in which one great prelate presides over the whole *." What he means by the former words, besides indeterminate abuse, perhaps he could not easily explain. That there are different ranks of men in civil government, was never held to be an objection against it: and where is the harm of it in ecclesiastical? In the presbyterian hierarchy, one is raised considerably above another, though the preference usually may be temporary: and their acts of power have been as enormous, as those of the English bishops formerly: and are much greater than those of the English bishops now. In his favourite comparison of our church to the Romish, the Doctor quite mistakes the matter. Not one, but two prelates, preside over the church of England; and four over her sister-church of Ireland: which grievously spoils the similitude, that he would make out. And all these preside in subordination to the king, as he well knows; though he disingenuously hints a doubt of it by his ironical words, I hope t; at the same time that, I believe, he would deny it to be in subordination to the king, that he presides over the West church in Boston. As to the dirt, which he mentions: if some clergymen of our church are very low in the world, so are some of every church; nor do they deserve scorn for it, but compassion. And that any of ours are so high, as to do harm, or cause fear, by their elevation, the persons amongst whom they live, find not: and he, who is placed so remote from them, had better judge by the experience of others, than by his own heated imagination. Bishops, in his language, are "the mitred lordly successors of the fishermen of Galilee ." Now if mi tres offend him, our bishops wear none. If they are ⚫ Page 67. + Page 64. + Page 128. styled lords, it is because, by the ancient constitution of our country, they sit in the upper house of parliament: where, I believe, they are thought as useful members as the rest. And I know not, whether the Doctor's modesty would propose, that our constitution should be altered in this respect, or whether a much wiser man could foresee the consequences of such an alteration. Men may be lords, without being lordly: and they, who have professed to abhor the name, have carried the disposition of domineering to the height; and lorded it over the consciences and the liberties of others, as much as any who have worn higher titles. What intimation lies concealed under the terms, fishermen of Galilee; and whether, in the Doctor's opinion, all ministers of Christ are to follow some trade; he hath not explained, nor told us what his own is. But certainly reviling his brethren is a very bad one. He also charges the church of England with persecution; and particularly with driving out the ancestors of the present inhabitants of New England into that country *. Now it is a matter of notoriety, that the lawfulness of persecution is no doctrine of our church and there are few of its members, if any, now, who approve it, or do not detest it. But we must acknowledge, that, when the errors of the church of Rome were cast off, this was not immediately perceived to be one by almost any of the protestant communions. The church of England was but like others; and the dissenters from it had not the least degree more of a tolerating spirit, perhaps not so much. There were amongst them peaceable men, and so there were amongst us. But in general, their avowed aim was, not exemption for themselves, Page 129. but the destruction of the ecclesiastical establishment*. On this they were treated too severely, and they returned the treatment to the full, as soon as they were able, in the total overthrow of church and state. Far from exaggerating, I choose not to mention the particulars of their behaviour. Every good man must lament the faults of both sides; but to inveigh against one with bitterness, and leave it to be imagined that the other was innocent, which the Doctor doth, I hope he will see on recollection is extremely unjust. In the Platform of Discipline, agreed upon in the synod of Cambridge in New England in 1648, and published by Mr. Neale, in his History of that country, it is declared, that "heresy is to be restrained and punished by the civil magistrate; and that if any churches grow schismatical, or walk contrary to the rule of the word, he is to put forth his coercive power, as the matter shall require †." Accordingly Mr. Neale himself very honestly confesses, that "the churches of New England were formerly very uncharitable to those who differed from them, and had no notions of liberty of conscience, but were for forcing men to their public assemblies by fines and imprisonments." On their putting to death several Quakers, as they did before and after the Restoration, till an order from king Charles the Second prohibited them §, he hath these words: "Now it appeared, that the New England puritans were no better friends to liberty of conscience than their adversaries; and that the question between them was not, whether one party of Christians should oppress another, but who See this fully proved in Maddox's Vindication of the Church of England. + Vol. ii. p. 306. Vol. ii. p. 248, 249. § Vol. i. p. 834. should have that power*." Nay, the Quakers affirm, that "they who had loudly cried out of the tyranny and oppression of the bishops in Old England, from whom they fled; when settled in a place where they had liberty to govern, made their little finger of cruelty bigger than ever they found the loins of the bishops t." Dr. Mayhew indeed saith, that "severities are used against the Quakers, much less under the notion of their being dissenters from the public mode of worship, than of their being disturbers of the peace and religious assemblies t. But still severities were used against them on the former account; and they justly observe in Mr. Neale, that offences of the latter kind "have never been thought worthy of death by any civilized nation §." But the Doctor asks, "supposing the New Englanders to have persecuted the Quakers, from whom did they learn this practice? Episcopalians certainly should lay their hands upon their mouths." Now the plain truth is, that all protestants learnt this practice from the church of Rome, and all should lay their hands upon their mouths. But the Doctor hath no right to open his as wide as he pleases, and require us to shut ours. God be thanked, the members of our church are grown wiser and milder; the dissenters in general, I am fully persuaded, are so too: and it is high time, that such of both parties, as are not, should. But performances, like the Doctor's, cannot surely contribute to this good end among either. He assures us indeed at the beginning, that he hath a "regard to truth and justice," with an "aversion to controversy¶;" and at the end, that "he honours candid Vol. i. p. 329. + Grove's Preface to Bishop's New England judged. Page 79. Vol. i. p. 331, 332. Page 80. ¶ Page 7. and moderate men of all denominations, and would not unnecessarily give offence to any person of the episcopal persuasion *." One must suppose, that he believes himself; and as far as is possible, I would believe him also. Some persons are strangely subject to sudden gusts of passion, and say and do things in them, for which they are heartily sorry the next hour. But were this the Doctor's case in writing, he would blot out the injurious expressions which had dropt from his pen. Therefore his malady hath a deeper root in his frame, and influences him more constantly, though it may be without his perceiving it. For I am exceedingly unwilling to think, that he inserts his qualifying and healing clauses with an artful design to procure himself a dispensation for his outrages. However that be, his professions, that he doth not intend to do what he hath been doing just before, and doth again soon after with all his might, are protestations against fact, which cannot be admitted. But whatever concessions a gentleman of this turn makes to his adversaries, are to be received with great regard, for one may be sure they are not too large. Let us therefore begin with these, in considering his remarks on the charter and conduct of the Society. He owns, that "it hath a right to plant churches, to support missions and schools, &c. in many of the British American colonies ;" and adds, that "no one who hath ever read the charter, can possibly imagine, that its care and charity ought to be confined to the heathen slaves in, or the savages bordering on, the plantations †." Yet many have been led both to imagine and to assert this, merely from its name. It is hoped that for the future they will confess and remember their mistake. He owns likewise, that in three * Page 145. † Page 12, 13. |