The AMERICAN WHIG. [NUMB. I.]

BY this time I suppose, Dr. Chandler's Appeal has safely crossed the Atlantic; and if properly introduced to his superiours with those usual private advices of his brethren on this side the water (which for a particular reason, it is their interest should ever remain private) of what suc­cess it promises to the cause of Episcopacy in America; and how by the aid of a Bishop it is like to expand the gentle bosom of the church, so as to receive thousands and ten thousands of Fanatics, Enthusiasts, Methodists, Deists, Iroqu [...]is Indians, and West-India Blacks. If this, I say, hath been properly managed, it will doubt­less answer what without breach of charity, we may suppose at least a secondary motive of the reverend author in composing it; namely, to demonstrate to his benefactors, that his doctrine hath not been bestowed in vain. It certainly breaths a noble zeal for the church. Nay, in by and through the church, and so far as she is concerned in the premises, it seems to breath a zeal for religion it self. It proves, moreover, what all the Dissenters have always asserted; and what the Doctor and all his brethren have always denied— that the church of England in America, for want of the grand essential, for which the poor gentleman is now breaking his heart, never was the church of England but an independent church. It shews farther, what indeed doth not carry with it so clear a con­viction, that though this church hath hitherto been an episcopal church, and always well governed; it hath nevertheless never been an episcopal church; nor ever been governed at all. It sa­gaciously distinguishes between a primitive Christian, and a modern English Bishop. It assumes an unusual moderation; and so na­turally counterfeits the voice of a sheep, that it is not every reader who will discriminate it from that of a wolf. In fine, it be­moans, with deeper moans, than any of the most moanful shep­herds in pastoral, the numberless souls already perished through the neglect of his all important plan; and congratulates posterity, [Page 4]if not the hopes of rescuing them out of purgatory, at least on the prospect of speedily introducing a kind of millenium, by the episcopal triple discharge of ordination, confirmation and govern­ment, by virtue of which are to be converted Jews and Infidels, together with all and singular the Whites, Blacks and Browns, farther than from Dan to Beersheba, even from Lake Superiour to Pensacola.

By this time also, 'tis probable the author begins to plume him­self on the supposed unanswerableness of his performance; for he takes his leave, courteous reader with so terrific a defiance as though he was in very deed the Goliah of the fraternity; and would devour all his opponents like so many stripling Davids, at a single breakfast. Nay, I should not marvel if he had already drawn that marvellous conclusion, which by a new species of lo­gic, is infallibly to follow from suffering his appeal to remain unanswered; I mean, that in such case all the world must be pre­sumed to acquiesce in his proposal: That is, in plain English, every man must be presumed to adopt the principles contained in every book, how absurd soever he conceives them, unless he puts himself to the trouble of writing another book against it. Would not the Doctor think it hard to be thought a Romanist, merely because he has never published an answer to Cardinal Bellarmine? And is not this single question a full refutation of his darling in­ference? For my own part, with respect to any execution this re­markable performance is like to do among ourselves, where almost every intelligent reader is able, from his own personal knowledge, to contradict the facts upon which great part of it, and by far the most plausable part, is sounded; I should have been very willing to leave the author to triumph in his imaginary victory. But when I consider, that it will chiefly be read in a country, where, with a moderate share of address, people may be made to believe, that a man can jump into a quart bottle—that thousands of Ne­groes who never so much as heard the Gospel are notwithstanding virtual Churchmen—that what must inevitably ruin a country, is absolutely necessary to its welfare; and that less than half a mil­lion, is in reality three millions and more: When I reflect, I say, what pernicious consequences may be apprehended from even so slimsey a composition, among a people who either have no oppor­tunity of knowing, or will not be at the pains of inquiring into the truth of certain facts, as confidently asserted in the pamphlet, as if universally known to be true, when they are almost universally known to be otherwise; I cannot but think it my duty, to admi­nister an antidote to the poison: and to shew as well the falsity of the facts, as the futility of the reasoning, by which the appeal may [Page 5]impose on the weak and credulous. I shall therefore, without any apology of this man's having a tremor in his hand, or that one a torpor in his head, think myself sufficiently authorized as a friend of truth and of society, to prevent to the utmost of my power, the fatal, the tremendous mischiefs, which the appeal is so artfully calculated to introduce; but in the course of my speculations, I shall not think myself obliged scrupulously to adhere to the me­thod observed by the reverend Doctor. So systematical an attach­ment would perhaps not be relished in a number of weekly papers, which must from their respective conciseness, necessarily require too many pauses for a work of that nature. Besides, to relieve thy spirits, gentle reader, I shall often be obliged to quit the more so­lemn and polemic, for the gayer and more airy parts of the Doc­tor's lucubration. By this means thou wilt be enabled, after a short and refreshing interlude, to return with a keener appetite, to the dry crust of unsavoury controversey. I shall think myself even at liberty, should such a measure appear most conducive to thy edification or entertainment, to fall directly upon the centre, and so to move towards front or rear, as occasion requires. Nay I do not intend, by any preliminary engagements, to resign my right of beginning with the Nag's-head, and concluding with the preface. I shall, not withstanding this my non-conformity to esta­blished method fully consider every part of the pamphlet that re­spects the merits of the cause; or has the least tendency to intro­duce an evil more terrible to every man who sets a proper value either on his liberty, property or conscience, than the so greatly and deservedly obnoxious stamp-act itself.

Considering the encroachments that have lately been made on our civil liberties; and that we can scarcely obtain redress against one injurious project, but another is forming against us—consi­dering the poverty and distress of the colonies by the restrictions on our trade; and how peculiarly necessary it is, in these times of common calamity, to be united amongst ourselves; one could scarcely have imagined, that the most ambitious ecclesiastic should be so indifferent about the true interest of his native country, as to sow, at this critical juncture, the seeds of universal discord; and besides the deprivation of our civil liberties, lend his helping hand to involve us in ecclesiastical bondage into the bargain. Is this a time to think of episcopal palaces, of pontifical revenues, of spi­ritual courts, and all the pomp, grandeur, luxury and regalia of an American Lambeth? 'Tis true, the pamphlet is specious, and appears to ask nothing but what is highly reasonable: and could any man, above the capacity of an Ideot, really persuade himself, the Doctor and the Convention would content themselves with a Bishop, so limited and curtailed as be is pleased to represent his future Lordship; it were manifest injustice to deny them what in their [Page 6]opinion their eternal salvation so greatly depends upon. But it is not the primitive Christian Bishop they want. It is the modern, splendid, opulent, court favoured, law-dignified, superb, magnifi­cent, powerful prelate, on which their hearts are so intent. And that such a Bishop would be one of the worst commodities, that can possibly be imported into a new country, and must inevitably prove absolute desolation and ruin to this, I shall abundantly evince in the course of these speculations.

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [NO. II.]
To the respectable Public in America.

AS civil and religious liberty is the foundation of public happi­ness, and the common birth-right of mankind, it is the duty and interest of every individual, to keep a watchful eye over, and to cherish it with the utmost care and tenderness. Would we pre­serve the invaluable jewel, and act the part of true friends to our country, we ought to maintain a sacred jealousy, that it be not ravished from us by open violence, nor undermined by secret arti­fice and fraud. The most distant prospect of danger will alarm; and every attempt to rob us of our privileges, however artfully disguised, or varnished over with the specious pretence of public utility, will awaken our fears, and put us upon our guard. Nor indeed, without the highest reason, as the greatest danger arises from this quarter. So jealous and tenacious are mankind of their liberty, thet every attempt to deprive them of it, by open violence is generally fruitless. A direct attack will be resented, and repelled with heroic bravery; and next to life and property, men will most zealously contend for its preservation. Conscious of this, those in all ages, who have commenced tyrants, and undertaken to enslave mankind, have ever had recourse to artifice; and under pretext of the public good, have, by insensible degrees, introduced alte­rations into the civil and religious constitutions of their country; till the deluded people are gradually wormed out of their liberty, and at last find the shackles of slavery effectually rivetted.

This being the case, every new project proposed to the public, every attempted innovation, ought to be critically canvassed and examined, even in their remotest tendency and consequences; and adopted, if at all, with the utmost caution and reserve. Barely the novelty of any proposal is, in this light, sufficient to alarm our jealousy, and excite our vigilance. However plausible it may ap­pear at first view, or disguised with the colourable pretence of be­ing friendly to liberty, and promotive of public happiness; if we hastily acquiesce in, or without examination rashly receive it, we [Page 7]shall probably lament our folly; and when too late, feel the fatal effects of our temerity.

What led me into these reflections was the reading Dr Chandler's plea for an American episcopate, lately published in New-York.

The Scheme for sending Bishops into the colonies, has it seems been long under consideration. 'Tis above fifty years since it was first started; and some provision made for carrying it into execu­tion. It has been lately revived, and we hear, the advocates for it, both here and in England, have sanguine expectations of its speedy accomplishment. This revival of the project the Doctor tells us is in consequence of some late applications from these parts. No less than seven petitions we are told, have been transmitted by a certain convention of the episcopal clergy here, to some of the most respectable personages in England, earnestly soliciting Bi­shops for America; representing the deplorable condition of an unmitred church; boasting of their incredible numbers in the colonies; their distinguished and unshaken loyalty, and not spa­ring very injurious reflections upon, the other denominations, as seditious incendiaries, and disaffected to the king and government. With what truth these aspersions are cast upon you, my dear coun­trymen, and why at this juncture so vehemently urged, you must judge for yourselves. If they are just, and you are indeed such factious incendiaries, such disloyal subjects to the best of Kings as these addresses are said to insinuate, it highly concerns you to re­pent and reform: If not you will resent them in a manner becom­ing an injured people conscious of their own innocence, when basely and falsely traduced.

The Doctor calls his piece, an appeal to the public in behalf of the church of England; and as the grand design of it is to solicit an American episcopate, some may doubt the propriety of the title; and be at a loss what, in this case he means by appealing to the public. It is now generally known, that the ministry in England have rejected the proposal. As they must be supposed to speak the sentiments of their royal master, this must be construed a de­nial from the throne. Surely the Doctor means not to affront his Majesty, by appealing from the King to the people. To remove his suit from the sovereign to the subject, as to a higher tribunal. This would by no means comport with his professed loyalty; or be consistent with that zeal for the constitution and government at home, to which he and his brethren avow so warm an attachment. And yet, if this be not his meaning, it must be something very like it. Why else should he talk of appealing to the public? Why lay his grievances before the people; and expressly invite all objec­tors to propose their objections, to be freely and candidly debated before the tribunal of the public?

We have been told, that in answer to those petitions of the [Page 8] Doctor and his brethren, they have been ordered to be silent; to desist from future applications on the subject; and to leave the affair to the conduct of their superiours. Whether it was because the petitions were thought a little too pragmatical and assuming; or to contain something too warm and petulant, has not yet ap­peared. Be that as it will, it may perhaps not be amiss for the Doctor a little to consider, how far he approves himself an obedi­ent son of the church, in counteracting those orders; and in what light his appeal will in consequence be received at home.

However, as he and his brethren have seen sit, for reasons best known to themselves, to put the case upon this issue.—As they have in fact appealed from the judgment of the King and his mi­nisters, &c. to the people; and in form submitted their cause to the hearing and decision of the public; we shall readily follow them to this respectable tribunal, in full confidence of a just and equitable determination.

The question then submitted to you, my dear countrymen, is briefly this, viz. Whether it is reasonable and necessary, in the present state of the country, that a number of Bishops should be sent to reside, and exercise their functions in these American colonies; and whether the Church of England here, is really in a state of perse­cution, for want of such Bishops? That you, my respectable judges, may be able to determine the case impartially, the arguments ad­vanced by the Doctor in support of the measure, shall be fully considered, and the objections against his scheme, candidly and fairly stated. But as the limits allowed me, will not admit of this at present, it must be the subject of some future papers.

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. IV.]

If you approve of the following sentiments, I beg you'll publish them to prevent Episcopalians in general, from being the sub­jects of undistinguishing reproach.

SUCH a train of evils have followed the investiture of the Christian clergy with temporal powers and dignities, that it is impossible for a generous mind, to reflect upon the exemption of America from the dominion of rich and proud ec­ciesiastics, without exultation and transport. While the primitive Church was neglected or persecuted by the princes and nobles of this world, it spread and triumphed; but no sooner was it fostered and patronized by the great, than it became distinguished rather for corruption than piety; and manifold experience has evinced what our blessed Lord had declared, that his kingdom was so far from being of this world, that true Christianity, as tho' it scorned all secular aids, flourished best, when, instead of the smiles, it had the frowns and the contempt of the world. All history is in favour of these remarks; and therefore, tho' I am not against Kings becoming nursing fathers to the Church, yet has she no cause to thank them for all their flattering endowments, which tend to puff up the pride of her sons: This instead of nursing, is poisoning her; and it would be so far from promoting her in­terest, to make every successor of the apostles, as rich as a lord, (a condition which too many desire) that I believe the gospel harvest would in such case, find scarce a labourer to gather it in.

I was led to these reflections by the perusal of Doctor Chand­ler's lamentations for the want of Bishops in America: This gen­tleman thinks we have greatly suffered, and are exposed to still great­er hardships, for the want of this order of Clergymen amongst us; I say we, because I profess myself a Churchman, tho' ut­terly opposed to his project; and I hope a difference of sentiment upon this subject, will never be made a test, whether a man is, or is not, a true son of the Church. If a sincere approbation of the worship, discipline, and doctrine of the Church of England, is sufficient to merit the character, my claim to it is free from excep­tion; and had I my residence in England, it should not be for­feited for want of an acquiescence in, or indeed, if necessary, a contest for the Church, with all the temporal privileges and im­munities confirmed by the law of the land; because I am of opini­on, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to innovate [Page 31]with amendments in that country, without exposing the Church and kingdom to consequences ruinous to both.

But tho' a Churchman, I am an American Churchman, a mem­ber of the American episcopal Church; for in my judgement there is a real difference between an American Church of Englandman, if I may so speak, and an American Episcopalian. There are ma­ny civil and religious appendages and annexations, the undoubted rights of the Church of England in England, which Episcopa­lians in America cannot, as friends to this country, wish to see introduced. According to this distinction, I am in principle op­posed to tithes, Bishops, baronies, and a thousand other powers and peculiarities, occasioned by the liberality of popes and prin­ces, and the superstition of the vulgar.

Thus far, perhaps, I have given no great umbrage to the author of the Appeal; and I believe to but few of the Episcopa­lians of this continent. But I go farther than the Doctor and his advocates will perhaps think consistent with my profession as a churchman. And I confess the opposition to an Episcopate in America, gives so much ground for suspicion, as to render an as­signment of a few reasons necessary to vindicate my claim; these are too many to be crowded into the compass of a single letter, and if they are not better urged by others, will occasion a continua­tion of our correspondence. I shall at present confine myself to one single topic, and that is this,

With the Bishops we shall naturally have the introduction or establishment of spiritual or ecclesiastical courts.

The power of these judicatories is great and formidable; for the spiritual cognizance reaches to perjuries in Church matters, usury, assaults and batteries of Clergymen, brawlers in Churches, and Church-yards, marriage contracts, alimony, adultery, di­vorces, fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, absence from Church, with-holding contributions for building Churches, substracting legacies, temerary administration, or the obstructing the proof of wills, slander, disturbing the possession of pews or seats, substrac­tion of marriage portions; fees of judges, registers and proctors, and to all other offences prohibited by the canons of the Church.

As a Christian, I am not averse to the punishment of enormi­ties that bring reproach and scandal upon our most holy religion. As a Churchman, I hold, that the power to inflict it, belongs to the Bishop. As an Old England Churchman, I assert, that the Bishop's decree does legally expose the delinquent to civil inconve­niencies: But as an American Churchman, I would limit the power of the Church and clergy to a meer excommunication, or denial of the sacrament of the Lord's-supper, and give the far­ther punishment of the offences triable in England in the spiritual court, to the judges of the court of common law. For no man [Page 32]can insist, that the English Bishops have authority, jure divine, to all that extent of power they at present enjoy. As successors to the apostles, they can claim no right which their predecessors had not; and to me, the supposition is utterly incredible, that the Apostles either exercised, or claimed the authority which the Bishops of the Church of England now execute in their spiritual courts.

The Bishop's title is not derived from the apostolic commission: They are seized by the law of the land, and will hold their pre­heminencies till this law is altered, by king, lords and commons.

Lord Hale, who was no zealous advocate for the ecclesiastical courts, tells us, in his history of the common law, that every Bishop by his election and confirmation, even before consecration, had ec­clesiastical jurisdiction annexed to his office, as judex ordinarius within his diocese, and divers abbots antiently, and most arch dea­cons to this day, by usage, have had the like jurisdiction within certain limits and precincts.

The Bishop's right to open his court being therefore secured by the common law, and that being universally acknowledged to be the law of the colonies, his lordship will find no difficulty, after his diocese is established, to erect a tribunal, for good reasons long disgustful to the people of England; and which Americans dread to almost the same degree of horror, which they feel at the thoughts of the inquisition itself,

As the new Bishops will have the law on their side, so the de­pendent state of the judges in the provinces, will probably favour the design, not only of erecting those courts, but of extending them, in all doubtful cases, most to the advancement of episco­pal claims. To be the better understood, I will put a case, which, if ever a Bishop should arrive in this country, will doubtless be a very common one.

It may well be supposed that the zeal of some English or Dutch Calvinist minister, in some private or public controversy with one of our missionaries, may let slip the old accusation, that the lat­ter, instead of preaching the doctrines of the thirty nine articles of our Church, inculcates the heresy of Arminius; such a charge, if ill grounded, may be thought sufficient to support a libel for de­famation; upon complaint, the Bishop's court will doubtless or­der process to issue: A defendant wrongfully impleded there, must apply for his relief to the judges at common law, for a prohibi­tion to his lordship. But if the matter is proper for spiritual cog­nizance, or even dubious, what prospect will there be of success; while my lord Bishop figures away in parade and interest, beyond any governor upon the continent; and the judges hold their com­missions only during pleasure? The inferior clergy of our own Church, I consider as so many life-guards to his lordship, and [Page 33]supported by their letters in his favour, and his own connections with the reverend bench in the mother country, no remonstrance on the part of the judges, will secure them from calumny and mis­representation. In so unequal a contest, every irresolute judge will become the dupe of the clergy; and what hopeful effects the episcopal influence will then have upon liberty and property, is easier to foresee, than to describe. In a word, as no lay charac­ters in this country will be a match for the Bishop's, in point of fortune, splendor, power and interest, not a man will mount the ladder of perferment, without his Lordship's aid; and we may have the mortification to see the officers of government, from his Majesty's council, down to a justice of the peace, courting the par­son of a parish, to recommend them to the favour of a haughty prelate, who will doubtless monopolize, by the creatures of his power, all posts and places civil, ecclesiastic, and military.

If any man thinks these the visionary dreams of an extravagant despondency, or an over-weaning attachment to American liberty; I must reply, in my turn, that his ease and security, are owing to his ignorance of the nature and extent of the spiritual court; and the countenance given to it by the common law itself. The Bishop has a throne of judgment for all scandals upon the Christian name, and two scolds cannot fling out the charge of whoredom, free from his Lordship's controul. Under him there will be a regiment of deans, and chapters, arch-deans, and prebendaries, vicars-gene­ral, chancellors, commissaries, officials, registers, deputy registers, apparitors, proctors, and advocates, who all practise as our admi­ralty courts do, according to the course of the civil law, and will, (if the English models prevail,) be maintained by a table of fees which by emptying the pockets of the unhappy delinquents, will teach them with a witness, to beware of the censures of the Church.

But the sharpest arrow in his Lordship's quiver, is the power of excommunication.

This is a censure by which the defaulting party is, for a time, cast out of the communion of the church. In the primitive age it consisted in the deprivation of the use of the sacrament; but as wickedness abounded, the punishment was contemned, and the temporal grandeur of the church made it necessary to super-add temporal sanctions.

At this day excommunications are divided into the lesser and greater. By the first, the offender is deprived of the sacraments and divine worship; and it is denounced for disobeying the process of the Bishop's court: But the greater excommunication inhibits a man from the society or conversation of the faithful; and by a constitution of Archbishop Stratford, they who even trade or com­municate with persons excommunicated, are punishable by eccle­siastical censure. Lind. 266.

[Page 34] As to its consequences, according to the course of the common law, they are, a disability to commence any action; and hence the excommunication of the plaintiff is pleadable in abatement to his suit; nor can he be a witness, advocate or juror, nor dispose of his estate by testament: It also suspends an executorship; nor shall his remains, according to the rubrick in the Book of Com­mon Prayer, have the honour of the burial office, and Christian interment. See Lit sect. 201—Gib. 1050 Swin. 109, 367.— 2 Haw. 418. Godolp. Orphan Law 37, and the 68th Canon.

Such being the severity of the sentence of excommunication, I believe few Americans wish to see a judicatory erected to give the law on this head, an opportunity of being applied: And the ad­vocate for an American Episcopate must be an enthusiast in the cause, if this is the discipline he longs to have exercised: For tho' the Doctor admits, that our Clergymen at present may, and ought, to refuse the communion to disorderly and scandalous persons, he wishes for the restoration of something more efficacious; but what that is, he has rather left to our conjecture, than clearly explained.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. No. I.

WHEN a writer publickly attacks men of good character, with virulence, and endeavours by sophistry, to set truths, which are held sacred by many sincere Christians, in a disadvantageous light; it may be proper to inquire into his temper and charac­ter, and the motives which set him to work.

These circumstances, I confess, do not much affect the intrinsic value of any literary composition: But if this latter has a pernici­ous [Page 38]tendency—either to sow dissentions, or raise prejudices among honest men,—to unhinge religion, or unsettle any of its principles: The shewing what quarter it comes from, will often go a good way to confute it.

Thus—if a man of unmeaning phyz, should think proper to des­pise every animated countenance,—or, if a man of rueful length of face, should take it into his head to declaim against round faces, and insist that there is no comeliness in any but such as have the same degree of longitude with his own, reviling all who dissented in opinion from him—If a libertine should write against religion, and try to persuade people to throw off all concern about it;—if a busy factor in dissention, who has long been a hackneyed jour­neyman in defamation, should begin to scatter his poison, in order to set well-meaning people together by the ears; all who know these circumstances, would immediately be on their guard: A knowledge of them would serve as an antidote against the mischief which artful sophistry might otherwise produce.

Dr. Chandler, and his Appeal to the Public, in behalf of the Church of England in America, have lately been attacked with great indecency and fury, by the American Whig. Now if it hap­pens that this attack comes from an ambitious, disappointed fac­tion, the members of which are well known to have been always enemies to the Church of England; who have wantonly endea­voured to revile it,—to ridicule many of those truths which its members hold sacred,—and who make religion a political engine to accomplish their designs; The unprejudiced reader, upon knowing this, will treat it with that neglect and contempt it de­serves.

To check the insolence of this faction, is now become necessary for many reasons. It is high time for the members of the Church of England, whose lenity has been much and often abused by them, to vindicate themselves from the false aspersions of these enemies to peace; and administer some wholesome discipline to the author, or authors of the American Whig;—which paper is to be the future vehicle of their malice. No. I. is stuffed with low, spurious witticisms, misrepresentations, scurrility, buffoonery, falshood, abuse, and slander. But to pass by all these, the author deserves flagellation for his blunders, with which this piece is plen­tifully begrimed. Take the following sample of these, gentle rea­der, for the present, which I beg you would carefully observe. He says, the Appeal "so naturally counterfeits the voice of a sheep, that it is not every reader who will discriminate it from that of a wolf." As much as to say,—it sings so like a Nightingale, that you can scarce distinguish its voice from that of a hoarse croak­ing Raven. Or, a thing is so like an egg, that you can scarce distinguish it from an oyster. This is the mighty man who is to [Page 39]adjust with precision the limits of religious Liberty, and defend it from all encroachment! And great things, no doubt, are to be expected from him.

What were the motives of the present attack on the Appeal? Not any thing demanded in the Appeal itself, nor the manner in which it is executed. It is written with great moderation, and asks nothing but what every denomination of Christians has a right to, and actually enjoys in America, the Church of England only excepted;—namely, the liberty of having the institutions of our Church, with its forms of discipline and government, to which a Bishop, or Bishops, are essentially necessary. Yet still with this restriction,— ‘That the Bishops to be sent to America, shall have no authority, put purely of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is derived altogether from the Church, and not from the state. That his authority shall operate only upon the Clergy of the Church, and not upon the Laity, or Dissenters of any Denomination. That the Bishops shall not interfere with the property or privileges, whether civil or religious, of Church­men or Dissenters. That, in particular, they shall have no con­cern with the probate of wills, letters of guardianship, and ad­ministration, or marriage licences, nor be judges of any cases re­lating thereto. But that they shall only exercise the original powers of their office, namely, ordain and govern the Clergy, and administer Confirmation to those who shall desire it.^*’ This is the whole of what is desired by the Appeal; nor does the warmest advocates for American Bishops even wish for more.

The American Whig himself, acknowledges that the Appeal "asks nothing but what is highly reasonable." And the supposed author of this Numb. with others of his fraternity have frequently owned it was just and reasonable, that the Church of England, in America, should have Bishops on these terms; nor does it ap­pear that there was any intention, until very lately, of writing against it in this place.

What could occasion this change of sentiment,—this sudden attack on the Appeal? All these doleful apprehensions, as if it were replete with utter ruin to the colonies? Those who are ac­quainted with some late transactions in this city, can easily answer these questions. Men who are solely guided by ambition and in­terest, are never steady in their conduct. While you gratify these, they will be quiet, — but no longer. Thwart them in the least, and they are like so many bears robbed of their whelps. They will indiscriminately wreak their vengeance on all that come in their way. To gratify it—

[Page 40] This motto was chose some years ago for a periodical paper in this city, by a writer who was no stranger, I dare say, to our Whig; but as he did not deign to give a translation of it, I will beg leave to do it for him here—

I wish them joy of their company.

The Appeal had been read and considered long enough after its publication. If not approved, why was it not then objected to? The reason was, no ambitious attempts were then opposed,—no towering expectations were blasted. Matters went on smoothly; and had they gone on in the same manner since, the Appeal might have remained in peace, without any molestation from this quar­ter, notwithstanding its tremendous consequences.

Our Whig pragmatically assumes to be defender-general of the ‘religious Privileges of all Denominations of protestants, against the secret or open attempts of their enemies.’ He must be a cunning fellow indeed to know and counteract those attempts which are secret. But to let this pass. Who assigned him this post? Or, who are these enemies? If by these he means the author of the Appeal, and his friends, why was not this made appear be­fore? If he had such a regard, as he pretends, for the religious Liberties of others,—if the Appeal had any tendency to infringe those: Surely this magnanimous Champion would not have slum­bered and slept so long! The truth is as I have mentioned. The spirit of ambition and self interest, had not met with any ch [...]ck 'till very lately. But now that their blooming hopes are withered, the faction is enraged to a degree of phrenzy; and the poor Church, thro' the Appeal, must fall the devoted victim of their vengeance.^*

[Page 41] Some pretence however was necessary to storm the Appeal; and one was found of an extraordinary kind,—such perhaps as would be the last thought on by a person who possessed the most moderate portion of honesty and charity. And what was it? Why this— ‘It is not a primitive, Christian Bishop, that the Dr. and the Convention want. It is a modern, splendid, opulent, Court-fa­voured, law-dignified, superb, magnificent, powerful prelate, on which their heart is so intent.’

Now to pass over the defects of this last wonderful period, in point of propriety and style,—the whole of it I aver to be utterly false. There is not a syllable of truth in it. And here I publickly call on this Gentleman to make good his assertion,—to produce some sort of satisfactory evidence, besides his own bare word, which on this occasion will not go far, that the Dr. and Convention de­sire such a Bishop. Until he gives some proof of this, he does nothing at all. He fights with a phantom his own imagination has raised. Like his illustrious predecessor, Don Quixote, he en­counters wind-mills instead of giants. He might as well write against introducing the Pope of Rome, or Mufti of Constantino­ple, and it would be as much to the purpose: As writing against the introduction of such a Bishop into America, as no one mem­ber of the CHURCH, either desires, or wishes for. I repeat it again, that until the author of the American Whig produces some au­thentic proof or testimonies, that the Clergy want such a Bishop as he has specified,—that they want ‘to involve America in ec­clesiastical bondage,’ introduce "spiritual courts," &c. as he insinuates: He stands convicted by his own declaration, when he says, ‘the Appeal asks nothing but what is highly reasonable,— and it were manifest injustice to deny church-men, what in their opinion, their eternal salvation so greatly depends on.’ But if he cannot produce any such authentic proof or testimony, which I am fully assured he cannot do, the world must necessarily look on him as an invidious calumniator, a false accuser of the brethren; and certainly he knows very well what an ancient, powerful coad­jutor he has in this.

This writer disclaims the setters of order and system in his fu­ture productions; and were I to suppose the reason of his doing so, is because his principles are opposite to all order, it would be shewing him full as much, if not more, charity, than he has shewed to Dr. Chandler and the Convention. Doubtless the Whig, like his brother-savages, will choose to carry on an irregular war. I may not choose to follow him in all his twistings and windings. However, I shall give him such chastisement, now and then, as he deserves. I shall develope his sophistry, I mean such as I think worthy of notice, and rescue truth from his falacies and perver­tion. I may sometimes carry the war into the enemy's country, [Page 42]and make reprisals; or, digress to other subjects, as I think will be entertaining to my readers. I may not only strip the wolf of his sheep's clothing; but also divest the ass of his lion's skin, and then his braying will have no other effect, than perhaps to frighten women and children.

[The following not being printed till the third No. of the Whip, occasion'd its being overlooked in reprinting here, till after the first part of this paper was struck off.]

Mr. Tickle presents his compliments to his readers, and begs they would correct the following erratum,—occasioned by an erasure in the copy, page 37, bottom line, instead of if this latter has, read if such composition should have.

Also the following literal Errata, p. 39. line 15th; instead of his authority, read this authority,—bottom line, instead of move­bant, read movebunt.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. No. II.

I Hate controversy,—especially when I must enter the lists with an unfair, abusive adversary one who pays not the least attention to truth or decency.—who deals out slander and invective, as liberally as the famous disputants of Billingsgate, and much in the same style. These are some of the amiable characteristicks which eminently distinguish the Faction now concerned in the American Whig.

Nothing therefore but a regard to injured truth, could engage me in this controversy. When that Church, which is the glory and bulwark of the reformation, is so insolently traduced,— and traduced by those whom it tolerates and protects,—when its rights are attacked, and its members audaciously insulted: To be silent would be criminal. It is the duty of every honest man to strip designing hypocrisy of its mask, and point out those who in reality are forging chains for their fellow-subjects. And as I am thus dragged into this contest, whatever bad consequen­ces may attend it, will be chargeable on those, and those only, who began it; and will not suffer other to live in peace.

Perhaps my readers may think that I have taken sufficient notice of No. I. of the American Whig, already,—that a thing so frothy, so malicious, and destitute of argument, de­serves [Page 53]not any further animadversion. I confess this to be true in a great measure; and no person can be influenced by that pa­per either against the appeal, or the cause in defence of which it was written, unless he gives up the exercise of his judgment, (if he has any) and becomes a mere dupe to prejudice and party.

However a fool must sometimes be answered according to his folly, lest he should be wise in his own conceit, and lead others into the same predicament with himself. No doubt the author of this piece is the very hero of the cause,—the chief engineer, —the conductor-generalis of the intended operations against the appeal, the Bishops, and the Church. Accordingly he steps forth the most forward of the faction, and like him in the Gospel, he gives them their name, and like him also he might say, we are many. It will not be improper therefore to examine a little fur­ther into the merits of this production, by which we may form an estimate of the author's designs, as well as of the cause in which he is embarked.

And here I shall not again repeat his egregious Blunder men­tioned in my last; of which that waggish companion, and very good friend of mine, Jack Punlove, said—‘It was a Bull, begot by a Bear, on a Sheep and a Wolf.’ Depend upon it, courteous reader, I shall not be so prolix in my exercitations on any of his future productions, unless he should throw some Argu­ment or matter in my way that will be worthy of it. As for the two next, low, creeping Whigs,—without life, or spirit, or truth, or argument in them: A lash at the cart's tail will be enough for them. Nay, half a dozen such may be dispatched in one answer; just as a careful cook would truss up two or three brace of Snipes on one and the same spit. Proceed we then to our first Whig.

He insinuates— ‘that encroachments have been lately made on our civil liberties; and that we can scarce obtain redress a­gainst one injurious project, but another is forming against us.’ If this be the case, why does he not exert himself in be­half of his country? What has he, or any one member of the faction, written, or otherwise done, to avert these impending mischiefs?—Nothing at all. He either throws out this insinu­ation, and yet believes it to be false; or else he remains an idle, inactive spectator of our danger. Instead of promoting that union among ourselves which he says is "peculiarly necessary" at this time: He is doing all he can to divide and distract us,— to fill those with groundless prejudices, with mutual hatred against each other, who should unite to carry on any salutary scheme for the public welfare; and I believe would willingly do so, were it not for such restless incendiaries as himself.

Several Gentlemen in America, when they apprehended the [Page 54]liberties of their country were injured, engaged with a generous and noble spirit in the vindication of them. The author of the Considerations on the propriety of imposing taxes in the British colo­nies the Pennsylvania Farmer, and others I could mention, are striking instances of this. These worthy patriots, disinterested in their views, and regardless of the dirty, selfish design of any particular party, inlisted in the cause of freedom, and acquitted themselves with honour. Their aim was to unite their country­men, and animate them with the spirit of liberty; yet so as to in­spire them with affection to the mother country, and shew how much the interest of both depends on their harmony, and mutual adherence to the principles of our constitution. This was acting the part of real patriots; for which the worthy authors are justly entitled to the hearty thanks of every friend to Britain and America.

How different the conduct of our American Whig! How per­fect a contract to these in every respect does he exhibit! Inflamed with party rage, actuated by low, selfish motives, and goaded on by malice: He pours out a torrent of slander against a number of innocent, inoffensive, useful men, who are warm friends to liber­ty, and enemies to slavery-of every kind; and thro' them strikes at the Church for the blow is levelled at the Church in general, (as I shall fully evince in the course of these speculations,) and tends to promote universal discord throughout the continent.

And what was the mighty crime of which the members of the Church were guilty, to draw down his heavy displeasure on them? Why truly they had the presumption to apply for an indulgence which every denomination in America enjoys,—an indulgence which they neither intend should interfere, nor possibly can inter­fere with the rights or liberties, civil or religious, of any Christi­ans whatever; and have appealed to the world, in the most mo­derate, decent manner, for the reasonableness and equity of their claim. This is the sum total of their offence.

This poor gentleman, however, is pleased to be in a violent rage,—so violent that if his nerves are weak, it may be at­tended with fatal consequences. This excess of passion, I must charitably think, is what betrays him into the absurdities and contradictions which are to be found in every part of his piece. The Christian reader, I am persuaded, has more humanity than to expect I would be at the drudgery of enumerating and ani­madverting on all these. I will just point out a few of them, which indeed are not a third of what it contains. He tells us in one place, that the appeal is a trifling, ‘flimsy piece, and the futility of its reasoning’ such as can ‘only impose on the weak and credulous:’ But in another place he says it is ‘artfully calculated to introduce the most fatal, tremendous [Page 55]mischiefs.’ Now Dr. Chandler "breaths a zeal for religion:" Then, he is a most ambitious ecclesiastic,—indifferent about ‘the interests of his country,—sowing the seeds of universal discord,’—&c. One while ‘the appeal asks nothing but what is highly reasonable, and it were manifest injustice to so greatly depends on:’ Again, it has ‘a tendency to intro­duce an evil more terrible—than the obnoxious Stamp-Act.’ Here ‘the Church of England in America is an episcopal Church;’ There, ‘it is not the Church of England, nor episcopal, but an independent Church,’ With many other flowers and conceits of the same kind,—equally ingenious, curious, just and entertaining to the reader.

Our Whig says that Dr. Chandler has exhibitted ‘a new spe­cies of Logic, by infering that if his appeal remained unan­swered, all the world must be presumed to acquiesce in his proposal.’ Now if the Dr. had said so, it would be no un­reasonable Inference, considering the complexion of his present antagonist, and of many others of the same stamp around him. Why Bellarmine was introduced on the occasion, no mortal can tell; his case having no resemblance to that of the Dr. and therefore quite impertinent.

To be even with Dr. Chandler, the Whig has enriched our rhetoric with several samples of new and rare wit. Take one instance in what follows. The appeal he says, ‘congratulates posterity, if not on the hopes of rescuing them from purga­tory, at least on the prospect of speedily introducing a kind of millennial state by the episcopal tripple discharge of ordination, confirmation and government.’ I dare say there is abundance of wit here, if any person living could be sagacious enough to find out whereabouts it lies. This unusual turn in thought and expression, which is entirely out of the way of common sense, and makes people stare and wonder what he would be at, is what distinguishes a great genius, and advances him to a chief seat among your profound authors. And this writer deals so much in tropes and figures, in the application of which he is peculiarly happy, that he may vie with the famous Hudibras himself, of whom it is recorded—

And here I join the appeal in felicitating posterity on the many Improvements in genuine wit, without any allay of dulness, —in candid, fair reasoning, without any mixture of sophistry, or prevarication, they are likely to reap from this gentleman's labours. From such ominious beginnings, what may we not expect!

[Page 56] Upon the whole—our Whig, from his first performance, appears to be better calculated for acting the part of a ludicrous buffoon, than a cool reasoner—to injure a good cause, if he had one, than serve it,—kindle, than extinguish the flames of discord, —to obscure, than elucidate truth. As the strength of his cause lies in misrepresentation, and its success depends on that misre­presentation going undetected: So his chief talent seems to be the art of throwing a mist before his reader's eyes, by Jesuitical sophistry, larded well with buffoonery. And thus the cause and its advocate are worthy of each other. Whilst he, and his bre­thren of the faction, have the word, moderation, in their mouth, they act the part of furious persecutors. They betray their in­tolerant principles, and desire to enslave others, amidst clamorous outcrys for liberty. As the lust of power is one of their predomi­nant passions, and the way to gratify it and others, is to kick up a dust, and be at the head of a party: So this is the great spring that puts the whole machine in motion, and lends a clew to un­ravel their conduct; for I believe it is not very clear that any of them, especially our first Whig, either knows or cares much about religion.

The Church stands in no need of sordid, low arts and subter­fuges to support her. She appeals to the world for the justness and reasonableness of her claim for Bishops in America, on the proposed plan. Her members desire nothing more than to have the matter fairly and impartially examined.

This same faction have long since tried their utmost efforts to injure the Church. They have scribbled, and slandered, and re­viled, &c.—they have snivelled, and snorted, and roared, and raved, and spit their venom, &c. like lord Peter's bulls: But it was all mighty harmless. The Church flourished under their per­secution, as I doubt not but it will at this time.

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. V.]

NEVER had a nation such a prospect as Britain of erecting a vast and durable empire: Consider the origin of the Persians and Medes, Babylonians and Egyptians, Mace­donians and Romans; hemmed in on every side, and accessible to their neighbours, they could add nothing to their extent, but at the expence of a war. Every expansion depended upon con­quest; situated as they were, the enlargement of the empire, was itself the cause of its fall: When the energy of the govern­ment could push its force no farther, a mortifying reflux ensued, and the victors in their turn were repelled and overwhelmed by hosts from distant countries, which their arms were unable to reach. How inexpressibly superior the advantages of Great-Bri­tain, with the help of her American dominions! For territory, we need not quarrel with any power upon earth. This indis­pensible substratum of empire we are already possessed of; we have a country amply sufficient for hundreds of millions, and can spread out an inheritance from ocean to ocean, at a mode­rate expence of money, and without the guilty effusion of human blood.

The benefits we enjoy from our situation, our climates, and the fecundity of the soil, are numberless, and not to be recounted. No quarter of the globe can boast a preheminence: No nation in some respects pretend to an equality: On one side accessible to the ocean for all the purposes of commerce, on neither exposed to any dangerous vicinity, and from all foreign force that can essentially disturb our repose too far removed. Never was there such a Phoenix state. What less than the power of the Almighty, with the start we have gained, can prevent our arrival to the highest elevation of grandeur and opulence?

Courage, then Americans! liberty, religion, and sciences are on the wing to these shores: The finger of God points out a mighty empire to your sons: The savages of the wilderness were never expelled to make room in this, the best part of the conti­nent, for idolaters and slaves. The land we possess is the gift of heaven to our fathers, and divine providence, seems to have de­creed it to our latest posterity.

[Page 58] So legible this munificent and celestial deed, in the events that are passed, that we need not be discouraged by the bickerings at present subsisting, between us and our parent country. The an­gry cloud, raised by the rashness, and supported by the obstinacy of a man, in whom opposition and disappointment, have begot in­flexible malice against the colonies, will soon be dissipated. Bri­tain has only to learn our importance to her own interest, and this once understood, the enemies of both countries will instantly be put to silence; and America advance to felicity and glory, with redoubled rapidity and vigour.

Grant it to be fact (and sure 'tis a truth too palpable to be de­nied) that a third part of the commerce of the nation depends upon the colonies; I say, if this proposition be true, we may wind up our hopes to all the confidence of assurance, that Great-Britain will never suffer this cord to be cut, by which we are so intimately united. And this cord uncut, it requires no depth of policy to fore­see, that we shall one day or other, draw every thing valuable at home (the Terra firma of those islands only excepted) into the spa­cious bosom of the continent of America. Nor need this prospect give either of us an alarm. Happy for her, that she has an asy­lum prepared against the day of her calamity. Happy for us, the work is so far advanced, that there is no looking back. Thrice happy for us both, that the mother and her sons will again be col­lected into one house, and that in proportion to the abatement of the national glory in Europe, will be the brightness of its resurrec­tion in America.

The day dawns in which the foundation of this mighty empire is to be laid, by the establishment of a regular American constitu­tion. All that has hitherto been done, seems to be little beside the collection of materials, for the construction of this glorious fa­brick. 'Tis time to put them together. The transfer of the Euro­pean part of the great family is so swift, and our growth so vast, that, before seven years roll over our heads, the first stone must be laid.—Peace or war; famine or plenty; poverty or affluence; in a word no circumstance, whether prosperous or adverse, can happen to our parent; nay, no conduct of hers, whether wise or imprudent, no possible temper on her part, whether kind or cross grained, will put a stop to this building. There is no contending with Omnipotence, and the predispositions are so numerous, and so well adapted to the rise of America, that our success is indu­bitable; and Britain, who began the work, will not, cannot, with-hold her assistance. Her assistance did I say; She will spend all that she has.—nay, she is coming, fast coming, in her own pro­per person, and will desert her beloved island, to complete the stupendous and lasting monument of her power. What an aera is this to America! and how loud the call to vigilance and acti­ [...]y! As we conduct, so will it fare with us and our children.

[Page 59] In some future paper I shall dilate this idea, and attempt to point to the proper objects of our attention, that are of civil con­cern; but the remainder of this day's lucubration, is intended to guard against the undue influence of our clergy, while we are moulding the great political mass into order.

Every eye should be open at such a season as the present. No man reveres this necessary and useful part of the community, more than I do, I don't mean, therefore, to take an occasion, with Deists and Libertines, for licentious abase. Rancour against the bles­sed author of our most holy religion, is the common motives of the scurrilities uttered against the ministers of his gospel. But it is ne­vertheless our duty; nay, our regard to the clergy, demands the utmost attention, to the efforts they are constantly inclined to make, in favour of themselves. As a learned and speculative body, they possess knowledge, one of the most fruitful sources of power, and in spite of all the mortifying lessons, taught by their divine master, the leaven of pride and ambition works night and day, to acquire dominion; which as often as they have succeeded, proved to be beyond all others relentless and intolerable.

It is storied in their own history, that when the Emperor Con­stantine endowed the church with lands and possessions, the voice of an Angel was heard in the air, crying, Hodie venenum infun­ditur in ecclesiam. This day poison is poured into the church: and bitter experience has confirmed the truth of these words, whate­ver we believe concerning the being by whom they were uttered. Of this execrable potion, the bishop of Rome took the first draught; and all Christendom furnishes instances of priests who long to tip­ple this wine of fornication, Our wise and pious reformers began therefore with absolutely renouncing the cup, and 'tis too, too evident, that in spite of the admonitions of prophecy, the prin­ciples of sound policy, and the experience of every age since this destructive bowl was stirred up, in which spiritual gifts and worldly benefits, are absurdly compounded together, that some of the protestant clergy are as desirous to take the intoxicating sip, as those, who with the scarlet whore, have often got drunk, and defiled the nations.

To this I impute all the prayers, entreaties, conjurations, sighs, and lamentations, of a certain class of priests, for the introduction of a spiritual Generalissimo into this country. I am sensible that they disavow all noxious designs, and that like other sots they palliate their inordinate thirst after the insalutary dose, by preten­ces that seem friendly to health and consistent with sobriety and innocence. But as all attempts from an order, who abjure the roughness of violence, will be dictated by the wisdom of the ser­pent, and cunningly affect the harmlessness of the dove; we ought, for preventing the success of their machinations, to set a double [Page 60]guard upon our privileges. Of all thraldom, spiritual thraldom is the worst; and if ever any sect acquires a dominion in this country, the fires of persecution must burn with hotter vengeance here, than in any other part of the world; because our nume­rous persuasions afford the most plentiful fuel. Cowards are mali­cious, and the fears of the assuming denomination will never be quieted till the throne they erect is free from all danger. Which of our numerous persuasions bids fairest [...]o lord it over the rest, I have shewn in some former papers; and for that very reason, they of all others, ought to be content with their lot. Guaran­tied on every side against oppression, what have Episcopalians to fear? In the distribution of power they have so immoderate a share, that the very desire to have more, is not only inconsistent with all Christian moderation, but gives just grounds for suspicion that they are meditating an offensive war.

But conscience is pleaded—For what? that the church, says Dr. Chandler, may be better governed.—Over whom is this go­vernment to be exercised?—Not, says he, over the laity, (a sure proof this, that the government desired, is not deduced from the scriptures) but only over the clergy.—Let them behave better. This is in their own power, and if any remain incorrigible, my Lord of Landaff, and the rest of the society at home, upon pro­per complaint, (which complaint every man is invited to make) will soon bring the delinquents to reason. As to the matter of ordinati­on, the candidate's conscience is relieveable by a trip to London; nor need the laity be afflicted, if he makes any difficulty; for those must be small motions of the spirit indeed, towards the work of the ministry, which the sight of salt water will subdue.—And with respect to confirmation, since we have so long been without it, and no man is so shamelessly uncharitable, as to suppose it neces­sary to salvation, and that our ancestors have all perished for want of it, the conscience bound on account of this defect, can be on no very pitiable rack of pain. Besides, what is most fatal to this plea, is, that the majority of the continent have consciences too, and by those very consciences, think themselves bound to op­pose the unseasonable introduction of proud prelates into this coun­try.—That it is a fact, that thousands have horrors at the bare prospect, the Doctor can want no proof at this day; and if the minority have such unconscionable consciences, as not to possess their souls in patience, till God, in his wise providence, and for the punishment of our sins, opens a wider door for these right re­verend fathers, and their lay and clerical officers and attendants, they can have no Christian consciences at all.

But the Doctor tells us, that our fears are groundless, and that the bishop he wants, is a primitive bishop.—This, good master ap­pellant, is at present a very scarce commodity; and you would [Page 61]yourself laugh at the wide-mouthed credulity, that can swallow such a camel. Are they wanted for patterns of imitation?— The Doctor has not said such a word.—For their prayers and their sermons?—No one asserts it. But to the astonishment of all that are acquainted with the history of the church, they are said to be necessary for protection and defence.—Would not any stranger be led by this, to believe, that the missionaries were per­secuted; And yet not a man of them all—no, not the meanest missionary upon the continent, would exchange the society's bounty, for the revenues and rank of a primitive bishop. The apostles, to begin with the first bishops, we know lived by charity, and the labour of their hands.—For three centuries after, they were main­tained by private helps, and the pay of their scholars.—These were the times in which the clergy resisted unto blood, and by the way, the good reputation of our American clergy, is greatly owing to the necessity they are under, of living near these glorious examples. Antiently a bishop's palace was a cottage; for the fourth council of Carthage, about the year 350, laid it down as a canon or law, that the bishop should live near his church, in Hospitiolo, that is, in a little cottage. In the excerptions of Eg­bert, archbishop of York, so late as the year 750, the same canon was renewed.—Bede tells us, that their very cathedrals were built of wattle and boards pieced together, and covered with reed.—The table of St. Austin, a bishop of the highest renown, as Possedonius relates, was spread with dishes and trenchers of wood, his house was mean, he seldom had any flesh to eat, and his whole service of plate consisted of half a dozen spoons.—Spiridion tended a flock of sheep. St. Jerome, one of the most learned of the fathers, tho' no bishop, dwelt like them, in pauperi tuguriolo, a poor little cottage; and Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, turns the tables upon the pampered priests of the Gentiles, by boasting in his maxim, that the poverty of the ministers of Christ, was an honour to them, Gloriosa in sacerdotibus domini, paupertas. These are the bishops some men pretend to desire. How much more credible, that in­stead of being a bulwark to the missionaries, unless by their pray­ers, such bishops as those would be a tax upon their charity, not to mention the probability that lives so apostolically spiritual, and abject, would render them, if not subjects of persecution, at least objects of contempt.

If by primitive bishops, they mean not such poor miserable bi­shops as these, it remains to give this equivocal expression, some determinate meaning, and till then the treaty between Dr. Chand­ler and the public, may doubtless remain unratified, without any impeachment of the honour and justice of North-America, which this writer has unwarily drawn into question.

We should estem it the palladium of our liberties, if the King's [Page 62]judges held their commissions by the tenure of good behaviour; and to the preservation of the morals of our clergy, it is essential that their subsistence depend upon the same honourable condition. A bishop and his officers, independent of the people!—I tremble at the thought of such a powerful spy, in a country just forming a state of soundness and stability—Rouse then, Americans! You have as much to fear from such a minister of the Church, as you had lately from a minister of state, and whether this project is not a device of the latter, by dividing us to favour his designs, tho' he is now in disgrace, is submitted to your wisdom, to discern and prevent.

The CENTINEL. No. IV.

AS the proposal of introducing Diocesan bishops into British America is an innovation, which would probably affect the religious and civil liberties of his Majesty's American subjects, I shall not be terrified from offering my objections, meerly because Doctor Chandler has been pleased to call it persecution. Appeal, page 82. The good gentleman knows that all the rejecters of episcopacy have distinguished themselves in the cause of liberty, and that their principles of church government are principles of freedom. He ought not therefore to think it persecution, if they, jealous of their liberty, should oppose this dangerous innovation; the very mention of which recalls to our minds the unrelenting rigors of episcopal tyranny; the heavy fines, imprisonments, and persecutions which peopled the savage wilds of America; and forced many thousands of our forefathers to seek a peaceful re­treat, from the cruelty of their fellow-Christians, amongst more hospitable Indians. These refugees have not yet forgot the groans and blood of the many myriads of oppressed Puritans, which cry beneath the altar "how long O Lord"! the list of [...]y thousand persons that suffered in England on a religious account, betwixt the restoration and the revolution; nor the severe penal­ties inflicted on them, for worshipping God according to their con­sciences; by which they suffered in their trade and estates near two millions in the compass of a few years. These instances of episcopal tyranny, which should fill every reader with horror, ex­tort from the Doctor himself, notwithstanding his fondness for ec­clesiastical power, the modest softened concession, ‘that there have been formerly some instances wherein the power of our bishops has been strained too high’ P 91. And lest we should be led to imagine, that he, out of his abundant charity, had ac­knowledged too much against his church, he endeavours to wipe off the reproach from her, and cast it rather ‘on the times, in which neither the natural rights of men, nor the religious rights of Christians, were so well understood, as in the present age. For even then," he says "the spirit of the church of England, like that of the gospel, was more peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, than that of any other national church.’ This may serve to give us some idea of the Doctor's comparatively peaceable and gentle spirit. But I hope we shall have a still more peaceable and gentle spirit to reign in America: Indeed he la­bours to persuade us, that when his so much wished-for bishop comes, he will bring it with him, "for the times", he says, "are [Page 64]much mended in this respect," P. 90—Excuse us, good Sir, if we think, that however the spirit of the times be much mended, the spirit of your church and her bishops, is not yet so much mended, as to free us entirely from any fears of oppression by their extensive powers.

In considering the peaceable spirit of the rulers of the church of England now, or in some following paper, I may have occasion to point out some things that do not savour much of the spirit of moderation and candour. However I would be understood thro' the whole, not to intend any reflection on the laity of that com­munion, nor on all the clergy. The moderation of some is well known: they have endeavoured with a truly Christian spirit, not only to bear a constant testimony against the numberless abuses, which have arisen from the powers of the clergy, but are endea­vouring to bring about a reformation in many things, which they candidly acknowledge to stand in need of it. Far be it from me to lay that to the charge of those men, which they, as well as we, acknowledge to be unjust and tyrannical. But there are others of a very different character and temper, especially among the clergy, who have been distinguished by the name of high-church; and who according to Doctor Chandler, compose the body of that na­tional church, who have not as yet candour enough to admit of such a reformation. Page 96 and 97.

Although the wings of these high-flyers have been cropt, and their exhorbitant powers limitted in some degree, by the salutary restrants of some modern statutes; yet we know it was much against their wills, that such merciful laws were made. They must therefore give the world some more substantial proofs of their peaceable forbearing temper, than their advocate Doctor Chandler's word, before we can believe, that the spirit of perse­cution is not yet alive in that Church, and would not flame out again in all its wonted rage, if they were but allowed to exercise the powers they claim.

Until that flagrant abuse of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, occasioned by the TEST Act, shall be removed out of the churches of England and Ireland, we must believe, good Doctor, that you not only would but do persecute your brethren, and cut them off from the natural rights of serving their King and country, in all important places of power and trust; unless they can concur with you, not only in what they look on as a superstitious mode of administering that divine ordinance; but also in prostituting that sacred rite to secular, nay to worse than secular purposes; by making that which was instituted as a test of our fidelity to the King of Kings, a test of our allegiance to our earthly sovereign. That this is persecution, the Doctor himself will help me to prove, page 82, ‘To punish us for our religious principles when no rea­sons [Page 65]of state require it, is persecution in the strictest and pro­perest sense. Whatever evil is inflicted on us, on account of our principles and practices, is properly punishment; and every good we are deprived of, is equal to an evil inflicted. As such treatment has the very essence of persecution, so it can have only its source in an intolerent persecuting disposition.’ The sacramental test is therefore a standing monument of the persecuting spirit of the church of England; even in the judg­ment of Doctor Chandler, unless he be hardy enough to attempt assigning reasons of state to change that ‘which has the nature of persecution, and arises from an intolerant spirit,’ into a salutary regulation. When he produces arguments to convince men, who are the least conversant with the rights of men or Christians, that it is reasonable and necessary, that so large a body of his Majesty's subjects, as the rejecters of his beloved hier­archy in England and Ireland, who have always distinguished themselves, for their loyalty and attachment to the present royal family, should have such an unheard of stigma fixed upon them, that they are deprived of the common privileges of subjects; then, and not till then, will the Doctor be able to wipe away the re­proach from his church. But it is hoped, he will never subject his knowledge of the rights of mankind, nor his own Christianity, to the suspicions which must arise from such an attempt. The Doctor would indeed in some places appear charitable enough to allow, that they are as loyal and as good subjects, as the episcopa­lians themselves are, "There are," says he, ‘many British subjects both at home and in the plantations, who reject episco­pacy, and yet are warm advocates for our happy civil consti­tution. It is therefore rash and injurious to charge any with disaffection to the government, at this day, because they dis­sent from the national religion.’ Page 115. Whether he means that of South or North-Britain, is not distinguished; but it is most likely the former, as very few of his brethren the Dissent­ers in Scotland, are friends to the present government.

What reasons of state can there be alledged, why so many of his Majesty's loyal and faithful subjects, should be deprived of their natural and undoubted rights? Possibly the Doctor's fertile imagination will furnish us with some, which have hitherto lain hid from the penetration of men of inferior genius and invention. When he condescends to do this, and thereby attemps to wipe off the offence which his church continues to give by the profanation of the Lord's supper and the denial of civil rights to as good sub­jects, as those who join her communion, it will be time enough for me to give them a thorough and impartial examination. But till this shall be done, the good Doctor will not take it hard, that we fear the spirit of persecution is still alive in his church, and [Page 66]ready to operate, with its native violence, whenever an opportu­nity shall offer. There is no way at present for the Doctor to evade the force of this argumentation, transcribed from his Ap­peal, unless he boldly cuts the knot, and asserts, that none who reject episcopacy, have any natural right to civil or military offices. He has indeed such an expression in page 109; but it betrays such an unacquaintedness with the rights of mankind, and savours so much of a persecuting disposition, that charity would incline us to think it fell inadvertently from his pen, when he was solacing himself with the glorious prospect of the clergy and the people of his church engrossing all honourable and profitable employments throughout the colonies. The Doctor surely will not vindicate the expression, but from a regard to his character for moderation, candour, and catholicism, retract it without delay.

But this is not our only reason for concluding that the spirit of the Bishops, and inferior Clergy, (as they are called) is not like the spirit of the gospel, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be in­treated. Nor is it owing to the gentle temper of the constitution of their church, that the rejecters of episcopacy are not treated as harshly now as formerly. The Act of Uniformity breathes a very cruel and slavish spirit. It enacts that ‘whoever shall de­clare, or speak any thing in derogation, or depraving of the book of Common Prayer, or any thing therein contained, or any part thereof, he shall, for the first offence, suffer imprison­ment for one whole year, without bail or main-prize; and for the second offence be imprisoned during life.’ Weak must the church have appeared, which stood in need of such a support! But we are assured by divine authority, that ‘the gates of hell shall never prevail againg the Church of Christ.’ This famous act however has been often called, and I doubt not Doctor Chand­ler himself has long esteemed it a grand pillar of his church. But who envies him the honour of belonging to a church, that must be supported, if supported at all, by such a notorious infringement of the rights of private judgment; such a prohibition of a fair and candid examination of her principles and discipline; and such a restraint on the freedom of speech, essential to British liber­ty? Here I can safely appeal to the impartial world, and even to the conscience of the Doctor himself, whether this be not a very unjust and persecuting law.

I might easily proceed to shew, that the Canons of the Doctor's church do not bespeak a very charitable temper; but this I shall have more room to enlarge upon in some future paper.

THE CENTINEL. No. V.

IN my last I began to examine the peaceable and gentle spirit of the church of England, and now shall endeavour to trace it a little f [...]rther. The canons of your church, Dr. Chandler, do not seem to us to breathe a very gentle spirit. Your 4th, 5th, and 6th canons solemnly denounce, "that whosoever shall affirm, that the form of God's worship, contained in the common prayer hath any thing in it repugnant to the word of God,—or that any of the 39 articles are in any part erroneous, or such as may not with a good conscience be subscribed, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not be restored, until he repent and publickly re­voke his wicked errors." Does not this bear hard on the rights of private judgment, and the indispensible duty of every Christian to examine the Scriptures, "to see whether these things be so or not?" In the judgement, of an inspired apostle, the noble Baereans were justly commended who searched the scripture, and by that infal­lible rule judged of the truth of the doctrines that were preached to them. But the highest censure of the church is inflicted by the church of England, on the person that would presume to judge for himself and pronounce his judgment, if it should happen to be against and thing contained in your 39 articles, common prayer and forms of ordination. Yet there are many things therein, acknowledged by your own most learned divines, to need alter­ation, as is abundantly evident from their candid disquisitions, &c. And Dr. Chandler himself, speaking of some of the laws, which relate to the spiritual courts, which are imagined to bear hard upon British liberty, says, (page 96) "it is probable that these, and all other ecclesiastical laws, as well as our liturgy and pub­lic offices, and our translation of the bible, will be reviewed, as soon as it shall be thought that there is good sense and candour enough in the body of the nation to admit of it." It is indeed pleasantly ridiculous to see the most zealous advocates of the church of England, and her brightest ornaments excommunicated ipso facto, by the gentle, peaceable spirit of their own church, merely for confessing what all the Christian churches, as well as themselves, know to be true, that there are many things in their church that need reformation and amendment. By the force of these canons, the Dr. himself is really an excommunicated person, if we can believe the learned primate Dr. Wake, who [Page 82]says, concerning an excommunication ipso facto, " [...]hat th [...]re is no need, in the case, of an admonition, as where the judge is to give sentence, but every one is to take notice of the law at his peril, and to see that he be not overtaken by it, and that there is no need of any sentence to be pronounced, which the canon it­self has passed, and which is by that means already promulged upon every one, as soon as he comes within the obligation of it."

See app. in behalf of the King's Supremacy. p. 22.

If these canons do not breathe a persecuting spirit against the rejectors of episcopacy—I am sure they breathe a very ungrate­ful spirit against the most valuable members of that church, who would willingly wipe off at least some part of that reproach, which they are sensible has laid heavily upon her ever since the re­formation. You know reverend Doctor, that the rejectors of your form of church government, have been calling upon your church to reform many things, some of which the best men among yourselves have confessed to need reformation, for more than a century past; and is there not yet good sense and candour enough in the body of your national church, to admit of such a reformation? "If this is the complection of your church, what must we expect from the plenary establishment of such a church among us, as has not good sense and candour enough in the body of it, to admit of the removal of such things as have been justly complained of so long a time, as an unrighteous persecuti­on of their brethren, and even unchristian violation of the rights of conscience and private judgment? The Doctor's conjecture, that "it is probable, that there will be a reformation in some things in his church." gives us but very slender encouragement to sub­mit to his American episcopate; when we know it is at best just as probable that there will be no reformation in that church, which has so long continued to persecute her brethren, and yet has not good sense enough in the body of it, to remove the per­secution. We rather conclude, that as she has encroached so long on the rights of conscience, and oppressed her fellow Chris­tians, where she has the power in her hands, she would continue to give sensible proofs of the same peaceable and gentle spirit in America, if she was clothed with the same civil and ecclesias­tical authority. When she has given some substantial proofs of her moderation, by restoring her fellow Christians to the full enjoyment of their civil and religious liberties, and by abroga­ting the penal laws which oppress their consciences, we promise them we shall entertain fewer jealousies of the exorbitant power of her bishops being exercised in the colonies.

Pray, is it an equal thing that all denominations of Christians, should be taxed for the support of episcopal ministers in the pro­vinces south of Pennsylvania; especially when we consider, that [Page 83]thereby some ministers of that communion, are enabled to revel in luxury and wantonness, who, as Dr. Chandler expresses it, "are such wretches as are not only a scandal to the church, but also a disgrace to the human spicies?—Must not this be a grief and a burden to such Christians as have any regard to the pro­motion of the Redeemer's kngdom? And must it not be peculiarly grievous to other denominations, to support a church in which the pure worship of God is corrupted and obscured with human inventions, while they "teach for doctrines the commandments of men?" Pray Dr. would you not think it an unrighteous op­pression, if the members of your church were taxed for the support of the church of Rome? I can safely appeal to your own conscience, whether you would not think it so, notwith­standing all your fond partiality for her, which leads you in a very Christian-like manner to unchristianize the foreign protestant churches, with the church of Scotland and the Dissenters in England, in order to secure to yourselves the unenvied treasure of an uninterrupted succession?—Remove therefore this instance of oppression out of your church, and shew us that you have as much moderation as the churches established in New-England, who oblige no different denominations to pay to the support of their clergy, but every one supports its own. Believe me, Dr. had your clergy united together in addresses to your superiors at home, to obtain a deliverance for the rejectors of episcopacy in the Southern colonies, from this yoke of bondage laid on them for the support of your church; you had given a more substantial proof of your moderation, and regard to the rights of your fel­low Christians, than you have lately done in your application for an American episcopate. Do you expect we can lay aside all jealousy of a church, which we see oppressing all others both in England and in the colonies in such flagrant instances; regardless of the rights of reason and conscience, where she has the power to oppress; or that we can peaceably submit to a scheme, which threatens us with a still farther loss of our civil and religious liberties.

Thus we have examined the peaceable and gentle spirit of the English episcopal church, and still find in her the mournful relicks of her ancient persecuting spirit, and from thence conclude, that neither her spirit nor that of the times are so much mended, as to pave the way for an easy and safe introduction of the be­loved Hierarchy, among those whose ancestors abandoned their native country, and all the tender endearments of relations and friends, to escape her ecclesiastical rage and persecution.—Nor is the spirit of her bishops so much mended, as Dr. Chandler would persuade us. Did not almost all the bishops in parlia­ment vote against the repeal of the stamp-act, and use their [Page 84]influence to rivet the shackles on the colonies which our enemies had formed? Can we then, expect that those, that are so re­gardless of the property and civil liberties of their fellow subjects, would be tender of the rights of conscience; or that chose who so lately manifested a disposition to enslave us in one instance, would not also oppress us in another?

But this is not the only indication of their present peaceable and gentle spirit. The episcopal congregation in New-York is established by the law, and incorporated; when the Presbyterians there applied lately for a charter, did not the bishop of London appear against them, and use his utmost endeavours to render their application fruitless and ineffectual? with what pretext then can the episcopalians complain that they do not enjoy the same privileges with other denominations of Christians in the colonies; when themselves think it no injustice, to prevent others from obtaining the same privileges with themselves? Nor this is not all, the legislature of the province of Massachusetts-Bay, moved with pity and compassion for the poor savages in America, who continue in deplorable ignorance, of the way of salvation through a Redeemer, lately by act of assembly erected a society in Boston, to spread the gospel through these benighted tribes; when this law went home for the royal approbation, the pious Archbishop of Canterbury appeared in person, and made use of his extensive influence to have it repealed. Why should the highest dignitary in the church of England, oppose so well meant a design for the conversion of the Heathens? What have these poor wretches done to deserve so heavy a stroke from his Grace? Was he afraid that the known zeal of the clergy and society of Boston would engage with vigour in carrying so good a work into execution, and thereby bring a reproach upon a society in Eng­land erected for the same purpose, who, for more than half a century past, have been squandering away large sums of money, collected for the relief of those savages, in the support of a body of missionaries, whose usual feats are some few conversions from other denominations of Christians to their communions? His Grace can best tell what were his motives to this conduct; but at present it must appear very strange to us at this distance, that his Grace should have so little compassion for the souls of those poor out-casts of the human species; so little zeal for the promotion of Christianity, that he would rather suffer the Heathen tribes behind us, to continue in their deplorable igno­rance without God in the world, and strangers to the covenant of promise, than that they should be instructed in the doctrines of the gospel, by protestants of a different com­munion.

[Page 85] You will excuse me, Dr. Chandler, that I presume to think you also have imbibed a small portion of the spirit, which seems to have influenced your charitable primate, and that, though the times are mended, you have yet no great abhorence of per­secution; for in pa. 31 you lament, that ‘Excommunication; however it was dreaded in the purest ages of Christianity, has lost much of its force in this, wherein altars are set up against altars, and churches against churches, and those that are re­jected by one may be received by another; a disposition to slight the highest punishment, which the church can inflict, has become general, and there appears to be no remedy, but in the use of reason and persuasion.’ A lamentable case truly! that your church has lost her discipline, and that there is [...] way to restore it but by reason and persuasion! What a pity is it that the penal laws formerly executed in England and Ireland against Dissenters, are not in force in America; and that spiritual courts, aided by the secular arm, are not introduced to restore primitive discipline! Then might we see some more success fol­low the good Doctor's labours, among the Heathen in and about Elizabeth-Town; and refractory Quakers, Baptists and Presby­terians, who never claimed any relation to the CHURCH, solemnly cast out of it, and brought to due obedience, by fines, imprison­ment and outlawry. Then, indeed, might there be some good prospect, ‘that the word of God would mightily grow and prevail in’ New-Jersey, &c. as well as "New-England, ac­cording to the liturgy of the church of England. ^*

Thus we see, that neither the spirit of your church, nor of her bishops and clergy, nor of the times, if we believe Dr. Chandler, is so much mended as to free us from fears of oppres­sion, upon the introduction of an American episcopate.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. IV.]

I intimated in my first Paper, that I did not intend to confine myself to the servile Business of animadverting regularly upon every dull Essay that the American Whig should obtrude upon us: But such of his Performances as deserve it, shall From Time to Time, have such Notice taken of them as either their Merits or Demerits shall demand. For the present, I beg the Reader's Attention to the two following Pieces which were left at the Printer's for my Use, and which I hope, as they are calculated to serve the Cause of Truth, will be acceptable to the Public.

EVERY careful Observer who hath refided any Number of Years in this Colony, must undoubtedly have remarked the Conduct of a certain unrelenting, persecuting, begotted Faction, towards the CHURCH and the CLERGY. They first open'd with the Independent Reflector; A Paper chiefly pilfered from the hireling, republican, deistical Writers of this and the last Cen­tury. Their Success was equal to their Deserts. Their next Attack was from the Watch-Tower. This was more furious and worse conducted than the other. They lost all Patience, as they lost all that they were contending for: And it was hoped that they had fallen—never to rise again. For after this the CHURCH enjoyed some Respite from their Persecutions, and possibly might yet have lived in Peace, had not the Ambition of the Faction met with some equally unexpected and mortifying Disappointments; which together with the distant Prospect of an American Episcopate, promising some Advantages to the CHURCH and RELIGION, fired their Envy, and put their Rancour into a Ferment. As these Writers have now served two Apprenticeships in Slander and Defamation, we can be at no loss to ascertain what Treatment honest Men are to expect from such malevolent Spirits.

The Attack was begun by the American Whig, with a Triple Discharge of Falshood, Malice and Revenge (true Independent Artillery!) against the CHURCH and the CLERGY; In order to hinder her from receiving the full Benefit of her religious Establishment, to which, by all the Laws of God and Man, she is incontestably entitled. The Pretence for this Assault is Dr. [Page 87] Chandler's Appeal to the Public.—a Book which, even the Enemies of the CHURCH must confess, is written with the greatest Candour and Modesty; and as the American Whig himself ac­knowledges, asks nothing but what is reasonable and just. One Section however, seems to be wanting, to render the Dr's Per­formance unexceptionable, viz. a Section to prove, That the establishing of Bishops in America, would be of no SERVICE to to the CHURCH of England. Had it been possible to have done this, and had this been done, with the same Force of Argument, and Perspicuity of reasoning, with which the whole Book is writ­ten, not a Dog had moved his Tongue against it. But, lest the CHURCH, which by the mere native Force of Truth, hath ama­zingly increased, especially in New-England, where it has always laboured under the greatest Oppression;—and which, from the Number and Reputation of its Members in this Province, especially in the Capital, is really venerable, and commands Respect; so as to be able to check the lustful Thirst of Power, for which the Ringleaders of the Independent Faction have ever been infamous, from the Day in which the Cockatrice first emerged from the Egg, 'till this present Moment:—lest, I say, the CHURCH should re­ceive so great a Blessing as the Enjoyment of her religious Consti­tution;—lest she should be put upon an equal Footing with the other religious Denominations in the Colonies, and be made as perfect and complete in her Way, as they are in theirs,—every Art is to be used, that Falshood can invent, that Malice can insti­gate, or Revenge can execute.

Not content with the most ample Toleration,—which inviolably secures to them the full and peaceable Enjoyment, not only of all their religious Liberties, but also of all their religious Whims and Vagaries,—they continually grasp at Power; are always striving to be the greatest in the Kingdom of—England; more especially in the King of England's American Dominions. And if the CHURCH has the patriotic Resolution, to oppose these lordly Saints, and check their native Lust of Domination,—which by God's Grace, she ever has had, and I trust in his Goodness, she ever will have;—all Obligations of Respect and Gratitude, of Decency and good Manners, of Truth and Honour, are immediately broke thro', being of too flimsy a Texture to hold an English Indepen­dent, when disappointed of his Prey.

One probable Reason of the present Clamour is, that the Heads of the Faction have been disappointed in the Issue of a late Election; when, by a well-timed Opposition of the most respecta­ble Inhabitants of this City, their ambitious and insidious De­signs were defeated; and, as the greatest Opposition came from the Members of the CHURCH, so the CHURCH must bear the first Fury of their Revenge.

[Page 88] Another Reason is, that these same Sons of Discontent, have from true Principles of sound Policy, met with a Repulse in their Application for a Cha [...]er; (of Establishment, "we are told:")—and as it would hardly bear to vent their Spleen immediately against his M—y, yet his M—y's Religion they presumed, might safely be attacked, and afford them ample Satisfaction.

And the grand Reason of the Attack upon the Episcopal Order, is, that the Bishop of London (as they say) appeared against their Charter at the Board of Trade; where, like an HONEST MAN, a worthy Patriot, and a conscientious Prelate, he supported the Rights of the ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

For these Reasons that very CHURCH, to which they are in­debted for their TOLERATION, is to be painted in the most odious Colours, that Falshood can Invent, or Malace dictate; and the venerable, primitive, APOSTOLICAL Order of Bishops, (without whose Consent the Act of Toleration could not have passed)—which was ever held sacred, even by Hereticks and Schismatics,—'till Faction, and Enthusiasm, produced this new Sect, this Re­ligion of Yesterday, this motly Mixture of Ignorance and Pride, Hypocrisy and Superstition: This sacred Order, I say, is to be described with all the vile Epithets, that the most envenom'd Malice could suggest, or the most flatulent Fustian could ex­press. But why it should be a Mark of Reproach to the English Bishops, that they are court-favoured, and law-dignified, I can­not conceive. I rather think the American Whig intended by those Epithets, to hint to his gentle Readers, the great Bigotry, Profaneness, and Impiety, of the K—, the Court, and the Laws of England, in giving their Countenance and Protection to English Protestant Bishops. That it is the introduction of English Protestant Bishops only, in the Colonies that they oppose, is evi­dent from the Consideration,—that a Popish Bishop is fixed at Quebec, and Moravian Bishops have been in this and many other Provinces, without giving any Offence to these Antiaposto­lical Opposers of Episcopacy. But talk of an English Protestant Bishop's residing in the English Protestant Colonies, for the sole Purposes of ordaining and governing the Clergy, and confirming such as are so attached to the primitive Christian Church, as to desire to receive that Apostolical Rite; and such a Bishop, sent for such Purposes, and for such Purposes only, is ranked with Impo­sitions upon Trade; is declared to be worse than the Stamp-Act—the worst Commodity that can be imported; and that his Introduction must prove the absolute, inevitable Desola­tion and Ruin of this Country.

But Whatever Arts these Sowers of the Seeds of public Discord, may make use of, to inveigle the other religious Denominations, to join them against the CHURCH; the other Denominations— [Page 89]all of whom, as far as I perceive, live quietly and peaceably under the present Religious Establishment,—will, I trust, see and pursue their true Interest; and consider the CHURCH as in Truth she is, their grand Security against Independent Op­pression For I dare pronounce it, That should God, for the Punishment of our Sins, ever give up the present happy Con­stitution, into the Hands of that persecuting Faction, no one religious Denomination would enjoy the least Toleration from them; but like the poor, harmless, inoffensive Quakers in Mas­sachusetts, must be content—to be HANGED for their Religion.

THO' the Author of the appeal assumes, at the beginning of his journey, and retains thro' a considerable part of his progress, a great appearance of moderation and candour, in order to render his scheme of an American episcopate the more palatable to dissenters; and by the most soothing strains, to coax them into a tame compliance; or at least to prevent any opposition by way of answer; he found it nevertheless impossible to keep on the mask, till he arrived at his journey's end. The constraint was too unnatural to be of any long duration.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. And if, like Jason in fabulous story, he endeavours to cast the watching Dra­gon into a sleep; like him too, it is for the insidious purpose of carrying off the Golden Fleece of our religious liberty. He had in the preceding part of his pamphlet, done strict justice to the American Dissenters, if indeed it is not the greatest absurdity to talk of dissenters, in a country where, upon his own plan, there is no ecclesiastical establishment to dissent from. He had hitherto wrote like a gentleman, and a Christian. But alas! alas! that this gentleman, and Christian, should not be able to weather the 41st page, without betraying the old leaven. Thus far had we rambled through the flowery fields of catholicism and benevolence, when behold, within a foot of us,—latet anguis in herba! With whatever gales of lenity and temper, his little bark had hitherto been wafted along, it is now unfortunately dashed against the rock of offence, by a sudden gust of obloquy and intolerance. But while we suffer, says he, (would not a man lay ten to one, that he heard the groans of a person under violent persecution?) While we thus suffer, (Oh! Jemmy Thompson! Jemmy Thomp­son, Oh!) We are not apprehensive it can be owing to the displeasure of our superiors, as we are conscious of no crime with regard of the state. On the other hand, we claim a right to be considered as equal with the foremost in every due expression of fidelity and loyalty. We esteem ourselves bound, not only by present interest and incli­nation, but by the more sacred ties of our religious principles, and Christian duty, to support to the utmost, the national civil, estab­lishment. Accordingly, no trumpet of sedition was ever heard to sound from our pulpits: No seeds of disaffection have been suffered more privately to be sown in our houses.

Does not the gentleman, by this invidious passage, plainly in­tend [Page 124]to insinuate, that some other denominations among us, are conscious of crimes with respect to the state? If otherwise, why not satisfied with simply averring that his brethren were as-loy­al subjects as others? this has never that I know of, been called in question. Where then the necessity of all that follows, which tho' artfully, is yet evidently intended, to run an odious parallel between the Episcopalians and Non Episcopalians of North-America? But on the other hand, we claim a right to be con­sidered as equal with the MOST foremost in every due expression of fidelity and loyalty. And surely it is to be hoped, that the most foremost claim a right of being considered as equal with him, and all those who constitute his important we, in every the like expression. Where then again the necessity of resounding the peculiar fidelity and loyalty of a particular church? But mark the grand discrimination between those of his persuasion, and all the rest of the continent. We esteem ourselves (if all this cannot, by the rules of grammar be called Egotism, it is cer­tainly the most fulsome Nosmetism to be met with; we esteem ourselves) bound, not only by present interest and inclination, but by the more sacred ties of our religious principles, and Chris­tian duty, to support, to the utmost, the national civil establish­ment. Would not every reader unacquainted with the true character of the colonists, necessarily conclude, from the great stress laid on this most significant we, that some of us at least, either do not think it our interest, or have no inclination to sup­port the civil establishment? Must he not necessarily conclude, that except the Doctor and his party, all the rest have either wholly discarded the Christian religion; or iniquitously perverted it to the partronizing of disobedience to the state? would any man imagine, that we learnt our religious principles out of the same bible, or entertained the same ideas about the obedience due to government? But lest this insinuation of our secret principles, cruel as it is, should prove insufficient to draw down the resent­ment of our mother country in that most tremendous expression of it, the sending us a Bishop, without a farther suggestion of some more overt acts, to deferve her severest indignation, the Doctor is determined to make thorough work with our political characters: Accordingly, says he, no trumpet of sedition was ever heard to sound from our pulpits; no seeds of disaffection have been suffered more privately to be sown in our houses. And pray in what pulpits has this gentleman ever heard the trumpet of sedi­tion? I think I may challenge him to produce a single instance of any other trumpet's having ever been heard to sound from any dissenting pulpit, than that very trumpet, which it were to be wished was oftener heard to sound from all the pulpits in the world, I mean the trumpet, so solemnly commanded to be blown [Page 125]in the 50th of Isaiah, and the 33d of Ezekiel; even that trumpet which is to warn the people, and to shew them their transgressions. This trumpet, I am confident, is as faithfully sounded from dis­senting, as from episcopal pulpits; and I am further confident, that the sound thereof is of much greater moment to the cause of virtue and true religion, than the obstreperous noise of that little paultry Rams-Horn of episcopal-Sectarianism, (which is con­stantly blown, where ever the society will club for a blower,) to increase the party by a collection of fugitives from other religious societies; which, with notable assurance and the most solemn professions of truth, is annually represented to the dissenters in Britain, (who are great contributors to this perverted charity) as propagating the gospel among the native pagans of America. It is in a word, a trumpet of infinitely greater importance to the souls of men, than the creaking, squeaking, skreaking Bag-pipe of Arminianism, which is perpetually played by those who have solemnly sworn and subscribed never to play it; and whose un­scriptural whistlings, are enough to whistle us all into perdition.

The Doctor has however, tho' probably without design, be­trayed the true foundation of his exuberant zeal for the estab­lishment. We esteem ourselves bound by present interest, &c. to support to the utmost the national civil establishment. Accordingly, that is to say therefore, no trumpet of sedition was ever heard to sound from our pulpits, Is not this a tacit confession, that it is his present interest that holds him to his duty; and that if he got no more by being a churchman, than others do by being dissenters, he would blow sedition upon all the trumpets, and rams-horns, and conck-shells he could lay his hands on? but be­hold, gentle reader, the mighty power of his magic wand! be­fore he had finished the sentence, these same seditious trumpeters, are all at once metamorphosed into the most villainous gardeners that ever handled rake or mattock; and what seed dost thou imagine they sow? and in what kind of a garden? and in what manner and form? Why verily it is a seed ten times worse than Devil's weed, or Hemlock seed, even the execrable seed of dis­affection; and it is sown in the garden of their chimney-corners, and that in so private a manner that no man knoweth thereof, save Doctor Chandler alone, and he only guesseth thereat. But this gentleman will give me leave to tell him, that how often so­ever this seed might have been sown, and how certain soever the most inquisitive eve-dropper may be what [...]eed a man sows pri­vately in his own family; one thing I know, that it hath never yet been seen to grow in this country. On the contrary, whoever chooses to sow this filthy exotic with the hopes of a crop, must cross the atlantic, and sow it in its native soil and climate; where our author knows it has often flourished like a bay-tree, especially [Page 126]when it has been nourished, and cherished, and watered, and pruned, and dunged, as it has never sailed to be, by those inde­fatigable gardeners, his own fraternity.

To the man that is called the AMERICAN WHIG.

I Rejoice in spirit that thou settest thyself against the out­comings of our Bishops, so called in these parts of our pilgrim­age; I hope that the great waters may be a wall of partition between us, while the sun and moon endureth. It would in­deed be a thorn in our flesh, to be again entangled with that yoke of bondage, which neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear. Ecclesiastical courts are the tabernacles of Satan, and what is therein called justice, is in very deed spiritual wickedness in high places. Since our fathers came out from their Babylonish captivity into this peaceable Zion, they, and we, have sat under our own vines and our own fig-trees, and have had none to make us afraid. But behold, those who lust after the vanities of this world, and to mix carnal dominion with the things of the spirit, have taken counsel together to trouble this our American Israel. But I exhort thee not to be dismayed at the threatnings wherewith they shall threaten thee, but to set thy face like a flint against that abomination of desolation, which, if not gain-said in season, will sweep this land with the besom of destruction. Yea, verily, I exhort thee, friend, that, thou noise it abroad, that they hatch cockatrice eggs, and weave the spider's web; and that he that eateth of their egges dieth.

To the ingenious Author of a WHIP for the AMERICAN WHIG.

AS every true friend to the Church, as by law established, and to the glorious cause of liberty, must wish well to your generous design, of detecting the false pretences of your adversa­ries, I cannot help contributing my mite towards your laudable undertaking of defending the justice and equity of an American Episcopate. You, Sir, have for this purpose already refuted the absurdity and nonsense contained in the two first numbers of the American Whig. Permit me to fall in your train, and not only to lend my poor assistance in corroborating your arguments against these two frothy compositions; but while my hand is in, to write a full refutation of all the numbers that have hitherto ap­peared, or ever will appear in print. In doing this, you will par­don [Page 127]me, if I aim at an humble imitation of that style, which I despair of equalling, I mean that smartness and vivacity, which every proper judge of language must necessarily admire in your's,

A full and complete answer to all the numbers of the American Whig, that have as yet been, or ever will be published.

THIS scurrilous author may pretend to what he pleases, but the public is well apprized of his design; he wants to be the head of a faction; and to throw the province into confusion; he is a perfect Hydra; or may more properly be called Legion; for he is possessed with many devils; they are scrubs and scavengers; nor are we ignorant of his person: He is a long-nosed, long­chin'd, ugly looking fellow. Nay I have the authority of a doctor of divinity, to call him that animal, before which we are not to throw pearls. He is a man of a rueful length of face, a libertine, a busy factor in dissention, of an ambitious disappointed faction: His papers are stuffed with low, spurious witticisms, misrepresentations, scurrility, buffoonery, falsehood, abuse and slander. He is a cunning fellow, and a pragmatical assumer. His faction is enraged to a degree of phrenzy. He is successor to Don Quixote, an invidious calumniator, a false accuser of the brethren, and a brother of savages. He was a friend to the stamp Act; for I never heard that he wrote against it, and therefore he did not write against it, and therefore he was a friend to it; and how then can he be a friend to religious liberty? yea, I say a­gain, and intend to repeat it a thousand times; he was a friend to the Stamp-Act, to the Stamp-Act, he was, was, was, a friend to the Stampt-Act. He is, (or for the sake of variety, let us have the plural number,) they are public incendiaries, sowers of dis­cord, abusive adversaries. He pays not the least attention to truth and decency. He is an abominable hobbler, and a destroyer of that harmony which ought now to be so greatly encouraged. For what is religious liberty in comparison of our civil privileges? It is nonsense, and not worth contending for. They are presby­terians, independents, Abaddons, Apollions, deists, sons of Beli­al, and grandsons of Belzebub, arch-rebels, apostates, Brownists, Muggletonians, fifth-monarchy men, Oliverians, Spinosists, en­thusiasts, fanatics, and king-killers. They opposed the college, they opposed the harmless scheme of establishing episcopacy in the manor of Philipsburgh; and would, if they could, bestride the north-west wind, fling the church out of the windows, make the convention dance a hornpipe behind the moon, strike fire out of a cucumber, build stone sences of spider's webs, turn the whole world topsey-turvey, and set fire to the pacific ocean. Nay, this very same identical fellow, who writes against the Bishops in [Page 128]New-York, writes also against them in Philadelphia. This same Whig, scrub and scavenger, is the sole and only author, and in­stigator of all the mischief on the continent, and is the only man who is against an American Episcopate, tho' not one in a thousand is for it. He was begotten by desperation in a total eclipse of the sun, on the bodies of seven infernal furies Nor does he write from any regard to liberty, but from a disappointment at a late election. For tho' his Printer can inform any man, that he had agreed to publish the Whig before that election; yet, for all that, it was the disappointment in that election, that was the sole cause and origin of the Whig. Yea, it was also the origin of the Centi­nel, and of Dr. Chauncey's answer to Dr Chandler's appeal. The disappointment I say, at a late election: The disappoint­ment! The disappointment! This I will also repeat a thousand times; and it is a full answer to all that has, or ever can be wrote against an American Episcopate. He neither values his own reputation, nor the reputation of any one else. He has no more conscience than a dog that p—s against a church door.

They are an unrelenting, persecuting, bigotted faction, to­wards the church and the clergy. They have served two ap­prenticeships in slander and defamation. They began with the triple discharge of falsehood, malice, and revenge against the CHURCH, (the church I say, in capitals, that is to say, the only church in the colonies, the episcopal church,) and the clergy, that is the convention, who are the only clergy in the country. The metamorphosis of this creature is unaccountable; first he was an Independent Reflector, which lost us half the money out of which we intended to defraud the public, for the public good, that is to say the College: Then he was a watch Tower, and gave so true and shocking an account of our persecutions and iniquities, that we never can renew them, but the province is alarmed. At present he is a Whig, and a Devil of a Whig he is; and ten to one, but before he is a year older, he will submit to circumcision, and turn Mahometan. I have asserted three times already, and intend to do it forty times more, that himself ac­knowledges, that the Appeal asks nothing but what is reasonable and just; this I know to be a lie, because he says, it is specious, and seems to ask nothing, &c. and then declares in substance, that none but an ideot will take the appearance for reality. But where is the harm of lying for the church, especially when it can be done so easily as by the omission of a single word? To return to the argument, he is a dog, and moves his tongue against the Appeal; he is a cockatrice, and uses every art that falsehood can invent, that malice can instigate, or revenge can execute. He breaks through all obligations of respect and gratitude, of decency and good manners, of truth and honour. Though he is tole­rated [Page 129]in a country, where there is no establishment, and conse­quently no toleration, yet he paints the very church that tolerates him, in the most odious colours, that falsehood can invent, or malice dictate. He is a new sect, and his religion of yesterday, a motley mixture of ignorance and pride, hypocrisy and superstition. He is the pest of society, and a combustible, fit for eternal com­bustion. He has a chin of a foot long, and a nose of sixteen inches. It is true, Dr. Chandler invites every man to offer his objections to his Appeal. But his Appeal was wrote with real and great seriousness, and the author never so much as thinks of it but with solemnity and devotion; and shall such a serious, solemn, reverend, right-reverend, and thrice-reverend, precious little book as this, be attacked by scrubs, and scavengers, and swine. Besides, the Whig must either write gravely or merrily. When he attempts to be merry, I insist upon it, that he is scur­rilous; and when he writes seriously, I insist upon it, that he is dull; and is the doctor to be answered either with scurrility or dullness? He is born with an evil speaking, lying, and slandering constitution, and he deals out slander and invective, as liberally as the disputants of Billingsgate. They deserve to be lashed at the cart's tail. Inflamed with party rage, actuated by low selfish motives, and goaded on by malice, he pours out a torrent of slander. He is in a violent rage, a Jesuitical sophister, and furious persecutor, and of intolerant principles, designing to enslave others, amidst his cla­morous outcry for liberty. His effrontery and malice, I think de­serve, and would justify worse treatment than a regard to my own character would suffer me to give him. He is a scribbler, a slan­derer, a reviler, a sniveler, a snorter, a roarer, a raver, and a spitter of venom. Thus have I gently corrected the American Whig, for the licentiousness of his pen; and whoever denies that I have wrote with the greatest decency, moderation, and strength of argument, is a villain and a scoundrel.

N. B. The passages in Italicks, are from the Whipper, ex­cept the following, viz. He values neither his own reputation, nor the reputation of any one else. His effrontery and malice, I think would justify worse treatment, than a regard to my own character would suffer me to give him; (which belong to the Rev. Mr. Secretary Seabury,) and the hog, hydra, scrub, and scavenger, which are the sole and indisputable property of the reverend Dr. Chandler.

A Short way to end Strife now it is meddled with.

• 1. THAT the convention desire an American Bishop, is certain.
• 2 That they declare that they only want a primitive Bish­op, is certain.
• 3. That they really mean what they declare, is uncertain.
• 4. That a modern English Bishop would be dangerous [...]o the religious rights and privileges of all the Non-Episcopalians in America, is certain.
• [Page 164] 5. That they ought therefore in justice to themselves and their posterity, and according to the rules of common prudence to be alarmed about their religious liberty, and oppose the project of introducing a Bishop into America; till they have sufficient secu­rity that he will be only a primitive Bishop, is certain.
• 6. That the Tory scribblers, for representing there as disloyal subjects, for taking such alarm; and as a faction against religion, the church, and the clergy are extremely abusive, and rather exasperate than allay the ferment, is certain.
• 7. That the convention, as honest men, ought to give such, security before they can expect our acquiescence in their project is certain.
• 8. That they have not hitherto done it, is certain.
• 9. That until it is done, the opposition will proceed; and may be attended with very disagreeable consequences, is highly probable.
• 10. That when it is done, the controversy ought to cease, is certain.

A KICK for the WHIPPER. No. I.

WHEN a man unauthorised, assumes the arduous and honourable office of a public Whipper, and yet performs the genteel business of flagellation in a blundering manner; when he wastes much time and materials in the operation, and yet the subject thereof, far from pushing a single cry (because the strokes of the switch do not even tickle) seems intirely insensible of the fellow at his posteriors; and when the sole effect of the unskilful operator's blows seems to be the self-caused smart of his own back; what shall be done unto him?—Shall the Whipper himself be whipp'd, for undertaking the whipping business without skill in the whipping art?—No; that were too cruel a punish­ment—the poor fellow, while he meant to whip the Whig most unmercifully, has already most unluckily whipp'd himself sufficiently; besides, who durst aspire to the important task of whipping a professed Whipper? What then?—Why—let him be KICK'D.

Now this necessary, tho' less honourable office, I, Sir ISAAC FOOT, have undertaken, and placing myself near the flagellator, shall give him now and then a kick, as I see occasion, not without [Page 165]some very finall hopes, that by a few hints and admonitions a posteriori, he may be made to see his folly and forswear the trade. Not that I bear Squire Tickle any ill-will—No; I could with all my heart wish he were an artist in the way, and that he might be by authority employed in this decent profession all his days; but alas! he is not the man, and therefore I must and will kick him. This undertaking will give me but little trouble, nor shall I spend much time or shoe-leather about it. And altho' I Sir ISAAC FOOT have kicks for the Whipper in abundance, yet if any gentleman for the sake of either pall [...]me or exercise, has a mind to give him an handsome kick or two, I shall give him room, and take as much pleasure in seeing justice done him by another, as if I Sir ISAAC FOOT had done it myself.

To the PRINTER.

IT is really a thing of very malancholy consideration to every serious Christian, and who truly loves his country, that so un­charitable, and even malicious a spirit, so much the reverse of the most benevolent temper of the gospel, should so much obtain in this country, and be so industriously propagated by the American Whig, to the utter destruction of every thing that is pleasant and amiable in society; and this without any manner of provocation from Dr. Chandler, who only pleads the cause of liberty, with a Christian temper, in an affair of great importance in religion and conscience, on the side of the church, the enjoyment of which, if obtained, could not possibly (as we desire it,) be of the least detriment to any other denomination.—How can it be, that he should so vehemently make it his business to sow discord among brethren? For brethren we are, in so far as we are fellow Chris­tians and neighbours.—I am sorry, indeed, that any of the church should suffer themselves by however so bitter obloquy, to be provoked to return any thing of the like kind, (tho' he makes it ten times as bad as it is,) but it is said, tread on a worm and it will turn, and I hope it will be excused from the frailty of hu­man nature, especially, when the provocation is so very severe. But for my part, I would rather say, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.

I cannot on this occasion but express my surprise, that so respec­table a body as the General Assembly of Boston, in their late letter to their agent in England (in which they do well to express their solicitude for civil liberty) should be so inconsistent and so uncharitably zealous, as, at the same time, most earnestly to op­pose ecclesiastical and religious liberty, with regard to the church, when they say, ‘We hope in God it (an Episcopate) may never [Page 166]take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously op­pose i [...],’ And this tho' we never desired any, nor can any obtain, that can ever have the least concern with them.

Another thing that I beg leave to remark upon, is a passage in the Centinel, No I. which says, "One of the bishops, who is at the head of the society for propagation ‘of the gospel, (meaning the archbishop) was not ashamed to oppose a plan for convert­ing the Indians, because concerted by a denomination of Chris­tians that followed not with him.’—Now that he ever op­posed it, or for that reason, cannot be true, as is evident from his answer to those who asked for countenance and contributions to Mr. Wheelock's Indian school, which may at any time be seen in his letter to the Rev. Dr. Johnson, July 31, 1766, his words are these, ‘My answer was, that we heartily wished success to it, and intended to set up one, not in opposition, but in imita­tion of it, that we hoped the dissenters would sufficiently sup­port Mr. Wheelock's, but could not hope they would contri­bute to a similar one of ours; and therefore it seemed requisite that churchmen should do their best for ours; tho' if any would be kind to their's also, we should not blame them.’—Thus much I thought it necessary to write in vindication of one of the best of men, and am Sir,

The AMERICAN WHIG [No. XII.]

THE contumacious and refractory spirit of our high church clergy, in endeavouring to inflame the populace, by har­ranguing on their imaginary distress in being deprived of what they never possessed, that is a mitred generalissimo, to head their army in stripping us of our religious liberties, has been ta­ken notice of in a former paper. The unreasonableness and im­modesty of their claim, considering that the mother country has done for them a thousand times more than they deserve, shall be the subject of some future speculations. For this day's entertain­ment, I shall endeavour to shew how extremely impolitic it would be in his Majesty's ministers, to encourage so dangerous a project, considered as naturally tending to introduce a state of indepen­dence on Great-Britain.

It is not a bare address in a present emergency of affairs, that constitutes the wisdom of a politician. To deserve the character of a wise and able statesman, one ought to penetrate into futurity and from the contemplation of causes, to look into effects and foresee consequences. These colonies have frequently been char­ged by their enemies at home, with aiming at a design of throw­ing off their dependence. This aspersion is equally false and malicious. The North-Americans of all denominations, ex­cept high churchmen, prefer the constitution of their mother country, to any mode of government that was ever devised by the art of man. They have always revered every one of their prin­ces of the illustrious house of Hanover, not only as their lawful sovereigns, but as monarchs, from principle and affection attached to their constitution; and averse to the infernal doctrine of the uncontroulable power of kings, the power of injuring and oppres­sing those, of whom God and the laws have made them the guar­dians and protectors. Hence, without the most glaring partiali­ty of a British parliament in favour of their brethren at home, they will always reject the thought of shaking off their subjection, with indignation and horror. As they bear Great-Britain the same affection, and can boast equal fidelity; they think themselves [Page 177]entitled to equal good treatment. With the duration of such usage their dependence will, without some unimaginable concurrence of of circumstances, be unquestionably commensurate. But should a future ministry be weak enough to be deluded by such a dolo­rous ditty, as the convention hath lately groaned out, with la­mentation loud; or be inveigled by clerical artifice, to gratify the ambition, the insatiate ambition of some of our rampant high­church clergy; nothing is more probable than that these colo­nies will be debauched from their loyalty, as soon as this set of men shall be sufficiently powerful. The spirit of high church­men is absolutely incompatible with that of our excellent consti­tution; and was their power equal to their wishes, they would neither eat nor sleep before they had turned a limited monarchy, into an absolute one. Whenever they boast of their attachment to monarchy, they mean an unlimited monarchy, which they love, because it would assist them to render the church absolute: But to the government of Great-Britain, which [...]ay indeed be called a monarchy, because it has a king at its [...]ad; but at the same time essentially participates of the republican form, because such king can make no law without the c [...]ent of the people, they never were nor ever will be friendly. Nor are they greater enemies to civil, than to religious liberty: and in what hostile manner they have appeared against the latter, may be read in the ecclesiastical history of England, in characters of blood. Their hearts are not at present meliorated because their hands are tied. When they talk of moderation, we know they mean want of pow­er. What has of late years restrained, and at present checks, their fury in England; is the moderation and humanity of our present sovereign, and his predecessors of the house of Hanover. What restrains them here, is their dependence on Great-Britain as a body ecclesiastic. Having no affection for a constitution limited by law, as the colonists of all other denominations have; nothing can secure their allegiance but their subjection to the church. As this has some place in their affections, at least so far as it flatters their pride and vanity, by its external grandeur; they will, while kept dependent for their religious emolu­ments, be tolerable good subjects. But give them bishops and an hierarchy of their own; and destroy their present necessary inter­course with the mother country, which would be the conse­quence of granting them an independent episcopate, and you dis­solve the principle band of union between them.

They are at present maintained by contributions and charities from England: This with men of their turn is one of the strong­est ties in nature. But an American episcopate cuts asunder this cord. Let them have funds of their own by the management [Page 178]of their spiritual father the bishop, and adieu forever to their political mother Old England.

They must now, to obtain orders (a cargoe of manuscript ser­mons they might procure without going in person) take a trip to London. There they are ravished with the wealth and magni­ficence of the church. Transported like the Queen of Sheba, they confess, that she exceeds the same that they [...]eard, and that the one half of her greatness was not told them. They are dazzled if not with the wisdom of the English ecclesiasticks, at least with their apparel, and especially with their ascent by which they go up into the house of the Lord. So dazzled that St. Paul's Church will be fresh in their memories, twenty years after his doctrines are utterly obliterated. So dazzled, in a word, that were they to live in their native Canaan for a thousand years after, they would never forget the onions of Egypt. But give them all this gran­deur, with all the Doctor's political appendages in America; and a fig for Egypt, and all her onions into the bargain.

These are thoughts, that in my opinion deserve the serious con­sideration of the British ministry; and was there no other reason (tho' I hope to produce at least one hundred and fifty) against countenancing the pernicious claim of a few aspiring priests, in an affair so extremely unfriendly to the preservation of their loy­alty and, dependence, and so generally disagreeable to the serious and worthy part of their own communion; this were alone abun­dantly sufficient to reject it with ignominy and contempt.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG, [No. X.]
Thomas Bradbury Chandler, APPELLANT. Versus, Some of the people of North America, called Presbyte­rians, APPELLEES.

The further Replication of Tho­mas Bradbury Chandler, Doc­tor of Divinity, Appellant, to to the Plea, Demurrer and An­swer, of the People of North-America, Appellees.

AND this repliant further saith, that as touching the said se­veral causes of demurrer, alledged by the said appellees, the same are not sufficient in the law to preclude this repliant from the relief sought for by the Appeal; for that the present cause of demurrer assigned, is frivolous, equivocal, illusory, and eva­sive, in that it denies all equity whereon the people can ground a decree, and referrs the same as being only cognizable by the parliament of Great-Britain, whereas this repliant avers, that there is great equity contained in the matter of the said Appeal, and that all people who are not of a gain-saying, gain-writing, gain-reasoning, oppugning and contravening spirit, might and do easily see the justice upon which the said Appeal is grounded. That nevertheless, this repliant is willing and ready to submit the same to the parliament of Great-Britain, who he doubts not, in their great wisdom, will provide a sufficient remedy for him in this behalf.

And this repliant further saith, That the said appellee's second cause of demurrer, is ill taken, for that it supposes a claim to have been made by this repliant, in behalf of the bishops, of one tenth of the lands in America; when in fact, and truth, this re­pliant [Page 186]never did make any such claim [...] but in and by the said Appeal, hath demonstrated to the court here, that a bishop can have no such right or claim, as necessarily incident and appertaining to his office in America, as by the said Appeal, reference being there­unto had, may more fully and at large appear, and to which this repliant, for greater certainty, doth refer.—And this repliant is advised that the said second cause of demurrer ought to be over­ruled, for that if the said claim had been really made in behalf of the bishops, yet it being of spiritual cognizance, could only be tried in the spiritual court, and not by an ejectment at law, as the said appellees alledge.

And as touching the third cause of demurrer, this appellant saith, that the same consisteth only of words without any mean­ing, and that it is also manifestly defective in form: For that he is advised by his council, that to talk of pros [...]rt of witnesses and oral testimony, is not warranted by the books, it being a term not known in the law, save only as to matters of written e­vidence; neither o [...]n this repliant conceive any idea connected in the terms West-India Negroes, Infidelity, and virtual churchmen, which to this repliant appear insensible, repugnant and contra­dictory.

And as to the fourth cause of demurrer, which asserts, That a harmless bishop is not known in the law, this repliant doth charge, that the said appellees do only thereby discover their a­version to bishops as they are connected with the state, and this repliant verily believes, that the said assertion is false, so far forth as it respects them. But for as much as this repliant and his as­sociates, want only a primitive bishop, he conceives it would be sufficient for over-ruling the said demurrer, if it were found that a harmless bishop is known in the gospel; and this repliant avers, that from the gospel it doth appear that a bishop may be a harm­less, blameless, inoffensive creature.

As to the fifth cause of demurrer, this repliant saith, as he has already said in answer to the second; with this further. That the title claimed by the uninterrupted succession, was not to the one tenth of the premises, nor to any temporal powers, as an unali­enable appendage to the bishops office in America; and that the said appellees, whose clergy support their right of ordination, in, by, and through the same uninterrupted succession, are deriding their own order, while they are laughing at that of the church, who only place the succession in bishops, in stead of presbyters.

As to the sixth cause of demurrer, wherein it is said the ap­pellees are charged with blowing the trumpet of sedition, this re­pliant saith, That he is conusant of no such imputation against them in the said Appeal: and that he cannot conceive by what strange tergiversations, sophistications, and twistifications, his [Page 187]words have been so tortured, perverted, and transmogrified, as to give colour thereto. And forasmuch as the said Appeal sought not a discovery in any such matters that were criminal in their nature, or which would expose the appellees to corporal Punish­ment, or Fine, the same cannot by any pretence be made the ground of a demurrer to the said Appeal, which aimed at no more than discovering the true principles upon which an Ameri­can episcopate was desired, and the ends proposed for the church of England thereby.

And [...]s touching and concerning the appellees seventh cause of demurrer, this repliant saith, That it is not drawn secundum ar­tem, nor is the same consonant to, but tends to confound the se­veral parts of good pleading which is manifest in that it doth per saltem, as it were, award the sentence and decree of the court; which sentence is premature, being pronounced before the issue between the parties were duly joined: And this repliant saith, that the said decree is partial, unjust, illegal, and unconstitution­al, and therefore it is of no force either of law or equity; and this repliant is ready to aver, maintain, and prove, that the same is, to all intents and purposes, null and void.

And for further replication to the said answer of the appellees, this repliant saith, That from time, of which there is no memory of man to the contrary, it hath been plain and manifest that some persons who do advise, council, and direct the said ap­pellees in all matters and things wherein the interest of the said church of England is concerned, ever have done, and ever will Disapprove of all and every proposal made for the advancement of the said church, and would at all times endeavour to molest, disturb, expose, des [...]a [...], resist, and repulse all reasonable device and devices made on the part of, and for the benefit of the said church: Wherefore this repliant as concerning the matters of discovery sought for by the said Appeal, did not aim to discover Matters and things so luminous, apparent, and notorious to all the good people of this province: and therefore he doth, as to the DISAPPROBATION of the said appellees, set forth in their said answer, charge that the same is impertinent, and not ma­terial in the premises; and prays his costs in this behalf, to be adjudged to him, for the unnecessary charge he hath been put to thereby.

And this repliant further saith, That if the said appellees have seen or heard of any paper or papers, writing or writings, said to be copies of petitions sent by the convention to Great-Britain, wherein any defamations, aspersions. and misrepresentations, &c. are contained, this appellant doth charge that the said pretended copies have been fraudulently, and deceitfully made, fabricated, and constructed by the said appellees themselves, or some of them, [Page 188]or by and with their, or some or one of their privity, knowledge or consent, in order thereby to give colourable pretext to their opposition against the said Appeal; which this appellant con­ceives to be very unfair, unjust, unrighteous, and iniquitous, if the same be true. And as this repliant is very certain that no such defamations, &c. are specified and contained in the said ori­ginal petitions, he is constrained to believe, either that such sur­reptitious copies have been made and given out as aforesaid, or that in default thereof the said appellees, or rather their coun­cil, have taken upon themselves to surmise, and publish what they had not the least evidence of any kind to believe.

And as for and concerning the said appellees denial of ever having persecuted the church in America, or that she ever was persecuted by any other person or persons, this repliant doth a­ver, and will maintain and prove, that in times past, the appel­lees, or their ancestors in America, or in some parts thereof, have been known to use and exercise cruelty and persecution towards the said church; and by all the ways and means in their power, to make and render her in very deed, a church militant; and true it is, that in these latter days, the said church hath in such sort become triumphant, as to preserve herself free and clear, and freely and clearly indemnified, exonerated, and discharged of and from all former judgments, Fines, Amerciaments, impositions, Troubles, and Incumbrances, made and executed by the ancestors of the said Appellees, or any person or persons claiming the right of persecution, by, from, or under them, in America: But this repliant doth nevertheless believe, that there are divers causes, grounds, and reasons, upon which the said exemption may be ac­counted for, other than that of a thorough change in the princi­ples of the said Appellees, which this repliant cannot admit to have been effectually wrought in them.

And this repliant further saith, that he doth admit it may be true, that the said Appllees have not now in their custody or pos­session, the charter of uninterrupted succession, mentioned in the said appeal; for that he conceives there might be, and really were good reasons against entrusting the possession thereof with them; it be­ing manifest that the said Appellees have not, nor ever had that cordial love, affection, good will, or benevolence towards the said church of England, which would have rendered this fundamental right of her's safe in their hands. And this repliant is rather in­elined to believe, that had the said charter ever been entrusted with the said Appellees the same would have been kept socret, privy, spake, covert and occult, or otherwise destroyed, so that this re­pliant and his associates, never could at any time or times hereafter, have had or gotten the same again; or if the said appellees ever had the said charter, and the same hath not been so secreted or [Page 189]destroyed, this repliant doubts not but that it hath been either so obscured, altered raised, obliterated, interlined and defaced, or so changed by false glosses, forced innuendos, perversions, evasions, prevarications, subtilties, and unscriptural interpretations, that it is now become not the same charter whereof mention is made in the said Appeal, but other and divers. Wherefore this repliant doth not deny but that the said Appellees may possibly, from one or other of the causes before mentioned, be well satisfied either that they have not, nor ever had the said original charter: or if they had, that the same is altogether become forfeited, vacated, and repealed by the means, devices, and artifices aforesaid.

The AMERICAN WHIG [No. XIII.]
To the Author of the American Whig.

I THANK you for the publication of my former letter, signed an American Churchman, and as I now renew the correspond­ence with the same design of vindicating our church from the odious imputation of a design to introduce bishops into America, you have leave to make the same use of it. I call the imputation odious, because as the law now stands, we cannot have an Episco­pate in this country, but upon terms more mischievous than be­neficial. I have already shewn, that bishops will necessarily bring with them the ecclesiastical courts, and subjugate the colonies to the pride and tyranny of the clergy; evils of all others to be most dreaded; and which to prevent and abhor, I hope, is as consistent with the character of a churchman, as of any other denomination. All who expect to better their circumstances by his lordship's favour, will fret at the opposition, and be apt to deny the moderate episcopalians, who disapprove their ambition and indiscretion, to be true sons of the church. This was a stratagem of the papists, and is now imitated by the tories, who to catch the vulgar, cover their real designs, under the cloak of zeal for the cause. But her glory never depended upon the fu­rious devotees who crowd into her bosom: She acquired honour at the reformation, by the catholicism of her chief leaders; and those who have preserved it since, have always been distinguished by the holiness of their lives, the charitableness of their tempers, their prudence, their love of liberty, and detestation of bondage. Our characters of renown, are such as Cranmer, Ridley, Burnet, Hoadly and Tillotson, who were as eminent for their meekness, as for their piety and erudition. Laud, Manwaring Sibthorp, At­terbury and Sacheverel, are their contrasts; and with pride in their hearts, the church the church, on their tongues, and a fag­got in their hands; were ready for every project, which savage intolerance, and the execrable principles of passive obedience, and non-resistance, could dictate. All societies are exposed to hot and designing spirits, who would be willing to turn the world up-side down; and men of cool heads sind often more difficulty [Page 197] [...]n guarding the church against the rashness of her friends, than the open attacks of her enemies. It was the violence of a few bi­gots that obliged the government to shut up the convocation, and deprive the church of England of the privilege of meeting in sy­nods and councils; a privilege infinitely more important to her, than the presence of bishops in this country can be to us,—a privi­lege, or to speak more properly, a right, perhaps essential to the well-being of the church of Christ, and certainly agreeable to the usage of every other Christian church, in all countries, from the apostolic age, to the present day. Let those who consider the distance of our bishops as an unparralleled hardship, reflect upon this loss, which the church of the mother-country has sustained, and by which she is become disagreeably distinguished from eve­ry Christian church in the world. It teaches a good lesson to us all; she submits to it, and her best friends submit willingly, be­cause more evil than good, probably would continue to be the consequence of the assembling of her clergy; and if such is like to be the case, upon our establishment of a hierarchy in America, we shall approve ourselves good Christians, good subjects, and good churchmen too, by a peaceable demeanor, under the trifling inconveniencies, comparatively speaking, which we feel from the remoteness of the bishop of London, to whose care our churches are more particularly entrusted.

But whether it was our duty to be content with our present state, or not; yet since the establishment of bishopricks in America, will make a vast change in our ecclesiastical state, and naturally in­troduce a long train of alarming consequences; I cannot help thinking, the very manner in which relief has been sought for, subject to severe censure; and, that the people of our denomina­tion ought to be the first to complain.

From the best information I have been able to obtain, the cler­gy of Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, Geor­gia, and the West-India islands, had no concern in the late peti­tions transmitted on this subject; they seem to have been hatched by a few warm missionaries in the provinces of New-York, New-Jersey, and Pensylvania; and propagated to the Eastern colonies by the help of the frequent unconstitutional assemblies, latterly convoked under the name of the convention. It is a rash enter­prise of the clergy, without the intervention of the laity; and therefore ought not to be charged upon the church in general. I venture to affirm, that the majority of their hearers, [...]y, that some of the most respectable members of the churches, uncer the care of these very missionaries, knew nothing of the design, till the petitions were actually transinitted. In so important a trans­action, affecting every episcopal church in America, all the cler­gy, and such of the laity, as were most distinguished for their [Page 198]rank and abilities, ought, doubtless, to have been consulted: And had the projectors been as eminent for their prudence, as they have signalized themselves for their heat and precipitation; the public would not have been exposed to the anxieties, jealousies and animosities, with which the whole continent is now disquiet­ed and alarmed.

Admitting all that Doctor Chandler has alledged, to be true, yet a novelty was to be introduced; and though the whole con­vention assisted, still the state of this country, as opposed to a hie­rarchy, the dignities and privileges annexed to the order of bish­ops, in that from whence they are expected; the effect the law might have upon the claims of the new bishops, and the manner of guarding against powers, of which we ourselves are fearful, and which the Doctor himself will not permit them to enjoy; all conspired to dictate a proceeding in a matter of this weight, with the utmost deliberation. It is in vain to attempt a vindication, by alledging, that all men were consulted by the Appeal; because the machination was already begun to be carried into execution; the petitions being actually preferred: The Appeal was a second step towards it—and the very question whether an alarm of the colonies at this juncture, was proper or not, deserved the previous consideration of all the friends of the church. The publication of the Appeal, was itself therefore a great error, and cannot justify the first; so that there has been a contempt in this process of the greater part of our clergy, and of the whole laity, except a few, from whose insignificancy, the projectors perhaps, expected nei­ther aid nor opposition. But this not all, their conduct is as ex­ceptionable for their shameful neglect, both of the government and the bishop of London.

Seven addresses intimately assecting all the episcopal churches up­on the continent, and to personages, and bodies of such rank as the sovereign himself, the two arch-bishops, the society for propa­gating the gospel, the bishop of London, and the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and upon a subject of the most delicate nature; ought to have been laid before the governors of those provinces, at least, where the petitioners resided. If the design was good, their aid was expedient; and it might be expected from them, as representatives of his Majesty, who is by law the supreme head of the church—Add to this, that being interested as ordi­naries in their provinces, there could be neither decency nor justice, in soliciting an enterprise, in which they were, or might be deeply concerned, by a diminution of their perquisites without their privity and concurrence.

And as to his lordship the bishop of London, their sa [...]s pus is e­qually astonishing and repuchensible. Surely they could n [...] be ignorant of the King's instructions to our governors, relative to [Page 199]the churches in this country. In these, while the rights of conscience are secured to all protestants, due care is taken for the better government of our churches, by an order to the governors, to give countenance and encouragement to the exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop of London.The standing instructions to the governors, are nearly simi­lar in all the provinces, not chartered, nor granted to proprietors. These following were given to Col. Montgomerie, the governor of New-York, with his commission, and are dated the 20th of Octo­ber, 1727. 57. You are to permit a liberty of conscience to all persons, ex­cept pupists, so they be contented with a quiet and peaceable enjoy­ment of the same, not giving offence or scandal to the government. 64. And to the end the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said lord bishop of London, may take place in this province, so far as conve­niently may be; we do think fit that you do give all countenance and encouragement to the exercise of the same, excepting only the collating to benefices, granting licences for marriages, and probate of wills, which we have reserved to you our governor, and to the commander in chief of our said province for the time being.

The episcopal church in the city of New-York, was incorpo­rated by a law of the colony, in Queen Anne's reign on the 27th of June, 1704; and the institution and induction of the rectors is enacted, to be "in such manner, and always, as shall be most suitable to her Majesty's instructions to his Excellency the gover­nor of this colony, for the time being, and that canonical right and authority which the Right Rev. Father in God, Henry lord bishop of London, and his successors hath, and shall have, over the said church." With whatever contempt therefore, some may think and speak of the authority of this prelate in America; the missionaries ordained by him, ought above all others to have treated his claims, so honourably guarded, with peculiar respect. I speak as a churchman; our clergy, in my humble opinion, ought, not only to have acquainted his lordship of the design of erecting one or more dioceses, within that which he claims for the See of London. before any petitions were presented to others; but to have had his express approbation for holding the conventions in which they were contrived. That any applications to this end, were ever made to him before the commencement of the execution of this plain, I have never heard; nor without good proof will be induced to believe. Had such been the case, their success could not well have remained a secret to this day; nor is it conceivable, that his lordship would have countenanced conventions or assem­blies [Page 200]of the clergy in America, not allowed of in England; or for­mal addresses to the throne, upon a subject so new and important, without bringing his majesty acquainted with the design; who, would doubtless have suspended his royal concurrence, till the governors of the provinces had been ordered to report upon the expediency, both of the aim of the petitioners, and the manner proposed for carrying it into execution.

But this censure upon the mode, will fall with so much the greater weight, as the project itself is to the last degree danger­ous.—'Tis granted, that the introduction of bishops will give us some advantage of which we are now deprived; but the ques­tion is, whether greater evils will not ensue, than those we now complain of. Because the church in America is not so complete­ly organized as we could wish, are we to be regardless of conse­quences injurious to our country, and perhaps to the laws of reli­gion itself? Gold, as the old saying is, may be purchased too dear. I acknowledge that more discipline is wanting; but to the honour of our missionaries, the necessity in this respect is very far from being urgent, except in Maryland, and the islands. The expence of a voyage to London, for ordination, has its advantages and disadvantages; and confirmation is a rite which is undoubt­edly rational, and has its uses; but I can trust the mercy of God without it; and after all, who will dare say we are a church without a bishop. We are under the pastoral care of the bishop of London; and if his lordship's distance is in some respects to be lamented, yet, to be honest, we must confess, that he has the whole society for propagating the gospel to assist him; an advan­tage this to him, and to us, never to be concealed, but freely mentioned, and with the utmost gratitude. As our missionaries are dependent upon their generosity, they hold the power to go­vern them with ease; nor can we reproach the society with any instance of their neglecting to withhold their allowance from a single clergyman, duly convicted of immoral behaviour: So that in point of discipline, instead of magnifying our distress, we can beast a superiority to any part of England; for there, a wicked priest, by a less precarious subsistence, and the interest of power­ful patrons, often out-braves the pastoral authority of his spiritu­al father. This is a grievance the bishops greatly lament, and from which the church cannot be relieved, till the parochial in­cumbents, by a change of the law, are become more dependent upon the people, or their ecclesiastical superiors.

Happy, therefore, as the circumstances of the churches are in America, there is really no foundation for adventuring upon the innovation, for which some men affect to be so vehemently con­cerned. The benefit sought for, is not worth the expence of the trouble and disgrace already brought upon us, by the jealousy of the [Page 201]rest of our countrymen. I speak for myself, (and anxious for the honour of our church, I am happy in being able to say, that I know it to be agreeable to the general voice of the most distin­guished and reputable persons of our persuasion,) that I had ra­ther ther we should be under the See of London, distant as his lord­ship is, with the aid of the society to support him, while the world lasts; than run the most distant risk of exposing this coun­try to the unchristian chastisement of the spiritual courts, for the space of a single year. And yet, that is not the only evil which will follow from the erection of episcopates in America.—An in­crease of the power of the clergy of any denomination, where we are split into so many, will disturb and depopulate the continent, and spoil the fairest prospect of establishing a glorious, rich, and happy empire, which the world ever saw. I love Christianity for its philanthropy; and its friendliness to mankind, I esteem as one of the best proofs that it came down from our benevolent father, who is in heaven.—It was said by a great personage in the last reign, that it was the peculiar felicity of the plantations, that all protestant sects were upon a par; and that the crown unem­barrassed by any persecuting laws, was at liberty to reward every man according to his merit. A speech this, that would have be­come a philosopher, and which, disgustful as it may be to the sour soul of a bigot, would have been approved by LOCKE, that prince of philosophers; and who was at the same time, one of the brightest ornaments of our church and nation. The principle is besides as politic, as it is Christian. Consisting of but a handful, what could England have done towards the settlement of this continent, which is now become so great a magazine of her wealth, had she not given into the most liberal toleration. What matters it to the nation by what blood, or by what persuasion she is served, if she is but well served: And has not the experience of more than a century evinced, that the Americans, who con­sist chiefly of foreign protestants, Scotch and Irish presbyterians, and English dissenters, breathe a spirit of loyalty, perfectly free from the Jacobitism and Toryism of those Sacheverelian bellow­ers, for the church, the church; who are so scandalous to her, so dangerous to the government, and so rampant in Oxford, and numerous in other parts of the mother country.

Besides, it is not only agreeable to the principles of sound po­licy, to give no sect an offensive preheminence in the colonies, (which an episcopate tends to promote,) but it is really what the nation with which England has connected herself, since America was explored, may with justice expect; and to prevent which, the Americans themselves will proceed to the greatest extremities. For as to Scotland, since presbyterianism has as lawful, and national, and reputable an establishment there, as episcopacy has [Page 202]in the southern part of the island; and this continent is peopled by emigrations from both, no reason can be assigned for any odious distinctions to the prejudice of the sons of either of those churches. As to the Americans, what is the language of their charters, the commissions and instructions to their governors, the statute of na­turalization, and the colony laws unrepealed, with the constant usage of government, in appointing persons to places both of trust and profit, without any religious discrimination; but that if they are protestants and good subjects, nothing more will be expected? Depending upon this, people of different nations came out, and settled this wilderness; and thereby acquired a domi­nion for Great-Britain, which, if she had been left to herself, she never could have people. The Americans have therefore a compact to plead for their immunities: And all the benefits which flow from this country, whether they respect extent of commerce, wealth, or the augmentation of the number of British subjects, even in Europe; to which last, the growth of the colonies has greatly conduced; are what we bring in our hands in return for the privileges we enjoy. Away then with every ill-policied into­lerant, contemptible, priestly project, contrived in a conclave, convocation, convention, or any other nest of narrow minded, proud, ignorant, inflammatory parsons. No bishop without a spi­ritual court. 'Tis by this rod, the church of England, accord­ing to the present state of the law, corrects her disorderly profes­sors. And if a number of these judicatories are once set up in A­merica, farewell to those emigrations from Europe, which have proved such fruitful nurseries to this country. The bare apprehen­sion if it spreads across the Atlantic, will do us more harm than many are aware of. Assure yourself, Sir, that it is not the church, nor even the majority of our clergy, that wish success to this silly scheme; to those only who are in the pay of the society, and of these, to such as are discontented with their allowance, it is to be imputed. All the rest of the episcopal clergy are quiet, and the body of the laity wish the missionaries had been so too. For the satisfaction of the weaker sort, who think otherwise, I shall in some future letters abundantly shew, that, whether the non-episcopalians are right or wrong, in this controversy; we shall be wrong, if we persist in teazing the government to patro­nize a scheme, that may, if it proceeds, involve us either in the calamities of a civil war; or by driving the present inhabitants out, or stopping further importations into the country, prevent the settlement of our lands, and by sinking their value, plunge us into ruin, and perhaps drag the nation after us into the same pit of destruction.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER, By Sir ISAAC FOOT, [No. III.]

SQUIRE T. hates controversy—especially with an unfair, abusive adversary; N^o II. par. I.) 'tis natural; even a man, who loves dearly to play tricks and seold, hates abominably to be tricked and scolded at himself. But who is this unfair and abusive adversary of Squire Tickle's? The WHIG. Why, Jack Catch never dignifies the malefactor with this appellation. Alas! Squire T. (the Whig's Whipper) certainly does not consider, that he does too much honour to a rascal (who, taking no notice of his blows, says not a word to him, and whose backside only is to­wards him) in calling him his adversary.

The general observations in par. 2d. and 4th, all the world must allow to be just; but their particular application must be submitted to the tribunal of the public. So that par. 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th, I shall truss up like two brace of snipes on one and the same spit; only basting them with this observation, that I've often heard of a calf's, but never of a bull's being begot; nor did I ever before dream, that one single bull could be begot upon two dams, and those so different as a sheep and a wolf.—Squire Tickle's very good friend, &c. JACR PUNLOVE, must needs be a very cunning fellow!

Par. 6th. Squire T. declares, that the Whig and his faction, have written, and done NOTHING AT ALL in behalf of their country, [Page 204]to avert impending mischiefs. How he knows this, I know not; but this one thing I know, that, if the late scribbling about bishops has occasioned divisions and distractions, Squire T. acts very consistently (with himself) in charging all to the Whig's ac­count; for who does not know, that the Whig wrote against bishops, long before Dr. Chandler wrote for them.

Par. 7th Squire T. commends some late patriotic writers, and that not without reason, any man readily commends another, who exerts himself to preserve that property, which he hopes one day will be his prey; and no Tory will in any case quarrel with even a Whig, while his views are not inconsistent with his own. However, I fancy Squire T. little suspects, that even that Whig, that champion for liberty, the FARMER himself, is one of the best writers against an American Episcopate; had he known this sooner, his 7th might have been of the same complexion with his 8th paragraph.

That the reader may discover the merit of par. 9th I beg leave to refer him to Dr. Ram-chicken.

Par. 10th. Squire T. points out the Whig's self contradictions, the grossness of which every one must needs see, who considers, that in, by, and through the church, and so far as she is concerned in the premises, Dr. Chandler's Appeal seems to breathe a zeal for religion, signifies precisely the same thing as Dr. Chandler breathes a zeal for religion; and that ASKS, without a condition, expresses no more than SEEMS TO ASK, with one. If in the other instances the reader, on again examining the Whig, should be at a loss to find the inconsistency, he, will no doubt wonder at the acuteness of Squire T's. eyesight, which enables him to discover what no body else can.

What a fool the Whig was to talk of Bellarmine! Bellarmine and Dr. Ch—r, however similar, were absolutely, utterly, and entirely different persons. (Compare WHIG, No. I. par. 2, and WHIP, No. II. par. 2.)

Par. 12th, is full of criticism (which Squire T. loves dearly) and par. 13th suggests a reflection on the vast force it has to knock down argument.

In par. 14th, Squire T. scolds at the poor Whig, and his party, most vehemently, though he had done the same several times before. So have I heard an old woman scold herself out of breath—then puff—and blow—and then scold again. Squire T. charges the Whig with misrepresentation, (what was it a late writer said about Joseph, and Potiphar's wife?) and if any man dares say it is an unjust charge, or that there is one single misrepresentation in par. 10th, N^o II of the Whip, he'll be scolded at as an enemy to the CHURCH, and an adversary,—an abusive adversary, (oh! dreadful!) to Squire Tickle.

Par. 16th proves Squire T. a master indelicacy of composition; I dare defy the whole world to produce his equal. Let scribbled, [Page 205]slandered, reviled, SNIVELLED, SNORTED, ROARED, RAVED and SPIT, serve for an example of his abilities in this way. With this foliage of his VERBAGE, I therefore twine a wreath; and in spite of the number of his competitors, after saluting him with a kick, present Squire TICKLE with the laurel.

FACTS—proposed to the WHIG.
To the PRINTER,

I AM glad to find at last the appearance of one in your paper of the 23d of May, who seems as if he was willing to come to the merits of the cause in his short way to end strife: To whom I beg leave to answer in the order of his particulars, which, N. B. it may be well for the reader of this to have under his eye.

1. That it is indeed certain, that the convention do desire an American bishop, and that very earnestly.

2. It is no less certain, that they do want, and desire only a truly primative bishop, meaning such a one as Dr. Chandler de­scribes, whose business shall be, (besides what is common to the other orders) only to ordain and govern the clergy, and confirm the laity, which they are persuaded the most primitive bishops always did.

3. However uncharitably incredulous Mr. Whig is, it is also most certain, that they mean as they say, and that without the least equivocation, or mental reservation.

4. It is by no means certain, as the writer says, that a modern English bishop, would be at all dangerous to the religious rights and privileges of any non-episcopalians here; nay, the contrary is at least highly probable, because they are not so now in England, nor have been for almost a 100 years, nor I believe ever will again.—However, bona fide we desire no bishops that can ever, by the constitution, have any concern with non-episco­palians, any other than Christian good neighbourhood:—We would not by any means, have them have any concern with any temporal or civil matters, nor hold any spiritual courts, only such as relate to our own clergy; let therefore our non-episcopal bre­thren, henceforth, for the future lay aside all terror about them.

5. We do therefore aver, that neither Mr. Whig nor any one else, have any manner of occasion to be alarmed about their re­ligious liberty, of which we don't know how indeed, they can be more secure than they are.—We do not blame them for be­ing [Page 206]concerned for religious as well as civil liberty, in both which we agree with them; it is only the cause of liberty we plead, and whether they will believe it or not, we are as heartily desirous of their liberty as our own.—We only want to be upon as good a foot as they are, i. e. to have ordaining and governing powers of our own within ourselves, as they have, in which we would by no means molest them,

6. It is therefore plain, that these Tory scribblers among the presbyterians, (for the gentleman that calls himself a Whig, is really a most violent Tory, for the true old Whigs were always reasonable, moderate, and charitable men,) I say, these Tory scribblers, for representing us as a faction, against the liberties of the country, and a set of designing men, that aim at introdu­cing ecclesiastical tyranny are, indeed extremely abusive to us of the church, not to say outragiously so.

7. I know all the gentlemen of the convention very well, and have all the reason to believe (that men can give) that they are honest men, and mean no more than I have represented; and that they are ready to give all the security in their power; that they desire no further. And

8. I beg any reasonable man, or body of men, would tell us in the spirit of Christian meekness, what further security they would desire, beyond our solemn asseverations, that we may, if possible, satisfy them. And

9. I beg in the name of all that is good, to know, why till this is done, the opposition should not be, at least, suspended, and opportunity be given to attend to this single point. And

10. When this is adjusted, I hope all controversy, and every unchristian temper will forever cease, and be no more.

THERE seems to be something perverse in human nature, that prompts men to give partial and unfair representations, when it suits their purpose. They conceal truths, extenuate faults, and diminish or magnify difficulties as it serves their turn, or contributes to carry their designs into execution. The client loudly proclaims his wrongs, and magnifies his pretensions, while he industriously conceals from his lawyer some of the strongest circumstances that operate against him.

Doctor Chandler seems in his Appeal, to labour under this in­firmity: he complains that the episcopal church in America suf­fers unparalleled hardships: he insinuates, that the complaints which he makes are the complaints of a million of British subjects in America, suffering under unprecedented hardships; and that all the episcopal clergy and laity are joint petitioners with him and his friends for an American Episcopate, on the plan he has mentioned. Whereas, in fact, the people were never consulted on the measure, nor were they ever heard to complain. The whole was concerted and curried on by a few missionaries (whom the Doctor stiles the clergy) of New-York and New-Jersey met together in a voluntary convention. By what right they assume such power it may be well to enquire.

According to the English constitution, every part of his majes­ty's extensive dominions, where governments are established, has a power to take care of religion in a way suited to the genius and persuasion of the people. At the reformation, the English par­liament formed their articles of religion, and invested their king with all power, as well ecclesiastical as civil, and modelled church government according to their pleasure. They afterwards by the Act of Toleration made provision for dissenters from the esta­blished church. The legislature of Scotland, (after that kingdom became a branch of the British empire) took care of religion in their own way, and established church discipline on a plan diffe­rent from that of England, which plan was afterwards confirm­ed by the British parliament when both kingdoms were happily united. In Ireland, though the religious establishment be nearly the same as the English, in worship and government, the legisla­ture claim the sole right of establishing articles and canons, and of regulating the affairs of their church as to them seems best. In some of the British colonies in America, one religious denomi­nation, in others another denomination of Christians have been the peculiar care of the government; while in some, by the con­stitution of the state, all enjoy equal privileges.

[Page 227] I would therefore be glad to know by what authority the mis­sionaries of New-York and New-Jersey, in violation of the con­stitution of the British governments, and of the rights of their fellow subjects, usurp a power of acting for all the episcopalians in America; of forming a new plan of episcopacy for them, and of petitioning "our superiors" in Britain, that this plan may be established in his majesty's American colonies by the British legis­lature? Who commissioned them to act? They will not pretend to say, they exercise this power by Divine Right, or as inherent in them? Who then, entrusted them with the care of religion in America? Or who, for instance, empowered them to intermeddle with the state of it in the West-India islands? Do the people [...]per clergy or laity there complain of "unparalleled hardships?" With regard to the clergy in the islands, an honourable provision is made for their support by the respective legislatures. And if the people think themselves aggrieved, they know where to ap­ply for redress. They have governors and assemblies, in whose power it is to regulate the affairs of the church in their respective districts, and to rectify what they think amiss in its polity. Or, if they had not this power, is it to be imagined that so respectable a body of his majesty's subjects, were they groaning under into­lerable grievances, as the Doctor represents, would not have ad­dressed his majesty, for relief themselves rather than have entrust­ed so important an affair with a few missionaries in North-Ame­rica, who are ignorant of their laws and circumstances? Let the world then judge whether the petitions sent home by the missiona­ries of New-York and the Jerseys, and the Appeal published by Doctor Chandler, as far as they respect the islands, are not an in­solent invasion of the rights of others, and a busy intermeddling with their laws and constitutions without their consent or appro­bation.

The same may be said of Virginia and Maryland. Have the clergy or laity of these provinces ever complained of 'unparallel­ed sufferings' or empowered the 'missionaries met in a voluntary convention' to complain in their name? Are they not the best judges, when an episcopate is necessary, and what plan of episco­pacy will best suit themselves? At least are they not as good judges as the members of the convention at Amboy? If an epis­copate be necessary to "ordain, and govern the clergy and to ad­minister confirmation to such as shall apply for it," the common appendages of episcopacy are not necessary; but may and must be varied, as the laws and constitutions of different governments may require. And to the body of the people, to the assemblies and governors does it belong to regulate these appendages. These governments have provided for the maintainance of the clergy, in a way most agreeable to themselves, and when they think it ne­cessary [Page 228]to have a bishop, they will, doubtless, fall upon measures to have one. But what right the missionaries of New-York and New-Jersey have to publish complaints in the name of these peo­ple, while they themselves are silent, or to represent their suffer­ings as intolerable and their grievances as unparalleled, while they themselves express no uneasiness, I cannot well comprehend.

But the presumption of the convention which voluntarily met at Amboy, and took upon themselves to act as representatives of all the members of the English episcopalians in America, seems greatly heightened when we consider, first, that it was illegal according to the canons of their church; secondly, that none of the laity met in it; and, thirdly, that it was composed of but a part of the missionaries. Not above one, or at the most two of the episcopal clergy in Pennsylvania (if I am well informed) met in convention, or were taken into their consultations; and very few from New-England. The episcopal clergy in Pennsylvania are men of too much understanding to complain without reason, and too well acquainted with the charter and laws of the pro­vince, not to know that they enjoy the same liberty as any other religious denomination. They claim no superiority over their fellow Christians, nor do they consider themselves in a state of persecution, merely because they are not established by act of par­liament, and their opinions and practices made a state religion in preference to all others. They know that a difference in reli­gion does not deprive a subject of his 'natural right to any civil or military power.' And as to the laity they are contented with the privileges which they enjoy in common with their fellow-subjects.

Should any one ask who these gentlemen are that met in this voluntary convention, and assumed to themselves such mighty powers; I blush to think of the answer that must be given. Cer­tainly some respect should have been had to governors, to the members of his Majesty's council, to the representatives of the people in assemblies met. They at least ought to have been con­sulted; before application was made to his Majesty for an episco­pate, and before a plan was concluded on different from what was ever known in the Christian church.

It might have derogated too much from the dignity of this vo­luntary convention, to have consulted with dissenters on the occa­sion, yet where those who reject episcopacy are more than thirty or forty for one that prefers it—as is the case in some of the East­ern governments, thinking people will admit that some regard should be had to them.

Upon the whole, then, it is evident, that neither the addresses requesting an episcopate, nor the bitter and indecent complaints, of unprecedented hardships and unparalelled sufferings are the [Page 229]voice of the clergy and laity of the episcopal churches in Ameri­ca: Neither do they complain of a want of government because they have not a bishop residing among them. Agreeable to the constitution of their church, they consider themselves under the care of the Bishop of London as their pastor, and the king as the supreme head of their ecclesiastical polity. Their worship they regulate by the canons and rubries, their discipline by the laws of the community to which they belong, and their faith by the articles of the church of England. The distance of their go­vernors does not in their opinion destroy the regularity of their government, nor tempt them to demand a change; and until the Doctor convinces us that near a million of British subjects in Ame­rica have commissioned him and his associates to petition and com­plain, we must vindicate so respectable a body from the proceed­ings of the convention, who by assuming an authority and power never delegated to them, would pass themselves upon the world for men of importance.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG, [No. XII.]

IT is not a little surprising, that a writer of a weekly piece, who confines himself to no order, spurns at truth, and despises reason and argumentation, should be so soon obliged to recur to a figure of rhetoric, called, repetition, to fill up his abusive pa­per: That this is a fact, is evident to every impartial reader, of Num. VIII. of the American Whig, in which there is nothing but what he said before, except his historical account of the re­formation, and the origin of the dissenters in England;—this I must confess is new, very new, so intirely new, that I am con­fident it owes its existence to the fruitful invention of the Ameri­can Whig. To evince this assertion, I shall now exhibit to the public an account of the occasion and rise of the English dissent­ers, not indeed quite so new, but rather more true; and dare ap­peal to all the English historians, (except Neil, whose veracity stands upon no better foundation, than his friend's, the American Whig,) for a confirmation of what I advance.

Henry the VIIIth, was so far from being a reformer, that he continued a zealous, and persecuting Papist to his death. He aimed at nothing more than the gratification of his lust and am­bition;— and in order that he might indulge himself without controul, he shook off the Papal authority, and enriched himself by seizing the revenues of the church. Under his son Edward VI. the reformation made a very considerable progress, but was far from complete, when it pleased God, who is unsearchable in his judgments, to deprive the nation of so pious and aimiable a prince, and the Romish religion was again introduced, under the influence and power of the bigotted tyrant Mary; who raised a persecution against the reformed, equal to any that the primitive Church suffered from the Heathen emperors. Many pious and learned clergymen of the reformed church of England, as well bishops as presbyters, were put to the most cruel death; and many clergymen whose courage was not equal to their piety and learning, left the kingdom and sheltered themselves in various parts of Europe, especially at Geneva, where they contracted a love and esteem for the Genevan discipline, &c.—When Queen Elizabeth, of glorious memory, came to the throne, a sufficient number of men of abilities and learning, to supply the parishes that had been vacated by Mary's persecution, was not to be found; [Page 235]which occasioned the temporary institution of non-preaching mi­nisters. Those that had left their livings, which were now filled in the best manner the times would permit, finding all easy and quiet at home, returned, and demanded to be restored to their old parishes. But as they had deserted their flocks in the time of danger, it was thought unjust to turn out the present incumbents, to make room for them. Thus disappointed, they became dis­contented, and began to set up for a more pure and thorough re­formation, and took the name of Puritans. In a little time they became somewhat troublesome, but were too plous and well dis­posed to seperate from the church.

While things were in this situation, the Roman Catholics at home and abroad, especially the Jesuits, were very industrious in making use of every means in their power, to obstruct and dis­grace the reformation. Always fruitful in invention, it occured to them, that they might avail themselves of the instrumentality of the Puritans, to sow divisions and animosities among the re­formed in England. A swarm of Jesuits therefore embarked in the artful design of fomenting the discontent of the Puritans. These adepts in art and cunuing, first broached the novel scheme of a parity of ministers; and all the other peculiarities of the dis­sentors. These were the hopeful heads under whose banner they listed; the "variety of leaders," under whom they "split into all that diversity of persuasion," which has been "so favourable to liberty and philosophy."

The Whig in this same number, with his usual good nature, still affects to treat as trifles, the hardships under which the church in America labours;—the danger of crossing and re-crossing the Atlantic, is nothing with this heroic gentleman.—The ex­pence is an advantage; and if it was greater "the church would be better secured against an old complaint of the Jews; that priests were made of the meanest of the people"—The Jewish priesthood was confined by divine institution to one family, viz. Aaron's. No person of this family was too mean to make a priest of. Jeroboam, indeed, who, by his schism and idolatry made Israel to sin, did make priests of the meanest of the people. He, like some in these days, paid no regard to the institution of God, but set up a parity of families. Let this wicked proceeding be at­tended by those whom it concerns.

In the Jewish church, by God's express appointment, there was a disparity of clergy.—High priests, priests and Levites; and as the Jewish church was typical of the Christian, possibly no great absurdity will follow from supposing that God has done the same in the Christian church; and that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are of divine institution. If the American Whig, and his associates, are so wilfully blind, that they will not see this, I [Page 236]cannot help it: however I can pray for them, that they may have eyes that can see—ears that can hear, and hearts that can un­derstand; —that they may be converted from the error of their ways, and that God may heal them.

Our sagacious Whig supposes, either the presbyterian form of church government, was instituted by the Apostles; or else that every community of people were left at liberty to take such a form of church government as they thought most convenient for them.

Upon this last supposition (which seems to be his real opinion) he can't possibly have any just ground of quarrel with the church of England, for preferring the episcopal form; for had they not the same right to take this form, that the church of Scotland had to take the presbyterian form? For this writer then to oppose and calum­niate the church in the shameful manner he does, is real and direct persecution.

But if his opinion is, that the presbyterian form was instituted by the Apostles, and that episcopacy is an abberration from the truth; I beg the candid reader to consider, that the American Whig admits that episcopacy "prevailed" (if he had said univer­sally, he would have spoken the truth for once) from "the days of St. Ignatius to Calvin; an interval of not less than 1400 years." He also admits "That the first ages of the church, be­fore the Scarlet Whore had defiled the Nations," furnished "in­stances of martyrs and confessors," who "considered a priest as a bishop's inferior."—How came these holy men of old to con­sider a priest as a bishop's inserior, unless that was really the case by Apostolic institution? Did not these primitive martyrs and con­fessors understand the constitution of the Christian church as well as the Whigs and Independents of our day?—How was it possible that the whole church, which even in the Apostles time, was dispersed over a great part of the Roman empire, should at once forsake the presbyterian form of church government (if that was the orginal form) and become episcopalians, within so short a period as the time of St. Ignatius; and not one honest presbyte­rian to oppose the abominable corruption and apostacy? How comes it to pass, that this universal degeneracy should never be noticed by one single historian of those times, who have been mi­nute enough to transmit affairs of much less importance?— As to Lord Chancellor King's scheme which is so often and au­daciously referred to by the advocates of the presbyterian form of church government, it was fully confuted by the Rev. Mr. Slater, in a book, intitled—An Original Draught of the primitive Church, to which neither Lord Chancellor King (nor any one else, that I recollect) ever made any reply. These two valuable books—King's Inquiry, and Slater's original Draught, I would recommend to any person, that has a mind to examine into this [Page 237]Controversy. Truth fears no examination; I therefore heartily wish every candid and impartial person among us, would read and search for himself; and then I am confident, he would be convinced, whatever such paltry scribblers as the American Whig, and his whole band of auxiliaries, may say, or write, that episcopacy is of Apostolic institution; and consequently, that it is their duty to submit to it, as an appointment and ordinance of God.

To TIMOTHY TICKLE, ESQR

To the Whipper of the American Whig.

I Have had the opportunity of perusing some of your remarks on the American Whig.—I beg leave, Sir, to assure you, that [Page 239]I neither belong to the church of England, nor the English dis­senting meetings, but am a member of the Dutch reformed church, in America, firmly attached to the church constitution established in the united Netherlands, as far as it is meerly ecclesiastical. Thus I flatter myself, I may lay a claim to impartiality in any dispute, having a particular relation to the aforesaid parties as such. I am resolved not to interfere with the present encountering Batalias. I am confident none of the able pens employed on either sides, need my aid; but whenever either of them shall make bold to rush into a foreign territory I have a particular concern in, not so much to crave her aid as to plunder her treasure, and ravish her ammunition, I will think it my duty, as far as my ability will ad­mit, to stand in her defence.

Sir as I have hitherto had an opportunity of seeing only a few abrupt pieces on the subject of the present grand ecclesiastic debates, I am obliged to suspend my judgment; but yet I cannot help in­forming you of my extreme alarm at some expressions presented to my view in reading your No. VIII. Did I say alarmed! yea, I was amazed! I was stunned!—As I have as yet had no view of No. VI. referred to, I must leave the propriety of accusing Mr. Whig with lugging the church of Holland into this dis­pute, when in fact Mr. Whipper forces it in between two con­tending armies, there to defend [...]lf and fight its way through. or perish: I say the propriety of such a procedure, I must leave undetermined for the present.—Since I presume that your assertion which readily admits the church of Holland not to be ex­actly episcopal, in the same manner that the church of England is episcopal, entirely depends upon a bare, I am told. I will now pass it by without any remarks; but I do sincerely assure you, from my own better knowledge, that the whole of your informa­tion is absolutely false. Your informer must certainly have been either an idiot with respect to the true constitution of the church of Holland, or else a perfidious betrayer of its real interests; there­fore I candidly desire, yea as a lover of truth, I positively demand, that you would be pleased, either to insist upon sufficient proof of what your informer has been pleased to tell you. You know, Sir, no doubt, affirmanti incumbit Probatio; and being obtained, to communicate them to the public;—or, else openly to recall the said assertions, as being founded on false information. In case of a refusal to bow, I will be under a necessity of taking you, Sir, for the defendant of the assertions founded upon, I am told. In complying with my reasonable request, you will leave me room to animadvert on the future product of your pen, with becoming impartiality, and oblige your humble servant,

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG, No. XIII.

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XVI.]

The identity of possible and probable; or a new system of ratio­cination, by a convention of spiritual logicians, at one of their anniversary meetings for the propagation of—a conve­nient settlement for the bishop of LANDAFF, in a country where people do not expect to perish for lack of that kind of vision.

WHATEVER opinion the world may form of Dr. Chand­ler's candour, or his talents for reasoning, I think no author that has ever appeared, can dispute with him the prize of artifice and sophistry. In art, he surpasses the most art­ful; and the most sophistical in his dexterity at sophisms. In support of this assertion, numerous instances might, and hereaf­ter shall be produced from the memorable appeal. I shall at present confine myself to the 109th page, which is a mas­ter-piece of the noble science of logical craft; and may be of singular use, in teaching future reasoners to refute any objecti­on in the world, by a bare substitution of a different word in the answer, for that contained in the objection. The whole passage runs thus; ‘another objection has been made by some persons, to the following purport, that if Bishops are once settled in America, although in the manner we now propose, there will probably be an augmentation of their power, as soon as cir­cumstances will admit of it; and what is easy and inoffensive in its beginning, may become but thensome and oppressive in its end. But at this rate there can be no end of objecting. For if every possible ill effect of a thing, although confessedly proper in it­self, and harmless in its natural tendency, may be made an argument against it, there is nothing that can escape. Argu­ments of this sort may be as fairly and properly alledged— against a religious toleration, which is now generally esteemed by protestants, to be a natural right of men, and a very im­portant one of Christians—against admitting those, who dis­sent from the national religion, to any degree of civil or mili­tary power, to which indeed they have no natural right— against allowing the common people the use of the holy scrip­tunes, or the liberty of examining any points of religion or go­vernment —against suffering any to receive a learned educa­tion, &c. for none can tell what ill consequences and abuses may follow, in some future period, from these concessions and indulgences. The truth is, men are not to be terrified or in­fluenced by fears of such consequences as are barely possible; [Page 263]but to consider what is reasonable and proper in itself, and what effects will probably and naturally follow.’

The objection here stated is, that if Bishops are once settled in America, although in the manner now proposed, there will pro­bably be an augmentation of their power, as soon as circumstan­ces will admit of it; and what is easy and inoffensive in its be­ginning, may be burdensome and oppressive in its end. Now if there be any reason for these apprehensions; or in other words if it is really probably that such a cause will produce such effects, the objection is well founded. On the contrary, if there be no probability that an episcopate so harmless in its original erection, will finally degenerate into the evil apprehended, it is altogether groundless. The first, and I think the only thought, that would therefore occur to an author, who wrote under the influence of truth and sincerity, would be to remove the objection, by dis­proving the probability on which it was was raised. But let us see how cleverly a writer, who cannot follow reason and nature when reason and nature are against him, can depart from both. ‘But at this rate (says he) there can be no end of objecting. For if every possible ill effect of a thing, al­though confessedly proper in itself, and harmless in its na­tural tendency, may be made an argument against it, there is nothing that can escape.’ But pray is it, at this rate, that the objection is stated? Nothing like it. The objecti­on is grounded on the probability of the consequence, which the objector is introduced as apprehending. He is not represented as alarmed at bare possibilities, which would be idle and rediculous. But he is brought on the stage as declaring his disapproving of the scheme proposed, on the supposition that tho' it be harmless and inoffensive as requested, it has a natural tendency to degene­rate, and probably will finally issue in what is destructive and pe [...]icious; and in this view, ought to be alarming, and the matter of opposition and contest. For what purpose then is the probable! in the objection, so dexterously and instantaneously slid into the possible, in the answer? Does the doctor really think it either probable or possible to convince the world, that this was done without design, or with the honest purpose of serving the cause of truth? Should a man tell our author, that he was afraid to travel a particular road, because, from probable circumstan­ces, he had reason to apprehend it was infested with robbers; could he think of allaying the fears of the traveller by the fol­lowing answer, ‘Sir if every possible thing is made an argument, against your proceeding on your journey, there is no such thing as travelling at all.’ Would not the man conclude, that the doctor greatly undervalued his life and property; or treated him like a person void of understanding?—What then must we [Page 264]think, when an author endeavours to palm such fustian on the world; and appears before the tribunal of the public with such cobweb sophistry? What a strange perversion of the noble facul­ty of reason, to the unworthy purpose of delusion and chicanery! A melancholy instance of the power of prejudice, and how am­bition will blind and intoxicate the understandings of men, o­therwise clear and discerning!

But instead of answering the objection as first stated, and in the form in which it is really strong and forcible; he proceeds in rendering it still more ridiculous, by a sudden and artful transmu­tation into what, to an incautious reader, would appear, and what he intended should appear, no more than a bare repetition of it' in a different mode of expression. 'For if every possible ill 'effect of a thing, although 'confessedly proper in itself, and harmless in its natural tendency, &c.' But is this a fair state of the objection? Is it so much as a supposeable case, that the same person who confesses the thing harmless in its natural tendency should object against it, as tending to, produce the evils he appre­hends, and which constitute the very essence of the objection? The meaning of this passage, if it has any meaning at all, must therefore be this: The thing, Mr. objector, which I declare to be, and which others confess to be, proper in itself, and harmless in its natural tendency, you ought not to object against, or there is nothing that can escape. But in this sense, the argument is as ridiculous as he has endeavoured to make the objection. For there is nothing surely absurd in one man's apprehending danger, from what another conceives pro­per and harmless. But it is the highest absurdity for the same man to object to a thing, as likely to become burdensome and oppressive, which himself confesses to be harmless in its natu­ral tendency. And yet such is the subtil turn which this anti­hussar in controversy, has given to so plain and perspicuous an objection. But let us consider the several particulars, by which he has endeavoured to elucidate, that there is no force in the ob­jection he combats; and which as he perverts it before he enters upon an answer, was really never made. The instances by which he thought proper to illustrate the inconsequence of the no-ob­jection he is at present most puissantly attacking; and against which, he says, arguments of this sort may be as fairly and pro­perly alledged, are the four that follow; and which, considering his violent antipathy to any alteration of his method, I shall con­sider in the order he has mentioned them.

1st. ‘Against a religious toleration, which is now generally esteemed by protestants; to be the natural right of men, and a very important one of Christians.’ And does this gentlemen [Page 265]really think, that there is equal reason for apprehending pernici­ous consequences from a religious toleration, which has never yet produced one such consequence, as there is from the pride and ambition of dignified ecclesiasties, which has so frequently turned whole nations topsy-turvy? And pray what doth he mean by the mumbling, "mincing is now generally esteemed by Protestants?" Does not he himself esteem a religious toleration to be the natural right of men, and a very important one of Christians? If he does, why doth he not speak out like a man? If he thinks otherwise, why afraid publickly and explicitly to avow it? But the next illustration is involved in still greater ob­scurity: and might with much more propriety be termed an ob­fuscation of the truth. For,

2dly. ‘Arguments of this sort, says he, may be as fairly and properly alledged against those who dissent from the national religion to any degree of civil or military power, to which in-indeed they have no natural right.’ That is in plain English, it is as ridiculous to apprehend any danger from the abuse of inordinate power in the hands of ecclesiastics, who appear from history to have almost perpetually abused it, as from an admission of the Dissenters to the common rights of all loyal subjects, which they have never abused. A striking instance this, of that moderation and candour towards Dissenters, which, for a certain reason, I mean smoothly to carry his point, he was obliged to assume; but which for another certain reason, I mean his mental bitterness against them, he could not conceal! But what means the Doctor by saying, ‘that the Dissenters have no natural right to any degree of civil or military power.’ If by natural right, he means any right in contradistinction to municipal or political rights; it may with equal propriety be predicated of the Episco­palians, and of all men. For no man has a natural right to a political privilege: And in this sense, it is nothing but downright malevolence, without any tendency to benefit his argument. If he means by it any thing peculiar to Dissenters, what prevented him from shewing the superior natural rights of the conformists? But probably it was intended by way of title, in contrast to that of the members of the church of England, that we take care in all future times, not to be more cautions when speaking of the latter, in adding as by law established, than of the former, with the distinguishing addition of, "who have no natural right to any degree of civil or military power." But.

3dly. ‘Arguments of this sort, may be as fairly and pro­perly alledged against allowing the common people the use of the scriptures, or the liberty of examining [...] point of religion or government.’ Arguments have actually [...] brought (such [Page 266]arguments as they were, and they were as solid as most of the Doctor's) against such use of the scriptures; but then they were brought by the Papists; and it must grieve any man to find a Protestant Divine so far adopting the practice, as to put them upon an equal foot with arguments against the danger of politi­cal power in the hands of ecclesiastics. The holy scriptures were given to teach men the way to salvation; and they are said to be necessary for instruction, &c. But can it be said to be necessary for a bishop, to be clothed with powers formidable to the civil rights of mankind? If not; how are the instances parallel? Without the liberty of examining any points of religion, religion would soon degenerate into priestcraft; as experience shews it has done, whenever such liberty has been restrained. Without the liberty of examining into any points of government, (a singular phrase!) government would degenerate into tyranny; as all history shew, it has done, where such examination was prohibitted. How, therefore, can that which is absolutely necessary to the very ex­istence of religion and government; and which, instead of pro­ducing, has prevented evil and oppression, be dangerous to either? Or be compared to that, which is not essential to episcopacy, and has frequently proved destructive and pernicious? But,

4thly. The possible ill consequences and abuses of a learned education are placed in comparison with the danger apprehend­ed from the probable augmentation of the episcopal power, as soon as circumstances will admit of it. The comparison, truly, has no kind of similitude, and to give it a lift, the author is obliged to have recourse to his wonder-working possible, which has probably been of greater service to him throughout this whole augmentative page, than ever it was to all other the pamphle­teers his predecessors put together. ‘The truth is, (says he,) men are not to be terrified or influenced by fears of such con­sequences as are barely possible; but to consider what is rea­sonable and proper in itself, and what effects will probably and naturally follow.’

Thus after a rotation of a page, he returns to the very spot from whence he started, and again gives the objection as it was stated at first. For it is of such effects, as will probably and na­turally follow, and of no other, that the objector is supposed to be apprehensive; and which the author has metamorphosed into such, as are barely possible, and in that light endeavoured to re­move by comparing them to others, that are but barely possible; and whether it is either probable or possible, that all this was done without design to raise a mist before the reader, I cheer­fully submit to the tribunal of the public. To me it seems pretty extraordinary, that of all the things in the world, the gentle­man [Page 267]should have selected a religious toleration, the admission of Dissenter to any degree of civil power, the reading of the holy scriptures, and a learned education, as the four objects of equal terror, with the additaments to the power of bishops, as soon as circumstances will admit; because these have not the least ten­dency to introduce any mischief, while the other as naturally tends to it, as heavy bodies do to the centre; is it because these things appear peculiarly formidable to those who want an Ameri­can hierachy, that they so familiarly offer themselves as things particularly liable to evil consequences? This is certain, that a­ [...]inst his darling project he could not have found four more terrible enemies, had he ransack'd the whole creation. Let him but fairly get [...]id of those concessions and indulgences (as this moderate gentleman is pleased to call the natural and unalienable rights of mankind,—rights as clear and indubitable as the en­joymant of life or reason) and the proposal would go down as smooth as oil. But whi [...] [...]ur such stubborn things as tolera­tion, the bible, li [...] and learning, exist in the country, we may write app [...] [...]or a century, without persuading one man of sense, who has no personal expectations from a mitred Lord, nor intends to dance attendance on the episcopal palace, to acquiesce in so perillous an encroachment on the peace, and prosperity of this now flourishing and happy country.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. VI.]
To Sir ISAAC FOOT.

AS Squire T. (No. V.) has employ'd another deputy to Whip in his room, I beg leave to give a Kick or two in yours. This new Whipper (who calls himself Probus) says, (par. 1.2. &c.) 'the Whig's design is to divide the mem­bers of the church of England.' No doubt of it!—when a cord and a cable pull different ways, it must surely be a prudent piece of art to divide the cord, lest its superior strength should break the cable; and who can blame Probus for endeavouring to [Page 268]give us high ideas of the greatness of his little party, any more than a school-boy for stru [...]ing on stilts, or AESOP's frog for striving to swell to the size of a CALF?

Par. 3d. He gives us a string of quotations from the Whig, N. III in which if the reader can fi [...]d a single instance of alteration, decurtation, or other misrepresentation, I hereby oblige myself to pay Probus's whipping-sees; for nobody surely will take the trouble of comparing Whig and Whip together.

Par. 4th. With his arms akembo, he gives himself airs as a critical historian, (and like doctor C—r,) implicitly boasts of the character of a Tory; which if any man presumes to think disrepu­table or unfriendly to liberty, he is a Whig; which is, being by sycopants interpreted, a lying rascal, but, by all loyal patriots and friends to the revolution, an honest man. I expected your kicks, sir, would stagger squire T. and his associates; but Pro­bus, it seems, is already much stagger'd by his own thoughts! 'Twere a pity the poor fellow should break his neck before his own reformation is more complete; but if the Whig's complaint of the imperfection of the reformation in Henry VIII's. reign, should make him reel so as to fall, who can help it? Probus has such a peculiar talent at making feints with his whip, that no mortal can guess beforehand where it will fall;—let us consider his merit this way. The Whig says, 'the reformation was be­gun by Henry VIII. from no very religious motive;" ergo, (Pro­bus infers) he considers Henry as a reformer,—Probus says, he is called so, by none that he knows of but Papists;" ergo, the Whig, (for he knows of him) is a Papist. [Quere, what Papist [...]ver complimented Henry with the title of a reformer?] The Whig insinuates, "that the high and low-church parties, origi­nated from different motives at the reformation;" ergo, (says Probus) he insinuates, "that the distinction originated from thence;" ergo, again, "he lies like the d—dunce Mahomet, in his Koran." "The distinction, it seems, was not known for more than a century after." So we are told, the distinction of Cavaliers and Round-Heads, was not known, till the reign of that king who had his head cut off; nor that of the Whigs and and Tories, till about the year 1678, in the reign of that buck his son; and yet, quere, were not Rehoboam's old prudent counsellors in reality Whigs, and his young hot headed advisers Tories? I must, it seems, inform Probus, that a thing some­times exists long before it has a name. But to proceed, the Whig says, "such as were Papists in their hearts, were always mighty sticklers for rites and ceremonies, the uninterrupted line of succession, &c." Ergo, he says, "sticklers for ceremonies, were always Papists in their hearts." Ergo again, he calls Laud [Page 269]and Hall Papists in their hearts. Probus says, "Bishop Hall was a favourer of puritanism;" ergo, "he was one of the warmest friends of Dissenters." "He wrote a book, entitled, Episco­pacy by divine right;" ergo, "he was one of the monst strenuous asserters of the succession." (asserters! very well!) "No church on earth is more distinguished for moderation than that of Eng­land, and she shews sufficient indulgence to scrupulous conscien­ces;" ergo, "The demands of heated enthusiasts, factious sec­tarists, and restless heretics, are unreasonable." The American Whig, &c. (those heated sectarists, &c.) demand security from episcopal tyranny." (what presumption!) ergo, "If they are gratified, this moderate church will soon be utterly annihilated: Alas! then for the dear, dear, dear ceremonies and canons!" "The independents in England persecuted sticklers 120 years ago, and beheaded a man who had been a king," ergo, "The Whig, and his party the Presbyterians, (perhaps Papists) would fain do the same now in America. Quere, what induced Pro­bus to put heathens instead of sticklers, &c? Answer Interest. Vid. par. 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th.

Probus's probity as to par. 9th would have been more evident, had he made numerical references to authors by name, and his good sense will be indisputable, when he shall have pointed [...]ut the relation of that and the 10th par. to the occasion of the pre­sent disputes.

In par 1 [...]th and 12th, Probus shews such vast political abili­ties, he must needs be a clergyman; if made a stateman, i. e. a Bishop, doubtless he would soon smell out a thousand factions, cabals, conspiracies, and secret machinations, no one but himself ever dreamt of. He already from a considerable distance smells po­pery in New-York. He expects there are even Jesuits here, and for his suspicions gives two and a hall reasons or symptoms. 1st Pa­pists, and none else, place the reformation in a disadvantageous light:—The Whig has done this: ergo, he's a jesuit." Now Papists blame the reformation so far as it was, and the Whig so far as it was not a reformation—both the same thing, you know, gentle Sir! 2dly, there is a furious outcry raised against Bishops in New-York, and this tallies exactly with the sentiments of Papists; ergo, There are Jesuits in New-York. Now you know, sir, the most artful method to promote the sucess of any obnoxious project, is to raise a surious outcry against something very much like it. 3dly. The suspicion heightening half symptom, is, "that the faction has made no clamour or noise, about the popish Bishop of Quebec." Now, had he been sent to New-York, instead on raising a furious outcry, no donot the faction would have quietly and peaceably submitted to his [Page 270]lordship's ghostly tyranny; what a wonder it is this Jesuitical fac­tion have never assembled any conventions, drawn up any peti­tions, or written any Appeals, relative to the introduction of a popish Bishop!

Par. 13th, contains the old doleful ditty encore, set to the same mournful air da capo. Doctor Chandler gave the key, and now all high church zealots join the chorus, or rather sing suc­cessive solo [...]s [...] and Probus in the same plaintive strain with the rest; however before his song is ended, with all the art of the famed Timotheus, he suddenly shifts from the Lydian, to the Phrygian measure. in order to kindle rage against, those, who wickedly wish to see the poor persecuted church hang her harps on the willows. He tells us he is a churchman from principle; but from what principle he is so, is not clear to

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XVII.]

WHEN a writer indulges himself in round assertions, as the basis of any scheme, his abilities must indeed be slender if the super structure is not, at least, unblemished with those gross irregularities, which at first view offend the eye of the understanding. It is upon a foundation of this sort, that Doctor Chandler builds one of his most cogent arguments, in favour of his darling episcopate, to induce those, whom he calls "The guardians of our national interests" to adopt his plan; and lest "they should be insensible to motives" of "a religious na­ture, he thought it prudent to assail them with political consider­ations. But these, he must confess, can have little weight, unless they derive it from the assertion, ‘that the church of England, in its external polity, is so happily connected, and interwoven with the civil constitution, that each mutually supports, and is supported by the other.’ A curious picture this, were it just, of the blind leading the blind! it is, however, a signal in­stance of condescension, in so brave a champion for the hierarchy, to admit, that it is in any wise supported by the state. What prodigious effects will a change in government have, upon men's private opinions! Those of the doctor's kidney would have scorned so degrading a stoop, before the submission of the clergy, and the statute that declared king H. 8, the supreme head of the Anglican church. But instead of amusing the attention of my readers, with reflections on those lessions of humility, which haughty eclesiastics are frequently obliged to read to themselves, since the expulsion of papal authority, I shall proceed to question the truth of the assertion, by the omnipotence of which, so much execution is expected to be done in the field of polities.

That the church of England is connected and interwoven with the civil constitution of the British empire, as far as it respects Eng­land, [Page 282]Ireland, the principality of Wales, and the town of Ber­wick upon Tweed, cannot be denied: That it has not the least relation to that constitution, as it concerns Scotland, and the colonies in general, is equally true; but that its connection with the civil constitution in England, is either happy for the state, tho' it certainly is for the church according to Doctor Chandler's sense of the word, or supports it, tho' it is indeed supported by the state, is a position, which every sound whig is bound to deny. The subject of enquiry, therefore in this paper, will be, whe­ther that part of the Britis [...] [...]pire, to which the church of England extends, or the colonies, in which the Doctor would erect his qualified episcopacy, can derive happiness, or the state re­ceive support from either. If we look into the history of Eng­land, before the abolition of the papacy, we shall find, that the church was ever inimical to the state. The Pope not only claimed, but, as often as he could, exercised a supremacy over both; sometimes excommunicating the king, and discharging his sub­jects from the bond of allegiance; at other times, laying the whole realm under an interdict;—anon disposing of the king­dom, by his apostlic authority, to any foreigner who would at­tempt the conquest of it; perpetually draining it of its wealth, by the unrighteous levy of Peter-Pence, and the continual exacti­on of annates, or first fruits, and other ecclesiastical imposts; convoking all spiritual causes, in their last remove, before the vatican; presiding, by his legate, at the synods and convocations of the English clergy; disposing of vacant sees to foreigners, who in right of their temporalities, and with hearts alienated from the state, took their seats in parliament; and not only had great weight in council; but, in some instances, bore the princi­pal sway in the political movements of the state: While, to crown the power and independency of the Hierarchy, holy church, was, by magna charta, declared to be free; and main­tained this freedom, to so high a pitch, as not only to make her spiritual courts a terror to all the king's subjects, but even to claim a constitutional exemption from civil jurisdiction, in the perpe­tration of the most flagitious crimes. That this is a just picture of holy church, as she was formerly connected and interwoven with the state, is unquestionably verified, by historical evidence. It is indeed too just and striking a description, of the outlines of her external polity, to be disowned by any son of the church. Such was the indulgent mother, before the reformation. But who does not see, that this external polity, so far from being friendly to monarchy, was a bitter enemy to all government? Could the chief magistrate, under any form of civil rule whatso­ever, be secure in his seat? Could he guard the nation against [Page 283]foreign attempts, or protect it against internal convulsions, while so much power was attached to the church, which was so wholly at the disposal of the Pope? It was utterly impossible. Instead of exalting our idea of the monarch, it actually debased him; so far debased him, as in one instance to exhibit majesty itself, acting the groveling character of a groom, to an insolent eccle­siastic. Instead of giving us security and strength against our enemies, it exposed the kingdom to become their spoil, by colour of a pontifical bull; it opened a sluice for draining the nation of its wealth, the principal sinew of national power; it exposed the wholesome English constitution, to fatal changes, by the influ­ence of foreigners, in the legislature, in the courts of justice, and in the council of state; it armed the subject against his Prince; In short, it was the most deadly adversary to the public weal, even had England been an absolute monarchy. And yet the church was as much, and how happily let the reader judge, connected and interwoven with the state, before, as it ever has been since the reformation.

We are next to enquire, what mighty changes have been wrought, at or since that memorable event, which could possibly render that connection more happy to the state, than in times of popery. In this research, it will be just to confine our attention, merely to the external polity, without regard to the internal changes in doctrine, discipline and worship, which the reforma­tion gradually, and in several successive reigns, effected in the Anglican church. Before this Aera, the Bishop of Rome was its supreme head on earth. By the reformation his holiness was dethroned; and whom the clergy of England made submission, how free and unconstrained let history declare: All dependance on or connection with the pontifical see, was absolutely and total­ly rescinded. The king, by another act, was made the fountain of all the benefices of the superior clergy; the meer form, only, of election, being reserved to the Dean and Chapter, to be ex­ercised in favour of those, whom his Majesty, by his letters mis­sive, should appoint. The clergy were also rendered responsible in criminal matters, before the king's temporal courts of justice, but continued in the exercise of their jurisdiction, over the sub­ject, in the ecclesiastical courts. The monastic priesthood was, by other legislative provisions, laid low in the dust; the abbies and monasteries were dissolved; and their temporalities yested in the crown, to be disposed of for the endowment of schools, and other charitable and religious uses: And by this means, twenty-seven lazy Abbots were turned out of parliament; and in their stead, fix new bishopricks were erected by the king, in virtue of an [Page 284]act of legislation. The prelates, however, remained possessed of their seats in parliament. The convocation of the clergy sub­sisted, as before the reformation; and still constitutionally subsists, tho' the wisdom and lenity of the Hanover family forbids the exercise of their dreadful power, by restraining them from pro­ceeding to business; and the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, save only in a sew cases, is yet entire. This, I believe, is a just representation of the present external polity of the Angli­can church, as far as respects the superior clergy. It therefore follows, that if the state derives happiness and support from the church, or if the civil constitution harmonizes with it, this happiness, this support, this harmony must be evinced, in one or more of the following particulars. First; that the king is by law, the supreme head of the Anglican church. Secondly; that he has the ap­pointment of all the spiritual lords in the realm. Thirdly; that those lords make a part of the legislature of Great-Britain. Fourthly; that they are authorized to hold spiritual courts in England, for punishing offenders,—against the ecclesiastical law. Fifthly; that the king has authority to summon the convo­cation, and to permit them to make canons; to which, as well as to all others now in sorce, all the inhabitants of South-Britain are bound, under temporal penalties, to say yea and amen. When I consider the Doctor's assertions, I am in charity, and to avoid a more severe imputation, obliged to doubt his acquaintance with the English constitution. For I verily am at a loss, upon comparing it with the external polity of the Anglican church, to discover in what particulars, his boasted reciprocation of happi­ness, support, and harmony consists. It is evident that the King not only is the supreme, but the absolute monarch of the church. And is his authority so uncontroulable in the state? It is as clear, that the people have not the least share, in the construction of ecclesiastical laws; but who is ignorant, that in temporal legisla­tion, they have a principal and essential agency? In the church, the upper house of convocation, from the nature of their ap­pointment, are real slaves to the crown; the lower house are their mere dependant creatures. In the state, the temporal lords have a noble hereditary independency, the commons are servants during good behaviour to the people. In the church, the judges are as subservient as the legislators: In the state, the oracles of the law hold their offices, by the freest tenure, during good be­haviour.^* Or should they both be thought to hang upon the [Page 285]favour of the crown, with an eye to promotion, the ecclesiastical judges are makers and pronouncers of the law, and triers of the facts; but the temporal judges are only speakers, of what inde­pendent of their authority is established law, while the people determine facts. In short, none are so blindly ignorant, unless the Doctor should be so, as not to see, that if our constitution is a monarchy, it differs widely from all other monarchical govern­ments in the world. It is a monarchy, two of the grand ingre­dients in which, are, that the people, in the common law courts, are absolute judges of facts, upon which the law must necessarily arise, either pro or con, as the facts are found; and that in legis­lation, they have two voices in three. But do we discover the least resemblance of those popular rights, in the church? Do we behold the laity sitting either in the seat of the law-giver or in judgment?—Not at all; in things so sacred they may not intermeddle; odi profanum vulgus et arceo. If they feel the powers of the one, or the other, it is not by participating in the exertions of either, but by submitting to the weight of both; as the ass that beareth the burden. But the temporal powers of the superior clergy shew, in a striking point of light, how little har­mony, at least in theory, subsists between the ecclesiastical and political state of England. The right of the spiritual lords to sit in parliament, which the advocates for the church have ever, and with a good deal of reason, esteemed a spiritual right, is, by the true friends of liberty, regarded with as jealous an eye, as are the borough representations, in the house of commons. This right of the clergy, is a real deformity in the constitution; and con­travenes the very principles, on which the British parliament is built. The several parts of that august body, as consisting of three estates, ought legally and absolutely to be independent, in the exercise of authority, each of the other: And yet, in the house of Peers, there are no less than twenty-six unapostolical ecclesiastical lords, ever regarded by their lay-fellows, with a mixture of disgust and contempt; ever dependant on the will of the Prince; for who is not fond of promotion? and too often ready, not only to countenance, but execute court measures, as history abundantly shews. While every other person in that great and most illustrious assembly, is at least constitutionally free. Nay, so very odd and unnatural is this connection, that, I be­lieve, the Doctor is singular in his opinion, that it is productive of felicity, or gives strength to the state. The great dissimili­tude in the constitutions of state and church, pardon me good Doctor, for the irreverent transposition, affords not, indeed, the least possibility of a mutual interchange of happiness, support, or harmony. For how can blind submission and obedience in the [Page 286]church, accord with English liberty in the state? How can that form of ecclesiastical government, which either actually or vir­tually lodges all authority in the hands of one person, and ex­cludes the multitude from all participation, in framing and execu­ting the laws, be said to be happily connected, and harmonize with, or to have the least tendency to support, that form of civil government, under which the subject has a necessary agency, in legislative and distributive justice? The Doctor should have honest­ly, and in plain terms, spoke what he really meant; that the hierachy, of which the Prince is the supreme and absolute head. is most happily calculated to indoctrinate the laity, in passive obe­dience, and non-resistance, to an absolute monarch in the state. The truth of this assertion would, at least, have been admitted. Yet, why should an American press, groan under the weight of this doctrine? Are we not all free? Or are we indeed bond slaves, sold under the power of tyrannic sway? God forbid the thoughts! We have a Prince and a constitution, friendly to liberty; why then, such a more than insinuated address, to those who are in­trusted with out public affairs? I confess the Doctor does not as­sert, that ‘Episcopacy and absolute monarchy are in their frame, best suited to each other.’ Thus, however, he ought to have spoke; or been silent. They are truly twin sisters, the genuine offspring of certain parents, equally known and de­tested by every lover of liberty. But by his mealy-mouthed, mincing omission of the word absolute, which, nevertheless, is left to be understood, by all connoisseurs in the art of unlimit­ted sway, he intended to gild the pill; to make it gain an easy passage into American stomachs. Nor can he escape with a de­claration, that by monarchy unepithetized, he intended monar­chy in general. For in this view, his doctrine is notoriously false. It includes all mixed, as well as absolute monarchies. But is it not evident, that absolute supremacy in the church, and the rights of a free people under a mixed monarchy, form when at­tempted to be pronounced, in union, a most jarring discordant sound? Or should this be his argument, that as the ‘English hierachy and absolute monarchy are in their frame and consti­tution, best suited to each other,’ so a qualified hierachy, in which the bishop should have no other powers than those of or­daining and governing the clergy, and confirming the baptised, "exactly harmonizes" with our mixed monarchy, let him beware of its consequences. If it should have strength, sufficient to rear his beloved idol in America, its power may possibly be felt, in the demolition of that more towering idol, beyond the at­lantic, to make room for the erection of another, that will more "exactly harmonize," with the mixed monarchy of the British [Page 287]empire; an hierachy, in which tho' one shall preside, for the sake of order, yet the whole church, including laity and clergy shall give laws and execute justice in spiritualities. Such an hierachy would indeed bear some faint resemblance to Episcopacy, such as it was in the early ages of the church.

But to examine the Doctor's mode of reasoning a little farther; it is plain, that by his scheme of a qualified episcopacy, the laity are, by no means, to be affected. ‘The discipline of the church, so far as it relates to the private members, will be left as it is; and nothing further will be done, than refusing the communion to disorderly and scandalous persons; which every clergymen may now refuse.’ And is this all? If so, how is our relish for a mixed monarchy to be heightened, and improved, by this scheme? The Non-Episcopal clergy, and the laity of all denominations, are not to feel the weight of Episcopal authority. This, it seems, is reserved for the correction of the more ungo­vernable clergy of the church. All other ecclesiastics are to do as they list; and the people of all persuasions are to be left to the guidance of their respective Presbyters, in the exercise of their authority to exclude from the sacrament. This indeed savours of Presbyterianism. Expellas naturam surea taemen usque recur­ret. The prejudices of education, either really exert themselves at times, or our reverend author knows, if he knows nothing else, how to effect political qualms. But in the mean time, it remains a glaring truth, that, however unquestionable the assertion may be, that ‘our civil rulers have always considered Episcopacy, as the surest friend to monarchy,’ the Doctor's plan of Epis­copacy, is not in the least calculated, to merit, on that account, the peculiar attention of ‘those who are entrusted with our public concerns.’

My readers are, I flatter myself, now convinced, if they need­ed such conviction before, that the church of England is not so ‘happily connected, and interwoven with the civil constitution, that each mutually supports, and is supported by the other; that their harmony’ exists no where, save only in the elabo­rate appeal; and that Doctor Chandler's plan, of an American Episcopate, bears not the least shadow of a resemblance, to the beautiful form of our civil constitution; for which he admits many, and were he disposed to speak the whole truth, he should have said, all ‘the British subjects, both at home and in the plantations, who reject Episcopacy, are warm,’ nay the warmest, "advocates." On the other hand, he can expect little countenance from our civil rulers. They neither desire, it is to be hoped, to enamourate us with absolute monarchy; nor are so incompetent, as not to reject his plan of Episcopacy, as an in­adequate [Page 288]engine of just government. In short, his adroitness is by no means equal, to the still of those ‘artful men, who can raise objections and difficulties, in the plainest cases; and can make any thing, an argument against any thing, in a way, that shall seem plausible.’ This is a talent, to which, whatever may be the aspirations of his heart, his head is an utter stranger. To retort his own sentiment; he rather seems calculated for those exercises, which are "as unworthy of the public attention," as the labours of a child, that "engages in crambo or push­pin."

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. VII.]

NO less than two questions concerning one of the Whig's correspondents have been disputed, it seems, in several companies; and Squire T. (No. VI. par. 1.) gives the church of England the credit of—the disputation! From the presum'd character of the judges, and especially from Squire T's. very grammatical construction, a person of common sense would conclude the 2d question (as well as the 1st) was determin­ed in the negative; but Squire T. assures us it was decided in the affirmative. What can he mean? says one. Alass! reader, common folks (like you and I) must not expect to understand so mystical a logician as Squire T. who, (to his credit be it spoken) can

Whether his manoevre be his, Printers manoeuvre, is a question I shall not decide; but, if several companies should dispute it, the disputation might probably be spoken of much to the credit of the church of England.

Par. 2d. Squire T. seems to suppose the American church­man, would be glad to see the church in puris naturalibus, with­out a figleaf to cover her &c. How that may be, I know not; but Squire T. (who knows the original use of fig-leaves) seems apprehensive, as well as I, that (in that case) the poor church's nakedness would be exposed, and some of my politico-anatomical friends are so censorious, as to think, she would appear to be a—

[Page 289] The Tennis Ball which Squire T. strikes, (par. 3d,) he has so often, with such a racket and in such a frustration, bandied about before, that I shall not interrupt him; but let him play with it till he has tir'd himself. I shall however just observe to this accurate gentleman, that it is a distinction, (and not a cri­ticism upon a distinction,) which he takes such important notice of in par. 4th.—Yet I must needs say, his own phraseology ('a church of England in America-man") is really vastly pretty.

As I have no great fondness for interfering in a dispute be­tween two church of England in America-men, I shall pass over the seven following very learned in the law paragraphs, by only observing, that they had all appeared unnecessary, had Squire: T. sufficiently attended to what he advances in the 8th, with a small addition I beg leave to make, viz. 'that the present questi­on is not, what rights the English bishops have had, or now have, but what authority American bishops will have, when they are appointed? and what authority they will naturally claim when they are established.

Par. 12th, Squire T. seems to undertake to settle, (what he calls) the capital point, 'whether the church of England is established in the colonies?' Some are so silly as to think this question admits of no dispute; however they think, Mr. Hobart, the Independant Reflector, and others, have firmly enough set­tled it in the negative. Ah! but those were hireling, republican, deistical writers. Well then! Quid dignum tanto tulit hic pro­missor hiatu? What says Squire T? Nothing but IF—if it is— and if it is not. 'If it is not, all this clamour against spiritual courts—is groundless and impertinent;' but 'if it is,—an act for the erection of an American Episcopate, may be by its friends obtained without much difficulty." Truly, Squire T. this is a dry indigestible crust indeed!

I designed to have truss'd up another bird on this spit, but it unfortunately happens to be a rank bird of prey, likely to prove nauseous to nice palates, and indigestible, but by strong stomachs; I shall therefore hereafter roast it by itself, when, if my guests can dine upon it, they shall be heartily welcome. In the mean time, I shall, for a desert, set before them a little knick-knack, just now sent me as a present.

To Sir ISAAC FOOT,

HAVING read a small volume lately published, entitled Ser­mons to A—, (you know what is meant,—that species of animals, on one of which Balaam rode,) the contents of which, [Page 290]appear to me very pertinent to the occasion of the present poli­tico-religious disputes; I beg leave to recommend it to the atten­tive perusal, and serious consideration of your readers in general, and Doctor Chandler, Mr. Seabury, Squire Tickle, Probus, Aristocles, Hierocles, &c. in particular; sincerely wishing they may be as much edified thereby, as has been.

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XVIII.]
To THE AMERICAN WHIG.

AS Dr. Chandler, in his appeal to the publick, has been pleased not only to advance reasons in favour of sending bishops to America, but also to plead the cause of episco­pacy itself; vainly declaring that he should look upon the silence of the dissenters, with regard to his pamphlet, as a tacit con­sent of the strength of his arguments; I think it my duty to en­deavour by the channel of your paper, to convince the reader of the weakness of his reasoning, and to prove that diocesan episco­pacy is not of divine original, but merely of human invention.

The dispute between the episcopalians and presbyterians is this. The episcopalians assert that there are different orders of gospel ministers, such as bishops, priests, &c. the one superior [Page 300]in power and authority to the other; and that the right of or­daining ministers, is vested solely in the bishops: The presbyte­rians, on the contrary affirm, that there ought to be a perfect equality between all the ministers of the gospel, and that the right of ordaining to the pastoral office belongs to the presbytery, or a collective body of presbyters. These are the reasons they advance in favour of their sentiments.

1. One presumptive argument against episcopacy, and in favour of presbytery, is this; that the first reformers, when they re­jected the errors of popery, rejected with it episcopacy, as an in­novation introduced into the church of Christ, and adopted presbyterianism, or the doctrine of equality amongst ministers, as the most consistent with gospel purity and simplicity. Calvin in his institutions expresly declares, "caeterum quod episcopos, et presbyteres, & pastores, & ministros, promiscue vocari qui ecclesias regunt, id feci ex scripturae usu quae vocabula ista con­fundit." i. e. But the reason why I have promiscuously called those who rule the church, bishops, and presbyters, and mi­nisters, and pastors, is my following the custom of scripture, which confounds, or indiscriminately uses those words. Indeed had episcopacy been of apostolic institution, and essential to a proper constitution of the church of Christ, there a thorough reformation of the church from the errors and corruptions of popery would have been morally impossible, as the popish bishops were entirely opposed to the first reformers. And in as much as those first reformers were remarkable instruments under Christ, in purging his church, as they enjoyed a large measure of the spirit of God, as they were very good and great men, and as they rejected episcopacy, we may rationally presume it was not of divine original.

2. Another presumptive argument against episcopacy is this. Almost all the present churches, except that of England, dis­claim it; and even a great part of the English nation, and those perhaps among the best Christians in it, are oppos'd to it. The churches of Holland, Geneva and Scotland, the protestants in Germany and France, the dissenters in England, Ireland and America, are all against it. Now if we compare the protestant episcopalians and presbyterians together, (I mean those referred to above) we shall find that the latter greatly exceed in number; and if we consider that there have been amongst the latter, men of as great [...]lities, knowledge, learning and virtue, as amongst the former, which, I think, cannot well be deny'd; we may rationally presume against episcopacy, as the majority of com­petent judges have voted against it. This argument will be [Page 301]strengthened if we consider that the Waldenses and Albigenses, those strenuous asserters of, and martyrs for the truth, disavow­ed episcopacy; whilst the church of Rome at once over-run with error and vice, were the zealous patrons of it. Surely if the se­cret of the Lord is with them that rear him, as the royal psal­mist teaches; and if an exact conformity to the precepts of the church is the best method to obtain the knowledge of his doctrines, as our blessed Saviour declares, and if we compare the character of the Waldenses and Albigenses, with that of their adversaries, we may rationally presume that episcopacy is not of divine original.

3. Another presumptive reason against diocesan episcopacy, is this. Although it is the form of church government in Eng­land, and although all the honours, riches and conveniencies of the present life, are on its side, yet there has been, and still is, a vast body of Christian ministers and Christian people, many of them the brightest lights in the nation, who could not in consci­ence consent to it. How many poor presbyterian ministers are there not in the land, whose sallaries are so small that their fami­lies are in a starving condition, and who have it in their power to mend their circumstances greatly by entering into the service of the church of England, and yet they choose rather to grap­ple with all the perplexities and disadvantages of indigence than to do it. Now if we consider what a powerful motive an increas­ed salary is to a man in want, and who sees his dear wife and children thereby exposed to innumerable dangers, difficulties and disasters, we cannot avoid concluding, that nothing but the force of conscience, and a secret conviction that episcopacy is wrong, could prevent such persons, many of them confessedly men of good sense, and earnestly desirous to promote the wel­fare of their families, from subscribing to it:

4. Another presumptive argument against episcopacy, is this, that it seems not so consistent with the genius of the gospel, and the humility it so strongly inculcates, as the schem of an equality amongst ministers. As the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, so it ought to be with his am­bassadors; they should not desire to lord it over their brethren, but as the Apostle says to the Romans, they should in honour pre­fer one another. As Christ their great lord and master wash'd the feet of his disciples, so they should wash one another's feet, and chearfully submit to the lowest offices of mutual kindness. But is not the episcopal office incompatible with the exercise of these duties? Our blessed Lord reproved the sons of Zebedee for aspiring to a superiority over their brethren; and the beloved apostle complained of Diotrephes, who loved the preheminence. [Page 302]How then could either have instituted episcopacy which counte­nances such a superiority and preheminence? It was a remarka­ble saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he frequently repeat­ed, every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. His continual advice to his followers was, learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. He told his apostles, that those who were desirous of being the greatest in his kingdom, should become the least, and servants of all. Now I leave it to any candid judge to determine, what form of church government is most agreeable to these maxims, and the genius of the gospel, the episcopal or the presbyterian? Surely there is something in them that doth not well harmonize with the former, but is very consistent with the latter. What language sounds most avangelical, such as an inferior clergyman would use to a bishop, or such as a presbyterian would use to a presbyter? Surely the latter. Nay I am apt to think, that the names and titles ascribed to bishops are highly displeasing to God, and disagreeable in the ears of every pious prelate. The arch-bishop of Canterbury is stiled, his grace, the arch-bishop of Canterbury, metropolitan, primate of all England. The bish­op of London, is called the right reverend father in God, the lord bishop of London, &c. How contrary is the giving and assuming such sounding and lofty titles to the genius of the gos­pel, nay to the positive declarations of Jesus Christ? It was an express commandment of this great head of the church, call no man master, for one is your master who is in Heaven; call no man father, for one is your father even God. It is not impious for a man to assume the name of lord, when his great matter was distinguished by that title?

5. A farther presumptive argument against episcopacy, is this. It is more apt to swell proud ambition, and promote its danger­ous and horrid effects, than presbytery; moderate revenues and common privileges will never engage haughty aspiring minds in the gospel ministry, but a swelling title and a large revenue will; and episcopacy naturally verges to high titles and great salaries. Thus the hierachy has made men aim at holy orders for the sake of honour and riches, who never would have done it for the glory of God and the good of souls. But how is this consistent with going forth unto Christ without the camp, bearing his re­proach? How is it compatible with denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following our great master? How is it learning to endure hardness like good soldiers of Jesus Christ? The hiera­chy has been the cause of very great luxury and prodigality in the church of Rome, and in some protestant churches; to wit, superb palaces, large reveaues, grand and magnificent ca­thedrals, [Page 303]and much external pomp and splendour; nay, I dare affirm, that if there had not been a distinction of orders among the clergy, and if one order had not been greatly exalted above another, there never would have been such spiritual tyranny in the church of Christ, and such persecution and oppression, as the annals of past ages, and our own experience acquaint us with: There probably never would have been popes, patriarchs, cardi­nals, and such like domineering ecclesiasticks, if there never had been diocesan bishops. Therefore from these, and many other bad effects which have flowed from episcopacy, and to which presbyterian government would have been an antidote, we may justly conclude, that the former is inconsistent with the purity and prosperity of the church of Christ, with which the other is entirely consistent.

6. Another presumptive argument against diocesan episcopa­cy, and in favour of presbyterian church government is, that the latter (all things considered) is more likely to promote the welfare of the church of Christ than the former. One man is more likely to be imposed upon, to mistake and to act wrong in ecclesiastical affairs than a great number. Those very reasons which rendered it expedient in the apostles time, that they should be consulted about the ordination of ministers, on account of their supernatural abilities to distinguish the qualifications of the candidate; those very reasons, now extraordinary gifts have ceased, render it proper that a presbytery should have the power of ordination, and not a bishop; for supposing them all men of equal goodness and abilities, surely the decision of the whole bo­dy will be more just and consistent than those of one man, and this is entirely agreeable to the maxims of the wise king, that in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. One man, though never so honest, may sooner be deceived than a great many, and thus be the instrument of introducing a wicked and unworthy candidate in the ministry. A single man may sooner be bribed or corrupted to lay on hands suddenly than several. Besides, if a bishop he as wicked a man as a presbyter, the former will be a much greater detriment to the church than the latter; for one wicked bishop may do much greater injury to religion than seve­ral wicked presbyters; those of the latter order will be mutual checks upon each other's ambition and wrong measures, but the former being free from all restraint, is at liberty to put in prac­tice the wildest schemes. To this we may add, that under bish­ops, corruptions in religion may more easily be propagated than under presbyters. A bishop may scatter his poison through a whole diocess, whilst a presbyter may be restrained by his bre­thren in a single congregation.

[Page 304] 7. Another presumptive argument against diocesan episcopacy, and in favour of congregational bishops or presbyters, is this. It is impossible that one man can so properly govern and super­intend a whole diocess as a great many. A faithful minister finds it hard and difficult enough to take care of the souls of a single parish, how then could he take care of the souls of many parish­es? and therefore we read in scripture of no other ordinary rela­tion, respecting a minister of the gospel, than that which subsists between him and a particular flock committed more especially to his care. As to the apostles, they were eye-witnesses of Christis resurrection, extraordinary officers endowed with the power of working miracles, and divinely inspired, and therefore they could have no successors to their peculiar office; and, till modern bish­ops can prove their superiority over their brethren by miracles, and a divine inspiration, they must excuse us from acknowledging the reasonableness and divine appointment of such superiority. As to the evangelists, their ministry was not indeed confined to a single congregation, yet there was nothing peculiar to their office which could not be performed by a common presbyter. In short, a careful oversight of the flock of Christ, a particular in­sp [...]on into their manners and conduct, the instruction of the rising generation, preaching the word continually, adminis­tering the sacraments, and a due attendance upon his people in sickness and spiritual distress, is the duty of every settled mi­nister of the gospel. But how can one bishop perform all this with regard to a whole diocess? therefore, it is probable, that diocesan bishops were not of divine institution.

8. Another very strong and presumptive argument against dio­cesan episcopacy, is this. That several bishops and learned clergymen of the church of England, have themselves disavow­ed the divine institution of it. In the year 1537 or 1538, Tho­mas Cromwell, vicar general, the two arch-bishops, eleven bishops, and many other doctors and civilians, subscribed a de­claration, which closes with these remarkable words. That ‘though the fathers of the church had instituted other inferior orders and degrees, as Janitors, Lectors, &c. yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any de­grees or distinction in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops.’ Arch-bishop Whitgift thought no particular form of church government of divine right. Bishop Morton in his Catholic apology, tells the papists, that the power of order and jurisdiction which they ascribed to bishops, doth de jure divino belong to all other presbyters, and particularly that to ordain is their ancient right. Bishop Jewel, in a certain pas­sage does not merely censure one Harding for condemning the [Page 305]doctrine of the parity of bishops and presbyters as heretical, but plainly supposes that opinion, to be both agreeable to scripture and to the doctrine of St. Jerom, St. Austin, and St. Ambrose; and he cites with approbation, these known and remarkable words of Jerom, 'let bishops know that they are in authority over priests, more by custom than by order of God's truth.' In the reign of Henry VIII. we are told by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Irinecum, part 2. chap. viii. p. 386. There was a select assembly called by the king's special order, at Windfor castle, where met these following persons: Thomas, arch-bishop of Canterbury, Edward, arch-bishop of York, the bishop of Ro­chester, Edmund, bishop of London, Robert, bishop of Carlisle, Dr. George Day, Thomas Robertson, Dr. Redmain, Dr. Edward Leighton, Dr. Simon Mathew, Dr. William Tresham, Dr. Rie Cozen, Dr. Edgworth, Dr. Owen Oglethorp and Dr. Thyrlby; and among other questions proposed to them, to which they severally gave in their answers; the tenth question was, whether bishops or priests were first? And if the priests were first, then the priest made the bishop? To this question arch­bishop Cranmer's answer was in these words: The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. And we are told by the same author, that the bishop of St. Asaph, Thyrlby and Cox, were all of the same opinion with the arch-bishop, that at first bishops and priests were the same. Thus, saith he, we see by the testimony chiefly of him who was instrumental in our reformation, that he owned not opiscopacy as a distinct order from presbytery of divine right, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for the better governing in the church. I might pro­duce passages to the same purpose, out of Dr. Reignolds, Dr. Hammond and others, but the limits prescrib'd by the printer, would not admit of such an enlargement. I shall conclude this argument with observing, according to Dr. Stillingfleet, that King James, Dr. Cosins, Dr. Low, Bishop Bridges, Dr. Su [...]tcliff and Dr. Crackanthorp, were of opinion, that no form of church government is by the scriptures prescribed to, or com­manded the church of God. Upon a review of all the above arguments, and a consideration of their united force; I think every rational, unprejudiced man, will be ready to conclude, that it is not, upon the whole probable that diocesan episcopacy was of divine original, or that it was instituted by Christ or his apos­tles. And now, having premised these presumptive arguments, I will boldly defy all the divines and learned men in the world, to produce a single, positive or probable argument to the contra­ry from any part of the Bible, the only religion of protestants (as Mr. Chillingworth justly observes.)

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No, VIII.]

MY title now first appears inadequate, for the 7th No. of the Whip; the former part of it, especially, is so singu­larly malicious, that the writer certainly deserves some­thing more than a Kick; the reader will therefore excuse, me, if on this occasion, I act for once a little out of character, in treat­ing seriously one, who perhaps has it in his power to do mischief, as a person (for that reason only) of some importance. Barely to laugh at a felon, wou'd be highly incongruous, and only to ri­dicule as a simpleton, a man who ought to be stigmatiz'd as a vil­lain, wou'd be inexcusably criminal.

As Squire T. begs all candid readers 'to reflect, whether such publications as the Whig's 5th No. have not a direct ten­dency to raise suspicions and jealousies in the mother country, against the colonies,' I beg leave to appeal to the same impartial judges, whether such publications as his 7th No. have not a still more direct tendency, to increase and confirm such suspicions and jealousies? If the Whig has been imprudent, is not the Whipper evidently malevolent? If the Whig has driven a nail, has not Squire T. done all he cou'd to clench it? If the Whig has inadvertently kindled a fire, has not his flagellator industriously blown the coals? If the Whig has merited a Whip, does not the Whipper himself richly deserve a scorpion? Nay, did he not write No. 7. (I dare appeal to his own conscience) stimulated by the design, and ani­mated by the hopes, of incensing the government at home, a­gainst the non-conformists in America? If any one doubts, let him but impartially read over the five first paragraphs, and he must needs be convinced, and give his opinion in my favour. What but the rage of conscious guilt, and consequent malevo­lence to its detectors, cou'd have instigated Squire T. to accuse the saction (as he affects to call them) of hopes and designs ne­ver conceiv'd;—principles, most maliciously represented as disloyal and destructive, both to the being and authority of Kings, but never 'til of late consider'd as such by any but Jacobites, since the reign of William the third.—Endeavours to taint the minds of the people, and debauch their affections to the mo­ther [Page 307]country, chargeable, so far as I know, on no American whatsoever;—an intended revolution, every real Whig in Ame­rica, I dare say, trembles as much as the thoughts of, as the most flaming Tory in the universe, and even as much as the pious Squire T. did at the Whig's horrid impiety—and wishing the ruin and destruction of Great-Britain, which I believe Anti-Episcopalians in America as little please themselves with contem­plating, as the American Whig has written about it, and that is (reader wou'd you imagine it!) not one single syllable?

The character of the American non-conformists as to loyalty, before Dr. Ch—r's ungenerous but artful insinuations, ever stood unimpeach'd in America, so far as I know, even in imagi­nation: Dr. Ch—r whisper'd some sly but malicious hints to their prejudice (how far the conventional petitions whisper'd I can't say) but Squire T. bears away the palm of impudence, and bellows aloud what lesser proficients in defamation dare scarcely mutter; so that he now is as remarkable for his brazen [...]nt, as he was before for his harsh voice, foul mouth and dirty language. Strange! that a writer, who so severely condemns the Whig, shou'd be so much more guilty himself, and, after whipping others for their dirtiness, like Smedley in the Dunciad, dive so much deeper than the rest in the mud!—Strange did I say? No; per fas et nesas is his motto, and as he has darling purposes to answer, recte si possis, si non, quocunque modo rem­sacias will sufficiently account for his conduct. The faction in­deed are neither asham'd or afraid to profess principles, partly at least republican (having the happiness of being subjects, not of an absolute but mixed monarchy) as in so doing they are ho­nour'd and secur'd by his Majesty's example; and there's rea­son to think, none but such as are of the same sentiments, are real friends to the establishment in the present reigning family; let them boast as much as they will, of their attachment to the present happy constitution. The advocates for passive obedience and non-resistance (which Whippers and Hang men are accus­tomed to) are not apt to be fond of a limited monarchy, as be­ing unfriendly to their own ambitious aims and despotic princi­ples.

Having with all the virulence of malice, thunder'd out many bitter invectives against the Whig, &c. in his five first para­graphs, in the 6th Squire T. trumpets his own praises most de­lightfully: I, is the little hero of the tale. He seems to have determined to make reprisals, and dress himself as decently as possible, at the expence of the faction; nay, who knows but he hopes to get a pair of lawn sleeves, made out of the rags of their reputation?

[Page 308] I dare not make any remarks on par. 7th, 8th and 9th, for fear of making the reader sp—. If he needs a vomit, par. 9th, tho' a small, is, however, a sufficient dose.

The little fulsome witticisms (such as 'Britain's coming over and leaving herself behind,' &c.) with which Squire T's 7th No. are here and there decorated, are like nauseous sweets added to a bitter draught, having no other effect but that of render­ing the whole completely disgustful.

A.

AS I dare say the author of the American Whig, will never vouchafe to answer such a writer as the reverend Doctor Hierocles, I beg leave to present him with the following observa­tions and queries.

1. That he cannot expect to be taken for a peace maker, till he has convinced the world, that he can write at least six lines with­out abusing the Presbyterians, who have given him no provoca­tion for his virulence; nor are greater enemies to his darling pro­ject, than every non-episcopal denomination among us; it being universally detested and abhorred by them all.

2. That he cannot expect any reasonable man to confide in his declarations, that he wants no modern, but only primitive, bishops; after admitting that we were not to be blamed for be­ing alarmed about our religious liberties; that his bare word is to be deemed sufficient security, in a matter of this importance.

3. What security can be given, by a set of dependants, for for their daily bread on charitable contributions from England, and great part of them from people of the same denomination, with those whom they are here daily abusing and insulting?

4. What reason can he assign, that the controversy, ought to cease before the security is given; and whether it is not more prudent to distrust the words of those, who never kept a promise; except when they had threatned to persecute and de­stroy the Whigs?

5. Whether he believes in his conscience, what he has solemn­ly declared in print, that the author of the American Whig is really a Tory? Let him declare this in the presence of God if he dare.

6. Whether he has not greater reason to think, that a certain champion, for an American Episcopate, is a Tory; not only from the rampant high flying principles in his appeal, but his contemptible drolling on Whiggism, by his ill timed ridicule of, —for America has Whigs?

7. Whether any but Whigs are to be found in America, save only among the convention and the Papists in Maryland?

8. And lastly, Whether all his scurrility, abuse, and falshood, is a proper sermon from his text, Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God?

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XIX.]

HITHERTO I have advanced only presumptive arguments, I shall now produce positive proofs from the New Testa­ment against diocesan episcopacy, or the doctrine of the superiority of bishops to presbyters, with regard to ordination, confirmation and ecclesiastical government. If there had been one instance in the sacred scripture of a minister of the gospel, ordained to his office, by the imposition of a bishop; how great­ly would the episcopalians have triumphed in such a case? I think therefore, as there is an instance of a proper ordination to the ministerial office, recorded in the New-Testament, which is said to have been done by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, the point ought to be given up; and it ought to be candidly acknowledged that diocesan episcopacy is not of divine original; and that notwithstanding such a glaring evidence, which ought to put an end to the dispute, any learned and sen­sible man should persist in the contrary sentiment, is as strong and as melancholly a proof of the force of prejudice, and the unwillingness of mankind, to give up old opinions, as can well be imagined.

Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. This is evident from St. Paul's first epistle to him. See the 4th chapter 14 verse. Neglect not the gift which is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. As this text is so strongly in fa­vour of presbyterian, and so contrary to episcopal ordination, the patrons of the latter have exercised their utmost ability to evade the argument that arises from it. I will mention, and reply to all the evasions that have been invented by ingenious men to ob­scure and invalidate our argument from this passage of sacred [Page 315]writ; and I doubt not but I shall make it sufficiently appear, that this text, notwithstanding all that has been said to the con­trary, is a full demonstra [...] [...] the validity of presbyterian or­dination, a demonstration infinitely better deserving the name, than that of Chilling worth, c [...]ed and ret [...]iled by Dr. Chandler. The text runs thus in the Greek language in which it was origi­nally written. Me amelei ton en soi chari [...]matos o edothe soi dia prophetias meta epitheseos ton cheiron ton presbyteriou.

The first evasion I shall mention, is this; the episcopalians pretend that the word gift ought to be connected with the words, of the presbytery, and then they would read the verse thus, neg­lect not the gift of presbytery, &c. It is justly objected to this arrangement of the words, that it is evidently contrary to the rules of Grammer, as may be seen by looking on the arrange­ment of the original words. Besides the original word presby­terian, here rendered presbytery, occurs but in two more passa­ges in the New-Testament; namely, Luke xxii. 66. and Acts v. 22. and in both these passages it signifies an assembly of elders, and not the ministerial office. I shall take no farther notice of this evasion, as it must be evident to any person acquainted with the Greek language, that there is not the least foundation for it.

2. Another evasion of the episcopalians, is this; they say, by the presbytery we must understand the apostles. If this should be admitted, it would not prove that the right of ordination be­longs to a diocesan bishop, because if an apostle has this right, it is no proof that a bishop, not endowed with extraordinary a­bilities, and miraculous endowments, is possessed of it, much less can it be argued that a single bishop may ordain because a number of apostles did. If all the apostle, joined together in ordaining Timothy, their example would be more conformable to the presbyterian method of ordination than the episcopal. However, I absolutely deny that presbytery means the college of apostles. I think it would not be much more absurd to suppose, that the apostles were the sanhedrim, than to suppose them the presbytery here spoken of; the apostles are no where called in the New-Testament the presbytery. They are stiled the Eleven, the Twelve, the Apostles, &c. as may be seen in many passages. Compare John xxi. 1. and xx. 18. with acts i. 2.15. and acts vi. 2, 26. In the two last passages we read, that the apostles chose by lot a successor in the room of Judas, and of their lay­ing their hands on the seven deacons; and undoubtedly if they had laid their hands on Timothy at his ordination. Paul would have mentioned it, and said, with the laying on of the hands of the apostles, and not the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

3. Another evasion, is this; that though the presbytery laid [Page 316]hands upon Timothy at his ordination, yet what constituted the walidity of it, was the laying on of Paul's hands: This is Dr. Chandler's plea. To this it is answered, that the text speaks of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, and not the laying on of Paul's hands. If Paul had laid his hands on Timothy, at his ordination here referred to, it is probable he would have said, with the laying on of my hands and the hands of the pres­bytery; but as there is no mention made of the imposition of Paul's hands in this text, it is certain it cannot be inserred from it. However, if Paul should have joined with the presbytery in setting Timothy apart to the ministry, and this passage should be allowed to refer to that matter, it would only follow, that he acted in this affair so far as is related simply to the ordination, as a fellow presbyter, and not as an apostle.

4. Another, and the most material evasion, is this; That the gift here referred to, is not the office of the ministry, but the gift of the Holy-Ghost. This is urged by bishop Hoadly, who alledges, that it is very strange that the office of the ministry should be called a gift. But how surprisingly weak and mean is such a subterfuge in so great a master of reasoning, and a man of such candor as this eminent bishop undoubtedly was? It proves that this text hangs like a heavy millstone about the neck of episcopal ordination, since such absurd methods are used to get rid of it; and if such a champion as bishop Hoadly could not remove it, we may presume that no other patron of episco­pacy ever will. We no where read in scripture that the Holy-Ghost was confered by the imposition of the hands of the presby­tery; I mean, a company of ordinary presbyters; and no one would have dreamt of such a thing, if it had not been to serve the ends of a proud and lucrative hierachy: Besides, there was no need for the presbytery to lay hands on Timothy to confer the Holy-Ghost, the apostle could do it alone; nay, asserts he had done it. 2 Timothy i. 6. In as much then, as the presby­tery laid their hands on Timothy, and as they did not do it to confer the Holy-Ghost, which Paul could do; nay, declares he had done, we shall make bold to conclude it was to ordain him to the ministry, except our opponents are capable of assigning a better reason for this ceremony.

To affirm that St. Paul laid his haads on Timothy on the occasion referred to in the text, is to build without a foundation; the apostle declaring no such thing in this passage, and it being utterly impossible that this passage, and 2 Timothy i. 6. relate to the same thing, for the following reasons; If they did, the manner of expression in both, would not be so different as it is. Moreover the context in the 1 Tim. iv. 14. suits best with the [Page 317]opinion of Timothy's ordination to the ministerial office, as any one will be sensible of, if he reads it with impartiallity. Besides, if b [...] [...]e above mentioned passages relate to the same thing, [...] apostle is guilty of tautology, which is unlikely. Fur­ther it is reasonable to think, that so great a master of address as the Apostle Paul, in an epistle to a young minister, wherein he expresly exhorts him to a faithful discharge of the ministerial office, would enforce his exhortation by reminding that minister of the solemn occasion, when he was set apart for that office, and entered into the strictest engagements duly to perform it; but if it is not done here, it is done no where else in the epistles. At least if Paul speaks twice of a gift given to Timothy, it is very reasonable to suppose, that in one case he refers to the mi­nisterial office; and since it is acknowledged on all hands, that the presbytery laid hands on candidates to ordain them to the ministry, and the apostles after laid their hands on persons to confer the Holy-Ghost; and since there is not one plain instance in scripture of common presbyters conjointly conferring the Holy-Ghost by the imposition of hands, or any other way, it undeni­ably follows, that Timothy was ordained by the presbytery.

I am surprised, that a man of bishop Hoadly's learning should pretend, that the apostle did not design the ministerial office in the above passages, because he calls it a gift. Did he not know that offices were gifts, that the Greek word charisma, munus, signifies an office; Did he not recollect scripture instances where the ministerial office is represented as a gift? Did he not remem­ber Ephes. iv. 11. where the apostle tells us, that Christ gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers? Did he not remember Rom. xii. 6, 7, 8. Having then gifts charismata, offices differing according to the grace that is is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophecy, according to the proportion of saith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministry, &c. did he not know? Did he not recollect these particulars? Undoubtedly he did. But what could he do? He had undertaken the defence of episcopal ordina­tion, and this text was directly contrary to it. He was therefore obliged to wrest the scriptures. In short, his glosses on this text to evade the evidence arising from it in favour of presbyterian ordination, have convinced me more fully, that it is a decisive argument, with regard to the point in debate. Before I con­clude my observations on this text, I shall take notice of another objection, which bishop Hoadly urges against the use we make of it; he says, ‘if this text proves any thing in favour of such a right. i. e. the right of presbyters to ordain.’ It equally proves that presbyters had a right to set apart, not only presby­ters [Page 318]to their office, but even evangelists, or church officers as Timothy was, to their office, which is absurd, But it is no ab­surdity for a number of inferiors to set apart others to a superior office: It is what is done continually, and church history fur­nishes us with instances of this nature, directly to the purpose; which the bishop was well acquainted with: But to say, that an evangelist, or that Timothy, was an officer superior to a presbyter, is begging the question. Every evangelist is a presbyter, and every presbyter is an evangelist; and if evangelists are itinerant ministers, ordained to preach the gospel among heathens and infidels, this is nothing but what presbyters may do, or have done; and if the being an evangelist in this sense, would prove a man to be superior to a presbyter, it will prove also, that a pres­byter is superior to a bishop, as presbyters have been employed in that business, when bishops have thought it beneath their episcopal dignity.

It is asserted by bishop Hoadly, that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus bishop of Crete. But this I deny, and let those who assert it, prove that they were; I mean diocesan bish­ops. That Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and titus of Crete, because the apostle directs the former to lay hands suddenly on no man; and the latter, that he left him in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every place, is a very weak argument; seeing that parrallel directions and in­formations have frequently been given by presbyters to pres­byters. The apostle's direction to Timothy, to lay hands sud­denly on no man, no more proves his exclusive right to ordain, than the Apostle's direction to the same Timothy, to drink a lit­tle wine, proves that his reverend brethren the presbyters, were not intitled to the same privilege; and yet upon so frivolous and weak a deduction, which by no means necessarily follows from the premises, is the mighty structure of diocesan episcopacy founded, so far as it relates to scripture testimony. If Timothy had been bishop of Ephesus, it is probable that Paul would have mentioned him under that character in the inscription at the be­ginning of the epistle to the Ephesians, or in the salutations at the end of it; but not a word of Timothy in either.

If Timothy had been bishop of Ephesus, it is probable that Paul would have recognized him as such, in the address he made to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, and especially as he was taking his last leave of them; yet he mentions not a word of Timothy; nay, instead of enjoining these elders to yield obedience to Ti­mothy, or any one else as their bishop, he says unto them, take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy-Ghost hath made you overseers, i. e. in Greek episcopous, in [Page 319]English, bishops. Thus then these elders were stiled bishops by the Apostle, and therefore this passage, as also Phil. i. 1. Tit. i. 5, 7.1. Pet. v. 1, 2. prove that the names, bishop and el­der, were indiscriminately given to the same officers, and all the world may be challenged to give any positive proof from scrip­ture, that bishops were an order distinct from, and superior to, presbyters.

It doth not appear from any of the epistles written to any of the churches, that they had diocesan bishops; the Apostle in the inscription of those epistles, makes not the least mention of them, which is a strong argument that there were none.

The epistle to the Philippians is inscribed to all the saints at philippi, with the bishops and deacons. Observe reader, the word is bishops, that is congregational ones, and not bishop, that is a diocesan one; surely this text favours not the episcopal dignity; for no man of sense will pretend that there were more than one diocesan bishop in a city. 'As the Apostle therefore speaks of bishops at Philippi in the plural number, it is evident he means presbyters by that word, that the church there was governed by fellow presbyters.

Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians exhorts them to know them which laboured amongst them, which were over them in the Lord; and admonished them, to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake; here again he speaks of the pro­phets, but not one word of the bishop.

Although the church of Christ was so highly celebrated, yet the Apostle no where intimates that it had a diocesan bishop, When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, he particular­ly designed to heal the unhappy divisions that had risen amongst them; if there had been a bishop at Corinth at that time, the Apostle would undoubtedly have referred the corinthians to him, as a peace maker and healer of breaches; but as he has not done it, we may conclude that the Corinthians had no bishop.

In the Epistle to the Romans there is not any mention made of a diocesan bishop. The Papists pretend that Peter was bishop of Rome, but perhaps there is as little reason to suppose that Peter was bishop of Rome, as that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, or Titus bishop of Crete.

The Apostle to the Hebrews exhorts them, to remember those who had the rule over them, who had spoken unto them the word of God; here again the Apostle speaks in the plural number, thereby intimating that these Hebrews were under the govern­ment of elders or presbyters, and not a diocesan bishop.

The Apostle Peter, writing to the elders, 1, Pet. i, 5. says, the elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, [Page 320]in Greek sunpresbeteros; seed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of them; in Greek episcopountes i. e. exercising the office of bishops over them. By this passage we not only see that bishops and presbyters were the same thing, but that the Apostle Peter himself looked upon the presbyters as his fellows.

John the beloved apostle, 3 Ephesians 1 verse, stiles himself an elder; and instead of aspiring at a superiority over his brethren, for which he had once been blamed by his master, he complains of Diotrephes, who loved the preheminence. The short limits of a News Paper will not permit me to enlarge upon the several arguments I have mentioned; I shall therefore conclude for the present with a few observations.

The word of God in defining the essential marks of a minister of Christ, confines itself entirely to one order of the clergy, without speaking a syllable of any other; surely if there had been any such person as a diocesan bishop established, or to be established in the Christian church, he would have been described in the New-Testament; and especially in the epistle to Timothy and Titus, wherein St. Paul treats professedly on the qualifica­tions of ecclesiastical officers. If there had been different orders of gospel preachers, he would, probably, have taken notice of them in those epistles; and shewed what different gifts and abili­ties were severally requisite, to fit them for their respective offi­ces. But we read only of one order of the clergy in the apostle's writings; which make no mention of bishops, as distinct from elders.

St. Paul no where informs us, what character a diocesan bishop should have. He tells you what an elder, who doth not labour in the word, should be: He tells you what a deacon, who serves tables and takes care of the poor, should be, and what a preach­ing elder should be; but takes no notice of a diocesan bishop. Surely if any such person had existed in, or been intended for, the church of Christ, and if he had been of so much importance to its administration, as Dr. Chandler pretends, the apostle would have mentioned him; and especially when he had so good an opportunity of doing it in the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Is it not strange that in these epistles, Paul should describe the necessary qualifications of the lowest officer, in the church of Christ, and not mention the highest?

I intend to take a more particular notice of Dr. Chandler's appeal, in some future papers, in which (I doubt not) I shall fully answer Chillingworth's demonstration of episcopacy; and abundantly prove the futility and nonsense of an uninterrupted succession. I think what I have said already is sufficient to con­vince the impartial reader, that diocesan episcopacy, and ordi­nation by a bishop, are not of divine institution.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. IX.]

HAVING in my last gently cudgell'd the Whipper for the impudent malice of his 7th, I shall now proceed to ani­madvert upon the miscellaneous scribble scrabble of his 8th No. for the future, however, reserving to myself the dis­cretionary power of treating him as a fool or a knave, and using my heel or my cane as I think proper.

As Squire T. (par. 1st) assures us, it is a very easy matter for a writer to make, and implicity acknowledges the Whig has made a specious appearance in a periodical paper; it shou'd seem strange he himself has not succeeded, who so evidently 'aims at carrying his point by clamour, and raising an odium against—(I must not say his antagonists, for he has none; I Sir Isaac Foot having, as yet, the honour to be no more than an epagonist—but) the non-episcopal faction, which he is feebly en­deavouring to lash in the person of the Whig. If a blustering writer, under all the advantages he could wish, egregiously fails in a very easy matter, what must the world think of him?

The Whig's malice, it seems, renders him inconsistent. As how? Why, in finding fault with Dr. Chandler, for falling into opposite extremes. Pray, Mr. Whipper, is it impossible for a D. D. to speak sometimes too plain, and sometimes not plain enough?—one while to reason, so that the unavoidable consequence is the invalidity of non episcopal ordination, and afterwards for certain reasons, to soften invalid down into at least irregular and defective?—Has not Dr. Ch—r (as well as Squire T.) often inadvertently express'd even self-con­tradictory sentiments, and who pray, is most justly chargea­ble with inconsistencies, He who writes them, or he who, when written, holds them forth to public view?—public view! ay, there's the malice of it. So unguarded, and yet so averse to detection, is guilty artifice!

Squire T. it seems, can't find Dr. Ch—r guilty of (what is visible to half an eye) an universal denial of the validity of non-episcopal ordination. Any one, at least who attentively reads sect. 1. par. 3d. of the Appeal, is (I affirm) as blind as a bee [...]le, if he don't find Dr. Ch—r representing all the angels in Heaven, as well as all the men on earth, without an uninterrupt­ed succession of bishops, as insignificant to the validity of ordi­nation, [Page 322]as Dr. Tickle himself—poh! I mean, Squire Tickle —(par. 8th) makes all the presbyters on the continent, to the fabrication of 'a single Christian priest.' And if the evident real sentiments of both are just, the Lord have mercy on all non-episcopal churches, and that of Holland among the rest! Squire T. indeed, even while (conscience bound no doubt) he admits 'the church of Holland is not so exactly episcopal, as that of England,' wou'd fain be understood to admit also the va­lidity of Dutch ordinations; but alas (such dirty artifices are used in ecclesiastical politics!) all this and much more (par. 3d and 4th) is but time-serving complaisance, design'd to secure the neutrality or engage the interest of the Dutch churches, while consecrated fetters are preparing for them, as well as En­glish schimatical congregations.' But is Squire T. indeed, stupid enough to hope to make dupes of the Dutch churches, who very well know the church of Holland, as to constitution, differs more from the church of England, than this last from the church of Rome, and that it is in every respect non-episco­pal, as much as if it were strictly and properly Presbyterian? If so, fie upon thee Squire T!

Par. 5th is of the same complexion with the greatest part of No. VII. containing a most villainous accusation of the faction as having long aimed to seize the revenues of the Dutch church in New-York, which I never dreamt, heard, or read of, till the 23d of May last, and perhaps no mortal else, but Squire T. and I candidly believe, that if this virulent charge did not originate in his own head or heart, it was sug­gested by one of God's creatures of superior abilities, but of a still more perverse disposition. In this par, he again mixes bit­ter and sweet calumny, and what he doubtless supposes to be wit; but who, besides Squire T. ever thought of 'incopora­ting a thing called a meeting-house by charter, any more than of 'anihilating existence by divisions? tho' every one knows iron, wood, stone, &c. may be easily incorporated into a pom­pous consecrated idoliz'd thing, call'd a church, which, in spite of its steeple, the faction is wicked enough to believe has, when the assembly is absent, no more inherent sanctity than the most humble profane despicable structure on the face of the globe.

Par. 6th 7th and 8th, Squire T. boggles miserably at the Whigs question (No. V. par. 6th and 7th) one leg, tho' bro­ken against the stumbling block, he has indeed brought over, but the other he has been oblig'd to leave behind; so that there he stands yet, like a witch bestriding the threshold of an in­chanted door. To put a good face on the matter, he makes a flourish indeed about Monsieur Houdin; but not a syllable drops from his pen concerning Mr. Monroe. Why this difference as [Page 323]to mentioning, as well as ordaining, these two gentlemen, Squire T.? alas! 'tis subterfuge all, every one sees it; and yet I'll make you the best excuse I can—'Twas of Dr. Chandler, and not Dr. Tickle, the Whig challenged a categorical reply to his question; however I can't help saying, that, when the lat­ter was pleas'd to appear as a catechumen, if he thought it pru­dent to be silent about Mr Monroe, it had been much more so to have said nothing at all about Mons. Houdin.

Par. 9th. he labours hard to be at a loss about the sense of the word match, and at last removes his self caus'd perplexity, by a most sulphureously humourous solution; and in par. 10th brings a scrap of Hudibrass to knock down the Whig, who had been so unlucky as to expose himself to the blow. However violent a Tory the author might be, the most rigid Whigs acknowledge the merits of Hudibrass as a piece of humour; but wit is not argument, and, by the way, Tickle is not Butler.

Par. 11th Squire T. finds fault with the Whig, for taking for granted, 'that it is impossible, as the law now stands, to in­troduce a bishop into America, who will not have authority, the instant he arrives, to set up an ecclesiastical court. The force of this kind of reasoning (which, by the way, is no reasoning at all) is not, it seems, evident; but I fancy this kind of proposi­tion, will, 'ere long, be sufficiently evident to many beside those Squire T. himself rages, foams, swells, blusters, threatens, and prophesies, to convince, frighten, or discourage. It is re­ally not more diverting, to hear a W—give lectures on female virtue, than to read what this hussar in controversy, this bush-fighter, has so gravely written, about sober argument, and candid reasoning. For my part, I make no high pretences to either of the two (if two they are) and yet I flatter myself, there is at least as much real argument, coach'd in my hints a posteriori, as in Squire T's round about flagellations. Reader consider me not as guilty of vanity, for while you justify my sentiments, in this respect (as I'm sure you must, if before judgment you will but compare Whig, Whip, and Kick together) you are hearti­ly welcome to think as meanly of me as you please. E.

Sir Isaac Foot presents his compliments to Timothy Tickle, Esq and thanks him for his advertisement; but begs leave to assure him, that, at the time of its publication, it was generally known, that there had been a convention of officious missionaries in this city, at which (whatever the design of their meeting might have been) the sacred text, For yet a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry, was by a most decent Christian perversion, applied to the arrival of a profane, i. e. a political creature, the work of men's hands, commonly called a BISHOP.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XVI.]

A Person once asked a scholar what was the meaning of [...]ff, which stands for the digests or pandects; and was hu­mourously answered that it signified Farrago sarraginum; as much as to say—'an heap of miserable stuff.' Or if a more literal translation please thine ear, reader, the meaning is—'an hodge-podge of hodge-podges.'

How justly descriptive of No. XII. of the American-Whig, is this answer! If thou wilt cast thine eye upon it, indignant reader, thou wilt find it to be an heap, hoard or congeries, of miserable stuff; an hodge-podge of hodge-podges. It consists of three detached pieces—all worthy of the Whig and his associates; but utterly impertinent to the dispute now debating before the respectable tribunal of the public; and unworthy of its notice. And I shall so far imitate the Whig, as to depart from order—he is a disorderly man,—depart, I say, from the order in which these pieces are placed, and begin with the last of them, and so proceed, as it were, by a retrograde motion.

A gentle lash will be sufficient for each of these flimsy, sense­less things. Now, the last is a letter to the Whig, from one of his under spur-leathers; filled with wrath against Dr. Chandler and his brethren, because they sometimes call the church of England, the church; altho' this is no other than the language which has been used by English writers since the reformation—dissenters as well as churchmen. Calling meeting houses by the name of churches, or independents, members of the church, is a very late refinement, and unknown to our forefathers. My eldest son, who is but twelve years old, can remember the first of this custom. If any person however on reading that letter, can perceive one grain of sense, or candour in it, he is welcome to it for his Pains.

The second part of this multifarious Whig is another letter, signed Obadiah Wheeler, and written in the West country dia­lect; which is here palmed upon the public as an original, but [Page 329]in reality is pilfered from an old magazine, and republished with a very few alterations. Our plagiary talks away about ‘kowz, zowz and goozy chikz’—his fellow creatures; about giving a bribe to the American Whig, ‘to put in a cavie against a biz­hup.’ Now, however unable the public may be to see the pertinency of this letter to the case of American bishops; I am pretty confident they will be able to see an apparent connection between a bribe and the American Whig. The association of these in our ideas, is very natural; and so much for Mr. Wheeler.

Thirdly and Lastly, That is to say, meaning and referring to part the first of this farrago farraginum, in which the American Whig himself makes his personal and corporal appearance—It speaks its origin plain enough. The author of it makes mention of 'the wisdom of politicians—of wise and able statesmen'—words, which come from his mouth, with equal propriety and grace as the words chastity and virtue from the mouth of a prostitute. The burden and design of his production is to shew— ‘That the spirit of high churchmen is absolutely incompati­ble with that of our excellent constitution; and was their power equal to their wishes, they would neither eat nor sleep, before they had turned a limitted monarchy into an absolute one—that when they talk of moderation, they mean want of power—that should a future ministry be weak enough ****** to gratify the insatiate ambition of some of our rampant, high church clergy, the colonies will be debauched from their loyalty—that an American episcopate would cut asunder the cord which ties them to the mother country—for let them have but funds of their own by the management of their spi­ritual father the bishop—then adieu for ever to their political mother, old England.’

And this zealous friend to our constitution and to old England, expresses his ardent love to both. But it unfortunately happens, ‘that he so unnaturally counterfeits the voice of a sheep, that no reader upon earth can discriminate it from that of a wolf.’

It is hard to say which is most to be admired, or which predo­minates most in this representation—falshood or malice.—This writer not only insults truth, but the understanding of every reader. Altho' he singles out High churchmen, it is beyond any doubt, that by those he means, all who have any degree of zeal for the interest of the church of England, or that would thwart his pernicious designs, and intolerant principles. What warm friends the clergy of the church of England, and parti­cularly bishops, have been to our constitution and liberties, eve­ry page almost of the history of England fully evinces. And [Page 330]every page almost of that history refutes this infamous calumny, which is thrown out, to blind and debauch the multitude, by a faction whose principles, whose writings, whose conduct, de­monstrate them to be republicans, and enemies to our constitu­tion—even to a limited monarchy.

I shall here mention one memorable passage in our history, which will shew what warm friends to our constitution and li­berties those were, whom our Whig calls high churchmen. James ii. was a weak, misled prince—a dupe to popery and priests. He manifestly designed to introduce popery and arbitrary power in England, and overturn the reformation. One of the first and chief engines he employed for this purpose, was dis­pensing with those laws, which exclude papists from places of power and trust. At Oxford and Cambridge, if I remember right, the first attempts to exercise this dispensing power, were tried; where it met with all the opposition that the members of those two illustrious universities could give it. Soon after this, the king ordered 'a declaration of liberty of conscience' to be read in all churches thro' England; which was done only to pave the way for popery. With this the archbishop of Canterbury, and six bishops who then happened to be present, refused to com­ply; and presented a petition to the king, remonstrating against it; knowing that it had a direct tendency to let in popery, and destroy the liberties of the nation. And for this refusal and re­monstrance, those seven bishops were clapt into the tower, and there held in durance. There was no event which contributed more to rouse the spirit of the nation, point out its danger, and bring about the revolution, than this. Never was a nobler stand made for liberty than this was; yet these bishops were such as our Whig would call high churchmen.

It is very remarkable, that whilst the church clergy oppo­sed those arbitrary measures, and refused to comply with king James's injunctions, dissenters presented several addresses of thanks to him on the occasion. Even from New-England ad­dresses were transmitted to king James, for granting a general liberty of conscience. I will not anticipate the reader's reflecti­ons on this occasion; nor pretend to determine whether those addresses originated from a desire to see the church of England crushed; which must have fallen the first victim, being the strongest barrier against popery and arbitrary power; or whether dissenters were not imposed on by specious pretences and promises, and so lulled to sleep by the king's emissaries.

I shall only add further at present, that when these particulars, and many more which the world ere long shall be informed of, are considered, our Whig, even in point of prudence and re­gard [Page 331]to his cause, were truth and justice entirely thrown aside ought to be more cautious in asserting what none will believe, viz. that churchmen are enemies to the British constitution—parcius ista nobis tamen objicienda memento—i. e. ‘Mr. Whig, remember you are the last person that should upbraid us with such things.’

To TIMOTHY TICKLE, Esq

JOY, joy, joy, my good friend Tickle. With all my heart I give you joy. I thought your victory complete when Sir Isaac Foot (and a sooty fellow he is) attacked you; but pro patria has put the matter out of a possibility of dispute. I always look­ed upon you as a man of considerable merit; but I can assure you that your reputation has gained much by the little, low, dirty tricks, that your adversaries, especially the worthies above­mentioned, have thought proper (if ever they thought at all) to have recourse to. Strange it is, that some people will pretend to write before they have learned to read! I thought the knight the most illetirate and insignificant of all the race of Adam; but pro patria has convinced me of my error. I am therefore so far indebted to him. Nor am I the only person whom he has laid under obligations. You yourself, Mr. Tickle, are much beholden to him. He has laid hands upon you, Mr. Tickle; he has ordained my friend the squire. Well; may I perish, but he is a good-natured soul! He has saved you the trouble of a couple of 3000 miles voyages, and the expence of many a thirty shilling bill. If you are not the most ungrateful of Men, as he is the most contemptible, you cannot but thank him.—But perhaps you do not allow the validity of presbyterian ordination? Mr. Tickle, Mr. Tickle, you are utterly mistaken, Mr. Tickle. Not only pro patria, but all the other Independents in the coun­try say the same. What they think is a different matter. But so many of them, from time to time, having been re-ordained by bishops, is no good argument in their favour. Nay, I am convinced, and so are they too (and, hinc illae lacrymae) that if episcopal ordination could be had upon as easy terms as pres­byterian, four fifths of the whole clan would be happy in receiv­ing it. This their followers know, and therefore are so out­rageously bitter against the introduction of a bishop to the conti­nent. They would sink into their primeval nonentity. And as for the threats against the person of a bishop, they know in their hearts that they durst not touch a hair of his head. However, it serves to shew their spirit of persecution, for which they have ever been infamous, and which I am persuaded they will always exert, when ever they have the power to do so. But it seems, [Page 332]Mr Tickle, that you have said the Whig is written by a faction. Is this excusable? Is this, my reverend friend, (I ask pardon for not giving you the title sooner) is this language for a Christian man,—for a Christian minister? Truth is not to be spoken at all times; and this, quoth pro patria, is not the proper time. And pro patria saith well. He took his cue from his beloved Whigs; and as they have not thought expedient to speak it, pray why should you? pro patria is a wight of much discernment. Pro patria knows the faction. Pro patria follows their example. Pro patria, If I am not much mistaken, was employed by the faction to do their dirty work; and I am sure that pro patria is a very proper instrument. In time, both he, and his friend Sir Isaac, may be equal to their masters. Par nobile Fratrum; if peradventure they be two. I wish them success in their ardu­ous undertaking, and am, Sir,

N. B. If you don't choose to dirty your fingers with such reptiles, as I have plenty of water to wash off the slime, you may command me, as occasion shall require, to give them a lash of correction for their many iniquities.

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XX.]

I Should now pursue my confutation of the divine right of diocesan episcopacy (a doctrine which Dr. Chandler has very unnecessarily obtruded on the public, and which I am therefore compelled to consider, in order to give a complete an­swer to the appeal) but having promised, in my first number, not to fatigue the reader with the dry crust of unsavoury con­troversy, I shall endeavour to relieve his spirits with a very dif­ferent scene. As to the subject now suspended, I shall soon re­sume it, and hope so effectually to expose the absurdity of that pretence, as well as those two other pretty priestly conceits,— confirmation, and the uninterrupted succession, as to prevent the [Page 333]most bigotted conventioner, from ever re-introducing them into the company of Christians or gentlemen.

In a letter of bishop Kennet, printed in the history of his life, that excellent prelate has these memorable words: ‘He was’ (says he, speaking of the great and good Dr. Tenison, then late arch-bishop of Canterbury) ‘truly sensible, that at home and abroad we were in great danger of losing Christianity, in the name of the church. The two great difficulties that lie hard upon our society, for propagation of the gospel, are, (1) The want of sober and religious missionaries; few offering themselves to that service, for the glory of God, and the good of souls; but chiefly to find a refuge from poverty and scandal. —(2) Such men, when they come to the places allotted them, forget their mission; and, instead of propagating Christianity, are only contending for rites and ceremonies, or for powers and privileges, &c.’—What particular conduct of the missionaries that venerable prelate then resented, with so much Christian zeal and impartiality, I cannot determine. But that many of them have, for some years past, made a practice of giving themselves an air of importance, in their letters to the society, at the expence of truth, will appear evident to any per­son, who will be at the pains of perusing the fulsome extracts annexed to the anniversary sermons preached before that board. —That they have lately entered into a combination to asperse the American colonies, in which they reside, in order to facili­tate their darling project of an American bishop, representing his majesty's subjects, of every denomination, differing from their own, as entertaining principles, unfriendly to our excellent constitution; (for which they know in their consciences, there is not the least colour of pretence) is abundantly apparent from the following letter. On this notable epistle, I shall at pre­sent make no other observation, but that the public may de­pend on it to be genuine, and that I have no other reason for con­cealing the author's name, than my disinclination to expose him to the righteous indignation of his injured country; but that if either of the two weekly scribblers for the convention, will insist on his being made a sacrifice to the popular resentment, for his scandalous misrepresentations of the most loyal people in the world, rather than lose the pleasure of charging me with a fashood; they may make their challenge with their usual friendship for truth and decency, and they shall be gratified. I have only to add, that I have printed a few lines in Italic, for the reader's present meditation; intending hereafter to make pro­per remarks on those extraordinary passages.

To the PUBLIC.

THE spleen and malignity, so remarkable in the American Whig, against the established church, has, I dare say, rous'd the resentment of every true son of that apostolic commu­nion. However, as to myself, I, who have the honour to be a member of the same, have sound no small alleviation (under the arguments and insults utter'd against it) from the considera­tion, that all the logic, or satire, of him and the faction, will not be of the least avail, either to himself or them: Nay, they will only augment their infamy and reproach, as I shall demon­strate anon. Is it not ridiculous for a man to squabble with a kitchen maid, in the face of the public?—Would any but fools contend, when sure of being foiled, and exposing their in­capacity [Page 337]and rancour, the view of the world? This is the case of the schismatics and Whig; they worry and vex themselves in vain; being ignorant of the very scheme, by which our pious designs are conducted. At once to terminate their cavils, I shall disclose the plan of our future proceedings, against those Here­ticks.

The venerable society (amidst persecutions and oppressions) have zealously prosecuted the pious design of christianizing dis­senters in America, and transforming them into members of the national church. The devout labours of their missionaries, have been rewarded with a plentiful harvest. Numbers have been persuaded to abandon the schismatical conventicles, which (as that venerable saint Mr, Checkly, avers) have neither a valid ministry or ordinances; and join'd the communion of our church: Religion, according to the liturgy, flourish'd. Ample account of these converts were transmitted to the venerable soci­ety at home, whose pious souls exulted at the success, and were almost ravish'd at the prospect of episcopizing America. These devout emotions, received, nevertheless, a mortifying check, by the most wicked reproaches of the faction. They had the ef­frontery to traduce the characters of the godly missionaries, and of the society itself. The latter they accus'd of perverting the end of their institution; and that instead of employing their do­nations and care, in converting the aboriginal pagans, to the Christian faith, and knowledge of a Saviour; they wantonly lavish'd their money, in perverting dissenters; squandering large sums in opulent towns, which were amply supplied with preach­ers of irreproachable characters; while the indigent, and those who were unable to support the ministry, were neglected. The missionaries were represented as expending that charitable boun­ty, not in the least in advancing Christianity; but in seducing dissenters, from the pure and unadulterated gospel of Jesus, to a perverted gospel, and in teaching for doctrines the command­ments of men. Such were the malicious slanders, uttered by the faction, and dilently propagated by their abettors. Hereby the animating expectations of the venerable society were blasted, their persons traduced, and many charitable donations restrain'd. Notwithstanding, our dignitaries judging it necessary to con­vert the sectaries, that they might not obstruct their success among the heathen, they vigorously prosecuted their beneficient plan, and their success was adequate to their zeal. Many de­serted their former puritanical dogmas, and became zealous as­sertors of episcopal faith. Pompous accounts of proselytes were stransmitted to that reverend body, which were confirmed by their lordships, and usher'd into the world, with triumph and [Page 338]joy. Thus the venerable board, continued to exert themselves with unremitting ardour, amidst the clamours of the faction; and, altho' by the animating accounts sent by the missioaries, it was expected that schism would long 'ere now have been extir­pated, and the whole American continent metamorphosed into episcopalians; yet since the pious missionaries (as Dr. Chandler observes) had no other weapons to avail themselves withal (while altar was set up against altar) but the feeble efforts of argument, which were common to the faction themselves, no wonder their success was not proportioned to their devout wish­es; but after about sixty years assiduous labour, the greater part still retained their inveterate prejudices.

Some of their lordships, in their anniversary sermons before the venerable society, had laid it down as a maxim, 'that they could not expect to convert the heathens, 'till they had first christianiz'd the dissenters.' This was far from being effectu­ated, and therefore, on the present plan, the heathen must be neglected to some far distant period. This rous'd their zeal to attempt some new expedient.—What must be done? They must rid themselves of dissenters, who obstruct the conversion of pagans, to the religion of the liturgy! To episcopize them, is like to be the work of ages! The most compendious method imaginable, would be to change the species of these obstinate hereticks, that they might no longer obstruct the gospel among the pagans. Accordingly, on the 20th of February, 1767, my lord of Landaff, in presence of that venerable society, meta­morphosed the whole schismatical herd into 'infidels, with more than brutal manners!' This rare atchievement was deservingly approv'd by that respectable body, and the operator received their cordial thanks. This was a bold, but effectual 'stroke. This craft had been dormant from the venerable Circe, 'till re­viv'd by her present right r-v—d successor; and no author since Ovid, has had the honour to record such a mutation, ex­cept myself. The legends of Rome contain nothing worthy of competition. All obstacles towards converting the pagans are now vanished. Not a dissenter remains in America. They are become fellow-infidels with their brethren, the natives.—No more clamour about perverting dissenters. Good people may now be invited to give, for the sole purpose of converting infi­dels. By this a large field is opened for needy missionaries; and gain and godliness may go hand and hand. Yet, these quon­dam dissenters, retain, even since their mutation, something of their former rancour; which may be no small exercise to our pious missionaries. It might (to speak with submission) have been better, if they had been setenced slaves; for altho' the [Page 339]Whig is an infidel, I doubt not he believes, his lordship with equal veracity and ease, might have denominated them negroes and slaves. Then like the Scythians of old we might have re­turn'd with Whips, and driven them from their possessions, to our no small emolument. But they have been confirm'd infi­dels, and who dares dispute episcopal confirmation? How long they are like to retain their present form, depends on their con­duct. Should they still prove refractory, they might next be classed with the brutes; should they conform to the liturgy, like Lucian's ass, they might re-assume their pristine form. What strange transformation the obstinate may still expect, you may learn from example. Cr. Chauncey of Boston, for disputing the reality of this change, and insisting on the identity of former dissenters, was immediately, by episcopalian slight, hooted into a ram-chicken, but has not yet been confirm'd in that character by a bishop's hand. What changes will be inflicted on W. Livingston, and the Whig, must be left to the wisdom of the convention. They may suffer as many metempsycoses as a Py­thagorean, or shapes as a silk-worm. For the present it was determined, to lash [...]e Whig in revenge, before he could be metamorphos'd out of the way.—But, who shall perform this ignominious task? None of the convention, tho' sufficiently vexed, had courage to accept, They knew he disavowed passive obe­dience; and should they Whip, he might return the compliment, and repel his aggressor. On mature deliberation, Tabitha Ket­tle was unanimously chosen for this arduous office. She had been cook to the rev Mr. Diotrephes, and brought up in his kitchen and principles. She had the honour to belong to the church by law established, and read exactly the prayers, and lessons, of each day (without daring to exceed) in obedience to authority. Her favourite books were Checkly, Hudibrass, and the service book; all of which she read with equal devotion. Her esteem for missionaries arose almost to adoration—and her abhorrence of dissenters to detestation. In her disputes, she was furious and loud; and when clamour could not de­cide, the broomstick and ladle were call'd to assist. This hero­ine received a mission, to pelt and scold at the Whig▪ But on her investiture with so important an office, it was resolved to me­tamorphose her sex▪ and dignify her with a masculine name, as near as may be, similar to her former. Accordingly, instead of Tibitha Kettle, she assumed the name and title of Timothy Tickle, Esq Thus being masculated, she accepted her post; and having Hudibrass in her pocket, to furnish her with proper ex­pressions, and arm'd with her usual weapons, the broomstick [Page 340]and ladle, she march'd forth to begin the fray, on the 4th day of April, A. D. 1768.—Her success must be defer'd to another time.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XVII.]
To TIMOTHY TICKLE, Esq

I Am a member of the church of England, and zealously at­tached to its doctrines and discipline.—For many years I have been retired from business, and spend the evening of my days on a pleasant rural recess, far removed from the noise and bustle incident to cities and larger towns. My farm affords me all the necessaries and some of the conveniencies of life. As I am not engaged in the pursuit of riches or power, much of my time is devoted to the contemplation of heavenly things; some to a few favourite authors; and I, now and then, amuse myself by reading the public papers, whilst curling eddies of smoke wafted from the cheerful pipe, diffuse a grateful odour thro' my little habitation.

But with the utmost grief and indignation, I have observed of late, that a rude and virulent attack has been made upon the church, in several parts of the continent; and prosecuted in such a manner, that, decency and candour have been sacrificed, by writers 'hackney'd in the ways of men,' to the accursed spirit of party and dissention.

What could have been the motive of these writers for such a procedure, must be left to the searcher of all hearts: Sure I am, however, that it is contrary to the principles of Christian charity;—that it can never serve the cause of truth and reli­gion; —that it breaths a spirit of bigotry and malevolence;— that it is inconsistent with the character of meek but firm asser­tors of the rights of conscience.

Whether it flows therefore, from minds imbitter'd by any disappointment, or is the pure effect of zeal without knowledge; [Page 346]in either case I condemn it; since we are taught by the oracles of divine wisdom, not only to be wise as serpents, but also harm­less as doves.

Virulence and rancour, with sarcastic and illiberal reflections, can never properly serve a cause: They irritate, but do not con­vince, —they rankle in the bosoms of those at whom they are aimed, widen those breaches which for the honour of Christiani­ty ought to be closed up; and destroy that brotherly love which our Saviour so strongly recommended to all his disciples. To the eye of impartial reason, the authors of calumny suffer most by it; for they forfeit the heart-felt satisfaction, arising from a con­sciousness of innocence and integrity.

Misrepresentation indeed, may prevail for a time: But it will not bear examination before which it flies, like the early mist before the morning sun.

I have already said, SIR, that I am a churchman by profes­sion —As such I pray for the whole Catholic church; and not for that alone, but for Jews, Turks and, infidels; for all the race of Adam, whether within the verge of Christianity, or as yet miserably enveloped in darkness and the shadow of death— Tho' I esteem the doctrines and ceremonies of my own church to be the most pure, and conformable to the will of God: Yet in pursuance of the golden rule of "doing as I would be done by." I would have every one enjoy liberty of conscience in the most extensive manner.—This liberty must consist, not in pri­vately entertaining any set of religious opinions; because at that rate there could hardly be any such thing as persecution; the secrets of the heart being un [...]earchable to any but the Almighty —But it must consist in the free, open, and undisturbed pro­fession of our saith; the being allowed publickly to worship God in that mode we esteem most agreeable to him; a moral securi­ty, that we shall not be hereafter prevented from thus acting; and an exemption from any peculiar and grievous hardships on a religious account.

No sect can be properly said to enjoy liberty of conscience, un­less it has within itself the means of continuing its faith and worship. If the Presbyterians were prevented from ordaining their pastors in the accustomable manner, and among themselves, I verily believe they would complain, that they did not enjoy liberty of conscience in its reasonable extent, since their religion could only be of short duration.

Whilst I grant that every other denomination, not danger­ous to the state, should have liberty of conscience, I think I may boldly challenge the same indulgence for the church in as full a manner at least.—It has been alledged indeed, that the [Page 347]church laboured under no hardships; and that on the contrary, there was danger lest it should become a church rampant and gubernant.—Let any one but reflect on a voyage across a wide and boisterous ocean; the many perils and dangers it presents to our eyes;—the lives that are lost thereby;—and the prodi­gious expence attendant on it:—Let him also reflect that the orders of the church of England can be obtained on no other, but on these discouraging terms; and then let him candidly re­solve me, whether this is a hardship or not?

'Tis said to be a maxim in law, that equity is equality. Equi­tas est quasi Equalitas. If the church of England is not established in America; yet I conceive, by the rules of equity, it ought to be upon an equal footing with other sects of Christians. Whilst they can receive ordination in their native land and at a small expence; why should the members of the church be obliged to seek it at such a distance, so monstrous an expence, and imminent hazard of their lives?

But we have been told, in one number of the Whig, that America will, in a course of years, be the happy Asylum to which Britain must betake herself; when that island, at present the seat of empire, will become a province to some haughty con­tinental power. As I quote entirely from memory, I must be excused, Sir, if I have not given the Whig's own words; how­ever, I believe his sentiment is farthfully preserved—Allowing that Great-Britain must betake herself to America, where shall the church betake herself for orders; since tis plain, the Whig does not intend to admit bishops, with, or without a cargoe of carnalities, to accompany the other parts of the constitution into America? Nay, he tells us in another number, upon what au­thority I know not, that the introduction of a bishop, however reasonable, upon the plan proposed, would produce a scene of disorder, similar to what we have experienced upon a late occasi­on. When this dreadful period therefore shall arrive, the church, so far from being rampant and gubernant, can be no more: Her sons must, in direct opposition to their principles, go into the arms of independency, and see their religion (redeemed from the errors of Popery, by the blood of so many martyrs) give place to one, they esteem far less pure, and less perfect.

Another writer indeed, has attempted to cut the gordian knot which he could not untie.—The centinel proposes that the convention should assemble together; choose one of their mem­bers [Page 348]bishop; and submit to his authority. That writer should have considered, however he plumes himself upon his invention, that the constitution of the church of England does not admit of Presbyterian bishops; and, that he might as well propose no expedient, as one that cannot be conscientiously used.

When Parmenio told Alexander, that were he in his place, he would accept a peace which that monarch thought dishonoura­ble: He made this noble answer, "that so would he, were he Parmenio." The members of the convention, may in like man­ner, answer the Centinel, that they will elect such a bishop as he mentions, when they become Centinels; when they have re­nounced the doctrines and discipline of the church of England, and can conscientiously acquiesce in a form of church govern­ment, outwardly resembling the episcopal, but actuated by Inde­pendent principles.

I fear, Sir, that I have already exceeded the limits of your paper, and therefore shall only add, that tho' a novice in con­troversy, yet if you think this letter worthy of your notice, I shall take the liberty of writing my sentiments to you hereafter, as occasion presents.

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XXI.]

HOW highly soever the reverend members of the conven­tion may value their own rights and privileges, they certainly ought not to desire any new immunities, mani­festly tending to the abolition or infringement of the un­doubted rights of others. Did they really desire, or was there the least probability of obtaining such an ideal bishop, as they hold up to public view, in order to lull us into security, while themselves are prosecuting their scheme, for procuring a true modern prelate, no other denomination ought in justice to give them any opposition. Thus far we are perfectly agreed. But the matter of difference between us is, that as the law stands they cannot have, nor indeed do they desire, such a bishop as they would persuade the world they are soliciting for. With respect to the impracticability of that project, it has already been considered; and may perhaps hereafter be more [...]ully discussed. I shall now endeavour to convince the impartial reader, that they do not desire such a bishop; but that this pretence, like a syren song, is only intended to delude us to ruin. I am told the author of the appeal complains of it, as ill-usage to be disbe­lieved in his protestations on this head. But whatever may be his character, as a man of veracity (as indeed in no other in­stance should I discredit his word) he cannot require impossibili­ties; and I flatter myself to be able to convince any reasonable man, that to believe his declarations on the subject matter now before us, is absolutely impossible. For besides the extreme stu­pidity of confiding in the promises of this sort of gentry, when a darling project is to be carried, any longer than they labour under an incapacity of breaking them, it having been their con­stant practice to violate those kind of engagements, whenever their designs were sufficiently matured to defy opposition (as shall hereafter be abundantly shewn from history) it is evident from their present conduct, that a primitive bishop is as far from their thoughts, as primitive Christianity. And can they desire us to take the word of their champion in so momentous a mat­ter, when it is so plainly contradicted by the proceedings of the convention? Have they in their petitions, have they in their letters, for a bishop, said a single syllable about a primitive one? Have they not prayed for one, without mentioning any limita­tion or restriction? Is not the settlement the Dr. talks about, [Page 352]a meer non-entity? and their refusal to publish their petitions, an unanswerable argument, that they will not, that they dare not, disclose their real intentions? Nay it appears by the appeal itself, that were such a bishop really to come, he is to be trans­formed into a down-right pontifical sovereign, as soon as ever the episcopalians have sufficient power, to ride the other religi­ous denominations. We have therefore other reasons for disbe­lieving their specious pretences besides what may be drawn from that insatiable thirst of power, of which they betray such violent symptoms. Our suspicions are not barely grounded on their panting after deanaries and prebendaries, as the hart pant­eth after the water brooks: We have the declaration of their own advocate, that they are determined to enslave us as soon as they can. For only attend to the gradual evolutions of his scheme; mark the progress of his reasoning, to convince the world, of his desiring only a harmless bishop; and you will find how widely the doctor differs from—the doctor. The bishops, says he, to be sent to America (page 79) shall not interfere with the properties or privileges, whether civil or religious, of churchmen or dissenters. No places of civil power are to be sought for, nor accepted of. No taxes to be imposed.—All this is plausible enough; and had he stopped here, our faith had not perhaps been totally non-plus'd; tho' the bare considera­tion of the quarter it came from, had been sufficient to give it a little dash of incredulity. But in page 111, we stumble upon a very different story. Here the masque is dropped; and the hi­therto disguised humble petitioner, for a plain primitive aposto­lic innoxious bishop, appears an open sturdy arrogant claimant for civil power, and worldly riches. So arrogant that whoever is opposed to his claim, that is to say, whoever wants to hold him to his own word, before plighted with great solemnity, and without reserve, is to be considered as a bad subject. If bishops, says he, should be invested with a proportionable degree of civil authority, neither would there be any reason for complaint. But is not their interfering with civil authority, a manifest inter­fering with our civil privileges, contrary to the word of God, as well as to the doctor's prior profession, and most explicit pro­mise? Yet this is no cause for complaint. He has indeed good reason to wish it should not be complained of, since a more dreadful evil is so close at its heels. For it seems the depriva­tion of our civil privileges, is to be attended with the emptying of our purses. His lordship's investiture, with civil authority, will not satisfy the whole of this gentleman's demand. For what prelate would be content with power, without riches? We are therefore to be taxed for supporting him, in all the pomp [Page 353]and splendor of an American Viceroy. But see in what a sneak­ing, mealy-mouthed, half-choak'd hesitating, claiming, dis­claiming, denying, avowing, bungling, manner, this con­traband commodity is smuggled into port. Shall we not be taxed (page 107) for the support of bishops? I answer not at all. But should a general tax be laid upon the country, and thereby a sum be laid sufficient for the purpose, yet I believe such a tax would not amount to more than four pence in £ 100, and this would be no mighty hardship on the country. He that would think much of giving the six-hundredth part of his income, to any use the legisla­ture of the country, should assign, deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject. I can seriously say, I never met with any book in my life, that contain'd so much tergiversation and hypocrisy, in so short a compass. Pray, what does the gentle­man mean by a sum sufficient for the purpose? What purpose is it that any sum is wanted for? Cannot a primitive bishop go­vern the clergy, ordain and confirm, without four-pence in the £ 100 of our estates? It is therefore beyond all question, whatever airs the gentlemen of the convention may give themselves, on our not believing things incredible, that it is really (notwithstanding all protestations to the contrary) the modern, splendid, opulent, court-savoured, law dignified, superb, magnificent, powerful, prelate, on which their hearts are so in­tent; and of what would be deemed sufficient for his purpose, I shall before I conclude this paper, give the reader a specimen. I ask further what does he mean, by telling the world that four-pence in the £ 100, would be sufficient? Is not this representing us as immensely rich? And are not our enemies at home keenly enough bent on loading us with taxes, without having their sto­machs stimulated by this gentleman's resounding our imaginary affluence? For how many millions must we not be supposed to be possessed of, if four-pence in £ 100 would produce such a sum as I shall presently shew, would be thought but barely sufficient for the purpose? Has not his trumpeting our riches, for which there is no more foundation than for his impeaching our loyal­ty, and equally ridiculous with his pretensions of hearing the sound of a trumpet that never sounded, a natural tendency to whet the appetite of those, who, like so many harpies, are ga­ping for our substance? Does not the Dr. know, that we groan under distresses unspeakable? That we are involved in debts in­solvable? That with respect to trade, to cash, to business of every kind, the colonies were never in a more deplorable condi­tion? How unfriendly then to his native country, to instil such false notions of our wealth, into those who will probably turn them to our undoing?—And what does he mean by its being [Page 354] no mighty hardship? Pray why should the people, to gratify his pride and ambition, be laid under any hardship? king David scorned to build an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan, with­out paying him the full price, 'tho the generous man offered it to him gratis. He wanted not other people to pay for his reli­gion; nor to serve God at the proper costs and charges of Dis­senters. Again, who can tell how great the hardship must be, before the gracious and candid Dr. Chandler will allow it to be a mighty one? Would not he think it a hardship, and a migh­ty one too, to be obliged to pay one farthing in a hundred pounds, to the support of any other religious denomination in the world? And is this doing to others, as he would that they should do unto him? However compliant this gentleman may imagine himself to be, before the experiment has been tried up­on himself, to unconstitutional and partial impositions under co­lour of law, others do not always measure the mightiness of a hardship by the quantum, but by the partiality and injustice of the tax; and its being made a precedent for greater impositions. On these principles it was, that the late stamp-act was so vigo­rously opposed; and on these principles it is, that the tax levied on the non-episcopalians, for the episcopal churches in several of the counties in this province, has always been complained of as a hardship; and that by people who deserve as much to be con­sidered in the light of good subjects, as the doctor, or any of his fraternity. And who told him that the legislature of any pro­vince, or of any kingdom, is so unaccountable and omnipotent, as that every subject, who approves not of every act they pass, deserves, on that account, the censure he has been pleased to bestow? Does he not know, that in all free states, that part of the legislature especially, which is composed of the representa­tives of the people, is entrusted by the people for certain purpo­ses; and that should they violate their trust, they would deserve blame; and that consequently no subject for blaming them, would himself deserve to be blamed? Are his notions of passive-obedience and none-resistance so sublimated as to think, that if a future legislature of the colony in which he resides, should esta­blish popery, he would forfeit the character of a good subject, for thinking much of paying four-pence in £ 100 to the sup­port of the Romish religion? But as he is preparing the way for the proceedings of some future assembly, under episcopal influence▪ we are anathematized by way of anticipation, should we so much as lisp our discontent against a tax bill, of the nature of what follows.

[Page 355]

[Page 356]

The afore-mentioned several articles and salaries are, I be­lieve, as moderate as would be thought sufficient for the purpose; and at this rate, in order to raise the annual sum expended on the hierachy (after having paid the two hundred and ninety-three thousand, nine hundred and eighty pounds, for accommo­dating his lordship with his domestic appendages) the province must be supposed to be worth one hundred and thirty millions, four hundred and forty thousand pounds. A pretty piece of in­telligence truly to transmit to old England! But it being impos­sible to raise the sum required at the rate of 4 d. in the 100 l. the Dr.'s episcopal legislature will be obliged to make a differ­ent calculation; and as the precise value of the estates real and personal of the good people of this colony is, at present, un­known, it will be necessary for his lordship, after the ancient [Page 357]and laudable example (and which in all probability they will christen, as they now do confirmation, by the name of a divine ordinance) of William the conqueror, to introduce a dooms­day book of all our estates and effects, and who can tell but, according to that survey, instead of four-pence in the £ 100, we may be saddled with £ 5 in the £ 100, to raise the above primitive and apostolic stipends. And is this the boasted mode­ration of the convention? And do these people pretend to be the disciples of that Jesus, who had not where to lay his head; or the successors of those apostles, who travelled without scrip or purse? Good God! what an imposition on the reason of man­kind! what a shocking abuse of the divine name and authority! By all that is dear and valuable, my friends and countrymen, I entreat and implore you not to suffer yourselves to be deceived, by the idle pretence of a primitive bishop; when they, maugre all their refinements in artifice, so plainly discover their real in­tentions. Of all bondage, spiritual bondage is the worst. But we are to be involved in bondage, both civil and ecclesiastic. Pray gentlemen, ponder this momentous matter.—If you do not consider, posterity will feel. First or last it will be known who are friends to the liberty of the country; the convention who thirst for an hierachy, that would end in our utter destruc­tion, or the author of the American Whig, who is labouring to avert it. In so glorious a cause I despise their weekly calumnies, and that matchless abuse and virulence, with which the tories (for such we have lately discovered among us) have ever perse­cuted all who stand in their way.

In the above calculation, I have only taken notice of the field officers in the sable regiment.—I have made no allowance for Subalterns (whom a man may number, that can count the stars of Heaven.) For as soon as the bishops arrive, we must expect, as indispensable concomitants, a great number of Vicars, Cu­rates, &c. These are to be settled up and down, thro' every town and country in the province, which has but three or four families, that for their unhypocritical behaviour, have been ex­pelled church-communion with the precise ones; and having manfull [...]rned episcopalians, have found a cordial welcome, and uni [...]rupted tranquility of conscience, in the gentle and indulgent bosom of the church. The new clergy having such slender flocks, will not be too deeply engaged in visiting, catechi­sing, &c. to dabble in politicks and acquire what Dr. Chandler calls a proportionable degree of civil authority; which having al­so left unsettled, he has put me to the trouble of ascertaining. I therefore suppose, [...]hat the office of a justice of the peace, will be deemed a proportionable degree for a Curate; that of [Page 358]the first judge of a county court, for a rector; the station of a councillor, for a Dean; and the rank of governor, for a bishop or primate. Considering however the Doctr's superior merit, as advocate-general for the appellants; and that as in times of yore, the church was wounded thro' the sides of Dr. Sacheve­rel, and is now most lamentably lacerated in the personal iden­tity of Dr. Chandler, I doubt whether he will think himself proportionably recompensed, with less than the several ascending gradations of Rector Sharp, who after having mounted to an Arch-Bishoprick, became lord high treasurer of Scotland, general of all its forces by sea and land, and commander in chief of his Majesty's guards.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. X.]
To Sir ISAAC FOOT,

BEING no lawyer, I shall not attempt a formal rejoinder to, but beg leave, as an ordinary by-stander during the pre­sent process in chancery, to make a few very obvious remarks on, Richard Pleadwell's (for I can't consider it as the appellant's) labour'd replication.

Par. 1st. He protests "that the matters and things in the answer of the appellees contain'd, are insufficient to be replied unto," and that, it seems, because they are (as he is pleased to call them) untrue. Now to such an ignorant fellow as I am, nothing seems, at least so well to admit of a reply as an un­truth; but Mr. P. scorning such ordinary business, appears ambitious of the honour of replying to real truths, and desirous of trying his abilities at defending the contrary. He in effect says, "the appeal was not prosecuted merely for the aggrandize­ment and exaltation of the episcopal churches on the ruin of all other Christian denominations in his Majesty's American domini­ons." In which, by inserting the word merely, he at once in­jures the Whig's correspondent, and betrays himself and his cli­ent, [Page 359]for the word merely is not us'd by William Peer Williams, and as us'd by Mr. P. amounts to an acknowledgment, that said aggrandizement on said ruin, was at least partly aim'd at by the appeal. If by the good will, liking and approbation of the episcopal churches in general, with which he avers and insists the appeal was instituted &c. he means their formal con­currence, I beg leave to doubt of the truth of his assertion;— if thereby he means their silence, suppos'd expressive of assent, I shall not dispute the point with him; silent they doubtless were, knowing perhaps as little of the appeal or its subject matter, be­fore its publication, as the non-episcopalians themselves; of which last I never yet heard a single person say he thought it just and reasonable, or that he had no objection to make to the propos'd introduction of a bishop.

Par. 2d. 3d. 4th and 5th. Our repliant (whoever he be) not only speaks of several things as manifest, which are by no means so, but pretends to know so well the consciences and hearts of Dr. Ch—r and the convention, that I am autho­riz'd to conclude, that the council for the appellant is either the convention, the individual appellant himself, or some sim­ple mortal, who out of the folly of his own heart, has without any conscience at all, t [...]en it into his head to patronize the cause. That it is the convention in a body, I'm not inclin'd to believe; for it were a sad case indeed, if no one in so respecta­ble body as between 20 and 30 missionaries met in order to write against Whigs, cou'd excogitate something new, without tiring the court with nauseous repetitions. The appellant him­self is surely a man of too much sense to chew such an insipid cud over and over again, or to make such positive declarations as to what had or had not enter'd into the hearts of the conven­tion: Nor would he certainly have retain'd as council such a simpleton as Richard Pleadwell. It is therefore manifest, that he is some stupid pettifogger, the fire of whose zeal has expos'd him to his own charge (par. 6th) of having surreptitiously, wilfully and corruptly, contrary to law, taken upon himself to appear as council for the appellant, and made him as liable as he supposes the council for the appellees to be, to a writ of maintenance.

On par. 6th and 7th I have to observe, that with regard to the point in question, it matters not whether the American episcopal clergy be rich or poor, reasonable or exorbitant in their claims, potent or impotent, whether there be a dean and chapter or not, and whether the king's Conge d'elire can or cannot obtain in America; whether there is or is not a manifest propriety and fittness in point of policy, that the king shou'd be the [Page 360]head of the church, where-ever it is established by law; whether the church of England is or is not establish'd in the colonies; or even whether the Doge of Venice, is or is not Mayor of the city of New-York.—However I say these things may be, the conclusion drawn from the statutes produe'd, remains in­contestible, and is confirm'd (if that can be any confirmation) by even the oaths of the subscribing English clergy, in spite of all Mr. P. has said, who wou'd fain mince down an absolute dependance upon, into a derivation of certain powers from hu­man laws. Those statutes were not as (Mr. P. mistakenly sup­poses) advanc'd to prove "that there can be no right of epis­copacy exclusive and independant of human laws;" but that there actually is no such right within the realm of England. And since non dat quod non habet, since all the prelates of Great-Britain can by consecration confer no diviner right than they have themselves, it is manifest, that the right of episcopacy de­riv'd from England, in whatever manner bishops may be ap­pointed, can never become more divine in America. So that on the whole Mr. Pleadwell pleads very ill; and his two para­graphs under consideration, as well as the divine right of epis­copacy evidently are equally nugatory with the divine right of geography. Were we to reason in Mr. P's way, we might say, "one might as well ridicule the divine right of ordination as the divine right of popery," this last being indeed an higher degree of episcopacy; but the truth is, with regard to divine right, episcopacy differs as much from ordination as in practice episcopacy does from preaching; which difference is evident from the pious examples of most of the bishops in Great Britain.

In replying to the second cause of demurrer, respecting tithes, Mr. P. alledges, that a bishop's title to them cannot be try'd by an ejectment at law (as Mr. Williams for his client had as­serted) but (o [...] miserable blunder! oh unlucky expression!) in a spiritual Court, the very thing we are afraid of! poor P. your tongue I dare say, itches to plead such a cause.

The true meaning of the word profert in law I know not; but this I am clear in, that if all Dr. Ch—r's representa­tions are just (however insensible, repugnant and contradictory the terms may be) the West-India negroes, tho' infidels, must needs be virtual church-men.

For over-ruling the 4th cause of demurrer, Mr. P. comical­ly eno'conceives it "sufficient to find that an harmless bishop is known in the gospel", but alas! reasoning from the gospel of Jesus Christ, to the laws of Great-Britain, will never answer. Harmless bishops, in the true sense of the word, there have been, and I doubt not are; but such I aver are not as such, known in the law.

[Page 361] Mr. P. it seems, protests against the sentence given by the appellees as premature, on pretence that the issue between the parties was not duly joined. What was wanting to a right issue, I wish this jurisprudent gentleman wou'd inform the public.

Par. 8th, No. X. Mr. P. in circumlocutary phrases tells us, "that from time immemorial it hath been manifest, that some persons ever will disapprove &c." He must needs be a long-headed fellow, to discover the connection between time past immemorial and time future indefinite, and from [...] events of time past, positively to foretell those of time to come. Howe­ver luminous apparent and notorious, he may call certain ideal matters of discovery, I fancy it will ere long be luminous, appa­rent and notorious, not to All the good people of this province, but to the generality of Americans, that Mr. P. as well as Squire T. and Dr. C. (if they are all different persons) and some others, have groundlesly and maliciously endeavoured to fix the charge of sedition on anti-episcopalians. Mr. P. it seems, despises the disapprobation of the appellees Dr. C. ap­peal'd to.—What! slight the opinion of the court, and charge its decision as impertinent and immaterial! What a bra­zen fac'd fellow! Kick him out of the court.

As to the conventional petitions, if they are indeed so unexcep­tionable as is pretended, 'tis mighty strange we can't see them produc'd in court; for I dare say, the bare word of no partizan, whatsoever will be taken on this occasion.

That the appellees or their ancestors in America, (it matters not which, it seems) have ever persecuted the church, i. e. to be sure, the church of England, is by no means certain; and indeed to endeavour to make her a church-militant, had been a silly attempt in any, for such she always has been in America, and that not a church militant defensive, but a church militant offensive; having always very characteristically promoted her own interest at the expence of other churches, and she is now evidently militating, as she has lately been stratagematizing to become a church, triumphant, rampant and gubernant.

The charter of uninterrupted succession, you know, Sir, we care not 100 times more about than we do about episcopacy; so that (of two evils choosing the least) I say, if the church of England, will but keep her bishops (which the church of Ame­rica needs not) at, home, she is welcome to monopolize the charter, for aught that cares.

A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XVIII.]

IN the XIIIth Num. of the American Whig, the American Churchman again makes his appearance. Concerning this writer, I have now two or three conjectures to make, which seem to me to affect the merits of his paper; and I think there is considerable presumptive evidence to support them. My first conjecture (which has been before hinted at in my VIth Numb.) is, that this American churchman is only the American Whig, who has put on the appearance of a churchman, that he may the more effectually deceive and destroy. The hints for this con­duct, he might possibly borrow from an ancient adept in this same trade of deceiving, who we are assured by good authority, can, when occasion requires, transform himself into an angel of light.

My second conjecture is, that he is some paltry retainer to the law, or has got some pitiful post; and that he is afraid of having his consequence, or, what may be of greater conse­quence to him, his fees, lessened by the arrival of a bishop: This may be the reason why he is so violently "opposed" to bishops and spiritual courts.

My third conjecture is, that this American churchman is some delinquent, who having suffered on the other side of the atlan­tic, according to his demerits, in a spiritual court, thinks he may safely vent his spleen and malice at the distance of a thou­sand leagues.

These conjectures appear probable to me; I may however be mistaken; I pretend not to infability: That I leave to their ho­liness, the pope, and the American Whig. Which of them has the best right to it, they may at their leisure determine between themselves. But that the American Whig has very high pre­tentions to infallibility: and that he never will suffer the pope to ingross it all to himself, may be made very evident by a few queries, viz. What evidence has the American Whig, that the clergy want not such a primitive bishop, as is specified in the [Page 363] appeal; but on the contrary, a modern, splendid, opulent, court-favoured, law-dignified, superb, magnificent, powerful, bloody-minded, Sin promoting, conscience-killing, soul-destroying, hell-deserving prelate?—Ans. His own infallibility.—What evidence has he, that in the seven abominable petitions, which he says were sent to England by the convention, the loyalty of the dissenters was impeached?—Ans. His own infallibility. What proof has he, that these petitions were ‘hatched by a few warm missionaries in the provinces of New-York, New-Jersey, and Pennsylvania;’ and that the church people in general, nay, almost universally, are opposed to the introduction of bishops into America? Ans. His own infallibility.—The reader may pursue this hint at his leisure: I have a few words more to say, concerning courts.

No person that I have heard of, ever proposed the establish­ing of spiritual courts in America: It is a meer bugbear, with which the American Whig, and his understrappers, endeavour to frighten the good people of these colonies. And if the spi­ritual courts in England, deserve all the severe things that he has said of them, I fancy it is owing, neither to the constitu­tion of those courts, nor to the judges, but to the lawyers. If any one doubts, whether the common law courts even in this province, are in some degree of bad estimation, let him ask the people,—To what is this owing?—To the judges?—By no means. They are all of them men of excellent characters, and do honour to the posts they fill. Is it owing to the constitu­tion of the courts? That cannot be imagined. Is it not there­fore owing to the evil practice of some of the lawyers, that our courts are sunk in the opinion of the people? Ignorance and avarice, will, I presume, produce much the same effects in a lawyer, that they do in a clergyman. Let those among the law­yers whose abilities. integrity, love of justice, and contempt of riches, exempt them from the above accusation,—let them I say, expose the unworthy members of their profession, who, by perplexing the plainest cases, by artificial delays, and exorbitant demands, have sunk an honourable and useful profession into such a degree of contempt, that in the judgment of the majori­ty of the people of several counties in a late election, a lawyer was deemed unworthy of a seat in our assembly.

Our American churchman affirms that, ‘It was the violence of a few bigots, that obliged the government to shut up the convocation;’—at the same time he allows the meeting in convocation, or synods, to be ‘a privilege or right, perhaps essential to the well-being of the church of Christ.’ This is such a reflection upon the justice of the government, as none but [Page 364]a madman or a Whig would have made.—There were a few bigots in the convocation, therefore the government,—the kings of the house of Hanover, says the American Whig, I think, in one of his papers,—have deprived the church of England of a right essential to the well-being of the church of Christ.—Can this be true? Would a Christian government, or a Christian King, for the fault of a few men, deprive a national church of a right essential to the church of Christ? Verily, Mr. American church­man, I have more reason than ever to fear, that your manners are corrupted by evil communications; and that your new com­panion, the American Whig, has taught you the ‘scurvy trick of lying for,’—what you may possibly think,— ‘the truth.’

The American churchman censures the conduct of the clergy, for presuming to address or petition the king upon the subject of American bishops, without asking leave of the governors of the provinces, of the bishop of London, and some of the laity.—such I suppose, as himself and the American Whig.—Whe­ther this precaution was wholly omitted, or how far it was neg­lected, some people may hereafter be informed, to their no small astonishment. But I have always understood, that subjects of the crown of England, have a constitutional right to petition the king for the redress of their grievances, without asking leave of any person on earth. Why then may not the clergy exercise this constitutional right, as well as other subjects? If it is said that they are not aggrieved; I reply, that they are as capable of knowing when they are aggrieved, as other people are.—Is it no grievance to be obliged, at a very considerable risk and expence, to cross the atlantic for orders? Is it no grievance, when a church becomes vacant, to be obliged to wait a year be­fore it can be supplied; oftentimes two or three years, and some­times eight or ten? Is it no grievance, in case a clergyman be­haves disorderly, to have no superiour to call him to account, nearer than 3000 miles? Is it no grievance, to be deprived of what we really believe to be an apostolica [...] rite?—These, we think, are grievances, altho' the American Whig, and his un­derlings, affect to treat them as trifles. And for the redress of these grievances, we think we have a right to petition the king; as good a right as any other subjects have to petition for the re­dress of such grievances as they find themselves suffering under.

The American Whig, and the American churchman, have fre­quently affirmed, that a vast majority of people of all denomi­nations, are violently opposed to an American episcopate;—that a majority of the church people are as much against it as [Page 365]others.—This I will not believe, even tho' his Holiness the American Whig should pawn his infallibility for the truth of it.—I remember in a late election, the cry of, no bishop in New-York, did no good to those who maliciously bellowed it forth. And in a neighbouring county, where the same faction set up an ecclesiastical weathercock for a candidate; after all his preaching and praying, the cry of no bishop, had just the same effect as it had in New-York;—nobody minded it.—Besides, other people can judge, as well as American Whigs; and I have the greatest reason to believe, there are ten people of other denominations, who are willing and desirous of having bishops in America, for one churchman that is against it.

There are many other things in this XIIIth num. of the Whig, that are very exceptionable, which I have not room to take notice of. In short, I doubt whether there is a paper in the nation (observe, I include all the colonies) of the size of it, that contains so many aberrations from the truth, and from sound reasoning—ten thousand pardons of the courteous Mr. Wm. Livingston, for encroaching so much upon his property, as to make use of one of his rhetorical flourishes.

To the honour of the university of Oxford, which this writer so foully asperses, it ought to be remembered, (and therefore I repeat it) that the first public opposition to the arbitrary mea­sures of king James the second, began there; even at the time when he was complimented and flattered by the dissenters; who in their fulsome addresses to the king, on account of the uncon­stitutional suspension of the penal laws, stiled the Roman catho­licks, their good brethren. An address of this kind was sent from the independent teachers of the town of Boston, in New-England.—In short, at this period, the dissenters did every Thing in their power to rivet those fetters, that the king was forging for the nation, until they found the opposition against him was likely to succeed; and then they shifted about, not choosing to be of the losing side; ‘for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.’

THE following letter privately left at my printer's con­taining demands that I can by no means comply with, un­less I previously obtain the consent of my constituents,—the members of the church in America;—I am constrained to pub­lish, in order that they all may have an opportunity of canvasing it: Not that I should have dreamed of publishing a private let­ter, had not an utter disability to comply with the American Whig's own proposal, by any other means, compelled me to it. [Page 366]This must plead my excuse for an action which nothing but abso­lute necessity will ever induce a man of honour, or even of com­mon honesty, to commit.

N. B. The original will be left at the printer's.

The AMERICAN WHIG. [Numb. XXII.]

THE American Whig asserts in his first number, that Dr. Chandler, and the convention, do not want a primitive Christian Bishop. Upon this Mr. Seabury has been pleased to say, that "the Doctor and the convention (gentle­men at least at respectable as himself) meaning the author of the Whig, ‘are in fact accused of the grossest falshood and de­ceit, pretending to ask for a bishop only upon the plan pro­posed in the appeal, while it is not the primitive Christian bishop they want; which he, Mr. Seabury, calls a piece of effrontery and malice.’ This gentleman, as respectable as he is, appears to be so transported with passion, that less regard is to be paid to his assertions, since such intemperate heat often hurries men into expressions, which, when composed and un­ruffled, they cannot but condemn. But in the same mistake per­sists the moderate and candid Dr. Chandler, in the conclusion of his celebrated tory—advertisement. And Hierocles, who writes with singular seriousness and solemnity, repeatedly af­firms, and [...] notable affectation of gravity, that it is certain the D [...] [...] the convention do want, and desire only, a true pri [...] bishop. Thus if strong reiterated, and serious asser­tions, will prove it, they are in a fair way of gaining their point. And since they so strenuously insist on the sincerity of their professions, which is undoubtedly, in the present controversy, of the last importance: I shall, in this paper, endeavour to shew, by pointing out sundry material differences between the primitive bishop and the bishop mentioned by Dr. Chandler, that they cannot expect to secure the public credit, notwithstand­ing the solemnity of their protestations.

1st. The primitive bishop was chosen by the people, over whom he was to preside: It was by the popular suffrage, that this or that man was appointed to this or that cure; as appears abundantly from the writings of the fathers. And the canons of the primitive church fully recognized this right of the people, to choose their own bishop; and declared, that without such election, they should not be considered as bishops. But the bishop described by Doctor Chandler in his appeal, is not ex­pected to be chosen by the people, over whom he is to preside, but is an officer, for whom ‘application has lately been made [Page 368]to our superiors by the clergy of several of the colonies.’ He is one for whom addresses have been made to the throne, and earnest solicitations to the sovereign from time to time, to ap­point him. Page 50.

2d. There was one or more primitive bishop or bishops in every city, or town, where Christianity was professed. The apostle Paul appointed, that there should be elders or bishops ordained in every city, or town, of the island of Crete. And tho' Crete was but an island, yet being very fruitful, it sup­ported many inhabitants; and is celebrated for its hundred ci­ties. Thus, according to the apostle's direction, there were to be in this one island many bishops. Nor was there any thing pe­culiar in the circumstances of those islanders, that rendered it necessary to have more bishops there than elsewhere. It was the common practice of the primitive church to have bishops thus numerous, and thick settled, as appears from the most antient ecclesiastical records: The fathers often mentioning several hun­dreds, on various occasions, convening together, in different countries. But the Doctor's bishop is to preside over not only a great number of towns, but of colonies and provinces. He frankly acknowledges, that three bishops on the continent are the most that have been mentioned. 107. Thus every town was, in the primitive times, to have a bishop or bishops; but three bishops can now preside over a vast tract of country of near 2000 miles in extent, from Newfoundland to Georgia. The primitive bishops were to feed the flock which was among them. But this gentleman's bishop is to feed those who are distant from him, fifty, a hundred, or a thousand miles; or rather not to feed them at all. For,

3d. According to primitive institution, Bishops were to be apt to teach, and to take heed to all the flock—to feed the church of God. But Doctor Chandler's bishop is not to be a constant preacher; nor, as far as I can learn from him, to preach the gospel at all. How then should he feed the flock? And, if he should even preach, how can he feed flocks so numerous and re­mote? —But his business is not with the flock, but chiefly with the clergy, as if they were such a disorderly set of men, as peculiarly to require a bishop to keep them in tolerable regula­tion. But if this be true, how does it agree with the society's abstract, 1765. p. 58, in which they inform us, ‘Mr. Palmer, missionary, at New-Haven, takes occasion, from some re­flections cast on the missionaries, to bear the strongest testimony to their unblameable conduct; of whom he thinks he may with truth say, that he does not know of any one missionary in New-England, who does not behave with ministerial pru­dence; [Page 369]and who is not blameless in his life, and faithful i [...] the discharge of all the duties of his function.’ Can a [...] equal good character be given, with truth, of the inferior clerg [...] in England or Ireland, who are under the immediate eye o [...] ­their bishops?—And since the missionaries sustain so unsullied a reputation, can there be any necessity for sending a prelate into this country to govern them? Such a superior may make them worse, but there is no probability of his making them better.

4th. The primitive bishop was to discipline all offenders; such as sinned before all, they were to rebuke before all, that others also might sear; and to reject H [...]reticks after the first and second admonition. These are directions given to Timothy and Titus, by the apostle Paul, whom the Doctor supposes to have been primitive bishops. Page 6. But according to his ac­count, of his American bishop, he is not to discipline the laity at all; no, not so much as to make any attempts of this nature. It is only with regard to the clergy that it is proposed, to esta­blish a strict discipline. Page 31.

5th. The bishop whom our author mentions, and whom he professes that he and the convention desire, is a gentleman whose coming he represents to have been hindered by the changes of gov [...]rnment—the revolutions of power—the opposition of contending parties at home—the intrigues of foreign courts—and the attacks of neighbouring kingdoms and states, &c. But such occurrences were no obstacles to the settlement of primitive bishops in the apostles' time. We hear of no such complaints in the new testament. The opposition of contend­ing parties in the Roman empire, &c. did not prevent the apostles from appointing Christian bishops.

6th. The bishop of the appeal is to be a grand personage, for whose support and dignity, great preparations have been made, and are still making; and after all, the Doctor is not certain they will be sufficient, without a general tax of four-pence in the £ 100. P. 107. He shews that a committee has been extraor­dinarily appointed, to find out ways and means for the mainte­nance and support of bishops in America.—That eight hun­dred and twenty-six pounds, seven shillings and five pence sterl. hath been expended in purchasing and repairing a seat for the residence of his American lordship—that it has been proposed that the revenues of certain lands in St. Christophers, be appli­ed to this purpose, viz. the maintenance of two bishops— that a fund has been appropriated for this end, which already consists of several thousand pounds sterling (probably not less than ten)—And that as many have given liberally, on the [Page 370]distant prospect of its being wanted, it is not to be doubted but, if a bishop or two were once fixed in America, others would make still larger donations. These, in all probability, will make a very considerable revenue. And yet the Doctor seems to think, all this may not be sufficient; and therefore grants there may be a four penny tax laid on all the inhabitants; and certainly he was not disposed to cede any thing, to the disadvantage of his cause, unless he has great reasons to force him to believe it was intended to be taken into the scheme of the episcopate. Now this four penny tax on all the inhabitants, as trifling as he is pleased to re­present it, would make a prodigious sum. But were there any such preparations made, and funds provided for the maintenance of the primitive Christian bishops? Was it by any divine institu­tion appointed, that bishops must be thus rich and magnificent? Are great wealth and superb palaces necessary prerequisites to a primitive bishop? Where is the divine command, or primitive example, of so grand a prelate? What example could such a bishop set his poor flock, save that of pride, ambition, the love of the world, and temporal pomp and grandeur?

Let the impartial reader duly consider the preceding remarks, and then say, whether there be not an evident and essential dif­ference, between a truly primitive Christian bishop, and the lordly ecclesiastic described by our candid appellant? Is there no difference between one who is voluntarily chosen by the people, whose capacity and fidelity they have tried, and can confide in, and one imposed on them by the state, of whom they know no­thing? Is there no difference between liberty and slavery? Is it not a privilege for the people to choose their own bishops? Why then did Christ, the great king and head of the church, confer it upon them; Why did the primitive Christians so highly prize it? Why so earnestly contend for it?—Is there no differ­ence between having a bishop or bishops in every town, and but one or two on this vastly—extended continent? Is there no difference between a bishop who feeds the flock, and takes heed to them all, and one who does not feed them, nor take any care of them, being wholly employed about the clergy? Is there no difference between one who faithfully administers the descipline appointed in the gospel, to all the proper subjects of it, and one who will not so much as attempt to discipline any of the people, be their offences what they will? Is there no differ­ence between a personage of such immense wealth, of such dig­nity and grandeur, as to eclipse the governors of provinces, and strike the populace wherever he approaches, with greater dread and reverence than the supreme magistrate; and the hum­ble [Page 371]and lowly bishop of the primitive church? If a man can see no difference between them, he must labour under a tory-jaun­dice, or be totally blind.

The colonists have not as yet, that I know of, made any ob­jections against the episcopalians' having primitive bishops. Such I believe would give no umbrage to persons of other denomina­tions. The Moravians have their [...]ishop; the Sandimanians have, or lately had, their bishop at Danbury in Connecticut. Has there been any alarm in the colonies? No. And the episco­palians may have, I doubt not, a thousand primitive bishops, without any molestation. They may make every missiona­ry a bishop, without giving any sort of uneasiness to the colo­nies, provided they adhere to the primitive pattern.

Hence it is evident, that Dr. Chandler and Mr. Seabury, Aristocles and Hierocles, have not the least reason to make such clamour about conscience. For what is it that they plead con­science in this affair? Is it for a primitive bishop in every town, to preach to his people, and feed his flock with the sincere milk of the word, and discipline disorderly members? Who has ever opposed this? Will they solemnly declare, that they are consci­entious in desiring a bishop of such immense wealth, power and grandeur, as to be able to protect and defend them? Let them produce the divine rule that lays any obligation on-their consci­ences, to request such an unscriptural officer as this grand, opu­lent, powerful, spiritual lord, and we cordially acquiesce. Nor have they hitherto given any security, that this same state-cre­ated political bishop shall not aspire even after greater dignity and dominion than the Doctor has been pleased to assign him at his first arrival. Will they promise he shall not? But who is authorized to oblige either him or them to perform those promi­ses? This same order of men have promised, as fair as possible, at two memorable periods,—the restoration and revolution. But as soon as they got into power, they affected to forget all their engagements, and utterly refused to fulfil them. Let them remember this, and learn from their former conduct, what little regard is to be paid to their most solemn protestations. R.

I have received an excellent letter on the divine right of epis­copacy, from a member of the Dutch church, which shall be inserted in due season.

WHEREAS by an advertisement in the Mercury, evidently wrote by a person, who, by the disappointment of an Ame­rican bishop, has beyond all question been deprived of his senses; the author of the American Whig is called upon to prove the genuine­ness of a copy of a letter, wrote by one of the missionaries to one [Page 372]of his majesty's chaplains, and published in the American Whig No. xx.—The author begs leave to acquaint the public, that conceiving it utterly beneath his character to commence a corres­pondence with so raving a slanderer, and altogether improper to expose the names of persons of the most spotless reputations (whom the production of the proofs will render it necessary to mention) to the extreme virulence and malice wherewith the said advertiser will, while nameless (to judge by the sample already exhibitted) undoubtedly pursue them; and thinking it, at the same time, highly incumbent upon him to convince the world of the authenticity of the said copy, whenever any of the persons hereaf­ter mentioned shall think proper to call it in question, without concealing his name; he promises that if any member of the conven­tion or any of the missionaries, will, under his hand in print, deny the said copy to be genuine, and, with any tolerable decency, desir [...] to be convinced of the truth, the author of the American Whig shall think himself obliged to produce such proofs, as will be fully satis­factory to the public, for which be will appeal to that respectable tribunal.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. XI.]

SOME weeks ago Squire T. warn'd us of a new, and it seems very sensible, correspondent; and now (No. XI.) behold the man himself!—Enter Agricola.—Well! if Squire T. meant either subjectively sensible, as a wasp, or objectively sensible, as a Billingsgate fish-woman, Agricola is a sensible fellow indeed. But to speak seriously, he seems to have only gnaw'd over again bones of contention; twenty times be­drivel'd before, or (like a true clown as he seems to be) to have rak'd together all the chaff, straw, and rubbish of calumny, scatter'd by others, in order to make an ecclesiastico-political bonfire. I at first design'd to have answer'd him, with all the dignity of silence; but lest the propriety of contempt, shou'd be construed into the convenience of neglect, I shall make a few remarks on what, for that reason only, deserves notice.

This pragmatical peasant, in the close of his piece, affects the air of an original writer, pretends to have "expos'd the designs, &c. of the Independents," and plumes himself on the occasion, as tho' he himself had been the first, nay single, discoverer of [Page 373]the gunpowder plot; and yet has, in fact, only aped his supe­riors in the art of scandal, and, like a parrot, tortur'd our ears by chattering over all the foul language of every passenger. But what merit, but that of telling falsehoods, with a better grace than his predecessors, cou'd this miserable mortal (in his great vanity) hope to exhibit, in collecting all the fiddle faddle of the present day, by different hands, glean'd from the ram­pant unbridled press-scandal of 1753; and murdering the poor lies by mere dint of repetition? Nay, who, but less than the least of all partizans, wou'd not have foreseen, that such stale groundless allegations as his, by putting the public again in mind of past transactions, cou'd scarce fail of injuring, instead of promoting the cause of the party he flings dirt for? What a despicable figure must such a scribbler make in the eyes of eve­ry one, who considers what episcopal zealots almost four score years ago, and on every convenient occasion since, have at­tempted! Every non episcopalian, on hearing Agricola again talk of the ambitious schemes of the insidious faction, their engines of malice, misrepresentations, false suggestions, and hy­pocrital pretences" charge them with "mischief-making in the Dutch church," fret at the Independent Reflector and Watch-Tower, and boast o [...] "the moderation of the church of Eng­land, &c." will naturally recollect the arbitrary conduct of Gov. Fletcher, the ministry acts, the tyrannical persecutions under Ld. Cornbury, the attempts of a certain party to monopo­lize marriages under Gov. Clinton, the artifices they us'd to establish a party college, their rage at, and defamation of, a patriotic writer, their mean invasion of the liberty of the press, and dastardly invocation of the aid of the secular arm; and he will very readily, and, I dare say, very justly conclude, that Agricola, being stimulated by his ghostly zeal to bellow some­what for the church, repeats those violent exclamations (which are but echoes of echoes) merely because he has nothing else to say; as they doubtless were originally made with the same view with which a felon pursu'd cries, stop thief!

But what Agricola chiefly bawls about, is the persecution of the Quakers in N. E—Now were I as greedy for gold. and possess'd of as much brass, as he, I wou'd plumply deny the fact; but I must (as they say) speak truth and shame the devil, while I sorrowfully own, that the poor Quakers were indeed cruelly persecuted formerly, by non-conformists in New-Eng­land; but I can't conceive how, under our present circumstan­ces, the fact concerns us, unless some of us, who may be their posterity, are about to have their iniquities visitted upon us by the persecutions of some of the clerical zealots of the church of England; [Page 374]and I dare challenge the most censorious of all the hot-headed missi­onaries, to lay his hand on his heart and declare, that he in his conscience believes, the present Independents, or Presbyte­rians, have the least design or desire to persecute so harmless a people as the Quakers, or even that he cares a rush (if the church can but rise superior to all kinds of meeting-houses) whe­ther they have or not. However I must not forget to put Agri­cola in mind of the persecutions in England, in the reign of Charles II. during which, for about 20 years, the poor Qua­kers suffer'd fines, confiscations, personal abuses and imprisonment, by which many died, transportation, banishment, &c. and in­deed every thing short of hanging, and ask him who were the actors in those scenes of cruelty! And I appeal to the world to determine, whether churchmen have not always been as remark­able, as Independents, for persecuting practices, as well as principles, and indeed whether those principles are not too evident in America, tho' want of sufficient power, at pre­sent, prevents their reduction to practice.

On the whole, I wou'd seriously advise Agricola, to re-ex­change ecclesiastical politics, for his native agriculture, and lay­ing down his pen, prudently return to his Plough; just giving him, for the subject of his rustical meditations, the words of a very late writer, viz. ‘that they are only the meer tools of a court party, or the narrow minded bigots among the inferior clergy, who, to serve their low purposes, do now and then promote the cry, that the church or the state is in danger.’

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XXIII.]

DR. Chandler tells us in his advertisement, ‘that the ap­peal was written with real and great seriousness— that he neither knows, nor believes, nor suspects, that he has misrepresented a single fact.’ It is extremely disa­greeable to me to discredit the word of any gentlemen, where it can possibly be avoided. But I cannot compliment away my reason and conscience to please any man. I therefore freely de­clare, that I believe he has misrepresented many facts; and am willing to lay before the tribunal of the public, some of the reasons of this my belief. In the 30th and 31st pages of the ap­peal he writes thus, ‘The power of the church is of a spiritual nature, and the utmost effect of it in this world is the cutting off, and rejecting, those members, which are incurably and dangerously corrupted. This punishment, which has been commonly known by the name of excommunication, however it was dreaded in the purest ages of Christianity has lost much of its force in this; wherein altars are set up against altars, and churches against churches, and those who are rejected by one, may be received by another.—The charge of priest­craft, so long hackney'd by infidels and libertines, would be sure to fall upon the clergy, should they have courage to speak up in defence of it. In this state of things, the restoration of the primitive discipline seems to be a matter rather to be wish­ed for, than seriously attempted, by those in authority. Ac­cordingly no attempts of this nature will be made, under an American episcopate; the discipline of the church, so far as it relates to the private members, will be left as it is, and no­thing farther will be done, than refusing the communion to disorderly and scandalous persons, which every clergyman may now refuse, and ought to refuse according to the ru­bricks.’ This whole account I take to be a very great mis­representation of the matter, notwithstanding the real and great seriousness with which, the Dr. assures us, it was written, and that for the following reasons.

1st. Excommunication in the church of England, exposes [Page 382]those who are the unhappy subjects of it, to many and great temporal inconveniencies, and grievous hardships. They are not allowed to commence an action at law; nor to be a witness, advocate, or juror; nor to make a will; nor be an executor; nor to receive Christian burial. Is it not then a misrepresenta­tion of this matter to assert, ‘that the power of the church is of a spiritual nature; and that the utmost effect of it in this world is the cutting off, and rejecting, those members, which are incurably and dangerously corrupted?’ This may be true of the church of Christ, according to her primitive constitution. But who can believe it is true of the church of England? does he mean to adopt the distinction that has sometimes been made, between the church of England and the church of Christ? Or does he think that all such persons should be literally cut off, destroyed, and murdered?

2d. The reason he assigns why church discipline and excom­munication has lost much of its force, in the present age, is be­cause ‘altars are set up against altars, and churches against churches;’ that is, because there are many who do not join in communion with the church of England. But this is con­trary to the account which other writers, of his own church, give of this matter, who are at least as learned and honest, and serious, as himself. The true cause of the great want of gos­pel discipline in the church of England, and why it has lost much of its force, we may learn from bishop Burnet. Hist. re­form. part iii. p. 330. ‘The proviso that had passed in K. Henry the eighth's time, that continued the canon-law then received in England, till a code of ecclesiastical laws was pre­pared (which, tho' attempted and well prepared, was never settled) has fixed among us many gross abuses, besides the dilatory forms of those courts, which make all proceedings in them both slow and chargeable. This has, in a great mea­sure, enervated all church discipline." "Discipline, says another, is lost, and will not be permitted by the state, which by virtue of conge d'elire's, quare impedits, prohibitions, &c. have made themselves the sole and ultimate judges, not only of all bishops and churches, but of their excommunications, and every exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction.’ Case of the regal. and pontif. p. 166. Must it not then be a very gross mis­representation of this fact, and an unjust aspersion on other protestant churches, to lay at their door the weakness, or rather the want, of discipline in the church of England; when it is thus ingenuously confessed by bishops themselves, to proceed from her present constitution, and close alliance with the state? [Page 383]Or is a falshood the better for being written with great solemni­ty and seriousness?

3d. Another thing which has greatly weakened discipline in the church of England, is the Sacramental test, by which all the officers in the army and navy, &c. are obliged to receive the sacrament, let their lives and practices be ever so debauched. Indeed Dr. Chandler says, that, ‘every clergyman may now refuse, and ought to refuse, the communion to disorderly and scandalous persons, according to the rubricks.’ But then he should have added, if he would give a full representation of the matter, that ‘an action lies against the minister who shall refuse it to them, tho' he knows, sees, and hears them to be never so unqualified.’ Case of the regal, and pontif. p. 179. The sacramental test, which enjoins it so strictly on all officers to receive, supposes that the ministers are obliged to grant them the sacrament; and if any minister should dare to refuse it, the officers know where they can have their remedy, in spite of Dr. Chandler and his rubricks. I leave it then to any candid person, whether he has given a fair representation of the discipline of the church of England, in his appeal; tho' it was written with real and great seriousness.

4th. Other protestant churches do not take it upon them to discipline those who do not profess to belong to them; so that men's withdrawing from one denomination, and joining them­selves to another, frees them from that church to which they formerly adhered. And Dr. Chandler, seems to represent this to be the case with the church of England, when he assigns this as the cause, why excommunication has lost much of its force, that ‘churches are set up against churches, and those who are rejected by one may be received by another.’ But it is well known, that where the church of England is established, she considers all that are born and live within her precincts as subjects of her discipline. And the more that any dissent from her worship and communion, with the more severity they may expect to be disci­plined. Suppose for instance, that a Presbyterian in England or Ireland commits an offence worthy of ecclesiastical censure, and makes proper Christian satisfaction, to the acceptance of the Presbyterian church, to which he belongs, yet he may depend upon being cited to the bishop's court, and forced to pay them their fees, and satisfy their exorbitant demands. And thus, as one expresses it, ‘after the Presbyterian church has purged them of their scandal, the episcopal church purges them of their money.’—And that the episcopal missionaries in the colonies, have some imagination of their being invested wit [...] power and authority, over all other denominations, is not un­likely. [Page 384]Why else did Dr. Johnson, the great advocate of their church, address letter after letter to his dissenting parishioners? For if they were Dissenters from his church, how came they to be his parishioners?—Now since the rulers of the church of England, have not been inclined to be more merciful, but rather more severe to protestant Dissenters, and to chastise them with rigour for their scandals and refractoriness, how is it possi­ble that Dr. Chandler's account should be true, that their sepa­ration, and erecting other churches, has weakened their disci­pline? And when the episcopalians have scourged protestant. Dis­senters, with such unmerciful severity, and continue to harass them in their spiritual courts at home, is there not something very queer in charging them with weakening their discipline? Ought he not with real and great seriousness to review this striking misrepresentation?

5. The Dr. says that ‘the discipline of the church, so far as relates to private members, will be lest as it is,’ &c. Would not any impartial reader take it from this representation, that the church of England had some proper discipline, where she is established; and that she had some kind of discipline, tho' of a less perfect kind, in the colonies? Must it not therefore ap­pear surprising, to hear that the church of England herself confesses she has no godly discipline, for persons guilty of noto­tious sins? Thus, ‘Brethren, in the primitive church there was a godly discipline, that at the beginning of lent such persons as stood convicted of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the lord; and that others punished by this example, might be more afraid to offend. Instead whereof, until said discipline be restored again, which is much to be wished for, it is thought good,’ &c. Agreeable to this, Dr. Whitby takes notice, that ‘the church of England observes no church discipline, and the liturgy itself teaches them once a year, to wish the godly discipline of the primi­tive church restored.’ However they have substituted some­thing else in its stead. And whether the prosecutions of their spiritual courts, and the oppressions and harrassings of those, who have had the unhappiness to taste of their mercy, &c. which has prevailed in the mean time, has not been a very un­godly sort of discipline, is no great difficulty to determine.

‘But, it may perhaps be said, we have never known any such terrible doings in this country.’ True; and we have never had any bishops here. The missionaries are only simple presbyters, who, according to the Doctor's scheme, have no right to meddle with the keys of discipline. ‘The exemptions, [Page 385]bishop Burnet, settled by papal authority, do put many parts of this church in a very disjointed state; while in some places the laity, and in others presbyters, exercise episcopal jurisdiction independant of their bishops; in contradiction to their own principles, while they assert a divine right for set­tling the government of bishops,’ &c. The famous Cart­wright was imprisoned two years by Archbishop Whitgist, be­cause, that being only a presbyter, he had appointed a form of public penance, or satisfaction, for a person who had been guilty of fornication. I never understood that the missionaries shewed any great disposition to offend their superiors, by attempting to meddle with discipline. What idea then could the Dr. intend to convey, by saying that the discipline of the church, so far as it relates to private members, will be lest as it is? Is it this important and momentous idea, that, even after the arrival of a bishop, nothing will be nothing still? Or does he, by these words, mean to assure us, that the bishop will not erect his spi­ritual courts, and bring us under the lash of his ungodly disci­pline, which is substituted by the church of England, instead of that which obtained in the primitive church! But what au­thority has this poor simple presbyter to controul his superiors, and to govern and give law to his bishop? Must not this be looked on as arrogance with a witness?

6th. He seems to lament that ‘altars are set up against al­tars, and churches against churches; and those who are re­jected by one, may be received by another.’ Who would have imagined that a gentleman, who professes so much candour and moderation, should be grieved at the toleration, and repine that others are allowed liberty to worship God, according to the gospel and their consciences? Would he have the penal laws re­vived, and extended to the colonies, and all the churches of other denominations pulled down, and his dear episcopal church erected on their ruins, and all the inhabitants compelled to con­form to her? Will nothing but such power content the episcopal missionaries? Can they never be easy, but when they are haras­sing their peaceable neighbours? ‘Those who are rejected by one church, may be received by another.’ One would natu­rally think from this, that when the episcopal church among us, was about censuring and excommunicating scandalous sinners, other protestant churches were ready to receive them, and in fact, took them into their communion, and protected them from her discipline. It is truly astonishing that the Dr. and his brethren could publish such an insinuation as this, in this country, where it is so well known, that the episcopal churches of the missionaries are generally first founded by, and afterwards re­ceive [Page 386]a great part of their increase or additions, from those per­sons who refuse to make Christian satisfaction, for those scanda­lous crimes they have committed. This is a common proverb in New-England, of any person who falls into any open notorious sin,—well, he'll make a churchman now. Who is there that does not know, that the episcopal churches are a common recep­tacle, or city of refuge, for disorderly and scandalous persons? It is necessary to speak thus plain, because the Dr. appears to affect ignorance or forgetfulness in this matter.

He says, ‘we live in an age when the voice of reason will not be heard, nor the strength of arguments regarded, altho' sup­ported by the declarations of Heaven, on the subject of church discipline—the charge of priest-craft, so long hackneyed by infidels and libertines, would be sure to fall upon the clergy, should they have courage to speak in defence of it. In this state of things, the restoration of the primitive disci­pline, seems to be a matter rather to be wished for, and de­sired, than rationally attempted by those in authority. Ac­cordingly no attempts of this nature will be made, under an American episcopate.’ This is a very extraordinary passage, upon which I propose the following queries.

• 1st. Does it not appear from this passage, that the episcopal clergy in general, and the missionaries in particular, have not courage to speak in defence of the primitive discipline, tho' they are fully convinced it is supported by the declarations of Heaven? And that we are not to expect any thing better from the bishop, whom the Dr. and the convention pretend to desire, for the ve­ry purpose of this restoration? Is not this to hold the truth in unrighteousness, and basely to betray the cause of Christ, ac­cording to this plain and honest confession which is here made? Can such a bishop be a primitive bishop? Were they intimidated by libertines and infidels?
• 2d. Whether men, who have so little fidelity and courage to defend, what they profess to be supported by the declarations of Heaven, as the Dr. represents, be worthy the name and cha­racter of the ministers of Christ? Infidels and libertines do not pretend to believe the gospel, but to consider it as an imposture. No wonder they disregard its solemn declarations; this is but acting agreeable to their character. But what shall we think of Christians, who profess to believe it, and yet pay no suitable re­gard to it? What shall we think of those, who assume the high character of Christian teachers, and yet avow that they will not speak up in defence of the express declarations of Heaven? Do such ministers and bishops remember, that they are set for the defence of the gospel? And that when they thus cowardly [Page 387]desert their post, they yield up the Christian cause into the hands of its enemies? Can we rationally expect any benefit from such missionaries, and such bishops?
• 3d. Does Dr. Chandler think, that there are more Libertines and Infidels now, in proportion to the Christians in Great-Britain or the colonies, than there were in the time of the pri­mitive church? If there are not, why should this be alledged as a reason to neglect church discipline? Would not this have been a reason, equally cogent against its first institution? If it can­not be rationally attempted now, how was it actually effected then? Does not this language of Dr. Chandler, suppose there is something in the gospel very absurd, foolish and unreasonable, since it cannot be rationally attempted by those in authority? Or will be say the primitive discipline was not of divine institution? —And if it was not, why is it to be wished for and desired? Or is it the recalling of the toleration, and the revival of the penal laws, which he and his brethren wish and desire?
• 4th. Can it be supposed that the missionaries are very sincere, in wishing and desiring the restoration of the primitive disci­pline, when they are so ready to receive into their churches, all those who refuse to submit to it in the churches where it is prac­tised? and when their increase so greatly depends upon their want of it? Do not actions speak louder than words?—

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. XII.]

AGRICOLA having made his exit, Squire T. re-enters, (No. XII) without one conscious blush, exclaiming a­gainst repetition, for which he and his correspondents are so notoriously remarkable.

According to him the Whig's account of the origin of English Dissenters is fictitious;—I shall not make it my business to pro­duce authorities in its vindication, but adduce the testimony of Squire T. himself to prove, that his own is inconsistent and therefore erroneous: I will not be confident that it was his own invention; for he had probably some invisible assistance. Par. 2d. He plainly gives us to understand, that the first puritans were [Page 388]and learned clergyman, who fled to Geneva from the per­secution of Q. Mary, and there "contracted a love and esteem for the Genevan discipline, &c." — that returning to England in the reign of Q. Elizabeth, and becoming dis­contended, because they were disappointed of a restoration to the parishes they had deserted, they (tho' ‘too pious to separate from the Church’) out of resentment ‘began to set up for a more pure and thorough reformation.’ And par. 3d. he tells us (as Probus had told him) that Jesuits in dis­guise, "first broach'd the novel scheme of a parity of ministers," and metamorphos'd the Puritans into Dissenters. Now what a jumble, what an ff, what a fiddle faddle, what a farrago farra­ginum is here! Squire T's allowing that the first Puritans were men of piety and learning, who lov'd and esteem'd the Genevan discipline, amounts to at least an implicit acknowledgment, that conviction of conscience was the true source of Puritanism; and yet he afterwards insinuates, (if he does not more than in­sinuate) that they ‘set up for a more pure and thorough re­formation,’ out of pure spite, arising from disappointment. The reformation he owns, was "far from complete," at the death of Edward VI; and yet he calls the Puritans troublesome, because they endeavoured to complete it.—Alas! I beg Squire T's pardon, for I just now recollect, that the reforma­tion was previously completed by the parliament and convoca­tion, the former having already pass'd the act of uniformity, and the latter establish'd the 39 articles. The Puritans had at Geneva tasted, and "contracted a love and esteem for," the scheme for a parity of ministers," and (to go no higher) King Henry VIII. himself, Arch-bishop Cranmer and others had handed it about long before, as what they thought had a primitive and evangelical taste; but according to Squire T. it was a novel scheme and Jesuits were the first that broached it; in order to foment the discontent of the Puritans.

Par. 4th He seems to be nettled at the Whig's hint concern­ing making priests of the meanest of the people, and in revenge suggests a suppos'd parallel between "some in these days" and Jeroboam. A sly stroke that! however I can't help saying, that (as Jeroboam's was a political schism, and as there is a great disparity between parity of families and parity of ministers) it seems as though Squire T. wou'd fain have betray'd his readers into an opinion, that Jeroboam was a Presbyterian.

Par. 5th We have a pretended typical analogy between the high priests, priests, and-Levites of the Jewish, and the bishops, presbyters and deacons of the English church; from which Squire T. seems fond of inferring the divine institution of the [Page 389]latter. But, unless he supposes, that an Arch-Bishop is no more than primus inter pares, his analogy is incomplete, and there is no ground to infer the divine institution of the English, any more than that of the pagan or popish, from the Jewish hierar­chy; or to suppose that a British Metropolitan has in reality a divine commission any more than a pope or cardinal, or even an ancient Roman pontisex maximus. Of this, Squire T. seems half sensible himself, for he durst say no more than, "possibly no great absurdity will follow from supposing. that God has done the same in the Christian (as he did in the Jewish) church," and yet he says, "if the Whig and his associates are so wilfully blind, that they will not see this"—(this what? why this) possibility,—he can pray for them, that they may have eyes that can see" it, &c. tho' he cou'd find a prayer in the liturgy for his purpose, and should be able to read it, I'm apt to believe it wou'd never be answer'd; for I fancy both the Whig and his associates will always see, that very probably this very great absurdity will follow from his typical analogy, viz. that the hand, the surplice, the cassock, the sash, &c. being as much typify'd by the breast-plate, the ephod, the robe, the girdle, &c. are as much of divine institution, as are (according to the ana­logy) the offices of those that wear them. While reading in the Whip about Jewish Clergy, I can't help fancying I see the Right Reverend Father Aaron, completely equipp'd in British Canonicals.

Par. 7th. Squire T. pretends, the Whig "can't possibly have any just ground of quarrel with the church of England, for preferring the episcopal, any more than with that of Scot­land, for preferring the Presbyterian form" of church govern­ment; since he supposes the supreme head of the church esta­blish'd no particular form whatsoever. But here he has not only misrepresented the Whig's expressions concerning models, by substituting, "such as they thought most convenient for them; instead of such as best answer'd the ends, &c of church-govern­ment, but has either carelesly or desigedly overlook'd his excep­tion of ‘a few general canons—inculcated by Christ, as a preservative against that execrable spirit of pride, which by his omniscience he foresaw wou'd soon arise in the churches.’ These general canons, which Squire T. I dare say, is not in­tirely unacquainted with, will sufficiently justify the Whig's ob­jections against episcopacy, and clear him of the charge of (what is, in the Chandlerian cant of the times, call'd) ‘real and direct persecution.’

Par. 8th. Squire T. (Quixot-like) combats a phantom of his own creative imagination, or (to speak of him more characte [...]i­cally) [Page 390]forces the Whig into an attitude he had never assum'd, in order to thrash him the more conveniently; i. e. for argument's sake, be suppose it to be the Whig's opinion, "that the Presby­terian form was instituted by the apostles," and then most man­fully knocks him down with his own concessions, which it seems are not the truth however, because (according to Squire T.) they are not the whole truth. So have I seen a child, who had just been engaging in crambo and push-pin, build with cards what an ant wou'd have thought a lofty structure, and imme­diately, with Herculean or Sampsonical vigour, and intrepidity, demolish it to its foundation in an instant. However after all, it is evident the Whig supposes neither episcopacy nor presbyteria­nism (strictly speaking) are of either divine or apostolical institu­tion; and therefore Squire T. might have spar'd himself the trouble of quoting his concessions, in which I suspect he meant to act the angler, who gives the poor stupid fish line, to see how prettily he will play with it. Dr. Ram-chicken and others, who are no sportsmen, make no such concessions; or if they did, it were no matter, nor shou'd we be oblig'd to clear away all Squire T's interrogatory dirt; since those who can drink out of a fountain, may justly scorn to sip at a stream that runs thro' a Puddle. Perhaps it may be scarcely worth while to take notice of that great divine Squire T's expressions, such as insti­tuted by the apostles, apostolical institution, &c. however I can't but think, they must needs sound oddly to all but such as ac­knowledge a mortal, a mere man, as the head of the Church.

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XXIV.]

DR. Chandler laments the deplorable situation of the church of England in America, and represents, in dole­ful accents, her present state of grievous oppression; from dissenters I presume he must mean, since he will not say, her oppression is owing to the discountenance of his Majesty, the parliament, or the Bishops of England. I confess it is the first insinuation of the kind, that ever I heard; and am confi­dent the Dr. would find it very difficult to support his com­plaint by a single instance: Nor is it possible to conceive how this can be the case, as the episcopal church is the peculiar ob­ject of protection, in every government where his majesty hath the appointment of the commander in chief; there not being one king's government on this continent, whose governor is not a member of her communion. On the other hand, that the dissenters have been oppressed by the church of England in America, abundant proof may be adduced; and lest this should be thought a groundless assertion, it may not be amiss to pro­duce a few instances. The first English presbyterian minister that over apply'd for a license, to preach in New-Yor [...] was pe­remptorily refused permission; and afterwards underwent the hardship of a severe imprisonment, for no other crime than that of preaching the gospel in a private house, to a few people of his own persuasion.—The assembly of that province, at a time when the church of England had no existence in it, and when more than nine tenths of the members were dissenters, establish­ed a provision, for the support of a protestant ministry, in seve­ral of the counties; plainly designing it for any protestant mi­nistry. Of this provision, the church of England very soon [Page 397]artfully avail'd herself, and has ever since appropriated the same, to the exclusive maintenance of her own clergy, tho' nine tenths at least of the money raised by the act issues from the estates of people of other denominations. A striking proofs, truly of the boasted equity and justice of that church, in draw­ing from dissenters a support of a religious constitution which they conscientiously disapprove and renounce!—In this province also, a­bout forty years ago, the episcopalians, with open violence, seized upon a presbyterian church and parsonage, of which they kept ille­gal possession for the space of twenty years. These are a few of the many instances of oppression, which dissenters have experienced in this province. In Virginia, where the church hath a gene­ral provincial establishment, loud have been the complaints of persecution, which the episcopalians have exercised towards pro­testant dissenters, whose ministers, for the attrocious crime of preaching the gospel, have there been frequently harrassed, and cited before courts and magistrates, and refused even the privi­leges of the toleration-act. Tho' this may seem a digression from the subject of an American Bishop, it appeared necessary to vindicate dissenters, from the unjust insinuations contained in Dr. Chandler's pamphlet; and to shew from what quarter re­ligious oppressions, in these colonies, have heretofore arisen.

The Dr. urges the necessity and utility of an American epis­copate, to raise the church of England from that state of deplo­rable oppression, under which she hath so long groaned, to sup­port her dignity, and advance her growth in the American co­lonies. But I am surprised, that any man, who has resided but a few years in this country, and especially a native, who cannot but be thoroughly acquainted with the genius and dis­position of its inhabitants towards an ecclesiastical hierarchy, should seriously set himself to urge a measure, that hath so ma­nifest a tendency to interrupt the peace, impede the population, and [...]-inkindle a flame in his Majesty's North-American domi­nions.—How warm a friend soever such an advocate may be, to the religious establishment in England, he certainly acts the par [...]an enemy to the civil interest of his sovereign and coun­try. The greatest [...]ealot for episcopacy among us, must be sensible of the unconquerable aversion of nine tenths at least of his countrymen (among whom are great numbers of the church laity themselves) to the introduction of Bishops, under any pretended primitive form. Were it even possible to procure a dignitary of the church of England, clothed with those pri­mitive episcopal powers only, with which the Dr. tells us he is to come invested; and were he to make his first appearance in the garb of the inoffensive sheep; it would be impossible to di­vest [Page 398]Americans, whose ancestors have felt and fled from the ty­ranny of those holy men, from the apprehension of their soon becoming devouring wolves. But how artfully would these gentlemen impose upon the credulity of the people, by suppo­fing a Bishop of the church of England, will be sent to Ameri­ca thus deplumed of the necessary and inseparable appendages, annexed to the episcopal office in the English hierarchy, by the common and statute law, from the origin of its constitution. The king and parliament, under whose forming hand that church rose into existence, must entirely new-frame and model her constitution, before a bishop, of the antient primitive Christian stamp, can emerge from her bosom. But supposing the British parliament (whose wisdom we presume will ever pre­vent them from prosecuting a measure, that appears to have so unfriendly an aspect upon his Majesty's interest in the colonies) should constitute and American episcopate, and, in an especial manner, should preclude his lordship from tythes, from holding ecclesiastical courts, and the exercise of any spiritual power but that of ordination, confirmation, and government of the cler­gy—yet will not this primitive, this inoffensive ecolesi­astic, be constituted a member of his Majesty's council, where he shall happen to be resident? And who, not wilfully blind, does not see what an influence this would give him, when strengthened with an interest in the whole bench of the spiritual lords? Ever intent on aggrandizing their great Diana, and ex­tending their hierarchy, by the conversion of protestant dissenter [...], to their favourite idol episcopacy (solid piety being an object of subordinate consequence) With such zealous and powerful coadjutors, what will his lordship want, but an ascendancy in the house of representatives, in order to procure episcopal esta­blishments, with the amplest annua [...]evenues, throughout every county. Nor will he be able to support the dignity of his eccle­siastical character, and the expence of his episcopal equ [...]age, with less than three thousand per annum, in addition to the small allowance, with which it is probable he would appear among us. Under these views of a bishop (and these [...] the views of nine tenths of the colonists) the introduction of his lordship into America, would throw the people into convulsions, greater than those which the late stamp-act occasioned, by so much more as they esteem their religious liberties, of more im­portance than their civil. How unfriendly then are the advo­cates for the measure, to the tranquility of this country, who desire (and they cannot but desire it, as they must be convinced it would be the unavoidable consequence) to see the confusions and disorders of the year 1765 [Page 399]repeated; for I am confident the generality of the people would more quietly submit to three stamp-acts, than to the exertion of the English ecclesiastical hierarchy, in these regions of unshack­led religious liberty. To avoid the oppressive rigours of episco­pal dominion, their pious ancestors came over to these then in­hospitable shores. No wonder then their descendants, equally tenacious of the rights of conscience, should start at the threat­ened unsheathing of an Anti-Christian sword among them, which forced their fathers to fly from all their temporal posses­sions, and the land of their nativity. No wonder averse to an order of men, whose aspiring genius and servent zeal for eccle­siastical discipline, they have reason to apprehend would continu­ally prompt them, to draw or force men from the religion of their forefathers; of the scriptural purity of which they have too high a conviction, ever to abandon; nay, would risque their all in defence of, rather than sacrifice at the empty shrine of episcopacy. The candour, lenity, spirit of toleration, and charity, which it is now said, is so conspicuous in the church of England, is most soothingly urged as an argument to conciliate the acquiescence of dissenters, of all denominations, in the fa­vourite plan of an American episcopate. ‘With so much mildness, tenderness and moderation (says Dr. Chandler) have the English Bishops, for a long course of years exercised their authority, as scarcely to have afforded an instance of reasonable complaint, especially to dissenters.’ But pray let me ask the Dr.—Did this boasted mildness, tenderness and mode­ration, shine out with so clear a lustre, when very lately at their council-board, their lordships of Canterbury and London pur­posely appeared, to oppose so inconsiderable a request, as that of a charter of incorporation to the presbyterian church in New-York, even after the lords of trade, to whose consideration the petition was referred, had reported, that they saw no reason to refute the prayer of the petitioners. And that so trifling a fa­vour, hath been frequently refused to both English and Dutch presbyterians in this province, is a matter of general notoriety. These are illustrious instances, surely, of the friendly disposition of the church of England, and her benevolent prelates, towards their protestant fellow Christians in America!—We glory in being subject to a prince, the maxims of whose government in these regions, sacred to freedom, have always been equally fa­vourable to Protestants, of every Christian denomination, and restrictive of ecclesiastical domination, from every quarter. And I am so far from thinking with Dr. C—, that there are "peculiar reasons of policy" to induce his majesty, to adopt his favourite plan of an American episcopate, that I am clearly [Page 400]of opinion, there are peculiar reasons of policy, which totally and absolutely oppose it. And this I doubt not still more a­bundantly to evince, in the course of these papers.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. XIII.]

FOR our next entertainment, Squire T. very genteelly sets before us the relicks of several former meals, not furnish'd but hash'd up by one of his under-cooks, the marrow and gravy, any the very guts, of which, is the old tale about Jesuits; they seem to give him great satisfaction; but we beg to be excused swallowing, tho' stale as they are, we shall venture to taste some of the dishes.

The first course is drest in a particular manner by the scullion, acknowledg'd to be his own invention, in which we have ser­pents, spawn, foam, venom, stings, Egyptian onions, wine of fornication, &c. The two last ingredients indeed he speaks of as exotics; however his master has probably more than enough of the last, stor'd in his cellar; and of the first, growing rampant in his garden. But, for the present to lay aside allegory, the quin­tessence of T. P's letter seems to be contain'd in that notable passage, in which he calls us of the faction, ‘the real spawn of that invenom'd brood who burst the bonds of gratitude, justice and, religion and in a torrent (a torrent of brood!) overturn'd altars, levell'd churches, and laid waste principalities and and powers.’ This really seems to be somewhat too high a charge; but however truth requires that we shou'd do justice to the character of the church, by frankly, freely and sincerely, confessing, that we, as well as our fathers have at least wrestled with "principalities and powers," with the rulers of the dark­ness of this world,—and even with the spiritual wickedness in high places.

The second course, which Squire T. calls an extract, is such a mingle-mangle, such an hodge-podge, such an olla podrida, that I dare say, very few of the guests will be able to relish it. Squire T. says "it breathes such an air of truth, that he ima­gin'd it wou'd be injustice" not to order it to the table; but for [Page 401]my part I affirm, it blows such a blast of nonsense, that I am almost poison'd with the bare smell. In plain English, it is one of the most stupid pieces I ever saw in a periodical paper, and tho' I were assur'd that it was written by my great-grandfather (for it pretends to antiquity) I wou'd frankly acknowledge my self great-grandson to—a dunce. Reader, give me leave to point out to you some of the beauties of this piece.

In the beginning we are told, that the English nation has been so unhappy as to suffer the most terrible convulsions, and to lie, and that constantly, in a fatal posture of confusion and dis­order upon the account of religion; and yet, it seems, it has had an establishment, and an happy one too, ever since the refor­mation. Afterwards we read of the sinking of papal obedience in opinion; the realms of Great-Britain bearing a figure; of protestantism, as a revolt from the faith; of a fortification, having one bastion only, &c. &c. &c. But the flower of all the beautiful nonsense, the reader may see, in the close of the 2d paragraph, in which we are given to understand, that the church of England has an enemy;—that enemy is St. Pe­ter's sword;—that sword is capable of the passion hope;— the object of that hope is universal monarchy.—that monar­chy cannot be obtain'd without undermining not one only, but each of the foundations, of no less then all the constitutionS of the church;—this undermining is a glorious design;—and, in order to accomplish it, the sword inspires itself, and all its engines, with—(with what?—courage? no!) with application and diligence. Now who but the most consummate block-head wou'd ever have thought, that the church's grand enemy was a sword; that a sword cou'd hope any more than a bayonet, or be a king, any more than a pike-staff;—that a sword wou'd think it glorious (for what can hope can think) dig under stone walls like a mattock; or that it shou'd be able to inspire itself, or even its engines (whatever they may be) with application, any more than that Squire T. should inspire T. P. with correspondence, or himself with flagellation?

But, criticism apart, this is but the third time we have already had the tale of the Jesuits, on [...]o better than Probus's, Squire T's, or Antiquemodernus's authority; but whether it be true or false, is a question of as little importance to the present dispute, as whether the first moving cause of the reformation, was or was not a sneaking inclination Henry the VIIIth had, to have Anne Bol [...]yn for a bedfellow; but if it be true, I can't help think­ing there is a great resemblance (at least in some respects) be­tween those Jesuits, and most of the society's American missiona­ries; for if the first were ‘invincibly industrious to ruin the [Page 402]establishment’ of the church of England, the last are no less so to debauch the Non-Conformists of America, and indeed they are much more artful in making Proselytes; for knowing that a kingdom divided against it self cannot stand; they are too wise to revile (what those they mean to ensnare have already but an indifferent opinion of) the British hierarchy.

The company being pretty thoroughly disgusted, with what they have tasted of Squire T's entertainment, seem not fond of regaling themselves with his desert, his pretended plate of Italian fruit; and therefore—here, boy, take away these crab-apples.

To the PRINTER,

Please to give the following a place in your next paper.

FOR some time past I have observ'd a controversy in some of our colonies respecting the introduction of English Bishops among us.—Dr. Chandler appealed to the public, to know if they had any objection, why one or more bishops shou'd not be sent to America:—and laid before them, the restrictions with which they were desired,—viz.— ‘That the bishops to be sent to America, shall have no authority, but purely of a spiritu­al and ecclesiastical nature, such as is derived altogether from the church, and not from the state. That his authority shall operate only upon the clergy of the church, and not up­on the laity, or dissenters of any denomination. That the bish­ops shall not interfere with the property or privileges, whether civil or religions, of churchmen or dissenters. That in par­ticular, they shall have no concern with the probate of wills, letters of guardianship, and administration, or marriage li­cences, nor be judges of any cases relating thereto. But that they shall only exercise the original powers of their of­fice, namely, ordain and govern the clergy, and administer confirmation to those who shall desire it.’ ^* Several objectors have appeared. A periodical paper, published in New-York, intituled the American Whig,—the Centinel, in Philadelphia, &c. Tho' the former, it seems, does not object against bishops with the above restriction: ‘The Appeal says he, asks nothing but what is highly reasonable.’ ^† But affirms, that it is "altogether impossible" to have Bishops, on the terms proposed. [Page 403]Much has been written pro and con—and perhaps a great deal foreign to the purpose, and unbecoming the professors of Christi­anity. As the cause is debating before the tribunal of the pub­lic, I wou'd beg leave to give the sketch of a plan, whereby they may be better enabled to form a right judgment.—Suppose some judicious, impartial person, shou'd collect all the pieces that are, and shall be, published on the subject;—and exhibit weekly, or monthly, in our public prints, the substance of all the argu­ments made use of, attending only to the merits of the cause. —This might be done by way of dialogue, in a short, ex­pressive manner.—But I foresee an objection that will arise. Where shall we find the judicious, impartial person? It must be confess'd the objection is weighty; and 'tis to be lamented, that there are such animosities and divisions between those, who enrol their name among the followers of the prince of peace, —But as there are many persons in our colonies of good abilities, natural and acquired, it wou'd be uncharitable not to believe that some of them, have so great a sense of the Deity —so zealous for the glory of God, and the good of mankind —so far from being bigoted to this, or that, particular party, that they wou'd disdain to blow up the sparks of party spirit, or to transgress the laws of truth and decency. Shou'd such a person put in execution the plan propos'd, or something of the like nature, and endeavour to sow the seeds of peace and harmo­ny among his fellow-creatures (so necessary at this juncture, for our political interest) I doubt not but the sincere Christian will thank him for his labour of love; and that he will see the ac­complishment of that promise, made us by our Divine Re­deemer—Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be cal­led the children of God.

UNHAPPY it is for man, that some of his species enter­tain a savage desire of gorging their animosity by giving pain to others. Restless and discompos'd in themselves, they love to see all things ruffled and disorder'd around them. Like some lion of the wood, they proudly survey the havock and carnage they have occasion'd, and feast their misanthropy on the wounds of public tranquility. They delight in display­ing the dark side of subjects; in clouding beauties, and pointing out deformities. Such (I am sorry to say) appear the men on whose measures I have undertaken to animadvert. A sincere love to religion and my country, has only engaged me in this task. The Christain, that truly esteems the former, cannot but endeavour to promote every undertaking that may advance its interest, and oppose every procedure that has a manifest ten­dency to disserve it; and the honest man, who sincerely loves the latter, will find it his duty to detect and resist every iniqui­tous attempt, to disturb the happiness of society, and endanger the welfare of his country, by sowing the seeds of jealousy, or kindling the fires of party spirit.

[Page 405] It has ever been the practice of those, who were endeavour­ing to subvert any constitution, whether of church or state, (with design to raise another more agreeable to their inclina­tions) assiduously to harangue the populace on its defects, to enumerate and magnify every stain, but to overlook every beau­ty or advantage; and to exaggerate and censure those deficien­cies which necessarily attend every government, as if only to be found in, and peculiar to the one they dislike—This scheme (however unjust) is craftily political, and too seldom fails of success. For as the generality of men have neither leisure nor abilities to enter into an exact examination, they depend on the opinions of those who they imagine have the opportunities and wisdom necessary. The love of liberty, the enmity to corruption, and assiduous regard these politicians profess, conciliate their esteem. The frightful picture of magnified blemishes they hold up, together with a desire of novelty, most natural to igno­rance, inflame the passions of the populace, and so root their prejudice, that they become, in a great measure, invincible. They are led by degrees to be at last guilty of crimes, they would at first have thought of with horror. This was the ease soon after the reformation in Germany; as in avoiding one extreme, men most commonly are precipitated into the opposite (and some­times more dangerous) one. A sect was raised under pretence at first, of only reforming some of those things, which they imagined not yet sufficiently pure. The founders began to preach up a greater perfection in morals; from hence they pro­ceeded to reprove all who were any way observers of civility and decency; to pronounce it sinful to possess the conveniencies of life: And determining that all other books were pernicious, they met, and burnt all they could obtain, but the Bible. When they had got to this eminence, their mask began to tremble and fall off. They term'd all ministers but their own, "wicked idolaters of antichrist's synagogue." They said that all kingdoms should be destroy'd to make room for the kingdom of Christ, and labour'd in abolishing the execution of justice, because Christ hath said, "resist not evil," and in bringing on a community of goods, because Christ and his apostles were an example. Their teachers stood up as advocates for "absolute liberty, free and impartial liberty," preaching against magis­trates, and that all men should be on a level. Such doctrine of re-reformation were sure to be eagerly swallowed by a licentious rabble. Accordingly when their numbers had great [...] increased, they pretended the earth was given them by the Lord, and form'd themselves into associations to take possession They laid aside all disguise; And these preachers of mortifica­tion, [Page 406]thought it lawful to take six or seven wives apiece. They, who at first affirm'd justice and judgment to be merciless cruelty, now accounted their hands sanctify'd by being inbrued in Christian blood. They who at their emersion, forbad their followers possessing the conveniencies of life, and suing for their right, thought at last it was agreeable to God to turn their adversaries out of their houses, and to enrich themselves with the pillage of their goods—which being laid to their charge, their answer was, "the time is come, according to our Saviour's promise, that the meek shall inherit the earth." ^*

Parallel to this was the behaviour of those men, who in the reign of Charles I. set out with a pretence of obtaining liberty of conscience, and afterwards, as they increased in power, in­creased in the insolence of their demands; and not content with a free toleration, would force all denominations to fall down and worship the brazen Idol of Presbytery, which they had set up. But I forbear drawing the comparison.

You may learn from these instances, my countrymen, to sus­pect those men who are not contented with the freest enjoyment of religious liberty that ever nation allow'd, but will ever con­tinue oppugning and disturbing the peace of their fellow Christi­ans. If there be a church, which (in the opinion of the wisest legislatures) is best suited, from its principles and government, to the constitution of the late, and is accordingly so interwo­ven with it, that the one must be rent and torn to pieces with the other;—And another, whose spirit is directly opposite, whose professed principles, and constant practises are, to endea­vour the destruction of all other denominations—whose mem­bers, altho' they do not ex hypothesi condemn the doctrines of the church of England, will, nevertheless, in the opinion even of one of their friends (Rapin, in his dissertation on Whigs and Tories,) never be contented till they have entirely destroyed it, and have given evidence of their intention in their solemn league and covenant, &c. every wise people will support the one, and the cautious of the other. A change in government must ever in the event be precarious; and no friend to his country would wish any in our happy one. It must certainly then be unsound policy in any man, to endeavour to raise discontent in the minds of the people, by calumniating that religious establish­ment which the laws of our country think most worthy their particular favour and protection. These short-sighted politici­ans should likewise consider, that they give no favourable cha­racter [Page 407]of Americans, when they say, "the introduction of a dignitary of the church of England, clothed with those primi­tive episcopal powers only, with which Dr. Chandler tells us he is to come invested, would meet with an unconquerable aversion of nine-tenths at least of his countrymen; among whom are great numbers of the church laity themselves;^† and would throw the people into convulsions greater than those which the late stamp act occasioned." Good heavens! that a public writer should dare to offer such an assertion in the face of the world— or not blush to be so contradictory to himself!—Who would ever imagine it was the same American Whig, who says in his first, and some subsequent numbers, that it would be unreasona­ble to deny churchmen a bishop so circumscribed in his powers as the Dr. represents him—that for his part, if he could believe the scheme to be such, he would wish it "good speed" —Such contradictory injurious assertions, would justify the severest censure. But charity stops my pen, and bids us, my countrymen, forgive the flights of passion in so passionate an author; and wish him for the future, a clearer head, and better heart.—religion will ever have its adversaries; and those who engage in its service, must expect a continued assault from them. But the most dangerous enemies, are those internal ones, who makes the name of Christianity subserve the purposes of in­terest. —These, tho' they may sail smoothly along while religion is in their favour, yet should any particular denomina­tion thwart their course, will hesitate at no measure, however unchristian, that will promise them success.—By the politi­cal craft of such men, many in this country have been infatua­ted to entertain the most injurious prejudices against the church. Of a more mild temper were their chief and best fore-fathers, —who say, in their letter to the bishops, clergy, and peo­ple of the church of England, whom they call their fathers and brethren—from on board the ship Arabella, upon their departure for America, dated April 7, 1630, intreating their prayers for prosperity, in the following words.

^§ ‘We beseech you therefore, by the mercies of the Lord Jesus, to consider us as your brethren, standing in very great need of your help, and earnestly imploring it. And howe­ver your charity may have met with some occasion of discou­ragement, thro' the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffection or indiscretion of some of us, or rather among [Page 408]us; (for we are not of those who dream of perfection in this world,) yet we desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our company, as those who esteem it our honour to call the church of England, from whence we rise, our dear mother; and we cannot part from our native country, where she especially resideth, without much sadness of heart, and many tears in our eyes; ever acknowledging, that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received in her bosom, and sucked from her breasts. We leave her not therefore as loathing that milk wherewith we were nourish'd there; but blessing God for the parentage and education, as members of the same body, shall always rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sor­row that may ever betide her; and while we have breath, sin­cerely desire and endeavour the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the enlargement of her bounds in the in the kingdom of Christ Jesus.—Be pleased therefore, Rev. fathers, and brethren, to help forward the work now in hand,’ &c. &c. Signed by John Winthrop, Gov. Rich­ard Saltonstall, Isaac Johnson, Thomas Dudley, William Cod­dington, and many more.

Thus spake the fathers of these degenerate sons, who, like the children of Edom, cry, "down with her, down with her even to the ground." The most bigotted churchmen will ac­knowledge, that the best institutions are mixt with infirmities. Very just is that aphorism of Mercurius Triysmegistus, [...] to purge goodness quite and clean from all mixture of evil here, is a thing impossible."

What reason then can be assigned, and in what manner can it be construed pertinent to the subject controverted, thus invidi­ously, by every unmanly, ungentlemanly, and unchristian me­thod, to raise in the colonists a disaffection to the church and clergy? Not to mention those many infantine but illnatured witticisms with which every paper is checquered, unworthy the notice of a man.—They have represented her as unchurch­ing every other society of Christians—Her clergy as enemies to the reformation and revolution, and disaffected to his present majesty.—They have painted the character of a bishop, (tho' divested of temporal power) in the most odious co­lours. These are charges of the greatest importance; and tho' they are delivered in that vague indeterminate manner the Whig so studiously affects, in my next shall meer with particular consideration—for the present, I would recommend it to the author, that if the overboilings of his spleen force him to make frequent evacuations, plentifully to discharge it on those [Page 409]vices and dangerous amusements, which are at this season parti­cularly prejudicial to his country—instead of casting it in the face of those men, and on that establishment, which is an honour to the English nation) to the great comfort of all deists and li­bertines, and to the great nuisance of all his majesty's honest, liege subjects.

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XXV.]
To the Author of the AMERICAN WHIG.

TO believe that among the Christian clergy, there is an order called bishops jure divino superior to the rest, is to be an episcopalian. But to wish to see these bishops clothed with worldly honours, wealth, and power, and turned into lords, is papistical, repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, and utterly inconsistent with the principles of sound policy. Every protestant churchman will therefore, while he approves the humole apostolic shepherd, detest the proud prelatic Pontiff, as a dangerous character, that sprang up in the churches, un­der the dominion of anti-christ. Such being the vast difference between a Bishop and a Prelate, what wonder that a country, not yet duped by the clergy, should eye the project of introdu­cing an episcopate, with all that jealousy which an attachment to liberty necessarily inspires; especially when, in spite of all the address of the partizans of the scheme to conceal their true aim, they have given so many proofs, that Prelates, and not Bishops, are the characters they wish to see established among us.

Whether this is sufficiently proved, must be left to the public to determine. If the introduction of prelacy, to subjugate the colonies to the tyranny of priests, is the object of Dr. Chand­ler and the convention, it becomes every true son of the church —every friend to Christianity, and lover of this country, to [Page 410]rise up and set his face like a flint against a scheme of so perni­cious a tendency. The temporal powers of the Bishops in England, were popish investitures, and there are not wanting instances of pious Bishops, in every age since the reformation, who have lamented these annexations as exposing them to inter­ruptions and cares, foreign to the original design of their spiri­tual offices, unfriendly to religion, and impediments to the re­storation of primitive purity.

Having the honour to agree with these worthies of our church, and conceiving that if the establishment of an episcopate in America, was left to the sole management of the clergy here, and the bench of Bishops in England, it would participate large­ly of a prelatical mixture; and that it was indeed impossible to be otherwise, without an alteration of the law, I thought it my duty, tho' a churchman, to assist in awakening the public to a salutary vigilance, to convict the missionaries of their inde­cent neglect of the government, the laity, and the Bishop of London their superior, and to vindicate our church in general from the odium of a measure, contrived by a few meddling priests, to advance their own interest, and naturally productive (unless certain preliminary securities are given) of the most tra­gical consequences, to these weak and exposed dispersions of the empire.—With these views, I shall continue my correspond­ence with you, and trust my letters to your candour, provided my sentiments are not changed.—Concerning the style I am not solicitous; and it is therefore submitted to your correction.

That the majority of the episcopalians are not chargeable with this pestilent enterprise, shall be the scope of this letter, in order to remove any suspicions to the contrary, which the guilty contrivers of the plot are falsely and wickedly endeavouring to propagate. This may be argued from the character and princi­ples of the American churchmen; the conduct of the petition­ers for an episcopate, and the nature and method of their de­fence, against the attacks they have received.

As to our character, it is notorious to all the world; and nothing but malice itself, can prompt any man to deny, that in principle we are as distant from the tories, as any Whigs or low churchmen in England. Few, very few Americans, avow the absurd and slavish doctrines of passive obedience and non re­sistance; nor can any persuasion claim the honour of a more zealous attachment to revolution principles, or a sincerer, more fervent and steady affection to the protestant succession, and the present reigning family. As asserters of liberty, who excelled us in the late memorable opposition to the stamp-act? Nay, per­mit me to mention it with triumph, that the Virginians are al­most [Page 411]universally churchmen; and tho' their ancestors, as cava­liers, were obliged to fly to these distant regions, for their at­tachment to the cause of that unfortunate prince king Charles the first, and it might thence have been supposed, that non­resisting principles were deeply sown in the minds of their pos­terity, yet this was the people who first publickly and boldly re­solved to vindicate the liberties of the continent, and dared to deny, that the commons of America owed allegiance to their fellow subjects of Great-Britain.

The Americans are plain in their manners, virtuously dis­posed; neither puffed up by a love of pomp and luxury on the one hand, nor dispirited by poverty on the other.—Long ac­customed to freedom, jealous of their rights, and watchful of the undue extent of the prerogative. Hence it is, that in all their public expences in government, they are the most frugal oeconomists in the world. This is the known character of all the provinces. Episcopal and non-episcopal.—And if none will dare to assert, and I am sure none can with truth and justice assert the contrary, how improbable that a people so principled, should be solicitous for domineering masters of any kind, or in the least disposed to countenance a measure which, considering the infant and feeble state of the colonies, will inevi­tably expose them to the dominion of the clergy. To this very day the episcopalians of Virginia, where there are no dissenters to check their power, are so far from a blind devotion to the cler­gy, that the public provision for them extends only to two churches in a county, with an allowance to each incumbent, of a little more than £ 200, per annum. A sum scarce sufficient for their decent support.

And that this is the general spirit of the continent, the whole priesthood, superior and inferior, on both sides of the water, must long have been sensible.—The chief end of erecting the society for the propagating the gospel, according to the testi­mony of the Bishop of Landaff, was the establishment of epis­copal authority in this country; and yet we have seen more than half a century roll away, without accomplishing a design easily effected, could the Americans have been prevailed upon to open their purse strings.—ever suspicious, that under the cloak of episcopacy, prelacy might steal in, and esteeming spi­ritual courts a hardship, infinitely greater than a Bishop's ab­sence, we have hitherto resisted the solicitations of the lower clergy, and the influence of the right reverend bench, from the reign of king William to the present day; and since the southern colonies might, if they pleased, have easily given their lordships a safe port to land in, and the political objections, now started [Page 412]on the part of the government against the scheme, had no weight in queen Ann's time, the conclusion is irresistable, that all the provinces owe their exemption from prelatic power, in, a very eminent degree, to the discountenances that an episcopate hath steadily received, from the episcopalians themselves.

The conduct of the conspirators of this plot, is a further proof, that they are a contemptible miniority.—Had the project been devised or avowed by our communion in general, a due respect would have been shewn to government, and to the Bishop of London, in the means of giving it success. Such marks of wisdom, prudence, and temper, would have appeared in every step taken, as became a denomination so numerous, loyal, and wise. How obvious was the plan, which even com­mon sense seemed to dictate.—In the southern pro­vinces, where the episcopalians have the power in their own hands, what more is requisite than a joint petition of governor, council, and assembly, to the throne, for his majesty's appro­bation of a law, for the establishment of an episcopate, in the colony requesting it. And if nothing more was aimed at than primitive episcopacy, what colony so poor as not to be able to support a hundred Bishops of apostolical grandeur—This, when effected in any province, would, in all, remove the objec­tion arising from the danger, and expence of a voyage to Eu­rope for ordination; and in the colonies, where the legislative power is divided among protestants, of different denominations, if the misconduct of the clergy, and the want of confirmation, rendered our people uneasy, we might urge the legislature to favour the extent of the other episcopates, or the introduction of Bishops of our own, and if that failed, the access to the crown, for its influence was open; and thus the scheme would have ad­vanced, in proportion to the benefits experienced, and the security we could gradually obtain against the pride of prela­cy, so deservedly dreaded by the whole continent, and so natu­rally to be apprehended from a precipitate introduction of epis­copacy, archieved by clergymen alone.

In this way, no umbrage would be given to the government, nor could the Bishop of London have complained of a contempt of the authority he claims, under the countenance of the royal instructions, long usage, and our own voluntary concurrence.—Measures of this kind could have given no just offence, and measures less prudent and temperate, the whole church would never have approved—But fully sensible, that our denomi­nation was generally disaffected to the least mixture of prelacy, and therefore would either not concur in the project of an epis­copate, at a juncture so unseasonable as the present; or proceed [Page 413]in it with a wise deliberation, disgustful to priest-craft, recourse was had to art.—The enterprise was concealed from the laity.—Less than twenty dependant clergymen arrogantly presume to represent all the churchmen, in America, and in our names, complain even to the king himself of distresses never felt, and to ask as a boon, what (until security, ten thousand times beyond the value of all they are worth in the world, is given to us) would be esteemed by every sensible churchman in America one of the most fruitful sources of mischief and oppres­sion; I mean an increase of the power of the clergy. It is not long since we were told in a pamphlet ascribed to one of the greatest dignitaries of the church of England, that Bishops would be sent to America, as soon as the people were disposed to receive them. His Grace is, perhaps, by this time convinced, that he presumed too far upon his own influence in the cabinet; but it is not improbable that this hint inflamed the zealots, who transmitted the seven petitions, which have given so much of­fence,—Fortunately to us, so slender a subscription was less evidence of the popularity of the cause, than the author of the pamphlet expected, and hence they were laid under an inevitable necessity, of divulging the secret to the laity. That all ranks might be drawn into an approbation, of what the clergy had contrived, Mr. Chandler was dubbed Doctor, and employed like a wild Irish mourner, to utter sighs, groans, and lamenta­tions for hardships—hardships unparallel'd, hardships, which, till this memorable appeal appeared in print, were never thought of, unless by a few high-flying necessitous zealots of the gown.

This, Sir, is a short but true history of the late attempt to introduce prelacy,—The clergy, and but a few of these, are the authors; and 'tis to facilitate that design, that we lately hear of their frequent assemblies under the name of the conven­tion.—A practice unknown to the ecclesiastical constitution of England, and to which his lordship, the Bishop of London, will doubtless very soon, in justice to his character, apply a suit­able remedy.

Our general discountenance of the petitioners is the last proof I shall advance, of our abhorrence of their scheme. Prelacy, odious as it is, has had apologists of abilities, and their desences have been artful and specious; but was ever a sett of projectors at a more ridiculous plunge, than the present pretended desend­ers of our church!—Judging from their weekly produc­tions, 'tis cle [...] that not a man of learning or genius amongst us will come out to their aid.—Such we have, and they are as willing to vindicate the rights of the church, as they lately proved themselves able to maintain the civil liberties of this con­tinent. [Page 414]But apprised that an episcopate will introduce the ty­ranny of priests, and the inquisitorial oppression of spiritual courts, not a man of sense will take up his pen in so pernicious and disreputable a cause.—Hence the distress and extremity of the convention, and the pitiful scribblers they have retained in their service.—Wit and sophistry might have concealed the nakedness of the cause from the vulgar, and a talent for ri­dicule could have stung an opponent, and diverted the public.—But the projectors are unsupported, abandoned, and unpi­tied.—The inference is natural, that not a man of abilities in all our churches is on their side, and for that reason the press groans under a weekly medley of repetition, wrath, buffoonery, nonsense, and falshood.—In truth, Mr. Whig, all America (a few Tories excepted) is averse to clerical domination, and almost every episcopalian in this country, can subscribe himself as I do, a friend to humble primitive Bishops, but a detester of modern, proud prelates, and therefore.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. XIV.]

THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. XXVI.]

AS the grand inquest of the kingdom of Great-Britain, have devolved upon you the trust of enquiring into the abuses and corruptions of ecclesiastical courts and juris­dictions, give me leave briefly, and in miniature, to represent to your view, a contracted scheme of those courts and jurisdic­tions in England; whereby it will appear what an incredible sum is yearly drained and squeezed out of the people's purses and estates by such ecclesiastical officers and spiritual persons, who make gain their only godliness.

But as my intent here is not to intermeddle with their doc­trines of faith, or practices in religion, I shall only at present enquire, whether a great cause of the impoverishing of this [Page 423]nation, is not occasioned by an over-numerous body of ecclesi­asticks among us, and by the exactions, extortions, and oppres­sions, of what are called spiritual courts and jurisdictions.

In order to this enquiry, I beg leave to recite a maxim or observation of the lord Verulam, (which will be found to con­tain an eternal truth) viz. That a smaller number who spend more and earn less, do sooner wear out an estate, than a greater number that live lower (meaner) and gather more; so it is (says he) with an overgrown (i. e. a numerous and luxuriant) clergy. For they consume the labours of others, but bringing in nothing to the stock.

And that the stock and produce of the English nation, is in a great measure swallowed up and devoured by the numerous body of our ecclesiasticks, and their jurisdictions, courts, and officers, will I believe evidently appear, if you consider the fol­lowing observables, respecting those persons, and their courts and jurisdictions.

I. We have here in England two provincial Archbishops, Canterbury, and York; each of which has his princely retinue for the support of his temporal grandeur, as well as a numerous body of spiritual officers, for the exercise and execution of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority.

In the number of their temporal retinue, we may reckon their stewards and baliffs of lordships, manors, lands &c. stewards of their housholds, gentlemen-ushers, ushers of their halls, comp­trollers, yeomen of their horse, secretaries, house keepers, purveyors, butlers, cooks, &c.

And among the latter, their suffragans, vicars-general, guar­dians of spiritualities, chancellors, officials, commissaries, deans, arch-deacons, registers, deputy-registers, advocates, apparitors, projectors, cum multis aliis.

And as the officers and attendants of these arch-bishops are of two kinds, so are their courts. viz.

• 1 Courts temporal, as courts [...]eet, courts baron, customary courts, courts of franchises and privileges, courts of piepowder, (for some of them keep fairs and markets) and other like courts.
• 2. Courts spiritual, as the courts of arches (to Canterbury) prerogative courts, courts of delegates, consistory courts, or courts of audience, courts of faculties for granting licences and dispensations (with divers others.)

II. Next, as to bishops (who in most things imitate arch­bishops) we may observe,

• 1. That within England we have twenty-four diocesan bishops.
• [Page 424] 2. That these have also their several trains of domestick offi­cers, servants, and attendants, both temporal and spiritual.

But as I shall not at present enter into a disquisition of their estates in lordships, manors, lands, palaces, gardens, &c. so I shall here wave all enquiry into the state of their temporal re­venues; my present intention being chiefly to remark on their ecclesiastical or spiritual courts and jurisdictions.—Wherein I observe, that our twenty four bishops have, to assist them in the exercise and execution of their spiritual jurisdiction, the following officers, viz.

• 24 Suffragans, if not double the number, with their atten­dants.
• 26 Chancellors, with their attendants.
• 26 Registers, with their attendants:
• 26 Deputy registers, with their clerks, &c.
• 26 Gentlemen apparitors,
• 52, or more, proctors: and
• 150, or more common apparitors.

With many other officers, notaries, clerks, and attendants.

Note, Bath and Wells, as well as Litchfield and Coventry, have their distinct courts, i. e. one in each division of those dioceses.

There are also under these archbishops and bishops at least,

• 60 Arch-deaconries. And to these belong,
• 60 Arch-deacons courts; which consist of
• 60 Commissaries or judges of those courts; as also
• 60 or more surrogates, or deputy commissaries.
• 60 Registers, with their deputies, scribes and clerks.
• 120 Proctors (i. e. if we allow but two to each court.)
• 200 or more apparitors, with a multitude of promoters and informers; cum aliis Officiariis.

See of the exercise of their jurisdiction hereafter.

But further, besides the before-mentioned officers, we may observe another, who, in their ecclesiastical oeconomy, is called a dean, in latin Decanus. For that, 'tis said, in his first insti­tution, he was to preside over ten parishes, which was therefore called a deanery.

But deans are now with us distinguished into four or five kinds, viz.

• 1. Cathedral deans; these, with their respective chapters, have in many things a concurrent jurisdiction with the bishop of the diocese: And some authorities they have which are inde­pendent of him. The number of this kind of deans in Eng­land and Wales is twenty-four: For at St. David's and Lan­daff [Page 425]they have no cathedral deans, the office of dean being there exercised by the bishops themselves.
• 2. Collegiate deans, some whereof have all the concomitants and attendants of a cathedral dean, except that of having a bishop at their head; such a dean is that of Westminster col­lege, &c.
• 3. Exempt deans, i. e. such as are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, as having an independent ecclesiastical jurisdiction within their own particular precincts; such a dean is that of Battle in Sussex, who is, or may be, invested in his deanry by the king's letters patents, and needs no institution or induction by the bishop or archdeacon. Quaere, of the dean or provost of Eaton college, if an exempt, &c.
• 4. Non-Exempt deans, i. e. such as are not so exempt as a­foresaid. These are generally donatives in the arch-bishops, and consequently have a peculiar jurisdiction derived from them; such are the deans of the arches (and St. Martin le Grand) in London; the dean of Bocking in Essex, with some others under the archbishop of Canterbury: And I have heard of the like under the archbishop of York, but can at present give no certain account of them.
• 5. Rural deans; these originally had no judicial powers, be­ing only substituted by the bishop to assist him in granting admi­nistrations and probates of wills. But I am informed, that at this day divers of those deans have arrogated to themselves a species of jurisdiction. Though 'tis said, their chief business is only to feast the clergy at visitations, for which they have a licence to raise contributions within their deanries.—See Nelson's rights of the clergy. 252, 253, &c.

And seeing we have mentioned cathedral deans, I shall here beg leave to give a specimen of the several parts or members whereof the cathedratic choir or body is usually composed; which, taking our pattern from that at St. Paul's, stands thus:

1 Bishop, 1 dean, 1 subdean, 1 praecentor, 1 chancellor, who has under him divers scribes, clerks and officers; 1 treasurer, who has an officer called a sacrist or sacristan for a coadjutor, and this sacrist has 3 or 4 attendants called viergers. There are also 5 archdeacons, 30 prebendaries, 12 petty canons, 6 or 8 vicars choral, and about 24 choristers and singing boys, besides other officers and attendants: The whole number of officers and attendants in this and other cathedrals amounting to about 150, and in some, as I am informed, to near 200.

And if any person is desirous to know the several procurations, synodals, pensions, payments and perquisites appropriated to each of the above-mentioned officers within the diocese of Lon­don, [Page 426]let him peruse Mr. Newcourt's Repertorium Canonicum, vol. I. fol, 58, 102, &c. And by an account taken from the second volume of that book, I find that, in the single county of Essex, there is yearly paid to the bishop and archdeacons, in procurations, pensions, and synodals only, about 500l. per annum.

And upon the whole account, which may easily be deduced from the foregoing view and specimen, I think it will evidently appear, that the number of spiritual officers and attendants be­longing to archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, and cathedral deans only, will amount to more than 20.000 persons, besides preaching ministers. And that these receive for their mainte­nance one with another, at least forty pounds a man yearly, which will amount to at least eight hundred thousand pounds per annum. A surprising sum! And when we consider that many of those officers, instead of forty pounds per annum, do make two, three, or four hundred pounds per annum, by their ecclesiastical employments, I conceive the above computation may well be extended to ten hundred thousand pounds per an­num. All which is extorted and squezed out of the people's purses, merely to support ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction.

A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. XV.]

"I Have never yet heard it disputed in" any one that I have been in of ‘several companies (to the credit of their re­spective members be it spoken) whether it be possible the writer of the letter Squire T. has thought fit to publish in his Whip, No. XIV. No. 1. can be an Independent in any sense; or whether this piece is in reality any thing else than a letter from T. Tickle, Esq to his own dear self;"’ for both "these questions were (nem. con.) unanimously decided in the Negative." Far from having any "objections against this opinion" I shall lay the reasons assign'd before the reader.

• 1. The style is exactly Squire T's. When we have seen a man 14 weeks successively, we can't easily mistake his phyz. es­pecially [Page 427]if he has singular seatures; and by this time the pub­lic can be no stranger to Squire T's.
• 2. The sentiments, such as reeking from the lash of public indignation, &c. are very characteristical of such a leather-dres­ser as he.
• 3. No scribbler but Squire T. is remember'd to have pub­lish'd so many inconsistencies and puerilities, i. e. such a quan­tity of nonsense as is contain'd in the letter under consideration.
• 4. The writer winces like a gall'd horse at an observation in the 6th Centinel (which is perhaps but too just) concerning the clergy in general. As this observation (however it may be as to others) is indisputably just with regard to most of the episco­pal clergy, and is indeed peculiarly expressive of the genius of hierachy; this writer, if really an Independent, must, while he in effect calls the teachers of his own particular sect, Children of Darkness, have an unaccountable sympathy with the clergy of the Church, and write more out of tenderness for the success of episcopacy, than zeal for the right conduct of Independency.
• 5. The many contemptuous expressions he uses, e. g. Preshy­terian parsons, teachers, sect, [...]hersites, Otway's witch, pro­tectors, Zion, &c. betray him to be, not the Independent he personates, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.
• 6. He unnecessarily endeavours to scandalize what he pre­tends is his own profession (par. 3d and 5th) and blacken Inde­peatents; and at their expence makes fulsome and undeserv'd complements to the church, her prelates and inserior clergy.
• 7. He writes not, like an Independent, with the honest can­dour of ingenuous acknowledgment (and what denomination has not some faults to acknowledge?) but with all the virulence of episcopal party pride and insolence; and yet fancies he looks as while as alabaster, while he (poor soul!) appears to the pub­lic as black as the jetty Aethiopian.
• 8. In his sly but virulent insinuation, "and why they did "think it probable, becometh not me to say" par. 4. he shews himself to be a malicious enemy of Dissenters; and yet,
• 9. In par, 6th is hypocritically shy (because of his profession forsooth) of calling the members of the church of England, what I can with great pleasure in spite of my profession, call some of them, viz. "A good part of British subjects in America."
• 10. Thro' the whole of his letter this pretended Independ­ent says not a syllable in favour of Independency, but acts the part of a champion (and a miserable one too [...] poor rogue) for episcopacy: In short, as servilely as Squire T's pen, he evident­ly expresses whatever the Whipper would have.