxity with which licenses to preach were granted, that he had heard a person in the neighbourhood of London, who seemed well versed in all the atheistical and deistical arguments on the subject of religion, lecturing to a crowded audience for two hours and an half, and broaching the most irreligious and even blasphemous doctrines. The Bill which he had introduced would naturally check the existence or spreading of such abuses, which could not fail to be lamented by every man who was a friend to the morals or the happiness of all classes of society; and he feared that the broad principle stated on a former night by his noble friend, (Lord Holland) tended to let loose this class of men, whose labours must be so destructive of civilized society. Their Lordships did not do their duty if they thought themselves absolved from attending to the prevention of such abuses. It was their duty to protect the ignorant and unwary from being led astray, and to put them on their guard against such mischievous practices. The noble Lord then alluded to various resolutions that had been published in the newspapers. It had surprised him much to observe one set of these resolutions subscribed by a very respectable gentleman, who was a member of the other House of Parliament, (Mr. W. Smith,) in which the Bill was represented as being designed to abridge religious liberty. He saw with astonishment that such an object was ascribed to the measure, than which nothing could be farther from his thoughts. Upon the whole, he could not help expressing an ardent wish that the Bill should be read a second time, in order that it might go into a committee, were it might undergo a variety of amendments. He himself should propose several alterations in the committee; but if he perceived a strong unwillingness on the part of their Lordships to entertain the Bill, however much he should regret it, he should respectfully acquiesce in their decision. He concluded with moving, that the Bill be now read a second time.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY declared his utter abhorrence of every species of religious persecution. Whilst he lamented the errors, as he thought them, of the Protestant dissenters from the church of England, he admitted that they had a full right to the sober and conscientious profession of their own religious opinions. The sacred writings were allowed by all Protestants to be the great standard of religious doctrine, but the interpretation of them was liable to error. Uniformity of religious belief was not to be expected, so variously constituted were the minds of men, and consequently religious coercion was not only absurd and impolitic, but for all good purposes impracticable. As to the present Bill, he should deliver his opinion very shortly. It appeared to him that there were only two objects which it had in view; the first was, to produce uniformity in explaining the Act of Toleration, and the second was to render the class of dissenting ministers more respectable, by the exclusion of those who were unfit for the office. These objects seemed laudable in themselves, and calculated to increase the respectability of the dissenting interest. At the same time the dissenters themselves were the best judges of their own concerns: and as it appeared, from the great number of petitions which loaded the table of the House, that they were hostile to the measure, he thought it would be both unwise and impolitic to press this Bill against their consent. He therefore wished that the noble Lord would withdraw it, and put an end to the alarm which had been excited, even though it might be groundless.

Lord ERSKINE said, that the evidence which they had had in the multiplicity of petitions which he had the honour to present to them against the present Bill, left no doubt as to the opinion entertained by the Dissenters and Methodists on the subject. But it was to be observed that a small part of the petitions had yet arrived, and that if longer time had been allowed, ten times the present number, which already encumbered their Lordships’ table, and loaded the floor of the House, would have been presented; such was the opinion which the dissenters at large entertained of the measure, and such the anxiety they felt at the appearance of encroachment on any of the privileges which they enjoyed.

The Bill professed to be of a declaratory nature, and only explanatory of the Act of Toleration; but he would contend, that it was repugnant both to the letter and the spirit of the Toleration Act. As to the case of a man teaching blasphemous doctrines, a circumstance to which the noble Lord had adverted as having actually taken place, was not such a person, he would ask, liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour? If a man inculcated sedition or blasphemy from the pulpit, was he not liable to be punished for it? and was not this the case with Winterbotham? There was no occasion for any new law against blasphemy; and therefore, so far there was no occasion for the noble Lord to refer to such an abuse as a ground for the present Bill. His Lordship here made a distinction which is not commonly attended to, and indeed seldom noticed, between the Methodists and other classes of dissenters, by observing that it had ever been their wish to continue members of the established Church, had they not been driven by the Conventicle Act to qualify as dissenters, to avoid the penalties which would have otherwise been levied upon them. That some of them, to this day, have chosen to run the risk of such penalties, rather than qualify as dissenters in opposition to their principles, for they do not dissent from the established Church. And was it wise or just policy to subject this people to the vexatious, and to them, ruinous, operation of a Bill, the principle of which was subversive of the Toleration Act? The noble Lord then spoke in terms of high commendation of the zeal and usefulness of this people, and thought them worthy of encouragement and support, rather than restriction and opposition. He knew that some descriptions of preachers among them asked no exemption from serving in civil offices. If they refused to serve, their certificate would not protect them. The law on this subject was quite clear, and required no explanation. If a man was a religious teacher, and had no other avocation, in that case he had “a local habitation and a name,” he was a pastor and had a flock, from which it was not the meaning of the Toleration Act that he should be abstracted, in order to serve in civil or military offices. But if all this was not the case, then he could claim no such exemption. If the pressure of the times, and the demand for military service, required that such exemption should be narrowed, then do it by a special Act to that effect, and not by narrowing the Act of Toleration. He had formed this opinion after he had been asked by his noble friend to examine these statutes, before he knew that this Bill was to be opposed by the dissenters, and that he should have to present 250 petitions against it, from the societies in and near London, and the neighbouring counties, of the late Rev. John Wesley. But in a few days there would be an immense number from distant parts of the kingdom. He stated that the person just named, the founder of the sect, or numerous body of christians, whose petitions he with pleasure presented to that House, was a man who he had had the honour to be acquainted with; and had heard expound the word of God; whose labours had not been equalled since the days of the Apostles, for general usefulness to his fellow subjects. A man more pious and devoted, more loyal to his King, or more sincerely attached to his country, had never lived. He also spoke in feeling terms of the eminent character of his own sister (the late Lady Ann Erskine.) The Act was a direct repeal of the most important parts of the Toleration Acts, as they had been uniformly explained for one hundred and twenty years; and he believed that no court and no judges in the country would agree in the construction put on them by the noble Lord. Would they suffer a Bill to pass declaring that to be a law which was not law? It was not only necessary to look into the Toleration Act, but into the intolerant Acts that preceded it, and beat down religious liberty. The noble Lord then went into some of these Acts, and concluded with wishing to God that all of them could be buried in oblivion.

After a variety of other arguments against the Bill, he concluded a long but most eloquent and impressive speech, with moving that the second reading should be postponed to that day six months.

Lord HOLLAND, in allusion to the assertion, that the majority of the petitioners probably did not understand the measure against which they petitioned, observed, that the holding such language was singularly unbecoming and offensive. Looking at the immense number who signed the petitions on the table, it was no light libel to stigmatize them with want of understanding on a question that so closely touched their immediate interests. A Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had said, that the deluge of petitions which overflowed their table, was produced by misapprehension. To follow up the metaphor, it might be said that this deluge was brought down by the flagrant sin of the Bill. Two charges had been casually thrown out against him (Lord Holland:) one, that he pushed the idea of religious liberty to an extent which struck at the Christian religion itself: this he must utterly deny. The other was, that he gave absurd and extravagant praise to the Toleration Act, an Act which had been characterised as abominably intolerant. He would not go into those considerations, but come directly to the Bill. He had before declared his principles, and he saw now no reason to shrink from them. He was an enemy, a most decided, principled, and resolved enemy, to restraints on religious freedom. He was convinced that every man had a natural right to choose his mode of religious teaching, and that no authority had a right to interfere with the choice. A man had as good a right to preach a peculiar doctrine as he had to print it.

In the language of the Right Reverend Prelate, (the Archbishop of Canterbury) the scriptures were a great largess to the world, a mighty and free gift to all mankind; not restrained to the disciples or the discipline of a peculiar church, but given for the benefit of the world. (_Hear!_) he considered the Toleration Act as the great religious charter; and religious liberty could not subsist unless it was perfect and secure, in the language of Locke, it was equal and impartial, and entire liberty, of which religion and religious men stood in need. The Toleration Act had two parts. One of them was a most generous and liberal concession to the people, and the other was nothing beyond a base and scanty admission of an undoubted right. In one of those parts a crowd of laws were merely done away, which were a shame to the statute book; laws that ought never to have existed. In the other, it was enacted, that on signing certain articles, an immunity from specified inconveniences should be given to dissenting ministers. He was always unwilling that questions of this nature should be stirred. He would not go into the question, but if it pleased the House that the Toleration Act, which had slept for a hundred and fifty years, should be roused once more, he was ready to meet the whole discussion. When the noble Lord (Sidmouth) had given notice of his measures, the House could scarcely have the aspect in which it was afterwards to look upon them. But at every repetition of the notice, something was added. The evil complained of by the noble Lord was more and more seen to be visionary, but the remedy was seen to be more and more violent. One diminished as the other increased. As to the evils which the Bill was to remedy, there was no document before the House to prove that there was any loss of militia service by the privileges of the dissenters. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had established his opinion on some private letters, on which probably that noble Lord placed much reliance. But were those things to be documents, authorising the House to heap disabilities on the whole immense body of dissenters? The part of the Bill which went to force the dissenting ministers to be moral, after the fashion of the noble Lord, was new, and offensive, and tyrannical. This was the distinct meaning of the noble Lord. He would manufacture the dissenting ministers into precisely such men as he would wish to have preaching to himself; but this was not the species of preacher that the dissenters chose. This attempt of measuring the morality of the dissenting minister by the noble Lord’s private conceptions, was totally opposed to the principles of the Toleration Act, and was calculated to be eminently offensive and vexatious. What was the mode of qualification? They must find six substantial and reputable housekeepers to vouch for their morality. And who were those that were to have the power of bringing forward six such housekeepers to speak to character; or who was to deny the dissenters the right of having humble men for their teachers? Suppose five hundred paupers choose to hear religion from a man of their own choosing and of their own class; was it to be said, that the desire was beyond what might be permitted? and yet where was this teacher to find his six substantial and reputable housekeeping vouchers? Or was the argument to be persisted in by those men who were ready to boast of their attachment to religion, and to acknowledge, as one of its glories, that it had risen by the labours of humble men, not merely without dependence on, but in opposition to the wealth, and influence, and power, of the great of this world? Yet it was not enough for the Bill that the dissenting minister should be devout and learned, but that he should be proved so to his congregation. How? by the signature of six substantial and reputable housekeepers? Was his ordeal to end here? No; the judgment of the six housekeepers was to be revised by a country justice, before the dissenting congregation could be secure of the teacher whom they had originally chosen for his fitness. The article on probationers was unjust and absurd. When a vacancy occurred in the dissenting pulpit, a number of candidates usually appeared, who were to give evidence of their qualities, by preaching, before they had or could have obtained an appointment. By the operation of the article now alluded to, those young men would be subjected to the horrid penalties of the Conventicle Act. If this Bill were to pass, they would find 50,000 Methodist teachers applying immediately for licences, for fear of persecution. But though the regular Methodist teachers might not have any thing to fear from a prosecution of that nature, since the wise statute of Anne, yet if this Bill passed, the whole important body of the itinerants would be exposed to peculiar hazards. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had spoken of having had the approbation of many respectable dissenters on the Bill; but he (Lord Holland) had conversed with many on the subject, and he had not found one who did not decidedly disapprove of it entire. The Bill was completely at variance with the original idea thrown out to the House, as he understood it; and he could not doubt that it was at variance with all that he had ever learned to revere as the genuine principles of religious liberty. (_Hear! Hear!_)

Lord STANHOPE said, he did not now rise to oppose the Bill, because it had already got its death blow. He hoped, however, it would be followed up by a measure of a very different nature, (alluding to the repeal of the Conventicle Act). He had never felt more pleasure in his whole parliamentary life, than he had done on this very day; and if any one asked him the reason, he would tell them, it was at the immense heap of petitions that was then strewed upon their floor, and piled upon their table, and all against this most wretched Bill. He liked this, because a kind of silly talk had been going abroad that there was no public. He had always thought otherwise. He had heard it said, that such was the public feeling, that they would not, at the present moment, be affected by any thing which could possibly happen. The petitions now on their Lordship’s table, however, completely gave the lie to this allegation. The event had shewn that there was still a public opinion in this country, and that, when called into action, it could manifest itself speedily, and with effect. He was happy this had occurred. He had never doubted that there was still such a thing as public opinion; and hoped those noble Lords who had hitherto doubted the fact, would now be convinced of their error. And he saw to-day that there was a public, and a public opinion, and a public spirit. He saw it in the multitude of petitions sent up on so short a notice; and he was rejoiced to find it alive, active, and energetic. He would not talk of the Bill; that was dead and gone; and it would be beneath a man of sense to quarrel with the carcase. (_A laugh!_) The Bill was declaratory as well as active, and it was illegal as well as either. He defied all the Lawyers in the House, and out of the House to prove that this wretched and unfortunate Bill was not illegal. _(Hear!)_ He would not condescend to argue every point. It was unnecessary to argue upon what was beyond human help. It was all over with the Bill; its hour was come; the Bill was dead and gone, but he must say something on the subject, however. The noble Lord (Sidmouth) had declared the Conventicle Act to be abominable. He (Lord Stanhope) was one of those who detested that Act which they called the Toleration Act, and for this reason, because it did not go far enough. He hated the name of the Toleration Act. He hated the word Toleration. It was a beggarly, narrow, worthless word; it did not go far enough. He hated toleration, because he loved liberty. (_Hear!_) There was not a man in that House—not one among the law Lords—not one, perhaps, among the Bishops themselves, that had read so many of our religious statutes as he had; and disgusting, and foolish, and wicked, the most of them were. He had gone through them with a professional man by his side, and with his pen had abstracted and marked off 300 laws about religion from the Statute Book; and he ventured to assert, that they were of such a nature as would make their Lordships disgusted with the Statute Book, and ashamed of their ancestors, who could have enacted them. There was but one good statute that he saw, and that was a model for statutes: it was the wisest on religion that he had ever seen. It was a statute of Edward VI. who might fairly be said to be the first protestant Prince who had ever reigned in this country, for King Henry the eighth, that defender of the faith, could hardly be said to be a real protestant. This statute of Edward VI. abolished the whole set of religious statutes before it. Yes, shoveled them away all at once; it was the best of statutes. (_laughing!_) For what need had religion of Acts of Parliament? Was not religion capable of standing by itself? (_Hear! hear!_ from Lord Sidmouth.) The noble Lord might say, _hear! hear!_ but was it not true? If the noble Lord did not believe it, he (Lord Stanhope) at least did. Was not America religious? Yet there, there was no established religion—there, there were no tythes. In one particular state, that of Connecticut, he was informed there was a law, that if any man voluntarily gave a bond to a clergyman, no suit upon it could be entertained in a court of justice. And for a good reason, because it being the duty of the clergyman to instruct his flock, and to make them good and honest men, if he succeeded in doing so, no such suit would have been necessary: on the other hand, having failed to perform his duty, he could have no right to be rewarded. Oh! if the establishment in this country were never to be paid till they made the people honest, many of them, he was afraid, would go without any reward whatever. All, then, must have a right to choose for themselves in matters of religion and this was not the first time he thought so.

To toleration, as it now existed in this country, he was, as he already said, a decided enemy; but to religious liberty he was a most decided friend, convinced that no restraint should be put on religion, unless in so far as it might seem to endanger the state.

Earl GREY said, though he perceived that his noble friend (Sidmouth) did not mean to press this Bill farther, yet, he could not allow the question to be put without declaring his unchangeable objection both to the details and to the principle of the Bill, to which no modifications could ever reconcile him. The principle of the Bill was restraint—restraint vexatious and uncalled for. That it was a Bill of restraint, even his noble friend (Sidmouth) himself had not denied, or attempted to disguise. He (Earl Grey) was against all restraint. He went along with his noble friend (Lord Holland) in thinking that every man who was impressed with a belief that he had a call to preach, ought to have every liberty allowed him to do so. One inconvenience stated to result from this unlimited liberty had been said to be of a purely civil nature, inasmuch as it afforded facilities to men not actually preachers, but who pretended to be so, to avail themselves of that character, to escape certain obligations imposed on the other subjects of the country, such as serving in the militia, &c. Judging from the papers on the table, he could not see the force or justice of this observation. For the last forty years the number of persons licensed appeared to have been about 11,000. He should take, however, the last twelve years. Dividing them into two equal parts, it appeared that, in the six former years, the number licensed was 1,100, and, in the latter six years, 900, so that the number had diminished, instead of increasing, and the present measure, instead of being thereby more peculiarly called for, had become so much the less necessary.

Lord SIDMOUTH briefly replied. He took some objection to the legal reasoning on his Bill, and professed himself not dismayed, by the opposition which it met, from bringing forward any future measures on the subject, which he thought suggested by his duty.

The question was then put by the Lord Chancellor, “that the Bill be read a second time this day six months,” and carried without a division: it was therefore entirely lost.

========

Lord SIDMOUTH’S Bill being thus lost, and the subject of Toleration having been so fully discussed, and so ably defended in the House of Lords, it was rational to hope that the cause of religious liberty would now be triumphant; that persecutors would be ashamed and hide their heads; that the pious people of the land would enjoy their privileges unmolested; that every man would be permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and “sit under his vine and fig-tree, none daring to make him afraid.” But alas! this hope was fallacious; the spirit of persecution revived, a new construction was put upon the Toleration Act, and “the enemies of religious liberty exerted themselves to effect that without law, which they failed to accomplish by it.” Several magistrates in different parts of the kingdom, at the Quarter Sessions of the peace, refused to administer the oaths as formerly, to the ministers who applied, and in some cases they were treated with rudeness and contempt!

The Conventicle Act was again brought into use, and several persons were fined, or imprisoned, for preaching without licences, or in unlicenced houses, and in one instance, for _praying_ with a few poor people: this religious exercise, by a certain Nobleman, who was chairman of the Quarter Sessions, was construed in _teaching_, and the man was fined accordingly! This extraordinary decision, however, was overruled by an application to the Court of King’s Bench, and the fine returned.

Dreadful outrages were committed in various parts of the country, and the lives and liberties of his Majesty’s peaceable and loyal subjects were threatened and endangered.

These circumstances greatly alarmed the nation, and more especially as several cases had been brought before the Court of King’s Bench, and the decisions of the Judges appeared to be contrary to former interpretations of the Toleration Act. Matters now began to wear a very alarming aspect, and it was apprehended that the persecuting spirit of former ages was about to be revived. The Toleration Act, under which the Methodists and Dissenters had been so long protected, it was now discovered, could no longer afford them protection. This state of things excited universal interest; the minds of the pious people in the land, both in and out of the established Church, were greatly agitated; and it was deemed highly expedient, yea absolutely necessary, that some decisive steps should be immediately taken, for the better security of the invaluable rights of Conscience and Religion.

The Committees of the different denominations of Dissenters, of the friends of Religious Liberty, and of Mr. Wesley’s Societies, as mentioned before, were again convened; and after the most mature deliberation, it was unanimously determined respectfully to submit their grievances to his Majesty’s Ministers, and to pray for redress. This they did, first to the late Right Honourable Spencer Perceval, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who approved of the plan proposed for their relief, and promised them support; as will appear from the following authentic copy of a letter, dated Downing-street, April 10th, 1812, and addressed to Joseph Butterworth, Esq. Fleet-street.

_Downing-street, April 10, 1812._

SIR,—Having had an opportunity, in the course of the late recess, to consider, with my colleagues, the subject of your communication, on the part of the dissenters, I proceed to acquaint you as I promised, with our opinion upon it.

It appears to us, that the interpretations recently given, at different Quarter Sessions, to those statutes under which magistrates are authorized to grant certificates to persons wishing to act as Dissenting Ministers, (and which interpretations, as far as they have hitherto undergone judicial decision, appear to be more correct constructions of these laws, than those which heretofore prevailed in practice,) place the persons, who wish to obtain certificates as Dissenting Ministers, in a situation so different from that in which the previous practice had placed them, as to require parliamentary interference and relief, to the extent, at least, of rendering legal the former practice; and I shall, therefore, be willing, either to bring forward, or to support, an application to parliament for the purpose of affording such relief.

Understanding, however, that a case is now pending in judgment, before the King’s Bench, upon the construction of some part of these Acts, it appears to me, that it will be desirable to postpone any direct application to the Legislature till that decision shall explain the exact state of the law upon the point in dispute in that case. By postponing the application to parliament till after the decision in that case, no such delay will be incurred as will prevent the application to parliament in this session, since the decision will, I believe, be pronounced upon it in the ensuing term.

The precise mode of giving this relief, whether by the repeal of any existing laws, or by making the Act of the magistrate purely ministerial, in administering the oaths, and granting the certificates, to such persons as may apply, is a matter which I wish to be understood as reserved for future consideration; but I think it material to state, distinctly, that I understand the desire of the persons, whom you represent, to be this—that the exemptions to be conferred by such certificates, from the penalties, to which such persons might otherwise be exposed for preaching, &c. should be universal to all who so qualify themselves; while the exemption from civil and military burdens or duties should be confined to those only who are ministers of congregations, and who make the ministry so completely their profession, as to carry on no other business, excepting that of a schoolmaster.

As to the question respecting the liability of dissenting chapels to the poor rates, I am convinced that the dissenters must consider it as a subject of very inferior importance, both in effect and in principle.—On principle, I conceive, all that could be required would be, that the chapels of dissenters should be put precisely on the same footing as chapels belonging to the establishment; if they stand on any other footing, in point of legal liability at the present moment, (which, however, I do not understand to be the case,) I should be very ready to propose, that the law in that respect should be altered.

If you wish for any further communication with me on this subject, I shall be happy to appoint a time for seeing you.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, (_Signed_) SP. PERCEVAL.

========

This letter reflects great honour upon Mr. Perceval, but his lamented death which happened on the 11th of May following, put a stop to the proceedings of the Committees for some time.

In the month of June they made application to the Right Hon. the Earl of Liverpool, who very politely received the deputation from the committees, and engaged to bring forward and support a Bill which would effectually relieve them, and secure to them all their religious privileges. A Bill was accordingly, in the month of July, introduced into the House, which speedily passed through both the Lords and Commons, almost without opposition, and received the Royal Assent on the 23d of July. This auspicious Act is entitled “an Act to repeal certain Acts, and amend other Acts, relating to religious worships and assemblies, and persons teaching and preaching therein.”[Ab]

[Footnote Ab: 52 George the Third, Chap. 155.]

I consider the obtaining the new Toleration Act as a glorious epoch in the annals of British history: it reflects great honour upon the nation, upon his Majesty’s government, upon the Legislative authorities of the land, and upon _all_ who used their exertions to obtain it; I could not therefore deny myself the high gratification, at the close of this work, to record the most interesting circumstances which have come to my knowledge, of this important event.

It has excited sentiments of gratitude and joy in the hearts of every liberal-minded person in the country, and will more than ever endear to them our happy constitution and the lenient Government under which, Divine Providence hath placed us.

I record these circumstances the more willingly, because they form a happy contrast between the present enlightened and meliorated state of society and that recorded, by Dr. Chandler, in the preceding pages.

The following document may be deemed authentic, and though containing but a small part of the interesting account which might be given, will nevertheless gratify thousands of the present generation, and will be read with grateful emotions by those who are yet to be born. Our children, who may rise up after us, when we are “gathered to our fathers,” will pronounce the framers and promoters of this Act blessed; and our children’s children will joy fully exclaim, O GOD WE HAVE HEARD WITH OUR EARS, AND OUR FATHERS HAVE DECLARED UNTO US THE NOBLE WORKS THAT THOU DIDST IN THEIR DAYS, AND IN THE OLD TIME BEFORE THEM.

========

The following is a detail of the steps taken by the Committee of Privileges, belonging to the Societies founded by the late Rev. John Wesley. The letter was addressed, by the Committee, to the Superintendants of Circuits in the Methodist connection.

_London, July 31st, 1812._

In May last the General Committee of Privileges addressed a circular letter to the Superintendants of Circuits, with a view to allay the apprehensions of the people, under the circumstances in which they were then placed from the new construction of the Toleration Act; and to assure them, that no time would be lost in taking such measures as were likely to promote the success of an application to the Legislature for relief; and they, at the same time, inclosed the copy of a letter from the late Mr. Perceval (published with his permission) in which he promised to bring forward or to support such an application to Parliament:—but the melancholy death of that lamented statesman, put an end for some time, to the correspondence with Government upon the subject.

The Committee, being of opinion that a measure of this nature and magnitude, ought to _originate_ with his Majesty’s Government, (whoever might be in office for the time being) solicited no individual member of the Legislature on the subject, but waited till an administration was appointed; when this was done the Committee lost no time in addressing the Right Honourable the _Earl of Liverpool_: and after the necessary communications, a Bill was introduced into Parliament under his Lordship’s auspices, which, to our inexpressible satisfaction has now passed into a law.

In order to understand the bearings and effect of this important and salutary Act of Parliament, and before we make any general remarks, it may be necessary to advert to the situation in which our Societies were placed, and to some of the proceedings of the Committee for the purpose of accomplishing the object they had in view.

By the CONVENTICLE ACT, (22 Charles II. c. 1) it was enacted, that if any person of sixteen years of age and upwards, should be _present_ at any Conventicle or meeting for religion, other than according to the Liturgy, and practice of the Church of England, at which should be present above five persons besides those of the same household, he _should pay a fine of five shillings_ for the first offence, and _ten shillings for every subsequent offence_; which penalties might, in case of the _poverty_ of an offender, be levied on the goods and chattles of _any person present_. _Every person_ who should _teach_ or _preach_ at such Conventicle or meeting, should forfeit _twenty pounds_ for the _first offence_; and _forty pounds, for every subsequent offence_. Every person who should suffer any such Conventicle or meeting in his house or premises, should _forfeit twenty pounds_, which, in case of his poverty, might be levied upon the goods of _any person present_. The _justices_ and the _military_ were impowered to enter Conventicles, and disperse religious meetings. And the Act declares the principle (most severe and intolerant) upon which it is to be interpreted, namely:—“_That it shall be construed most largely and beneficially for the suppressing of Conventicles, and for the justification and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution thereof_;” and that no _record_, _warrant_, or _mittimus_ to be made by virtue of that Act, or any proceedings thereupon should be _reversed_, _avoided_, or _any way impeached_, by reason of any _default_ in _form_! It was also declared, that the goods and chattles of the _husband_ should be liable for the penalties incurred by the _wife_ for _attending a meeting for religious worship_.

As to the FIVE MILE ACT, (17 Charles II. c. 2) it is thereby declared, that persons therein mentioned who should _preach in any Conventicle, should not come within five miles of any corporate town sending burgesses to Parliament_, unless in passing upon the road, before such person shall have taken the oath therein-mentioned at the Quarter Sessions, under a penalty of _forty pounds_.

Besides these two Acts of Parliament, there were several other Acts which rendered nonconformity, or a deviation from the established religion of the country, unlawful, and highly penal.

Thus stood the law relative to religious assemblies on the accession of _King_ WILLIAM and _Queen_ MARY, when, or soon afterwards, an Act of Parliament was passed for the relief of conscientious persons, suffering under or exposed to those intolerant and oppressive laws. By that Act (1 William and Mary, c. 18) usually called the TOLERATION ACT, it was in substance declared, that with regard to _private individuals_, the former Acts should not extend to _any person dissenting from_ the Church of England, who should at the Sessions take the Oaths, and subscribe the Declaration therein mentioned; and with regard to the _ministers of religion_, it was enacted that no _person dissenting_ from the Church of England, in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of _dissenting_ Protestants, who should at the Sessions make the _Declaration_ and take the Oaths therein expressed, should be liable to the penalties of the Acts of Parliament therein mentioned. Provided that such person should not at any time preach in any place _with the doors locked, barred, or bolted_. By this Act also, a justice was empowered at any time to require _any person_ that went to any meeting for the exercise of religious worship, to subscribe the _Declaration_ and take the _Oaths_ therein mentioned; and in case of refusal, to _commit such person to prison_. And the ministers of religion having taken the Oaths under the Act, were exempt from certain offices. It was declared, that no assembly for religious worship should be allowed till _registered_. And disturbers of religious worship coming _into_ a registered place, were subjected to the penalty of twenty pounds. There are other provisions in the Act, which it may be unnecessary to mention; nor need we particularize the STATUTE of the 10th of _Queen_ ANNE, c. 2, which extends the liberty of a person having taken the Oaths in one county, to preach in another county; nor the STATUTE of the 19th of George III. which regulates the _Oaths_ and _Declaration_ to be made, and extends the exemptions.

You will perceive, that it was only by the operation of these last Acts, that any _Protestant_ not resorting to the established church, could be protected from the antecedent penal statutes; and in proportion as the construction of these Tolerating Acts was limited, would be the destructive operation of those penal statutes. However, these Acts of Toleration were considered by the various classes of Dissenters as the Palladium of their religious liberty; and their efficacy for the protection of the various classes of _Dissenters_ was never questioned till very lately; and all who believed it their duty to preach the religious doctrines which they held, and were inclined to protect themselves from the penalties of former Acts, found little difficulty in getting the magistrates at the Sessions to administer the oaths; &c. as it was the generally received doctrine, that the magistrates acted merely _ministerially_—that they had no authority to enquire into the _fitness_ or _character_ of the applicant—and could not refuse the oaths, &c. to any man who represented himself in _Holy Orders_, or _pretended Holy Orders_, or as _pretending to Holy Orders_; or as being a _teacher_ or _preacher_ of a congregation _dissenting_ from the church of England; and it was thought, that there could scarcely be any _dissenting_ teacher of religion who could not properly consider himself as falling within one of the above descriptions. But latterly there has been a manifest alteration in the conduct of many magistrates, who, by narrowing the construction of the Toleration Act, have, on many alleged reasons, refused the oaths, &c. to several applicants. The _new construction_ of the magistrates, has in some points of very great importance to the religious nonconformists, or occasional conformists, been sanctioned by the Court of King’s Bench, which held, that a man to entitle himself to take the oaths, &c. as required by the Act of Toleration, ought to shew himself to be the acknowledged teacher or preacher of some _particular congregation_, and that it was not enough for a man to state himself a Protestant Dissenter, who preaches to several congregations of Protestant Dissenters. And with regard to persons pretending to Holy Orders, the decision of the Court left us in great uncertainty.

In this state of perplexity, with regard to what was to be the construction of the Toleration Act, or rather of probability that it would afford but a very insufficient protection for the _Methodists, even if they could denominate themselves Dissenters_, the Committee were under the necessity of deeply considering the situation of the whole body. But when they were constantly receiving intelligence from various parts of the country, of the appearance of a new spirit of hostility to the _preachers_, and of persecution against the _harmless members_ of their Societies, by enforcing the penalties of the most odious of obsolete laws upon the persons of the poor and defenceless, the Committee were exceedingly alarmed. For although they admired, and have experienced the benefit of the pure and impartial administration of justice, for which this country is so celebrated, yet they could not but consider the state of the Societies with apprehension, when they saw the press teeming with the grossest slander and falsehood against them; their religious practices traduced and vilified; and they themselves represented as “_vermin fit only to be destroyed_,” had such representations been casual, they would have been disregarded; but when they were reiterated in certain popular _Publications month after month_, and one _quarter_ of a year after another—when the legislature were loudly and repeatedly called upon to adopt measures of coercion against them, under the pretence that evangelical religion was inimical to public security and morals; and, as they saw, that in unison with this spirit, there seemed a growing disposition in many to enforce the penalties of the _Conventicle Act_ upon those who either _had not_ taken the oaths, or _could not_ take them, or _were not permitted_ to take them, &c. under the Toleration Act, the Committee were under the greatest apprehension that the Societies were about to be deprived of that liberty to worship God, which, either under the law, or by the courtesy of the country, they had enjoyed from their first rise nearly a century ago. And their fears were far from being allayed by the intelligence which thickened upon them, and they became furnished with a mass of incontrovertible evidence from different parts of the country, which shewed that, even if the members of our Societies were to be considered as _Dissenters_, it would be utterly impossible to get protection under the Toleration Acts for our Preachers and Teachers, especially for the Local Preachers, Class Leaders, &c. &c.

These various Teachers were absolutely necessary for our economy, and without them we knew that our Societies and religious customs could not be carried on. They had, it is true, been _tolerated_ by the general _consent_ of the country, rather than _protected_ by the _law_; but this had with almost equal efficacy secured the free exercise of their religious privileges.

However, as a bitter spirit of intolerance was thus manifesting itself, the Committee thought it in vain to contend for protection under acts of parliament which were of _uncertain interpretation as to Dissenters_, but of no value to those who _considered themselves as belonging to the Church of England_, of which the great bulk of our Societies is composed, the Committee therefore determined to submit their case to the Government, and to Parliament; and to solicit the adoption of such a measure as would secure to the _Methodist Societies_, and to _other denominations of Christians suffering with them_, the free exercise of their religious rights and privileges.

It now became necessary for the Committee deeply and critically to consider the situation and principles of the Societies, in order to adopt a measure for their relief, which they might submit to his Majesty’s ministers for their support in parliament. In doing this, the Committee could not forget that the Societies are mere associations of christians, united for general improvement and edification; and as the great majority of them were, from religious principle, attached to the Church of England, they could not conscientiously take the oaths as _Dissenters_,—to whom, alone, the _Act of Toleration_ applied. Therefore no amendment of that Act appeared likely to answer the purpose. But as Dissenters of various denominations were also to be contemplated by the projected measure, it became necessary to proceed upon some principle common to all. A principle which should recognize _the rights of conscience_, and at the same time afford that security for peaceable and loyal conduct, which the government of any State has a right to expect. It appeared also material to avoid all phraseology which would be exclusively applicable to _any one sect_ of religious people.

As to the principle, the Committee, at an early stage of their deliberations, came to the resolution, that although all well-regulated societies, and denominations of Christians, will exercise their own rules for the admission of public or private teachers among themselves, yet _it is the unalienable right of every man to worship God agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience_; and that he has a right to HEAR and to TEACH those Christian truths which he conscientiously believes, without any _restraint_ or _judicial_ interference from the _civil magistrate_, provided he do not thereby disturb the peace of the community, and that on no account whatever would the Committee concede this fundamental principle.

You will see at once, that it is only on this legitimate principle, that the various members of our Societies, and indeed mankind in general, _have any right to teach and instruct one another_. It was on this leading principle, that we drew up and submitted a Bill to the late Mr. Perceval, qualified however with those provisions which made our religious worship known, and laid it open for the inspection of all; and left our teachers subject to be called upon to take the usual obligations of allegiance &c. which no good man could object to; and which by the Constitution, no subject can lawfully refuse; but at the same time provision was made, that those oaths were not to be taken as an _antecedent_ qualification, but when required, they were to be taken with the least possible inconvenience, by going before one neighbouring magistrate, instead of the Quarter Sessions. A Bill founded on such principles, and with such views, the Committee trusted would at once secure the _rights of conscience_, and give every needful _pledge_ to the _State_, for the fulfilment of our duties as good subjects. And although they did not attempt to amend the Act of Toleration, which had now become so uncertain in its construction, but only suggested a new Act, adapted to the present state of religious Society, yet they did not wish to remove the Old Toleration Act, or lessen any of the benefits to be derived from it, by any class of Christians.

On these principles, and with a view to establish them in practice, the correspondence with the _Earl of Liverpool_ was conducted, and we have the great satisfaction to say, that from a just sense of the high importance of those principles, which have been so powerful in the establishment and support of the _Protestant Church_, and the preservation of civil order in this country; and which are so congenial with every dictate of sound policy, and pure religion, his Lordship and his Majesty’s Ministers prepared a Bill, which having now passed into a law, will be found to carry into effect what the Committee deemed so essential, in any measure designed to meet the situation of the _Methodist_ Societies, and _other denominations of Christians_. To a short sketch of this Act, we have now to request your attention; but for full information we must refer you to the Act itself.

The new Act _absolutely repeals_ the _Five Mile_ and the _Conventicle Acts_, and another Act of a most offensive kind, which affected a highly respectable body, the _Quakers_. It then proceeds to relieve from the Penalties of the several Acts mentioned in the Toleration Act, or any amendment of the same, all Protestants who resort to a congregation allowed by the Acts there referred to: and you will not fail to observe, that while it meets the situation of the _Dissenters_, how liberally it treats the condition of _our Societies_. It is not now necessary that a person should be obliged to relinquish his attachment to the established Church, in order to bring himself under the protection afforded by this Act; and on the other hand _if he be a Dissenter_ he is protected by this Act. The simple condition of protection is, that a Protestant do resort to _some place of worship_, which if not the only way, is at least the usual and overt manner of shewing our belief in the existence of the Deity, and in a future state of retribution; without which, there is no security for the peace and happiness of Society. To _our Societies_, this feature of the Act is of great importance, because it allows our members to continue their attachment to the established Church, without relinquishing the privileges which the christian communion of our Societies, so largely affords. As under the Toleration Act, so under this Act, all places of worship must be _certified_ to the proper Court; but under this Act, a Preacher need not wait till the place be _registered_ before he preaches. By the former Acts only _five persons_ could meet together, besides a man’s own family, without having the place registered; by this Act, the number is extended to _twenty persons_ who may meet without certifying the place of meeting. By the _former Act_, no person could preach till he had taken the Oaths; by this Act, any person may preach without having taken the Oaths; and is merely liable to be called on _once_ to take them afterwards, _if required in writing by one Justice_. By the _Toleration Acts_, persons were obliged to go to the Quarter Sessions to take the Oaths; by this Act any person may take them before one Justice only; and in no case, is such person compellable to _travel above five miles for that purpose_: so that it will be perfectly unnecessary for any of our Preachers or Teachers to take the Oaths until they are required by a Justice, unless our travelling Preachers, who carry on no business, and intend to claim exemption from civil and military duties. By the _new construction_ of the Toleration Act, it appeared that only particular persons could insist upon taking the Oaths, &c. by this Act _any Protestant_, whether preacher or otherwise, whether a Dissenter or a Member of the Church of England, may require a Justice to administer the Oaths, &c. and grant a Certificate.

As to the exemption from civil and military duties, they are about the same, as to Preachers carrying on no business, except that the Toleration Act extended only to Dissenters, and this Act exempts all Preachers as they were by the Toleration and new Militia Acts, whether Dissenters or not. By the Toleration Act, so by this, the doors of all places of worship are to be unlocked. In this Act you will observe a great and most beneficial alteration for the protection of religious assemblies. The Toleration Act did not provide for the punishment of riotous persons who did not come into the house, by which means many of our congregations were greatly disturbed by noises made on the outside: but by this Act, any person who shall wilfully and maliciously disturb a Congregation, (whether by coming into or being on the outside of the house) shall incur a penalty of £40. which penalty is double the amount of that imposed for the same offence by the Toleration Act. There is also another important advantage in this Act, which is, that the writ of _Certiorari_ is not taken away, by which means, Proceedings may be removed into the Court of King’s Bench.

Thus have we endeavoured to give you an outline of this important Act of the Legislature: an Act which, we trust, you and our friends will consider as clearly recognizing in practice, those great principles which are the basis of religious freedom, and that its operation will not only enable our Societies to exercise under the protection of the law, those privileges which they have ever considered the most sacred and invaluable, and which, under the Divine blessing, have contributed to the consolation of thousands; but it will serve for the extension of piety and virtue amongst all denominations, by promoting christian fellowship, the dissemination of Divine truth, and the interchange of religious instruction. And whilst it amply extends the circle of religious liberty to those who dissent from, or who only partially or occasionally conform to the established Church, as well as to strict members of her communion, who wish to enjoy religious meetings, it will excite attachment to, and encrease the security of that church, which has produced so many champions for the verities of our holy religion, and in which indeed, our Societies have been founded.

Nor should it be forgotten, (especially in times like the present) that this Act is of peculiar excellency, from the effect it will have upon the happiness of the _religious poor_. They value exceedingly the liberty of associating for mutual religious instruction and consolation. It is the exercise of that privilege which soothes them under poverty and distress, and, by the grace of God, makes them content under the apparently adverse dispensations of Divine providence; and teaches them to wait with patience for the “_inheritance which is incorruptible_.” This Act by removing all restraint from the performance of the great duty of “_exhorting one another_,” may be considered as having the well-disposed and pious poor for its object, and great will be their gratitude and gladness, that they can, under the protection of this Law, worship God in their own way, and instruct each other, as well as hear those Ministers whose labours they esteem. And while it has this effect upon their individual happiness, it will make them value the Constitution of the Country, through which they derive such benefits. In short, the Committee cannot but contemplate this important extention of Religious Freedom, with the highest satisfaction and delight; and they cannot doubt, that in proportion to the apparent excellency of this Act of Parliament, will be the magnitude of the benefits which the nation at large will derive from it.

In the accomplishment of this salutary measure, the Committee have necessarily had much correspondence with the Prime Minister, THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL; and it is a duty they owe to his Majesty’s Government, and to that noble Lord in particular, to express with pleasure and gratitude the high sense of the obligations they feel themselves under, for the patient attention which his Lordship has given to the many and necessary representations of the Committee, as well as the readiness manifested to meet fully, the situation of our Societies, and of other religious denominations; and for the cordiality with which his Lordship matured and supported the Bill in Parliament, which appears to be commensurate to the present necessities and wishes of our Societies.

The Committee are also under considerable obligations to HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, for his polite attention to the subject, and for the liberal sentiments expressed by his Grace, on various occasions: And we cannot but feel great gratitude to all the right Reverend Prelates who concurred in the Bill, without whose concurrence, it must have met with considerable difficulties in its progress through Parliament.

It is also the duty of the Committee, to express their humble thanks to the rest of the Cabinet Ministers, for the support which this measure has received from them, and particularly to THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, THE LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR, for his Lordship’s candid and liberal attention to the Bill, in the House of Lords; and also to THE RIGHT HONOURABLE VISCOUNT CASTLEREAH, for the labour of conducting it in the House of Commons. In these sentiments of respect and gratitude, we are sure we shall be joined by you, and our Societies universally.

The Committee are happy to inform you, to whom they are under particular obligations, on this important occasion, that you may have the pleasure of participating with them, in those sentiments which the sense of benefits received naturally inspire. They will therefore mention, that they are greatly indebted to the RIGHT HONOURABLE EARL STANHOPE, to the RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD HOLLAND, and to the RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD ERSKINE, for their attention and support in the House of Peers; and to WILLIAM WILBERFORCE, ESQ. JAMES STEPHEN, ESQ. SAMUEL WHITBREAD, ESQ. and THOMAS BABINGTON, ESQ. Members of the House of Commons, from each of whom, the Committee have derived important services relative to this valuable Act.

While endeavouring to express our gratitude upon this occasion, rather than pretending to discharge the debt which we owe to the distinguished characters we have mentioned, it is with great satisfaction that we acknowledge the co-operation which we have experienced from “THE PROTESTANT SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY,” who represent the great body of Dissenters in this country, and from our affectionate friends the QUAKERS, with whom, as well as with other denominations of Christians we are happy to be associated in receiving benefit in the same friendly Act of the legislature: we are sure this co-operation will encrease your esteem for those respectable members of civil and religious society.

In considering the many circumstances relative to the progress and completion of this excellent measure, we cannot but adore the providence and goodness of God, without whose direction and aid the work could not have been accomplished. And we would ascribe the glory, honour, and power to Him, from whom alone all good councils and all just works do proceed. Our joy is great upon this interesting occasion; but how greatly would our pleasure have been enhanced, had this event witnessed the return of health to our gracious Sovereign, whose name must ever be associated with Religious Toleration: for his Majesty, in his first speech from the throne, declared it his invariable resolution to MAINTAIN THE TOLERATION INVIOLATE. A declaration which has been religiously fulfilled during a long and beneficent reign; and should it please Divine Providence to restore his Majesty in health to his affectionate people, it would, we doubt not, afford him the highest gratification that a measure so full of regard to the sacred rights of conscience, and so amply extending the bounds of Toleration, had been carried into effect under the liberal administration of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent. May it please God to smooth the bed of the Sovereign in his affliction, and endue the Prince plenteously with heavenly gifts, and prosper him with all happiness.

To conclude; while on this memorable occasion, we express unfeigned gratitude to those who have rendered us assistance, let us not forget to give the sole glory to that God “by whom, Kings reign, and Princes decree justice,” let us continue to cultivate the most affectionate regard for our KING and our COUNTRY: let us pray for more grace, that we may use our extended religious privileges to the greatest advantage, not only _by provoking one another to love and to good works_, but by labouring incessantly to diffuse those sacred truths of our most holy Religion, which we have long proved to be the _power of God unto Salvation, to them who believe_; and thus promote GLORY to GOD in the HIGHEST, and on _Earth_ PEACE, and GOOD WILL among MEN,—the great END for which our Societies have been established.

(Signed by Order and on behalf of the Committee,)

ADAM CLARKE, _Chairman_, JOSEPH BUTTERWORTH, _Secretary_.

========

_An Act to repeal certain Acts, and amend other Acts relating to Religious Worship and Assemblies, and persons teaching or preaching therein._—(_29th July, 1812._)

52 GEO. III. c. 155.

Whereas it is expedient that certain Acts of Parliament made in the reign of his late Majesty King Charles the Second, relating to Nonconformists and Conventicles, and refusing to take Oaths, should be repealed; and that the laws relating to certain Congregations and Assemblies for religious Worship, and persons teaching, preaching, or officiating therein, and resorting thereto should be amended; be it therefore enacted, by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act, an Act of Parliament made in the Session of Parliament held in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of his late Majesty King Charles the Second, intituled,[Ac] “An Act for preventing the mischiefs and dangers that may arise by certain persons called Quakers, and others, refusing to take lawful Oaths,” and another Act of Parliament made in the seventeenth year of the reign of his late Majesty King Charles the second, intituled, [Ad]An Act for restraining Nonconformists from inhabiting in “Corporations;” and another Act of Parliament made in the twenty-second year of the reign of the late King Charles the second, intituled, [Ae]“An Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles,” shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

Footnote Ac:

13 and 14 Car. II. c. 1.

Footnote Ad:

17 Car. II. c. 2.

Footnote Ae:

22 Car. II. c. 1. repealed.

II. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act, no Congregation or Assembly for Religious Worship of Protestants (at which there shall be present more than twenty persons besides the immediate family and servants of the person in whose house or upon whose premises such Meeting, Congregation or Assembly shall be had) shall be permitted or allowed, unless and until the place of such Meeting, if the same shall not have been duly certified and registered under any former Act or Acts of Parliament relating to registering places of Religious Worship, shall have been or shall be certified to the Bishop of the Diocese, or to the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry, or to the Justices of the Peace at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county, riding, division, city, town or place, in which such Meeting shall be held; and all places of Meeting which shall be so certified to the Bishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court shall be returned by such Court once in each year to the Quarter Sessions of the county, riding, division, city town or place; and all places of Meeting which shall be so certified to the Quarter Sessions of the peace shall be also returned once in each year to the Bishop or Archdeacon; and all such places shall be registered in the said Bishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court respectively, and recorded at the said General or Quarter Sessions; the Registrar or Clerk of the Peace whereof respectively is hereby required to register and record the same; and the Bishop or Registrar or Clerk of the Peace to whom any such place of Meeting shall be certified under this Act, shall give a Certificate thereof to such person or persons as shall request or demand the same, for which there shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than Two Shillings and Sixpence; and every Person who shall knowingly permit or suffer any such Congregation or Assembly as aforesaid, to meet in any place occupied by him, until the same shall have been so certified as aforesaid, shall forfeit, for every time any such Congregation or Assembly shall meet contrary to the provisions of this Act, a sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds nor less than Twenty Shillings, at the discretion of the Justices who shall convict for such offence.

III. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That every person who shall teach or preach in any congregation or assembly as aforesaid, in any place without the consent of the occupier thereof, shall forfeit for every such offence any sum not exceeding Thirty Pounds, nor less than Forty Shillings, at the discretion of the Justices who shall convict for such offence.

IV. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act, every person who shall teach or preach at, or officiate in, or shall resort to any congregation or congregations, assembly or assemblies for religious worship of Protestants, whose place of meeting shall be duly certified according to the provisions of this Act, or any other Act or Acts of Parliament relating to the certifying and registering of places of religious worship, shall be exempt from all such pains and penalties under any Act or Acts of Parliament relating to religious worship, as any person who shall have taken the Oaths and made the Declaration prescribed by or mentioned in an Act, made in the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary, intituled, “An Act for exempting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England, from the penalties of certain Laws,” or any Act amending the said Act, is by law exempt, as fully and effectually as if all such pains and penalties, and the several Acts enforcing the same, were recited in this Act, and such exemptions as aforesaid were severally and separately enacted in relation thereto.

V. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That every person not having taken the Oaths, and subscribed the Declaration herein specified, who shall preach or teach at any place of religious worship certified in pursuance of the directions of this Act, shall, when thereto required by any one Justice of the Peace, by any writing under his hand, or signed by him, take and make and subscribe, in the presence of such Justice of the Peace, the Oaths and Declarations specified and contained in an Act, passed in the nineteenth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, intituled,[Af] “An Act for the further Relief of Protestant Dissenting Ministers and Schoolmasters;” and no such person who, upon being so required to take such Oaths and make such Declaration as aforesaid, shall refuse to attend the Justice requiring the same, or to take and make and subscribe such Oaths and Declarations as aforesaid, shall be thereafter permitted or allowed to teach or preach in any such congregation or assembly for religious worship, until he shall have taken such Oaths, and made such Declaration as aforesaid, on pain of forfeiting for every time he shall so teach or preach, any sum not exceeding ten pounds, nor less than ten shillings, at the discretion of the Justice convicting for such offence.

Footnote Af:

19 G. III. c. 44.

VI. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That no person shall be required by any Justice of the Peace to go to any greater distance than five miles from his own home, or from the place where he shall be residing at the time of such requisition, for the purpose of taking such Oaths as aforesaid.

VII. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any of His Majesty’s Protestant subjects to appear before any one Justice of the Peace, and to produce to such Justice of the Peace a printed or written copy of the said Oaths and Declaration, and to require such Justice to administer such Oaths, and to tender such Declaration to be made taken and subscribed by such person; and thereupon it shall be lawful for such Justice, and he is hereby authorized and required to administer such Oaths, and to tender such Declaration to the person requiring to take and make and subscribe the same; and such person shall take and make and subscribe such Oaths and Declaration in the presence of such Justice accordingly; and such Justice shall attest the same to be sworn before him, and shall transmit or deliver the same to the Clerk of the Peace for the county, riding, division, city, town or place for which he shall act as such Justice of the Peace, before or at the next General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for such county, riding, division, city, town or place.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That every Justice of the Peace before whom any person shall make and take and subscribe such Oaths and Declaration as aforesaid, shall forthwith give to the Person having taken made and subscribed such oaths and declaration, a Certificate thereof under the hand of such Justice, in the form following: (that is to say)

“I _A. B._ one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county (riding, division, city, _or_ town, _or_ place, _as the case may be_) of ________________ Do hereby certify, that _C. D._ of, &c. [_describing the Christian and Surname, and place of abode of the party_] did this day appear before me, and did make and take and subscribe the several oaths and declaration, specified in an Act, made in the fifty-second year of the reign of King George the Third, intituled [_set forth the title of this Act_.] Witness my hand this ____________ day of ____________ one thousand eight hundred and _________.”

And for the making and signing of which Certificate, where the said oaths and declaration are taken and made on the requisition of the party taking and making the same, such Justice shall be entitled to demand and have a fee of two shillings and sixpence, and no more: And such Certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the party named therein has made and taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration in manner required by this Act.

IX. And be it further enacted, that every person who shall teach or preach in any such congregation or assembly, or congregations or assemblies as aforesaid, who shall employ himself solely in the duties of a teacher or preacher, and not follow or engage in any trade or business, or other profession, occupation, or employment, for his livelihood, except that of a Schoolmaster, and who shall produce a Certificate of some Justice of the Peace, of his having taken and made and subscribed the oaths and declaration aforesaid, shall be exempt from the civil servises and offices specified in the said recited Act passed in the first year of King William and Queen Mary, and from being ballotted to serve and from serving in the Militia or Local Militia of any county, town, parish or place, in any part of the United Kingdom.

X. And be it further enacted, that every person who shall produce any false or untrue certificate or paper, as and for a true certificate of his having made and taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration by this Act required, for the purpose of claiming any exemption from civil or military duties as aforesaid, under the provisions of this or any other Act or Acts of Parliament, shall forfeit for every such offence the sum of fifty pounds; which penalty may be recovered by and to the use of any person who will sue for the same, by any Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, in any of His Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster, or the Courts of Great Sessions in Wales, or the Courts of the counties palatine of Chester, Lancaster, and Durham (as the case shall require;) wherein no Essoign, Privilege, Protection, or wager of Law, or more than one Imparlance, shall be allowed.

XI. And be it further enacted, That no meeting, assembly, or congregation of persons for religious worship, shall be had in any place with the door locked, bolted, or barred, or otherwise fastened, so as to prevent any persons entering therein during the time of any such meeting, assembly, or congregation; and the person teaching or preaching at such meeting, assembly, or congregation, shall forfeit, for every time any such meeting, assembly, or congregation shall be held with the door locked, bolted, barred, or otherwise fastened as aforesaid, any sum not exceeding twenty pounds, nor less than forty shillings, at the discretion of the Justices convicting for such offence.

XII. And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons, at any time after the passing of this Act, do and shall wilfully and maliciously or contemptuously disquiet, or disturb any meeting, assembly, or congregation of persons assembled for religious worship permitted or authorized by this Act, or any former Act or Acts of Parliament, or shall in any way disturb, molest, or misuse any preacher, teacher, or person officiating at such meeting, assembly, or congregation, or any person or persons there assembled, such person or persons so offending, upon proof thereof before any Justice of the Peace by two or more credible witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizances in the penal sum of fifty pounds to answer for such offence, and in default of such sureties shall be committed to prison, there to remain till the next General or Quarter Sessions; and upon conviction of the said offence at the said General or Quarter Sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of forty pounds.

XIII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall affect, or be construed to affect, the celebration of divine service, according to the rites and ceremonies of the united Church of England and Ireland, by ministers of the said Church, in any place hitherto used for such purpose, or being now or hereafter duly consecrated or licensed by any Archbishop or Bishop, or other person lawfully authorized to consecrate or license the same, or to affect the Jurisdiction of the Archbishops or Bishops, or other persons exercising lawful authority in the Church, of the United Kingdom, over the said Church, according to the Rules and discipline of the same, and to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm; but such jurisdiction shall remain and continue as if this Act had not passed.

XIV. Provided also, and be it farther enacted, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend or be construed to extend to the people usually called Quakers, nor to any Meetings or Assemblies for Religious Worship, held or convened by such persons; or in any manner to alter or repeal or affect any Act other than and except the Acts passed in the reign of King Charles the second herein-before repealed, relating to the people called Quakers, or relating to any Assemblies or Meetings for Religious Worship held by them.

XV. And be it further enacted, that every person guilty of any offence, for which any pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is imposed by this Act, in respect of which no special provision is made, shall and may be convicted thereof by information upon the oath of any one or more credible witness or witnesses before any two or more Justices of the Peace acting in and for the county, riding, city or place wherein such offence shall be committed; and that all and every the pecuniary penalties or forfeitures which shall be incurred or become payable for any offence or offences against this Act, shall and may be levied by distress under the hand and seal or hands and seals of two Justices of the Peace for the county, riding, city, or place, in which any such offence or offences was or were committed, or where the forfeiture or forfeitures was or were incurred, and shall when levied be paid one moiety to the informer, and the other moiety to the poor of the parish in which the offence was committed; and in case of no sufficient distress whereby to levy the penalties, or any or either of them imposed by this Act, it shall and may be lawful for any such Justices respectively before whom the offender or offenders shall be convicted, to commit such offender to prison, for such time not exceeding three months, as the said Justices in their discretion shall think fit.

XVI. And be it further enacted, that in case any person or persons who shall hereafter be convicted of any of the offences punishable by this Act, shall conceive him her or themselves to be aggrieved by such conviction, then and in every such case it shall and may be lawful for such person or persons respectively, and he she or they shall or may appeal to the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace holden next after such conviction in and for the county, riding, city, or place, giving unto the Justices before whom such conviction shall be made, notice in writing within eight days after any such conviction, of his her or their intention to prefer such Appeal; and the said Justices in their said Generator Quarter Sessions shall and may, and they are hereby authorised and empowered to proceed to the hearing and determination of the matter of such Appeal, and to make such order therein, and to award such costs to be paid by and to either party, not exceeding forty shillings, as they in their discretion shall think fit.

XVII. And be it further enacted, that no penalty or forfeiture shall be recoverable under this Act, unless the same shall be used for, or the offence in respect of which the same is imposed, is prosecuted before the Justices of the Peace or Quarter Sessions within six mouths after the offence shall have been committed; and no person who shall suffer any Imprisonment for non-payment of any penalty, shall thereafter be liable to the payment of such penalty or forfeiture.

XVIII. And be it further enacted, That if any Action or Suit shall be brought or commenced against any person or persons for any thing done in pursuance of this Act, that every such Action or Suit shall be commenced within three months next after the fact committed, and not afterwards, and shall be laid and brought in the county wherein the cause or alledged cause of Action shall have occurred, and not elsewhere, and the defendant or defendants in such Action or Suit may plead the general Issue, and give this Act and the special matter in evidence on any Trial to be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance and by authority of this Act; and if it shall appear so to be done, or if any such Action or Suit shall be brought after the time so limited for bringing the same, or shall be brought in any other county, city or place, that then and in such case, the Jury shall find for such defendant or defendants; and upon such verdict, or if the plaintiff or plaintiffs, shall become nonsuited, or discontinue his, her, or their Action or Actions, or if a verdict shall pass against the plaintiff or plaintiffs, or if upon demurrer, judgment shall be given against the plaintiff or plaintiffs, the defendant or defendants shall have and may recover treble costs, and have the like remedy for the same, as any defendant or defendants hath or have for costs of Suit in other Cases by Law.

XIX. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall be deemed and taken to be a Public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by all Judges, Justices and others, without specially pleading the same.

========

_Observations upon the Act of Parliament, (52d Geo. III. cap. 155.) passed 29th July, 1812, relating to Religious Worship, with some practical Directions._

SECTION II.

1. All religious Assemblies of Protestants, not exceeding Twenty Persons, besides the family of the person in whose premises such Assembly shall be held, are lawful without registering the place of Meeting, so that there will be no absolute necessity to register the houses where Prayer, and other Social Meetings are held. However, as it is attended with scarcely any inconvenience, it is recommended that ALL PLACES where, in probability, more than Twenty Persons may assemble for Religious Instruction, including Sunday Schools, be certified and registered.

2. It is not necessary to register any place, which has been registered previous to the passing of this Act.

3. It is not necessary to wait till the place is actually registered, but a Religious Assembly may lawfully be held after a certificate that the place is intended to be used for Religious Worship is lodged with the person or any one of the persons mentioned in the Section.

4. The following form of Certificate to be sent to the Bishop, or Archdeacon, or Justices of the General or Quarter Sessions, is recommended, to sign which only one person is necessary, that is to say,

“To the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of ________ (as the case may be) or the Reverend (_A. B._) Archdeacon of ______ (as the case may be) and to his Registrar, or to the Justices of the Peace (of the County, Riding, Division, City, Town, or Place, as the case may be) and to the Clerk of the Peace thereof.”

“I, _A. B._ of (describing the christian and surname, and place of abode, and trade or profession of the party certifying) do hereby certify, that a certain Building, (Messuage, or Tenement, Barn, School, Meeting House, or part of a Messuage, Tenement, or other Building, as the case may be) situated in the Parish of ______ and County of ______ (as the case may be, and specifying also the number of the Messuage, &c. if numbered, and the Street, Lane, &c. wherein it is situate, and the name of the present or last Occupier or Owner) is intended forthwith to be used as a place of Religious Worship by an Assembly or Congregation of Protestants, and I do hereby require you to register and record the same according to the provisions of an Act passed in the 52d year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Third, intituled An Act to repeal certain Acts, and amend other Acts, relating to Religious Worship, and Assemblies, and Persons teaching or preaching therein, and I hereby request a Certificate thereof. Witness my hand this __ day of ______ 181__

_A. B._”

The address to be used must depend upon the person or persons with whom the Certificate is to be deposited. Between the different Sessions, the Bishop and Archdeacon’s Registry is generally open.

It is not necessary that this Certificate should express that the place is to be registered for protestant Dissenters, the Act mentions only Protestants, and it is recommended that no Certificate be accepted from the Registrar of the Bishop, or Archdeacon, or from the Clerk of the Peace, which narrows the term, or which states the place to be for any specific denomination of Protestants. The Certificate should mention Protestants only.

Two copies of the above Certificate should be prepared, and signed in the presence of a respectable witness. One to be delivered to the Bishop, Archdeacon, or Clerk of the Peace, and the other to be kept by the party, signing the same, who is to require from the Registrar or Clerk of the Peace, to sign a Certificate on the part to be kept, that such Certificate as above has been delivered to him. Such Certificate to be written beneath the name of the party or parties signing the original Certificate, in the following form:

“I, _C. D._ (Registrar of the Court of the Bishop of ______ or Archdeacon of ______ or Clerk of the Peace for the County of ______ as the case may be) do hereby certify that a Certificate, of which the above is a true copy, was this day delivered to me, to be registered and recorded pursuant to the Act of Parliament therein mentioned. Dated this __ day of ________ 181__

_C. D._ Registrar, or Clerk of the Peace.”

Thus in case any accidental delay in the Registration should take place, and it be needful to use the place, as a place of religious Assembly, proof will exist that the Certificate was duly delivered and consequently the parties be free from penalty, if they use the place for Religious Worship after it is certified, but before it is registered.

5. At the time the Certificate of the parties is presented to the Bishop, or Archdeacon, or to the Sessions, the Fee of 2s. 6d. should be paid to the Registrar, or Clerk of the Peace, for registering and certifying the same, and his Certificate should be required accordingly.

SECTION III.

Before, it was made penal by this Section to preach in a house, without the consent of the Occupier, a person doing so was liable to an Action by the Common Law.

SECTION IV.

The first Section having repealed altogether the Five Mile and Conventicle Acts, and an Act relating to the Quakers, by this Section all Protestants, whether Teachers or Hearers, whether Dissenters or Churchmen, attending a Place of Worship, certified under this Act, are exempted, even before actual and formal registration, from the penalties of all the Acts recited in the Toleration Act, or in any Act amending the same.

SECTION V.

A Preacher may be required (if he has not already qualified) to take the Oaths, &c. after he has actually preached, but it is not necessary that any person should take the Oaths and subscribe the Declarations required, as an antecedent qualification to preach. The requisition must be made by a Justice of the Peace in writing.

The following are copies of the Oaths, &c. referred to in the Section.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

“I, _A. B._ do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George.

“_So help me God_,

“A. B.”

OF SUPREMACY.

“I, _A. B._ do swear, that I do from my heart, abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes, excommunicated, or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm.

“_So help me God_,

“A. B.”

DECLARATION AGAINST POPERY.

“I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe, that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever; and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without believing that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.

“A. B.”

DECLARATION OF CHRISTIAN FAITH.

“I, _A. B._ do solemnly declare in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a Christian and a Protestant, and as such that I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as commonly received among Protestant Churches, do contain the revealed will of God; and that I do receive the same as the rule of my doctrine and practice.

“A. B.”

SECTION VI.

The Preacher is not now required to go to the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of making the Oaths, &c. but is to go before a neighbouring Magistrate for the purpose.

SECTION VII.

1. Any person, being a Protestant, whether Preacher or not, may require a Justice to administer the Oaths, &c.

2. The person requiring a Justice to administer the Oaths, &c. must take a fair copy of them. The forms of the Oaths, &c. are given in the Notes on Section V, which, after substituting his name for _A. B._, are to be signed by the person who desires to take them.

3. No person need be at the trouble of applying to take the Oaths, &c. unless he be a regular Preacher, wholly devoted to the Ministry, who intends to claim exemption from civil and military services agreeably to the 9th Section.

SECTION VIII.

This Section supplies the form of the Certificate of taking the Oaths, and subscribing the Declaration, which the Justice is to give in all cases, and for which he may demand 2s. 6d. when the Oaths, &c. are taken on the requisition of the party taking them; but this Fee is not payable if the Justices require a person to take the Oaths, &c.

SECTION IX.

To entitle a person to exemption from civil or military services, he must be altogether employed in the duties of a Teacher or Preacher, and not engaged in any secular employment for his livelihood, with the exception of that of a Schoolmaster.

SECTION XII.

This Clause subjects to a penalty of £40, any person or persons who shall (whether _on the outside_ of within a place of religious Assembly) wilfully and maliciously, or contemptuously, by any means disturb a Congregation, or disturb, molest, or misuse any Preacher, or other person there assembled.

This clause, of extensive operation, will be found most ample for the protection of all persons meeting for the worship of God, and is a great and beneficial addition to the law on that subject.

========

In order to excite sentiments of gratitude in our hearts for the invaluable religious privileges secured to us, as subjects of the British Empire, by the above recited Act, and to evince that these privileges ought to be very highly estimated by us, I shall here insert, as a striking contrast, a copy of a most intolerant and horrid Edict recently issued by the Emperor of China, against the introduction of Christianity into his vast Empire. An Empire that is said to contain about a third part of the population of the world! The inhabitants of which are immersed in the grossest superstition and idolatry, and are sitting in the “region of the shadow of death, without light and without vision.”

The Roman Catholics indeed, have for many years had Missionaries in China, but they have degraded the doctrine of the Cross, by blending it with Pagan rites, and by withholding from their own converts, the grand means of correcting their errors, and illuminating their darkness, even the WORD OF ETERNAL LIFE.

The means of obtaining a version of the scriptures in the Chinese language, have for several years past occupied the minds of the Provost and Vice Provost, of the College of Fort William, in India; and they considered it an object of the utmost importance to introduce the Gospel, into that immense empire.

After much enquiry they succeeded in procuring Mr. Johannes Lassar, an Armenian christian, a native of China, and a proficient in the Chinese language. He relinquished his secular employments, and entered immediately on the translation of the Scriptures into that language; and in this work he is still engaged. Several young men also, who are under the tuition of Mr. Lassar, are now studying the Chinese language, have already made considerable proficiency, and are assisting in the translation of the holy Scriptures. A printing press has been procured, and a considerable part of the New Testament has been printed off, from blocks, after the Chinese manner. While Mr. Lassar and Mr. Joshua Marshman, (his elder pupil,) are thus translating the Scriptures at Calcutta, Mr. Morrison is prosecuting a similar work at Canton, in China, with the aid of able, native scholars. Thus have the founders and supporters of the College, at Fort William, admitted a dawn of day through that thick impenetrable cloud, which for many ages has insulated that vast empire from the rest of mankind.[Ag]

Footnote Ag:

See Dr. Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia.

These efforts to introduce the WORD OF LIFE into China, seem to have excited the jealousies of the Emperor and his Court, and to form the basis of the following Edict.

EDICT AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.

_Canton, April 4, 1812._

The following Edict was translated from the Chinese into Spanish, by a Roman Missionary, at Macao: and translated out of Spanish into English. I have not seen the original Chinese paper. I have seen several papers in the Pekin Gazette, of which the following is indeed the substance. In those papers, however, the magistrates also are threatened with degradation, dismissal from the service of government, &c. if they connive at the promulgation of what they denominate TEENCHU KEAOU (_The Religion of the Lord of Heaven_)—the name which the Roman Missionaries have adopted.

R. M.

The Criminal Tribunal, by order of the Emperor, conformably to a Representation made by HAN, the Imperial Secretary (in which he desired that the Promulgation of the Christian Religion might be obviated) decrees as follows:

The Europeans worship God, because, in their own country, they are used to do so; and it is quite unnecessary to enquire into the motive: but then, why do they disturb the common people of the interior?—appointing unauthorised priests and other functionaries, who spread this through all the provinces, in obvious infraction of the law; and the common people, deceived by them, they succeed each other from generation to generation, unwilling to part from their delusion. This may approach very near to being a rebellion. Reflecting that the said religion neither holds spirits in veneration nor ancestors in reverence;—clearly, this is to walk contrary to sound doctrine; and the common people who follow and familiarize themselves with such delusions, in what respect do they differ from a rebel mob? if there is not decreed some punishment, how shall the evil be eradicated?—and how shall the human heart be rectified.

From this time forward, such Europeans as shall privately print books and establish preachers, in order to pervert the multitude,—and the Tartars and Chinese, who, deputed by Europeans, shall propagate their religion, bestowing names, and disquieting numbers, shall have this to look to:—The chief or principal one shall be executed:—whoever shall spread their religion, not making much disturbance, nor to many men, and without giving names, shall be imprisoned, waiting the time of execution;—and those who shall content themselves with following such religion, without wishing to reform themselves, they shall be exiled to He-lau-keang, &c. As for Tartars, they shall be deprived of their pay. With respect to Europeans at present in Pekin, if they are Mathematicians, without having other office or occupation, this suffices to their being kept in their employments; but those who do not understand Mathematics, what motive is there for acquiescing in their idleness, whilst they are exciting irregularities? Let the Mandarins, in charge of the Europeans, enquire and act. Excepting the Mathematicians, who are to be retained in their employment, the other Europeans shall be sent to the Viceroy of Canton, to wait there, that when there come ships from the respective countries, they may be sent back. The Europeans, in actual service at the capital, are forbidden to intermeddle with the Tartars and Chinese, in order to strike at the root of the absurdities which have been propagated. In Pekin, where there are no more Europeans than those employed in the Mathematics, they will not be able clandestinely to spread false religion. The Viceroys and other magistrates of the other provinces shall be careful and diligent. If they find Europeans within their territories, they shall seize them, and act according to justice, in order, by such means, to exterminate root and trunk.—You shall conform to this decision of the Criminal Tribunal.

========

It is an awful reflection that at this age of the world, in the nineteenth century, there should be found any of the potentates of the earth who should dare thus to oppose the introduction of that gospel, which the Lord Jesus Christ, who is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, has commanded to be preached to ALL NATIONS, and to EVERY CREATURE IN ALL THE WORLD. But we remember it is said in the sure word of prophecy “The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought, he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel against the Lord and against his annointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord shall have them in derision: He hath placed his King upon his holy hill of Zion: And the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the saints of the Most High; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. And the nation and kingdom that will not serve him shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth, but woe unto him who striveth with his Maker.”

He which testifieth these things saith, Lo I come quickly. AMEN.—Even so, come Lord Jesus!

========

= FINIS.=

========

NOTES.

(_A._)—SOCRATES, the greatest, the wisest, and the best of the ancient philosophers, was born at Alopece, a village near Athens, in the 4th year of 77th Olympiad. His distinguishing character was that of a moral philosopher; and his doctrine concerning God and religion was rather practical than speculative. But he did not neglect to build the structure of religious faith upon the firm foundation of an appeal to natural appearances. He taught that the Supreme Being, though invisible, is clearly seen in his works; which at once demonstrate his existence and his wise and benevolent providence. He admitted, besides the one Supreme Deity, the existence of beings who possessed a middle station between God and man, to whose agency he ascribed the ordinary phenomena of nature, and whom he supposed to be particularly concerned about human affairs. Hence he declared it to be the duty of every one, in the performance of religious rites, to follow the customs of his country. At the same time he taught that the merit of all religious offerings depends upon the character of the worshiper and that the gods take pleasure in the sacrifices of none but the truly pious. Concerning the human soul, the opinion of Socrates, according to Xenophon, was that it is allied to the Divine Being, not by a participation of essence, but by a similarity of nature; that man excels all other animals in the faculty of reason; and that the existence of good men will be continued after death in a state in which they will receive the reward of their virtue. Although it appears that on this latter topic he was not wholly free whom uncertainty, the consolation which he professed to derive from this source in the immediate prospect of death, leaves little room to doubt that he entertained a real expectation of immortality: and there is reason to believe that he was the only philosopher of ancient Greece, whose principles admitted of such an expectation.

His death, by the hands of the common executioner, took place in the first year of the 96th Olympiad, and in the 70th year of his age. Just before he drank the fatal hemlock, he said to a friend, “Is it not strange, after all I have said to convince you that I am going to the society of the happy, that Crito still thinks that this body, which will soon be a lifeless corpse, is Socrates? Let him dispose of my body as he pleases, but let him not at its interment mourn over it as if it were Socrates!”

(_B._)—TERTULLIAN, a celebrated priest of Carthage, was the son of a centurion in the Militia, who served as a proconsul of Africa. He was educated in the Pagan religion; but being convinced of its errors, embraced christianity, and became a zealous defender of the faith. He married it is said after his baptism. Afterwards he entered into holy orders and went to Rome, where, during the persecution under the Emperor Severus, he published his “Apology for the Christians,” and in the beginning of the third century he embraced the sect of the Montanists, who maintained that the Holy Spirit made Montanus, their leader, his organ for delivering a more perfect form of discipline than what was delivered by the Apostles. the 96th Tertullian lived to a very great age, and died about the year 216.

(_C._)—TACITUS, CAIUS CORNELIUS, a celebrated Roman historian, and one of the greatest men in his time. He applied himself to the bar, in which he gained high reputation. Having married the daughter of Agricola, who was the Roman Consul, and Governor of Britain, the road to public honours was open to him under Vespasian and Titus, but during the sanguinary reign of Domitian, he and his friend Pliny retired from public affairs. The reign of Nerva restored those luminaries of literature to Rome, and Tacitus was engaged to pronounce the funeral oration of the venerable Virginius Rufus, the colleague of the Emperor in the consulship, and afterwards succeeded him as Consul in the year 97.—It is supposed he died in the end of the reign of Trajan. There have been five translations of his works into English.

(_D._)—HERODOTUS an ancient Greek historian, born at Halicarnassus in Caria, about the year before Christ, 484. He travelled over Egypt, Greece, Italy, &c. and thus acquired the knowledge of the history and origin of many nations. He then began to digest the materials he had collected, and composed that history which has preserved his name ever since. He wrote it in the Isle of Samos. Lucian informs us, that when Herodotus left Caria to go into Greece, he began to consider with himself what he should do to be for ever known and make the ages all to come his own. His history he presumed would easily procure him fame, and raise his name among the Grecians, in whose favour it was written, but then he saw that it would be tedious to go through all the cities of Greece, and recite it to the inhabitants of each city. He thought it best therefore, to take the opportunity of their assembling all together; and accordingly recited his work at the Olympic games, which rendered him more famous than those who had obtained the prizes. None were ignorant of his name, nor was there a single person in Greece who had not either seen him at the Olympic games, or heard those speak of him who had seen him there. There have been several editions of his works; two by Henry Stephens in 1570 and 1592; one by Gale at London, in 1679, and one by Gronovius at Leyden, in 1715.

(_E._)—JUSTIN MARTYR, one of the earliest and most learned writers of the eastern church, was born at Neapolis. the ancient Sychem of Palestine. His father, Priscus, a Gentile Greek, brought him up in his own religion, and had him educated in all the Grecian learning. To complete his studies he travelled into Egypt, and followed the sect of Plato, with whose intellectual notions he was much pleased. But one day walking by the sea side, wrapt in contemplation, he was met by a grave old man of venerable aspect; who falling into discourse with him, turned the conversation by degrees from the excellence of Platonism to the superior perfection of Christianity; and reasoned so well, as to raise in him an ardent curiosity to enquire into the merits of that religion; in consequence of which enquiry, he was converted about A. D. 132. On his embracing Christianity, he quitted neither the profession nor habit of a philosopher; but a persecution breaking out under Antoninus, he composed _an Apology for the Christians_; and afterwards presented another to Marcus Aurelius, in which he vindicated the innocence and holiness of the Christian religion against Crescens a Cynic philosopher, and other calumniators. He did honour to Christianity by his learning and the purity of his manners; and suffered martyrdom in 167.

(_F._)—POLYCARP, one of the most ancient fathers of the Christian church, was born towards the end of the reign of Nero, probably at Smyrna, where he was educated at the expence of Calista, a noble matron distinguished by her piety and charity. He was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and conversed with some of the other Apostles. Bucolus ordained him a deacon and catechist of his church, and upon his death he succeeded him in his bishopric, to which he is said to have been consecrated by St. John. Polycarp governed the church of Smyrna with apostolical purity till he suffered martyrdom in the 7th year of Marcus Aurelius. He was burnt at a stake on the 23d of April, A. D. 167, and many miraculous circumstances are said to have happened at his martyrdom, which Dr. Jortin gives full credit to, though some other great men treat them as fabulous, such as, that the flames divided and for some time formed an arch over his head without hurting him &c. He wrote some homilies and epistles, which are now lost, except that to the Phillippians, which contains short precepts and rules of life. St. Jerome informs us that in his time it was read in the public assemblies of the Asiatic churches.

(_G._)—CYPRIAN, a principal father of the Christian church, born at Carthage, about the end of the second or beginning of the third century. His parents were Heathens, and he himself continued such till the last twelve years of his life. He applied himself early to the study of oratory, and some of the ancients, particularly Lactantius, inform us that he taught rhetoric at Carthage with considerable applause. Cyprian’s conversion is fixed by Pearson to the year 246. He was at Carthage, where he had often employed his rhetoric in the defence of Paganism. It was brought about by one Cecilius, a priest of the church of Carthage, whose name Cyprian afterwards took; and between whom there ever after subsisted so close a friendship, that Cecilius at his death committed to Cyprian the care of his family. Cyprian was himself also a married man. As a proof of the sincerity of his conversion, he wrote in defence of Christianity, and composed his piece _De Gratia Dei_, which he addressed to Donatus. He next composed a piece _De Idolorum Vanitate_, upon the vanity of idols. Cyprian’s behaviour, both before and after his baptism, was so highly pleasing to the bishop of Carthage, that he ordained him a priest a few months after, though it was rather irregular to ordain a man thus in his very noviciate. But Cyprian was so extraordinary a person, and thought capable of doing such singular service to the church, that the usual period of probation was dispensed with. He consigned over all his goods to the poor, and gave himself up intirely to divine things. When, therefore, the bishop of Carthage died the year after, viz. A. D. 248, none was judged so proper to succeed him as Cyprian. The repose which the Christians had enjoyed during the last 40 years had greatly corrupted their manners; and therefore Cyprian’s first care, after his advancement to the bishopric, was to remove abuses. Luxury was prevalent among them; and many of their women were not strict in the article of dress. This led him to draw up his piece _De Habitu Virginum_, concerning the dress of young women, in which, besides what he says on that particular, he inculcates many lessons of modesty and sobriety. In 249, Decius issued very severe edicts against the Christians; and in 250, the Heathens in the circus and amphitheatre of Carthage, insisted upon Cyprian being thrown to the lions. Cyprian upon this withdrew from Carthage to avoid the fury of his persecutors. He wrote in the place of his retreat, pious and instructive letters to those who had been his hearers; and also to those pusillanimous Christians who procured certificates of the heathen magistrates, to shew that they had complied with the emperor’s orders in sacrificing to idols. At his return to Carthage he held several councils, on the repentance of those who had fallen off during the persecution, and other points of discipline; he opposed the schemes of Novatus and Novatianus; and contended for the re-baptizing of those who had been baptized by heretics. At last he died a Martyr in the persecution under Valerian and Gallienus, in 258. His works have been translated into English by Dr. Marshall.

(_H._)—HOTTINGER, JOHN HENRY, a native of Zurich, in Switzerland. He was born in 1620, professed the oriental languages and was greatly esteemed. He was drowned, with part of his family, in the river Lemit, in 1667.

(_I._)—IRENEUS, bishop of Lyons, was born in Greece about A. D. 120. He was a disciple of Polycarp, by whom, it is said, he was sent into Gaul in 157. He stopped at Lyons, where he performed the office of a priest; and in 178 was sent to Rome, where he disputed with Valentinus, and his two disciples Florinus and Blastus. At his return to Lyons, he succeeded Photinus, bishop of that city; and suffered martyrdom in 202 under Severus. He wrote many works in Greek, of which there remains only a barbarous Latin version of his five books against heretics, some Greek fragments in different authors, and Pope Victor’s letter mentioned by Eusebius. The best editions of his works are those of Erasmus in 1526; of Grabe in 1702, and of Massuet, in 1710.

(_J._)—EUSEBIUS, one of the most learned men in his time, born in Palestine about the end of the reign of Gallienus. He was the intimate friend of Pamphilus the martyr, and after his death took his name. He was ordained bishop of Cesarea in 613. He had a considerable share in the contest relating to Arius, whose cause he and several other bishops defended, being persuaded that Arius had been unjustly persecuted by Alexander bishop of Alexandria. He assisted at the council of Nice in 325; when he made a speech to the Emperor Constantine on his coming to the council, and was placed next him on his right hand. He was present at the council of Antioch, in which Eustathius bishop of that city was deposed; but though he was chosen by the bishop and the people of Antioch to succeed him, he refused it.

In 335, he assisted in the council of Tyre held against Athanasius: and at the assembly of bishops at Jerusalem, at the dedication of the church there. By these bishops he was sent to the Emperor Constantine to defend what they had done against Athanasius; when he pronounced the panegyric on that Emperor, during the public rejoicings in the 30th year of his reign. Eusebius died in the year 338.

(_K._>)—SABELLIUS, who gave rise to the sect of the Sabellians. He was a native of Lybia, and a philosopher of Egypt. He taught that the word and the Holy Spirit are only virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; and maintained that he who is in heaven is the father of all things; that he descended into the virgin, became a child, and was born of her as a son: and that having accomplished the mystery of our salvation, he diffused himself on the Apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost. He lived and died in the third century.

(_L._)—ARIUS, who lived in the fourth century, the head and founder of the Arians, a sect who denied the eternal divinity and substantiality of the word. At the council of Nice, in 325, the doctrines of Arius were condemned, and he was banished by the Emperor, all his books were ordered to be burnt, and capital punishment denounced against all who dared to keep them.—After five years banishment he was recalled to Constantinople, where he presented the Emperor with a confession of his faith, drawn up so artfully that it fully satisfied him. Notwithstanding this, Athanasius now bishop of Alexandria, refused to admit him and his followers to communion. This so enraged them, that, by their interest at court, they procured that prelate to be deposed and banished. But the church of Alexandria still refusing to admit Arius into their communion, the Emperor sent for him to Constantinople; where upon delivering in a fresh confession of his faith, in terms less offensive, the Emperor commanded Alexander the bishop of that church to receive him the next day into his communion, but that very evening Arius died. The manner of his death was rather extraordinary: as his friends were conducting him in triumph to the great church of Constantinople, Arius stepped aside and immediately expired; his bowels gushing out, owing, as was suspected, to poison.

(_M._)—CONSTANTINE the great, the first Emperor of the Romans who embraced Christianity. Dr. Anderson in his _Royal Genealogies_, makes him not only a native of Britain, but the son of a British princess. It is certain that his father Constantius was at York, when, upon the abdication of Dioclesian, he shared the Roman empire with Galerius Maximus in 305, and that he died in York in 306, having first caused his son Constantine to be proclaimed Emperor by his army and by the Britons. Galerius at first refused to admit Constantine to his father’s share in the imperial dignity; but after having several battles, he consented in 308. Maxentius who succeeded Galerius, opposed him; but was defeated and drowned himself in the Tiber. The Senate then declared Constantine _first_ Augustus, and Licinius his associate in the empire in 313. These Princes published an edict, in their joint names in favour of the Christians; but soon after Licinius, jealous of Constantine’s renown, conceived an implacable hatred against him, and renewed the persecutions against the Christians. This brought on a rupture between the Emperors; and a battle, in which Constantine was victorious. A short peace ensued; but Licinius having shamefully violated the treaty, the war was renewed; when Constantine totally defeating him, he fled to Nicomedia, where he was taken prisoner and strangled in 323. Constantine now become sole master of the whole empire, immediately formed the plan of establishing Christianity as the religion of the state; for which purpose, he convoked several ecclesiastical councils; but finding he was likely to meet with great opposition from the Pagan interest at Rome, he conceived the design of founding a new city, to be the capital of his Christian empire. He died in the year 337, in the 66th year of his age, and 31st of his reign.

(_N._)—SOCRATES, an ecclesiastical historian, born at Constantinople, in the beginning of the reign of Theodosius; he professed the law, and pleaded at the bar; whence he obtained the name of _Scholasticus_. He wrote an ecclesiastical history from the year 309, where Eusebius ended, down to 440, and wrote with great exactness and judgment. An edition of Eusebius and Socrates, in Greek and Latin, with notes by Reading, was published in London, in 1720.

(_O._)—ATHANASIUS, a bishop of Alexandria, and the great opposer of the Arians, was born in Egypt. He followed Alexander in the council of Nice, in 325, where he disputed against Arius, and the following year was made bishop of Alexandria; but in 335 was deposed by the council of Tyre: and by the Emperor Constantine was banished to Treves. The Emperor, two years after, ordered him to be restored to his bishopric: but on his return to Alexandria, his enemies brought fresh accusations against him, and chose Gregory of Cappadocia to his see; which obliged Athanasius to go to Rome to reclaim it of Pope Julius. He was there declared innocent in a council held in 342, and in that of Sardica in 347, and two years after was restored to his see by order of the Emperor Constance; but after the death of that prince, he was again banished by Constantius, on which he retired into the desarts. The Arians then elected one George in his room; who being killed in a popular faction under Julian, in 360, Athanasius returned to Alexandria, but was banished under Julian, and restored to his see under Jovion. He was also banished by Valens in 367 and afterwards recalled. He ended this troublesome life on the 2d of May, 373.

(_P._)—THEODORET, bishop of St. Cyricus, in Syria, in the fourth century, and one of the most learned fathers in the church. He was born A. D. 386, and was the disciple of Theodorus of Mopsuestes, and Chrysostom. Having received holy orders, he was with difficulty persuaded to accept of the bishopric of Cyricus, about A. D. 420. He displayed great frugality in the expences of his table, dress, and furniture, but spent considerable sums in improving and adorning the city of Cyricus. Yet his zeal was not confined to his own church: he went to preach at Antioch, and the neighbouring towns; where he became admired for his eloquence and learning, and had the happiness to convert multitudes of people. It is supposed he died about the year 457. There are still extant Theodoret’s excellent _Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles_, and on several other books of the Holy Scriptures.

(_Q._)—GREGORY NAZIANZEN, from Nazianzum, a town of Cappadocia, of which his father was bishop. He was born in 324, at Azianzum, a village near it, and was one of the brightest ornaments of the Greek church, in the fourth century. He was made bishop of Constantinople, in 379, but finding his election contested by Timotheus, bishop of Alexandria, he voluntarily relinquished his dignity about 382, in the general council of Constantinople. His works are extant, in two volumes, printed at Paris in 1609. His style is said to be equal to that of the most celebrated orators of ancient Greece.

(_R._)—PORPHYRIUS, a famous platonic philosopher, born at Tyre in 233, in the reign of Alexander Severus. He was the disciple of Longinus, and became the ornament of his school at Athens; from whence he went to Rome, and attended Plotinus, with whom he lived six years. After Plotinus’ death he taught philosophy at Rome with great applause; and became well skilled in polite literature, geography, astronomy, and music. He lived till the end of the third century, and died in the reign of Dioclesian. He was an enemy to Christianity, and wrote a large treatise against it, which is lost. The Emperor Theodosius the Great caused it to be burnt.

(_S._)—SAINT JEROME, a famous doctor of the church, and the most learned of all the Latin fathers, was the son of Eusebius; and was born at Stridon, a city of ancient Pannonia, about A. D. 340. He studied at Rome under Donatus the learned grammarian. After embracing the Christian religion, and being baptized, he went into Gaul. In 372, he retired into a desart in Syria, where he was persecuted for being a Sabellian, because he made use of the word _Hypostasis_, as used by the council of Rome in 369. This obliged him to go to Jerusalem, where he studied the Hebrew language, to acquire a more perfect knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; and consented to be ordained, provided he should not be confined to any particular church. In 381, he went to Constantinople to hear Gregory of Nazianzen; and in 382 returned to Rome, where he was made secretary to Pope Damasus. He then instructed many Roman ladies in piety and the sciences, which exposed him to the calumnies of those whom he zealously reproved for their irregularities; and Pope Siricius, not having all the esteem for him, which his learning and virtue justly entitled him to, he returned to Bethlehem, where he wrote against heretics. He had a contest with John of Jerusalem and Rufinius about the Origenists; and was the first who wrote against Pelagius. He died on the 30th of September, 420, about 80 years of age. His works are voluminous, in eleven volumes folio. His style is lively and animated, and sometimes sublime.

(_T._)—JULIAN, a famous Roman Emperor, styled _The Apostate_, because he professed the Christian religion before he ascended the throne, but afterwards openly embraced Paganism, and endeavoured to abolish Christianity. He made no use of violence, however, for this purpose; but behaved with a politic mildness to the Christians; recalled all who had been banished on account of religion under Constantius; and endeavoured to pervert them by caresses, and by temporal advantages, covered over by artful pretences: but he prohibited Christians to plead before courts of justice, or to enjoy any public employments. He even prohibited their teaching polite literature, well knowing the great advantages they drew from profane authors, in their attacks upon Paganism and irreligion. Though he on all occasions shewed a sovereign contempt for the Christians whom he stiled _Galileans_, yet he was sensible of the advantage they obtained by their virtue and the purity of their manners; and therefore incessantly proposed their example to the Pagan priests. At last, however, when he found that all other methods failed, he gave public employments to the most cruel enemies of the Christians, when the cities in most of the provinces were filled with tumults and seditions, and many of them were put to death. Historians mention that Julian attempted to prove the falsehood of our Lord’s prediction with respect to the temple at Jerusalem, by rebuilding it; but that all his endeavours served only the more perfectly to verify it. Julian being mortally wounded in a battle with the Persians, is said, to have catched in his hand some of the blood which flowed from his wound, and throwing it towards heaven, cried, _Oh Galilean thou hast conquered_. Theodoret relates, that Julian discovered a different disposition, and employed his last moments in conversing with Maximus the philosopher, on the dignity of the soul. He died, however, the following night in the 32d year of his age.

(_U._)—SOZOMEN, an ecclesiastical historian of the 5th century. He was born in Bethulia, a town of Palestine; he was educated for the law, and became a pleader at Constantinople. He wrote an abridgement of ecclesiastical history, in two books, from the ascension of our Saviour to the year 323. This compendium is lost, but a continuation in nine books is still extant. He seems to have copied Socrates, who wrote a history of the same period. The style of Sozomen is more elegant; but in other respects he falls short of that writer, displaying through the whole book an amazing credulity, and a superstitious attachment to monks and a monastic life. The best edition of Sozomen is that of Robert Stephens in 1544. He has been translated and published by Valesius, and republished with additional notes by Reading, at London, 1720, in 3 volumes folio.

(_V._)—CHRYSOSTOM ST. JOHN, a celebrated patriarch of Constantinople, and one of the most admired fathers of the Christian Church, was born of a noble family at Antioch about A. D. 347. He studied rhetoric under Libavius, and philosophy under Andragathus: after which he spent some time in solitude in the mountains near Antioch, but the austerities he endured having impaired his health he returned to Antioch where he was ordained deacon by Meletius. Flavian Meletius’ successor, raised him to the office of presbyter five years after; when he distinguished himself so greatly by his eloquence, that he obtained the surname of _Chrysostom_ or _Golden mouth_. Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying in 397, St. Chrysostom, whose fame was spread throughout the whole empire, was unanimously elected by both clergy and laity. The Emperor Arcadius confirmed his election, and caused him to leave Antioch privately, where the people were very unwilling to part with him. He was ordained bishop on the 26th of February, 398. He differed with Theophilus of Alexandria, who got him deposed and banished; but he was soon recalled. After this, declaiming against the dedication of a statue erected to the empress, she banished him to Cucusus in Armenia, a most barren and inhospitable place; afterwards as they were removing him from Petyus, the Soldiers treated him so roughly that he died by the way, A. D. 407. The best edition of his works, is that published at Paris in 1718, by Montfaucon.

(_W._)—DOMINIC DE GUZMAN, the founder of the religious order called Dominicans. He was born at Calaroga in old Castile, in 1170. He preached with great fury against the Albigenses, when Pope Innocent 3d made a croisade against that unhappy people, and was inquisitor at Languedoc, where he founded his order in 1215. He died in 1221, at Bologna and was canonized.

J. PERKINS, Printer, Bowlalley-Lane, Hull.

Transcriber’s Note

The system of footnotes is sometimes complicated. Several longer footnotes are themselves supplied with footnotes. On occasion, the traditional placement _after_ the annotated text is reversed, and the note _precedes_.

Finally, the endnotes are themselves somewhat disorganized. Each is referred to in the text by an unnumbered (asterisk or dagger) footnote referring to an endnote, e.g.:

* See note [B] at the end of the volume.

However, there are a number of errors. The endnotes for Tertullian (B), Tactitus (C), and Herodotus (D) are referred to incorrectly as C, D B in the text. Notes U and V (for Julian and Sozomen) are reversed in the endnotes. Note U (Sozomen) is referred to as [X] but Note X describes Dominic de Guzman. However, the footnote in the text for de Guzman refers to [Z], which does not exist. The endnote for Chrysostom (W) is referred to the the footnotes as Y, which does not exist. J also does not exist, either in the endnotes or in footnotes.

To avoid the many confusions, these footnote references to the endnotes as well as the endnotes themselves, have been resequenced from A to W, in the order of their appearance in the endnotes and the footnote references have been corrected to direct the reader to the correct place. This means that the corresponding footnotes may not occur in sequence.

This table summarizes the various errors regarding the endnotes.

Name Endnote Footnote Tertullian B C Tactitus C D Herodotus D B Julian V U Sozomen U V Chrysostom W Y Dominic de Guzman X Z

The endnotes have been resequenced as follows:

A Socrates B Tertullian C Tacitus D Herodotus E Justin Martyr F Polycarp G Cyprian H Hottinger I Irenus J Eusebius K Sabellius L Arius M Constantine N Socrates (of Constantinople) O Athanasius P Theodoret Q Gregory Nazianzen R Porphyrius S Saint Jerome T Julian U Sozomen V Chrysostom St. John, W Dominic de Guzman

On p. 149, a footnote (note 245 here), referring to the Buckley edition of Jacques de Thou’s _Historia du temporis_ had no reference in the text. One has been placed at the beginning of the extended quotation beginning on that page, which seems the most likely referent.

On p. 288, the third footnote (note 300 here) had no reference in the text. It most likely refers to the final sentence in the section, regarding the Langrave of Hesse Cassel, and has been placed there.

On p. 317, the fifth footnote (note 325 here) had no reference in the text. It most likely introduced the final paragraph of the page, and has been placed there.

On p. 395, the fifth footnote (note 403 here) contains two separate references to verses in Romans 14, and for some reason is referred to twice in the text, each to one of those verses.

On p. 396, the fifth footnote anchor (412 here) was not present in the text, but matches correctly the reference to 1 Corinthians, 13.1, and has been added at the beginning of the quotation.

Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraph in which they are referenced.

Lapses in punctuation of the editorial apparatus have been corrected without notice here.

There are copious quotations, some of which were not properly opened or closed. Where it was possible to determine their scope by consulting the sources, punctuation has been added and noted below.

Given the publication date, latitude in spelling was given except where it seemed obvious that the errors were most likely to be the printer’s. These have been corrected, and are noted below. The references are to the page and line in the original. Where are third number is found, the reference is to the line within the nth footnote on the page (e.g. 116.3.2 refers to the 2nd line of the 3rd footnote on p. 116.).

iii.14 the grand [sourses] of persecution _sic_ iv.15 the names of those noblem[a/e]n and Replaced. others 8.8 “in favour of church power and Added. authority,[”] 15.1 the Earl of Fin[d]later Inserted. 40.22 Persecutions by Antiochus Ep[h]iphanes Removed. 45.17 He tell[s] us Added. 78.2.1 Theod. E. H. l. 1. c. [3]. Unclear. 104.1 subject to other punishments.[”] Added. 130.17 [“]Hunnerick,[227] the Arian king of the Removed. Vandals 134.25 the blood of the martyrs of Jesus[./,] Replaced. 223.29 w[h]ere, according to the custom Inserted. 226.3 Some penances are hon[a/o]rary Replaced. 226.27 the[ y/y ]are avoided by all Corrected. 231.35 to be charged with a lie?[”] Added. 233.33 pronou[u/n]ced Mark Anthony Inverted. 235.20 the most horrible [b/h]abits Replaced. 250.29 [re/ac]cording to the custom of a Replaced. triumph 251.36 they begin with c[e]lebrating Inserted. 258.21 seriou[s]ly and gravely admonished Inserted. 259.16 they should be[c]ome irregular Inserted. 264.13 Pro[s/t]estant and Catholic families Replaced. 264.33 the boundaries of the British Replaced. Empire[,/.] 268.1.5 again[s]t whom the Europeans made war. Inserted. 268.2.1 Monsie[u]r Dellon Inserted. 268.2.3 at which he walked barefoot[,/.] Replaced. 275.1.70 who had ass[s]embled Removed. 275.1.82 summo[u/n]ed forth those miserable Inverted. victims 276.1 [‘]I had already discovered Added. 278.3 [“/‘]That a greater number Replaced. 278.5 were before necessary;[”] Added. 278.8 within the walls of the inquisition[,/.] Replaced. 279.8 it was not permitted to any pe[s/r] to Replaced. see 281.28 in the cells of the inquisition?[’] Added. 290.1 and he calls God to witnes[s] Added. 293.35 was sup[p]orted by Servetus’s complaint Inserted. 296.8 the punishment he deserves.[”] Added. 301.13 in his pen[e/i]tential habit Replaced. 306.1 as would be zealo[n/u]s even to blood Inverted. 309.9 who violated the laws of God.[”] Added. 328.4 opinions of Mr. Montague;[”] Added. 339.14 upon pain of eternal damnation;[”] Added. 317.13 rendered it a public grievance.[”] Added. 318.2 the rubbish of the people.[”] Added. 319.23 so that he may gain by it[.]” Inserted. 321.6 “[a/A]t the bishop’s approach Capitalized. 322.18 he received the [s]acrament Added. 324.34 to cry him up for their proselyte.[”] Added. 325.27 [“/‘]Doctissimi eorum, quibuscunque Replaced. egi.[”/’] 325.32 [“/‘]It were no hard matter to make a Replaced. reconciliation, if a wise man had the handling of it.[”/’] 328.30 more than I.’[”] Added. 329.19 the lewdest men in the kingdom[,/.] Replaced. 332.1.1 Com. Hist. p.[?] Page missing. 332.9 [“]Comines was looking on the sepulchre Removed. 338.13 and branding the other cheek.[”] Added. 338.19 the illegal and arbitrary mea[ ]ures Restored. 341.26 cont[r]ary to their former settlement Inserted. 343.15 Upon the restoration of the “royal Added. wanderer,[”] 349.9 the tolerating of d[s/i]ssenters Replaced. 354.28 “on penalty of the house of Added. correction.[”] 354.32 a judgment upon the land[.] Added. 368.7 there was a difficul[t]y yet remaining Inserted. 368.34 [“]doting about questions _sic_: spurious? 370.25 or for want of [?/t]hese, anathemas Replaced. 377.2 of any other persons whatso[e]ver. Inserted. 379.31 And this is the more un[n]ecessary Inserted. 384.7 they immedia[i/t]ely subscribed Replaced. 390.7 Away with this folly and Removed. [super-]superstition 390.10 of human frailty and ignorance[,/.] Replaced. 391.13 love thy neighbo[n/u]r as thyself. Inverted. 394.15 by my sufferings and death?[”] Added. 396.6 [“]Wherefore receive ye one another Added. 397.11 against which there is no law:[”] Added. 398.10 [“]Put off all these Added. 398.24 [“]The wisdom that is from above is pure Added. 400.7 God hath a[ ]right to punish frauds Spaced added. 400.12 to tempt the spirit of the Lord?[”] Added. 408.27 and him crucified,[”] Added. 410.32 “be had in double honour for their work Added. sake,[”] 448.33 two tho[n/u]sand signatures Inverted. 407.27 and perem[p]torily say Inserted. 407.28 b[n/u]t because they were to preach Inverted. 410.19 “over us in the Lord[”] Added. 416.3.1 Ibi[b/d] ... vol. 27, page 95. Replaced. 416.5 other adjacent places in Added. Staffordshire.[”] 417.1 and has always perem[p]torily refused Inserted. 418.4 An act to pr[e]vent preaching Inserted. 420.28 should be executed upon them.[’] Added. 427.31 of which which [I] here insert. Restored. 431.32 at the general session o[t/f] the peace Replaced. 446.34 has never been impu[ng/gn]ed Transposed. 448.18 three members be competent to act.[”] Removed. 449.10 bring the subject forwards for Inserted. d[i]scussion 452.20 w[h]ere the nature of the Bill Inserted. 453.28 might far prepond[e]rate Inserted. 459.30 We are not at liberty to with[h]old Inserted. 464.24 members of the establish[ed] Church Added. 469.37 _[(]Hear!)_ Added. 471.1 gave a bond to a clergym[e/a]n Replaced. 477.3 [“]In May last the General Committee Removed. No closing quote. 486.17 the dissem[m]ination of Divine truth Removed. 494.12 one thousand eight hundred and Added. _________.[”] 503.23 I am a Christian and a Pro[s]testant Removed. 505.9 horrid Edic[ t/t ]recently issued Space moved. 508.4 If they find Europeans within their Removed. territor[it]ies 508.27 whose kingdom is an everlasting Inserted. kin[g]dom 510.7 the 96th Ol[my/ym]piad Transposed. 510.25 T[u/e]rtullian lived to a very great age Replaced. 511.6 He then b[e]gan Inserted. 512.1 On his embracing Chri[s]tianity Inserted. 514.1 a native of [T/Z]urich, in Switzerland. Replaced. 515.35 that his father Co[u/n]stantius Inverted. 520.5 a celebrated pa[r]triarch Removed.