« ForrigeFortsett »
fatergent. At the interview between the priest and the prelate, (see P: 365,) the former did not, it seems, abruptly declare to the fatter that he never would read the prayer for the success of his Majesty's arms; but assumed a respectful and even submissive cone. So far, our statement may be deemed inaccurate, and we take (hame to ourselves for such inaccuracy. But no attempt has been made to invalidate our conclusions ; for, the respect and submission of the priest went no farther than his tongue : he never did, he never would, read the prayer, which it was his duty to read, and the compromise which we noticed actually took place. Having entered into this explanation, and discharged our duty to the public, we shall now bid adieu to this ungrateful subject, expressing our sovereign contempt for the individual, who, to the profligacy of refusing to pray for bis Sovereign, can add the mearness of belying the sentiments of his beast for the promotion of his interest.
One other matter for explanation remains. The learned prelate in question conceiving himself to have been attacked in the Review, for having favoured the growth of Schisın, by the encouragement of sectaries, has, through the same medium, peremptorily denied the fact of having given such encouragement. This denial we record with pleasure, and, we trust, it will be considered, by the Clergy of his diocese, and more particularly by such of them as attended the late meeting at Sion COLLEGE, as a full and satisfactory confutation of all the reports which envy or malevolence may have raised on that fubject. We here take a respectful leave of his Lordfhip. ' It has been whispered to us, in another quarter, that the harsh appellation
& foul calumny'! has been applied to the Review which has excited so much notice. This, if true, is an attack on our character which we should deserve were we to suffer it to pass unnoticed. We not only repeltbe foul accufation, with the indignant fpirit of upsight independence, but throw down the gauntlet to our accusers, and dare them to the field. If they will manfully stand forward we are prepared to substantiate our facts by irrefragable proofs. While we icorn to persevere in error, no consideration Thall induce us to defert the standard of truth. We shall now suffer our correspondents to fpeak on the interesting topic of Schism and Schismatics.
To the Editor,
THE case of the two lectureships to which the Anti. Jacobin Review for April refers, is more pointed and more singular, than even there stated,
The lecturel ip at Chelsea was an old established lectureship on the Sunday afternoon. The lectureship at St. Margaret's, Lothbury, was a totally new inftitution for the Thursday evening. The design did not originate with the parishioners; and it was uniformly opposed by the worthy Rector.
It is well known that several of the parishioners disapproved of the appointment of a lecturer, though they were weak enough to fign a paper in recommendation of Mr, Gunn, because they said they knew the Rector would reject it.-And, therefore, they made this compromise.
The Rector of Chelsea rejected Mr. H. a decent fair character, chough legally elected by the majority of the parishioners,
The Rector of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, rejected Mr. G. from a novel appointment, unelected by the parishioners.
Did the Bishop of the diocese interfere with the Rector of Chelsea ? Why then should he interfere with the Rector of St. Margaret's ?
The one case was not near fo strong as the other.
Why should the church of St. Margaret's be fixed on for an intruder? Why might not the Cathedral of St. Paul's have been applied for? Here the right of interference seems to have been greater than in the present cafe.
In the case of the late Rector of Chelsea I have heard the following statement. As soon as the election closed, some warm, but not judi. cious, friends of Mr. H. set off to the Rector, than at Reading, to ask for the pulpit. Mr. C. was not pleased, and said, 'Gentlemen, do you ask for the pulpit as a matter of right, or as a matter of favour?' They were embarrassed, and imprudently infitted on the righr, which Ms. C. denied. I have no doubt but the pulpit would have been equally refused had they returned a different answer.
To the Editor.
AS your observations respecting the conduct of some Rectors, during the vacancy of lectureships, are highly interesting and important, I think it my duty to inform you of a transaction which Fefects a peculiar disgrace upon a Rector of one of the most populous parishes in London. At a meeting of the veftry to declare a lectureIhip vacant, he told them, that he thought it would be more conducire to the interests of the parish, not to proceed to an election, but for him to pay an afternoon preacher out of his own pocket; that if they chose an improper person, he had, by the law of the land, a negative upon their choice ; and the case of Cadogan against the parish of Chelsea was cited as a case in point. The Veltry determined that an election should take place, and several candidates preached their probationary sermons. As the Rector was so very cir. cumspect, it was very natural to have imagined that he would have heard the preachers, in order that he might decide who was the fittest person to preach to his congregation. However, he did not think proper to attend the churchi, and at the day of clection Mr. S. was cholen by a considerable majority. Mr. Gurney saying that the éleftion was not legal, and threatening to bring it before the King's Bench, the Rector hcatated for some time to sign Mr. S.'s certificate,
to enable him to get the Bishop of London's licence. As the majo. sity of the parishioners are of the lower class, they had the effrontery to say, that they were certain that the Rector would appoint Mr. S. as the period of collecting the Eafter offerings approached. He did as they conjectured. The Bishop of C. went one Sunday afternoon to hear the lecturer, who preached near an hour, afterwards they went into the Veftry, and his Lordship took occafion, for a confiderable time, to reprove him, both for the matter and manner of his discourse, and said, that he never heard such preaching in his life. I have related these circumftances to thew you how ill the interests of the ettablished church are consulted by those who are appointed its guar. dians. You seem to me in your last Review to have blamed our dio. ce an more than he deserves. He certainly is a timid man. But, in my opinion, the Rectors are more to be blamed than he. They wish to throw the onus upon him, when the law has given them a folemn and decisive negative upon the choice of the people. The law has wisely said, that none thall enter the Rector's pulpit without his express approbation. Mr. Cadogan acted firmly, and confiitently, in suffering none but Calvinifts to enter his pulpit.' Our tame pufil. lanimous Rectors, like children, go to the Bishop to learn their lesion, and are afraid to do what is right for the sake of a little temporal advantage. The Bishop of C. has disobliged the greater part of his parishioners; and, I am afraid, Sir, that whenever the election of lecturers is in the people, our churches will be filled with Methodists, and the pure rational and simple doctrines of the gospel be discarded. I feel a peculiar degree of anxiety in communicating these observations through the channel of your excellent work, and remain, Sir,
A Friend to the Church of England.
To tbe Editor.
I read, with much pleasure, your remarks on the Life cf Mr. Cadogan, in addition to which, permit me to observe, that it would be eaty to prove that those who arrogate to themselves, exclusively, the title of Evangelical Preachers, are not true members of the Church of England, in doctrine; and are Separatists in practice. They preach up the doctrine of John Ca vin, free, sovereign, discriminating Grace, which are called the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. Now what says the Church of England, founded on the literal sense of the holy Scripture!--The child is taught to say in the Catechism, that " Chriít hath redeemed me and all mankind." In the administration of the Lord's Supper, the Priest fays, “ the body and blood of Christ, which were given for you"— addresling himtelf individually to every communicant. The third article afferts that, “ Christ's offering once made is a perfect redempt'on, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and adual."
If, then, the Calvinistic sense of Scripture should be the true fente, I would alk, how can the Priest, with a safe conscience, adminifter the Sacrament, when he is perfuaded, as some are, that the person to whom he gives it and utters these words, is not a believer, · because not pri destinated, and therefore, that the consecrated elements cannot do him good, but harm.
Mr. Romaine was looked up to as more than a Bishop : the writer of this was present when the following dialogue paffed between him and a young man juft from Oxford, which was the first time he saw Mr. R. -Mr. R. “You are from Oxford, Sir?"-A.“ Yes, Sir."-R. Of what college."—A. “ Magdalen College."---R.“ Do you know Dr. Horne, the president?"-A. “ Yes, Sir, very well." .-R. “I knew Dr. Horne many years ago, and he then knew me and
master. Dr. Horne sticks now just where I was 40 years ago. I once went to hear him preach at Court, the fermon was Redeeming the Time, such ftuff, that I would not have picked it out of the duft if it had been under my feet: not one word of Jesus Christ in the whole.” I have seldom witneiled a greater inAance of incivility, spiritual pride, and infolent contempt The young Academic muft have been weak, indeed, if such abufe made any impression on him. The fermon in quellion is before the public. (See Vol. II. P. 239.) Let any one read it for himself, and he will experience no loss of time. If it was not a sort of ao insult to the memory of Dr. Horne, I would desire any one to compare his Commentary on the Psalms, with Mr. Romaine's Commentary on Solomon's Song. One of the Reviewer's said on Mr. Romaine’s Life of Faith. -" It was a pity that the Life of Faith thould be the death of Common Sense.” But I would go farther, and lay, that the life of such Faith, such solitary, modern, antinomian Faitb, is the death of all reason, all piety, all humility, all meekness. A few favourite notions are denominated Faith, and this Faith is exalted above every Chritian
may exclude every moral virtue; and yet this shall be looked on as doing the greateit honour to the Gospel of Christ. I knew Mr. Romaine well. He had certain abilities; but he was the idol and the tyrant of his people (as they were called): tbry flattered while they feared him. He insulted while he exercised his influence over them, and received their liberal favours. He was a proud, infolent, peevith man. He loved money; though he would occasionally do a geneyous action in his own way. On being applied to relieve a person in much distress, he rudely disinifled the application with “'P'thaw, what is that to me?”. And the same day fent the distreiled person a vol. note.
A Friend to the Eublifoment.
To the Editor. SIR, T is but very lately your Anti-Jacobin has come under my the commendations it deserves, and it is with pleafure 1 perceive
shat, not a few of the leaven of the old lump of last century gnash Bheir teeth at it, and smile horribly a ghastly grin. In one of the numbers I have seen, there is a fomething which would put on the fhape of a defence of the Quakers,
Are there any men to egregiously absurd (not to use a harsher expression) as to deny that every member of a community who is enriched under the protection of, and secured in his prosperity by, its government ought to contribute to the defence of that com. munity and government? Yes, the Quakers. And their objection is conscience, a very convenient quality for several descriptions of men besides them. Without descending to personality, I shall consider them only collectively, as a body, whose principles and tenets were originally derived (but since considerably altered) from the most horrid basphemer and impostor that ever insulted the understanding of mankind, not excepting Mahomet himself.
Upon the occafion of their 'refuling to contribute towards the defence of their country it may not be improper to consider whether this delicate conscience of theirs be not the offspring of avarice rather than principle. I will ask them a few questions. Do they consider George Fox their original founder? Do they believe that he was inspired, as he himself pretended? If they do, let us hear what Gcorge lays upon the subject of war.
In his letter to Oliver Cromwell, he advises him to make war upon the Turks, and the all of Europe: his words are these, “0, Oliver, thou shouldit not have stood trifting about small things. Do not stand cumbering thyself about dirty Priests;" had he taken his advice, he adds, “ Hollanders had been thy subjects, Germany had given up to thy will, and the Spaniards had quivered like a dry leaf: the King of France should have bowed under his neck, the Pope should have withered as in the winter, the Turk in all his fatness should have smoaked; thou shouldst lave crumbled nations to dust, therefore let thy soldiers go forth with a free and willing heart, that though mayest rock nations as a cradle. For a mighty work hath the Lord to do in other nations, and their quakings and shaking are but entering. So is the word of the Lord God to thee, as a charge to thes from the Lord God." Here is a famous bottle-holder to Old Noll!
Now the charge is from the Lord God thro' his oracle George Fox, to Oliver, to let his foldiers go forth. Is this peace or war? Was it to fight or to preach? It was to crumble nations to dusi, to rock nations as a cradle. The letter was dated the 11th Month, 1659. But in their plea printed : 661, a distance of only two years, they say, " such of us whole principles were once fo, are changed even from that principle and practice of going to war and fighting." It is curious to remark the circumstances of the two periods, and the causes of so sudden a change of sentiment. A very shallow observer will immediately perceive, that when they had an opportunity to fight against kings and dirty priests, they would go forth as foldiers with a free and willing heart, but lo! when kings and priests obtain the dominancy again, they became as moek as lambs. The matter comes to this; George Fox pretended to inspiration,