CONTAINING PARTICULARLY The AMERICAN WHIG, A WHIP for the AMERICAN WHIG, WITH SOME OTHER PIECES, On the Subject of the Residence of Protestant Bishops in the American Colonies, and in answer to the Writers who opposed it, &c.

NEW-YORK: Printed by JOHN HOLT, at the Exchange. 1768.



TO oblige a Number of the Customers to the New-York Thursday's Journal, and at their particular Desire, it is proposed that Half a Sheet of this Collection be printed weekly, and for some Time sent to the said Customers without any Charge additional to that of the News Pa­pers.

It is printed in this Manner for the Conve­niency of binding, which it was supposed would be more agreeable to the Readers.


[From Parker's NEW-YORK GAZETTE. MARCH 14, 1768.]


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.

—redeunt saturnia regna:
Jam nova progenies caelo domittitur alto.

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.


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.


From the NEW-YORK GAZETTE, MARCH 21. An Advertisement to the PUBLIC.

THE principal design of the appeal to the public was, to as­sign the reasons for which the members of the church of England in America, are desirous of having Bishops to reside in this country, to state and explain the plan on which alone Ameri­can Bishops have been proposed and requested, and to obviate and confute the objections, that might be supposed to arise in the minds of any against such an episcopate. Whether the reasons assigned are not sufficient to justify the late application of the clergy for Bishops, whether the nature of the proposed episcopate is not honestly and fairly represented and explained, and whether the most considerable objections against it are not obviated and con­futed in the appeal, is submitted to the judgment of the reader— but N. B. not one of those who are not readers of the pamphlet. The author was, and is, fully persuaded of the goodness of the [Page 9]cause which he undertook to plead; and, although sensible of his inability to do it justice, he had the vanity to think himself able to satisfy the public, as to the main points on which it depended. With this opinion he entered upon the work, and in the execution of it he was particularly careful to avoid giving offence, and to treat every denomination of Christians, every set of men whom he had occasion to mention, with great tenderness and all proper respect.

The appeal upon its first publication, was received as favourably as the author could expect; several persons, of different principles and characters, who condescended to read it, being then pleased to testify their general approbation of the performance. If it has been treated by some persons latterly in a different manner, perhaps it has been owing to motives that have occurr'd since the time of its publication. A general attack from different quarters has been, at length, projected, and some of the combatants begin to shew themselves.

The author is not unwilling to re-examine any thing that has been advanced or asserted in the course of the appeal, and to have the subject "fairly and candidly debated, before the tribunal of the public," being still of opinion, that the plea for American Bish­ops, the more closely it is examined, and the better it is under­stood, will appear proportionably to greater advantage. Whate­ver therefore shall be offered on the subject in a reasonable and decent way, he thinks it his duty to attend to—but to nothing far­ther. As to personal abuse, he thinks he does not deserve it, even from the enemies of an American Episcopate, to whom he has be­haved respectfully; and he is determined not to regard what every innocent and honest man ought to despise. But although he con­sents to debate matters with any one, who has the appearance and manner of a gentleman; yet he chooses not to enter the lists, in a match of flinging dirt, with scrubs and scavengers.

Which of these characters the American Whig (for America has whigs) will think proper to appear in, can hardly be judged from his first exhibition; but I am sorry to say that I look upon his symptoms to be rather unfavourable. I have also been told by some who pretend to know him, that this same Whig (who by the bye is represented to have as many heads as the monster Hydra) is vio­lently enraged at Somebody and Something, and has sworn revenge upon me. If so, in what manner I shall be treated, may be easily conjectured. But why should I be singled out as a mark of his resentment? If some people have failed in their application for a charter, and have been disappointed in the late election, how can I help it? These are no affairs of mine, and I am not answerable for them.

I make it a general rule to myself, to treat all persons with as [Page 10]much notice and respect as they deserve. Upon this principle I propose to conduct myself towards the American Whig; so that what treatment he is to receive from me, will depend greatly upon his future behaviour. So far as he shall reason, or shall appear to think that he reasons, he will have a claim to my notice; so far as he shall rail, he will be beneath it. Not a single argument that is pertinent to the subject, shall escape my attention; and, if it pleases God to continue my health, I will either confess its force, or shew its weakness.

But he must excuse my not attending him in a weekly paper. For such a task I cannot always promise myself leisure; and, in the present case, I confess, I have no great inclination. Some of my objections against this mode of defence are the following.

  • 1st. I cannot engage with him upon equal terms. If I appear in this way, it must be in my own person; but my opponent is covered with a mask (and for a particular ‘reason it is his interest that he should remain for ever masked’) and an engagement by two persons under such different circumstances, would afford to the public an odd spectacle. While I should risque my own cha­racter and reputation in the fray, I know not until I can disco­ver the real features of my antagonist, whether he has any repu­tation and character to risque. For this reason it has been gene­rally esteemed base and ungenerous, for a writer who disguises or conceals himself, to attack an author who stands fairly upon open ground. Such a method of carrying on hostilities has been looked upon as a sort of literary bush fighting, to which it is almost as inconsistent with prudence to expose one's self, as it is with ho­nour to practice.
  • 2dly. There appears to me to be a great unfitness and impro­priety in such a contest, on other accounts. The Appeal, agree­ably to the importance of its subject, was written with real and great seriousness; and the defence of it, when undertaken by its author, ought to be carried on in the same manner. But the at­tack of our Whig, is like to be conducted with a very different spi­rit. No. I. from which we must at present judge, is penned alto­gether in a ludicrous strain; it is thickly bespangled with drolle­ry, it frequently flashes with witticisms (but observe gentle reader, they are of a spurious breed,) and in short, ridicules the general subject of the Appeal and its various parts. Now as this has ne­ver been allowed to be the fairest method of dealing with any thing that is serious, so serious answers to funny writers, like throwing pearls before a certain kind of animals, are looked upon as impro­perly applied; and yet none but serious answers, as has been said, doth it become the author of the Appeal to give. He proposes therefore to reserve himself for the present, and to watch whether any thing solid can come from so ludicrous and frothy a writer; [Page 11]and as to the other matters, he is perfectly indifferent. He is so intirely void of spleen, and ill-nature, and prejudice against this writer, that he is ready to confess the nimble turns and motions of his pen, and can laugh as heartily at any monkey-tricks he can exhibit for the amusement of his Majesty's liege subjects, as any other person. In the mean while, if any one who is not under these restraints, shall incline to divert himself with, or to endea­vour to bring to order, this Hussar in controversy, who will con­fine himself to no rules, but as the whim takes him will fly from front to rear, and from flank to center, he has my consent.
  • 3dly. I object against immediately engaging with the American Whig, because it is yet uncertain whether he will produce any thing worthy of notice, and because I think it adviseable to see the amount of his whole performances that I may have it in my power to choose for myself in what manner to deal with him.
  • 4thly. Another objection arises from the strange aversion I have to a repetition of the same things. Now it happens, that among others, a gentleman of character in Boston has undertaken a con­futation of the hapless Appeal; and he is entitled, both from his known reputation, and his open and manly method of advancing, to particular respect. I know of no one, at present, that bids as fair to be the object of my principal attention as this gentleman; as to those anonymous writers who shall please to favour me with their animadversions on my pamphlet, they will not take it amiss, if I consider them as belonging to an inferior class. They must be contented, so far as their arguments shall correspond with those of Dr. C—y, to take their places in his train, and hear what I have to say to him; but in any cases wherein they shall be thought to deserve special notice, they shall have it occasionally.

Having thus declared my intention to do justice to all men, I will mention the manner in which it will probably be distributed. In the first place I shall be careful to distinguish reasoning from railing, from empty harrangue, from the flourishes of wit, and from all other heterogenious mixtures. The reasoning I will keep for my own use, and leave all the rest untouched for the original proprietors, in order, that when opportunity offers, they may be­stow it more properly. I will then make a farther distinction, and mark out those reasons that are immediately to the purpose, sepa­rating them from those that are but remotely so, and from others that shall have been totally misapplied. To those of the first, and second classes, I will endeavour to give proper and distinct an­swers; as to those of the third class, it will be sufficient to shew their impertinence.

In this way I hope I shall be able to serve the cause of truth, and to remove prejudices and errors; and, to whisper a secret into the ears of the Public, I do not despair, that even our American [Page 12]Whig, with all his briskness and volatility, will be proselyted to the sober doctrine of the Appeal. For I think his opposition can­not be of long continuance, after the honest concession he has made towards the close of his paper. ‘'Tis true, says he, 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, that the Doctor and the Convention would content themselves with a Bishop, so limited and cur­tailed as he is pleased to represent his future Lordship; it were manifest injustice to deny them what in their opinion their eter­nal salvation so greatly depends upon.’ So that nothing ap­pears to be now wanting to his conversion, but to convince him that the Doctor and the Convention would content themselves with such Bishops as are described in the Appeal. Now this is as really and certainly true, as that he himself is a Whig; and un­less he is obstinately resolved to be deaf and blind to all proper evidence, it can be clearly proved to him.

By way of conclusion, the author of the Appeal begs leave to assure the Public, that notwithstanding the charge brought against him by the American Whig, he neither knows, nor believes, nor suspects, that he has misrepresented a single fact, and to subscribe himself,

Their very respectful And obedient Servant.

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE, Monday March 28. An Advertisement to the PUBLIC.

WHEREAS an anonymous Writer, who stiles himself The American Whig, in his last Monday's Publication, viz. No II. hath accused ‘a certain Convention of the Episcopal Clergy here,’ of having transmitted ‘seven petitions, to some of the most respectable personages in England, earnestly soliciting Bish­ops for America; representing the deplorable condition of an unmitred Church, &c.—and not sparing very injurious reflections upon the other Denominations, as seditious Incendiaries, and disaffected to King and Government: I beg leave to observe, that I have acted as Secretary to the Convention, from its first for­mation, and have particularly attended to, and carefully read, every petition that they have transmitted to England, ‘soliciting Bishops for America;’ and I do affirm, that the Convention have never made any ‘injurious reflections upon the other Deno­minations,’ by representing them either ‘as seditious Incen­diaries,’ or as "disaffected to the King and Government." I do moreover affirm and declare, that this assertion of the American Whig, is absolutely, utterly and intirely false and groundless. And [Page 13]I hereby call upon him in this open manner, both as a member of, and as Secretary to the Convention, publickly to pruduce the au­thorities upon which he has asserted so infamous a falshood. In this case the most positive proof is insisted on, nor will the respect­able Public be put off with a poor, simple, "We are told," which is nothing to the purpose.

Should any person think that I do not treat this writer with pro­per respect, let him turn to the last paragraph of the American Whig. No I. where Dr. Chandler, and the Convention, (Gentle­men at least as respectable as himself) are in fact accused of the grossest falshood and deceit, in pretending to ask for a Bishop only upon the plan proposed in the Appeal, while it is ‘not the pri­mitive Christian Bishop they want:’ But, &c. Such a piece of effrontery and malace, I think deserves, and would justify, worse treatment than a regard to my own character would suffer me to give him.

March 23, 1768.


Humano capite cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit—ut turpitur atrum
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa supernè—
—Risum teneatis.
Hor. Ar. Poet.

DR. CHANDLER'S Appeal to the Public in behalf of the Church of England in America, which from his own account, seems rather to be the united effort of all the CLERCY in New-York and New-Jersey, perfected by the kind assistance of the CLERGY from the neighbouring provinces, may by this time be supposed to have circulated pretty generally. And as the season advances, when we presume these CLERGY are again to meet in voluntary Convention, this may be the proper time to propose a few questi­ons for their or if the Dr. pleases for his consideration. The per­formance seems replete with bold extravagant assertions of facts, many of which have no foundation in truth; it is greatly deficient in Christian Charity, tho' not deficient in low craft, and seems dangerous to the civil and religious Liberties of the Colonies in America. But I perceive that if any objections be made to his Plan, our new Doctor from a persuasion already formed, is pre­pared to ascribe them, rather to "the dexterity and ill will of the inventors than" to "the real fears and uneasiness of the inha­bitants." (P. 112) Nay he is so bold, as to assert that every op­position to such plan as he has proposed, has the nature of persecution and deserves the name. (82) Again he says, "if [Page 14]no objections shall be offered, it will be taken for granted that all parties acquiesce and are satisfied." (2) Thus on the one hand, silence is to be construed into assent and approbation, and on the other hand, if we object to, or oppose his plan, we are to be stig­matized as persecutors and the worst of mankind. However as he seems to admit a possibility that some "objections may continue, which may be thought to deserve notice" and is pleased to erect an imaginary tribunal, and to invite the objectors "to propose them that they may be debated before that tribunal," it seems hard to oblige those, who cannot altogether approve his plan, to yield the cause untried, or to bear the names of "malicious, "intolerant, "persecutors, "enemies to all religion "and the church, "hot "headed writers, "pragmatical enthusiasts," &c. nay even to have their loyalty called in question.

I must confess there are some objections to this plan, that "con­tinue" with me, and which, to as many as I have mentioned them, seem to "deserve notice" but before I propose them to be debated before the "tribunal of the public," I should be glad the Doctor would deign to explain some of his terms, and give us farther in­formation on some points, that I shall propose.

He begins with informing us "that application has been made to our SUPERIORS, by the Clergy of several of the Colonies, request­ing one or more Bishops to be sent to America;" he complains of "unprecedented hardships," and "intolerable grievances," suf­fered by the "Church" the "American Church" the "Church of England in America" for want of "an American Episcopate" and upon this sounds his Appeal to the Public.

We should be obliged to the Doctor, if he would inform us in plain terms, who are these superiors to whom the Clergy have ap­plied; by whom these Bishops are to be sent; by what authority this American Episcopate is to be established; or who are the au­thors of these intolerable grievances and unprecedented hardships? that we may the better judge, whether the apprehensions on ac­count of our civil Liberties, which this avowed application has raised in the minds of many people, be well or ill founded. As he has appealed to the public, would it not be proper for him to inform us, against whom he appeals? Whether against the King his Ministers and the British Parliament, for not redressing those grievances, of which he complains, and for not establishing Epis­copacy in America, as he seems to think they ought to have done? Or whether the Appeal is made against those, who, thro' fear of an invasion and infringement of their civil and religious Liberties, think it their duty to oppose such an establishment? If against the former, the court must indeed be august and respectable, which he has constituted to take cognizance of our Sovereign and the British Parliament. If against the latter, as by the rules of all [Page 15]well established courts, both plaintisss and defendants are excluded from judging in their own cause, I fancy there will be few in Ame­rica to sit in judgment. For let the Doctor flatter as much as he pleases, if ever the attempt be made, he will find that the preju­dices and objections of most of our Colonies are too deeply rooted and too well founded, for them ever to submit quietly to an Ame­rican Episcopate, established over them even by act of Parliament; this would be to destroy their charters, laws, and their very con­stitutions; and it will be well if the Doctor and his associates are not considered as abettors of Mr. Greenville and those Enemies of America, who are exerting their utmost endeavours to strip us of our most sacred, invaluable and inherent Rights; to reduce us to the state of slaves; and to tax us by laws, to which we never have assented, nor can assent.

We would also ask the Doctor, why is the application made for a Bishop at this particular time when the liberties of America are at stake? Why are some insinuations of disloyalty thrown out against his American Brethren? For what are the tendency of his political reasons, but to inflame the jealousy of the people of Great-Britain? Can there be no Bishops without establishments; no or­dination without act of Parliament? Must this be a new and a primitive, or a part of the English Episcopate.

The claims of the Doctor, without an establishment, notwith­standing all his seeming modesty and candour, are too great, not to awaken jealousies in the minds of free born Americans, if none had been conceived there before.

The "Church" the American Church, "the Church of Eng­land in America," are the names by which he affects to distinguish that denomination of Christans, to which he belongs. I wish the Doctor would please to define his terms, and tell us what he means by Church, and why that name should be applied to English Episcopalians only. Are not the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches, are not the Congregational, Consociated and Presbyterian Churches; are not the Baptist, the Quaker and all other Churches in America, of what denomination soever they be, members of Christ's Catholic Church, if they profess faith in Christ and hold the great essentials of Christianity? Or does he mean to lay such a stress on unbroken succession, and on Episcopacy as by law esta­blished in England, as to make these essential to the being of a Church? His words indeed seem to import as much, where he says, "Men may ridicule the notion of uninterrupted succession as they please" but "if the succession be once broken and the powers of ordination once lost, not all the men on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it. It is as great an absurdity for a man to preach without being pro­perly sent, as it is to hear without a preacher, or to believe in him [Page 16]of whom they have never heard." This may be the Doctor's pri­vate opinion borrowed from the No [...]jurors and other disturbers of the Church and State during the reigns of King William, Queen Ann and King George the first, but surely it is not the doctrine of the Church of England: it has long since been disclaimed by some of its greatest Doctors and ablest Divines. However, I should be glad the Doctor would explain himself further, and try to reconcile these high notions with Christian Charity, and with the validity of ordination in the foreign protestant Churches, or of those who make no pretence to an unbroken succession. The candour of his sentiments and (if we may believe him) of the doc­trine and belief of the Church of England, with regard to the go­vernment of those Churches in America, which are not Episcopal, is worthy of notice. "If, says he, according to the doctrine and belief of the Church of England, none have a right to govern the Church but Bishops, then the American Church must be without government. (27) But lest we may have misunderstood him, we desire he may tell us, whether he means that the Episcopal Chris­tians are the only Church in America, and consequently excludes all other Churches who want Bishops, from being members of the American Church; or whether he would assert that all others are without order and government for want of Bishops, and therefore undeserving the name of Churches.

The "Church of England in America," which he often repeats, is a new expression, unwarranted by scripture, not known in law, and hardly intelligible in language, and therefore wants explana­tion. We read in scripture of the Church of Antioch, of Corinth, and of Rome; and of the Churches in Asia and Judea; but we no where read of the Church of Jerusalem in Rome, or of the Church of Judea in Europe or Asia; in like manner, we hear of the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, and the Church of Scotland; but the Church of England in America is a new mode of expression: Yet by this new fangled term, the Doctor and other Missionaries affect to distinguish themselves and their follow­ers, while with an air of arrogance and superciliousness, they call other denominations of Christians, Dissenters.

We apprehend this is not a meer impropriety of speech adopted by a man who seems not to be one of the most correct writers, but a phrase artfully introduced with a sinister design.

The Doctor cannot have read so little either of civil or ecclesi­astical history, or be so very little acquainted with mankind as not to know the magic of words, and the blind devotion paid to names and sounds. The words Pope and Priest carry great re­verence with them in some countries, and terrible confusions and animosities have been raised in other countries by the words Church, Clergy, divine right, uninterrupted succession, indelible character, [Page 17]and such like undefined nonsense; we hope the like game will ne­ver be played in America.

The "national religion" is another phrase of the Doctor's, wherewith he gra [...]e peculiar tenets of his Church; with what view he uses [...] may easily guess from the privileges he has annexed [...] and the doctrine he teaches and confirms with an "indeed" concerning it. Those, says he, "who dissent from the National Religion, have, indeed, no natural right to any degree of civil or military power." (109) As the Doctor in ano­ther place declares, that "nothing has been asserted in the course of his work, but what the author believes, upon good evidence, to be true." We hope he will produce his evidence to prove this doctrine, which sounds strange in an American ear. In the mean time, we would ask him, why might not Christianity have been allowed the honour of being called the national reli­gion? Or why is Episcopacy alone honoured with that name? Is it because it is established by law in England? Is not Presbytery also established by law? And was it not established in 1707, a more enlightnened age surely than that in which Episcopacy was established at the reformation? If the one is a national church, because established in England, why not the other, because established in Scotland? But what is this to us in America? Because these forms are established in Great-Britain, must they also be established here? Many thousands fled to the wilds of America from Episcopal tyranny and persecution, and to enjoy the free exercise of religion in a way most agreeable to their conscien­ces, (and as they conceived) to scripture and reason; established colonies, formed governments, framed laws and founded Church­es; and must all these be termed dissenters, because the doctor and they differ? Or have they "no natural right to any degree of civil and military power," because they are not of the nation­al religion. That is, if we believe the Doctor, the religion which he, and "the Clergy of the several colonies (meaning the missionaries) profess?"

It is not doubted but every man who wishes to be free will, by all lawful ways in his power, oppose the establishment of any one denomination in America, the preventing which is the only means of securing their natural rights, to all those at least who may dif­fer from that denomination. The Doctor seems sensible that the opposition to these lordly prelates, will not wholly rest with those whom he terms Dissenters, that their encroachments in civil matters are disagreeable to very many who admit their authority in the Church; he therefore solemnly assures us, that "the Bish­ops" he desires, "shall not interfere with the property or privi­leges, whether civil or religious of Churchmen or Dissenters"— "that they shall only ordain and govern the Clergy, and admi­nister [Page 18]confirmation to those who shall desire it." But when he comes to explain himself farther, he cautiously intersperses the words, at "present," now," and such qualifying expressions as leave the Bishops when once established, a full liberty to revive every claim and privilege they have ever made or enjoyed. Even with regard to Tithes (105) while he is obviating objections that might be raised on account of them, he expresses himself with such cautions ambiguity, as to leave it doubtful whether he does not mean that a Bishop established in America may claim and re­cover them by the laws of England. Nay such Ideas of Gran­deur and Magnificence has the Doctor united with the word Bishop, that while he is pleading for such as he calls primitive Bishops, he hints at lordly revenues; he lets us know a committee was extra­ordinarily appointed to find out ways and means for the main­tenance and support of Bishops in America; (49) that a fund has been established for that particular purpose for more than half a century past;" that many thousand pounds have been contributed to increase this fund. (108) But, "if this stock is not sufficient for the support of a proper Episcopate in America," "should a general tax be laid on the country and thereby a sum raised sufficient for the purpose" "this would be no mighty hardship on the coun­try;" and he who would think much of paying it, deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject." (107) That here­after they may be invested with some degree of civil power worthy their acceptance. (110) In short, hints, that legislative and execu­tive powers may both be placed in their hands, (ibidem) And with all these princely revenues, with all this accession of power, what are they to do? Only to ordain and govern the Clergy? No: They are "to defend and protect both the Clergy and Laity." These things are so unlike the appearance of a primitive Bishop, that we must say, that though "at present" we hear the v [...]e of Jacob, we see and may "hereafter feel the rough and hairy hands of Esau.

One thing more I would beg to know from the Doctor; what assurances (besides his own, which are too weak to be relied on in so momentous an affair) are we to have that Bishops will be sent over with such limited powers? attempts are made upon Ameri­can liberty from a quarter where it ought not to be expected. A temper is shewn by some leading prelates even now in England, that will not suffer us to place a confidence in them. One of them at the head of the society for propogating the gospel was not ashamed to oppose a plan for the conversion of the Indians, be­cause concerted by a denomination of Christians who "followed not with him." Another of them lately attended the board of trade to prevent the grant of a charter to the Presbyterian Church in New-York.

[Page 19] But suppose these Bishops sent over with these limitted powers, is there any probability they will be content with them? can we suppose that the Clergy of a Society, which thinks itself peculi­arly entitled to national favour, and asserts itself to be so essenti­ally connected with the state, will, if once established ever give ease or peace to other Churches in America, whom they now treat as Dissenters, until they have a plenary possession of every privilege enjoyed by the Church in England by law established? With Bishops at their head, will not the cry be as loud, if they have not ecclesiastical courts, for discipline and to harrass their neighbours? A Bishop without a court, is as unparalleled as any hardship complained of? Again must not the Clergy have a main­tenance? The society for propagating the gospel is not able to provide for all that may be ordained; the Episcopal congrega­tions cannot maintain them; must they then starve in America? When in England they have a legal right to the tithes? Will not the cry at last be, nay does not the Doctor almost make it already, that they alone have a right to all places of power and profit in the colonies as well as in England and Ireland, because the most friendly to monarchy?

We hope the Doctor will explain himself fully, and resolve the doubts and queries we have here proposed. On some other occa­sion we may enter the lists and examine his divine right of diocesan Episcopacy; his unbroken succession: the connection between natural rights, and a national religion; his Doctrine of tithes; the numbers of his denomination and their unparalleled sufferings in America, &c. &c.


From Mr. GAINE'S GAZZETTE, Monday March 28.

ON Monday next will be published, in the New-York Gazette, and weekly mercury, numb. I. of a weekly paper, enti­tled, A WHIP FOR THE AMERICAN WHIG.

[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, March 28, 1768.] THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. III.]

And of some have Compassion, making a difference.

Apostle JUDE.

THE first settlers of the Northern colonies fled from the cruel persecution of the Church of England to this country, which then was an uncultivated wilderness. The Indians soon became jealous of the new settlers, and gave them all the disturb­ance in their power. But those brave sons of religion and liberty, chose rather to run the risque of the rage and malice of the In­dian [Page 20]savages, than of the perfidious and persecuting bishops. They continued to settle the country, and God, in whom they trusted, appeared for their defence, and drove out the heathens from before them.

As America is a new country, and the settlers generally poor, they are obliged to be very laborious, in order to procure a tole­rable subsistence for themselves and families. They have ever been, and still are, too much engaged in business, to get ac­quainted with the parties and controversies that continued in the mother-country, and particularly in the Church of England; especially as they hoped, that their great enemies the diocesan bishops, would be contented, since they had in effect procured them to be banished from the land of their nativity. Indeed, we could not but hope, they would have suffered us to live in peace in these remote parts of the earth; and that the vast Atlan­tic ocean would have served for a partition between us to all ge­nerations. But since it appears, that their spiritual lordships are invited to follow us, even into these distant corners of the earth, it is become necessary to consider, with some degree of attention, the parties which compose the Church of England. This is re­quisite, to shew what little regard is to be paid to those ignorant zealots, who assert that there are no parties among them, in order that due justice may be done to their respective characters; and that it may be clearly known who are the persons we intend to censure. For as there are many worthy men belonging to that communion, equally exposed with the wise and virtuous of every other denomination to the pestilent project in embryo, I mean the design of importing a cargo of Bishops, it is not our inten­tion to give them any offence.

The reformation was begun in England by Henry the VIIIth, and that from no very religious motive. Since the Pope refused to grant him liberty to marry, he assumed to himself the same su­premacy in England, which the Bishop of Rome had usurped over the Church and consciences of men. And he carried this power so exceeding high, that his subjects were forced to comply with his injunctions, or be ruined. The consequence was, that while a few embraced the reformation out of conscience, multitudes submitted merely to save their estates, and avoid persecution. Hence, when Queen Mary commanded them to return to popery, they very generally complied. Nor is there any reason to think they were, for the most part, more sincere in their re-conversion to protestantism, at the command of Queen Elizabeth. And thus the national Church of England was erected; such were the greater part of her clergy and laity.

This clearly shews us the origin of two famous parties, viz. High-Church and Low-Church, as they are termed in England. [Page 21]From the beginning of the reformation, it being effected so much by force, many who were really papists in their hearts, yielded to the times, and conformed out of self-interest. Such were al­ways strongly inclined to prevent every farther step of reforma­tion; and chose rather again, to coalesce with the Church of Rome. Such were always mighty sticklers for pomp in religious worship; for rites and ceremonies, and the uninterrupted line of succession: And such, in a word, have always been the ringlead­ers in persecuting all, who, from a principle of religion and conscience, could not adopt their measures. For having themselves no idea about tenderness of conscience, they would make no allowance for others. When the house of Stuart was called to the throne of England, and proved, as is well known by woful experience, a weak and tyrannical race of princes, who meditated utterly to destroy the liberties of the nation; the high Churchmen joined heartily with them, and endeavoured to sup­port all their measures. The Bishops and Clergy intoxicated those monarchs with the most fulsome flattery, assuring them, that as vicegerents of God, they were not accountable to men, and that subjects must obey on pain of damnation: The kings in return promoted those sycophants to great riches and dignity, and permitted them to gratify their cruel and popish spirit, by persecuting their fellow protestants. And thus they continued to ravage and de­stroy the nation, till God, in his merciful providence, put an end to their tyranny, by King William the IIId. of glorious me­mory. But have they been quiet and submissive since the happy revolution? No, they greatly disturbed the peace and comfort of that excellent prince, by many plots and conspiracies: And they had accomplished the extirpation of the national liberty in the reign of Queen Anne, had not the Almighty graciously inter­fered, and again blasted their execrable designs.

The same restless party raised rebellions in the reigns of George the first and second, and involved the nation in blood and slaugh­ter.—And who are now so earnestly desirous of having Bishops introduced into the colonies, to lord it over them? Who indeed but the High Churchmen? Many of the American Mission­aries are High Churchmen; since they cannot on any other con­sistent plan, justify their conduct in gathering Proselytes from other communions. They are the true, if not the only, descen­dants and approvers of Arch-Bishop Laud's principles and mea­sures.

The other party is that which is commonly known by the name of Low Churchmen, and may be thus characterized. They em­braced the reformation from conscience, and have always been disposed to carry it farther; lamenting the many unhappy defici­encies [Page 22]of the Church of England; the relicks of popery; and the superstitious rites and ceremonies still retained. They have ever been favourable to the protestant Dissenters; and firmly attached to the civil liberties of their country; to the revolution, and the illustrious house of Hanover; but avowed enemies to popery sla­very, and arbitrary power. These do not desire to impose dioce­san Bishops to undermine our rights and privileges. Nor do the Low Churchmen in the colonies, wish for the residence of those ecclesiastic Lords amongst us. With this part, which is the wor­thy part of the Church of England, we have no controversy. They are generally men of amiable characters; and heartily con­curred in every lawful and decent measure, in opposing the late stamp-act. They are sincere friends to their country; and pity it is, that the Missionaries do not learn moderation and candour from them; nor pay more regard to their advice and example. Then should we not be perpetually stunned with the Church is in danger, the Church is in danger; nor with the great importance and necessity of rites and ceremonies; nor the introduction of Bishops into the American plantations.—Whenever therefore, in the course of these papers, I shall say any thing respecting the Episcopal Clergy or laity, that appears harsh or invidious, I would always be understood as aiming at the High Church party, the restless and implacable enemies of our liberty civil and sacred.



Aude aliquid brevibus Gyaris & carcere dignum,
Si vis esse aliquis—

IN my last paper I took notice of some of the favourite cant words in Dr. Chandler's Appeal, &c. which he has used to amuse and impose on the public; the common practise of design­ing men, who want to raise disturbances in Church or state. Such kind of words they usually throw out to catch the unwary; the more undefined and the less understood, so much the better. Great is Diana of the Ephesians, was the watch-word given, when Demetrius and his fellow-crastsmen threw the whole city of Ephesus into an uproar. Dr. Demetrius honestly told his fellow-tradesmen, that by the preaching of St Paul their then Crast, and consequently their wealth, was in danger. Whatever weight this argument might have with them, he knew it would not have the same with the populace; therefore it was necessary to tell them that the temple of the great Goddess Diana and her image, were [Page 23]in danger of being despised. This was sufficient to alarm the people and to raise their spirits and inflame their passions, the cry was put into their mouths; great is Diana of the Ephesians, High-Church forever. It requires but very little reading to know how often and how successfully the same art has been practised since. The Church, the Church is in danger, was a notable cry, at a never-to-be-forgotten period of the English history, when the very persons who raised it and kept it up, were labouring to introduce Popery, the pretender, and arbitrary power; and had not God in his providence blasted their wicked designs, and opened the way for the accession of the present royal family, before they had brought their schemes to bear, the consequences might have been ruinous to the nation.

The people had been taught from their infancy to revere the Church without knowing what is meant; they were told by their spiritual Guides that it was in danger, without being informed from whence the danger arose. Thus their fears were awakened, their passions inflamed and directed against the friends of liberty, religion, and their country. In short such men as Tillotson, Tennisson, Hoadly, Burnet, the shining Lights and greatest or­naments of their own Church, were vilely misrepresented as betrayers of the same.

Let us now see in what manner Dr. Chandler endeavours to raise a clamour in America. throughout his whole appeal, he takes it for granted that the Episcopalians are the American Church, and that his associates the missionaries are the Clergy: all other denominations of Christians be treats as Dissenters, Schismatics, and Sectaries; and to their pastors and public teachers he hardly deigns to allow the name of ministers; their Or­dination, he says, is at least irregular and defective, but in his judg­ment null and void, and of consequence they are no ministers of Christ; for says he, it is as great an absurdity to preach without being properly sent, as to believe in him of whom they have never heard—The cry is then raised the American Church is in Dan­ger, its sufferings are unparalleled, it is perishing for want of com­mon necessaries, (99) its oppression is such as to deserve the com­passion of the whole Christian world, (114) "it is ready to expire, and nothing but its ruin is foreseen, unless Bishops be sent spee­dily" (113)

The Clergy, a word of deep import, and used to purpose in sounding the trumpet of sedition; the Clergy of several colonies have taken the alarm, and applied to our ‘Superiors for aid and assistance in this dangerous Crisis:’ Who these Superiors are, he does not tell us, but doubtless they are the same on whom he calls for an establishment of Episcopacy, namely the British Nation (87) and the Guardians of its Interests, (114) those [Page 24]who are entrusted with the Interests of the Nation, &c. (113) in short, notwithstanding the Doctor's studied ambiguity, this appli­cation must be ultimately intended for the parliament of Great-Britain: And to rouse the passions of the British Nation, and inflame their Jealously, already too much raised by the enemies of America, he strongly insinuates, that the state is not safe un­less Episcopacy be established in America; and attempts to raise suspicions of disloyalty against all other denominations of Christi­ans. No Trumpet of sedition, says he, was ever heard to sound from our Pulpits; no seeds of disaffection have been suf­fered more privately to be sown in our houses.(a) Our re­ligion is a security to the government for our honouring the King, and not meddling with them that are given to change, (41)(b) it may be reasonably expected from those in authority, that they will support and assist the Church in America, if from no other reason, yet from a regard to the state; (115) nay in another place (113) he asserts, that monarchy cannot subsist without episcopacy; so that in his next appeal we may expect to hear the old cry "no Bishop no King," revived. But as if this was not sufficient to alarm the fears of the nation, the Doc­tor endeavours to persuade, that his Church is the Church of Eng­land by law established, that they are essentially the same; that both must subsist or perish by the same means; and that therefore unless Episcopacy is established in America, the Church in the mother country will be ruined; (113) and to confound the Ideas in the minds of the populace, the term Church of England in America is used, just as the favourers of popery use the phrase Church of Rome in England, in Ireland and in France, to give a colour and lay a foundation for the claims and usurpations of the pope in those countries.

[Page 25] Let us now enquire who are the Cergy of the several colonies, who have made this application. I believe that no man will sus­pect that the ministers of either the Baptist, Congregational, Conso­ciated, Calvinist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Quaker congrega­tions are concerned in such an application: and if I am well in­formed (and I believe I am) not one of the Clergy of any deno­mination to the Southward of Pennsylvania had any hand in it. The missionaries only therefore seem to be the Doctor's Clergy. Though their knowledge of the civil rights of mankind, and pro­found erudition may not be disputed, yet their rank in life at pre­sent is not very high; for this reason probably the Doctor thought it necessary, in order to give some weight and importance to the application, to dignify them with the title of the "Clergy, of the several colonies." By acts like these, men of low original have been exalted into high stations, and thereby enabled to distress persons more worthy than themselves; thus the Cardinals rose to the high rank they now hold in the Church of Rome.

As these missionaries assume of late an air of importance, I may be indulged while I endeavour to explain their rise and the nature of their mission.

Our Forefathers harrassed by spiritual Courts and the Power of the lordly prelates (which in opposition to the Doctor I will venture to assert, and if he pleases will undertake to prove, has always been strained too high, when the times would admit) being likewise denied the privilege of peaceably worshipping God in a way the most agreeable to their consciences, at last wearied out with persecution, resolved to leave their native country, and seek shelter in the wilds of America. The power of the Church of England by law established, they imagined was confined to England; and for this opinion they had reason, and the authority of some of the greatest lawyers; having therefore crossed the Atlantic, they thought themselves secure from the oppressive tyranny of any proud Eccesiasticks.

What hardships they endured in forming their settlements, are not to be described, hardly to be conceived! However amidst these distresses their spirits were supported with the enjoyment of their civil and religious liberties, and the hopes of transmit­ting them to posterity.

No sooner was the country settled, towns built and prospects of peace and plenty opening to their view, than those prelates from whose power and persecution they had fled, began to envy them their liberty, and to lay plans and concert measures to bring them again under the yoke of bondage. To prepare the way, a society is formed under the specious pretence of propagating Christianity in foreign parts; a fund is established for defraying the expences, and pious well disposed persons are desired to con­tribute to this fund.

[Page 26] For every proposal, there may be assigned a specious reason and a true reason; the specious reason here alledged was the con­version of the Indians in America; this being cried up, capti­vated many and procured large donations from people of all de­nominations. The true but latent reason, as it seems, was to prepare the way for Episcopal dominion; hence it came to pass that tho' many missionaries were sent to America, with salaries paid them out of the money subscribed for converting heathens to Christianity, not more than two or three (just enough to talk of and keep up the pretence) were ever set among the Indians, the rest were chiefly employed in New-England, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, and settled in the cities and larger towns and villages, in which the regular public worship of God had been long before duly kept up and a ministry maintained.(a) These missionaries to magnify their office and shew the success of their mission, transmit regularly to the society, journals of their proceedings stuffed with accounts of the conversion of Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, &c. not to Christianity, but to Episco­pacy. This calls to my mind the bishop of St. Asaph's Sermon before the society who speaking of the Popish missionaries, says, ‘Their missions do not seem to be managed with an Apostolic Simplicity. They settle themselves in nations that are Christi­ans already and have been so from the beginning; and under the pretence of converting the infidels that are among them, their chief business seems to be to pervert Christians from their ancient faith; and to draw them over to a subjection to the Pope; the want of which subjection, they think the great­est error they find among them, and which they zealously en­deavour to eradicate, whilst the Infidels are very sparingly (if ever) applied to by them’—How applicable is this to the conduct of the society! Mutato Nomine de te Fabula narratur.

In the latter end of Queen Ann's reign a violent push was made to establish Episcopacy in America by act of parliament, and to get Bishops sent over whose power and authority might influence [Page 27]or over awe the people there, and prepare them for what was me­ditating in England; these Bishops were to have power ‘to pro­tect and defend both Clergy and Laity.’ (50) The demise of the Queen and the accession of the Hanover family blasted their hopes, whereupon the American Episcopate was dropt; and the colonies left to the enjoyment of their civil and religious privileges, till this time of danger and distress, which these restless ambitious men have again seized as their most favourable opportunity— Notwithstanding this disappointment the missionaries have been kept up, and their numbers enlarged to the utmost Ability of the society; but of late they have considerably diminished their sala­ries. Whether this arises from a failure in their funds, occasioned by some attempts that have been made to explain the manner in which the society have perverted the design of their institution, and misapplied the monies committed to their care; or whether it arises from the exaggerated accounts sent over by the missiona­ries of the numbers by them converted, who if the case had been so would undoubtedly have been able to have supported their mi­nisters as is done by the people of all other denominations;) or from whatever cause it proceeds, such is the disagreeable situation of their affairs; and this seems greatly to alarm the missionaries and make them struggle hard for a maintenance from other soci­eties. For notwithstanding (if the Doctor is to be believed) there are a million of souls belonging to their Church, yet he confesses ‘that they have no prospect, but must still depend in a great measure upon the charity of their benefactors, until God shall either enable or dispose their friends in this country to do more for them.’ (107) With Bishops at their head, their forces will be better united and their attempts to have this "more" done for them, will probably be attended with greater success: then to be sure will be the time to try for a general tax for the support of the Bishops and Clergy, which last ‘now depend on the charity of their benefactors at home,’ and should they be able to carry their point and ‘a general tax be laid on the coun­try, and thereby a sum raised sufficient for the purpose’ the Doctor peremptorily declares ‘that he that could think much to pay it, deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject or member of society.’ (108) This he modestly de­mands only for the Bishops at present, but leaves room to think he desires to have the missionaries included, as he has the re­markable expression, for any use. I dare say if the Doctor should live to see that time, he would have no scruple to excommunicate such a person as his predecessors in the unbroken line have fre­quently done in like cases.

The Doctor seems sensible, that the present crisis of public af­fairs is favourable; when a powerful party at home is formed [Page 28]against America, and therefore he presses the establishment of an American Episcopate with all possible speed; and no doubt it is to encourage the attempt that he exaggerates the numbers of his par­ty, and would persuade his superiors in England, that it is desired by near a million in America, a deception so barefaced, that if his appea had been designed only for the people of America, it would need no refutation.


[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, April 4, 1768.] Remarks on the Title, of a Whip for the American Whig.

Mr. PARKER. Please to insert the following in your next, and you'll oblige a Friend.

ON reading in the New-York Mercury, an advertisement of a weekly paper to be published, under the title of A Whip for the American Whig; I could not help falling into a train of se­rious reflections, on the persecuting genius that inspires the high flying Tory-party, in the Episcopal Church: To this day, inhu­man severity has mark'd their character; and for aught I see, it is so deeply radicated in their very constitution, that they will not cease to be savages, till they cease to exist, without passing through some wonderful metamorphosis. You are warned of your fate a whole week before the scene is opened. Sentence is passed, it will certainly be executed. The poor Whig must undergo the disci­pline of the Whip. This, Sir, is but a prelude of what you may look for; you, are yet to be chastised only with whips; but de­pend upon it, when the apostolical monarchs are come over, and well established in their American dominions, you, and such as you, will be chastised with scorpions. But this is not all; the bellum episcopale, will doubtless be declared with every circum­stance of awful pomp; and this extensive continent may soon be alarmed with the thund'ring signal, the sword of the lord, and of the Bishop. Then, O dreadful! The torrent of episcopal vengeance! Then all who will not be so senseless as to adore the mitre and surplice, and dedicate both their consciences and purses to his episcopal Majesty, may lay their account with— With what? With something, I will not yet particularly name, but what one may easily discover, by turning over a Church history or two. This may be the fate of many, unless indulgent heaven interpose, by not suffering the right reverend and holy ty­rants, to plunge their spiritual swords in the souls of their fellow creatures; or, if this is permitted, by determining the secular powers, not to suffer their anathemas to be executed to the ut­most limits of their severity. I know what I am saying, Ameri­cans shall feel the truth of what I have now surmised, at least, in part, if they do not now bestir themselves, and unite as one man, [Page 29]to oppose the erection of spiritual monarchies, with all the hero­ism they would display in opposing a formidable army of dons and monsieurs.

It seems the Whipper is not of opinion that the almost unparal­leled hardships, which the ancestors of many of us suffered, un­der the most absolute tyranny of the spiritual lords in the last cen­tury, do not constitute a sufficient reason for our being alarmed at the present conjuncture. It seems his soul within him is in agony, when he reflects, that such of them as escaped the episco­pal sword, sound an asylum in the wilds of America, among In­dians and rattle-snakes, more hospitable to them than Bishops, and their devoted creatures, the curates; and when he takes a view of their posterity peaceably enjoying the repose that was purchased by unexampled industry and fatigue. It seems I say, this is the real temper of this episcopal zealot; else why is he of­fended at us, and threatens us with the Whip, when we complain that the prelatical Clergy (for I dare say the people in communion with them, do not desire the woful day) are incessantly labouring to bring over the Atlantic, men of the same office and stamp, with those blood suckers, who obliged our ancestors to abandon their native land, and leave behind them what is the very heaven of persecutors, and temporising conformists.

I intend to lay before the public, a tragical history of the cru­elty of British Bishops, since the reformation which, I am per­suaded will alarm, not only those who are called dissenters, but every person in communion with the episcopal Church, who is not so hardened as to be unsusceptible of every human and Christi­an impression.

Mean while, I cannot help smiling at the cringing submission of the complete gentleman, who has undertaken the office of a Whip­per, a high flying Tory so humbled! One, who no doubt expects to be elevated one day or other, to a deanary, perhaps to the episcopal throne, now brought so low as to stand at a Whipping-Post, and belabour the posteriors of a poor Whig; I wish he would take care of the consequence. After this, I hope I shall have the pleasure to find every one who is found to be an accessary to the Whipper, or who favours his paper, to be laugh'd at in the streets, and in every corner to meet with the salute, your humble servant Mr. Whipper.

[Page 30]

[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, Monday, April 4.]


To the Author of the American Whig. SIR,

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.

An American Churchman. W.


THE violent clap of thunder wherewith this city had for a week before been daily threatened, was last Monday morn­ing at about six minutes after ten (attended with a great snow storm, and some rain,) impetuously discharged from our American Vatican, having been, after great consultation, agreed to be hurl­ed, by the coruscatious arm of Mr. Secretary Seabury: but very fortunately for man, beast, and buildings, the bolt wanting an es­sential quality to do execution, we cannot learn that any creature, rational, animal, or material, hath received the least damage from the explosion. With respect to the American Whig, for whom this nitra-sulphureous fulmination was expresly fabricated, and at whose pericardium it was point-blank levelled, it hath not so much as singed a single thread of his garments. The reverend secre­tary begins with solemnly affirming, that the convention have ne­ver made any injurious reflections upon the other denominations, by representing them either as seditious incendiaries, or as disaffected to the king and government. This affirmation happens unfortu­nately to respect a matter of fact which it is impossible for him to know: For the convention being no corporation, they do not want any of his instrumentality to authenticate their acts. He can therefore only declare this on the poor, simple, "I am told," which is not worth one farthing more than the poor, simple, "we are told," of the American Whig; with which he is nevertheless in so violent a taking. After having delivered this part of his [Page 35]testimony, which is nothing to the purpose, he proceeds in the fol­lowing elegant and dispassionate language. ‘I do moreover af­firm and declare, that this Assertion of the American Whig, is absolutely, utterly, and intirely false, and groundless. And I hereby call upon him in this open Manner both as a member of, and a Secretary to the Convention, publickly to produce the Au­thority upon which he has asserted so infamous a Falsehood. In this Case the most positive Proof is insisted on, nor will the re­spectable Public be put off with a poor, simple, "we are told," which is nothing to the purpose.’

‘Should any Person think that I do not treat this Writer with proper Respect, let him turn to the last Paragraph of the Ame­rican Whig, No. I. where Dr. Chandler and the Convention, (Gentlemen at least as reputable as himself) are in Fact accused of the grossest Falsehood and Deceit, in pretending to ask for a Bishop only upon the Plan proposed in the Appeal, while it is, not the primitive Christian Bishop they want," but, &c. Such a Piece of Effrontery and Malice, I think, deserves, and would justify worse Treatment than a Regard to my own Character would suffer me to give him.’ Before I give any direct answer to the charge brought against me I must in my turn complain of an injury little inferior to that about which he makes so tremen­dous an outcry. It appears evident, by his saying, that Doctor Chandler, and the Convention were gentlemen at least as respecta­ble as myself, that he is acquainted with my personal character; and yet he has had the assurance to assert, that I am both Secretary and a member of the Convention, which he knows in his own con­science, (to use his own tautological epithets) to be absolutely, ut­terly, and intirely false, and groundless. For I do affirm and de­clare, that I never was either the one or the other; and I take it extremely unkind, to be placed pending the law-suit between the Convention and the Public, amongst such unpopular company. As to the remainder of this most delicate composition, I would ob­serve, that our Secretary did not consider, (and indeed who in such a flustratious ferment could be capable of any consideration) that the respectable Public, before whom the cause is now at issue, is intitled to the highest proof of which the nature of the thing will admit. They will therefore not be satisfied with the bare verbum sacerdotis, while such superior evidence remains in his own possession. The proof which they have a right to expect is, that he forthwith publish true copies of all the petitions, that were written and sent on that occasion, noting what was in the origi­nal drafts, and struck out by a few moderate members of the Con­vention, (for luckily for the colonies a few such there happened to be, or no mortal can tell of what we should not have been accused) and that such publications be declared to be true copies, upon [Page 36]oath. When this is done, the American Whig will have the plea­sure of surprising him with a secret he little suspects. In the mean time, I would advise him to lift up hands without wrath, as well as without doubting; though I should not have the least ob­jection against instantly suffering the execution of his menaces, did I not flatter myself, that my life is of some moment to the Public, while I am engaged in exerting my endeavours to avert the terri­ble curse of an American Episcopate. This being accomplished, the Secretary, or any of his brethren, the disciples and ministers of the gospel of peace, may use what violence they please, and put me to death in their own way and manner; as I should really expect to die with vastly greater cheerfulness and serenity, on be­ing able to reflect, that I had, in any degree been instrumental in defeating so portentous a project. Relative to my saying, that I do not believe Doctor Chandler and the Convention want a pri­mitive Bishop; I have hitherto seen no reason for repentance, but on the contrary, Know all men by these presents, that I do hereby declare and affirm, that I do not, nor ever shall, believe any thing like it; it being absolutely, utterly, and intirely incredible, that they should be so excessively ignorant, as not to know the impossi­bility of the thing. For that it is altogether impossible (I should say absolutely, utterly, and intirely impossible) I shall abundantly shew, in some succeeding numbers of the American Whig, to their ex­treme mortification, and the full satisfaction of the Public; and if this my incredulity is to be termed effrontery and malice, this Ec­clesiastical Secretary deserves to be told, that he has involved forty nine fiftieths of the whole province in the same anathematical pre­dicament.


A Letter to the AMERICAN WHIG.

Leave off Contention before it be meddled with.


I Observe you have vigorously undertaken a controversy with Doctor Ch—r. Now in all controversie, or dispute, a good Christian, who is deeply sensible that he must give an account of every idle word, will singly aim at nothing but the truth and right of the case: But this, (by the manner of your beginning,) does not seem to me, (a By-stander,) to be what you aim at, but rather to beget in your readers, all the odium you can against the Doctor, his cause, and his friends. A good cause does not need such a method of proceeding. It is certain that the Doctor has pleaded his cause in a calm, serious, and candid manner, and as it becomes a Christian. What the world expects therefore, is, that you should in the same manner undertake to answer him, and say no­thing, and attend to nothing, but the real merits of the cause. [Page 37]The only question of much importance, relates to the rights of conscience, and the liberty every man ought to have, to think and act for himself, in matters of religion.—It is this, whether the Church hath not a right to enjoy the whole of its own constitution, as well as its neighbours? And since this is not the fact in this coun­try, whether we have not an undoubted right, and whether it is not most reasonable, that, at this distance, we should be peaceably allowed, (even by a Whig) to enjoy our own Episcopal form of government, as well as our neighbours their Presbyterian form? Every thing foreign to this, is quite beside the question.—Pray, therefore, Mr. Whig, attend only to this point, and let us see fair play.

Whether right or wrong, is not now the question, nor is it to be decided by ridicule, but by sober reason; and I hope Mr. Whig, (as it does not become you,) you are not so uncharitable as to think, but that we may be as conscientiously persuaded of our Epis­copal form, as our neighbours of their Presbyterian. We do so­lemnly declare, that we are; nor can you be more conscientious in your way, than we in ours; tell us, then, why we ought not to enjoy ours, as well as you yours? We seriously declare, we do not envy you yours; why then, in the name of all that is good, should you be so bitterly set against our enjoying ours? Is not liberty our right as well as your's?

You affectedly cry out, with dreadful terror, of the danger of Ecclesiastical tyranny: But pray Mr. Whig be sober; you fear, where no fear is; there is no danger; you can't, (and you know you can't) be more averse to tyranny, in any shape, than we are. And besides, you know we ask for no Episcopate that can have any concern with you; nor do we desire any. We only desire such a happy state for us both, as shall issue in this, that Ephraim may have no temptation to envy Judah, nor Judah to vex Ephraim.

I am, Sir, your Friend, ARISTOCLES.

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE, April 4.


Think on their Rapine, Falshood, Cruelty,
And that what once they were, they still would be.

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—

Electere si nequeant Super [...]s,
Acheronta movebant.

[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—

If hap'ly should the pow'rs above,
Reject the vow that's paid them;
The pow'rs below they'll try to move,
And rouse all hell to aid them.

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.


ALTHO' I, Timothy Tickle, Esq have arguments in abun­dance, as well as facts, to vindicate the Appeal, and the cause of an American Episcopate specified therein, against whatever the American Whig can offer: Yet if any Gentlemen has any thing to communicate to the public on either of these points; or on any other that may concern the welfare of his fellow subjects, it will cheerfully be inserted in this paper; yet still reserving to myself the liberty of examining and correcting every such performance. Correspond­ents are desired to send any letters, &c. for me, to the Printer hereof.


Tantum religio suadere potuit malorum.


HAVING opened the general tendency of Dr. chandler's ap­peal, &c. I shall now proceed to make some remarks on the inconveniencies and mischiefs of religious establishments.

The Doctor, as hath been shewn, endeavours to engage "our superiors in England," "the guardians of the national interests" on his side, by endeavouring to make them believe, that without an episcopal establishment here, they must not expect due obedience from the colonies; nay that the state is not safe. It hath, at all times, been the policy of ambitious ecclesiasticks to persuade the civil magistrate, that necessity of state, and even his particular interest required him to interfere in their behalf, and invest them with dignity and power; and then he ought to oblige all persons to Church conformity, and to enforce obedience by civil disabili­ties and penalties, though such a conduct is obviously an invasion [Page 43]of the rights of mankind, and tends to disturb the public peace, which can only be effectually restored, by removing the iniquitous restraint, which introduced the mischief.*

Our blessed Lord was the only lawgiver in his Church. He expresly commands his followers to "call no man father upon earth," and adds "neither be ye called master, for one is your master, even Christ;" Math. xxiii. 9.10. words which obvi­ously mean to exclude all religous obedience, or claims to dictate to conscience on the footing of human authority; yet how com­monly have Church governors, under all establishments, assumed the place of God, and demanded a submission, as sinful, as the exercise of the power was unjust and impious. Indeed the Church of Rome, by setting up a pretended infallibility have a more speci­ous tho' false pretence to contend for uniformity.

In short, whoever peruses ecclesiastical history, ever since the time of Constantine, will find it contains little else than the follies, absurdities, frauds, rapine, pride, domination, rage, and cruelty of spiritual tyrants; who practised every artifice to per­suade, or cajole the temporal rulers to support their measures. They told them, that as the King's of Israel were bound, under that very singular kind of government, a Theo­cracy, to preserve purity in religion, so were Christian Princes obliged on pain of damnation, to root out error; even by racks and tortures, sword and fire. How ill this horrid doctrine be­came the followers of the meek and holy Jesus, who refused with indignation to call for divine judgments on the schismatical Sama­ritans, needs not at this day to be explained. Now the same spirit, which not content with the many thousands already con­tributed for the establishment of a Bishop, calls for aid from eve­ry quarter, even for a tax on all other denominations, in provin­ces where the episcopalians are not a fortieth, perhaps not a fif­tieth part of the community; the same spirit, which represents the body of the people as diaffected to government and dangerous to the state, and would disable them from holding civil offices; the same spirit that unchurches all their Christian neighbours, merely for the want of a particular form of Church govern­ment, no ways essential to Christianity; and because they make no pretensions to a certain whimsical uninterrupted suc­cession of Bishops from the Apostles, which counteracts the prin­ciples of the reformation, and can serve only to sanctify the ty­ranny of their order; this spirit would beyond all doubt, carry the abuse of ecclesiastical domination, as high as ever Laud and his brethren did, or as far as Doctor Sacheverell contended for, if the civil magistrate could but be deluded once more to lend his aid. Indeed as a great writer speaks "it requires an uncommon [Page 44]degree of grace and virtue in the clergy, not to abuse so dange­rous a power."

Thanks be to our wiser statesmen, of late spiritual power has been kept within bounds, and Dissenters in England have been suffered to worship God peaceably according to their consciences; and many of the Clergy of the establishment, with a truly Chris­tian temper, have written and preached in favour of toleration. It is evident however, that to maintain the toleration, and sup­port the rights of conscience, the government has been careful to promote in the Church, men of moderation only, and at the same time, has thought it expedient to prevent the convocation from meeting to do business for fifty years past. They fear there is still enough of the old leaven left, to work up abundance of mis­chief, whenever times shall permit; and on this account dare not hazard the least alteration in any thing established, either as to doctrine, discipline, worship or ceremony, however necessary.

Although the body of the established clergy have taken the li­berty of departing from the ancient doctrines, as set forth in the thirty-nine articles, yet they are tenacious of the words of their service book, and of every rite, mode and ceremony to the last degree. They would disturb the public peace, and set the populace, in an uproar with the old cry, The Church is in danger, if an Jota in outward form should be taken away. Rather than suffer ecclesiastical authority to be ex­plained, and regulated on a scriptural footing, they choose to let matters, however repugnant to Christianity, continue in their present state; and are deaf to the loud complaints which many good men among themselves, make of the necessity of some alter­ation. They may write Candid disquisitions, &c. and shew un­answerably wherein great amendments and improvements ought to be made in the worship of their Church, till they are tired; but the people educated in a narrow attachment to forms, and from their infancy, taught to look on every part of their own, as essential to the true worship of God, are easily led to shut their ears against every proposal of alteration, and to revile the authors as betrayers of religion: An incurable evil this, arising partly from the use of forms, but especially from the rigid manner in which governors in Church and state, almost ever since the refor­mation, have pressed uniformity.

I would not be understood to assert that the principles of the episcopal Churches tend more particularly to these abuses, than those of others; but it is the fault of human nature, which can­not bear great power with equanimity, and perhaps is most apt to abuse it in religious matters. The high rank and large revenues of the Bishops in England must tempt them, however into this error, more easily, than the leaders in Churches whose influence depends on personal qualifications only.

[Page 45] The Doctor strongly hints the need of an establishment in the colonies for the purposes of discipline, his words are ‘Churches are set up against Churches, and those who are rejected by one are received by another.’ (31) This complaint comes some­what unexpectedly from a missionary of the society: The Doctor would do well to explain which Church among us, is most re­markable for undermining the discipline of the rest by receiving, with open arms, their outcasts or deserters; how many of these are among the missionaries, I leave the Doctor to tell? On this subject I would likewise ask him, how the primitive Churches managed? They had no coercive aid from without, nor did they stand in the least need of any; yet their discipline was rather se­vere; for if a Church member had not esteemed it his honour and felicity (next to pleasing God) to stand well with his fellow-Chris­tians, his presence in their assemblies would have given them no satisfaction. Far from seeking to enlarge their society by court­ing the rich and great, or attracting the herd of nominal profes­sors into membership, by winking at their irregularities and vices, they chased out of the Church all back sliders and scandalous per­sons without reserve. At the same time the terms of communion were as large as the great head of the church had left them; unembarrassed with the trifling niceties of modern uniformity; which by fixing men's zeal on modes and ceremonies, habits and gestures, has diverted them from the weightier matters of the law, whilst forbearance, charity, and other Christian virtues have been neglected and forgotten.

Religious establishments are very hardly kept from great cor­ruption; but if the provision made for the Clergy be large, and the leaders are enabled to live in grandeur, it is not likely they should long continue pure. Ambitious worldly-minded men, who seek the fleece, not the well-being of the flock, will insinu­ate themselves into the chief offices; their example and influence will mislead or discourage others, who in better company might have been usefully employed; the industry and vigilance of the spiritual guides in the proper business of their function will be re­laxed; and that skill in their profession which practice, study, and attention alone can give, will not be attained. Secure in their salaries, they may look on it as superfluous to be further active, than just to keep up some decent appearance of duty. Thus preacher and people will indolently go to sleep, and forget the important messages and warnings of heaven, which from the intervention of earthly and present objects, are but too apt to escape our attention, under the most diligent administration of God's word. And should the evil proceed yet f [...]rther, and the Clergy, instead of being "examples to their flock," set before them patterns of irregular living, open immorality, and daring [Page 46]wickedness, will it not be readily granted that there can be no re­ligion at all among the zealots for an establishment so enormously corrupted; of which yet we want not dreadful instances in Church history, as well as our own daily observation.

But still worse than this: There is no probability of religion's being reformed under these ecclesiastical polities. Nothing less than a state convulsion effected the reformation, in most of the countries where it took place. Generally the body of the esta­blished Clergy, instead of promoting, violently opposed it, by the help of those very emoluments and advantages which had been granted for the support of religion; and in some kingdoms they succeeded: And even since that glorious period, have we not seen the like difficulties stand in the way on every occasion? Bishop Burnet very pleasant says, in some of his writings, "we ac­knowledge our Church liable to err in the general, but when you come to particulars we are always in the right." Under the spe­cious pretence of keeping out dangerous innovations and errors, no mistakes or corruptions, however hurtful or disgraceful, are allowed to be corrected. ‘One might as well say Churches and Chapels need no repair, tho' castles and houses do; whereas commonly to speak the truth, dilapidations of the inward and spiritual edifices of the Church, are in all times as great as the outward and material.* But above all, the most dreadful evil is the danger of persecution; which worldly minded men to gratify their own pride and lust of power, are forward on pro­per occasions to practise; and which weak men with better inten­tions, are too apt to be led into. We too readily think ourselves secure from error, if we have the wise, the powerful, and the many, in our opinions. Those who differ from us we conclude must be obstinate and perverse; and are without much difficulty brought to look on it, as an act of charity as well as duty, to ad­minister some wholesome restraints and severities to such manifest heretics. Thus is the pride of supposed right opinion nourished under establishments, till from one step to another in the practice of hardships on dissenters, we easily proceed to inquisitions, tor­tures, and death. For if penalties can be justified in religious mat­ters, perhaps the most violent may be the most merciful, as well as effectual. "Imprisonments, fines, and whipping, serve only to irritate the sects, without disabling them from resistance; but the wheel, the gibbet and the stake must soon root out, or banish, all non-conformists."

Such are some of the mischiefs which spring from the civil power's meddling with religion. Beware! O beware then my countrymen, of [Page 47]countenancing this mistake! Your fore-fathers and predecessors fled from the tyranny of religious establishments; and do you resolve "to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." let not "cunning crafty men, who lie in wait to deceive," § persuade you there are any other terms of salvation, besides faith and re­pentance, much less lead you to think modes of discipline are to be accounted essentials. If "all things be done decently and in order" among you, but especially "if they be done to edification," you want neither an unbroken succession, nor an indelible character in your pastors and teachers. You should have virtue enough to treat them with reverence whilst they deserve it, but so much discretion at the same time, as to keep any order whatever, "from lording it over God's heritage."

Dr. Warburton, the present bishop of Gloucester, although strenuous for civil establishments in religion, concedes that no such institution can be useful, unless it includes the major part of the people. On this footing, who with any good face can claim it in Pennsylvania? surely not the missionaries; tho' it is one of the "unparralleled hardships" which the doctor says "demands speedy relief." But this will be more strikingly apparent when the Doctor's monstrous exaggerations of the number of their fol­lowers comes to be considered on some future occasion.


From the NEW-YORK JOURNAL, Thursday, April 7.


I Was pleased to see by your Advertisement in last Thurs­day's New-York Journal, that you intend to republish in your Paper, the Pieces sign'd An American Whig, together with the Answers, and the best Pieces that come out in the other Papers upon the Subject of that Controversy, on both Sides of the Question. The Exhibition of the Arguments on both Sides in the same Paper, is certainly the most likely Means to enable the Reader to form a just and equitable Judgment;—and if we must needs be forced into this religious Controversy, your Propo­sal bids the fairest for deciding it according to Truth and Justice. But at the same Time, as a hearty Friend to the British Colonies, I cannot but express my Concern, that this Controversy should have been begun at such a Time as this,—when the united Ef­forts [Page 48]of all the Colonies are so necessary for the preservation of their Constitutional Rights and Liberties.

The Introduction of such a Dispute at this Time, I conceive to be in many Respects extremely injudicious,—as it will tend to take off the public Attention from the Main Chance, to disunite, and set us to quarreling among our selves, and give our Enemies an Advantage over us: Beside the Time is quite improper for the Discussion of the Subject;—When our Minds are in a State of anxious Concern,—whether we are henceforth to con­sider ourselves as having any other Relation to Great-Britain but as being her Slaves,—whether we have any Part or Lot in her beloved Constitution and the Rights of Nature—which have al­ways been our Boast and our Glory;—whether we are a Nation of generous Freemen, or of abject despicable Slaves?—In such a State of dread Suspence, can our Minds be in a proper Frame for determining the subtil Disputes between Arminians and Calvi­nists, Church Men and Presbyterians? These Matters have of themselves been often found sufficient to set whole Kingdoms in a Flame, and shall we needlessly kindle the Fire of Contention among ourselves, when our dearest Interests are in Danger, from false Friends within, and open Enemies without?

Can we think the Designs of this Author of Dissention, this Sower of Discord among us, are friendly to the English Consti­tution and Government, or the Rights of these Colonies? When these were in the most imminent Danger of being overturned and torne from us by the Stamp-Act, did this Author, or his Party stir a Finger to prevent it? Or have they done any Thing since, in Favour of the English Constitution and American Rights, tho' these have been repeatedly attack'd, by the Acts, for Billeting Soldiers,—for imposing Duties, &c? On the Contrary, has not this Attempt of the American Whig to disunite us, a manifest Tendency to bring upon us all the Evils that threaten us, and reduce us to a State of general Confusion? And is it not, from a careful Review of every Circumstance, at least highly probable, that he and his Party would rejoice in a Disunion between Great-Britain and her Colonies, and would be among the first to change a Monarchical for a Republican Government? Which may Heaven avert!

[Page 49]



Suffer me through the channel of thy paper, to offer a word of expostulation to the Revd. Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, the Society's Missionary at Elizabeth-Town, on his late Publi­cation.—Thine,


To the Reverend Dr. CHANDLER.

Rev. Friend,

THE seeming candour with which thou hast thought proper to usher thy performance into the world, induced me to give it a serious reading, in hopes therein to find somewhat tend­ing to edification. But how great was my mistake when, on pe­rusing the first section, I sound thee warmly reviving the old con­troversy concerning uninterrupted succession, and torturing thy invention to produce arguments in support of an opinion which the wisest people of thine own order have long given up as in­supportable.

This queer part in thy creed, however, I was willing to attri­bute to the prejudices of thy education, and the close trammels in which thy conformity to Church discipline obliged thee to move. Accordingly I continued to read on—but greater still was my concern on hearing thee assert roundly that the offices of ordination and confirmation were solely vested in Bishops, hereby deriving an argument in favour of an American episcopate.

Here I paused, and reflected on the good character which thou hast obtained with the world.—I knew it had been said that thou wert expert in all things touching the Church, which compelled me to believe mine own information was very imperfect, being so widely different from thine.

Thou wilt probably conclude from my mode of expression that I am of the society called Quakers—If so, thou art greatly mistaken—For, tho' I agree with those good people in some things, wherein they approach the simplicity of the primitive times, yet it is in those and those only.

Ordination and confirmation are with me indispensable rites, and however overlooked by the superficial, bear the seals of the Gospel. Yet am I constrained to differ from thee in thy partial representation of these things. Surely thou hast forgot thy Bible, else hast thou wilfully prevaricated. For thus speaks St. Paul to Bishop Timothy—"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. 1st Epist. to Tim. chap. iv. ver. 14.

And first as to ordination, if we look into an impartial account [Page 50]given of the next centuries after CHRIST, by chancellor King, we shall be convinced from many quotations which he produces, that a Presbyter could perform all the Duties of a Bishop. Let us take the following, which he gives us from St. Cyprian. In his epistle to his own Clergy, he exhorts them, "to discharge their own and his office too, that so nothing might be wanting either to discipline or diligence."—Now dost thou think, Doctor, that the Bishop, who must be supposed to know his own consequence. would have made so free with his office, as to commit the care of it to men who, (if it had been so) he must have been apprised, could not possibly discharge it. No, no Doctor, the supposition is in itself absurd, and that Presbyters could and did ordain, we are assured from the usage of the synods of Alexandria, who al­ways ordained their own Bishops.

I believe it is a point settled on all hands, that the ceremony of confirmation in early times, was performed immediately after Baptism, and as it is well known that Presbyters did Baptize, so it may reasonably be inferred that they confirmed likewise. To save thee the trouble of turning to the book, in which employ­ment thou will probably be dust thy fingers (it being a huge folio) I will transcribe a passage from Tertullian, in proof of my asser­tion, just as I find it quoted in Peter King's volume. ‘As soon as we come out of the baptismal laver, (says Tertullian.) we are anointed, and then are we confirmed.’ But now a­days, says that arch wag who styles himself a dissenting gentle­man) as if there were some superior sacredness in the Bishop's than in the priest's hands, this act is, by the authority of the Church, confined to the Bishop.

Absolution and Confirmation have often been proved to be one and the same ceremony. The intention of both was the confer­ring of the Holy Ghost, and as Presbyters were gifted with the powers of absolution, it seems inconsistent to deny them the pri­vilege of bestowing the grace of GOD at one time, [...] could so freely impart it at another—And now having given thee my sentiments in few words, let me request thee, in the spi­rit of charity, to desist from religious altercations; for by the time thy head is as grey as mine, thou wilt conclude with me, that they favour strongly of pride—For as the good popish poet saith,

For modes of faith, let graceless zealots fight,
His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right;
In faith and hope the world will disagree.
But all mankind's concern is Charity.
Thy Friend in all things honest, PROBITAS.
[Page 51]

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

WHAT the deuce is the matter? What daemon of late,
Has awaken'd the fury of strife and debate?
Ho! ye Sons of contention, pray whither so fast?
Don't ye know that—"a cobler should stick to his las [...]?"
Then why, ye p [...]rt Whigs, ye dull Centinels, why
Do ye fly in a passion and make such a cry
About Church-men and Bishops; why make such a-do
About other mens matters? What is it to you
Whether Bishops are sent us or not? If we choose
To request such a favour must you fill the news
With invectives and scandal? Perhaps you may find
That, shou'd we condescend to repay you in kind,
There's enough to be said in reply to your spleen;
But in such dirty work we disdain to be seen.
Yet occasion may happen to call for a sprig
Not of laurel, but birch, for a libelling Whig.
When a SEABURY therefore stands forth, as the friend
Of sinceriry, honour and truth, to defend
The Convention from slander and groundless abuse,
Take the hint, Mr. Whig, you may find it of use;
It may serve to convince you, we're not quite so tame
As not to repel an attack on our same,
But that when you assert what is false, we'll reply
To your malice, and prove your assertion a lie.
But observe—this is no indiscriminate charge
Brought at rand [...]m against a profession at large:
For, of every sect, there are many who merit
The praise of a generous catholic spirit,
Of [...]robity, candour and truth; and we deem
[...] a character worthy our love and esteem,
Notwithstanding we find it, as often we may,
Among those whom we judge to be sheep led astray.
So that if in the present debate you shou'd find
We reply with some warmth, do, for once, be so kind,
Ye grave Centinels, Whigs, and all other abettors,
Of the scurrilous writers of scandalous letters,
Once for all, be assur'd what we tell you is true,
It is not at Dissenters, as such, but at you,
At you only we level our aim, and determine
No such insolent, meddling, anonymous vermin
Shall be suffered among us to sculk, with impunity,
To disturb our repose, and infest the community
[Page 52] By sowing the seeds of dissention and strife
Among those who wou'd fain lead a peaceable life.
Not that we would debar you the use of the quill;
Only stick to the truth, and then scribble your fill.
But alas! in that case, you'll have nothing to say;
For, in truth, 'tis as clear as the Sun at noon-day,
That the Church's request for a Bishop or two,
And whether she gets them or not, is to you
And all other Dissenters, a matter in which
You have no more concernment, than whether my Bitch
Be a New-found-land Spaniel (and here—to be plain—
She comes in for the ryhme) or a pointer from Spain.
Thus you see all the clamour you're making is founded
In falshood at last, and the spleen of a Roundhead.

From Mr. GAINE's GAZETTE, April 11.


In Friendship false, implacable in Hate,
Resolv'd to ruin or to rule the State.

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—

For Rhetoric, he could not ope
His Mouth, but out there flew a Trope.

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.


WHEREAS a paper appeared in the last New-York Post-Boy, raving about Whippers, Tories, Whigs, Bishops, con­sequences, right reverend Majesty, holy tyrants, apostolical mo­narch, mitres, surplices, anathemas, dons, monsieurs, prelatical Clergy, Atlantic, blood-suckers, &c. &c. &c. Know therefore all men of sense, candour, and honesty, that such unintelligible Jargon, shall not only for the present, but for ever hereafter, be passed over, by me, with that contempt and silence which it de­serves; and that I shall leave the truly meek-spirited author, and all others who may be accessary to the Whig, to enjoy what train of serious reflections they please, in such a manner as may best agree with their pious dispositions, without being afraid of any consequences which their weak heads, or bad hearts, may vainly imagine that I or any other person may feel, from such decent, judicious, candid, and cleanly performances.

[Page 57]

[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, Monday, April 11.]


Lo! swarming o'er the new discover'd World
Gay Colonies extend; the calm Retreat
Of undeserv'd Distress —
—Bound by social Freedom, firm they rise;
Of Britain's Empire the Support and Strength.

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 author of the American Whig, was confident from the goodness of his cause, that he should soon drive his adversa­rives out of the fair field of battle, and reduce them to vent their disappointed malice, in the impotent ammunition of scandal and misrepresentation; but he did not flatter himself, that they would sneak behind their intrenchments so early, as he finds by the let­ter in Holt's last paper, signed, a Son of Liberty. Could that artless Tory have given any better proof of his regard to the thing, than by the unwarrantable liberty he has taken of counterfeiting the name, he would instead of censuring, have applauded the de­fence of the religious liberties of his country. My paper for this day, which was in the hands of the Printer before his letter came out, is of itself a sufficient refutation of the insinuations of this scrib­bler. If the discussion of an American Episcopate is at this junc­ture unseasonable, why, but because he was a zealot for the per­nicious project I oppose, and am determined with thousands and ten thousands of Americans to oppose, did not he point his little pistol (as in justice he ought to have done) at the original aggres­sor? or can he be ignorant that Doctor Chandler unmasked his battery, and began his assault so long ago as last autumn? Having thus detected a foe, under the cloak of a Son of Liberty, let the public beware of every writer, who while he affects a zeal for our civil liberties, will not declare his abhorrence of ecclesiastical ty­ranny, which is by so much worse than every other species of tyran­ny, as our religious, are preferable to our temporal interests. The virtuous son of liberty will vindicate both; and I doubt not that in a few months more, the whole continent will agree, that he who contends only for the one, is not entitled to either.

[Page 63]



Tantaene animis caelestibus Irae.


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.

[Page 67]

Extract from the Letter of the House of Representatives of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, to Dennis De Berdt, Esq their Agent in London, dated Boston, January 12, 1768.

THE establishment of a protestant episcopate in America is also very zealously contended for: And it is very alarming to a people whose fathers, from the hardships they suffered under such an establishment, were obliged to fly their native country into a wilderness, in order peaceably to enjoy their privileges, civil and religious: Their being threatened with the loss of both at once, must throw them into a very disagreeable situation. We hope in God such an establishment will never take place in Ame­rica, and we desire you would strenuously oppose it. The reve­nue raised in America for ought we can tell, may be as constituti­onally applied towards the support of prelacy as of soldiers and pensioners: If the property of the subject is taken from him with­out his consent, it is immaterial, whether it be done by one man or five hundred; or whether it be applied for the support of ec­clesiastic or military power, or both. It may be well worth the consideration of the best politician in Great-Britain or America, what the nat [...] tendency is of a vigorous pursuit of these mea­sures.


There is a Serpent that wants Teeth, and consequently cannot bite; but if its vomit (to which it is much addicted) happens to fall upon any Thing, a certain Rottenness or Corruption, ensues.


HAVING gently corrected the American Whig, for the Licentiousness of his Pen in his first Rhapsody, I shall now proceed, in Course, to animadvert upon No. II. of this weekly Effusion, alias, Introduction the Second by a different Hand, having taken it into my Head to be more liberal for this Time, than I intended, or such a Publication deserves; refering those who are desirous to be informed wherein personal Identity consists, to a Chapter on that Subject in Mr. Look's Essay concerning human Understanding.

Our Whig introduces this Introduction with two stiff clumsy Paragraphs upon the Subject of Liberty; the whole Meaning of which, so far as they have any Meaning, may be much more clearly and fully expressed in these two short Sentences, reduced to plain English: ‘Liberty is a very good thing.— [Page 68]and Men ought to be careful to preserve so good a Thing as Liberty.’ I dare say he had not a single Idea which is not fully expressed in these two Propositions. What Occasion then was there for all this round about pedantic Harangue, upon so plain and familiar a Subject?

I am at a Loss to discover, what could have been the primary and immediate View of this Writer, in obscuring these plain and honest Truths, by a Representation of them through the misty Medium of such Verbage; but ‘without Breach of Charity, we may suppose at least a secondary Motive,’ to have been, The giving to his Friends some Proof of his Zeal for the glorious Cause o [...] Liberty. And, since plausible Words are a much cheaper Commodity than commendable Actions, perhaps he had the farther Intention of reconmmending himself by a patriotic Example, in these Time of Oeconomy. Yet as to the Character he assumes of a zealous Advocate for Liberty, it appears to be forced and unnatural; and, with all his Study to disguise himself, he makes but an awkward Figure, and hobbles abominably. For, to say nothing here of his general Design, which is unfriendly to the Cause of Liberty, as he aims con­fining it to his own Party to the exclusion of others, he [...]as suffered an expression to drop from his Pen, which betrays the most dishonourable and sordid Conceptions,—and proves that he is a Stranger to the Charms of this amiable Goddess. Other Writers, when they enter upon the Subject of Liberty, are im­mediately animated: But this Writer shews, that he has no Acquaintance with this sovereign Beauty, by the Insensibility of his Deportment. Else why such Rudeness and want of Respect? Why does he attempt to push her into the Rear of Life and Property?—telling us, with much Phlegm, that next to Life and Property, Men will most zealously contend for its Preser­vation.’

Before he proceeds farther, I advise him, if he has any Regard for his own Reputation, or that of his Party, to make a Halt, and apply himself for a few Weeks, with the whole Force of his Abilities, to study the Principles of true Liberty, so far at least as to understand the Elements of that noble Science. In the mean while, for his present Use, I will lay before him a few Maxims relating thereto, which are incontestable. Every sincere Friend of Liberty, is impartial in his Esteem for it, and w [...]shes it an universal Dominion. He that wishes Liberty uni­versally to prevail, will endeavour to promote it in all Cases, with­out. Respect to Persons. He that endeavours to promotes it in [...]ll Cases will be careful not to oppose it in any. Until he makes [...] self a Master of these Principles, he will be only able, with his utmost Application, so naturally to counterfeit the Voice of Liberty, that it is not every Reader who will be able to [Page 69]discriminate it from that of’Tyranny, and Persecution. By way of Postscript to what I have said on this Head, I will take the Liberty to inform him, that the Members of the Church of England, in requesting an American Episcopate, aim at nothing more than the Enjoyment of that religious Liberty, which all other Denominations of Christians throughout the British Dominions in America, are possessed of.

In his third Paragraph, the American Whig goes on to apply his general Observations to a particular Case. ‘What led me into these Reflection, (says he) was the reading Dr. Chandler's Plea for an American Episcopate. His Reflections, we have seen, amount to two Propositions. The first ‘that Liberty is a very good Thing’—was naturally enough suggested by the Appeal: But he blundered in the second. For instead of concluding ‘that Men ought to be careful to preserve so good a Thing as Li­berty,’—he ought more logically to have infered—‘that the Members of the CHURCH in America are right in seeking to obtain so good a Thing as Liberty,’—and—‘that no true Friends of Liberty will ever oppose them.’ And in this Train he might have gone on to a Number of Conclusions, which would have done infinitely more Honour to his Head, and his Heart.

But he tells us, ‘the Scheme for sending Bishops into the Colonies, has it seems been long under Consideration. 'Tis above fifty Years since it was first started.’ This I believe, because the Author of the Appeal has proved it. And most People will think it is high Time that it should be more than considered; but I fancy the CHURCH may wait fifty Years longer, before such Friends of Liberty as this will consent to its being carried into Execution.

‘We hear (says he) the Advocates for it, both here and in England, have sanguine Expectations of its speedy Accomplish­ment.’ Let us see whether he offers any Thing by way of Il­lustration or Proof of these "sanguine Expectations." What he says further on the subject is in the next Paragraph in these Words: ‘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.’ Now as this will not answer the Purpose of Illustration, we must suppose it to have been intended as a Medium of Proof. And as good proof it is, as the Whig has hitherto given us Reason to expect. Superficial Readers may object against it, because the Premises and Con­clusion stand at rather two great a Distance from each other on his Paper; and because he leaves them under some Uncertainty as to the process—whether he means to prove the Expectations from the Rejection, or the Rejection from the Expectations. But [Page 70]upon a nearer Scrutiny, these Difficulties will vanish, and his Intention to prove the Expectations will be evident. For see how cleverly the Premises will tumble out the Consequence, when properly managed.

Whatever has been rejected by the Ministry, and denied from the Throne, is likely to succeed: But, the Plan for American Bishops has been rejected by the Ministry, and denied from the Throne: Ergo The Plan for American Bishops is likely to succeed, and, ‘the Advocates for it have sanguine Expectations of its speedy Accomplishment.’

It is only allowing him his Principle in his Major Proposition, and his Fact in the Minor, and then the Consequence he will claim in his own Right.

But to proceed, ‘No less than seven Petitions, we are told, have been transmitted by a certain Convention.’ Undoubtedly the Number seven is of most tremendous Import. For we read in Scripture of Seven Horns, of a Dragon with seven Heads, (emblematical of the American Whig,) of Seven Abominations, and of Mary Magdalene, out of whom were cast Seven Devils. If then the Number of Addresses ‘transmitted by a certain Con­vention,’ amounts to neither more nor less than Seven, is not our Whig intitled to immortal Honour for teaching his ‘dear Countrymen’ to conclude, that there must be a deep Plot laid to ruin and enslave them,—and, should the Plot succeed, that no­thing better than Devils, and Horns, and abominations, must be the Portion of him and his Party?

But this is not all: These Seven Addresses represent ‘the deplorable Condition of an unmitred Church.’ It seems then that all that is requested is a few Mitres, which never did Harm in any Country. For as a late Writer well observes, ‘a Man bent upon Mischief, can do it as effectually with a Pumkin-Shell upon his Head, as with a Mitre,’ now as Mitres are not worn at this Day in England, it is probable that as many as are wanted, may be purchased at second Hand; and in a little Time we may learn to make them in the Colonies, and, as this will be a new Manufacture, it will prove a public Benefit to our Country.

Again: Those who signed the Addresses, ‘boast of their incredible Numbers.’ This is a vague, indefinite Expression and I do not well understand it. The Tenor of those Addresses. I am told, is the same of that of the Appeal. In the Appeal the Mat­ter is expressed Page 55) in these Words: ‘should it be said that the the Church of England in America, contains now near a Million of Members, the Assertion might be justified.’ But the Author of the Appeal grants, in the following Sentence, that ‘it is not easy to ascertain the Number exactly in a Country so widely extended, and unequally peopled;’ and then proceeds to assign [Page 71]the Reasons for his believing them to be near a Million. From no other Ground than this, the poetical Imagination of the first Whig raises him to an Apprehension, that the Appeal will lead People in England to believe, "that less than half a Million is in Reality Three Millions and more." Did ever Poet make a loftier and bolder Flight!

If the Members of the Convention boast of their ‘distinguished and unshaken Loyalty,’ I know not who can gainsay it. Nay, this Writer himself in his next Paragraph, testifies in Favour of their general Character, and speaks of ‘that Zeal for the Constitution and the Government at Home, to which he (the Author of the Appeal) and his Brethren, avow so warm an Attachment.’ If People have a Zeal for the Constitution, either in Whole or in Part, may they not be allowed to declare it, on proper Occasions? Does any one blame the late Petitioners for a certain Charter, for declaring that they ‘BOAST the most undissembled Loyalty and Attachment to his Majesty's Person, Family and Government?’ That the Members of the CHURCH should not be allowed an equal Privilege of decla­ring their Loyalty, is—is—is—not fair.

As to the Addresses ‘not sparing very injurious Reflec­tions upon the other Denominations, as seditious Incendiaries, and disaffected to the King and the Government;’ Several of the Persons who signed the Addresses, tell me this is a false Accusation; and we are assured by the Secretary to the Con­vention ‘that this Assertion of the American Whig is absolutely, utterly, and intirely false and groundless.’ And he publick­ly calls upon him ‘to produce the Authority upon which he has asserted so infamous a Falsehood.’ Until therefore the Ameri­can Whig produces the Evidence which the Secretary to the Convention calls for, he must be looked upon as the Father of this infamous Falshood.

I have frequently been surprised in the Course of my Life, but never more so, than on finding it asserted by this Writer with so much Confidence, that ‘it is now generally known, that the Ministry in England have rejected the Proposal’ of an Ameri­can Episcopate: And I have made it my Business to enquire of several Member of the Convention, with whom I am accquaint­ed, whether there was any Truth in the Assertion. They all, to a Man, agreed in affirming, that the Proposal was so far from having been rejected by the Ministry, that it had never been made to them, to the best of their Knowledge. They also assured me that they have not the least Apprehension of ‘a Denial from the Throne,’—and that the Insinuation that ‘in Answer to their Petitions, they have been ordered to be silent,’ is false and scandalous. Now as these Gentlemen must be supposed to [Page 72]know as much of the Matter as any other Persons, and as they are generally esteemed to be Men of Integrity and Veracity, I shall rather take their Word for it, than that of an anonymous, a­busive Incendiary.

As I have been detained much longer with this Pair of In­troductions than I at first intended, I shall pass over many ob­noxious Passages, without particular Notice. The Reader I believe is tired, and after a few Words more, I will take my Leave of him, promising not to trouble him again for—a whole week. What I would observe before we part is, That this Introductioner juggles with the Titles of the Appeal to the Public, and tries to make it imply ‘a Removal of the Suit from the Sovereign to the Subject, as to a higher Tribunal.’ That the Author of the Appeal looks upon that of the People as the higher Tribunal, he has never declared; but I presume he takes it to be an Article of A­merican Whigism, that all Power, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, is derived from Them; and according to our Whig's Logic, it may be proved from Scripture, for the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Nor does Dr. Chandler appear to have had any Design of ‘re­moving his Suit from the Sovereign to the Subject.’ He uses the Word Appeal freely and properly, and not in that technical Sense to which the Pedants of the Law would confine it. He has clearly explained his own Meaning and in­tention, which was to submit the Reasonableness of an American Episcopate, to the Judgment and Consciences of Men, in order to know whether any Reasonable Objections can be offered against it. This is the Queston to be debated before the Tribunal of the Public; and as our Whig declares his Willingness to appear there in Behalf of his Clients, I advise him to be careful in what manner he behaves,—and to remember that a Whip is prepared for his Flagellation whenever he deserves it. In a par­ticular Manner let him guard himself against his constitutional Sins of "evil-speaking, lying and slandering,"


[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, April 18, 1768.] THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. VI.

DOCTOR Chandler's Appeal, begins with a denial of the validity of the ordination of all the protestant ministers in the world except those of his own denomination. This to be sure is no great recommendation of his project, to the people of a country, who, a few only excepted, are firm in the opinion he attacks. Had he proceeded to express himself in the spirit of his principles, the bulk of the reformed clergy, and ours among the rest, would [Page 73]have [...]en called non-commission laymen and mistaken pretenders, or egregious impostors. My next remarks therefore, upon the section intitled, a sketch of the Arguments in favour of episcopacy, are designed to guard his incautious, and less discerning readers, against too great a confidence in the seeming simplicity of an address calculated to cajole us int [...] a voluntary consent to the scheme of establishing a proud hierarchy on this continent.

It is far from my intention, where the Doctor delivers himself with the benevolence of a Christian, or the candour of a gentleman, to excite censorious and ill grounded jealousies. I mean only to expose artful disguises, contrived to conceal the true spirit of the Appeal, and an insidious affectation of courtesy, the better to promote a pernicious design. Mr. Locke with the generous in­dignation of a friend to truth, some where declares, that the man who wilfully connects ideas to terms, foreign to their ordi­nary sense, deserves the punishment of him who stops the con­duits of water to a city. And a much greater authority com­mends the Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile. A profes­sed address therefore to all ranks of people, upon a subject of the utmost importance to their liberties and interests, should not only be free from the entangling weeds of chicanery, but dictated with a contempt of the reserves forbidden by an honest open-hearted sincerity.

After asserting the position, that bishops are jure divino above presbyters; or [...] other words, that they are so by the Authority of Christ; the consequence was plain from that premise, that all the non episcopal churches had departed from the true standard of government, and were censurable as schismatical and erroneous. And whatever might be the effect, as to the project he was con­cerned to promote, I appeal to the reader, whether it would not have done honour to the Doctor's sincerity, to have applied his te­net to the American churches with apostolic plainness of speech? Instead of so commendable and courageous a conduct, we are first told, that none not ordained by a bishop can officiate as clergy­men; and then follows the mincing conclusion, that every other ordination is esteemed to be at least irregular and defective. Would not every man imagine from these soft words, that tho' the writer conceived other ordinations to be, when strictly ex­amined, not precisely regular, yet that they might nevertheless pass muster, and the main end be answered? But no two points of the compass are more directly opposed to each other, than such a supposition to the Doctor's true and real sentiments. The reason is apparent; at present the church he belongs to, is supposed, with the woman in the vision, to be in a state of persecution; persecuted for the want of wealth, pomp and power; persecuted as I shall shew hereafter, for the want of wealth, pomp and power [Page 74]to enable her to persecute others. Without the concurrence of the dissenters those benefits it seems, are not to be expected. In this state a little velvet-mouthed delicacy was thought to be reasonable and prudent: 'Tis therefore to carnal policy, and not to Christian moderation, this tenderness is to be truly ascribed. The Doctor's creed unchurches all the churches on the continent, except his own, and the church of Quebec. According to that, not one of the ministers of other denominations, are sent out by Christ to promulge his gospel; and let my lords the bishops be once landed and fortified in their palaces, guarded by their de­pendents, and supported by their courts, and instead of this coaxing and trimming, we shall soon hear the thunder of excom­munication uttered with all the confidence and pride of security. The soft bleatings of the lamb, will be changed into the terrible howling of the wolf; and every poor parson whose head never felt the weight of a bishop's hand, will soon know the power of his pastoral staff, and the arm of the magistrate into the bargain.

If any man doubts my prediction, and fondly presumes upon the charitable indulgence of ecclesiastical clemency, after it is ex­alted to the power of applying punishments at will and pleasure, which must inevitably be the case, upon the introduction of spiritu­al lords into a country where they will find no lay-men for their match, let him learn wisdom from history. Without the knowledge of mankind, it is impossible to govern them well. This necessary accomplishment seldom falls to the lot of speculative mortals immured in a study. Hence their conceit, contraction, and obstinacy. Give the reins to one of these book-worms, and he will attempt to drive the chariot of the sun: let him be an ecclesiastic besides, and impelled by the two irresistible momentums of the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and how can he refrain from adopting the Popish comment upon the text, compel them to come in! He will compel them with a witness. The dignity of the end justifies all sorts of means. Mines and galleys, fire and faggot, pains and penalties, the rack and the cross, have all been applied instead of reason and argument; and thus man­kind will ever be pilaged and butchered, as often as they are subjected to the unbridled power of zealots, who as we said of archbishop Laud, by the pride of a good conscience, will be more obstinately in the wrong.

There can be no dependence for the continuation of our liber­ties, if ever a lordly clergyman is clothed with sufficient power to put down all opposers. Give him that, and his conscience will set it to work; nay, judging from experience, he will think himself conscience-bound, by the sword of the spirit, to brandish [Page 75]for our conviction, a sort of weapons of a very different nature.

That the Doctor's principle leads to condemnation of all who deny it, none can dispute; and however artful the terms in which it is conceived, I have still so high an opinion of his veracity, that I will risk the credit of the aforementioned pro­phecies, if he does not give an affirmative answer to the fol­lowing question. It is this, and for the information of the simple part of the tribunal he appeals to, I challenge a categorical reply to the interrogatory proposed, Whether he has not a better opinion of the validity of an ordination performed by the bishop of Rome, whom some Christians suppose to be the very scarlet whore mentioned by St. John, than of any one in which all the clergy of the nati­onal churches of Holland and Scotland, should concur?

While this is preparing, or because the Doctor may perhaps be disinclined to have any correspondence with an American Whig, I will relieve the impatience of my readers by reminding them of two notable instances, which may help their conjectures con­cerning the answer requested. It is not long since the Rev. Mons. Haudin, took the pastoral charge of the episcopal church of Trenton, in New-Jersey, and afterwards that of New-Rochelle, without any re-ordination; but before Mr. Munro could be qualified to serve the chapel of Philipsburgh, he was obliged to make a visit to the bishop of London, for his hand and his bles­sing. What other reasons can be assigned for these differences, than that as this former, tho' a fugitive from Canada, had priestly orders from the Popish bishop of that country, his right to dis­pense the ordinances of the gospel was incontestibly clear; so the latter was inadmissible to the chapel, because he had only the defective ordination used in the schismatical, or ill disciplined, tho' national and law-established church of Scotland.

The following passage is another instance of the same tem­porizing prudence: ‘It is, said the appellant, not necessary to enter upon a particular defence of this doctrine, in an under­taking of this nature, since our present plea is EQUALLY valid, whether these principles are founded rightly or wrongly: How­ever a brief sketch of the arguments whereby the necessity of Episcopal government is defended, may on this occasion be not altogether useless or improper.’

It being impossible, as the laws now stands, to introduce a bishop into America, who will not have authority the instant he arrives, to set up an ecclesiastical court, to which all denominations will be equally subject; the Doctor's plea can have no validity at all; since no man can plead conscience for a measure mischievous or dangerous to his neighbour. But admitting the validity of this plea, surely it must at first view appear to be a mysterious declara­ration, [Page 76]that it is equally valid whether the divine right of episco­pacy is well or ill grounded. If the doctrine was not thought to be of importance to the grand thing in design, why is a whole section taken up in an attempt to support it? His words and his conduct certainly have the shew of repugnancy, and it may serve a good purpose to guess at the reason.

The Doctor supposes a Bishop to have powers, which no clergy­man in America, save the right reverend father in God, the present bishop of Quebec, can pretend to. If the generality of the reformed churches are not mistaken, every presbyter is a bishop to all in­tents and purposes, in the scripture sense of the word. According to this opinion, the Doctor himself, and the rest of his brethren, who are of the order of presbyters, being in very deed bishops; the cry set up in the Appeal is idle and absurd; all this appeal­ing, intreating, weeping, coaxing, and lamentation, being for a boon already possessed. It was therefore of vast importance to the success of the scheme he aims at accomplishing, to convict the American churches of error, in denying the superiority of bishops above presbyters; since if this could be done, the conse­quence is undeniable, that every prohibition upon the importation of spiritual lords into this country, is nothing less than a direct opposition to the great head and founder of the Christian church. It is easy then to discern, not only that the plea is not equally va­lid whether the principle advanced, is founded "rightly or wrong­ly." but the reason of assertion that it is so.

I am aware of his subterfuges, 'tis enough if we believe the doctrines, and it will be persecution not to allow us the benefits of this article of our faith. As a Whig, I am utterly opposed to the irrational and execrable practice of punishing people for opini­ons in no degree hurtful to civil society, and if the scheme which the author of the Appeal so ardently espouses, portended no evil to others, I should bid it good speed. But after all, as nothing would more effectually advance the favourite project, than the establishment of the divine right of episcopacy, for an incontesti­ble truth; it can never be said that the plea in its behalf is as valid, if that doctrine may be disproved, as it would be if it triumphed over all possible objection; and hence my conjecture that there was a reason for the Doctor's assertion, not very con­sistent with the simplicity of the gospel.

The sum of the whole matter is this, and I submit it to the impartial consideration of the public. Apprehensive that great execution might be done by the pretended jus divinum of episco­pacy, the Doctor advances, and attempts to support it: Aware that the application of the doctrine would startle his countrymen, he affirms the validity of his plea, independent of his tenet. Silence upon the subject might expose him to his superiors; avow­ing [Page 77]its consequences would alarm the people whose assent is so­licited. In this dilemma, the doctrine is asserted, and the con­sequences tenderly mentioned. Like a trespasser who means to steal a possession, he works with haste and trepidation. He gives and takes back; builds upon the foundation of the divine right of episcopacy, and yet treats it as a point of little or no conse­quence. He runs swiftly through a section more important than the rest with a reference to a dignified author in England, [...]le read, and to a humbler one here scarce known; does all he can to establish his point, and forestalls the severity of the application, by roundly asserting that the plea is as solid without it. After Rat [...]bane, a dose of Opium is administered, that the poison may work while the patient is asleep. and if in all this there appears more of the wisdom of the serpent, than the harmlessness of the dove; how much reason is there for the simple to beware; and for all to suspect the sincerity of the declaration, that bishops, like the apostles, without scrip or purse; without worldly power and opulence, are the bishops recommended to the approbation of the continent.


THE author has received the piece signed Patrobus, inclosing a piece against a Scribbler even below contempt, and with whose name he had determined not to contaminate his paper; but as this correspondent has had the address to support the dignity of his performance, tho' levelled against so consummate a blunder­buss, by several historical facts well adapted to the main design of the American Whig, it shall be inserted in some future paper.


[From the New-York JOURNAL, April 21, 1768.] To the PRINTER.


IN your last Journal, I gave my Countrymen a Word of Caution, against what I believe to be a wicked Design of the American Whig, Whom I take to be a Snake in the Grass a lurk­ing Enemy bent upon Mischief; who under the specious Pretence of Zeal for Religious Liberty, (which no Body pretends to re­strain, and which is as dear to Episcopalians as to Whigs or any other Denomination whatsoever) would raise needless Fears, Jea­lousies, Ill-will and Divisions among us, and thereby divert our Attention from the Dangers that threaten our political Liberty, and the necessary Means for its Preservation. This I believe to be the real and principal Design of the Whig, and when I [Page 78]have told my Reasons for this Opinion, I believe I shall not be singular in it. But whether I am mistaken or not, with Re­spect to this Design, I am certainly not mistaken as to the Effects, that, if not check'd and prevented in Time, must, whether fore­seen and intended or not, naturally result from its Prosecution: These are Disaffection, Disunion and Distrust among ourselves; our Attention, our Counsels, our Power, will be divided and weaken'd, we shall lose all Confidence in each other, our Enemies will gather Strength from our Weakness, and we shall have no Power of Resistance left. Let us only, a little, consider our Situation.

We Americans are a Body of People who claim and possess several Rights and Privileges, some of which are common to us all, some belong to particular Societies of different Sorts, and some to Individuals. Before any Disputes among ourselves can arise concerning these Rights, there must be something nice and intricate in the Nature of the Case, otherwise there could be no Dispute; for how can a Dispute arise about a Matter that is quite plain and self evident? Every such Dispute therefore necessarily occasions a Division among ourselves.—and in order to settle the Difference between the Parties, we must interest our­selves on both Sides of the Question. While the Matter is in Suspence, it is not to be expected that every Person who hears of, and in some Measure becomes engaged in it, will fully con­sider, or understands the Case, and act as an impartial Judge. No,—Interest, Connection with the Parties, imperfect Informati­on, Inattention, Passion, Prejudice, &c. in every such internal Dispute, will divide us into at least three Parties,—one on each Side of the Question, the other, Neuters.

Now if those Rights that we all possess in common, are in­vaded, Common Prudence and Interest, direct us to unite in repelling the Invader: But the Rights that we are in Danger of losing, are common to us all,—of every Denomination,—and we are all equally concerned in their Defence and Preservation. Common Sense then, directs us in such a Case, to wave all Mat­ters of private Dispute among ourselves, that so our whole Force may be collected and exerted in Defence of our Common Interest; we may thus easily defeat an Enemy, who if we were divided into the different Parties of which we are composed, would in­fallibly subdue us all, one after another. When an Enemy is at Hand that would plunder us all, of our whole Property, is this a Time to dispute and determine the Difference between our­selves? When a City is on Fire is it a proper Time to determine the particular Property of the Inhabitants? What then shall we think of a Man who manifestly labours,—who impertinently introduces every far fetch'd Pretence, who makes use of all the [Page 79]Arts of Misrepresentation,—caluminates, reviles, abuses, insults, and forms Conclusions against Probability, against Reason,— in order to embroil all America, and our Friends in England, in a Dispute concerning the Respective Rights of Churchmen and Presbyterians? Judge my Countrymen! is this Man a Friend or an Enemy? this Whig, in his Advertisement in Parker's last Paper, artfully endeavours to screen himself from all Possibility of Detection, by raising a Suspicion against every Person that should write any Thing against him. He tells, the Public to beware of every Writer who while he affects a Zeal for our Ci­vil Liberties, will not declare his Abhorence of ecclesiastical Ty­ranny.—That is, every Writer in favour of our Rights, who don't join in the same Cry with the Whig, and, like the Demon Anarchy in Milton, help to promote the Strife, are to be suspected? According to this Rule, the Pennsylvania Farmer must fall under Suspicion. I beg the Reader's Attention to the following Transcript, from his 12th Letter, the 6th, 7th and 8th Paragraphs.

["Our vigilance and our union are success and safety. Our negligence and our division are distress and death. They are worse. They are shame and slavery. Let us equally shun the benumb­ing stillness of over weening sloth, and the feverish activity of that ill formed zeal, which busies itself in maintaining little, mean and narrow opinions. Let us with a truly wise generosity and charity banish and discourage all illiberal distinctions, which may arise from differences in situation, forms of Government, or modes of religion. Let us consider ourselves as men—freemen— Christian-freemen—separated from the rest of the world, and firmly bound together by the same rights, interests, and dangers. Let these keep our attention inflexibly fixed on the great objects which we must continually regard, in order to preserve those rights, to promote those interests, and to avert those dangers.

Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds—That we cannot be happy without being free—that we cannot be free, without being secure in our Property,—that we cannot be secure in our property, if without our consent, others may, as by right take it away—that taxes imposed upon us by Parliament do thus take it away—that duties laid for the sole purpose of raising money, are taxes—that attempts to lay such Duties should be instantly and firmly opposed.—that this opposition can never be effectual, unless it is the united effort of these provinces—that there­fore benevolence of temper towards each other, and unanimity of counsels, are essential to the welfare of the whole—and lastly, that for this reason, every man amongst us, who in any manner would encourage either dissention, diffidence, or indifference, between these colonies, is an ENEMY to himself and to his country.

[Page 80] The belief of these truths, I verily think, my countrymen, is indispensably necessary to your happiness. I beseech you there­fore* "teach them diligently unto your children, and talk of them when you sit in your houses, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up."]

What then must we think of the American Whig? does he not fall exactly under the Description, is he not the very Man this excellent Writer points out, and cautions us to beware of? [Let the Reader pause here, and think, whether the Name would not be much more proper and significant, if instead of the American Whig, that Author should be stiled the American Pest, and treated accordingly.] Indeed it is no Wonder the Whig should clash with the Farmer,—their Tempers and Principles are essentially different, and the Tendency of their Writings as opposite as Light to Darkness. If I am not greatly mistaken, this is no [...] the only Occasion upon which the Farmer and the Whig have been in Opposition, it is more than barely probable, they were so at the memorable Congress in this City.—Let the Whig clear himself if he can.

I have already declared what I believe to be the true Charac­ter and Design of the American Whig, which was my sole Rea­son for endeavouring to detect, and put my Countryman upon their Guard against him. Before I have done with him I believe the Reader will be convinced that my Opinion is well supported. He seems to triumph in his sagacious Discovery that I have assumed a Name to which I have no Right. He has discover'd he says, that I am not a Son of Liberty but a Tory. Whether this notable Conclusion does most Honour to his Judgment or his Heart I shall not take upon me to determine. However as I shall demonstrate that my Actions have always exactly corres­ponded with the Name I have assumed, in the only Sense in which it was ever in the Eyes of the Public, a respectable Name of Distinction, every one is at Liberty to judge, whether the Whig's Error proceeded from Want of Penetration, or from Consciousness—of pretending to one Thing and Meaning another, himself, and therefore concluding that I did the same.

A Son of Liberty.
[Page 81]



They shall put you out of the Synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

John xvi, 2.

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.

[Page 86]


They are apt to be unruly;
Lash them daily, lash them duly.
J. S. D. D. D. S. P. D.

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.


Hold, hold, friend TIM, attend to me,
I'll treat you with a Simile.
HAVE you not seen in Summer Morning,
When Sol (the Fields and Woods adorning,)
Shews from the East his decent Face,
Like Delia's deck'd with blushing Grace,
How Worm's that dwell some Dunghill deep in,
Will into Light be boldly creeping;
(Creatures that deal in the profound,
And never rise above the Ground,)
In the warm Sunshine crawl and play,
Or round the lowest floweret stray?
Stoop down, and raise them from the Plain,
They'll twist and creep to Dirt again;
Sever the grovelling Things,—you'll wonder
To see them crawl, tho' cut asunder:
Squeeze close your Hand,—you'll fret to find
That nothing's lest but Dirt behind.
Say then, shall Man exert his Power
On such frail Creatures of an Hour;
Such little, lowly lifeless Things,
Who boast of neither Teeth nor Stings?
No,—let the humble Vermin toil
Untroubled, in their native Soil;
They'll crawl perhaps an Hour,—and then
Sneak harmless to their Holes again.
[Page 90]

When the Church appears to be so deliberately attacked, and a Series of Papers are to be laid before the Public to raise a Party against her, and to prevent her enjoying her ecclesiastical Government, equally with his Majesty's other Subjects,—it may not be improper to shew the Public who they are that oppose her, and to guard against the Insinuations of those who are her pro­fessed Enemies;—be pleased therefore to insert the following.


NO Protestants have ever given the Government so much Trouble, nor shewn such fixed and Rooted Enmity to the established Church, as that Denomination called Presbyterians:—Whether this arises from real zeal for the Cause of Christanity or any other Motive, may be an Inquiry.—At present, I will pass over every Thing that hath happened on the other Side the Atlantic, and only take a View of them upon, and since their Settlement on this Continent.—in Britain, they were ever calling out for Toleration and claimed it as a Right. Upon their Settle­ment in America, their Spirit of Persecution broke out in full Blaze; and no sooner had they the Power, than every Denomination, par­ticularly the Quakers, very sensibly felt, that this Sect of Men, have little other "Grace than what is founded in Dominion." While other Denominations have contented themselves, with the free Exercise of their Religion, and an equal Share in the Offices of Government, this Restless Sect has in every Colony either at­tempted, or actually seized all Power, and shewn an equal Dis­position to tyrannize over all others; to root out not only the established Religion, but every others Denomination from these Colonies.—Hardly a Colony on the Continent, but has groaned under their Tyranny, or been agitated by violent Parties fomented by these People, to advance and procure their favourite Point, Dominion.—The eastern Governments are a Proof of the first, and the Parties in New-York and Pennsylvania, are recent In­stances of the latter.—But sensible, that their darling Point can never be attained, while the Church, as by law established stands in their Way, they have ever paid their greatest Attention to prevent its Increase.—How have they calumniated her Ministers, and ridiculed her Ceremonies from Time to Time, as best suited their Purposes? And when she asks, only equal Toleration on this Continent with them, their Pens are employed to alarm the People that some Encroachment is intended up­on their religious Liberties; and according to the Candor of these Men, every Story, whether true or false, we may expect to see revived, and new ones propagated, to prevent that Church from being able to stem them in their Career to Power, and [Page 91]hinder them from assuming Dominion over all others. During a late Administration, the Province of New-Jersey, saw and felt the Effects of Presbyterian Power; her seats of Justice, &c. Com­missions of the Peace, were preferably conferred upon them; their Meeting houses, which now they affect to call Churches, were every where incorporated, while Charters were denied, not only to Churches, as by Law established, but to other Dissenters, who had equal Right with Presbyterians.—The Instances of their Lust for Power, and uncharitable Treatment of those who differ from them in Opinion, are notorious every where; nor have they ever shewn a Zeal for Religion, or a charitable Disposition to their fellow Christians, but when it suited their Purposes and favoured their darling Scheme.—At this Time, when Peace and Christian Charity should most abound among us, that Spirit again raises its Head, aims to throw the Con­tient into Confusion, and "sow the Seeds of Discord," to prevent the Church from having its Government fully and freely enjoy­ed; and that too after the Church has, for many Months laid before all Denominations, in an honest Appeal, the Difficulties she labours under, and the Means she proposes to procure Re­dress; which is in a Manner, that can give no one Sect any rea­sonable Cause of Ossence: Nay, it hath been repeatedly acknowledged, by some of the best of them, to be a Measure which they cannot disapprove of; and what the American Whig owns to be "highly reasonable." But it then suited their Po­litics to be silent; it now suits their Purpose to kick up a Dust, and inflame and divide all Men as much as possible.—All other Dissenters need not be told, that in the Ruin of the CHURCH will be involved the Ruin of them all, excepting the Presbyterians: And as they have never experienced, nor can from any Thing proposed in the Appeal, entertain a Doubt that the Church intends the least Injury to the religious or civil Rights of any Dissenters; so, I hope they will not be led away by the Arts and Insinuations of these Men, to join in a Cry raised only to prevent the Professors of the Church of England, from enjoy­ing the like Freedom in Church Government with Dissenters,—but will attend to their Reasonings, if happily any may be found in their Publications, and not permit Witticisms, or Insinuations unsupported by good Authority, to beguile their Understandings; and if then they discover, that the Church meditates any Thing against their civil or religious Liberties, it will be their Duty to prevent it: But, if, on the other Hand, it shall be found, that she hath no such Intentions, Christian Charity must induce them, not to deny her equal Toleration with themselves.

[Page 92]

[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, Monday, April 25.] THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. VII]

The following Piece being sent me by a very humorous Correspon­dent, I shall insert without any Apology.


THOUGH every lover of liberty is greatly obliged to you for your noble & vigorous stand against that more than Egypti­an bondage, wherewith we are threatened by the convention; yet I conceive you will give up a great advantage to which you are by law entitled, if you prosecute your design of giving a particular answer to every part of the Appeal; because in my opinion, only some parts of it ought to be answered, others to be pleaded to in bar, and the rest of it is subject to a demurrer. For this purpose, I inclose you the form of a plea, answer, and demur­rer, which I beg you to insert in behalf of the public, and you will greatly oblige

Your most humble servant, WILLIAM PEERE WILLIAMS.

The people of North-America appellees, ad sectam Thomas Bradbury Chandler, Doctor of Divinity, Appellant. On the Appeal in the case of Bishops, or no bishops.

The joint and several plea, demurrer, and answer of the people of North-America, Appellees, to the Appeal of Thomas Brad­bury Chandler, Appellant.

THE said Appellees by protestation, not confessing or ac­knowledging all, or any of the matters in the Appellant's said Appeal contained, to be true, in such manner and form as the same are therein set forth and charged; these Appellees for plea to so much thereof as claims a divine right to episcopacy, for, and in behalf of the English bishops, these Appellees say, that in the year of our lord 1533, the nation being tired of the exorbitant claims of the clergy; and their ill-gotten wealth, as well as ill-used power, being grown intolerable to mankind, it was by a certain act of Parliament of our sovereign lord King Henry the VIIIth, late King of England, began and held at Westminster, on the 15th day of January, in the year last above said, and thence continued until the 30th day of March, then next ensuing, declared and enacted, that the clergy of the realm of England, shall never from thence forth presume to at­tempt, alledge, claim, or put in use, or enact, promulge, or prosecute any new cannons, constitutions ordinance provincial, or other without the King's licence.

And these Appellees for plea farther say, that in the same session of parliament, the manner of proceeding upon the conge d'lire, is directed, that is to say, a licence from the crown is to be [Page 93]sent to the chapter, to choose or elect an arch bishop or bishop, and a letter missive with it, to nominate the person whom they are to choose, which if they do not obey, nor signify the same according to the tenor of the act within twenty days, they are subject to a proemunire; and if the election be not made within twelve days, the King may nominate a bishop by letters patent, without any election at all.

And these Appellees do farther say, that by another act of par­liament made in the 26th year of the same reign, reciting, that the King justly and rightly is, and ought to be, supreme head of the church of England, the same is enacted into a law, and that he shall have full power to visit, redress, reform, correct, and restrain all errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritu­al jurisdiction ought, or may be reformed, redressed, &c.

And these Appellees farther say, that by another act of par­liament made in the 37th year of the same reign, reciting, that archbishops, bishops, or arch-deacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of juridiction ecclesiastical, but by, from, and under the King's majesty; it is enacted, that laymen qualified as the law appoints may exercise all parts of ecclesiastical juri­diction and all censures, coercions, appertaining, or in any wise belonging thereunto.

And these Appellees farther say, that by another act of parlia­ment made in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, it is enacted, that all Jurisdiction, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminence spiritual and ecclesiastical, at any time lawfully used, or received, for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state, or persons, and for the reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences, and enormities, shall be annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. Wherefore, these Appellees do say, that there is no other right of episcopacy within the realm of England, than what is derived thereunto by human laws, and that all claim or pretence to any divine right of episcopacy by any of the English clergy, (who have sworn to the aforesaid acts, and are subject to a proemunire, if they contradict them) is as absurd, illegal, and nugatory as the divine right of geography.

And these Appellees farther say, that they are advised by their counsel, that there is no matter or thing in the said Appeal con­tained, good and sufficient in the law, to call them in question in a plea of equity before the tribunal of the publ [...], but that there is good cause of demurrer thereto, and for cause of demurrer they say,

First. That the Appellant's said Appeal (in case the allega­tions therein contained were true, which they do in no sort admit) contains not any matter of equity whereon the people can ground [Page 94]any decree, or give the Appellant any relief, remedy, or assis­tance; but that the same is properly, and only cognizable before the parliament of Great-Britain.

Secondly. For that it appears by the Appellant's own shewing, that he claims, or pretends title in behalf of the bishops, to one full and equal tenth part (the whole into ten equal parts to be divided) of the premises in the Appeal mentioned, that is to say, of all the lands in North-America, as persons next in re­mainder in tail under a devise of St. Peter, in the said Appeal mentioned and set forth, (or in lieu thereof, by way of a modus decimandi to a pecuniary tax to be laid on his Majesty's liege subjects in America, by the respective legislatures of the colonies, as soon as the said legistatures shall be sufficiently swayed by priestly influence to commit so great an iniquity,) which these Appellees are advised is a matter merely triable at law, and touch­ing which, he may sufficiently ascertain their title by ejectment or ejectments to be brought at law.

Thirdly. For that the Appellant hath made a profert of all the negroes in the West-Indies, whose testimony cannot be ad­mitted in evidence, barely on their being virtual churchmen, while they continue, as it appears by his own shewing that they do, in a state of heathenism and infidelity.

Fourthly. For that the Appellant proposes a harmless bishop, which these Appellees are advised is a thing not known in the law.

Fifthly. For that it appears by the Appellant's own shewing, that he claims title to the said tenth part of the premises in ques­tion, as agent or attorney to the said bishops, by virtue of the uninterrupted succession; and thereby deduces their title through the Pope of Rome, who by the laws of the land, as these Ap­pellees are advised, cannot be seized of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments within his Majesty's dominions in America.

Sixthly. For that the Appellees are charged in the said Ap­peal with blowing the trumpet of sedition; and they ought not to be compelled to discover, or set forth any matters, whereby they may impeach or accuse themselves of any crime, for which they may suffer corporal punishment, or be grievously fined.

Seventhly. For that the appellant has appealed to the tribu­nal of the Appellees, and by the law of the land no persons can be judges of their own cause; but if the Appellant will never­theless insist on having the cause determined by them, they ad­judge and decree, against him, and do order and decree, that no bishop do presume to set his foot on the continent of North-Ameri­ca, on pretence of exercising his function on the same; and do farther order the Appellant's said Appeal to be dismissed with costs of suit. And.

[Page 95] Lastly. For that the Appellant hath only made profert of part of a certain instrument in support of his title, pretended to be executed by the right reverend father in God, John, lord bishop of Landaff; when by the rules of law, he ought to have proffered the whole, that the court might be able to judge, whether by some precedent or subsequent clause therein, the same is not null and void, by reason of sundry defects, imper­fections and untruths, which these Appellees have heard, and do believe is really the case. And therefore, and for divers other good causes of demurrer, in the said Appellant's said Appeal of his own shewing, appearing, these Appellees as to so much there­of, do demur, and do demand judgment of the court, whether they, or any of them ought, or shall be compelled to make any answer thereto, other, or otherwise than as herein after followeth; and for answer to such part of the said Appeal as is not pleaded and demurred unto, they say, for answer to so much thereof as is to compel them to set forth and discover their approbation, or disap­probation of the Appellant's proposal, of importing one or more bishop or bishops, into the American colonies; that they do utterly disapprove thereof, and will by all lawful ways and means in their power, let, hinder, molest, interrupt, disturb, obstruct, gain-say, gain-write, gain-reason, expose, defeat, refute, impede, repel, op­pugn, resist, repulse, oppose, and contravene, the same. And as to so much of the said Appeal as sets forth, that the Appellant did not intend to keep the matter a secret, these Appellees do say, that the Appellant and his associates, commonly called, and known by the name of the convention, did, and each, and every of them, did endeavour to keep the same secret, privy, opake, covert, and occult; and have expresly denied the same, until it was casually discovered, by reason of sundry and divers petitions, by them indited and transmitted to that part of Great-Britain, called England; which said petitions, as these Appellees have heard, and do verily believe, did contain manifold untruths, im­perfections, aspersion, reflections, misrepresentations, defamati­ons, prevarications, evasions, tergiversations, villifications, adul­terations, sophistications, twistifications and conundrums. And these Appellees further answering, do deny, that any of them have ever persecuted the church of England in America, or that she has ever been to the knowledge of these Appellees persecuted by any other person or persons whatsoever; but that on the contrary, they have heard, and hope to be able to prove, that she appeareth more like a church triumphant, than a church militant; and all that ever they have, or do intend to devise and conside­rate against her, was and shall be, only se defendendo, that she shall not also become a church rampant and gubernant; which they are advised is well lawful for them to do. And these Ap­pellees do deny, that they, or any of them, now have, or hath, [Page 96]or have ever had in his or their possession, the said pretended last will or testament of St. Peter, whereby the tenth, or any other part of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of his Majesty's loyal subjects in America, is devised in tail to any bishop or bishops: nor do they believe that he ever made or executed any such last will and testament; or if he did, that any lands or tenements did, or could pass by the same; because they have heard, and hope to prove, that if he was ever seized of any lands or tene­ments, by right apostolic, he was seized thereof as joint-tenant with eleven other persons, of whom St. John was the survivor, from whom the Appellant has not deduced any right or title whatsoever. And they do further deny, that they or either of them, now have, or hath, or have ever had, the said charter of the uninterrupted succession, in the said Appeal mentioned; nor do they, or any of them, claim any interest or title in, or to the said premises, from under the same. And these Appellees do say, that they hope to prove, that the said Appeal is not exhibi­ted to be relieved against any real grievance or oppression, but for the aggrandizement and exaltation of the episcopal churches, on the ruin of all other Christian denominations in his Majesty's American dominions; and that this suit is not prosecuted by any number of the members of the said churches, but at the special instance and request, and at the proper costs and charges of the said Convention, who not having the peace and tranquility of these colonies before their eyes, but being moved and instigated with an inordinate lust of ecclesiastical power, have retained the Appellant to institute the said Appeal, with intent and purpose to subject this flourishing country to priestly dominion, and the power of high-church; and that the said Convention have cause­lesly, and unnecessarily, and not only without, but against the leave, consent, and approbation of their respective churches, exhi­bited the said Appeal, to vex and trouble the Appellees, and to put them to unnecessary charges in the law; of which these Ap­pellees hope the court will take due consideration, and consider the same in costs, Without that. &c.


AS Mr. Seabury has again made his corporal appearance, tho' it was currently reported, that like Romulus, he was gone off in a thunder storm; and tho' not quite so pugnati­ous, seems as evasive as ever. The Author intends speedily to con­vince him (of what the public is already convinced) that the onus probandi always lies on the person possessed of the instrument con­cerning which the controversy is raised; and that the parties said to be calumniated in the petitions, cannot be satisfied with that strange departure in pleading, so apparent in his valedictory ora­tion; but are justly entitled to a profert of the instruments, with­out [Page 97]any farther evasion or equivocation whatsoever.

The ingenious piece signed Liberius, is come to hand, and well deserves a place in the American Whig.

The Author has also received the remarks signed Spicelegus; and an anonymous piece on the horrid and abominable tyranny and op­pression of bishops which shall be duly considered.

An Appeal from the American Whig, to all that are impartial.

Prove all things, &c do nothing by Partiality. St. PAUL.

I Thus address, you as well as Mr. Whig, because I beg you will believe, as the truth is, that our country, its people and liberties, are as dear to us of the church, as they can be to any of our neighbours.—It is but too evident, from the furious and declamatory manner in which the American Whig writes, that he has no notion of attending to the real merits of the cause; it therefore greatly concerns you, to be much upon your guard against him; for he is certainly a man of too much sense, not to know that he is miserably trying to impose upon his dear country­men, as all his wild talk is quite beside the question, and aims only at raising a spirit of venom and bitterness towards his neighbours, that are of the church.

This is evident from his pretended history of high-church and low-church, N. III. by which he would have it believed, that we being high-church, are little better than papists in disguise, and aim at setting up a spiritual tyranny in the country; than which, nothing can be more false and groundless. But the truth of the matter is this, that those who were called high-church, were Jacobites, or disaffected to the present Royal family; where­as we can defy the Whig to produce among us one instance or symptom of the least disaffection to that dear prince, our present most gracious sovereign King George the III, whom we do know to be a friend to us and our cause So that the only distinction that can be here, is between those that are intemperately and im­prudently zealous for the church, (if such there be) and those who are of a moderate and Christian temper, tho' seriously zeal­ous in its cause, and such Dr. Chandler, and the rest of us pro­fess to be. In this sense, there are also high and low-presbyterians, as well as churchmen. Of the high sort, are those that are furiously and venomously zealous, such as Mr. Whig. The low presbyterians are of a moderate and charitable temper towards the church. Of such I know a great many, (I hope they are much the majority,) with whom I live in good neighbourhood and friendship, and who declare to me they think Dr. Chandler is in the right, and that it is most reasonable that the church should have bishops, as well as they their way.

[Page 98] But says the Whig N. IV, with bishops, there must needs come in spiritual courts, &c. I answer there is no necessary con­nection between them: It is the state, and not the church, that has made that settlement; and without the state no such settle­ment can be made here; which therefore never will, nor can be. But pray my dear countrymen, how is it possible to quiet and satisfy such a suspicious and unreasonable mortal? We do so­lemnly declare, as the truth is, that we do not desire any spiritual courts relating to any of those matters he mentions; we are as much against them as any of our neighbours; nor was any such thing ever thought of, nor that our bishops should have any juridical concern with the laity. We can only beg of you, not to give any heed to him, as it is plain he only designs to deceive you, and without any manner of ground, to blow up in you the same malicious and contentious spirit, that reigns in himself. The apostle's advice is, From such turn away.

Nor do we desire, or expect any other than such a moderate and reasonable support for our bishops, as shall be judged neces­sary to enable them to live decently, as it becomes their station, and to be exemplary in the good works of piety and charity, and that without a farthing's expence to the laity; and our de [...]re is, that their peculiar business shall be, only to ordain and govern our clergy (as the primitive bishops always did) and admit our children when adult, to renew their baptismal covenant, which we call confirmation. And for all this, we do (without uncharitably censuring you,) seriously plead conscience; as we do really be­lieve it grounded on the most ancient facts of scripture and anti­quity, for which we think we have as much evidence, as for the canon of the new testament.

And now, my dear brethren, do but mind how ludicrously he makes a ridicule of our poor consciences, and of the national establishment, in No. V. Now it is well known, that the very heathen thought it ill manners, and a crime, as well as ill-po­licy, to vilify and ridicule the established religion of their nation; and I would only beg leave to add, that if Mr. Whig has any seriousness, to make it his own case, and to lay his hand on his heart, and say, whether he would not think it a barbarous thing, if the presbyterians were obliged to send a 1000 leagues for every ordination, as is our unhappy case? But alas! it may deserve to be well considered, whether a man that makes a ridicule of other people's consciences, can be reasonably supposed to have any con­science of his own? I am, my dear countrymen,

Your affectionate friend, and very humble servant HIEROCLES.
[Page 99]


LIBERTY is a most tender plant that thrives in very few Soils; neglected, it soon withers and is lost; but is scarce ever recoverd. Nothing less than a supreme regard to this in­estimable blessing, could have induced me to undertake the disa­greeable task of a disputant. I conceived it was dangerously at­tacked by Doctor Chandler and his associates in their attempt to introduce diocesan Bishops among us, and my design was to shew the manifest tendency of the Innovation, to undermine and de­molish that religious freedom by which these northern colonies are so remarkably distinguished from every other country; and under the auspices of which, joined with an excellent frame of civil Government, they have beyond all example grown up and prospered. In some future papers I shall pursue the subject; but at present, I wave it, to make room for the following letter, just received from an ingenious correspondent; who considers the manner in which our civil liberties must be violated, by this scheme of an American Episcopate. As his reasoning appears to be clear and demonstrative, I shall be much obliged to him for the continu­ance of his correspondence.

To the Author of the CENTINEL.


AT a time when the liberties of America are at stake; when claims are set up destructive of our rights as free-born sub­jects, we cannot be too much on our Guard against any measure, that has a tendency to give colour or strength to these claims, nor ought we to give the less opposition, because it has been undertaken with a different design.

In this light I view the application for an American episcopate, lately made, by some of the Missionaries from the Society for pro­pagating the Gospel. I would fain acquit the applicants of any intention to infringe the civil rights of the colonists; and yet I am clearly of opinion the application has a direct tendency to this, and therefore ought to be opposed.

I shall not enter on any disputes about uninterrupted succes­sion, the divine right of episcopacy, &c. These are subjects to which I am altogether a stranger. I apprehend Christianity can well consist with the enjoyment of civil liberty; and that a man may worship God and be "accepted with him" without becoming a slave, or parting with the rights of a British subject.

It is not more lamentable, than true, that the clergy of all de­nominations and in every age, have discovered a fondness for power, and have seldom been scrupulous about the means of pro­curing [Page 100]it; nor have they used it with moderation when obtained. This might be improved as an argument against every attempt they may make to increase their power. But waving this, I shal at present consider the subject in another view, and endeavour to shew that the application of Dr. Chandler and his brethren, is in itself a dangerous attack upon the civil liberties of this country. If this can be made evident I hope the Missionaries will not only decline every attempt of the like nature for the future, but that they will, from a regard to the liberties of the colonies, unite with their fellow subjects in opposing any steps that may be taken, in consequence of the application already made; and that the Doctor will admit, that the opposition, neither arises from a spirit of persecution, nor from disaffection to monarchy.

It is well known, that the far greater part of those who first settled the northern colonies, left their native country, and took shelter in the wilds of America, in order to be free from the persecution of ecclesiastical rulers, and to enjoy the liberty of worshipping God in a way agreeable to their consciences.* Al­though they disclaimed the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, th [...]y retained their allegiance to the King, and claimed the protection of the British crown. In conformity therefore to the principles of the British constitution, to which they strictly ad­he [...]ed, they accepted from the crown a grant for the lands they settled, and charters declarative of their rights and privileges.

In consequence of these grants, both they and their posterity ever since, as free born subjects, have always claimed, and do still claim, not only the sole right of disposing of their property, but also of making, with the consent of the crown, such la [...] and re­gulations, as they think most convenient, for their internal police and Government.

Without the full enjoyment of these rights, it is impossible for them to preserve the least shadow either of liberty or property. For what property can any man have in that which another can [Page 101]by right take and dispose of as he pleases? Or what liberty has he, whose conduct must be regulated by the pleasure of another? a government without the consent of the governed, is with me, the very definition of slavery.

It is readily granted that the colonies are dependent states, united under one head; and with the other British dominions, form one cature [...]mp [...]re. It is also admitted, that the parliament of Great-Britain, as the supreme legislative power, has a super­intending authority to regulate and pre [...]erve the connection be­tween the several parts and members of the Empire. But this does not imply, [...]ither a power of disposing of the property of the subjects in the several in [...]erior legislative jurisdictions; nor of making laws for their internal government. Both of these, by the con [...]titution and charters of the several colonies, are lodged, where nature and reason and justice point out that they ought to be lodged; with the Representatives of the people.

Sufficient caution is taken that this power may not be abused. The laws in the colonies must be made 'as near as conveniently can be agreeable to the laws and statutes and rights of the king­dom of England:" They must receive the sanction of the go­vernor or the King's Representative. And even after that, a power is reserved to the crown of repealing, within a limited time, any law that may be enacted.

Every application* therefore, to any other than the legisla­tures of the respective colonies, for laws or regulations relative to our internal police, I consider as an attack upon the liberty of the colonies. The regulating of church discipline, and establish­ing particular forms of religion is certainly a matter of internal police. If the parliament, or any other power upon earth, may establish in the colonies any form of religion, or the heirarchy they please, they can grant to the members of that establishment what immunities and exemptions they see fit, and inflict penal­ties upon such as do not conform If they may, without the consent of the colonies, establish bishopricks and bishops among us, they may appoint revenues for their support, erect spiritual courts, and enforce obedience to the authority and jurisdiction of those courts. And if the people must yield obedience to such [Page 102]laws and establishments made not only without, but against their consent, I would gladly know wherein their liberty can consist.

In vain did our ancestors leave their native land, and fly into the wilderness to avoid spiritual tyranny, if those who established it in England can extend it to America. In short if the par­liament is to interfere, and regulate one part of our internal police, why not every part? if they among whom we have no representatives; who from the distance between them and us, must be unacquainted with our condition, circumstances, &c. they in whose election we have no choice, over whose conduct we have no check, as the laws they make for us, will not affect them; if our superiors in Britain, can bind on us religious establishments, and rule us by laws made at the distance of three thousand miles, we may boast of our liberty, as we please, but it is no more, than, "The baseless fabrick of a vision."

I am Sir, Yours, &c. A. B.
[Page 103]

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZZETTE, Monday May 2. A Whip for the American Whig, No. V.

A Lash like mine no honest Man shall dread,
But all your babling Blockheads in his Stead.



Although I live at a considerable Distance from New-York, I am a constant Reader of the several News-Papers that are there published. Among others, I peruse Mr. Parker's Gazette, which of late comes full freighted with a weekly Load of Slan­der, and malicious Falshoods, consigned to the Public by the American Whig. It gives me a very sensible Pleasure to find you are engaged in preparing a WHIP for the Faction (as you justly call them) concerned in that Paper; and altho' I do not imagine you stand in need of an Auxiliary in your laudable Undertaking to expose the Design of that angry, malevolent Faction (as they appear to be) I could not forbear making the following Remarks on No. III. of the Whig, which are at your Service, to do with them whatever you think proper.

THE manifest design of the author of that paper, is to divide the members of the Church of England, and gain as many as are weak enough to catch the insidious bait he throws out, to join in what must finally terminate in the ruin of the Church. This being the case, the praise he bestows on any of them should be deemed their reproach; and they should say with the wary Trojan.—

Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes.

Divide and Go [...]rn has been a favourite maxim with most tyrants, and has been practised, time immemorial, with success, by those who were laying dark schemes to enslave others. Let us now examine how Mr. Whig endeavours to inveigle his readers and bring about his design to divide Churchmen.

He tells us—‘That Henry VIII, began the reformation— that whilst a few embraced the reformation for conscience sake, multitudes submitted merely to save their estates, and avoid persecution. Hence the Origin of two famous parties, viz. High church and low church. The former were papists in their hearts—conformed out of self interest—were always mighty sticklers for rights and ceremonies, and the uninter­rupted line of succession—persecuted all who from a prin­ciple of religion and conscience could not adopt their mea­sures, [Page 104]—whose true, if not only descendants, he says, the American missionaries are at present, because they desire bish­ops." The low church party were such as embraced the reformation from conscience, and were disposed to carry i [...] fur­ther.’ But these were chiefly distinguished by their grievous lamentations over the ‘unhappy deficiencies of the church of England, the relicks of popery, &c.—by their being favoura­ble to protestant dissenters; and to crown all these do not now desire to impose diocesan bishops upon us’

Here, to be sure, is a curious specimen of exact historical know­ledge, and of fair, impartial representation! That some em­braced the reformation from temporal views, and motives, I be­lieve, even, altho' a Whig—nay, even altho' the American Whig himself affirms it—that most conformed on that account, fact and history evince to be false; and it staggers me much to think how any protestant could throw such an injurious, unjust reflection on the reformation. As for the other particulars here mentioned, and throughout his paper, they shew in general that this writer is either ignorant of the history of England in those days, and since that period; or else that he is guilty of mali­cious misrepresentation.

Henry VIII was no reformer, nor is he called so by any that I know of, but papists. He quarrelled indeed with the Pope, be­cause his holiness would not grant him a divorce, and therefore threw off the papal supremacy. But still he was a true catholic, if any thing. Before this, he wrote a book against Luther,— after it, he burn'd those who denied transubstantiation. It pleased God, it's true, to order matters so that this quarrel with the Pope proved favourable and subservient to the reformation; for hereby Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and many others had an opportunity of carrying on the glorious design. Nor was this ‘effected with much force’ or violence, as the Whig injuriously represents; but with great mildness and Christian temper, considering especi­ally the spirit and circumstances of those times. His insinuation that the distinction of high church and low church originated from these different motives upon which the reformation was embraced, is as opposite to truth as any legend in the Koran. That distinction was not known for more than a century after; and was invented by those who were enemies to the Monarchy and Church of England. But the high church party, says our Whig—were Papists in their hearts—persecuted dissenters— were sticklers for ceremonies, and the uninterrupted line of suc­cession; whereas the low church party, disavowed all these, and were for a further reformation. Did the limit of this letter per­mit me, I could, by an induction of facts, shew how contrary to truth these assertions are—that the greatest sticklers for cere­monies, [Page 105]were among the greatest opposers of popery; and that the warmest friends of dissenters, were among the most strenuous asserters of the uninterrupted line of succession in bishops, and divine institution of their order. Let two instances suffice.—

The unfortunate LAUD, (several of whose measures I do not approve, though they were the fault of the times, more than of the man; nor was he so blameable by any means as his enemies would represent;) He, I say, was one of those no doubt whom our Whig will call a stickler for ceremonies; yet he was so far from being a "Papist in his heart," that no protestant ever opposed popery with greater warmth. He wrote against it with more spirit and more to the purpose, than any one dissen­ter—nay, than all of them put together, from the time of Harry VIII, to this day. The pious and learned bishop HALL is well known to have been a favourer of puritanism,—was represented as such to the king, (which we learn from himself) and was one of those who assisted at the Synod of DORT. Yet he was so zeal­ous an advocate for the uninterrupted line of succession, that he proved it in a book he wrote for that purpose, entitled—Epis­copacy by Divine Right. And it may with truth be averred, that there has been scarce one clergyman of any note in the Church, however favourable to dissenters, who did not hold the same principle with the good bishop HALL in this respect. Indeed all hold it, except Erastians, who teach that purely spiritual powers, like civil are derived from the state. Even Presbyte­rians, such of them I mean as know, and will adhere to their own principles.— believe the uninterrupted line of succession as much as churchmen; but with this difference—that the former place the succession in presbyters; the latter in bishops.

High churchmen however, with all those vile qualities he is pleased to give them, were enemies to any further reformation, according to our Whig; but low churchmen were perpetually grieving over the relicks of popery, and wanted them to be re­moved. The enemies of the church have often practised this method to ruin it, by blackening those who thwarted their mea­sures. No Church on earth is more distinguished for moderati­on however, or has shewed more indulgence to scrupulous con­sciences, than the Church of England; and accordingly, she has made frequent reviews of her liturgy, endeavouring to satis­fy all reasonable requisitions. But were she to gratify the demands of every heated enthusiast,—every factious sectarist,— every restless Heretic; she would soon be utterly annihilated, she would neither have ceremony, nor creed, nor article, nor canon left; to the great contentation of Papists, Arians, Socinians, American Whigs, and Deists, who have been formerely, and are [Page 106]at this day, as loud as our author himself could wish them to be, in their demands for a further reformation.

As this writer's aim is to divide the church, by reviling her friends, and all this to serve his present purpose, he prudently passes over that period when his party triumphed in her ruin. it was his interest to do this; as the bare mention of it would re­vive no very pleasing ideas in his readers, nor suggest any thing favourable to his partizans. But it may be proper to remind Americans, that when the predecessors of our Whig—(into whom, as well as into the faction he is leagued with, the spirit of these king-murderers, and church-destroyers seems to have transmigrated;) when they, I say, had gained the ascendency by cutting off the King's head, and overturning the constituti­on; they exercised severities on the members of the Church, which were scarce exceeded by the most persecuting Heathens. In the year 1645 ‘a fine of £. 5 was imposed on any person who used the prayer book in any Church, or private house, for the first offence; £. 10 for the second; and one whole year's im­prisonment, without bail or mainprize for the third.’ Up­wards of SEVEN THOUSAND clergymen were sequestered, plun­dered and ruined; many of whom were, for piety, Wisdom, and learning, the brightest ornaments of Christianity since the reformation.

Nor can this be wondered at, if we reflect on the intolerant principles that prevailed among those sanctified Hypocrites, and were resounded even from the pulpit by their most admired teach­ers. The following is a small sample of what I have collected from their writings; more of which I shall hereafter produce, if necessary. "Toleration." according to them, ‘was a city of refuge in men's consciences for the devil to fly unto,—a toleration of soul murder; for establishing whereof. damned souls in Hell will curse men upon earth,—a transcendent, catholic, fundamental evil,—the abomination of desolation. all the devils in hell, and their instruments, are at work to promote a toleration.’ &c. &c.

O MY COUNTRYMEN!—beware of those who are the a­vowed defenders of the men that taught these principles; and who give but too glaring proofs that they inherit the very same temper and spirit! What might churchmen, and every other denomination, look for from them, should Heaven permit them again to domineer over their fellow subjects!

Our Whig's attempt to disunite us reminds me of the practices of Papists, (in which the Jesuits were principal agents) to divide and dis [...]ract the CHURCH of England, and finally ruin her. This method of embroiling Protestants, by promoting a variety of sects among them. They have always esteemed the most effectual to [Page 107]bring them back to the bosom of Mother Church; and have employed many emissaries for that purpose. The story of Heath, a Jesuit, is well known. He was discovered by a letter which he accidentally dropt; and at his examination confessed—‘That he had been six years in England,—had laboured to refine Protestants from all Smacks of ceremonies, and to make the Church purer.’ Camden, Fuller, and other historians, men­tion "several men, among whom C [...]leman, Burton, Hallingham, and Benson, were the most forward, who were great fomenters of the church-divisions in Queen Elizabeth's reign. "These," says Camden, ‘under pretence of purer reformation, opposed the discipline, liturgy, and Calling of Bishops, as approaching too near the Church of Rome. Yet it was undeniably proved afterwards, that those very puritan reformers,—Coleman, Burton, Hallingham, and Bens [...]n, who opposed the Calling of Bishops,— were Jesuits in Disguise, employed on purpose to promote Po­pery. Nor is there any question but several Jesuits were among Oliver's blessed Thorough-Reformers.

By reason of my distance from your city, I cannot tell how mat­mers are situated there. But I heartily wish that no Jesuits may have crept in among you, who foment strife to serve the papal cause. I must confess there are several suspicious Symptoms that this is the case; as first, the disadvantageous light in which this third Whig would place the Reformation, which is always done by Papists, and by none else. Secondly, the furious outcry which I find is raised against an American Episcopate, which tallies exactly with the sentiments of Papists with respect to Eng­land. The famous cardinal Bar [...]erini declared—‘He could be satisfied there were no priests in England, provided there were no bishops neither; for he then supposed the Ca­tholic cause would certainly prevail and do its own work.’ Sure I am that the Papists, have frequently taken the same me­thods to ruin the Church, that your factious Whig is now using; nor could they proceed with more art or effrontery. And what heightens my suspicion is, that altho' a Popish bishop has been lately sent to America, I never could learn that the faction made the least clamour or noise about him. A Protestant episcopate is what they oppose. And they are wise in their generation.

I shall take no further notice of the palpable falshoods in this piece, which may boldly contend for number with the lines;" but shall request every honest, candid dispassionate reader to reflect, whether it be consistent with reason or equity, that the Church should labour under the hardships with which it now struggles! whether it be right or just that our clergy should be at the expence of going three thousand miles for ordination, and run the resque of crossing the Atlantic Ocean, which has proved [Page 108]fatal to so many of them; Whether it be right that many con­scientious Christians should be deprived of the apostolic ordinance of confirmation, which they think it their duty to receive?— Or whether so many Churches should continue vacant and dis­titute, for want of proper officers to ordain Clergymen to supply them? All the motives of piety, truth, reason and equity, strongly remonstrate against each of these grievances, and urge that they should be redressed. 'Till they are redressed, we enjoy not the common rights of freemen, or Christians. Nor do I in the least doubt, but the man who can brandish his pen against the removal of these hardships from his fellow-subjects,—persecute them thus much for their religious opinions; would also stretch forth his right hand to bind the victims to the stake, and kindle the de­vouring flame with his left, had he but power and authority to support him.

As for the clamour which the Whig and his associates have raised concerning a Bishop clothed with all the Insignia of power, and that we can have none but such, it is absurd and groundless, and only intended to frighten the weak and credulous. I am a Churchman from principle, and earnestly desire Bishops, because the welfare and even the existence, in a few years of the Church, depends on it; (for every society that has not the means of its own preservation within itself, must inevitably perish.) Yet I here declare, I am utterly and absolutely against bishops having the same powers they have in England; and for this plain reason, that it would injure both the Church & the Colonies. I only want Bishops on the plan proposed in doctor Chandler's appeal. That we can have Bishops on that plan, shall hereafter be shewn, if you do not think that every person of sense and candour is already convinced of it.

I am, Sir your humble servant. PROBUS.
April 25 1768.

[From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, Monday, May 2d. THE AMERICAN WHIG. [No. VIII]

THE prerogatives peculiar to a Bishop above presbyters, ac­cording to the reverend doctor of a neighbouring borough, are those of ordination, confirmation, and government. And as he confesses that our own missionaries have authority to exclude the profane from the sacrament, which is the highest sanction for preserving the purity of the church, as he knows our episcopal candidates can make voyages to England, and get the bishops hand on their heads and learn politeness into the bargain; and as he dare not assert, that faith and repentance will not save an American soul, without episcopal confirmation; I cannot see the [Page 109]advantage, and much less the necessity, of importing a cargo of spiritual carnalities into the country, to tyrannize over a people, who fled three thousand miles to be relieved from their tythes and their courts.

There must therefore be at the bottom of his earnest and ela­borate appeal, some attribute of his lordship, which the Doctor thinks incommunicable to a presbyt [...]r, and which he hath not yet been pleased to disclose. All the power necessary for good govern­ment is already transferred; and as to the trip for ordination, it it is so far from an inconvenience, that it doubtless conduces much to the reputable figure of the missionaries. It is also a proof of their courage and zeal, two indispensible qualifications of a Chris­tian soldier, and if the expence was considerably inhanced, the church would be better secured against an old complaint of the Jews, that priests were made of the meanest of the people.

Upon the presumption, that the bishop will bring powers that can be delegated to no other order of the clergy, it stands the Doctor in hand to prove, (and for that reason doubtless we are obliged to him for his sketch in favour of) the divine right of episcopacy. But lest any thing should be grafted upon this stock, that may hereafter produc [...] poisonous fruit, I shall fill up this paper with some general remarks introductory to a minute exami­nation in some subsequent numbers, of the Doctor's argument, in support of a tenet, given up by several bishops of great name; and which, while it claims peculiar honours for his own church, and the church of Rome, contains odious imputations upon all the other churches in Christendom.

In that ever memorable ecclesiastical revolution, commonly called the reformation, most of the clergy who revolted from the dominion of the beast, avowed the principle, that the distinction between a bishop and presbyter, was a popish subtilty, contrived to favour the spiritual despotism of antichrist. This, after the example of other monarchies, advances in a regular gradation from the humble priest or curate, thro' the intermediate order of par­son, vicar, prebend or canon, dean arch deacon, bishop, arch bishops, and cardinals, up to the Pope, or infallible Emperor, of the great spiritual body. Finding no scriptural authority for this regimental progression, the reformers very naturally imputed the whole contrivance to that pride which began to work in the mother of the two sons of Zebedee, and was prophetically foreseen, and foretold by the humble Disciple whom Jesus loved. They set out therefore, with a declaration of the equality of the clergy, as most agreeable to the will and words of our blessed Saviour, that he who would be greatest, should be the servant of the rest; and indeed it appeared necessary to the permanence of their op­position; the order of bishops listing last of all others, as they [Page 110]had most to lose, under the banners of the reformation. The glorious, work was began by presbyters, and if they were not admitted to be bishops, and authorized to ordain others, the pros­pect was clear, that unless the bishops joined in the revolt against his holiness, the cause could last no longer than the lives of the first insurgents: They therefore denied the episcopal prehemi­nence to be founded upon the authority of Christ; and for con­tending that the powers of bishops and presbyter, were the same, the greater part of the resomed churches became Presbyterians.

As it is natural to suppose, the protestant clergy in general, to have had similar sentiments of the hierarchy of Rome, the church discipline of England, if their dissent had been conducted by her priests, would have been nearly the same with that set up in France. Switzerland, Holland, Scotland, and the other reso [...]ned naturous. But as a King took the lead, and the pride of Henry VIII. induced him on the one hand to oppose the Pope, and on the other to disapprove the humbling cast of the presby­terian model: it is not to be wondered at, that he contented himself with rejecting the superior, and leaving all the lower or­ders inviolate; his true aim being only to be the Pope, or his Holiness of England Hence the permission of the old popish ranks as high as the arch bishop, and his contempt [...]f Papa, and the legates and cardinals, officers pertectly useless on his own assumption of the supremacy of the church.

The people of England saw the imperfection of the reforma­tion in that Kingdom, but there were a thousand objections to their interposition. Besides the authority of the King, which would suffer no controul, the catholics were still powerful, and the higher clergy had s [...]tained no loss either in point of opu­lence or dignity. And therefore the presbyterian biass, and prin­ciples of the other branches of the reformation, did not begin to [...]e [...]ert themselves op [...]ly in England, till a succeeding reign. The leaven was never [...]less working; but the religion, which was grafted upon the old hierarchy, growing venerable and strong, and receiving the support and countenance of the law; the im­patience of those who had now lost all hopes of a nearer confor­mit [...] to the other reformed churches abroad, could be no longer [...]pressed. And as the discontent advanced to a re-reformation, opposed not only by the government, but by the dignified clergy, who were contented and at ease, they fell under a variety of leaders, and split into all that diversity of persuasions so favoura­ble to liberty and philosophy, and now comprehended under the general name of English dissenters.

For the truth of these remarks, I appeal to the history of the church; and they are introdaced to shew that an attachment to the dogma, that bishops are superior to presbyters, is peculiar, com­paratively [Page 111]speaking, to but a very small part of the protestant world; England and Sweden being the only nations, who have in this respect, withstood the light of the reformation. I am a­ware, that the Appellant for an episcopate in this country, will tell me, that if the argument is to be carried by [...]jo [...]ity of voices, he is sure of success, because the opinion he favours prevailed from the days of St. Ignatius to Calvin, an interv [...] of not less than 1400 years. By some it will be thought a full answer, that the sentiments of the reformed, are in this case, authorities infinitely preferable so that of a church, confessed on all hands, to have corrupted the saith; and which was the more successful, as like other harlots, she had philtres and love potions to bestow "out of the golden cup in her hand, full of abomination and [...]hiness of her fornication."

But this it not the most logical use I would make of the univer­sality, if I may so speak, of the protestant disavowal of the supe­riority of bishops to presbyters. I will grant the Appellant, that the first ages of the church, before the scarlet whore had defiled the nations, furnished instances of martyrs and confessors, who do hounour [...] the religion which they sealed with their blood; and it will be no prejudice to my argument, if I even admit (tho' Lord Chanceller King is of a very different opinion, and for rea­sons which no bishops have yet satisfactorily answered) that those holy men of old considered a priest as a bishop's inferior, I say all this I will admit, and that the opinion prevailed from century to century, down to the dawn of the reformation. But, on the other hand, it will not be asserted, that any primitive Christian died a martyr to that tenet, nor denied that the protestant churches have exhibited an innumerable company of illustrious witnesses for the purity of the saith, who believed and practised the very reverse, as most agreeable in their conceptions to the vo­lumes of divine inspiration. If the zealous contender for an American episcopate, supports the divine right of episcopacy, the glorious instruments of the reformation in Holland, Scotland, and Switzerland. and elsewhere, who tho' presbyters ordained others, and governed their churches; and all those numberless lights of the church, who without the aid of a bishop in pre­ceeding ages, and to this very day, have sounded, and are still sounding the gospel trumpet, with a success that shews the con­currence of the unerring spirit of all truth; they must, as un­authorised for the work, be considered as mistaken or impudent pretenders, to a commission they neither had nor have. But as their erudition and abilities give ground for strong pre­sumptions in favour of their knowledge; and their lives defy the impeachment of malice itself; and we have sensible evi­dence, if I may so speak, of the power of the gospel upon the [Page 112]hearts of millions, by their instrumentality, and still more un­deniable proofs of the non-necessity of episcopal authority to save souls from perdition; I conclude from these premises, what I have always believed, that the sacred volume makes no dif­ference between a bishop and any other minister. Nay, farther, that as God the father of all, left mankind at liberty to set up that kind of civil government which tends most to their tem­poral felicity; so our blessed lord established no particular form of church government, but (a sew general canons excepted, friendly to the general discipline of the reformation, and incul­cated as a preservative against that execrable spirit of pride, which by his omniscience he foresaw would soon arise in the churches,) left his followers to choose such models, as best an­swered the ends of good order, and the preservation of sound­ness both in faith and in manners.

In all societies whether civil or ecclesiastical, some kind of government there must be; and no one can pretend, that the militant state of the church, requires the aid of revelation to point out a proper form of discipline, more than the general condition of mankind does any mode of national government. Both must be adapted to the circumstances of their respective members; and as Christianity, whenever it comes, finds civil government of one kind or another already formed; and it was certainly not the design of our lord to demolish the old bond of society; and to some of these, one form of church discipline would be more agreeable than another; and in others, scarce any of the known models could conveniently take place; it is a na­tural presumption, and a tolerable argument a priori, that none of the various forms for which mankind contend with such des­tructive and unchristian zeal, have any other jus dìvinum for their foundation than the dictates of found reason, and with that on their side, what need there any other? for of all that have this, it may be alledged, whether the government be a civil or religious, one, that it is the ordinance of God, and to be submitted to for conscience sake.

But to return more immediately to the point which the doc­tor asserts. Since the divine author of Christianity doubtless aim­ed, above all things aimed, at the conversion of the heart, for the recovery of a revolting world to the allegiance due to the creator; and this was infinitely of more consequence, than the subsistence of Christian societies under a monarchial, or repub­lican, or any other particular form of government; and since of the many millions of honest men, who have sdulously perused the scriptures to find a difference between a priest and a bishop, it still remains a [...]secret that any such difference is revealed; and lastly, because no reason is assigned, why heaven should establish [Page 113]an order of rank and precedence for the clergy, nor any benefits are foreseen to result from any such revelation and establishment; we shall have no cause to wonder, it upon farther examination, the Doctor's sketch in support of his favourite distinction, appears to be but a sketch, and a very weak one too. But still clearer to shew that he gropes in the dark, and is in this respect either de­ceived, or a deceiver of others, or both, shall be the business of some future paper.


AS I find Doctor Chandler indebted to my clients by his pro­missary note, bearing date the 28th day of March last, to reply to Doctor Chancey's answer to his Appeal, which is since published, and now in this city; I doubt not be will, with all conveni [...]nt speed discharge his engagement; as of all Actions in the world, I should be sorry to set one commenced against a clergy­man, and that in so plain a case, as his own note of hand. But as creditors ought in these hard times to be merciful, I will for my part, and he may take the whole convention as auxiliaries, allow him one complete year, to answer what an old gentleman of seven­ty, has as I am told, (ten thousand pardons of the Rev. Mr. S. Seabury, for those disagreeable expressions) wrote in less than two months.

I Congratulate my readers on that laudable zeal for the preserva­tion of our religious rights, exhibited by the assembly of the Massachus [...]ts-Bay, (a Colony ever illustrious in the cause of liberty) in their late measures for opposing a late american epis [...]opate. * An example this, sufficient to confu [...]e the idle sophistry of that pernici­ous Tory, who has again debased the name of a Son of Liberty, by endeavouring to lull us asleep. during the prosecution of a most de [...]estable scheme, to crush us with eccles [...]astical bondage, under pre­tence that such opposition tends to disunite; which unluckily for him supposes a number of advocates, for the very spiritual tyranny in question, and by his manner of writing, himself in the number, and consequently the utter impossibility of his being friendly to liberty.


To the Author of the CENTINEL.


I HAVE already endeavoured to shew from the principles of liberty, that the British parliament ought not to interfere in the civil police of the colonies; and that any application to that august body, directly or indirectly, to make laws for us, or to establish among us any form of church discipline, deserves to be [Page 114]treated as an attack upon our civil liberties. I shall further evince this, from the sentiments of those who gave, and the conduct of those who received, the several provincial charters: This will tend not only to enforce the arguments already advanced, but to give a clearer view of our constitution, by tracing it back to its first principles.*

Before I proceed, it may not be amiss to offer a few reflections on the nature of charters.

I have heard it advanced by men, who ought to know better, that the people derive their rights and liberties from the charters granted by the crown. Nothing can be more groundless than this. A people derive their liberty from God, the author of their being.§ When for the sake of security and other advantages they enter into society, and form governments, individuals part with some of their natural rights, freely giving up such as are inconsistent with government, and invest their chief magistrates with such power as is deemed necessary for the defence, protec­tion, and security of the whole. Hence it appears, that obe­dience and protection are relative terms: where the one is not granted, the other is not due.

It is to be observed, that different nations, according to the degree of strength, valour, understanding, and public virtue, or vigour of spirit, that prevailed in them, have surrendered more or less of their natural rights. But as power is of an encroaching nature; ever on the watch to extend its sway; and ever tenaci­ous of what it has obtained; hence it comes to pass, that the wisest and best nations, those endowed with the greatest degree of ability, bravery, and public spirit have often found it dif­ficult to guard against the encroachments of their rulers, and to defend their Liberty against the attacks of wicked Princes.

Our ancestors, whether we trace our orgin from the ancient Britons, Picts, Scots, Saxons or Angles, preserved an uncon­querable love of liberty. Though they paid a ready obedience to government, and revered the just authority of their Kings, yet they kept the legislative power in their own hands; and obliged their Princes to swear, "that they would hold, keep and de­fend [Page 115]the just laws and customs, quas vulgus elegerit", (which the people should choose). But as some of their Kings in­fluenced by wicked designing ministers, endeavoured to subvert the liberties of the people, and to establish arbitrary government, it became necessary to reduce them to reason, and to ascertain the limits of their power. This gave rise to charters; which are no more than solemn declarations of the rights inherent in the people, and the privileges they are intituled to under that government to which they are subject; and which being grant­ed, or in other words acknowledged, and subscribed by the King, or supreme magistrate, bound his power, and limit his preroga­tive. Of this nature is that commonly called Magna-Charta; the great charter of England; which is only an abridgement of the ancient laws and customs of the realm. Of the same na­ture is the petition of rights, granted by King Charles the first, and confirmed at the revolution. Charters therefore are not to be considered as mere matters of favour, conferred by the grace of the prince, but declarations of the rights and privi­leges inherent in the people.

Thus at the settlement of a colony far distant from the Mo­ther-Country, when the King grants a charter to the colonists, with power to make laws for their good government, it is not to be supposed, that they derive that power from the charter. It was inherent in them as freemen. They enjoyed it before in their native country. They carried it with them. And when settled in the new country might have exercised it, though no charter had beed granted. It was prudent indeed to receive a charter, in order to settle their rights, to direct the mode of ex­ercising their privileges, and to ascertain the bounds of royal prerogative with regard to them, and the authority of the crown to which they acknowledged allegiance.

For my own part, I am sorry the charters which have been granted are not explicit enough. It is indeed to be lamented, that the prerogative of the crown, or the privileges of the people should ever be liable to dispute, in any single branch of either. By means of this, the public has often suffered great inconveni­encies. Had the rights of the people been fully and clearly expressed in these charters, according to the spirit of the English constitution, and the idea that even then prevailed in the minds of people, it might have prevented claims that have lately been set up, and disputes that threaten the peace of the empire. Les­ser matters in government may be reformed without any ill effects, [Page 116]while the ancient constitution remains entire; but when the very nature of the government is attempted to be changed, and the foundation of it to be overturned, it is hard to say, what may be the consequence.

It is a first principle in the constitution of England, that the happiness of the Subject is the end of government, and that the safety of the people is the supreme law. As then the people are supposed to be the best judges of what will promote their own good, and most interested in what conce [...]us their own safety it is an established maxim, that no human laws, can, or ought to bind them, unless made with their consent. This is the glori­ous privilege of Britons; a priv [...]l [...]ge of the most inestimable value; so essential to liberty, that without it, a state can make no pretensions to freedom.

Whatever reason there might be for granting particular In­dulgences to those who with great danger, fatigue and expence undertook to settle colonies in the wilds of America, and there­by to extend the British dominions, and increase the power, wealth and influence both of the crown, and inhabitants of Britain, yet surely there could not be the least shadow of reason for depriving them of the privileges of the British constitution. Had there been the most distant prospect of this, it is not to be imagin­ed, that freemen, much less men of rank and fortune, such as many of the first adventurers were, would ever have hazarded the attempt. Far different were their views. In going abroad to settle colonies they considered themselves intituled to all the civil rights and liberties of British subjects, at the same time that they were freed from the oppressions of ecclesiastical courts, as well as from some particular customs, tenures and usages, which by the common and statute law, were confined to certain districts in England.

Thus in every charter granted to the colonies, the rights of English free-born subjects, are confirmed to the colonists; and in particular a power of making laws for their internal Govern­ment. It is indeed provided, that the laws so made shall not be repugnant to the laws of England: a provision founded on wisdom and good policy. For a similarity of manners and customs is a great bond of union among subjects of the same King. In some charters, particularly those granted to people who left their native country from religious motives, a liberty of conscience in the worship of God, is allowed to all Christians, except Roman Catholicks. The only stipulation in savour of any particular denomination, is that found in the charter granted to William Penn; which provides, that ‘If any of the in habi­tants. [Page 117]of said province (Pennsylvania) to the number of twenty, shall at any time hereafter be desirous, and shall by any wri­ting or any person deputed by them, signify such their desire to the Bishop of London for the time being, that any preacher or preachers to be approved of by the said Bishop, may be sent unto them for their instruction; then such preacher or preachers shall and may reside within the said povince, without any denial or molestation whatsoever.’ But even this supposes in the people here, a power of establishing by law any particular Church or denomination of Christians they see proper; and the utmost this reserve can be construed to mean, is no more than this; that in case of an establishment, the preachers above-men­tion [...] shall be tolerated.§

Th [...] were the Colonists lest to the enjoyment of the rights and [...]rties of British Subjects, and their power of making laws for their internal police acknowledged and confirmed. Accord­ingly no sooner were they settled in this new country, than they exercised this power in its full extent; particularly in relation to Church government and religious establishments.

[Page 118] The conclusions therefore, which I would draw from the pre­mises are these; that the making of laws for internal police, is essential to liberty; that this power is, by the respective charters, confirmed to the legislatures of the several colonies, and has been accordingly exercised by them; and that the regulating or es­tablishing religious denominations is a part of that internal police: for any person therefore to apply to any other than the legisla­tures of the colonies to which they belong, for an establishment, or other public support or preference of their sect, it is very derogatory of the authority of those legislatures; injurious to the rights and liberties of Americans; and subversive of the con­stitution of their country.— "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." —Prov xiv. 12.

I am, Sir, Yours, &c. A. B.

From Mr. GAINE's GAZETTE, May 9. A Whip for the American Whig, No. VI.

Evil communications corrupts good manners.


I Am sorry to find any one, who calls himself a churchman, endeavouring to propagate such crude notions as are contained in a letter "to the American Whig," which he has thought fit to publish in his 4th number. I have heard it disputed in several companies, (to the credit of the church of England be it spoken) whether it is possible this letter-writer can be a churchman in any sense; and, whether this piece is in reality any thing else than a letter from the American Whig—to his own dear self. The former of these two questions was generally decided in the Ne­gative; the latter in the Affirmative; and the pretence of ex­hibiting a letter of this sort from a Churchman, was looked upon as a Manaeuvre, from which it was natural to expect some degree of success. Against this opinion I have no material objections; and yet, upon the whole, I see no necessity on the other hand, for concluding that the person in question is not a churchman in some sense, as the strangeness of such a Phaenomenon may be ac­counted for, upon St. Paul's maxim expressed in the motto to this paper. But whether he be American Whig or American Churchman, since he attempts to reason, I will readily hear him. For I love reasoning dearly, especially after such tedious expec­tations, and wretched disappointments.

[Page 119] Before this writer enters upon the main point which he under­takes to defend, he makes an introductory remark upon the tend­ency of wealth and power to ruin the Christian Church; intima­ting the great pleasure it would give him, to see the Church in puris Naturalibus, without a Fig-Leaf to cover her, as she first existed—when she was persecruted and oppressed by the vicil power,—and when the Ministers of this religion were obliged to shelter themselves "in dens and caves of the earth," being, a­bove all others, "distitute, afflicted, tormented." The Clergy in particular ought to be obliged to him for his kind wishes, well knowing that every man will exert himself, as he has opportu­nity, to bring about an event which is the object of his wishes. But after all, he has said nothing against the power and wealth of the Clergy, which will not conclude as strongly against wealth and power in the hands of other persons. If power has been abused by the clergy, it has been no less wantonly abused by Princes and civil magistrates. If wealth has a tendency to corrupt the Clergy, it is not found to have a better effect upon Christians in any other station of life. He might therefore with as much Propriety "be opposed" to the "Annexations" of private Christians, because they have better bread and butter, and are suffered to eat it more quietly, than the primitive Chris­tians.

But could we suppose wealth and power have a tendency to corrupt the clergy only, and that these things operate in the same manner upon no other human creature; the observation notwithstanding, as it is made here, is intirely misplaced. It is become the common practice of the various writers against the ap­peal, to harangue upon this popular subject; and yet I am not able to discover that the Appeal has given any just occasion for it. For any one with half an eye, that is willing to use it rather than to see by hearsay, as Don Quixotte saw his Mistress, may easily and clearly see for himself, that the Appeal proposes no scheme to aggrandise and enrich the American Clergy, or to impoverish and depress the American laiety. It proposes indeed Bishops to be sent to America, but without any temporal power, and without jurisdictions over any persons at all, the Clergy of the Church only excepted. What foundation then is there for all this Racket and Flustration about the power of American Bishops, when, upon the proposed plan, they are to have no power at all over the Clergy of other denominations, nor over the laity of any denomination? But, it seems, the contrary to this is attempted to be proved by the writer before us; and I am impatient to see in what manner he will acquit himself.

The reader therefore will excuse my passing over his incom­prehensibly sublime and exquisitely sagacious criticism upon the [Page 120]distinction between a Churchman, an American Churchman, an American Church of "Englandman," and an American Epis­copalian: especially when I assure him of my utter inability to explain the distinction, made by our critic, between an American Church of Englandman, and (to use the same phraseology) a Church of England in America-man.

Let us then attend to a process of reasoning, which now, for the first time, appears in the American Whig. The point under­taken to be proved is this, that ‘with the Bishops (proposed to be sent to America) we shall naturally have the introduction or establishment of spiritual or ecclesiastical courts’ Our dis­putant states his proposition with all the solemn stiffness of a Ramus or a Burgersdicius, and gives the signal that the mount­ain is in Labour, with such awful formality, that every reader has a right to expect that the production will be more than a mouse.

For my part when I had proceeded thus far in reading the paper, I expected to see a terrific movement of Syllogisms ranged in rank and file, and to hear the ratling of a strong logical chain, to the end of the chapter. But I was mistaken. I find but little marching and countermarching of arguments; and the chain consists of but three short links, which have neither solidity nor strength.

For, of the thirteen paragraphs that follow, there are but three wherein any proof is attempted.—Two others are manifestly intended to shew his immense erudition in the Ecclesiastical-Law,—and as to the design of the other eight, I am unable to fix it with any certainty. All that I know about them is, that they prove nothing, and that they take the thing for granted which it was their business to prove. As I think it not worth while to say any thing farther to them, or about them, i. e. to or about these eight paragraphs of the epicence or doubtful Gender; I will confine myself to the three reasoning, and the two ostentatious ones.

Let us then first consider the three, and take them in their order. ‘The Bishop's title, says this writer, is not derived from the apostolic commission: They are seized by the law of of the land, and will hold their preheminencies 'till this law is altered by King, Lords, and commons.’ If by the ‘Bishop's title’ he means the right to their temporalities, we are will­ing to grant, that it is not derived ‘from the apostolic commis­sion,’ for the same reason that a clergyman's right to the use of a Parsonage, or to the money subscribed or promised for his support, is not derived "from the apostolic commission." Bis­hops in England are invested with rights of this nature ‘By the law of the land;’ but I have never yet heard that any "law of the land," i. e. of England, conveys or confirms, or [Page 121]specifies, or meddles with the rights of Bishops who do not reside in the land, i. e. in England. The laws of England, so far as they relate to Bishops, have reference only to Bishops in England: what shall be the condition and authority of Bishops in America, or any other country, they have never yet undertaken to de­termine.—Our letter-writer having gained nothing by his first effort, let us see how he succeeds in his second.

"Lord Hale, says he, meaning Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice (as we say, not Lord Sherlock, but Dr. Sherlock, Lord Bishop, &c.) "tells us—that every Bishop by his election and confirmation, even before consecration had ecclesiastical juris­diction "annexed to his office." What jurisdiction every Bishop formerly had, and how he obtained it, are to us matters of mere speculation: what jurisdiction every Bishop now has, is a more important question, I have not lately read Sir M Hale's ‘His­tory of the common law,’ to which we are here referred; nor do I remember what he says of the rights of Bishops: but in this I am clear, that he undertook not to define the rights of any Bishops, but of those in England,—that he meant not to explain what would be the rights and powers of American Bishops. And 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. So that this second paragraph of our American Wh—I mean Churchman, we may say, Item, gained nothing.

But perhaps, according to the old proverb, it may concern us to beware of the third; and it is certain that in this he endeavours to drive home and clench the argument. Thus he goes forward: ‘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, or erect a Tribunal, &c’ This writer does not tell us, what he means by the establishment of the American Bishop's diocese,—nor whether he thinks "his diocese is established" by common law. If by establishment he means a legal establishment, we may, as is proposed in the appeal, have Bishops in this country without any establishment of dioceses, in this sense of the word. But let us suppose, for the present, that the dioceses in America will obtain a legal establishment; yet still it will depend upon the nature of the establishment, what powers will thereby be granted to American Bishops. An [...] ­blishment of dioceses by no means implies an equality of ten [...]d power in the Bishops that govern them. It will hardly be dis­puted that the dioceses in England are established dioceses; and yet the Bishop of Durham has some rights and powers, to who [...] other Bishops in England are not intitled; as they all have some [Page 122]rights to which the Bishop of Man has no claim or pretension; and yet the Bishop of Man is as much a Bishop of the Church of England, and all the acts of episcopal power,—his ordinations, confirmations and government of the Clergy,—are equally valid with that of the Bishop of Durham, or any other Bishop whatever. What has been here said proves, that altho' dioceses should be established in America, it does not from thence follow that there must be an "establishment of spiritual or ecclesiastical courts.

The truth is, the body of English ecclesiastical law is com­pounded of the civil law, the common law, the canon law, and the statute law. Now a right to hold spiritual courts, which is founded on the common law only, can be no more than a general right; and if there be no canons, nor statutes, to regulate and direct it, it can never operate. Such a right is an abstract idea, and it can produce only abstract courts, which can have nothing to do with individuals, or with particular cases. I have so good an opinion even of American Whigs, as to believe they have no great aversion to such spiritual courts as these, which can never exist but in theory and speculation.

If by the common law, or any other law, American Bishops will have a right to hold courts, in the same manner that they are held by bishops in England, it must be by virtue of the Church of England's having a full and general establishment in the American colonies. For upon any other principle I defy this writer and his patron, and their confederates, to shew, that ‘with the bishops, we shall naturally have the introduction or establishment of spiritual or ecclesiastical courts.’

It may therefore be proper, before we proceed to other matters, to settle this capital Point; whether the church of England is established in the colonies? if it is, perhaps some act of the legi­slature will be necessary for the election of such an episcopate as is proposed in the appeal, which act the friends of an American episcopate can probably obtain, without much difficulty. If the church of England is not established in the colonies, than all this clamour against spiritual courts as necessarily connected with an American episcopate, is groundless and impertinent. But as too much of "the dry crust of controversy" at one time, may have an ill effect upon the stomachs of the American Whig and his fellows, I will withhold my hand for the present, having, I fancy, already given him and them more than they can manage at one breakfast. I propose however to resume this subject in some future paper, and to give out some more of this dry crust, by the time they shall have well swallowed, chewed the cud upon, cou­cocted, and digested their present meal.

[Page 123]

From Mr. Parker's New-York Gazette, Monday, May 9th. The AMERICAN WHIG. [No. IX.]
Which treateth of that trumpet of sedition, which may be found in the 18th line of the 41st page of the epistle general of St. THOMAS.

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.

Here endeth the first Lesson of Trumpets.

To the man that is called the AMERICAN WHIG.

Respected Friend,

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.

Dear Brother,

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,

I am, your most affectionate brother, JACK CATCH.

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.

[Page 130]


My Kingdom is not of this World.

St. John's Gospel, xvii. 36.

To the Author of the CENTINEL.


MY view in these letters is not to combate any religious de­nomination, nor to oppugn the theological opinions of any man or set of men, but to defend the liberties of my country. Had any other society of Christians applied in the same manner for an establishment, I should have thought it my duty to object to it, and as far as my influence could extend, to oppose the de­sign. Bishop, Priest, Presbyter or pastor have no magic in them to justify with me, any attempt prejudicial to public liberty.

It is very unfortunate that any dispute should be raised in A­merica, at a crisis, when union of sentiment and design, seem essentially necessary for preserving our civil rights. A ship's crew quarelling in a storm, or when an enemy is within gun-shot, does not argue a greater degree of infatuation. For what pur­pose, or with what view it is started at this critical time, I do not willingly allow myself even to conjecture. For the sake of their country, their posterity, and themselves, I hope the friends and lovers of America, will consider themselves no further con­cerned in this dispute, than as it relates to civil liberty.

For the debate, as I view it, is not concerning a Bishop, nor concerning episcopal discipline; but about the manner of intro­ducing the Bishop, and establishing that discipline in America. It is evident from sundry Parts of the Appeal, that application has been made to our superiors in Britain to procure an act of parliament to establish Episcopacy in the colonies.§ But it must be allowed, that whether the present attempt "for establishing an American Episcopate," was begun by some of the Missionaries, [Page 131]or set on foot by the society for propagating the gospel, who, as Dr. Chandler says,) page 53) ‘have ever been watching for seasona­ble opportunities of exerting themselves to obtain it,’ they could not have hit upon a time more unfavourable to American free­dom. However I hope the friends of the colonies, whether of the Episcopal, or any other church, will unite in opposing an attempt, which is in itself an open acknowledgment of the claims which the enemies of America have lately set up, and which are totally subversive of our rights and liberties.

Suppose the application had been made to the parliament of Ireland, or to the legislature of Virginia, to establish episcopacy in New-England, in what light would it have appeared. Or sup­pose Scotland were at this day a seperate Kingdom, and the Pres­byterians of Pennsylvania and Maryland should apply to the legi­slature of that kingdom, to establish the Kirk of Scotland and her discipline in America, how would the application be re­sented?

The British empire consists of several provinces united in al­legiance to one prince. The legislative power of and for each province, consists of the King or his representatives, with the Deputies of the people in that province. Tho' Great-Britain is now united in one legislative body or parliament, it was not many ages since, divided into several districts, with distinct legislatures in each. At that time it was not pretended, that the laws of one, bound the subjects in another province. Each, with the consent of the sovereign, or his representative, enjoyed the right of legi­slation for itself. Britain, since its union into one legislative body, has acquired greater power; but whether it has thereby acquired a right to make laws to bind the other parts of the Empire, re­mains to be proved. There is certainly a difference between power and right; nor does the one follow as a consequence of the other, for if power gave right, then would the strongest have a right to whatever he pleased to seize on: and ‘the high-way man would have a right to my purse, who demands it with a pistol to my breast.*

But why should not the Episcopalians be upon an equal footing with their Neighbours?§ I answer; are they not on an equal [Page 132]footing? Are they not permitted, as freely as any other denomi­nation, to form a "voluntary society" for the publick worship of God, in the way they think most agreeable to him.

‘They have no Bishop to ordain the inferior Clergy, and to govern the church and confirm Adults.’ What hinders? Perhaps it may be said they cannot have a Bishop, unless sent from England, because the succession must not be interrupted, and that he cannot be sent from England, placed in a Diocese, and en­dowed with a revenue according to his rank, without the ap­pointment of his majesty, as supreme head of the church, and without an act of parliament,

Before I answer to this, I should be glad to see the edict by which Christ has enjoined the unbroken succession of Bishops Next I would be glad to know how the Christian Church was sup­plied with Bishops for the first three centuries, when there was no civil power interposed to establish them. Whether a settled revenue is essential to a Bishop; or whether the Church of Eng­land in America (as it is called) is so peculiarly different from all other Christian Churches, that even under the fullest and freest state of religious liberty, it cannot enjoy the "form of its ecclesias­tical government and discipline, without an act of parliament to establish it."

Religion and government are certainly very different things, in­stituted for different ends: the design of the one being to pro­mote [Page 133]our temporal happiness, the design of the other to procure the favour of God, and thereby the salvation of our souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the peace and welfare of society is preserved, and the ends of both answered. But by mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the world in blood, and disgraced hu­man nature.

In the middle and eastern governments of North-America, the legislatures have, with great wisdom, taken care to keep the church distinct from the state. They have made laws to secure to the people in general and to each member in particular, the full enjoyment of their civil rights, interests, and properties; and have armed the Magistrate with power to enforce the execution of these laws. But at the same time individuals are left at full liberty to unite themselves into societies for the public worship of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectually to procure eternal life and happiness. This indeed may be disagreeable to those, who complain, that ‘altars are set up against altars, and churches against churches, and that those who are rejected by one, may be received by another;’ but certainly nothing can be more consistent with reason and religion, or more agreeable to the sincere lovers of liberty.

How long we shall enjoy the happiness of this constitution, if establishments can be imposed on us without our consent, is very uncertain. Let us therefore with one heart and with one mind unite in support of our common rights, and resolve to ‘stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled with the yoke of bondage.’

I am, Sir, Yours, &c. A. B.

To what this spirited correspondent has here, said I have added some notes, to shew that if the Episcopalians in this country are under any difficulties, they arise from themselves; either be­cause [Page 134]cause they have adopted some confined notions concerning the Episcopal character; or from an arbitrary and needless association of state establishment with church-government in their ideas of it; or lastly from an assuming disposition, which prompts, them to claim the superiority over their neighbours, who reject episcopacy

For if the same privileges, which other denominations enjoy, would satisfy their Clergy, why did not the episcopal ministers of New-York and New-Jersey, instead of sending seven petitions to England for Bishops, proceed to choose one of their number to be their superior, and voluntarily agree to be governed by him. Thus their hierarchy might have been completed, without lord­ly revenue, state appointment, or giving ground of jealousy to others. The Moravian Bishops, who stand on this footing, never gave any Umbrage.

But a voluntary episcopate, in the primitive way, or as other societies enjoy their forms of discipline, will not satisfy the mis­sionaries. They and their people are the church, the American church; as it were emphatically and exclusively; all others are Hereticks or Schismaticks. They are the Church of England in America; nay, the national Church, and of the national religion; and must be raised upon the depression of all other Churches, whose members are already termed Dissenters , and roundly denied any natural right to civil or military offices§.

These extravagant claims of some of the Missionaries, in behalf of about twenty-five thousand of their people, dispersed among a million or more of British subjects, who are settled between Nova-Scotia and Maryland, are very alarming; especially as many of the episcopal lately are utterly averse to the invidious scheme. But the course they take to obtain what they seek for, by applying to England for an act of the state in their favour, is most presumptuous, unconstitutional, and subversive of liberty and justice.

How these enterprising geniuses came to be authorised to trans­act for all British America, or at least for all the episcopalians in it, does not appear. It is very remarkable, the bustle about Bishops seems to be confined to colonies generally settled by peo­ple averse to prelacy, in which ‘it would, as Dr. Chandler himself confesses, Page 47) without dispute be improper to have any:’ whilst in Virginia, and Maryland, where a nu­merous episcopal Clergy are provided for under acts of assembly, and where the pleas of usefulness and necessity would have some meaning, there is little said concerning them. Doubtless if the people of those provinces, who are generally friends to the episco­pal [Page 135]Church, found it expedient to complete their religious esta­blishments, they would pass laws for the purpose, and carefully ascertain and limit the duties, privileges, and authority of these spiritual superiors; which from the peculiar circumstances of the colonies; from the uncertainty of the law on this subject; but especially from the encroaching disposition which this order of men has shewn in all Ages, would be absolutely necessary.

If the propriety of establishing diocesan Bishops in the colonies was ever so apparent and the right of parliament to interfere in our internal police ever so clear, yet the colonists would scarce think it prudent to have an affair so delicate, and so nearly con­nected with public liberty, regulated in England. The people there, very remotely interested in the consequences, would pro­bably leave it to the Clergy themselves, to form the plan; as seems to have been the case, at the close of Queen Ann's reign, when the design of establishing an American Episcopate by act of parliament, was on the carpet before. But I hope we are not so infatuated as willingly to trust this momentous affair to such interested management. Let us then speak and act for ourselves, and be watchful that our rights and privileges be not violated, under the specious pretence of advancing the interests of religion.

From the Connecticut Journal, New-Haven, May 13.

To the Author of the American Whig, and Timothy Tickle Esq his Ghostly Flagellator.

MR. Whig, when I read two or three of your first papers I was sorry to see a spirit rising which tends to irritate and, inflame our brethren of the episcopal Church: I said to myself, surely the Gentleman is pouring his milk into the churn, and pre­paring to wring their noses. Pray, Sir! consider what we fear is that our brethren of the episcopal Church will fall into the snare that is laid for them, by certain cunning politicians on the other side of the water, and become a detached party in opposition to the interest of the country, and a tool in their hands in oppres­sing the liberties of America. We ought to treat the episcopa­lians with decency, lest by provoking our brethren to wrath we induce them to run headlong into the snare laid for them. This thought I am confirmed in, by the impression I find is made on their minds by your first papers. Tickle is all in a flame, and lashes every one he meets in his way, and brandishes his whip in a very furious manner.

As for you cousin Tim, I take the liberty to speak a word or two in your ear, tho' I expect you will give me a lash of your [Page 136]whip for it, you have assumed a false name; I know you well, by your whips; as the Philosopher said, "speak that I may know, you;" your true name is not Tickle, but Scratch'em. You have got an ugly pair of claws. If you can't keep your hands off from them, you ought to have your claws cut. As to the title of " Esq" with which you honour yourself, it is a mere piece of vanity in you, I take you to be one of those disorderly Missiona­ries, Dr. Chandler speaks of, and says they want two or three stout Bishops, from home, to govern them and give them due "Castigation."

You are soon angry, and your mouth calleth for strokes: 'tis but a word and a blow with you, if your Bishop was here now, he would give you due "flagellation" for this. You and Mr. Whig both seem disposed to tell certain ugly stories about your holy mothers, and great grand fathers you proceed, I expect to hear one of you saying to the other, ‘your mother is a tyrant whore;’ and the other replying, your mother is a bastard, a hyprocrite and a fanatic. I advise you both to forbear and be silent. It is not prudent for the pot to call the kettle ugly names. If you must have a thorough scold, go out into the field, as cho­lorick Gentlemen do with their swords, and scold it out between yourselves; but don't disturb the publick peace, by brawling in the streets—I recommend to your serious consideration, the just and amiable character which an ancient writer gives of the true wisdom which is from above. To walk in her steps is true policy, and best serves every valuable interest.

I would that all the hot, angry, party Men, and narrow big­goted zealots, on all sides, would altogether hold their peace: it would be their wisdom. If the greatest and best man that ever lived was now in America, he would say to them, "If ye have bitter zeal and strife in your hearts ye are carnal; and if ye bite and devour each other, like angry dogs fallen together by the ears, take heed lest ye be consumed one of another." The fiery zeal­ots of all sides would do well, in their lucid intervals, to consider that the ferments they are raising, in their wrathful folly, threaten the destruction of American liberty and honour. When the Prince of Orange, Britain's deliverer, was crossing the sea with his fleet, bringing salvation, he was assaulted by a furious storm. As he sat in the great cabbin with some of his Officers, at mid­night, the Dutch pilot at helm, was heard repeatedly to cry out, "steady,! steady!" the prince reply'd, ‘If my father of England had been as wise as this honest tar, I should not have been ex­posed to this storm.’

Religion and my country's friend PACIFICUS.
[Page 137]

N. B. Cousin Tim, I observe in your last pieces you fall to rail­ing against the Presbyterians in America, and others, in a shame­ful manner. You seem to act like one of Solomon's mad men, who cast fire brands, arrows, and death. I see you dearly love to flourish your whip about. I advise you to apply to the general, and beg of him the goodly office of whipper general to the army.— There you may whip the poor rogues till your heart is satiated, but forbear your mad whipping of your neighbours; or you will expose yourself to public scorn. "A Bishop must be no striker"— I observe too, you use the style of the Romish missionaries in speak-of the espiscopal Clergy and churches in America, "the Clergy, the Church." As if there were no Clergy and churches in A­merica but yours; This is very impudent in you, I suppose you think of the church of England, as the Romish Clergy do of the church of Rome, that she is the mistress of all churches in America, out of whose communion there can be no true church, nor Salva­tion in America.


Faenum habet in Cornu; longe fuge.

Your only Safety lies in Flight,
Whene'er his Anger burns;
For tho' the Monster cannot bite,
He'll gore you with his Horns.

SINCE the publication of Num. V. of the American Whig, no person, "above the capacity of an Idiot," can be at a loss to determine, what the Hopes of the Faction are, who are em­ployed in writing that paper; nor what the particular designs are, which they have in view, and which they pursue, per fas et nesas, with such unremitted Clamour. Avowedly to have sown the seeds of disaffection, between Great-Britain and her colonies, might have subjected them to some inconveniencies. The pre­sent attack upon the Church and Clergy, was therefore both necessary and convenient;—necessary, because the Church, in its very frame, as well as doctrines, is unfavourable to republican, leveling principles in government; and the Clergy, have al­ways boasted of their attachment to the present happy constitution, (Amer. Whig, No. 11) It was convenient, because a common News-Paper which circulates far & wide, is an admirable vehicle to propagate those principles, by which the minds of a virtuous, and as yet a loyal people, are it seems to be tainted, and their affections to their mother country, debauched. Some symptoms and indications of this design, were noted by considerate people, [Page 138]in the Independent reflector, and Watch-tower, of old. The expressions in those papers, were indeed more guarded: ambigu­ous cant phrases, left us to guess what their particular, ultimate end was. But now the mask is dropped, as being of no farther use; since "the work is so far advanced, that there is no looking back."—A "Cord," it seems, more tough than Whalebone, stronger than chains of brass and iron, is ready stretched from America, to Great-Britain; every thing of value in the mother country, is tied to one end of this cord, the other end is in the strenuous hand of the American Whig-Faction, who are to pull and tugg—hic Labor, hoc opus est —'till ‘every thing valuable at home, is drawn safely over, into the spacious bosom of the continent of America.

Nor let the inhabitants of Great-Britain be dejected at the pros­pect of that horrible destruction which is soon to overwhelm them, it ought to give them no concern. For ‘in proportion to the abate­ment of the national glory in Europe, will be the brightness of its resurrection in America. The Whig-Confederacy have been long employed in preparing their grand Machine for this new kind of water-conveyance; and in the ‘collection of ma­terials for the construction of this glorious fabrick.’—viz. "a regular American constitution."—Their machine is now at ‘work, and "the transfer of the European part of the great family is so swift,’ that in order to accommodate it upon its arrival, ‘before seven years roll over our heads, the first stones must be laid.’ And so deeply has the faction laid the plan for their intended revolution, that the American Whig profanely asserts, that no possible contingencies, not even the sore judgments God, war and famine, can hinder its execution: But take it in his own words, tho' I tremble at the horrid impiety, while I tran­scribe them;— ‘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.’

Like a true Fanatic, he also boasts of the presence of the deity with him, in his insidious designs; and pretends to be acquaint­ed with the predispositions of the Almighty; and—by way of compliment to the Almighty, I suppose—let us know that these predispositions are well calculated for the rise of America.‘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 withold her assistance. Her assistance, did I say? she will spend all she has,’—that she will Mr. Whig, before your scheme takes place.— ‘nay, she is com­ing, [Page 139]fast coming.’—pull away my lads— ‘in her own proper person, and will desert her beloved island,’i. e. Britain will come over and leave herself behind.—to complete the stupendous and lasting "monument of her power."

What is to become of the terra firma of those islands, he has unkindly concealed from us; nor has he told us what those things of no value are, which are to be left behind; for N. B. it is only every thing of value—in the estimation, I suppose, of this faction—that is to be brought over. We may therefore con­clude, that the K—, the Church, and the Bishops will be left behind, as not being of value enough to compensate the labour of warping them across the Atlantic. For if we may judge from the known and avowed principles of the faction, these things are in their estimation, not only of no value; they are worse; they are malignant,—hurtful and destructive to any country. Bishops have already been declared by them, to be the worst commodity that can be imported: They must therefore of course be reprobated. The Church must finally stand or fall with the Bishops; the K—must be—But judge of his fate, from the fate of one of his predecessors, whom God, for the punishment of the sins of the nation gave up, into the hands of this very faction. I say, this very faction;—for it is principles, not men, that make a faction: where principles are the same, the faction is the same, tho' the men be shifted a thousand times. The things of value then, that are to be brought over, are the sacred persons, and pious effects of presbyterians, independents, &c. &c. &c.— —all that differ from the established Church, except Quakers; for N. B. the Quakers, tho' they have always be­haved toward the government in the most peaceable and orderly way, are as much a contraband article, with this faction, as the Bishops themselves: witness the law made formerly by the Massa­chusetts government against the importation of Quakers,—witness al­so the saw made in Connecticut, entitled Hereticks, by which it was enacted, that no master of any vessel should land any Quakers, without carrying them away under the penalty of £. 20—Doug­lass's sum. vol. I. 447—vol. II. 340—which law was disallowed by Queen Anne, as being contrary to that liberty of conscience, which was allowed to all dissenters.

Having thus far pursued this filthy Dreamer &c. who speaks evil of dignities, I beg the candid of every denomination, and of every class, to reflect—whether such publications as this 5th Numb. of the American Whig, have not a direct tendency to raise suspicions and jealousies in the mother country, against the colo­nies?—whether it be consistent with our interest not to say duty, to give any just offence, any reasonable cause of disgust, to the government at home?—whether the colonies have not reason [Page 140]to look upon the author of this number of the Whig, as an incen­diary, endeavouring to disunite the colonies from Great-Britain? For what purpose can these sentiments be propagated, but to raise a spirit of animosity against the government at home, by foment­ing the prejudices of the ignorant, and winding up ‘their hopes to all the confidence of assurance.’—Tho' according to the pre­dictions of this prophet, the completion of these hopes, must end in THE RUIN AND DESTRUCTION OF GREAT-BRITAIN.

No Whig that ever existed can have a warmer attachment to to the interests of British America, than I have. It is the country that g [...]e me birth; that holds all the dear connections of life. No one could rejoice more to see it flourish in commerce, arts and sciences,—in every thing that can make a people virtu­ous, happy and great;—in the full and quiet enjoyment of all civil and religious liberty.—But I cannot please myself with contemplating the ruin and destruction of Great-Britain.— avert it heaven! may she ever continue the mistress of the nati­ons, —the grand support of liberty, the scourge of oppression and tyranny!—may all disgusts, suspicions, jealousies, be­tween the mother country and the colonies, utterly cease, and be for ever buried in oblivion!—may they ever be closely, in­mately, affectionately united; mutually happy, in the mutual advantage they receive from each other! and may the Wretch who attempts to disunite them, meet with that just contempt from the public, which I dare say, the American Whig, has before this time, in part experienced, from a sensible, virtuous and loyal people.

The remainder of this hodgepodge of sedition, nonsense, folly, falsehood and slander, is employed against the peculiar objects of his spleen and malice, the Church and Clergy. After some com­mon-place declarations of respect to the Clergy, he represents them as—"longing to tipple the wine of fornication;"—to take the intoxicating sip—with "the scarlet whore," and to de­file the nations.’—How the Whig can judge so exactly of the strength of this wine of fornication, I cannot conceive, as he will hardly own, that he himself was ever so intoxicated with it, as to defile the nations. Possibly a Nose of the incredible length of "sixteen inches," according to the mensuration of his corres­pondent Jack-Catch,—par nobile fratrum—may have helped him to form a judgment of it; or possible there is some analogy between the wine of fornication, and the lust of fornicating. If so we may casily judge how he came by his knowledge, viz,— having felt the force of the one, he easily guesed at the strength of the other.

But perhaps this fornicating period is to be understood mystical­ly, and—"longing to tipple the wine of fornication," means [Page 141]the the lust of worldly power;—if so. I shall take the liberty of replying by recrimination, which William Livingston, in his letter to the Bishop of Landaff, says "is reputed to be just."— If then it be true, as her enemies say, that the Church and Clergy have now and then taken a "sip of this bowl,"—it is equally true, that the English independents have ever been most beastly drunken with it.

Their whole existence hath been one continued revel of intoxi­cation; so that their nakedness have been ever uncovered, and shameful spewing hath been constantly on their glory.—The Metaphor is the American Whig's, he cannot be angry at my pur­suing it.

The Whig says, "he is sensible they"—the Clergy— "disavow all noxious designs,"—that they— ‘abjure the roughness of violence.’—I wish I could return him the compliment;—but on the contrary, I am constrained by the paper now under consideration, to believe, that should his sect ac­quire that dominion in the colonies, which his soul so ardently longs after, the "fires of persecution would" indeed ‘burn with hotter vengeance here than in any other part of the world.’

The Appeal proposes the introduction of American Bishops, for the purposes of ordaining and governing the Clergy, and con­firming those of the laity, that desire it.—conscience is pleaded, in favour of the members of the Church;—they say it is against their conscience, to submit to any other pastors, but those that have received Episcopal orders. Those of her members that are desirous of entring into orders, that they may serve God and their generation in that honourable state, affirm, that they cannot in conscience submit to an ordination performed by persons, who they think have no authority to confer the powers of the Christian priesthood.

This whole plea of conscience is ridiculed by the American Whig. He cannot suppose a Churhman to be governed by con­science in any thing, I must therefore conclude, that he is utterly unacquainted with the force of conscience himself; and that, of consequence, he is always ready, whenever it is in his power, to persecute those, who he supposes, are not governed by conscience, but are carrying on a horrid design of ruining and enslaving the country, by bringing in a "Bishop" as a spy,"—"a minister of the church" "as much to be dreaded as a late minister of state."

With regard to the precise meaning of the words primitive Bishop, it was sufficiently determi [...]ed by the powers, with which it was proposed that Bishops should be sent to America, viz.— To ordain and govern the Clergy, and confirm such of the laity as desired it.—No great powers have been asked for, wished for, or expected.

[Page 142] But if the Whig will need suppose that poverty, distress and persecution, are essential to the character of a primitive Bishop; it is more than probable, that the American Bishops will be lite­rally primitive. No revenues, no one single worldly advantage, has been asked for them; and the Whig is laying up in store a good magazine of persecutions again their arrival.

If it pleased God, that the Christian religion should make its way into the world, thro' the poverty, reproach, persecution and death of the first preachers of it, that his power might the more conspicuously appear in its establishment; no good reason can there be drawn to shew why a man, who from a sincere desire to serve God in his Church, and to qualify himself for that purpose, has spent his little fortune in his education, and in an expensive voyage of a thousand leagues for ordination, should not live de­cently and comfortably upon the income of his Parish. The po­verty of the Clergy seems a favourable topic with the American Whig; and I doubt not it would please him much, to see them reduced to the most abject state of penury and contempt—to all the persecution and tortures which the first preachers of the GOSPEL underwent.

The education of a lawyer is not more expensive, than that of a Clergyman; the profession requires no greater abilities,—no greater labour; nor is it, that I know of, either more honoura­ble or more useful. Yet I dare say the American Whig would not think 1500 or 2000 l. a Year too much, even tho' it should be obtained from the poor, the fatherless and the Widow.

From the BOSTON Gazette, May 16. Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman in—to his Friend in Boston.

"I Have read the letter you sent me, from Mr, Livingston to the Bishop of Landaff with particular pleasure. I am well acquainted with Mr. Livingston, and from his known good sense I had great expectations when I heard that such a piece was com­ing out: The honest manly way in which he has address'd the Bishop, must, I think, recommend him even to his Lord­ship.

"In civil affairs the times have been such, of late, that bad, very bad men have found their way up to those in power by the most infamous misrepresentations of the wealth, loyalty, and go­vernment of this country; and I fear the Episcopal Clergy, catch­ing the cast of the times, are falling too much into the same [Page 143]road. As to the former I believe, it is now pretty near high­water with them, and upon the turn of the tide, I am not with­out expectation that public disgrace, if not exemplary punishment will follow. A prime minister, (even Mr. G.) may stand unim­peachable, should he be able to lay upon the table the opinions and earnest reccommendations of the first order of people that the crown knows in this country, in favour of taxation, and ev'ry other severe measure that has been taken, in consequence of the rebellious colours Americans have been painted in. The manner in which our Clergy, (for I am a Churchman) aim at stealing a Bishop into America, is low; and I sincerely wish that Mr. Livingston's letter may put the Bishop of Landaff upon review­ing his authorities for the state that he has given the public of this country: and I think He will stand in some measure excul­pated, should he be able to give the society's missionaries as vouchers for the sentiments that he has thrown out. Indeed I think his lordship cannot well avoid entering upon this business in good earnest, after the late publications that I have seen. Dr. Tillotson whom I admire in all his writings, and who has done so much honour to the church of England by his moderation, candour, and good sense, says in one of his sermons, some men have a scurvy trick of lying for the honour and glory of God.

I would be understood to think that the government at home, both in church and state, had no premeditated design to injure this country, but they have been most shamefully and grossly im­pos'd upon in the representations they have receiv'd, and from such quarters, as they had a right to expect pure facts only. And let me whisper a single observation to Dr. Chandler, that such a sort of Bishop as he has sketched out for America, without his full suit of power and glory would by no means answer the Doctor's purposes.—It would be like the young gentleman, who for the sake of being in bed with his mistress, consented to be swaithed round with a whole piece of new linnen, but was afterwards very restless indeed, and somewhat impatient of his confinement."


I HAVE engaged in this course of periodical papers, as an ad­vocate for the general liberties of my fellow subjects in North-America. I have entered upon the question of an American episcopate, and a consideration of Doctor Chandler's appeal to the public, in favour of it; as I esteem the question to be of greater importance, in its consequences, to my native country, than the imposition of any customs, or commercial restrictions. which affect not the right of conscience.

[Page 144] The Doctor addresses the public, with an air of the highest assurance, of the propriety and expediency of his plan; and, with design no doubt, to engage his superiors in the immediate prose­cution of it, very shrewdly insinuates, that the apprehension of any general popular discontent or opposition, is entirely groundless. ‘Of any considerable discontent or uneasiness, (says he,) there is no reason to be apprehensive. Whatever notions the dissenters of this country may have formerly entertained, concerning the church: yet of late years they have greatly come off from their prejudices—excepting here and their a hot-headed writer, or a pragmatical enthusiast.’ So also to prejudice unwary minds, against any presumptuous opponents, he anticipates his clerical anathemas of every objection, ‘that may be hereafter suggested against American Bishops,’ as ‘proofs rather of the dexterity or ill-will of the inventors, than of the real fears and uneasiness of the inhabitants—that artful men may raise objections, in a way that shall appear plausible to those who are unacquainted with the legerdemain of cavillers and sophists.’ And that "whoever employs his talents in this exercise," that is, gentle reader, of offering any objections to his darling episcopate, ‘is as unworthy of the public attention, as the child that engages at crambo or push-pin.’ This reader, is the language of the celebrated Doctor Chandler, whose fame for ingenuity and can­dour, has of late, been so much trumpetted by his brethren of the Clergy. These are the candid and ingenuous remarks of our reverend appellant; who, in the introduction of his appeal, with so much seeming fairness, had even invited objections, that ‘they might be fairly and candidly debated, before the tribunal of the public.’ Did the Doctor hope, by thus previously thunder­ing his pontifical bull, to silence all opposition? Or, forgetting his situation, before the impartial bar of the public, did he now conceive himself in a spiritual court, and his cause in the decision of an episcopal judge, where the verbum sacerdotis would have all the influence he could wish; where, to gain his point his single assertion, against the testimony of twenty laies, might possible be sufficient,—that there ‘neither now is, or ever has been, any considerable noise or public clamour,’ on the expectation of an American episcopate,—that, ‘of any considerable discontent and uneasiness, there is no reason to be apprehensive;’ and that all suggestions to the contrary, proceed merely from the malevo­lence of ‘here and there, a hot-headed writer, or pragmatical enthusiast.’

As to any "public clamour upon this account," before the public had been informed of the seven famous petitions, and the united attempts of the clergy, to introduce bishops into this [Page 145]country; perhaps the Doctor had not "heard of any", nor, per­haps, did he "foresee any." But I may now appeal to himself, whether, since the publication of his appeal; a very general uneasiness is not visible among the people; and a general popular opposition expressed against his episcopal project, among all ranks of men, as they become daily more diffusively acquainted with the reality of the design. The Doctor will unquestionably find himself grossly mistaken, in his opinion of the tame acquiescence of the inhabitants. And, if the zealous opponents of his American episcopate, merit the genteel appellation of "noisy hot-heads, and pragmatical enthusiasts," he will hear of not a few such, among the lay members of his own communion. Let him look into the dominion of Virginia, where, it our information may be depended upon, the laity of the church of England, are warm­ly, and almost universally opposed to it. And I am persuaded, that should the voices of the episcopalians only, be fairly collected throughout the colonies, there would be found a majority, decla­ring their aversion to the project of introducing the English eccle­siastical hierarchy into America. Should any British ministry therefore be found so weak, or so corrupt, as to betray the true interest, and disregard the tranquility of the provinces, by the establishment of spiritual lordships; for my part, I should con­ceive no scene more likely to open, than such a one as we have recently seen; I mean the conduct of the populace with respect to the officers appointed under the late unpopular statute: Nor would I be answerable for the safety of the ablest prelate that ever wore a mitre, was he to arrive in this country, under the charac­ter of a Protestant American Bishop.

To sooth the public into a favourable opinion of, and quiet submission to the spiritual yoke, the Doctor assures them, that really nothing more is designed than a mere primitive episcopacy, stripped of all its temporal and adventitious appendages, and without any authority derived from the state. This is the pre­tended fundamental argument for the appeal, for this American episcopal superstructure;— ‘It has long been settled (says he) by our friends and superiors at home, and the Clergy of this country have often signified their entire approbation and acquiescence therein, that the Bishops to be sent to America, will have no authority but purely of a spiritual and ecclesiasti­cal nature, such as is derived altogether from the church, and not from the state. And for the truth of this declaration, the Doctor appeals to every reader, "who is accquainted with the matter." If by "friends and superiors at home," he means the ministry and government, I must, in my [...]n appeal to every man, who has the least acquaintance with the civil and ecclesiasti­cal establishment of the mother-country, for the falsity of it? as [Page 146]no such system ever has or can be adopted by the British govern­ment, in any consistency with its constitutional principles. It by "friends and superiors," he means the dignified clergy of the Church of England, his declaration is as idle as their plan is chimerical, as neither can have the least weight or operation, unless we can suppose the British legislature to be entirely at the will and pleasure of their spiritual lordships: or, that they will strike at the fundamental principles of the political machine, in so essential a point; and thereby raise a ferment among the commons of England, as well as America, merely to gratify the desires of the clergy. Therefore if the grand basis of the Appeal be found chimerical and absurd, the superstructure will necessarily fall. If his lordship of America is to have ‘no other authority but purely of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is de­rived altogether from the church, and not from the state; and even this power is only to operate upon the clergy, and not on the laity,’ whence in the name of common sense, the propriety of this long Appeal! these pathetical addresses to the public? Whence these terrible outcries of partiality, persecution, and un­parallel'd hardships, sufficient to excite the pity of every church in Christendom? Is not all the power here contended for, in the hands of the clergy themselves? Why is the civil government called upon to interpose? Did ever any minister of the church of England receive the least molestation in the exercise of his cleri­cal office in any part of America? have not commissaries been heretofore appointed in different places, and have they not always been treated in a manner, worthy their sacred character?— If "no authority is to be derived from the state," for what pur­pose is the state applied to, and so pathetically folicited? And why these protestations of being "conscious of no crimes with regard to the state?" If none are to be affected but the clergy, why are the laity addressed with all this warmth of expostulation, and seeming vehemence of passion? Amidst all this strange incon­sistency and jargon, the world will suspect some unavowed ec­clesiastical machinations; and that tho' the voice may be Jacob's voice, yet the hands are the hands of Esau.

But let us, for argument's sake, suppose the plan to be carried into execution, and an act of parliament obtained for the creation of an American Bishop, upon such anti-constitutional principles, divesting his lordship of all the temporal powers belonging to the English Episcopate—What, in this case, would be the natural reflections of our fellow subjects, the inhabitants of South-Britain, on so strange a production?—Would they not have reason for such reflections as these— ‘The Americans are a people tenaci­ous of their liberty; who have successfully opposed the in­troduction of bishops, as political persons dangerous to their [Page 147]civil and religious privileges. Our parliament have now im­plicitly acknowledged this; and in favour of American liberty, have deprived their Bishops of all temporal jurisdiction; and con­fined them solely to "the exercise of the original powers of their office" in the Christian church. If fellow subjects are thus indulged with an exemption from ecclesiastical dominion, why ought we to remain shackled with a yoke, which we and our fa­thers have so hardly borne?’—it is plain, the Doctor takes it for granted, that the temporal powers of the English hierarchy, are not to be admitted here, as incompatible with the civil and religious rights of the community. What would be the conse­quence of such reflections as these, among the commons of Eng­land? Would any minister espouse a measure, that might have a tendency to excite such reflections? For, tho,' the pretence of disburdening the mother country, by a taxation of her American children, might blind the eyes of the populace to their true in­terests, and lead them to approve an injurious Stamp-Act; yet in the present case, there could be no such pretence, and they might soon cry out for the like indulgence. And can it be thought probably, that the dignify'd clergy themselves would willingly suffer a continual acknowledgment of an anti-christian power, as subsisting in the English ecclesiastical hierarchy—inconsistent with that fundamental maxim of the great founder of Christianity, my kingdom is not of this world? Are these gentlemen at once become to mortified to worldly grandeur, worldly power, and worldly assluence, as to wish for a dissolution of that dignity and authority, in the episcopal order here, which they are themselves exercising every day?—'Tis a ridiculous pretence not to be imposed upon an American understanding, even by the ‘plausible arts and legerdemain of clerical sophistry.’

But can any sensible American imagine, that his liberty or proper­ty would be long secure, even should Bishops be established in the colonies, in the very harmless character pretended. From whence would their gentleness proceed? Not from want of inclination to exercise the powers of the English Episcopate—but from the restraint of an act of parliament—an act, which being passed in direct repugnancy to the constitution, and rendering the A­merican, independent of the English estabiishment; would soon be found to be inconsistent with a just system of politics: Nor would eclesiastical policy fail to set every engine at work, for the abolition of an act so invidions in itself, and derogatory to the episcopal character. And would their American lordships, upon their full investiture with the constitutional powers of the episco­pal office, in Christian renderness to the laity here, refuse to exer­cise them, or return to their native country? No, surely; but rather would they not piously adopt, with a little variation, the [Page 148]language of our reverend Doctor— ‘A disposition to flight the highest punishments, the church could inflict, had become general; the voice of reason was no longer heard, nor the strength of argument regarded; and tho' for reasons of Chris­tian policy, no attempts were, at first, made for the establish­ment of the discipline of the church, under our American Epis­copate, so far as it related to private members, (it being at that time, a matter rather to be wished for and desired, than rati­onally attempted,) yet thanks to God! it is now established, and our episcopal power is full and complete.’—Behold now, my countrymen, the banners of episcopal dominion lifted up in your land! See your sacred inclosures, where once you sat undisturbed, under your own vines, and enjoying the fruit of your own fig-trees, now ravaged and laid waste by that dreadful monster, called a SPIRITUAL COURT!

"Into whose cruel jaws, if once you sall,
"In vain, alas! in vain for aid you call,
"Clerks, Proctors, Priests, voracious, round you ply,
"Like leeches sticking, 'till they've suck'd you dry."

But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the com­mandments of men.

Math. xv. 9.

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers.

Luke ii. 48.

NOTWITHSTANDING all the seeming candour and moderation of the pitiful scribbler of the lonely Cottage, it is not difficult to any reader of discernment, to discover the fea­tures of the high, even under all the disguise of the low, Church­man, and the wolf's hide (to make use of a common simile) thro' the tatters of the sheep's skin. Persons of penetration will pretty readily see, that his piece was intended as an opiate, to calm the disquieting apprehensions of the public, and as an anti-emetic, to counteract the several emetic draughts, lately administered by our political physici­ans, in order to enable America to disgorge the sugar'd arsenical pills, prescrib'd by Dr. Ch—r; but this paltry quack has, to his opiate, &c injudiciously added so many ingredients of a con­trary tendency (of which he seems not to have known the virtues) that his composition must needs have an effect, contrary to that which he design'd, on at least a very considerable part of his begotted patients; but lest some shou'd be more affected by the former than by the latter, I beg leave to caution the public against swallowing the dose.

The principal nauseous and bitter ingredients (to pursue for a moment longer the allegory) in this stupid mountebank's com­position, [Page 149]are an impudent charge of bypocrisy, and impertinent re­criminations against, an insolent triumph over, and a worn out (yet groundless and mistaken) interpretation of the conduct of the presbyterian party. These I shall make remarks upon in their order, as they constitute the substance of the whole, and perhaps afterwards take some notice of some things less material, or at least less tautologiz'd upon.

This pretended Low Churchman, charges the Presbyterians, with canting and roaring, and sounding the trumpet of dissention, &c. out of hypocrisy. If I have often already been unjustly mana­cled and chastis'd by a certain person, and, after I have fled away from his cruelty, and been betray'd by false brethren, evi­dently see the same instruments of torture preparing for me as before; what right has any dunce in the universe to impute my out-cries to hypocrisy? Or shou'd one of my betrayers call my cries canting and roaring, and blame them as hypocritical, and yet at the same time inadvertently acknowledge, that he and his com­panions, had by their artful machinations, expos'd me to the tor­tures I dreaded; what man of honour is there but must despise him as a villain? who then can help despising this wretched scribbler, who (line 12) has implicitly, but inadvertently, own'd that snares have indeed been laid for Dissenters, and that his party is a designing one; tho' he wou'd fain persuade the public, that the opposite one is more so? 'Tis true indeed, he levels his in­jurious reflections professedly against the presbyterians only, and brings no express charges against Dissenters of other denominati­ons; but this tenderness of his has its motive; and is no doubt, the result of the stale system of church-politics this scribbler's party has long since made use of, and designed to divide Dissenters of different denominations, tho' their interests, with regard to the establishment of episcopacy, are inseparably connected. From these principles of low cunning, he takes care to charge no canting and roaring, no hypocrisy and double dealing, upon the members of the Independent, Dutch, Luthuran, Ana-Baptist, Moravian or Quaker Churches: but the poor Presbyterians forsooth (because they are somewhat more jealous of their religious &c. liberties than others, and therefore in general are more active in their own defence) must be accused of canting and roaring, with a view of disturbing the public tranquility, and raising commotions in the community, &c. &c. Would not any man of sense laugh at a fel­low, who, on hearing one of his fellow subjects roar, when he ap­prehended he was about to be unreasonably chastis'd, should im­pute his vociserations to an aim at disturbing the public tran­quility &c? Most certainly. From what I have said, some may perhaps think I am myself a Presbyterian; I am not; but wou'd as zealously oppose Presbyterian as Episcopal domination. How­ever [Page 150]tho' I wish the zeal of the Presbyterians was more prudent, I can't help also wishing that, on the present occasion, all denomi­nations of Dissenters were as zealous as the Presbyterians.

I come now to this scribbler's recriminations; and here I will grant him all he can reasonably desire. I will allow that human nature is universally (without regard to religious distinctions) the same; that pride, ambition and thirst for power, is a Presbyterian, as well as Episcopalian vice; and I will agree with him, that no rational man, wou'd desire to see Presbyterianism rampant and unbridled in dmerica; and in these concessions I'm well assur'd, from their writing, already publish'd, those doughty scribblers those disponding incendiaries, the American Whig and Centinel, will readily concur with me; tho' I fancy we shall none of us grant, that, we are fully ascertain'd by any historian, that there never was a Presbyterian individual, but what had so evident a thirst for power as to become, on that account, the subject of an im­partial history.—And what wou'd this stupid mortal infer from all this, and what advantage wou'd he make of these con­cessions? Why truely this—that I have a right to perfecute, and lord it over the conscience as well as the property of a man, who, I have reason, or imagine I have reason, to believe, wou'd if it were in his power, treat me in the same manner; or at least, that, if he loves to' torture others, he is justly chargeable with hypocrisy and double dealing, &c. &c. &c. if he cries out, when he apprehends he is soon to be tortured himself. In short, recri­minations, on such an occasion, are miserable arguments, and have no imaginable tendency, but to add oil to the flame, increase animosities, and disturb (what this scribbler pretends to be soli­citous about) the public tranquility &c. Whatever incroachments Presbyterians may have formerly made on the religious or civil privileges of others, it is evident they are now exerting themselves merely in the defence of their own, and therefore what they may have done heretofore is nothing to the present purpose; but what Episcopalians are attempting at this day, is an interesting matter, which (to use the cottager's words) does as intimately affect every religious denomination upon the continent, as the Pres­byterians: But if they are not ignorant of, I fear they are too in­attentive to, their devices.

We shall next just take a view of our scribbler, in the ridiculous attitude of a childish but insolent triumph; which adds neither honour to himself, reputation to his party, nor force to his argu­ments. Whatever joy, he, as a narrow spirited partizan, might have conceived from the success of the episcopalians in election jobbing, and however great a malicious pleasure he might have received from the ill success of the Presbyterians, in their endea­vours to obtain a charter, any boy in the street could have advi­sed [Page 151]him to spare his insults, as being no proofs, either of his good sense, or the justice of his cause; and any boy of spirit had rather be disappointed, and even drubbed in a boxing match, than be laughed at. Misfortunes and disappointments may be borne with patience, as the lot of humanity; but insults under misfortunes are intolerable, unless, as sometimes happens, the author shews himself not worth regarding.

This violent-moderate, this High-Low Churchman, in order to divert our attention, from the attempts of his party, would sain persuade us, that the Presbyterians have long been aiming to e­stablish Presbyterianism in America. But what proofs of this does he produce? Why as many as there are hairs on my nails:—We must take his word for it. What man, but he who tries to beat down a stone wall with his head, acts a more foolish part than he, who, when accused, defends himself against his accuser, only by groundless recriminations, which every child almost can disprove? This is evidently the case with our scribbler; for, should the Presbyterians aim at such an establishment, the attempt would be no less foolish than his charge is groundless. Should they endea­vour to obtain an act of parliament, in favour of such an esta­blishment, could they hope to succeed? No. Should they obtain a vote of the houses of assembly, in the different provinces, for such a purpose, would not the act be thrown out by the councils, rejected by the governors, or repealed by the king? Certainly. Have they ever avowed such a design? Let all America witness. Have they secretly concerted such a favourite scheme, such a dar­ling purpose? Speak ye deserters from Presbyterianism, and ex­pose, if you can, any such mysteries of iniquity, by telling us the time, place, &c. Have any of the desponding incendiaries plead for such an establishment? Far from it—Both the Whig and Centinel oppose all establishments whatsoever, and so will every unprejudiced man, who considers the nature of the gospel church, and truly loves his neighbour as himself. What foundation then has this scribbler for his injurious conclusions? Truly none at all; and none but a person of consummate impudence, would have had the effrontery to advance (I cannot say draw) them. Because the Presbyterians in this city have petitioned for a charter, for the security of their particular church from encroachments, and ex­erted themselves during the late election in favour of a gentleman, whom they considered as a powerful advocate for dissenting pri­vilege (though the episcopal church could have been in no dan­ger from even a whole house of such) they are represented as aim­ing at a general establishment of Presbyterianism. Horrid injustice! to construe self defence into an assault, and infer ambitions de­signs from a dread of ecclesiastical bondage! but it has long been the practice of designing persons, to charge their own crimes on [Page 152]those they could not ensnare; and every body knows that Poti­phar's wife, because she could not ravish Joseph, swore a rape a­gainst him. This may serve as a counterpart to this scribber's stuff about the tribunes, and to shew with what propriety his 5th paragraph might be retorted upon himself, and his party. He seems to suppose the ill success of the Presbyterians, in the late e­lection, gave rise to the Whig. Poor fellow! notwithstanding the sharpness of his nose, he has taken a wrong scent, as Doctor C—r and others did before him. To my certain knowledge, the Whig has done no more, in publishing his paper, than was designed long enough before the election; and if, in consequence of the refusal of a charter to the Presbyterian church in this city, he has written in order to recover lost ground, who is to blame but those restless mortals, who do mischief for mischief's sake; and can have no inducement to obstruct the security of their neigh­bours, but their own iniquitous designs upon them. Recovery of lost ground is one thing, and encroachment another; and I leave the world to judge of the difference.

Thus having finished what I proposed in the methodical way, I shall just ramble a little after this rambling Scribbler, for upon my word, I can call him nothing else.

In the first place, I observe, that he affects (and there is a rea­son for it) the character of a moderate man, and makes a compa­rison between St. Cyprian in his sandals, and a modern bishop; but then he can't (for the soul of him) help making reflections on the poor Presbyterians, by whose great blackness he hopes, he and his party will appear tolerably white. In order likewise to preclude a suspicion of bigottry on his side, he (in no very decent manner for a church-man,) plays with the corner of his Lord­ship's cap, and the fold of his canonical sleeve; but would not for a bishopric, have failed of laughing at the documents of every stripling Presbyterian pastor. I next observe, that this miserable scribbler proposes a needless alternative, and advises us (if we must be slaves) to be as comfortable slaves as we can; but as the Americans have long ago resolved not to be slaves to civil, why should they resolve to submit to ecclesiastical, whether episcopal or presbyterian power, when there is no necessity of their being duped by the advocates of either? In short, In spite of the affect­ed moderation of this wretched scribbler, there is reason to be­lieve, he is at heart a favourer of the doctrines of passive obedi­ence, and non-resistance, and that (so slavish are his principles) he would have made a very consistent appearance in Sacheverell's pulpit. I have already observed that his design seems to lull dis­senters asleep, especially those who are not Presbyterians, but his lullaby consists of such harsh uncouth bellowings as must needs awa­ken any person, though he were already asleep, unless he were in an [Page 153]absolute lethargy. As he talks of two sorts of Presbyterians, I shall readily allow there are two sorts of Churchmen, but I am sorry to say, he seems to be of the wrong, though he would fain persuade us he is of the right sort. He highly blames political Presbyterians, and why? Because they do not, like their careless name-sakes, (those he calls religious Presbyterians) peaceably submit to all the tyranny of the mother-church, as well as that of the mother-country. If I whip, or threaten to whip you, and you say nothing—ah! that's a good boy! but if you complain— how dare you say a word, you rascal you. This scribbler can't see any uneasiness about a bishop; if his eyes are bad who can help it? he expects a bishop as soon as he can be prevailed with "to forego his temporal privileges and grandeur." I doubt not but as soon as an American bishopric appears to be more ho­nourable and profitable than the See of L [...]ndaff, &c. America will have candidates enough. The low-stuff of this scribbler a­bout a coop of poultry, and four or five dozen of [...]adeira, igno­rant well-meaning old women, doating daddies, &c. is so dis­gusting, that I am sick of the subject, and therefore immadiate­ly subscribe myself.



THE abuse of power, has in all ages, furnished the most co­pious fund of materials to the moralist, and to the historian, and has ever given the greatest perplexity to the Legislator. Private persons doubtless affect the public weal by their vices and by their crimes, but standing singly and alone, their trans­gressions are easily corrected. Whereas those who by the advan­tages of birth, fortune, office, or superior abilities are enabled to influence others, and to direct the public views and councils, are not without difficulty and address kept within the bounds of law and justice. The passions and prejudices of men are constantly leading them into one mistake or another; and the remonstrances of reason and duty alone, are but feeble restraints. In order therefore to curb the licentiousness of leading men it hath been found expedient to distribute the powers of government among the different, sorts and orders of which the community is composed, so as to excite, and employ those of one rank and interest, to correct the irregularities of another.

Although this may seem to lay a foundation for constant debate and faction, yet even this is a small inconvenience compared to [Page 154]the galling and oppressive yoke of absolute monarchy; or even the jealous severity of an aristocratic senate. But the common disadvantages of the mixed forms of government, will be found neither very considerable nor lasting, in case the distribution of power is made with judgment. The old Roman policy was defi­cient in this respect. The patrician and plebeian orders in that republic, wanted a third estate to moderate between them: which defect the king in the British constitution admirably supplies; whilst our popular branch, acting by representatives, their assem­blies are more deliberate, and less factious, than at Rome, where the people appeared in person.

The circumstances of the British colonies, just rising out of the difficulties of an infant state, do not admit of such a regular di­stribution of power. To forward the full settlement of a new country, such a division, and diffusion of the lands is necessary, as shall leave the profits wholly in the hands of those who cultivate them. Hence our laws for making partition of real estates among all the children of the family; and for the ready sale of lands to satisfy debts, equitable in themselves, are even political in such a country as this: but they render the rise and establishment of an upper rank among us, difficult, if not impracticable.

In this state of things it behoves the people of North-America, to consider fully what political consequences and effects the intro­duction of diocesan bishops among them may produce. By Dr. Chandler's account of them, as smooth as he writes, we find they are not to be mere voluntary bishops, such as the Moravian church has, but prelates commissioned by his majesty, as supreme heads of the church, and authorised by the nation, as branching from the ecclesiastical establishment in England. Nor are these Ame­rican bishops to be suffered to tarnish the splendor of their bre­thren at home, by being left to the precarious maintainance of the episcopalians here; as was the case in the primitive times of the Christian church. But thousands of pounds sterling have been laying up and accumulating at interest, for above half a century past, as a sund for supporting one or two of them.* Besides this, it is intimated that many persons in England, stand ready to con­tribute to this Use, as soon as the s [...]eme shall be put in execution. Hereafter, great matters may be expected from the crown lands, which it is proposed to set apart for the benefit of the American [Page 155]hierarchy: but till the further settlement and improvement of the colonies, shall raise these to a proper value, "the general tax on the country," which Dr. Chandler speaks of, page 107, may sup­ply all deficiencies.

This scheme of the episcopal missionaries and their patrons, the society for propagating the gospel, whatever they intend by it, would be likely to have great influence on civil government and public liberty; and therefore, whether we consider the thing it­self, or the method taken to obtain it, our most serious attention cannot but be awakened on this occasion.

In their zeal for their hierarchy, these gentlemen, possibly, have not considered what they are about, in this view. Or if any of them have glanced so much beside their own concernments, as to have perceived the obvious effects of their proposal on political affairs, they may have reconciled to themselves the pursuit of so dangerous a measure, by the prospect of the spiritual advantage they expect will flow from it.

For my part, I have often esteemed it a great advantage to the northern colonies, that their clergy have very little weight in go­vernment. This is owing to the moderate salaries paid them; to their debates and divisions about the modes and circumstantials of religion; and to the want of general connection among them­selves, and with the churches established in Britain. By their dissentions, we are secured from the usurpations and encroachments they might otherwise make as a body: for one denomination care­fully watches another, and sounds the alarm on occasion of any schemes that may be devised to the prejudice of the public. This also keeps up a spirit of free-inquiry and prevents the ill effects of a fond superstitious credulity.

But here is a measure proposed, that directly tends to form and combine this order of men into a regular and powerful band; and to put them under the direction of superior officers, invested with great powers over the rest. It is also calculated to connect them by uniformity, establishment and interest with the church esta­blished in England.

It was formerly proposed that the clergy, on account of their wealth and influence, should be considered as a fourth estate in parliament, but this happily did not take place. Among us, they must be much more than a seperate estate; they can have no equals in the colonies. Whilst for civil government the British dominions on the continent are already divided into seventeen provinces, the episcopal elergy (who may before long by pro­per management, and the aid of acts of parliament, be augment­ed to three or four thousand in number) will be collected and dis­ciplined [Page 156]under twenty or more bishops, and a primate appointed from home. What restraint and check will there be on the views and schemes of a body so well compacted, so weighty, so well e­stablished by statute, and so well allied to powerful hierarchies in Europe. Without an order of nobility to stand on equal footing with the prelates; without courts of common law, of jurisdiction extensive enough to issue prohibitions and correct the proceedings of the arch-bishop and his suffragans, when they exceed their proper limits; as the spiritual courts in England frequently do; without a general assembly of the colonies, or other association for civil purposes, in what circumstances must the laity be to guard themselves against the ambitious designs of the spiritual power? In short they must lie entirely at the mercy and moderation of the clergy: and what these are, let Spain, let Italy, let the history of England, in the papal times, and even since the reformation, under the government of the house of Stuart, picture out to the reader. Men in all ages and of every character are much the same in regard to the use of power; and their conduct when they get above controul, loudly proclaims the necessity of attending to the proper distribution of it in every free government, that would preserve its constitution.

From the Connecticut Journal, Newhaven, May 20th.


—"HAVE you seen Dr. Chandler's pamphlet, in favour of American bishops? We are told that prelacy is become quite generous and inoffensive, but a late instance should put our church on their guard. Our's at New-York, lately ask­ed the king for a charter, to save our estates from falling into private hands, and the bones and sepulchres of our ancestors from being sold. A laudable end, and reasonable request! And yet it was denied in privy council last August, the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury being present, and the ghostly father of London, was an open solicitor against us, at the board of trade. In a word, the decree says, it is not expedient that we should have greater im­munities than we enjoy by the act of toleration. Will your churches admit that they hold their privileges by this base tenure? All [Page 157]ranks of diffenters here (though improperly so called) are in con­sternation at this unseasonable instance of prelatic partiality. And if this is the spirit of the hierarchy, how cogent the reasons for our bearing the most public testimony against the introduction of a powerful order of men, who may drive us as far to the west­ward from our present habitations, as they once drove our fathers. I wish you would make this anecdote known—you may depend upon the fact, for we have an authentic copy of the royal dis­mission of our petition.—"

From the BOSTON GAZETTE, May 23d,

Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the Armies of the living God?


NOT many years ago, were transmitted to the public, thro' the channel of the Boston Gazette, a sew desultory essays, on the spirit of the cannon and feudal law: in some of which were expressed apprehensions of the future mischiefs, that might be caused in America by the efforts and exertions of those expiring and detested systems. That those apprehensions were too well founded, time has, already, sufficiently shewn: and we have now, perhaps, stronger reasons to fear, a still further increase of those mischiefs, than we had then. It is therefore the opinion of ma­ny persons, who wish well to the religion, the learning, the liber­ty and happiness of this injured and insulted country, that a re­assumption of that inexhaustile subject, would not be improper, at the present juncture. And it is, without any further apology, proposed, to continue a series of dissertations upon that and simi­lar subjects, for some months, if not years to come. It is claimed as an incontestible right to pursue our own plan, method and style: and, if in the course of our lucubrations, we should depart from the rules of established logicians and rhetoricians, if we should sometimes in haste throw our thoughts together in rude heaps, if a few blunders and solecisms should escape us, or if we should now and then mis-spell and mis-point, we shall not think it worth our while to engage in any contention, concerning such matters, with the little scribblers, and paltry critics, whose ambition never aspired, and whose capacity never attained to greater objects.— Our labours will be interrupted whenever the paroxisms of the gout or the spleen, the fits of dulness or laziness, or the avocati­ons of business or amusement shall make an interruption expedient. These reservations have been thought proper to be made for our own ease and advantage. And we now take the freedom to in­form the reader, that the champion, who has lately, with so much heroism challenged America, to contest with him the right [Page 158]of diocesan episcopacy, first roused us, from our long lethargy, and determined us, once more to try our fortune in the field.

But to renounce Metaphor, and speak soberly, The Appeal to the Public in favour of an American episcopate, is so flagrant an attempt to introduce the cannon law, or at least some of the worst fruits of it, into these colonies, hitherto unstained with such pol­lution, uninfected with such poison, that every friend of America ought to take the alarm—Power, in any form, and under any limitations, when directed only by human wisdom and benevolence, is dangerous: but the most terrible of all power, that can be en­trusted to man, is spiritual.—Because our natural apprehensi­ons of a deity, providence and future state, are so strong, and our natural disposition to enthusiasm and superstition, so prevalent, that an order of men entrusted with the sacred rites of religion, will always obtain an ascendency over our consciences: and will therefore be able to persuade us, (by us I mean the body of the people) that to distinguish between the cause of God and the cler­gy, is impiety; to speak or write freely of the clergy, is blasphe­my; and to oppose the exorbitancy of their wealth and power, is sacriledge, and that any of these crimes will expose us, to eternal misery.—

And whenever conscience is on the side of the canon law, all is lost. We become cabable of believing any thing that a priest shall prescribe—We become capable of believing, even Dr. Chand­ler's fundamental aphorisms, viz. that Christianity cannot exist without an unterrupted succession of diocesan bishops, and that those who deny the succession to have been uninterrupted, must prove it to have been broken: which very curious and important doctrines will be considered more at large hereafter, mean time, I am, and ever will be



Who shames a Scribbler? break one Cobweb thro',
He spins the slight, self-pleasing thread anew.
Destroy his Fib, or Sophistry, in vain,
The Creature's at his dirty Work again,—

IT is a very easy matter for a writer, who aims at carrying his point by clamour, and raising an odium against his anta­gonist, to make a specious appearance in a periodical paper.— Give an author and his performance an ill name; only make the common people,—with whom positive assertions too often pass [Page 159]for argument, and scurrilous expressions for spirited reasoning,—believe that he has some covert design unfriendly to their liberty, and his business is done. Whether the American Whig, has not chose this method of attacking Dr. Chandler and his Appeal, let the impartial public judge, and let his 6th Numb. be attended to in proof of the affirmative; in which the Dr. is sometimes found fault with, for speaking too plain, sometimes for not speak­ing plain enough; i. e. he has not always spoke as the American Whig would have him.

The Doctor is first accused of denying "the validity of the or­dination of all the Protestant ministers in the world, except those of his own denomination."—With laying down such princi­ples as would make "the bulk of the reformed clergy," to be on­ly "non-commissioned Laymen, and mistaken Pretenders, or egre­gious Impostors,"—The Doctor's creed, says the Whig, in ano­ther paragraph, "unchurches all the churches on the continent except his own, and the church of Quebeck."—Here it seems the Doctor has spoken too plain to please the sour temper of a Whig: But then again the Doctor is accused of the want of "a­postolic plainness of speech;"—of "mincing conclusions;"—of "velvet-mouthed delicacy;"—of "coaxing and trimming," be­cause he modestly said, non-episcopal ordinations were by the Church "esteemed irregular and defective.—Thus inconsistent is malice.

I am utterly unable to find that Dr. Chandler, in his Appeal, denies "the validity of the ordination of all the protestant mi­nisters in the world, except his own denomination." The Doc­tor in the place referred to by the Whig, says nothing of foreign churches at all; nor is the Doctor's dispute with foreign church­es, but with the English schismatical congregations, who of late years endeavour to honour themselves with the appellation of churches. Why all the protestant churches, and more especially the church of Holland, is lugged into this dispute, with which it has nothing to do, is hard to say, unless the Benevolence of the heart of the American Whig, suggested it to him, as a probable method of raising an odium against the church of England.—The churches of England and Holland, have always kept up the most friendly and affectionate regard for each other, as might easily be proved by the testimony of divines of eminent reputation on both sides. In this country, the members of those churches have ever copied the good disposition of their brethren at home, and have lived together in the greatest harmony.—That the church of Holland, is not episcopal exactly in the same manner that the church of England is episcopal, is readily admitted;—neither is it Presbyterian, in the same sense, that the English dissenters are Presbyterian, as is evident from the distinction that, I am told, in [Page 160]made in their ordination of a member of the classis, and an ordina­ry pastor or presbyter. When a member of the classis is ordained, the powers of ordination and government are committed to him; but when an ordinary pastor is ordained, no such powers are con­ferred on him, but only the powers of preaching the word and administering the sacrament.

National churches have a right to judge for themselves, with regard to the modes and ceremonies of religion, so that all things be done decently and in order. And the church of England, no more censures the church of Holland, because it is not episcopal exactly like itself, than the civil government of England quarrels with that of Holland, because it is not monarchial. Every true Englishman esteems the civil government of his own country the most perfect on earth; and of consequence must think the ci­vil government of Holland less perfect, without ungovernmenting that government. In like manner the members of the church of England, may think their own church more perfect, and that of Holland, less perfect, without unchurching that church.

But if the American Whig would know who they are who are unchurching the church of Holland in this country let him attend to those who for many years have cast a longing look at the reve­nues of the Dutch church in New-York; who have used every art to de [...]auch its members from their fidelity to the established re­ligion of Holland, and to convert their churches into conventicles for English independents.—Why all this begging, demanding, coax­ing, threatning, cringing, bullying, whining, blustering, intreating, bellowing for a charter, to incorporate a thing by law and by na­ture incorporatable, called a meeting-house, but to put themselves into a capacity of covering iniquity by law;—into a legal capacity of holding the revenues of the Dutch church, when once they could lay their griping paw upon them.—Those are the people who are unchurching the church of Holland, or Dutch church in New-York; —who Ahab like, first kill, and then take possession; first sow divisions and animosities among the members of that church by which its very existence is to be annihilated, that they may en­ter upon their vineyard;—and then like the whorish women de­scribed by Solomon in his Proverbs, they will wipe their mouth, and say we have done no harm.

To answer the same pious purpose, of casting an odium upon the church, she is represented by the American Whig as being in­clined to popery; because Mr. Houdin was admitted to officiate as a clergyman, without re-ordination.—Mr. Houdin, it is true, was born and educated in the popish religion, and ordained by a popish bishop in France; he left Canada, and came to New-York, where after some time, he openly in the face of the congregation in Trinity-church, in this city, renounced and abjured the errors [Page 161]of popery, and was admitted to officiate in the church without re­ordination.

I would here beg the candid reader to observe, that episcopal ordination is not looked upon as one of the errors of popery, ei­ther by the Lutheran, Danish, or Swedish churches, any more than by the church of England;—consequently no particular odi­um ought to lie against the church on this account.—Again, if Mr. Houdin's ordination in France, was sufficiently valid to con­fer the powers of the Christian priesthood, there was no nee [...] of re-ordaining him. If Mr. Houdin had embraced the religion of the meeting-house,—(what the present name of this religion is I know not; formerly it was independent, since, Presbyterian, and now it seems to be aping the denomination of, church;) of the meeting-house, I say, and had there renounced all the error [...] of popery, would they have re-ordained him;—if not, why this c [...]a­mour against the Church?

If God saw good to preserve to us, the holy scriptures and sa­craments of the Christian church, through the corrupt medium of popery, why not the Christian priesthood thro' the same medium?— If the Christian priesthood was not preserved in the church of Rome, it is extinct in the western world. Upon this supposi­tion, I beg the American Whig to try his abilities,—and he may take all the associations, con-sociations, presbyteries and synods, on the continent, to his assistance, and the leathern mitten of Con­necticut, and Dr. Ram-Chicken of Boston into the Bargain,—in fabricating a single Christian priest; pardon the word, good Mr. Whig, Presbyter if you had rather;—

Another fountain of odium which our meek spirited Whig, who seems not in the least tainted with the virtue of Christian charity, has opened against the Church, is the imputation of a persecu­ting spirit. After a flourish about "bleating of the Lamb," "howl­ing of the wolf," "poor parson's head." "bishop's hand," "pas­toral staff," "arm of the magistrate,"—all this, gentle reader, and as much more, is contained in one single sentence.—he has frighted himself, I fear, into a doleful pickle, with the vain ima­gination of "the introduction of spiritual lords into a country, where they will find no layman for their match."—In what sense the word match, is here to be understood, I am at a loss; I rather imagine he means a brimstone match, to light the sires of persecu­tion withal. Match as it signifies equality, cannot be his mean­ing, for undoubtedly he is a man of more reading, than not to have taken a peep at least, at a letter to the bishop of Land [...], wi [...]h the tremendous name of WILLIAM LIVIN [...]S ON, stuck in terro­rem upon the title page. In which calm, moderate, gentle, po­lite, courtly, Christian, meek-spirited, benev [...]t, cha [...]table per­formance, THE AUTHOR, as he signs himself, has convinced the [Page 162]world, that he is in his own opinion, though a layman, more than a match for half the bishops in England.

Unluckily for our Whig, he has drawn his picture of a perse­cuting clergy, (which he endeavours to put off upon the world for a true portrait of the English clergy) from an original painting of the celebrated BUTLER, which was done in the time of the grand rebellion, when "the glory of God, and the salvation of souls," was made the pretence, for murdering the King, pillaging the Churches, and piercing with spears the pictures of the Savio [...] of the world.—When the trumpets of sedition were founded from those sacred pulpits, which were usurped by those vile, hypocritical, prostitute preachers whom St. Oliver had manufactured out of taylors, tinkers, and coblers.

"Whose religion, it was fit
"To match their learning and their wit:
"Such as do build their faith upon,
"The holy text of pike and gun,
"Decide all controversies by
"Infallible artillery;
"And prove their doctrine orthodox
"By apostolick blows and knocks,
"Call fire and sword, and desolation,
"A godly-thorough-reformation." &c.

When arguments fail, positive assertions are ready at hand for the use of our Whig, by which he has proved over and over, that the English bishops are by nature, by education, by principle, by practice, persecutors;—by the same kind of reasoning, he now again for the second or third time, proves it to be ‘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,’ &c. This is a kind of reasoning Mr. Whig, that thousands and ten thousands of sensible people in America cannot see the force of. Prove therefore your assertion; and if you can make it appear, that this is really impossible, all endeavours to obtain bishops will be suspended, 'till things are put upon such a footing, as that bishops may come over without "portending evil," to any person whatever. For it is the earnest desire of the friends of an American episcopate, to obtain so great a blessing to themselves without any detriment to others;—they are willing to come to any reasonable terms to satisfy all parties. But the thing itself, they never will give up. They will use all prudent, reasonable and lawful means to obtain it. And if the American Whig, and his confederates, think to stop the mouths of the ad­vocates for American bishops, at all adventures, let them know, they must first stop their breath; for while they live they will not be silent. Let the American Whig write on at the present rate, let [Page 163]him rage and foam, and swell and bluster, and threaten and pro­phecy, 'till Doom's day, he will neither convince, frighten nor dis­courage. But if he will come to sober argument, to candid rea­soning, that all probable cause of detriment to others, may be known, in order to be removed, and the religious and civil liber­ties of every denomination explained, that they may be secured to them, which was the very intention of writing the appeal, let him say the word, and the friends of an episcopate are ready to attend him;—are ready to remove to the utmost of their power, every reasonable objection that can be be made. It is a point in which they are engaged from conscientious motives, (whether the Whig will believe it or not, is nothing to the purpose) and as they have too lively a sense of the hardships they at present endure thro' the want of Bishops to suffer them to wish or desire to bring any hardships upon others; so be is known to all the world, they have too high an opinion of their own rights, too great a regard to the dictates of conscience, to let others, bring or continue any hardships upon them, when it is in their power to prevent it.


TH [...] American Whig is desired not to forget to remember to remind his "gentle readers," that there were between twen­ty and thirty clergymen in this city last week, who undoubtedly met in order to make Bishops, write against Whigs, and hinder Great-Britain from nestling herself into the "spacious bosom of America," to the great disquiet and dissatisfaction of all King Oli­ver's liege and loyal subjects.

[From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, May 23. 1768]

Here follows the Whig No. XI. but being in Dutch, which few of our Readers understand, it is omitted in this place, but if a good Translation of it can be obtain'd, it will be added at the End of the Volume, together with the Whip in Answer to it which is in the same Language.

The same paper contains the following Pieces, relating to the same Subject.

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.

Nec furtum feci, nec fugi, si mihi dicat
Servus; habes pretium, loris non ureris, aio;
Non hominem occidi; non pasces in cruce corvos.

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.


He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light,—but he that hateth his brother, walketh in darkness.


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,

Your's &c. H.


—Brethren, who came in privily to spy out our Liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Bondage.

St. Paul to Gal. ii. 4.

THE clergy whenever opportunity has offered, have appeared as apt to pervert power as other people, and their conduct too plainly proves that "we have the treasure of religion conveyed "to us in earthen vessels:"* This should teach us to distinguish carefully between the schemes of ambitious ecclesiasticks, and the true interests of Christianity. If this be forgotten, the laiety will soon be reduced to spiritual thraldom, and the ministers of religi­on neglecting their proper duties, will become competitors with the magistrate, for civil power.

These are far from being conjectures only; our own history, not to recur to those of other nations, abounds with numerous instances of this temper in men, who are by profession, abstracted from worldly business. Even the Monks, who apparently re­nounced all intercourse with society and pretended to retire to cells and desarts, could not resist the temptation of exercising the exten­sive [Page 167]influence, which their sanctified character among the credu­lous multitude, gave them.

In fact, this order has ever been found to consist of speculative men, clear-sighted to their own interests, adhering closely toge­ther, and pursuing their views with steadiness. As an incorpo­rate body that never dies, they build for ages, and their fabricks almost always affect, often endanger the welfare of the state. The large revenues, Privileges, immunities and jurisdictions, which they claimed and exercised in the days of popery, rendering them formidable to the civil magistrate, and invested with excessive powers a body of men, who never want a plausible pretence for making further usurpations. That system had indeed been the work of many dark ages, when the ignorance, barbarism, and superstition of rulers and people, afforded the most commodious opportunity of putting their schemes of aggrandizement into practice. Whoever looks into the history of those times, will be apt to conclude that the priests had imagined all mankind were made for their advantage, and that the Christian revelation was considered by them as a cunning fable, invented for the benefit of the clergy.

Although popery has been abolished, still the clergy "are men of like passions with others". It does not yet appear, they have got above the temptations to pride and arrogance, which are apt to be excited, and gratified by dictating the religious faith and principles of the people. Ambition, and a lust of unbound­ed rule, with the other passions and disorders of the human breast, are by no means, in our days, confined to the laity: and therefore, the prese [...] [...]nisters of religion have no better claim to extensive autho [...] [...]an their predecessors.

[...] ecclesiastical scheme that has been pursuing, as to the [...]olonies, is this; the leading clergy in England desirous of in­creasing their power, and of building up a mighty Hierarchy in the British empire, are labouring to bring the colonies under their dominion, by every device they can think of. Many circumstances seem favourable to this scheme; most of the provinces south of Pennsylvania, and the W. India Islands, have by their own acts of assembly, provided a regular parochial maintenance for the episcopal ministers. The like has been obtained by arti­fice in some few destricts of New-York, and an attempt has lately been made to extend it. In Nova-Scotia, episcopacy according to the church of England, is declared to be established; but as it might put a total stop to the settling of that new province, no tax for supporting the clergy, is yet levied on dissenters. At­tempts have been made, more than once, to get a legal assessment in the lower government of Pennsylvania, for the same purpose. [Page 168]And as establishing lands for pious uses, is not restrained by the laws of the colonies, as in England, and most other countries in Europe; and as the old statute made against granting lands to the church, are not supposed to extend here, measures are taken to advance the interests of the designed heirarchy, by making ac­quisitions of this sort. Accordingly instructions have been pro­cured from the crown, to the governors of New-Hampshire to grant a proportion of every new township to the society for propa­gating the gospel; and a like practice has been begun at New-York. In that city and its Suburbs the lands of the episcopal church are extensive and valuable; and if the place continues to increase, they must in time become an immense estate. The Cod­rington plantation in Barbados, which is vested in the said society, for the purpose of supporting a college, is suffered to extend and accumulate in a most rapid manner. To these might be added the funds of the colleges of New-York and Williamsburgh, the numerous glebes and manses of the clergy in America, and the designed tracks of land for the future benefit of the Bishops, and for perfecting the scheme; which hereafter may become of enor­mous value, when taken, with the above particulars, into one computation.

That nothing may be wanting to perfect the spiritual kingdom, the most vigorous attempts have been making for above half a century to episcopize the middle and northern colonies, which were settled by non-conformists, and for this purpose a large fund has been employed in sending out missionaries to these people, as if they were heathen, and utterly void of all gospel knowledge. But as it has ever proved a difficult matter to change an ancestorial religion,* especially where prejudice and old debates stand in the [Page 169]way, the progress of this part of the system, is by no means an­swerable to the expence and pains it has cost; especially as these missionaries have had no superior advantages, as to greater strict­ness of life, pungency of address in enforcing their doctrines, or novelty as to the subjects of them; therefore two or three Bishops with state appointment, and lordly revenue are now proposed in order to forward this "grand affair." The well disposed people in England have been formerly amused with the design of convert­ing Indians, and by this argument, they were induced to contri­bute largely to the fund of the society. They are now told, the reason, why no more has been done in this important business, is the want of well endowed bishopricks in the colonies: Tho' it is evident they never engaged seriously in the matter. In short, tho' the society has debarred others from doing it to purpose, the conversion of the Indians in both cases is a meer pretence.

There are now upwards of five hundred and fifty parish minis­ters in New-England; suppose all the colonies settled equally with that country, and equally furnished with religious teachers, and all these of the episcopal denomination, with Diocesan Bishops, and a primate, subordinate to a patriarch at Lambeth, what a mighty body would this connection form, what colony could pre­tend to govern the clergy within its limits, whilst such an impe­rium in imperio subsisted? At present, the episcopal colonies find it difficult enough to oblige these people, (who interest the Bishops of England in their pretensions on every occasion) to submit to any Acts of Assembly that may affect them: but combined by a regular plan of discipline authorised by parliament, they will no longer be subjects, but lords and masters ever every jurisdiction in America.

It may pass with children and the blinded devotees of the or­der, "that no such temporal powers will be exercised here, as have been claimed and exercised in England; nay that the American Bishops, are even to be reduced much below the standard there, to have no power over the episcopal laity much less over dissenters; [Page 170]to have no courts, &c. But none who know the nature of man, or have considered the transactions of past ages can pay the least regard to such declarations. Can it be believed by any man in his senses, that the leaders of a body of men, who by their offices, endowments, polity, connection and alliances must unavoidably have great weight in public affairs, will be so mortified to worldly considerations, as to renounce the influence and power their high stations must give them? No such instance has ever happen'd in church or state, since the world began. Some rare instances in­deed may be quoted, of individuals, who being possessed of high and dangerous authority, have had the magnanimity to renounce it; but of bodies-politic, senates, or other combinations of men, we meet with none: Large assemblies or orders of men, are not diffident of their capacity to exercise power, or if some among them should be so, the more assured majority over-rule the few squeamish brethren; besides the odium of severe measures, being divided among so many, it has less effect in restraining their proceedings.

The recapitulation of the temporal advantages, which the epis­copal clergy have obtained in the provinces, is not made with an invidious design; but merely to alarm all people against the grand scheme of spiritual dominion, that seems to be planned for this country. If Church discipline is to be regulated by the legislatures here, I shall be in no great pain for civil liberty on this account; tho' it might be prudent to put some limits to the Church-possessions of all denominations. They neither serve any purpose to religion, nor government; but often prove mischie­vous to both: Without these, the Clergy could never be an ob­ject of much distrust to the magistrate; nor would it be worth his while to interfere in religious matters, as he often does, to his own loss, and the corruption of Christianity, by debasing it into a political engine. But when the church enjoys large revenues, her officers becomes too important members of the community, to be suffered to go loose, and unconnected with the state; and the magistrate, for his own safety, must establish the prevailing sect, by which he offends and perhaps distresses others, and loses the affections of many good subjects.

Can it then be prudent, or safe, or confistent with good policy, [Page 171]quietly to suffer "this yoke of bondage to be put on our necks, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" If the power of the crown, the weight of the nobility, and the national influence collected in parliament, have scarcely been able on some occasions to restrain the hierarchy at home, what must be the consequences of a like plan of discipline extended through, and independent of the colonies; where, for want of the constitutional balances of the mother country, the influence and weight of the clergy, must enable them to enforce every claim to power and independence, which Laud, or the highest flyers of the church of England have ever started.


To Timothy Tickle, Esq


I was much diverted with the humour and wit discovered in the plea, Demurrer and answer, to Doctor Chandler's Appeal, pub­lished under the American Whig, No. VII. but upon reading it attentively, I found the arguments which the author intend­ed to enforce by it, were rather specious than solid. I am in­deed a churchman, and one of the moderate ones too, with whom it seems the American Whig would have no controversy. I was bred to the profession of the law, from which I have re­tired for some years, and enjoyed the repose of a country life, where I find a refuge from the literary broils and battles that pertain to the great, political world. The avocations of my farm have taken me off from the study of the science which em­ployed my youth, so that my law knowledge is not only be­come rusty and dull, but almost obsolete. However, though I am averse to controversy, and have as little disposition to quarrel with the Whig, as he has with me; nay, though I ne­ver will quarrel with him, or any other man, about religion, or polities; yet I have undertaken, (it being somewhat in my own way) to send you a replication to the before-mentioned an­swer, &c. Perhaps the law-style and forms, may not be strict­ly preserved as I have few precedents to consult; and I am pret­ty sure from the specimen which the Whig has furnished, that I must be defective in the superabundant effusion of words [Page 172]which distinguish law proceedings. If nevertheless, you shall think it worth publishing, with all its imperfections, I shall ex­pect it to appear in your next paper.

Your's, &c. PLEADWELL.

Thomas Bradbury Chandler, APPELLANT. Versus, Some of the People of North America, called Presbyte­rians, APPELLEES. On the Appeal in the Case of Bishops or no Bishops in America.

THE REPLICATION of Thomas Bradbury Chandler, Doctor of Divinity, to the Plea, Demurrer and Answer of the People of North America, Appellees;

THIS repliant, insisting as before, on all and singular the matters and things in the said Appeal contained, in the manner and form as the same are therein set forth, protesting, that the matters in the appellees said plea contained, are not suf­ficient in the law to be replied unto, nor to bar the right of the appellant and his associates, the Episcopalians in America, to such a bishop as they pray for by the said Appeal: And protesting further, that the matters and things in the said answer contained, are very untrue, imperfect, and insufficient to be replied unto; nor is the appellant by the law of the land, held to make any answer thereto: Nevertheless, for replication to such parts there­of as this repliant thinks may be worth answering, he replies and says, that he doth deny all and all manner of combination and confederacy with the convention, or any other person or persons for commencing and prosecuting the said Appeal "merely for the aggrandizement and exaltation of the episcopal churches, on the ruin of all other Christian denominations in his Majesty's Ameri­can dominions," as in the said answer is untruly suggested: but this appellant doth aver and insist that the said appeal was insti­tuted and prosecuted with the good will, liking and approbation, not only of the members of the said episcopal churches in ge­neral, but that the same was thought just and reasonable by the moderate dissenters, many of whom did declare, at divers times and places, that there could be no objection thereto.

And this appellant doth also aver and insist, that the said Ap­peal was brought to be delivered against a real grievance and op­pression, and not for the cause aforesaid; which said grievance and oppression, consisteth in, and is compounded of divers great perils, labours, troubles, disappointments, expences, and other hardships, obstructions, difficulties and inconvenience which hitherto have [Page 173]attended, and always hereafter must and will attend the crossing the Atlantic ocean, and making ingress into, and egress and re­gress out of that part of Great-Britain, called England, to pro­cure ordination for every clergyman that hath already been, or hereafter shall be called to preach the gospel in the church of Eng­land in America; which this appellant conceives doth tend to the manifest injury, oppression and impoverishment, as well of great part of the members belonging to the said church, as of their clergy, and also doth tend to impede, hinder, and obstruct the growth, increase and advancement of the said church of Eng­land, and of religion in general, in these his Majesty's co­lonies; the perpetuation and continuance of which obstructions and impediments, this appellant, without a forced innuendo, ve­rily believes in his conscience, is an object that doth powerfully move, instigate and impel the said appellees, to stir up strife and contention with this appellant and his associates, upon the sub­ject matter of the said Appeal.

And for asmuch as every reasonable man and catholic Christian, whether churchman or dissenter, cannot but think it very unrea­sonable, cruel, and oppressive, and against equity and good con­science, to deny their Christian brethren any of the rights and privileges which they conceive to be essential to the good govern­ment and order of the church to which they belong, this repli­ant thinks he has good cause to complain of being treated with an unchristian temper, in the manner of the opposition made to the said appeal; it being manifest that this repliant wants no o­ther bishop than such an one as can in no sort endanger the civil or religious liberties of any denomination whatever, and only for the purpose of ordaining and governing in his own church, and confirming such of his members as choose to be conffirmed.

And this repliant doth, and will maintain and prove his said charge of unchristian treatment, of and from the said appel­lees, and that it is manifest that they, by and with the advice of their council, have misrepresented the true sense, purport, and meaning of the said Appeal, in alledging that this repliant and the convention, do seek for, and endeavour to obtain and procure a bishop with all his temporal and ecclesiastical powers and digni­nities. Whereas this repliant in behalf of himself, and of the said convention, and of all the members of the episcopal churches in America, doth hereby renounce, abjure, relinquish, and dis­claim all pretence of right, title, and demand to any such bishop.

And the said repliant further saith, that he is well satisfied that the council of the said appellees, must, for divers good caus­es, and considerations him thereunto moving, have found it expe­dient and necessary for the undue prolixification. prolongation, and procrastination of the said suit, and for the abasement and de­gradation [Page 174]of the said church, to suggest divers pretences, devices, and diabolical projects and machinations, to have been formed on the part of this repliant and the said convention, which he doth declare, it never entered into their hearts to conceive.

And this repliant further saith, that he will prove and make [...] ­clear to the tribunal of the public here, that the council of the said appellees, hath surreptitiously, wilfully, and corruptly, con­trary to law, taken upon himself to appear as council for all the people of America, in opposition to the said Appeal, when at least one half of them never retained him as council for that pur­pose, and are parties in favour of the said Appeal; for which this repliant conceives, he ought to be prosecuted, as being guilty of gross and palpable maintainance which he is advised by his coun­cil is highly criminal. And these several matters this repliant hath set forth as materially appertaining to the premises in questi­on, and preparatory to the particular matters of his said replica­tion, which are as followeth.

And so far forth as the appelle [...]s said plea is taken in barr to the said Appeal, this repliant saith, that the said act of parlia­ment, made and passed in the reign of King Hen [...]y the VIII. and in the year of our Lord 1533, had relation to the clergy of Eng­land at that time, and that if it be true as the said appellees al­ledge, that the same was enacted to get rid of the exorbitant claims of the clergy of the realm of England, and of their ill gotten wealth, and ill-used intolerable power, the said act, as this re­pliant is advised, can by no reasonable construction, have relati­on to the state of the clergy in America, where no such exorbi­tant claims exist, and where there is no cause for complaining, either of their Wealth or Power; neither of which, but rather the contrary, are peculiar and incident to the clergy in America. And this repliant further saith, that there being no Dean and Chapter in America, the provision made for a bishop by the king's Conged' elire cannot obtain, and therefore that he must be appointed in some other way than is directed by the said sta­tute, wherefore for the manifest incongruity of the said statute to the subject matter of the said plea, and for that it hath no more relation thereto than to the establishment of an ecclesiastical court in a presbyterian synod in America, this repliant doth de­mur in law to the same, and prays judgment thereupon.

And this repliant for further application to the said plea saith, that as touching the matters referred to in the 26th and 27th years of the same king's reign, and in the 1st of Queen Elizabeth, declaring that the king is supreme head of the church, and vesting him with all the ecclesiastical power, this repliant conceives and is advised, that no part of the said statutes can have any force re­specting such ecclesiastical power in the colonies, except what con­cerns [Page 175]the king, as being supreme head of the church: and that as religion is necessary to all States, there is a manifest propriety and fitness in point of policy, that the king should be the head of the established church in all parts of his dominions where the same is established by law. but forasmuch as the said appellees themselves do maintain and give our in speeches, that the church of England is not by any ways or means whatsoever established in the colonies, it is therefore manifest from their own shewing, that the said statutes, nor either of them, can or do extend, or have reference to the church of England in the colonies: for which reason this repliant doth also demur to all the said last mentioned statutes as insufficient in the law, to prove what by the [...]d plea they were advanced to prove, to wit, that because the c [...]e [...]gy with­in the realm of England, have a connexion with the state and de­rive certain powers from human laws, that therefore there can be no right of episcopacy exclusive and independent of those laws; and for that further, if the said appellees do deny all manner of divine right to episcopacy, except what is derived from and under the said statutes and ridicule it as being equally nugatory with the divine right of geography, this repliant conceives that the said ap­pellees might, for the same reasons, ridicule the divine right of ordination, and that such a principle taken up in its full latitude, extent and operation, would prove that the gospel is preached without authority, and that there is not, nor ever was, since the apostles time, any divine right of preaching at all.

RICHARD PLEADWELL, Of Council for the Appellant and his Associates.


IT appearing to the court that the pleadings in this cause are to be published in a weekly news-paper, and that the aforegoing is of sufficient length for one paper, it is ordered, on motion of Mr. Pleadwell, council for the appellant, that he have time to perfect and bring the said replication into court, until eight days next after publishing the aforegoing part thereof: And it is fur­ther ordered, that upon service of a copy of this rule (by publi­cation thereof in the New-York Gazette, and weekly Mercu­ry) the said appellees, or their council, do not on any pretence whatsoever, presume to declare, either by signs, words, or wri­ting, that the said plea and demurrer are unanswerable or that they of right ought to have judgement thereon against the appel­lant, until the said replication is perfected and filled, and the same be fully heard and considered by the council and judgment be pronounced thereupon in due form of law. And whereas it appears that the council of the said appellees hath, in contempt and derogation of the authority of this court, taken upon him­self [Page 176]to pronounce judgment on the said Appeal, it is ordered, that an attachment issue against him to bring him before this court to answer for his said contempt.

A true COPY. examined by WILLIAM FITZ BOHUN. Register of the Court of Appeals in Case of Bishops or no Bishops, in America.

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, Monday May 30th.


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.




CHE wud beg your worship's diversion for zaying what cham going to convorme your worship conzarning. You must know that che was born in Taunton Deane in Old England, and az che waz an only cheeld, hiz vather had broughten him up a schollard, and had thoft vor to zend'n to the varsity of Kambridge, but hiz mother cud not spare the buoy vor that. But he puten'm him to Latine, and he gotten az var az ass in per centum, and property que maribuz, and Queen Janus. Now may hap zur, you'l zay, what does all thiz magnify? Why, che wil tel you what it magnifieth. I was broughten up a diz enter az waz hiz grantvather bevoo [...] him. And the bishupz did plage uz a woondy deale conzarning the tenthz of our kowz, and zowz, and goozy chickz, and aul our zubztantz. Zo, voor to get az var vrom the bishupz az che cud, che came with her only zon, who iz kaul'd Obie, and zetten uz dawn near the tawn of Gozhen. But now che haz heard Squire Wimbleton zay, az how that a bishup iz zoon vor to kome after chim. Wherevors and therevore, I and my [Page 179]zpouze Joan, wad give you a bribe vor to put in a Gavie against thiz bizhup, vor to zave our kowz, and zowz and zo vorth; and Squire Wimbleton wil give you hiz young horz Nimblesoot, who will be vour year auld next graz, and Joan wil ni [...]ten you too pair of hoze against next husking time, and we with the buoy Obie, rezentz our zarvice to you, and are with aul our heartz and zoulz


To the AUTHOR of the American Whig.
The difference between our Church, and the Church, considered; or the modesty of the Doctor and his brethren.

THE Spectator in one of his papers, publishes a process of the relative which, and who, against the particle that. The plantiffs bring an action against their neighbour, for enter­ing too often upon their premises, and committing trespass, for taking possession of and occupying the place that belonged to them, and for many other misdemeanors. I appeal to the world, whether the appropriative our, has not a right to bring an action against the emphatical the, in the writings of Doctor Chandler and others. Surely he and his brethren are not ignorant, that the particle the, when placed before the word church, determines its signification, and leads us to understand him in the highest sense. The church in America, if it has any sgnification, means all those of whatever denomination, or in whatever place residing through­out the continent which Jesus Christ owns as his people. When I say our church I mean to distinguish that denomination of Christians to which I belong. Now if this writer speaks with propriety when he talks of the church, what he says of her is false. If he intends only the denomination to which he belongs, the style is supercilious and illiberal. He at least grants, that the English plan of episcopal government is disputable; and that the other protestant churches, of which there are so many in this country have some appearance of argument to support them: Whether he will or not, his betters have granted it a thousand times. Since then it is disputable, a writer of candour and modesty, should treat the other churches with some degree of respect; nor suffer any expressions to drop, that seems to unchurch all other denominations. It is an argu­ment of littleness of mind to think that there are none but our­selves in the world. When this writer, with some others of his stamp, calls his denomination, by way of distinction the church, as if there was none other but that which conforms itself to the establishment in England, as if the church of Christ in this wide continent, was confined to that minority, who take for ordinan­ces, the commandments of their ecclesia [...]tical superior, on the other [Page 180]side of the water; I strive to impute it to mere habit, or to the power of dignified precedents, or to any other cause, any way consistent with real sense. But all must confess, that it has at least the appearance of either arrogance, or narrowness of mind. If by it they mean, that the conformists are the greatest church in A­merica, it is false.—If they mean that they are established here, it is false.—If they mean that their denomination includes all, it is false.—If they mean that the Dutch and English presbyte­rians, the congregationals, and other professing Christians here, are not the church as much as the conformists to the English church, it is narrow.


IT was remarked in a former paper, that if the jurisdiction of parliament to interfere in the internal police of the colonies, was ever so well established, yet it would be extremely dangerous for us to have so very delicate a part of it as church-policy, re­gulated by that respectable body; especially as the proposal has come from the clergy, speaking as they pretend, in behalf of a million of American Episcopalians. The members might indeed afford it as much attention as they usually give to American business; and whilst they incautiously adopt the financiers schemes for taxing us, they might as readily receive from the clergy, a system of faith and discipline for the American church. If it had the outward appearance of the religious establishment of England, they would scarce examine further, but agree to it without a Vote; and however unsuitable and inconvenient to the circumstances of this country, they would doubtless consider any complaints from America, as humoursome, if not factious, and highly inconsistent with the submission and reverence due to the supreme legislature.

However highly we may think of the wisdom and justice of the British senate, yet we cannot but see strong marks of their sustain­ing a quite different character in considering home affairs, from what they do in providing for us. It is easy to perceive, that when the subjects within the realm, and consequently the indi­viduals [Page 181]of the legislature, are to be assected by the parliamentary proceedings, the debates are serious and lively; the scrutiny into the consequences of the business proposed, strict and curious; and the appearance of interest and feeling visible to all. Hence their statutes in these cases being penned with care, and corrected with caution, usually become lasting monuments of the prudence of the national councils.

But this is by no means the case, when a bill is brought in to bind the subjects without the realm, for the benefit of those within it. Here the character of the watchful Representative no longer appears; the business if at all attended to, and not treated as a thing of course, is only regarded as it affects the superior king­dom. Whilst the people in the subordinate states and districts of the empire, are left to learn their inferior situation from the crude and mistaken provisions of the new statute; which without really serving the real interests of any part of the British dominions, tend to distress and enslave the distant subjects.

There is a most remarkable instance of this, in the very different conduct of the parliament towards the admiralty jurisdiction in England, and in America. The proceedings in this court, being before a single judge, according to the course of the civil law, have ever been looked on, and treated as repugnant to the free constitu­tion of England, which making the people judges of one another, has provided in the best manner for the liberty and safety of the subject. Trial by jury, is indeed that happy mode of adminis­tring justice, which having survived the various changes and con­vulsions of the state, has been preserved and handed down to us; and God grant we may be able to transmit it to our children! To the admiralty law therefore, the temper and policy of our ancestors have always shown aversion and jealousy. They seemed ra [...]r of necessity to endure, than of choice to encourage it.

According to the common law is the law of the land, and the civil and canon law are no further permitted than to give relief in cases to which the other is wholly inapplicable, or which it does not provide for, They who would draw any thing out of its jurisdiction, must intitle themselves well, says Lord Raymond. If the admiralty undertakes to judge in matters manifestly without their limits, the judge and party* prosecuting, are treated as of­fending against the statutes of Premunire devised against the [Page 182]foreign jurisdiction of the Pope, by which they forfeit their lands and goods and the protection of the law, and are to be imprisoned. But if this court takes cognizance of a matter of a mixed nature, partly within their jurisdiction, and partly not; or should ever so little trespass their boundaries, a prohibition will be issued from the King's court, to correct, or wholly stop further proceeding. It may not be amiss to remark here, that the courts of the cler­gy, the spiritual courts, are under the same wholesome re­straint‡ ‡, and the canon law is suffered to operate no further than the law of the land has adopted it;§ which is extremely necessary, as otherwise we might be led into the endless mazes of that arbitary system.

Not content with this, sundry acts of parliament have been passed to circumscribe, and as it were to naturalize this jurisdic­tion. It is by mere indulgence, that mariners are suffered to sue, in the admiralty, for their wages; it being expressly against an old statute, which had rather too severely forbid it. lord Hale con­tends, that the court of Kings-Bench, had certainly a concurrent power with the admiralty in cases of felonies done upon the nar­row seas, or coast, though it were high seas, because within the King's Realm of England; but says this jurisdiction of the com­mon law, was interrupted by a special order of the King and council, 35 Ed: 3d. and that since 38 Ed. 3d, it does not appear, that the King's courts have taken cognizance of crimes commit­ted on the high seas. However as trade began to extend, and trials for capital offences, before this unconstitutional jurisdiction, more frequently to occur, the nation would not endure it; and [Page 183]therefore, by two statutes of Henry the eighth, a commission of Oyer and Terminer was ordered to issue out of chancery, directed to the judge of admiralty, and others, to enquire of, and punish all traytors, pirates, robbers at sea, and other marine felons, according to the course of the common law; which practice con­tinues to this day. Again, by a modern statute, it is provided, that if any one be feloniously stricken, or poisoned upon the sea, and dies at sea, or beyond sea, the fact shall be triable in any county, according to the course of the common law.

Thus have the legislature, and the judges of the land, wisely concurred, in curbing and qualifying this arbitrary mode of judg­ing, as far as it relates to the mother country. If we enquire what has been the conduct of parliament towards admiralty juris­diction in the colonies, we shall find it has been quite the reverse; and that a court, whose powers have ever been carefully circum­scribed within the realm, has been favoured with new and extra­ordinary jurisdiction in America; that matters quite foreign to its nature are made cognizable there; and all restraint and super­intendency of the common law taken away.

As to pirates, and other sea-felons, they and their accessaries are to be tried in the colonies, before a bench of judges, appointed by commission under the great seal, or seal of the admiralty,§ ac­cording to the course of the admiralty, that is without a jury; and the charters of the provinces are set aside as far as they interfere with this court; which is the more extraordinary and dangerous inasmuch as the judges are the respective governors and council, who in case of the absence, or want of members to make up a competent number, are directed to associate such Captains in the navy, masters of Ships, or merchants as they see fit; contrary to the very nature of the office of a judge, which is a trust of personal confidence and skill, and may not be put over to others. How arbitrary is this revival of the admiralty jurisdiction towards A­mericans! How loose and dangerous the exercise of it!

This, it may be said, was only restoring the proper jurisdiction of the admiralty. But why should a jurisdiction be revived in the colonies, which had been found intolerable in the mother-coun­try? The laws of trade have however introduced a new one; [Page 184]which was first craftily slipt into the act of navagation, by direct­ing that vessels seized by ships of war for breach of that statute, should in the colonies, be proceeded against in this court:* other cases were left to the cognizance of the law of the land. By an act of William the third, this new authority was extended; and ever since it hath been the usual course for the parliament to re­fer the execution of any new statutes, passed for regulating our trade, to the same judicature; so that heavy penalties, even the forfeiture of ships, and their cargoes, are often adjudged here.

Yea, such a favourite is the American admiralty, that the British legislature, on assuming a power to tax the colonies, has given much of the business of the court of Exchequer, which is a court of common-law, to this arbitrary tribunal. And, not content with bringing it a shore at our sea-ports, and enabling it to scourge our merchants, they have sent it up into our forrests, and directed that the penalties imposed on such persons as shall destroy his Majesty's pine-trees in New-England, New-York, and New-Jersey, shall be recoverable in the admiralty.§

Can any thing more fully manifest the difference between a virtual representative, and a real one? does it not sadly expose the hardship, the authors of that ideal character, were reduced to, when they seriously advanced such a wretched argument for binding America by acts of parliament? Is there any sympathetic affection in these suppositious delegates, for the subjects without the realm? or the least attention shewn to their interests! Or, is it any wonder, that ministers of state, are able to procure the parliamentary sanction, to whatever they draw up for the colonies, without enquiry or debate?

This may account for a most extraordinary statute, that has been passed the very last [...]c [...]ions of parliament, which gives a new blow to our rights as Englishmen. By this, provision is made for erecting three or four admiralty courts on this continent, each to have jurisdiction over two or more provinces; by which the con­stitutional and wholesome super-intendency of the common law over the civil, is wholly evaded, as there is no court of King's Bench in America, of equally extended Jurisdiction.

The pretence for this new measure might be, that the multi­tude of judges of admiralty and their officers, lest without salaries to spunge upon the colonies for a living, had been a long and just subject of complaint, and could not be well remedied, except by lessening their number, and giving proper appointments to those [Page 185]which remained. Suppose the matter placed in this light, and what member, not well acquainted with the internal affairs of this country, could have any objection against a regulation, in appear­ance necessary, and for ought he could see, attended with no dan­gerous consequence, nor even the least inconvenience.

It is scarce necessary for me to remark on this indignant treat­ment of a loyal, a useful, and numerous body of British subjects. But can any good man in his right senses think of an application to "our superiors in England" for an ecclesiastical constitution, after this view of their conduct towards us in the important business of admiralty law.

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE, Monday June 6th.

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.

RICHARD PLEADWELL, Of council for the Appellant and his associates.

If the inclosed can be of any service to the cause of truth, it is at your disposal: The inserting of it in your next paper will oblige many of your customers. 'Tis time to reverberate some of that dir [...], with which the enemies of the church have plentifully be­spatter'd the advocates for a bishop.—to attack them with po­liteness and gentleness, is as inconsistent as it would be to endea­vour to defend ourselves with a razor, when an adversary ap­proaches us, armed with a cleaver.

I am, yours, ENTELLUS.
Impiger, Iracundus, inexorabilis, Acer,
Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non a [...]roget armis.
Avoid the Politic, the factious Fool,
To busy, buzzing, talking, harden'd Knave,
The quaint smooth Rogue, that sins against his Reason;
Calls saucy loud Suspicion, public Zeal,
And Mutiny, the Dictates of his Spirit.



WELL cousin! what success attended our last plan? How did your dress become me:

J Ketch.

Admirably! why, you may remember, I always told you, it was a profession you was form'd for by nature, for be­sides [Page 190]exercising that sourness of temper, which, if it cannot prey upon others, torments itself, you might have daily opportunities of feasting your misanthropy on the sufferings of others.


You mistake it entirely cousin. I can now raise nobler pleasure than your sphere of action affords. Your employment indeed is inflicting corporal punishments: but there is a part in man, whose wounds as they are more painful, so can never be healed. Heavens! what pleasure I feel, when secure from dan­ger; I shoot out a poison'd arrow, and wound the peace of some useful member of society, bending under the infirmities of age, and unable to defend himself, from ‘a Tremor in his hand, or a tor­por in his head.’ I Can behold the picture with satisfaction, and "grin horribly a ghastly smile."


The pleasure indeed must be exquisite! but certainly a person of your abilities, must sometimes exercise his talons on nobler prey.


You've hit my taste exactly, "I'm a non-conformist to order and established Method; I therefore endeavour to introduce as much confusion as possible,—I'm the Goliah of our fraterni­ty,—I rush in on the armies of the Levites, fall directly on their centre, move towards front and rear, "lay waste high places," and dispatch institutions of Christianity at a stroke. 'Twas I, the mighty I, that defended the rights and liberties of my country against the stampt-act;—'Twas I that stood forth in that junc­ture, defeated all attempts to enforce it, and obtained its repeal.— 'Twas I who founded a Watch-Tower and Reflector, to frighten men, women and children into fits.—'Twas this arm that crushed a college in embryo.

Can none remember; Yes, I know all must!
When calumny, inflam'd with party rage,
Pour'd her fell poison from my bitter page,
When envy's self, my standard trembling bore,
And pale religion bled at every pore;
When at my breath proud spires wou'd totter down,
And churchmen shrink to nothing at my frown.
J. Ketch.

I must confest, cousin, your superiority to any of our tribe; but I am, as yet unacquainted with our reasons for so strenuously opposing a bishop.


Unacquainted! Why, can you be ignorant, that the same reasons which made us enemies to the church, engage us to be equally so to bishops. As we are fond of contention and disorder, so it must be painful to see harmony and peace among others. The church will be a wall between us and power; we must therefore break thro' it, or rise over its ruins.—I say then there shall be no bishops, they are Holy tyrants, Apostolical-Monarchs, [Page 191]spiritual-Generalissimo's, law-dignified, court-favourred blood-suckers; they have drank of the cup of the whore of Babylon. If the clergy desire such bishops as they desire, they shall have them, "it would be unreasonable to deny them what their salva­tion depends on,"—but they do not desire what they desire, neither shall they have any bishop at all, for a bishop will perse­cute: If he touches a meeting-house, it will turn to a cook's shop,—He'll swallow down for his breakfast lands, tenements, with all and singular the possessions of independants.—His breath will blast the fruits of the field.—His urine will occa­sion inundations, and the wind from his posteriors, blow away our synod-men like locusts to the Red-Sea.—He'll dig up the bones of our forefathers for his food, and drink the wine of for­nication out of their scull bones. I say, I am a friend to the rights of private judgment, therefore, though the church thinks the ordination of bishops necessary, she shall not have it here, be­cause I think it is not, I say it is not. If they asked a primitive bishop, that is, a bishop suffering persecution, and exiled from place to place. I could wish them good speed, because there are no such. They appeal for a bishop, that shall have power only over his own clergy, but I say they don't ask for such a bishop, and whoever doubts what I say, is a superstitious bigot; and if he is a clergyman, I'll tell him he lies, to his face.


Right cousin! you now speak in character. I wish from my soul, the first cargo of spiritual carnalities, that are import­ed here, may meet the fate of the stamp papers; and I join in your threatening, that I would not promise, but should the most pious bishop in England (not excepting any restrictions) come over here, he would be trea [...]d worse than the commissioners in a late act. I for my part, will be ready, at the head of a well-chosen, down-looking, stern-browed, harpy-claw'd crew, to give his body to the fowls of the air, and his flesh to the beasts of the field.


On the success of this one attempt, my future schemes depend.—If I can once get this "scarlet whore, the church." bound in the chains I have prepared, I'll strip her by degrees of her covering, give her to penury and want, and turn her, naked, to the insults and contempt of the world.—Nay, I doubt not, af­ter such a precedent, (in imitation of him who set fire to the tem­ple of Diana,) I shall be able to establish my reputation on the ruins of all religion. My first attack, after levelling the notions of an hierarchy, should be made on all the priesthood: I could assert, (to the great comfort of all deists) that the clergy of all denominations have been of more disservice than advantage to religion, bringing the understandings of men under ecclesiastical bondage, placing devotion in wigs and starch'd bands, piety in a mortified face, and prayer in harmonious gruntings from the [Page 192]throat, and melodious twangs from the nose: That they darken the truth, by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and never fail, when they have it in their power, to pillage and butcher mankind.—Then I could proceed to aim at Christianity, as occasioning wars and dissentions, and the most bitter rancour among men, and I doubt not (as the clergy, its desenders, would be exterminated) but I should find it an easy task, to prove its use less than its disadvantage to mankind. Here will be a state un­molested by priests, or public worship; then will commence the foundation of a regular American constitution; a phoenix govern­ment, rising from the ashes of Great-Britain; omnipotence contends for it! Who can retard its structure?


A very noble plan truly! worthy its author! you are the only builder, cousin, able to raise this babel! the only Her­cules fit to cleanse this Augean stable!


I am the Atlas, that sustain on my shoulders the interests of the colonies; I'm the defender of the civil and religious liber­ties and privileges of all protestant denominations. I am the grand critic and word-catcher of America, and I grow so power­ful and terrible, that I am almost afraid of myself.


Go on then manfully, thou hero of our cause! mow down the Philistines with thy two edged sword.—Silence the clergy with the thunder of thy mouth.—call them persecutors, retailers of unintelligible jargon, spinners of airy cobweb divinity, sowers of discord, enslavers of their native country, ‘conceited, contracted, obstinate book-worms, pillagers and butchers of mankind;’ and if ever you should want severe epithets, turn over the pages of your immortal predecessors, the independent whig, and other deists of the age; from thence descend (if you would have the same bitterness expressed in a lower but more ran­corous stile) to the watch-tower, and reflector; by the help of whom, you may pull down dagon, hinder this abomination from coming among us; and instead of them, raise up our own pro­fession, emblematically prefigured by the brazen calf at Horeb.— Then shall another Mathers hand down your life, for the imita­tion of posterity—Our churches shall be called after your name, and I myself will fix this epitaph over your remains.—

Here lies, renowned CHAMPION PERT,
The Giant-Son of Scandal;
Plung'd six soot deep, in that vile dirt,
He lov'd so well to handle.
Born foe to man, thro' lise he past
A ghastly visag'd elf:
He frown'd at all, and died at last
With snarling at himself.
[Page 193]

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, Monday May 30th. To the Printer of the KICK.

DOCTOR Chandler informs us in his Appeal, p. 57. that there are about eight hundred and forty four thousand blacks in our islands and colonies, who are known chiefly to belong to the professors of the church of England; and who according to his representation and reasoning, must be reputed to belong to that church, and that therefore there is great need of an American Episcopate, &c.

Now this part of his scheme may be greatly improved, by shewing the propriety, that the bishop, or bishops so devoutly re­quested, should be of the same colour and nation. It is allowed by all parties, that bishops should be grave; and it is equally well known that by the consent of mankind in general, black is an emblem of gravity, Thus bishops, and even, clergymen of all denominations, commonly wear black cloth of one kind or other, Hence it is obvious at first sight, that a bishop who was really black would have a great privilege in respect of gravity, which is an essential qualification of an Episcopate. This would conduce much to his venerable appearance.

And since there are so many blacks who are churchmen, there would be a great congruity in appointing over them bishops of their own colour and nation. For negroes have their national pride and prejudices, as well as other nations, and on many ac­counts have aversion to the whites. They would therefore be much more likely to receive the instructions of religion from one of themselves, than from one of another nation. This is so plain, that it would be to suppose too much dulness in the reader not to perceive it. And thus the great and good ends proposed by Dr. Chandler, cannot be obtained, but by having a black bishop sent to America. And in the next edition of the Doctor's Appeal, he will doubtless improve this important thought, and amplify it by his fruitful genius into a pathetic section; especially since without it his scheme is far from being uniform and complete.

There are many precedents of Africans being bishops; was not the famous St. Austin an African? And he informs us, that there were nine hundred bishops in Africa, in his time. August. Tom. VII. de gestis cumemerit. And since there are so many hundred thousands of blacks who are churchmen, why should they be denied the great privilege of having a bishop of themselves.

It cannot be pretended, that it will put the nation to more expence to appoint negroes for bishops, than other men, or that it will give [Page 194]more umbrage to other denominations; but it would be easy to shew, that both these would be greatly removed by this measure, as every one must be convinced by his own candid examination of the case.

Tho much has been said about the uninterrupted line of suc­cession, yet it has never been pretended that it was necessary it should be confined to men of a certain hue or colour. It will be readily granted, that a negroe can take as fast hold of this rope, as any other man, and make as good use of it as others have done. —It is also certain, with regard to ordination by the imposition of hands and confirmation, that black hands will be as commu­nicative of divine ministerial authority and holy impressions, as white ones. If any deny this, let them shew that the validity of divine institutions is limited to a certain particular colour; or that there is not as much weight in the hands of a black diocesan, as of any other.

And thus there are many reasons for a negro episcopate in the colonies, and no objections have as yet been offered against it, nor is it easily conceived that there can be any of much weight: But if there should be any, let the objectors propose them with modesty and candour, and they shall receive a due consideration from the public's most humble servant



‘Clodius accusat maechos.’

AS Squire Tickle has given me a surfeit of words, in my animadversions I shall be as laconic as possible.

He would fain persuade us, that shewing from what quarter they come, will go a good way to confute the Whig's compositions, i. e. if Tim. Tickle, Esq calls the Whig a rascal, or a Preshterian, (and that without proving him either, he in a great measure con­futes his arguments. Compare paragraph 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th, of No. I. (Compendious reasoning, this!) Thus the appellation old woman, has already half confuted Dr. Ch—y; alas, for the poor boy of 17!

He makes great use of the word faction, (in No. VII. no less than four times in three lines) to denominate anti-episcopalians. Quere. Which does this title suit best, a small number who dis­turb the public peace, by attempting dangerous innovations, or the body of the people, who oppose them?

[Page 195] He undertakes (par. 5th) to check the insolence of this faction. How?—by vapouring, and brandishing a bundle of verbage, called a whip, in his hand over the whig, presbyterians, &c. But what insolence?—why—in abusing the lenity of the church of England; lenity! what lenity?—Oho! in tolerating and pro­tecting them. No. II. par. 2d, and No. IV. par. 7.) ha! ha! ha!—Quere. Is it the Pope, or the King, the Convocation, or the Parliament, that tolerates and protects dissenters? Oh! how much brass there was in the forehead of the Colossus!—but I for­get myself; the state and church of England are so blended, that what is done by one, is (it seems) done by the other. In the same par. Squire Tickle, with the most delicate touches of art, draws a picture in miniature, which his brother Jack Catch has copied at full length; whose should it be? Let's view it nearer;—O my stars! am I mistaken? I took it for the Whig's, surely it can't be Squire Tickle's; and yet every body fays it is an exact likeness. Well! who would think that a man could draw his own picture so well?—but in this part also. (as on every occasion afterwards) Squire T. nobly distinguishes himself by his pertinent criticisms on the Whig's language. Why don't you mind words more, Mr. Whig? surely you don't consider, that a fault in style, may ruin a good thought, and confute one of your own arguments. If you don't take care, the Whipper will wear out your coat by beating the dust out.—Quere. Is not Squire T. a clerical padagogue?

Par. 6. The Appeal is written with great moderation—so acts a cat in ambush; what of that Squire Tickle? Par. 7. and alibi. Erratum, for asks, read, appears to ask; vide. 2d and 5th strokes of the minature painting; par. 8 and 9, &c. Squire Tickle pur­sues his argument, by shewing (as he dares say) from what quar­ter the Whig's compositions come;—his reasoning (which he loves dearly) is unanswerable, and his borrow'd, and often repeated hints at the reason no earlier opposition was made to an episco­pate, must needs have irresistible force; for many strokes of a Whip in the same place, must surely hurt. How is it, Mr. Whig?

Par. 11. The Whig pragmatically assumes to be desender-general, &c. but who dares say Squire Tickle pragmatically assumes to be Whipper-general, when he assures us, No. II. that he hates con­troversy, and was dragg'd (to the Whipping-Post,) to do what he owns it were criminal not to have done. N. B. He makes a very cunning remark, about knowing secret attempts, &c.

Par. 12 and 13. Ha! criticism again! well, I must needs own, Squire Tickle, you always act consistently, i. e. just like—your­self. But what a Quixote this Whig is! he surely has a wind­mill in his brains. Danger! poh! there is not the least danger either to dissenters or churchmen from an op [...]scopate; but hark [Page 196]ye, Squire Tickle,—a word in your ear—between you and me, when people are needlessly terrified, we ought to pity not blame them, nay more,

Folix quem saciunt alien [...] pericula cautum, but you really go a little too far in insisting upon proof to justify caution. Only prove on your side that there is no danger, and this poor crack­brain'd fellow the Whig, will recover his senses again.


[From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, June 6.]

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.

[Page 203]

THE Author acknowledges the receipt of an anonymous letter, on unconstitutional, and unchristian proceedings of the Con­vention, in embarking in a late hazardous, and most important enterprise, without consulting the members of their respective churches; which shall be published in due time.

I am also very greatly obliged to a very sensible member of the Dutch Church, for his excellent letter, disproving in the most masterly manner, the late scandalous aspersion of those churches being in any sort episcopal; and ingeniously exposing the low arts of those, who propagate such notorious falsehoods; which shall also be inserted as soon as possible.

The judicious composition exposing Dr. Chandler's considerations of church discipline, and the false idea he has given of that of his own church, is also come to hand, and well deserves a place in the American Whig,


Cum tua pervideas oculis mala lippus inunctis;
Cur in aliorum vitiis tam cernis acutum,
Quam aut aquila aut serpens Epidaurius?

SQUIRE T. hates controversy—especially with an unfair, abusive adversary; No 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, No 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.

Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.


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.

I am, Sir, yours to love and serve, HIEROCLES.


IN my last Publication, I stated the Conduct of Parliament to­wards the Admiralty Court in England, and compared it with their very different Behaviour towards it in America. I think it a very remarkable and alarming Instance of the mische­vous Effects, that must follow from "our Superiors" in England undertaking to make internal Regulations for the Colonies. If they should listen to the Missionaries, and attempt to provide for [Page 207]us a religious Establishment, they would probably do as much more Harm, as the Subject is of more Importance. Every Circum­stance leads to this Conclusion.

No Body of Men is interested in supporting undue Stretches of Power, or Abuses in the Admiral's Court, and it is not impro­bable, that on proper and reiterated Representations, the Mi­nisters of State might do us Justice, in Respect of that arbitrary Judicature, or other Instances wherein our Rights have been violated; at least it would be in their Power to do it. The Suc­cess of the People of Ireland, in procuring the Limitation of their Parliaments, and the Independency of their Judges after long Endeavours, ought to inspirit our Attempts, and never suffer us to despair of recovering our Rights.

But if the clergy once gain an advantage, let the inconveni­encies, or oppressions it brings on the laity be what they will, there is no coming at redress. These people have the artifice of making a zeal for orthodoxy, and a regard for their own interests go hand in hand. By asserting their claims and encroachments to be of divine right, under establishments they tie up the hands of the magistrate, and make it dangerous for him to reform the most acknowledged and most pernicious abuses. Thus, when other arguments have failed, forms of church government, par­ticularly diocesan episcopacy;§ the uninterrupted succession of bishops; tythes; exemption of the clergy from civil authority, &c. have, at one time or another, been stiffly maintained to [Page 208]be of divine right: and this, when once instilled, into the zeal­ous, but ignorant and more numerous part of their flocks, has generally enabled them to support the most unreasonable usurpa­tions, and to baffle all attempts at reformation.

The risque we should run, would be heightened by another circumstance: The successors of the Apostles in England, whose power over their inferior clergy, whose revenues, dignities, and seats in parliament, necessarily give them great weight, would find themselves interested to have every power, every privilege they enjoy as far as possible, extended to their brethren, the American bishops. The example of a reduced episcopate in the British dominions, they could not but esteem dangerous to their own jurisdiction, and they must of course be induced to exert all their endeavours, and to watch every opportunity, which a weak administration, or other favourable conjuncture, might afford, to advance and aggrandize the American hierarchy: in which, from the experience we have had of the disposition of some, and the inattention of most of our virtual representatives, there is too much reason to fear they would succeed to their wishes; at least no argument can be drawn from the watchful­ness of the laity of England, over the cleargy there, that a like caution would subsist as to the clergy of the colonies: Witness the case of admiralty jurisdiction.

Let us for a moment suppose that Dr. Chandler's scheme, as exhibited in Italicks, in the 79th page of his Appeal, is ‘without reservation or equivocation, the exact plan of an American episcopate, as it hath been settled at home.’ viz. That the bishops to be sent to the colonies 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 this authority shall operate only on the clergy and not on the laity, nor 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 as before stated, i. e. ordain and govern the clergy, and admi­nister confirmation to such as desire it. let us suppose, I say, that the word of Dr. Chandler, a private missionary, is to be taken in this most important affair; and that the bishops would, at first, be sent over with such limited Powers, what Security have we, that they and their Successors, for any long Time, would remain contented with such Limitations: In a Word, that they would continue such harmless, inoffensive People, as the Doctor represents them? Has this order of men been remarkable [Page 209]for such quiet unambitious conduct? Or have they usually been free of a disposition to intermeddle in worldly matters? Does not their apologist Dr. Chandler intimate the very reverse, when he says, Page 110, Should the government see fit hereafter to invest them with some degree of civil power, worthy their acceptance, none would be thereby injured? Is it reasonable to think that the American prelates, would ever be easy whilst in a Condition inferior to the superb, court-favoured, law-dignified bishops of England? especially, as the connections between them, would always keep alive the hopes of the former, of arriving at the same authority and Importance.

A late writer (said to be of high spiritual dignity beyond the Alantic) assures us, that as the bishops intended for America, are "to be appointed by the crown, the smallest attempt towards an oppressive enlargement of spiritual power would be immediately crushed with indignation by the legislature; and that the mode­ration of the clergy and the watchfulness of the laity over them, is much more likely to increase than diminish." This is plausi­ble, but not solid. However, at present we shall suppose, that under such directors of the national councils as have of late pre­sided, there has been a discovery of so much wisdom and integri­ty; of so tender a concern for the interests of the colonies; of so cautious, so delicate an apprehension of injuring their constitution­al rights, as leaves no room to fear any oppressive enlargement of spiritual or any other power, during the continuance of such an happy guidance of public measures: Yet times may change; men of a different stamp may be employed; who knows what another reign may produce? Whatever may be promised now, yet rea­sons of state, (which Dr. Chandler already holds out to our supe­riors) it may be said, require more to be done for this new-fang­led hierarchy; for a bishop without authority over the laity, is really a novelty, which no denomination of Christians, that allowed of a regular Ministry, ever before thought of. Either sole or assisted, the bishops or pastors of all sects have exercised it as of scriptural and unalienable right; nor can there be any church of Christ on earth, without this, or somewhat equivalent to it.

When the bishops (to carry on the supposition) shall be once quietly settled among us, we shall be told by Dr. Chandler, or some equal advocate for the order, "that the church in America is in a most wretched and deplorable condition, perishing for want of common necessaries, and under such diseases, as must prove fatal to her, if much longer neglected; that she only re­quests, that proper remedies may be provided for her sufferings, [Page 210]leaving it to the wisdom of her superiors, whether any thing fur­ther is to be done, to strengthen and improve her interests." In short, she only asks, what cannot be denied by Christian rulers, to a Christian society connected with the state; what all other denominations enjoy; a power to exercise discipline over the laity. "The people are sensible of the want of this power over them, and find themselves free from all restraints of ecclesiastical, autho­rity: And though the church, as far as it has relation to civil power, is in the nature of it a free society, yet after men become members, the laws of the church are in force against them." It is true, this was at first given up, but we find, we "are a body without strength, liable to be destroyed by innumerable ac­cidents;* in short, we are under an "unprecedented hardship" without it.

This granted, (how can Dr. Chandler talk of giving it up) the necessity of civil co-action, or the aid of the magistrate to enforce the censures of the clergy, may be easily urged." Those, who are rejected by one "church," it can be said, "are received by another." A disposition to slight excommunication, "the high­est punishment the church can inflict, has become general; in this age the voice of reason will not be heard," Civil inca­pacity, and the writ from the King's court for imprisoning the excommunicate persons,§ are the only remedy; and why should not the American church be enabled to reduce obstinate offenders to obedience, as well as the mother church of England?

Suppose the hierarchy invested with this support, which by virtue of her aliance with the state, she will claim as her right; the next demand will be, that all dissenters be considered as vir­tual churchmen, and made liable to censures accordingly; for discipline is evaded and the church undermined. Then "a tax on the country to support the bishops will be wanted;" for their rank requires greater revenue than can be raised by charitable con­tributions, and it cannot be expected that the mother country will maintain the clergy of America. And if a tax can be justly levied for the prelates, why not for the parish ministers? "it would be no mighty hardship, nor can he, who would scruple to pay a tax for this or any use the legislature of his country should [Page 211]assign, deserve to be considered in the light of a good subject or member of society."* nay the security of the church, in a coun­try abounding with dissenters, indispensibly requires, that the sa­cramental test should be extended to America; the argument is much more forcible here than in England, where the non con­formists are not thought to exceed one eighth of the people. "This can be no hardship on dissenters, as indeed they have no natural right to any degree of civil or military power."

What parliament could have the conscience, "after such sig­nal displays of the divine favour towards the British nation, whose arms in America have triumphed over all that opposed them, to refuse to erect on that ground some suitable monument of religious gratitude; and what so proper, as the further secu­rity and support of the true religion in America? Other nations have taken equal care for the establishment of ecclesiastical, as of civil government in their most distant colonies. In the French and Spanish colonies, we find bishops; and in Canada a complete ecclesiastical establishment under an episcopate." These things will not cost the members any thing, nor in the least injure them: They are constitutional; agreeable to what is allowed at home, and if they had been wrong, we should doubtless have given them up.

How insiduously, how easily might priestly dominion thus steal in upon us and advance, is too manifest from church history. The reader will see, that Dr. Chandler has helped me to make out the progress of the scheme, by a number of seemingly useless expressions dispersed through his Appeal. These are prudent reserves for another day; when the words, if, now, § at present, in the present state of things, * and hereofter, may be of great use, however unmeaning they may now seem to a care­less reader. This scheme of our missionaries reminds me of the instructions, which pope Boniface gave to Austin and his Fellow-missionaries, sent to Britain to convert the Saxons to Christianity, and the Welsh who were Christians already, to a proper sense of the Pope's supremacy, (an essential article, it seems they had un­fortunately left out of their creed) "you are," says his Holiness, to move cautiously, let them not see all we aim at, lest we gain nothing.

[Page 212]

To Timothy Tickle, Esq

Hic niger est; hùnc tu, Romane caveto.
The gloomy Whig has dark designs,—
American! beware,—

THAT an insidious faction has long endeavoured to crush the CHURCH of England in America, in order to erect a spiritual tyranny, when that great obstacle is removed, will, I believe, be ap­parent to every one who considers the steps they have taken. Eve­ry engine that malice could invent has been set at work. The characters and conduct of her clergy, however innocent or respect­able, have been traduced.—Her doctrines misrepresented. Her decent ceremonies exposed to ridicule, and her sons, besides other opprobrious Names, branded with the odious title of Persecutors; when, by all men of candour, it is acknowledged that the CHURCH of England is not only the bulwark of the reformation, but possessed of a truly Christian spirit of meekness and toleration.

But notwithstanding these base arts might prejudice the weak and unwary, still there was great danger, least the rays of truth should dispel the cloud of misrepresentation, and crafty politicians fail of their desired success.—Under this apprehension, it was necessary to persuade all denominations of Christians to unite against the CHURCH, as a common Enemy: And at the same time, lest any should be hereafter competitors for dominion, it became ex­pedient to sow the seeds of dissension among them, that by their intestine divisions, they might become an easy prey to these de­signing Incendiaries. For Prosecution of the latter part of so notable a scheme, they have already rent to pieces the Dutch church within this province, which next to the church of England, bade the fairest to oppose them) and introduced such heart burnings and enmity among its members, as time can never remove.—The French church has also been practised upon, and ruined by them. They have not been content 'till they in­troduced a creature of their own to preach there; one connected with them both by affinity and a similarity of interests.—All this mischief has been done under the mask of friendship; and so great is the blindness of many well-meaning persons, that I make no doubt their eyes will not be thoroughly opened, 'till this subtil sect, like Aaron's rod, swallow them all up.

[Page 213] Quod procul a nohis fortuna gubernans avertat.

As to the former part of the scheme it must be obvious to every one, who has perused the elegant performances composed ‘in these boasted times of moderation and candour.’ by the celebrated and incomparable triumvirs of this inoffensive party, under the glorious titles of the Independent Reflector, the Watch Tower, and the American Whig. Frequent use occurs therein of the term dissenters, which is supposed to include all that differ from the established church in the most minute circumstances, however op­posite they may be to one another, both in principles and interest. They are called upon to defend those liberties which are not at­tacked, and maintain those rights which are not disputed: And as fraud and falacy, are usually practised in such cases, every me­thod, however dishonest, is taken to infuse groundless fears, and and unreasonable prejudices; particularly in No. IX. of the American Whig, a letter is sub-join'd as from a Quaker, (for I suspect a Forgery) evidently to induce that respectable body of men, who are known to have a regard for the church, to join with its enemies, the insidious faction, who arrogantly assume to them­selves the name of presbyterians; with your permission, therefore, Sir, as a means of obviating the ill consequences that may arise from that letter, and opening peoples eyes. I will briefly consider an assertion it contains, so notoriously false, that I wonder it could drop even from the pen of the American Whig; who, as well as some others of his party, is known to assert roundly.

The Passage I mean, is couch'd, in the following terms, ‘since our fathers came out from their Babylonish captivity, into this peaceable Zion, they, and we, have set down under our own vines and our own fig trees, and have had none to make us afraid.’

The Whig would undoubted intimate by the words ‘peaceable Zion,’ that the quakers have enjoyed full liberty of conscience since they emigrated to the continent of America.—But alass! how far is this from being the case? For no sooner were the Inde­pendents (who would fain be called presbyterians) fixed in the northern colonies, to which they fled, (some few perhaps, for conscience sake, others to avoid the punishment due for the murder of their king, and the overthrow of the constitution) than they exercised a most illegal and despotic authority in the matters of religion. But their rage was chiefly against the people, who (we are now told) since they came into this peaceable Zion, have set down under their own vines and their own fig trees, and have had none to make them afraid. With respect to the Quakers therefore, this Zion has not been quite so peaceable as the Whig would persuade us. The fires of persecution, were lighted in it by the same persons, who, if we may believe Mr. Livingston, in his modest letter to the Bishop of Landaff, "had forsaken houses [Page 214]and lands, and the most tender connections with every thing dear and estimable amongst human kind, for the undisturbed fruition of the rights of private judgment, sacred by the laws of God and of nature." Influenced by this motive as that gentleman sup­poses, and sensible that the rights of private judgment were sa­cred, they nevertheless became more sanguinary than the sangui­nary savages of the desert with whom they had to encounter. The Quakers, contrary to the principles of justice and equity, were severely fined and imprisoned, and their persons treated with the most shocking barbarity. They were banished by a law, so called, under pretence that they withdrew from orderly church fellowship, allowed and approved by all orthodox professors of the truth, (a ready pretence for persecution at all times, and upon all occasions) and some of them were put to the most ignominious death for conscience sake, contrary to the rights of private judg­ment, sacred by the laws of God and of nature. Nay, so wantonly were these usurpations over the consciences of men exercised, that prisoners were refused a trial by jury, the undoubted right of every free born Briton and American; the dead bodies of those who fell a sacrifice to the rage of bloody bigots, were stripp'd, and depriv'd of a decent burial; and the exulting priest of so virtuous a people, composed a ludicrous ballad upon the occasion; for which his character, with that of his worthy compatriots, will, as Mr. Li­vingston judiciously observes, make a bright figure in history, and be handed down with honour to the latest posterity.

Thus much may serve to shew that this peaceable Zion has, in reality, been to the Quakers, a vale of tears; and as to the vine and fig tree, (a scriptural metaphor intended to represent the security that the Quakers enjoyed in the Whig's imagination, I suppose, as to property and person) the above remarks will suffice to shew, that they also are inapplicable to such a state of sufferings and per­secution; for surely a people banished by law, under pain of death, who, like Noah's Dove, could find no rest for the soals of their feet, can hardly with any propriety, be said to have set under their own vines, and their own fig trees, and have had none to make them afraid.

But if it should be asserted that the case was not so within this province; I observe, first, that these fanatical independents never got firm enough footing here for that purpose: And secondly, That though for the above reason, they did not persecute the Quakers themselves, yet by their artful and false suggestions, they prevailed upon the Dutch to do it; who, I believe, would have been averse from the measure, had they been rightly inform­ed; and even prepossess'd as they were, burnt not with that fiery real which enflamed their neighbour colonists.

[Page 215] I have thus, Sir, exposed the designs of the independents, and of their doughty champion the American Whig, and shewn that that the grossest falsities are advanced by them to gain the most dangerous ends. I shall conclude with remarking, that if the church of England has ever entertained persecuting principles, she has renounced them with detestation, in the heighth of her power; whereas the independents have never had the upper hand, but they have ruled with the iron hand of oppression, and openly practised that persecution which they before affected to abhor; like Proteus, continually changing figure, and becoming, as occasion required, one while the gently murmuring stream; and another, the ferocious Lion, or the bloody Bear.

I am, with great Respect, Sir, Your Most Obedient Humble Servant, AGRICOLA.

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, Monday June 13th. The AMERICAN WHIG, [No. XIV.]

THE following letter came to my hands as the genuine pro­duction of a member of the Dutch church, who hath had sufficient provocation for the resentment he discovers against the shameless scribblers employed for the convention: Scribblers, who in open defiance of all modesty and decorum, are engaged in preverting truth, propagating falshood, out-raging common sense, and abusing without offence given the most numerous denomi­nation of Christians in this province. I have only to apologize for altering those parts of the letter, that would have necessitated me to mention a name, with which I cannot by any means, consent to disgrace my paper; and having given those passages such a turn, as does equal justice to my correspondent's arguments, I doubt not he will readily excuse the liberty I have taken.

To the Author of the AMERICAN WHIG,


I FIND that the advocates for an American Episcopate (how agreeable to truth I leave the world to judge) not being able to make the church of Holland episcopal, endeavour to divide her as being neither episcopal nor presbyterian, but something between both; a conduct, in some measure, similar to that of the false mother, who said, "let the child be neither thine [Page 216]nor mine, but divide it." Agreeable to this absurd conceit, equally groundless and impudent, we have lately been told, ‘That the church of Holland is not episcopal exactly in the same manner that the church of England is episcopal; neither is it presbyterian in the same sense that the English dissenters are presbyterian, as is evident from the distinction made in their or­dination, of a member of the classis, or an ordinary pastor or presbyter. When a member of the classis is ordained, the powers of ordination and government are committed to him; but when an ordinary pastor is ordained, no such powers are confer­red on him, but only the powers of preaching the word and ad­ministering the sacrament.’ [I suppose they mean sacraments.]

From this, one would be apt to conclude, that we of the church of Holland in America (to use a parallel phrase with Dr. Chand­ler) are a kind of mongrel, neither episcopal nor presbyterian, but something between both. But what kind of constitution that something is, or ought to be called, is not so much as hinted.—I therefore think it my duty to inform those who want informa­tion, what the constitution of the church of Holland is; and that not from what I have been told, but from what I know to be the case, as an old member of that church, who have not lately, but many years since, made it my business to examine se­veral church constitutions, and especially that, of which I profess myself a member.

I therefore affirm, and hope to prove beyond all question, that the church of Holland is as little episcopal as any presbyterian church on earth. This appears from the 30th and 31st articles of her confession of faith; an abstract of the 31st is as follows. ‘As for the ministers of God's word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all mi­nisters of Christ, the only universal bishop, and only head of the church.’ Is it in the power of language more clearly to deny episcopacy; or to assert presbyterianism? Pray what is properly presbyterianism? I answer it is that form of church government, wherein no higher authority is allowed, than that of elders, or, which is the same thing, presbyters. Therefore the word ren­dered in English Presbytery, is in Dutch translated by that of Eldership—1 Tim. iv [...]4. Hence it appears, that not only the reformed churches of Holland, Scotland, Geneva, and many of the German churches are Presbyterian, but that the congre­gationalists and Baptists are also Presbyterian.—The difference lies only in this, that the former extend their jurisdiction further than the congregationalists and Baptists, who respectively confine their jurisdiction within the single congregation, of which they have the pastoral charge; whereas the other churches have their consistories (or kirk sessions) then their presbyteries or classis, next [Page 217]provincial synods, and last of all a general assembly or national synod. The first consists of the minister or ministers, elders and deacons of one congregation; the next of two or more of the mi­nisters a [...]ers of neighbouring congregations, or such a num­ber [...] deputed by those congregations for that purpose; the [...] consists of the deputies of the several presbyteries; and the last of the deputies of the provincial assemblies.—Persons aggrieved in any of the lower judicatories can appeal to the higher. So that there is the greatest harmony and similarity in the presbyte­rian church government of the church of Scotland, church of Holland, and the presbyterians in North America, that could possibly be expected, considering the circumstances of two differ­ent national churches, and the great distance and non-establish­ment of the last mentioned, in America; who, nevertheless, have their regular church-sessions, presbyteries and synods.

But perhaps some may object, that those of the church of Hol­land are not called presbyterians, neither have they presbyteries.

As to the first, it is true, that they are not usually distinguish­ed by that appellation as a denomination; neither was there ever any occasion for it, they being distinguished by the reformation of their doctrines, in opposition to the church of Rome, and other heritics, by the name of 'The reformed church of Netherland.'—But the church of Scotland, and those of their persuasion in England, having, from time to time, had many struggles with episcopacy, they being zealous for presbyterian government, were, in contradistinction to episcopalians, called presbyterians.

The church of Scotland however (and those who hold to the same constitution in other parts of the world) from her doctrines contained in her Confession of Faith and Westminster Catechism, have as good a claim to the title of reformed church as the church Holland. On the other hand the church of Holland may as pro­perly be called the presbyterian reformed church, as the church of Scotland. But should this not sufficiently satisfy some preju­diced person, I hope he will allow the testimony of an episcopali­an historian; I mean Mr. Salmon, who in his historical geogra­phical grammar, in his description of the established religion of the united Netherlands, says, 'Their church government is pres­byterian.'

The other objection (if any one is weak enough to make it) that the church of Holland hath no presbyteries, is altogether groundless; a classis and presbytery being synonymous terms, when applied to their second ecclesiastical judicatory, which consists of a number of presbyters convened to represent several congregati­ons, they are a classis of presbyters, and therefore in effect a pres­bytery: Nay, it appears from the proceedings of the assembly of Divines, who met at Westminster, about 115 years ago; that the [Page 218]church judicatory, now called a presbytery, was then called a classis. Words in themselves are arbritrary; it is the ideas affixed to them that determine their signification. 'Tis well known, that the Dutch call their Kerken Raad, or Church Session, a consis­tory; yet it is obvious, that we do not by this mean a consistory of cardinals, (as among the Papists) So also the word assembly, when preceded by the words a wicked or a pious, convey very different ideas.

From all which it appears, that the church government of Holland, Scotland, and the Dutch and presbyterian churches here, are essentially the same; and that the term Dutch and English presbyterians, may be used among us with the greated propriety; though the term may at present sound a little strange for want of the sanction of custom. But in order to render the matter if possible still plainer, I present the reader with the whole, in the following short view, viz.

The church of Holland call their first, or lower church ju­dicatory, a Kerken Raad, or Consistory, their 2d a classis, their 3d, a Provincial Synod, their 4th or highest, a National Synod.*

The church of Scotland call their first or lowest church ju­dicatory, a Church, or Kirk Session, their 2d, a Presbytery, their 3d, a Pro­vincial Synod, their 4th, or highest, a General Assembly of the church of Scotland.

But what similarity is there between the church of England, and the church of Holland, in their several offices, judicatories, &c, &c? It is pretended, that the church of Holland makes a distinction between a meer presbyter, who has only power to preach, and administer the sacraments, and one who is ordained a member of the Classis, to whom the powers of ordination and government are committed.

This is a meer pretence; for the reader may be assured, that nothing like it is either known, or practised in the church of Hol­land.—Candidates for the ministry, after they have gone through their necessary studies, are presented to the classis; there they are examined not only by the proeses or moderator, but also by a cer­tain number appointed for that purpose, or sometimes by the mem­bers in general: When they have given sufficient proofs of their ability, they are licenced to preach in a kind of itinerant way, (but not to administer the sacraments) to exercise their talents: When they receive a call for any particular congregation, they are to pass a second examination; and after that they are so­lemnly ordained, each one in the presence of the congregation of his charge, by prayer, and the laying on of the hands of the classis, thereunto appointed.

[Page 219] By virtue of this pastoral charge, he is qualified for a member of the classis to which his congregation doth belong; and where a congregation has more ministers than is thought needful to send to the classis, the congregation or consistory send whom they think proper, from whom they or he must have proper credentials.

It sometimes happens, that a person is ordained before he is called to a particular charge, or for a foreign place where no classis is erected. Then, indeed, he is no member of the classis, not for any defect in his ordination, but because he has no con­gregation to represent, or no classis near the place of his mini­stry.

Nor can I by any means adopt the parallel of monarchial and episcopalian, republican and presbyterian, or if you please church of Holland, church government. It has pleased God to tolerate several forms of civil government on earth, and in his word to enjoin obedience to magistrates in general; but it is hard to prove, that he has given so extensive a toleration in the government of his church, respecting essentials. It does not therefore follow, that there may be as different church governments in different countries, as there are different civil governments. Neither we of the Dutch church, nor the church of Scotland, blend civil and ecclesiastical government together, as the church of England does; according to such parallel it must follow, that every ma­gistrate of a city, town or village, in Holland, must be of equal rank with their higher order (for I have shewn that there is no superiority in point of ordination and government in their clergy) and that all, without distinction, were fit to compose their coun­cil of state; their provincial states, and the states general of Hol­and West Vriesland; but this it is obvious is not the case.

Nor can I help observing how fruitless the efforts of your op­ponents, to evade the charge of the episcopalians unchurching all the rest of the reformed churches, by pretending that, as the esteeming republican civil government, less perfect than monar­chical, is not ungoverning them; so the esteeming the govern­ment of the church of Holland, less perfect than the episcopa­lian, is not unchurching them.—The parallel here will not hold; for no man in his senses, will pretend that monarchy is essential to the very being of government: But the advocates for episco­pacy insist, that the ordination, by an uninterrupted succession of bishops, is so necessary for the ordination of gospel mini­sters, that, ‘that being once broke, not all the men on earth, nor all the angels in heaven, without an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it.’—Another says, there are three orders in the church of Christ, bishops, priests and dea­cons; [Page 220]and wheresoever any of these are wanting, there can be no church. *

Consequently as we do not hold episcopal ordination necessary, we must be without ministers of Christ; we are unbaptised; we have never partaken of the holy supper, according to Christ's appointment. In a word, we are almost in a state of heathenism, and in respect to ordination, the church of Rome is right; and we indeed, without any peradventure, all in the wrong; and can be no church on earth, whatever some of us may be in heaven.

In respect of the late Mr. Houdin being received as a priest of the church of England without re-ordination; it is demanded, by your adversary, whether on his renouncing the errors of po­pery, and embracing the doctrines of the meeting, they would not have done the same? Before I answer this, I must examine what the religion of the meeting is. To know this, I must exa­mine what meeting they mean. If they mean a meeting-house, I believe the materials of lime, stone, wood, &c will not effect the orthodoxy of the house; whether they be episcopal or pres­byterian, or even popish, in regard to the persons of whom pur­chased, or even by whom fabricated; but if by the meeting, they understand a denomination of Christians meeting together; then I ought to know, whether they mean Lutherans, Moravians, Baptists, French or Dutch Calvinists, congregationalists, quakers, or presbyterians.—I only know that they do not intend a meeting of episcopalians.—I shall therefore take it for granted, as the [Page 221]most probable that they mean, the meeting or church of presby­terians here or elsewhere; whom, from a spirit of the most shame­ful bigotry, they cannot deign to call any thing else but meeting independants, dissenters, or the like—any thing but a presbyterian church. But to return to the question, I answer that I sincerely think they would not, or at least, it is my humbly opinion, they ought not to receive such a one, without re-ordination, because that the church of Rome is so very corrupt and superstitious, as to cease to be a church of Christ, but is rather a synagogue of Satan, and consequently it were better to ordain twice, than not at all. Were an English episcopalian to become a proselyte to presbyterianism, it is well known that his ordination would be al­lowed valid, not because he was ordained by a diocesan bishop merely as such, but because he had what we deem the essential powers of ordination, as any other lawful minister, pastor or over­seer, which in scripture language are synonimous terms: That every presbyter appointed to the charge of a flock is a bishop, or overseer, I could easily prove from scripture, did the limits of this paper permit.

As the episcopalians themselves say, that a bishop is also a presbyter, they cannot reasonably fault the conduct of the presby­terians, for allowing the validity of their ordination; seeing they have a right to view the bishops in the light of presbyters.

But how uncharitably does that boasted charitable church act towards her protestant brethren in Scotland, Holland, France, Germany, Geneva, and this extensive continent of America! For if any one of them; however orthodox and learned, is by any means inclined to become a preacher in their church, nothing else but a formal re-ordination will qualify him for the ministry in the church of Christ: What is the language of such a conduct? Actions speak louder than words.—Therefore I don't ask what apology they can make, or what charitable construction they can put on non-episcopal ordination, but what is the language of their actions? 'Tis not ‘that it is at least imperfect, irregular and defective;’ tho' Doctor Chandler is pleased thus to evince the matter, for he says, ‘that the line of succession once broke, and the powers of ordination once lost, is not to be restored without an immediate commission from Christ.’—Neither need the episcopalians (whether really or under colour of charity) to say, "that the non-episcopalians are in the dark in these things:" No, we have, blessed be God, among us, both of clergy and laity, at least as clear heads and honest hearts, as there are among the episcopalians (and doubtless in greater numbers) who attend to the sure word of prophecy of the old and new-testament, and give heed thereto, in preference to any fallible sayings of the pious fathers, or traditions of men. The language of their ac­tions [Page 222]then is this; the person, or persons, who pretended to or­dain you, had no legal authority from Christ so to do, neither you nor they, were lawful ministers, but intruders and usurpers; the people you ministered unto were no church, but an unlawful meeting or conventicle.—Tho' your pretended minister warned you of the evil of your ways, God sent him not; and woe to him that runneth not being sent. Thus the episcopalians do as much as in them lies, grieve by their conduct the hearts of those whom God will not have grieved; however soft their words; however genteel their apologies. Let us suppose, for instance, a person to be accused of house-breaking, and taking thence things of great value; whether the accusation is true or false, will it be deemed a proper apology to say, I did not design to call you a thief; your action was only imperfect, irregular and defective—you only was in the dark. The application is easy; all non-episcopalians are guilty of the worst of thefts, even of sacrilege, by laying hands on an ordinance, to which (we episcopalians being judges) they have no right; on the contrary they harden, by the same conduct, the hearts of many formalists and hypocrites, who, as the Jews of old, called ‘the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these;’ so they are ever vainly boasting, of, "the church of England, &c. &c. are we. But, blessed be God, we have a better testimony of the lawfulness of the ministry, and the other ordinances among us, than can possi­bly be derived from all the episcopal churches on earth, even the undoubted operation of the blessed spirit of all grace, on the hearts of many to their conversion and confirmation in their most holy faith; and if the episcopal church can boast its thousands in this respect, we may say we have our ten thousands.

Before I conclude, I beg leave just to mention the absurd no­tion, and unparall [...]d bigotry, of using the word church, as the name of a particular denomination. The least that can be said, of such people, as that they appear extremely ignorant of the true meaning of the word church, by their constant affectation of calling some places, dedicated to the public worship of God, by the name of meetings and others by that of churches. If they mean, by this term, the buildings where people assemble for di­vine worship, they may may be called either churches or meetings, whether the assembly consists of episcopalians, or of any other denominations of Christians. Thus the building called TRI­NITY CHURCH, is one of the houses in which episcopalians meet, and consequently it is an episcopalian meeting-house, as well or rather more properly than an episcopalian church. But no building strictly speaking can be called a church, being impro­perly so called, from the members of the visible church of Christ, who there assemble for the public worship of God.—If there­fore [Page 223]they will not allow the meeting-houses of baptists, presbyte­rians, &c. to be called churches, in the sense just mentioned, as well as the episcopalian meeting-houses, they unwarily (even in an external sense) un-church all those other denominations; who, no doubt, are [...]o small part of the visible Christian church. Now as to the Dutch church, which I have shewn, may, with the greatest propriety, be called presbyterian, they as effectually un­church it with the rest; because no charters, constitutions or con­nections, can constitute any denomination, a church of Christ. They can only deserve that appellation, as being professors of Christ and his doctrines, agreeing in the unity of saith.

Those members of the Dutch church, who have a tolerable understanding of their constitution, want no such apologies. We know that the unchurching of any non-episcopalians whatever, who profess themselves part of the visible church, is in effect to unchurch us, as has now been made fully to appear.

How well the holy scriptures have been preserved to us, thro' the medium of the church of Rome, together with the sacra­ments and ordination, (or according to the popish episcopalians phrase, Christian priesthood, already refuted) appear by their per­verting the first by many corrupt translations, adulterating bap­tism by human inventions, turning the Lord's Supper into the sa­crifice of the mass, the idolatrous doctrine of transubstantiation, and making ordination one of their sacraments. But the truth is, that God, even in the midst of popish darkness, raised up wit­nesses for the truth both of doctrine and discipline, who sealed the truth with their blood. But probably this set of men have never read the book of Martyrs.

Here I thought to have finished, but I cannot help observing on the despicable attempt of persuading the public, that English Presbyterians are for unchurching the church of Holland, &c. &c. It is a base insinuation without the least foundation, and will be treated by every judicious member of the Dutch church, with the contempt it deserves. What do they mean by turning the Dutch churches into conventicles for English independents? if they are men of spirit, let them explain themselves if they dare. We of the the Dutch church, know of many episcopalian bigots, who have stirred up some of the weaker members of the Dutch church, against the salutary method of preaching the gospel in the language of the country; and enticed away several of its members; but in spite of all their art, our gain is more than 10, perhaps 20 to one, to our loss.

A. M. O. I. D. C.
[Page 224]


Nequicquam ingeminans iterumque iternmque petivit.


SQUIRE Tickle justly observes (No. III.) that he has gently corrected the Whig. Gentle indeed his corrections have eventually prov'd; his flagellations cou'd scarce have awak'd a sleeping man, or tickled so much as the bite of a bug or a flea. bless him! he is a gentle fellow. But what a booby this Whig is, to make such a-round about pedantic harangue, upon so plain a subject as Liberty, and to employ 42 lines to express what our laconic Squire Tickle has comprehended in 19 Words! Vid. No. III. par. 2. (Aside. However I fancy the Whig has express'd in his two stiff clumsy paragraphs, at least 42 times as much as Squire Tickle. (for N. B. he is a grammarian) is willing shou'd be seen, felt, heard, or understood) Besides, what has a Whig, to do with liberty, who understands not its elements?—for Liberty is not only a goddess but a Science: Who has nor heard of the SCIENCE of Liberty? A Whig talk of Liberty! and of postponing it to life and property! O fie!—he ought to have left this Science to Tories, who understand it so well, and are so animated when liberty is in question, that they will risk both life and pro­perty to obtain only—the ruin of it.

What a blunderbuss was the Whig also to argue thus, Liberty is a very good thing; ergo, men in general ought to be careful to preserve it! How much more logical is Squire Tickle's conclusion; ergo, The Members of THE Church in America (what church?) are right in seeking to obtain it. Hunters know that game pos­sess'd is often worth little; but obtaining it during it's struggles for self-preservation is a clever trick.

Squire Tickle's maxims likewise are incontestible, where he says, "Every sincere friend of real religion is impartial in his esteem for it, and wishes it an universal dominion. He that wishes real religion universally to prevail, will endeavour to promote it in all cases, without respect to religious distinctions. He that en­deavours to promote it in all cases, will be careful not to oppose it in any" Squire Tickle's maxims are not about real religion, say you? Very true, gentle reader; and surely you don't imagine Squire Tickle would by any means reflect upon those prelates, who prevented the grant of the New-York Presbyterian charter, or procured the repeal of the act incorporating a society in Boston, for the purpose of Christianizing the heathen!

[Page 225] His reasoning is no less judicious, and his wit no less brilliant, in his 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th paragraph; for who is so stupid as not to see, that knowlege of the rejection of any proposal in many, is absolutely, utterly, and entirely inconsistent with the sanguine expectations of it's success in a few? A—h, this WHIG is a blockhead.

In par. 10th, Squire Tickle, shews a great deal of merit (I mean what I say) in drawing parallels. Tho' I've consulted a copious concordance, I can find the number seven, in scripture, prefixed to nothing so much like the conventional petitions, as the seven horns, seven headed dragon, seven abominations, and Mary Magdalen's seven devils. How readily Squire Tickle, saw the resemblance!—as to that poor stupid mortal the WHIG, I dar [...] say, he never thought a word about it.

In par. 11th Squire Tickle, very justly ridicules the notion of American manufactures, as he had (par. 3d) American oeconomy. What business has America with oeconomy or manufactures? A late Tory minister* indeed, talk'd much of oeconomy in Great-Britain, but never said a word about either oeconomy or manu­factures in America.

On par. 13th, I must needs observe, that it is very unfair to blame Tories for boasting of loyalty, &c. &c. &c. under a mixed, i. e. under a Whig monarchy. We can have no more of a cat than her skin. (an outside thing!) and to blame her for that, is—is—is—very hard.

How much the Whig may have misrepresented the rest of the conventional addresses, I know not; but for my own satisfaction, I should be glad Squire Tickle would inform me, whether or not Dr. Ram-chicken has misrepresented the conventional address to the university of Cambridge.

Whether or not the ministry have rejected the proposal of an American episcopate, I hope the Whig knows; however, what they ought to do, I Sir Isaac Foot very well know, and so does Squire Tickle.

Par. 16th Is too learned for me. From what ever quarter power comes, and whatever may be the meaning of the word Ap­peal, I must beg leave to ask Squire Tickle whether (in case Dr. Chandler's had met with little or no opposition) American com­plaisance was not design'd to remove European objections, and serve as oil to facilitate the stiff clumsy motion of the wheels of the pro­jected episcopal machine?

As Squire Tickle advises the Whig to remember, that a whip is prepared for his flagellation; so I beg he would be kind enough to remember, that there will be a Kick ready for him (not so very often as he deserves it, but) as often as I Sir Isaac Foot think proper.

[Page 226]


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.


FROM that general freedom of the press, which you are said to have maintained, I have reason to expect that the inclosed will obtain a place in your paper. I shall not attempt to follow the Centinel through all his meanders, nor shall I, like him, be on duty every week, but propose to continue this paper as often as it may be found necessary, always keeping a look-out, lest the Centinel should misrepresent any thing that has been advanced by Dr. Chandler, in his Appeal to the Public, taking care to point out the true meaning of the ORIGINAL, as often as it seems to be per­verted either by the Centinel, or any other of his anonymous ac­complices.

I am, Sir, &c. A CHURCH-MAN.


Audi & alteram partem.—Keep both Ears open.’

THE person who is injured and persecuted, naturally becomes the object of attention and pity.—The man who will not support and succour afflicted virtue, deserves to be afflicted with­out succour or support. Such considerations as these may plead [Page 230]my excuse, while I take the liberty to address the public in favour of the Rev Dr. Bradbury Chandler, who has been mal-treated and cruelly abused and persecuted by a certain writer, who stiles him­self the CENTINEL. Not that I have any doubt of the Doctor's Ap­peal to the Public carrying conviction wherever it finds its way; but as many people may read the Centinel who have not seen the Appeal, and may thence form prejudices against the gentlemen who have been promoting a church establishment in this country, it seems proper that they should be presented with the sum of those arguments, which may be offered in favour of an American bishop.

After so eminent a writer as the Rev. Dr. Chandler, the reader is not to expect that I should offer any new arguments on the subject. ‘Mecum habito & Novi quam sit mihi curta supellex.’ I shall be contented with treading faithfully in the Doctor's foot­steps, taking his arguments as they stand, or sometimes abbrevi­ating, at other times enlarging them, so as to place them in the clearest and strongest light, and upon these arguments we are de­termined to rest our cause; they are the sentiments of a general convention of our clergy, published after the maturest deliberation, therefore as we do not think any new arguments are necessary to support our cause, so are we determined not to desert one of those which we have already advanced.—The prayer of our petition is to this import, "That his majesty and the British parliament would graciously be pleased to send over to America one or more bishops of the church of England, and make such establishment for their maintainance, &c. as may be suited to the rank and dig­nity of their office." Who could have imagined that any objection would have been made to a scheme so moderate and reasonable as this? a scheme which must be equally profitable to church and state. It may be of great use towards preserving the obedience and loyalty of his majesty's subjects in North-America, and is absolutely necess [...]ry towards the very existence of Christiani­ty in this part of the world. That such is the importance of an American episcopate, Dr. Chandler has effectually proved to eve­ry person, who is not hardened against conviction by the obsti­nate prejudices of education.

It is absolutely necessary towards the propagation of Christia­nity in America, that bishops be immediately sent over to these parts. "for it is (says the Doctor) an essential doctrine of the church of England, that none can have any authority in the church of Christ, but those who derive it from Christ immediate­ly or mediately. They who receive the authority immediately must prove their mission by working miracles. Those who receive [Page 231]it mediately must derive it from those persons whom Christ has authorized to convey it, i. e. they must receive it by regular suc­cession. Men may ridicule the notion of uninterrupted succes­sion as they please, but if the authority of the clergy is derived from Christ, (and if it is not, they are no ministers of Christ) they must receive it in one of the ways already mentioned, and if the succession be once broke, and the power of ordination once lost—not all the men on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it." p. 4th.

All persons therefore who call themselves ministers, unless they be truly originated from this immaculate, uninterrupted line, are impostors and no ministers of Christ. 'It is as great an absurdity on St. Paul's principles, for a man to preach the gospel without being properly sent, as for a man to hear without a preacher, or believe in him of whom they have not heard.' Therefore as the teachers who are not ordained by a bishop, or sent by him cannot possibly preach the gospel, so neither can the people hear the gospel from them. And where there are no preachers of the gospel, nor any hearers, there can hardly be any Christianity. It there be any nations then who have no public teachers duly sent by apostolic bishops, we are not to think that Christianity subsists in those nations. Hence we see the singular propriety with which Doctor Chandler distinguishes his American episcopalians by the name of the Church, the American Church, the Church in A­merica I confess he might have avoided this seeming tautology, by calling them at once the Christians in America, or the Chri­stian church in America; not that he has entirely neglected this accurate distinction, for page 113 he tells us, 'that the cause of the church of England in America is the cause of Christianity,' and who else are entituled to the name of Christians? What other church (that of Rome excepted) has a Christian ministry? The churches of Denmark and Sweden, the Lutherans and Calvanists in Germany, the churches of Geneva, Holland and Scotland, are nothing but shadows of churches; they have forsaken, they have shut out the light of Christianity by rejecting the gospel ministry through the only channel of conveyance, the unbroken succes­sion. When I think of those millions of souls who in this enlight­ened age, suffer themselves to perish without benefit of clergy, my compassion is stirred up, my heart is moved within me.

The pious Mr. Dodwell in his one priesthood, expresses him­self in this elegant manner, 'It is,' says he, 'the most dreadful aggravation of the condemnation of the damned, that they are banished from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. The same is their condition also who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from the bishop, his visible representative.'

[Page 232] Some people who abound in a kind of false charity, such as would presently sap the foundations of the church, will here ask, What then do we make of all Protestant nations besides the Eng­glish? Do we in very deed deny them the gospel ministry, and consign them to the blackness of darkness forever? To this we shall only answer by repeating what the Doctor has already said, The necessity of episcopal ordination is an essential doctrine of our church.—.They who have it not are no Christian ministers: As this is the truth, we are bound to maintain it, let the conse­quences be what they may; we are not accountable for those, more than for the fate of the Mahometans, since they also have Christianity in their offer, but obstinately resuse to accept of it; and if the Protestant nations in Europe suffer themselves to perish without the ministration of the gospel, they are so much the more unpardonable, as a very little care would render it univer­sal. We do not say that those people are deficient in a general acquaintance with the Christian religion; nor that they fail in piety, benevolence, charity, or any other moral or Christian-like virtue. But they have rejected or lost episcopal ordination, which alone can restore them to the fellowship of the church, and entitle them to her blessings. But how shall they who live in dark­ness, shut out from the benign influence of a gospel ministry, re­ceive this invaluable blessing? Their duty is plain; they may readily obtain from England suppose it were but one or two bi­shops, and even as a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, so will these bishops in a short time convey genuine ordination to all the clergy in a whole kingdom.

Having thus proved the general necessity of bishops, towards the existence of Christanity, I shall next shew that they are peculiarly ne­cessary in America. For since there can be no Christian ministers without episcopal ordination, it is plain that our clergy must either have bishops to ordain them here, or they must go to Eng­land for ordination; but the latter is absolutely impracticable, considering the dangers of the seas.—It has happened, I don't know by what fatality, ever since the affair of Jonah, that the clergy have been singularly unfortunate at sea. This is also a general observation of seamen, who doubtless are the best judges in that case, There have gone home for ordination from the north­ern colonies fifty-two; of those, forty-two have returned safe, and ten have MISCARRIED. Page 34. What a melancholy loss is here; little less than 20 per Cent. which is eight times as great as our loss on the several kinds of merchandize which we gene­rally import. This plainly evinces the necessity of having an A­merican bishop. The winds and seas forbid our continuing any longer on t [...]e present footing.

[Page 233] But the care of the Negroes, the Indians and the white peo­ple in general, furnishes us with so many distinct arguments in favour of an American bishop.—We shall consider them apart.—The cause of an American episcopate derives a power­ful argument from the state of the Negroes, who constitute the majority of those numerous souls, that fill up and adorn our list as members of the church in America. The number of blacks in the islands and colonies is above eight hundred and forty thou­sand. These Negroes may be faid in an imperfect sense to belong to the respective religious classes of their owners with whom they are connected, and by whom they are governed. So that what­ever is the religion of the master, that also may be called the re­ligion of the slave. But the masters are chiefly known to be churchmen; consequently above half a million of Negroes belong to the church of England. Such have been the fruitful labours of our missionaries, such the rapid increase of our church in this part of the world. Now though it is generally known that these slaves are brought up in ignorance without any ray of religious hope to cheer them, and to the eternal disgrace of teachers and masters are no Christians at all, yet as the sense of religion will certainly increase in their masters by the presence of a bishop, so it will also increase in the slaves, and the good work which we have so happily begun, will then be carried on to the desired per­section. Page 57. To illustriate this, let us suppose a bishop set­tled in Philadelphia, his pious influence would soon diffuse a spirit of religion, as well through all the neighbouring provinces as this city. Then we might expect in a short time to equal that purity of morals, and that religious disposition, which is generally observed in London and other great cities, that have providen­tially become the residence of a bishop. Suppose then a bishop were settled in Philadelphia, the planters in Jamaica and the other West-India islands, being under his Lordship's immediate obser­vation, would soon become very sober and religious, and conse­quently their Negroes, who are in general a discreet, intelligent sort of people, would, in imitation of their masters, become re­ligious and good Christians. Whoever is well acquainted with the condition of slaves in our Southern provinces and the West-India islands, and has observed the compassionate manner in which their masters express their desire of seeing those out-casts of hu­manity instructed in the Christian religion, must readily see the force of this argument, and though illiterate Americans in gene­ral may not be able to comprehend it, yet we are persuaded that our superiors in England, for whom, by the way, Dr. Chandler's Address was chiefly designed, will easily perceive its weight, and will see that so glorious a prospect of adding half a million of church­men to the Christian church, proves beyond all doubt, the neces­sity of an American bishop.

[Page 234]

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE, Monday June 20th.


Adder's Poison is under their Lips.


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.



FINDING that neither argument, truth or decency, are to be expected from your doughty antagonist, the American Whig, I beg leave to exhibit to the public (with your permission) the fol­lowing very plain truths; not being in the least afraid of his feeble pen, or his malice, however conspicuous it may appear.


I. THAT the American independents (ever fond of opposi­tion) do every thing (tho' they labour in vain) to prevent an American episcopate,—is true.

II. That neither their weak arguments, their false assertions, or feeble efforts will prevent it,—is true.

III. That a truly primitive bishop, such a one as Dr. in his Appeal requests, would greatly promote the interest of re­ligion in general, and of the established church in particular, is —so true; that even the American Whig, though mad with passion, must advert to it:—Consequently, that he will avail himself of every falsehood and subtilty he is master of (and he has a large budget) to impede and retard so great a blessing, is,—a truth that cannot be denied.

IV. That all abusive scribblers, republicans in principle,— stirers up of strife,—and pests to society, ought, by every well-wisher to our happy constitution in church and state, to be treated with contempt, and most heartily despised,—is true.

V. That a particular abusive Junto, justly celebrated for their arrogance, false assertions, and abusive papers; viz, the Independ­ent Reflector, Watch Tower, &c.—(to say nothing at present of some other performances, which contain many scandalous fal­sities, as will e'er long appear) have been, and now are endea­vouring to spread their poison, and debauch the principles of his Majesty's leige subjects in America, is a truth well known to the most considerate and principal inhabitants of this city.

[Page 238] VI. That said Junto never yet did, and it is to be feared never will, act an honest and upright part;—or, confine them­selves within the bounds of truth, decency, or good manners,— is true.

VII. That the friends to episcopacy most heartily despise the low despicable threats;—the paultry performances of a dejected, disappointed, and tottering faction,—is true.

VIII. That the Whig, and his party, public incendiaries, have by far, more reason to dread disagreeable consequences, than honest friend Tickle,—is true.

IX. That the present controversy, begun by those that are enemies to peace, will be dropt, as soon as restless, despised, ma­licious faction will cease from their hostilities, and be quiet,— is true: But, not 'till then.

X. That the Whig, No. IX. was designedly wrote to blind the eyes of a worthy member of the ancient Dutch church in this city, is—very true.—That it was also wrote in the Dutch language, for fear of an answer, the Whig knows to be true; but that the author will be disappointed in this, I know— is true.

XI. That if the Meagre Whig, or any of his associates, (I will not exclude even Dr. Ramchicken,) will oblige the public with a piece (they are all learned men) in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, they shall be honoured with an answer, in the same language, by honest Timothy Tickle, Esq or one of his correspondents,— is true.

XII. That it is the duty of every good Christian,—of every friend to religious liberty,—of every well-wisher to our happy constitution in church and state, to use his best endeavours, his interest, and abilities, to procure an American episcopate, is a truth that cannot be denied by any but those who are enemies to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.

N. B. The Kicker, I mean, that conceited scribbler Sir Isaac Foot, shall, in due time, meet with a Cuff;—and the elegant and polite performance of the pretended Dutch man, in the last Whig shall be properly noticed;—not by a discarded P—n.

To the Whipper of the American Whig.

O magna vis Viritatis, quae contra Hominum Ingenia, Callidita­tem, Solertiam facile se perseipsa Defendat


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,

[Page 240]

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, June 20th. The AMERICAN WHIG, [No. XV.]

SUCH is the nature of human actions, that their secret springs are not always knowable, save only to their authors, and the great Searcher of hearts; the sole rule for judging of other men's motives, is by arguing from the effect to the cause, and by exa­mining an action, to trace it, if possible, to the principle which in­spired its agent.—But though the characters of human actions are seldom so clear and distinct, especially when disguise is used, as to express with certainly, the real sources from which they flow; there is nevertheless a material difference, between a good and a true reason; not only as actually existing in the nature of things, but as discoverable by experience. And though it is often difficult to distinguish them, yet a discerning eye will fre­quently mark their discriminations, with sufficient certainty. This, however, is a task rarely to be performed by common ob­servers. Hence the widest door is opened for deceit, on almost e­very subject in life. But religion, above all others, furnishes the most ample field for abuse. F [...] how much soever the corrupti­ons of human nature may have warped our hearts and practice from virtue, it still recommends itself to the understanding; and with those who are unable to distinguish, it is enough that a scheme is urged by religious motives, to gain a ready, and often times, an implicit assent. True it is, that as the world is grown more enlightened, impostors must put on better disguises than formerly.—When in times of Yore, a cry was raised for the heathen goddess Diana of Ephesus, against the pure and undefiled religion of Jesus, it was attended with an express avowal of the true reason for which it was raised, "by this craft we get our wealth." But our modern God-makers, find themselves obliged to conceal their real motives; and when my Lord Bishop is to be the Idol in America, when the seheme is to aggrandize the church, and to introduce prelacy, from which our ancestors fled as from a devouring monster, we are told it is the cause of religi­on; and are excited to a compliance, by an address to our grati­tude, in behalf of the great Author of all our benefits. Of this priestly cant and jargon, Dr. Chande [...], in his appeal, has fur­nished us with a rem [...]kable instance. Let him speak for himself. "As America is the region, wherein the divine goodness has been more remarkably displayed, in favour of the British nation; so America is evidently the very ground, on which some suitable monuments of religious gratitude should be erected." To be sure [Page 241] [...]enial of this proposition, would be a flat rejection of all obli­gations to the deity. Nor will he be contradicted in the assertion, that this monument of religious gratitude "should be made visible to the world; that the honour of the supreme ruler of events may be thereby immediately promoted." These sentiments would afford just cause, in the judgment of every man, for applying to those who are entrusted with the directions of our public affairs, for establishing an anniversary thanksgiving, to be celebrated in all the episcopalian and non-episcopalian churches in the nation. But a person of less sagacity than the Doctor, could never have investigated so singular a reason, for the establishment of episco­pacy and spiritual bondage, in this land of religious liberty, as the smiles of providence, in the reduction of Canada and Louisi­ana, and "the total annihilation of that power on this continent, whereby our former safety was chiefly endangered." Nor will he meet with any opposition to his other general assertion, that every wise nation sees and acknowledges the hand of God, in the produc­tion of such events; and that every religious nation will endea­vour to make some suitable returns, for such extraordinary fa­vours." But whether those returns ought to consist in the legal establishment, of any religious denomination in particular, is a matter which must undergo all the freedom of enquiry. If there be any force or conclusion in his argument, it plainly consists in this position, that episcopacy and not Christianity is the nation­al religion. This is evidently implied in that bright chain of reasoning, which, to do it full justice, my readers shall have in his own words. After having excited our gratitude, and called for public testimonials, in honour to the deity; he argues thus; "as this honour is most directly promoted by public worship; as that worship must be most acceptable to him, wherein the praises and adorations of his creatures are regularly offered him, in the solemn offices of the purest and best religion; and as the nation­al religion must be supposed best to answer these characters, in the national opinion;" it necessarily follows, (mark the conclusion) that the state of the "national religion here, has a right on this occasion, to the peculiar attention and consideration of those, who are entrusted with the direction of our public affairs." The same argument would doubtless be as conclusive, in the mouth of a musselman, and in an address to the Grand Signor. It is not a plea for Christianity. It is a claim for distinction, in favou [...] of the national religion. For it cannot be denied that all other re­ligious denominations among us, except Judaism, are at least as zealous professors of the religion of Jesus, as those of the Doctor's persuasion, which he is pleased to call the national religion; that the doctrines they profess are as pure Christianity, as those which the surpliced clergy most solemnly subscribe and seldom preach [Page 242]will require no other proof than an attendance at their numerous places of publie worship; and that they are far from being less re­markable for promoting the honour of God by a stated attendance at publi worship, than their episcopal brethren in England and America, is an undoubted fact. There cannot therefore be a de­fect of public testimonials of gratitude, to the God of all our mer­cies, arising from the want of a stated and regular support of Christian worship among us. Hence also it is clear, that the rea­son for establishing episcopacy in America is not, that its doctrines are more pure, the practice of its professors more virtuous, or their attendance at public worship more regular and unterrupted, than those of other denominations; or in other words, that the church of England, is properly, and exclusively the church of Christ; in which alone, all true Christians must allow the honour of God can be duly promoted; but because it is, as the Doctor asserts, the national religion, that reli [...]on which is so far at least removed from Christian purity, that by his own confestion, her ecclesiasti­cal laws, liturgy, and public offices, require a review, and would have had it e'er now "were the body of the nation possessed of good sense enough to admit of it."

But at all events the Doctor is involved in this dilemma; he must either be understood, as asserting, that the honour of God cannot be duly promoted in America, for want of that Christian purity and perfection, to which we are now strangers; and which cannot be introduced among us, but by the means of episcopacy; or, that the honour of God is not so much promoted by the pu­rity and perfection of a Christian church, as by a national esta­blisament of religion, however corrupt it may appear to be, if tested by the sacred oracles, the divine canon of Scripture. With respect to the former of these propositions, I shall think myself justified in supposing that he rejects it, until he shall think proper expressly to maintain it; that he avows the other cannot be deni­ed, while, though he admits, that the national church stands in need of a review, to bring it to the standard of true Christianity; he, nevertheless, attempts to erect his public monument of grati­tude, upon that national basis. Now, to consider his reasoning in a just light, it evidently amounts to this; it is the duty of the legislature of a country, to promote the national religion, what­ever it may be; in Turkey, therefore, the lawgiver should ad­vance Mahometanism, in France, Spain, and Portugal, Popery; in the British Empire, Protestant Episcopacy, in China, Idolatry: All which in their several places are calculated to promote the honour of God; because, in the national opinion, they must re­spectively be supposed best adapted to that purpose. This is cer­tainly most excellent doctrine, from the pen of a church of Eng­land divine, and a Doctor too.

[Page 243] But upon this plan of reasoning, let us see what becomes of pri­mitive episcopacy. If the "national religion has a right on this, or any other occasion, to the peculiar attention and consideration" of those in power, so far as to justify the introduction of that na­tional religion, or in other words episcopacy into America, how does it sollow, that primitive bishops ought to be introduced? Are the English prelates such primitive bishops as the Doctor re­quires? Or rather did the world ever know a bishop whose powers were consined, purely to ordination, the government of the cler­gy and confirmation? Surely not. Such a harmless creature, however, cannot be found in the English hierarchy. If, there­fore, the argument drawn from the national opinion, and the na­tional religion, has any weight, it ought to command the peculi­ar attention and consideration of our superiors, in the erection of a Babel, exactly upon the plan of an English hierarchy; because, according to the Doctor's mode of reasoning, it is best adapted to the national opinion. But if it is the duty of our superiors, thus to establish the national religion in America, it is, of course, a part of the same duty, to enforce it by the same means, by pains and penalties. For, in truth, every establishment of religion, if such establishments are in themselves justifiable, ought to be main­tained, as well as those which are merely of a civil nature, by the infliction of temporal punishments on transgressors of the law. Nor, indeed, can its efficacy, as in establishment, consist in any thing else. Hence therefore it is as evident, in the Doctor's judgment, or at least by necessary deduction from it, as the sun at noon tide, that we cannot make suitable returns to the great author of all our benefits, but by establishing English episcopacy in America, and enforcing it, (for it otherwise cannot be an esta­blishment) by pains and penalties. Nay, if from principles of gratitude, the national religion, by which he means the church of England, may, as he supposes, "claim a right to the peculi­ar attention, and consideration of those, who are entrus [...]ed with the direction of our public affairs." What reason can be assign­ed, why the whole Anglican hierarchy, with all its pomp and splendor, with all its pride, its riches, its dominion, its tyranny, should not be established over our heads? If the national re­ligion means the ecclesiastical establishment in South-Britain, which upon the Doctor's [...] of reasoning, must be allowed to be the best in the world: [...]y should we have a primitive bishop only, or rather, why a bishop reduced even to a more humble state, than that of primitive bishops, a bishop, whose power should be wholly confined to ordination, government of the clergy, and the act of confirmation? Why should we not have spiritual courts, with all their terrible appendages? Why be secured against the dreadful consequences of excommunication, both greater and les­ser? [Page 244]Why exempted from an inforced observation of all the holy days of the church? Why admitted to the exercise of any office in the state, till we have taken the sacramental test, in the only true, pure, catholic, and apostolic church? These are the en­gines established by law in England, for enforcing obedience to mother church, the religion of which, the Doctor calls the nati­onal religion, and the Bishop of Landaff, the native religion of our ancestors. In short it requires a very slender capacity to dis­cern, that the principles upon whith the Doctor builds his claim, to the peculiar attention of "those, who are entrusted with the direction of our public assairs," in savour of the national religion, lead directly and hecessarily, to the full and complete establishment of episcopacy.

This concatenation could not have escaped his sagacious eye. For if the national religion of South-Britain is the best and purest religion, if in the church of England, the praises and adoration of God's creatures are most regularly offered in their solemn offi­ces, which he more than insinuates, why should our gratitude to the Almighty be restrained? Why, rather, should the national religion be formally excluded by establishing an episcopate, as little similar to the hierarchy of the Anglican church, as it would be to primitive episcopacy? He cannot think so inconsistently; he cannot be thus at odds with himself; and while he believes, that our duty to God, requires "a peculiar attention to, and con­sideration for our national religion; it at the same time must be his opinion," and I dare say it is his ardent wish, as an honest son of the church, that the splendid hierarchy may be erected, and her proud banner be displayed over the land; over that land, to which his own ancestors fled sor refuge, from the persecuting spirit and prelatic intolerance of episcopacy; that species of epis­pacy, whose present mildness if she breathes more gently on those, who are without her bosom, than she formerly did, is perhaps not so much to be accounted for, by the assertion, "that cruelty and severity is by no means the character of English bishops;" as to the avowed, the sleady and powerful protection, which his pre­sent majesty, and his august ancestors, of the house of Hanover, have always afforded to religious liberty. It cannot, indeed be doubted, that the Doctor, however consistently he thinks, has not stamped his writings with the same character. Nor could this be avoided. His appeal is an address, not only to the public, but to those in authority. To conciliate the favour of the former, it was necessary to strip the bishop of all his pontificialibus, and to reduce him almost to the abject state of a mendicant fryar; but to command the attention of the latter; such sentiments, in favour of the national episcopate, were to be discovered to them, how­ever concealed from vulgar observation, as are calculated to shew, [Page 245]that through the want of an establishment, men in power are de­prived of the principal state engine, for subduing American liber­ty. Harsh as these reflections may seem, they are fully justified by the passage more immediately under consideration, and by many others, which I shall occasionally take the liberty of dissecting in the view of the public.—They afford the clearest demonstration, that the Doctor's positive and express declarations, in favour of primitive episcopacy, are thrown out meerly ad captandum vulgus, to amuse the people; while the more secret design of the Appeal, is to lay a sure foundation for prelatic dominion in the church, and arbitrary rule in the state.—These have ever been inse­perable companions; and while we are marking the one with a jealous eye, we should as attentively watch the motions of the other.

But before I conclude, it may not be amiss to enquire into the propriety of that expression, upon which so much is built, and by the magic force of which, we are taught, that whoever is op­posed, to the establishment of episcopacy in the colonies, is un­mindful of those signal deliverances, which have lately been wrought for us, by the finger of God. To talk of a national religion of France, in Spain, or in Turkey, would be to speak with propriety; but to apply this character to any church, in the British Empire, is absurd. In England prelacy is established; in Scotland presbyterianism; in New-England colonies congregati­onalism; and in almost all the other colonies, they have no religi­ous establishment at all.—How then, when by religion is meant, not Christianity itself, but a particular denomination of Christi­ans; how, I say, can any religion in the king's realm or domi­nions be called national? Truly I cannot conceive now, unless by a well known figure in rhetorick, which puts the part for the whole; but upon a subject of so much importance, and in an Ap­peal to the public, it is excusable to deal in figures. I am there­fore rather of opinion, that the Doctor supposes that England, though a part only of the great whole, has exclusively considered a right, in the plain and common sense of the words, as they are used and understood by British Protestants, to extend her ecclesi­astical establishment throughout the colonies of the British Em­pire; and to load Americans with burdens, which neither they, nor their forefathers could bear. And whether the sound of this doctrine is more agreeable to an American ear, than the unmusi­cal periods of the stamp-act, I leave to my American readers to determine.

[Page 246]

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE, Monday June 20th. A KICK FOR THE WHIPPER. [No. V.]

—She eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith I have done no Wickedness.


SQUIRE TICKLE's assistant (No. IV.) seems to belong to Nimrod's hunting party, for in true sportsmen's language he says, the faction first open'd with the Independent Reflector; —but what game was he pursuing, or (if you please) perse­cuting? Why, the church and clergy. He was a yelping hound that's certain. He yelp'd at the excise; the abuses of the road and watch; extravagant sunerals, bills of credit, and copper­pence, (what is more natural to the species) beef and pork, and twenty like things beside: He likewise bark'd at mendicants and felons imported, creeds and systems, party divisions, and a party colloge. How far the church of England or her clergy are pe­culiarly concerned in the premises, so as to fancy themselves only persecuted, I leave others to judge; but for my part, I can't conceive, how, in yelping and barking at such things as these, he should have followed the example of any hireling, republican, de­istical dog living, much less of the last century. "The next, he says, was a more furious, but worse conducted attack from (what all insidious enemies hate most abominably) a Watch-Tower; but they lost—all they were contending for; and it was hop'd they had sallen—never to rise again." No doubt of that Mr. Anonymous; but it seems they are risen again, to persecute the church and clergy, and oh! what will become of poor honest men. Alas! they will be torn to pieces (take my word for't) by these persecuting blood-hounds.

In Par. 2d, and 8th, Mr. What d'ye-call-him, talks of the pre­sent religious establishment. Quere, Was not Religious put by mistake instead of the word civil? Or if not, do all the laws of God as well as man, entitle any church to the full benefit of an establishment, which (instead of Christ) makes a mortal the head of the church, and is not by a single law of God authorised? However, if there be at present an establishment, to the benefit of which the church is barely by the laws of man incontestibly en­titled, 'tis mighty strange she can't receive it. Mr. No-name seems to think it imposlible to have added the section he mentions to the Appeal; but that, "had it been done with the same force of argument, &c. with which the whole book is written, not a [Page 247]dog had moved his tongue against it. Now, in both these articles, I must beg leave to dissent from the gentleman; [...]o [...] I believe the section in question, might have been written (even by Dr. Chand­ler himself) with much greater force of argument, than any other contained in his very candid and modest Appeal; nor can I en­tertain so charitable an opinion of its enemies, as our author seems to do; for such biggoted, unrelenting dissenters are they, that though it had been prov'd, "that the establishing of bishops in America would be of no service to the church of England; yet unless it had also been proved, that it would have been of no disservice to other denominations, I'm persuaded the growling faction would have still bay'd the moon, and that snarling puppy the Whig, still yelp'd and bark'd like a bull-dog. The church, says Mr. What d'ye-call-him, has amazingly increased,—in New-England, by the native force of"—of what? native religi­on? no; of what then? why—of—of—of—Truth! Now I'll be whipp'd if the reader did not think I was going to say—pride, resentment, or Arminianism. "The church in this capital, he says, is really venerable, and commands respect. What a pity it is, that a respect commanding church should be scribbled against, slandered, reviled, and persecuted; snievelled, snorted, roar'd, rav'd and spit at!—Oh! but she commands respect so as to check the factious lustful thirst of power. How? why, by excluding from the assembly, by the finesse of election jobbing, a tremendous candidate, (who has lately had the honour to fright her ladyship most horribly,) as she formerly commanded re­spect by saddling the faction with a tax, by means of well-timed cabals in the house of representatives.

Par. 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th, being much of a piece, I shall truss them all up together. They again put me in mind of Potiphar's wife, who, because she could not ravish Joseph, swore a rape a­gainst him; of Queen Ann's motto, semper eadem, and of De­mosthenes's observation concerning oratory, which being by way of parody applied to our present purpose, will be, repetition is the beginning, and likely to be the middle, and end of Whig-Whip­ping.

Par. 7th, our author says, "without the consent of the vene­rable, primitive, apostolical order of Bishops, the act of tolerati­on could not have pass'd." Without their consent likewise, doubt­less the stamp-act had never been repeal'd. Their order, no doubt, has ever been held sacred, even by hereticks and schisma­ticks; who venerated lawn sleeves; though that St. Paul, or e­ven St. Peter, primitive apostolic gentlemen ever wore them, might be as difficult to prove, as the unterrupted line of succes­sion. This advocate for a church, by episcopalian bigots uni­versally absolved of ignorance, pride, hypocrisy, and superstition, [Page 248]very justly (in spite of the acknowledgments of those old women, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Burnet, and many other old womenly bishops) despises the religion of the faction, as a religion of yes­terday; a new religion must needs be wrong, the Jews and Greeks in the primitive times thought so: But antiquity is the thing; though meerly boasted antiquity, it will do wonders— this will infallibly prove even the uninterrupted succession, and the divine right of paganism. Mr. What d'ye-call him cannot conceive, why it should be a mark of reproach to the English bishops, that they are court favoured and law dignified. I can assist his conceptions,—'tis because the faction is weak enough to believe an ancient oracle, which says, 'Christ's kingdom is not of this world:' and they would condemn even Moravian and Po­pish episcopacy, did they not want zeal to subject all denominati­ons to what they prosess to believe to be apostolical authority.

This skilful gardiner employed by Squire Tickle, to cultivate the plants sprung from the seeds of discord, sow'd, (as he pretends) by the presbyterian or independent faction, (whether he means one or both, I know not) complements the other denominations, (for others it seems there are) with living peaceably under the present establishment. Compliments are often ill-deserved; this I fancy is such: though somewhat more silent than Balaam's ass, no other denomination, I dare say, lives very quietly or peacea­bly under the only religious establishment I know of here, i. e. the establishment of a tax, for the support of the episcopal church and clergy. This is a civil establishment, say you? Why that's true; however it matters not, for civil and religious, it seems are the same. That church which is so motherly as by a tax to treat all denominations like her children, no doubt is, and will be their grand security against them oppression of others.

Mr. What-d'ye-call-him says, "he dares pronounce that, should the present happy constitution be given up into the hands of the faction, no one religious denomination would enjoy the least toleration from them, but must be content (it were hard that they must be content) to be hang'd for their religion." Mr. What-d'ye-call-him (as well as Squire Tickle) I must needs say, does not want courage. Tremble ye factious opposers, for they dare affirm, deny, or pronounce any thing whatsoever; so daring are they, I am almost afraid to KICK them.

[Page 249]


AMONG the various extraordinary arguments, which Dr. Chandler makes use of to promote his favourite scheme of an Amercian episcopate, there is none he seems to lay more stress on, than that which he draws from the great increase, and large proportion in numbers of the professors of the CHURCH among the colonists. This he carefully states: This he insists on again and again, in his appeal. Having acknowledged, that ‘for­merly bishops were not greatly wanted, even in the provinces settled chiefly by episcopalians, as the beginnings were small; and that it would have been, without dispute, improper to have sent them to provinces settled by people averse to episco­pal government,’ it lay upon him to shew such a change of circumstances in America, as would make it reasonable to "settle" a general episcopate there; for altho it is manifest the numbers of people in the British plantations are greatly increased, yet "our superiors" in England, might not be apprised, that in the non-conformist colonies, the professors of the church of England are, at length, become so respectable in point of numbers, as to make it reasonable to extend the long-projected establishment of episcopacy even to those parts, where formerly "it would have been, without dispute imporper" to have done it.

An argument, on which so much dependence is placed, de­serves to be well examined; and the rather, as we have seen that the doctor full of zeal for holy church, is apt to press matters too far, and to forget mentioning all the circumstances necessary to enable his readers to form a right judgment of what he offers to consideration. Thus in calculating the number of petitioners for establishing an episcopate in the colonies, he takes in the people of the sugar islands, and southern colonies, altho' never consulted in the forming or forwarding the seven potitions, drawn up by the missionaries of New-York and New-Jersey; because members of his church abound in those parts, and every episcopalian, as a true son of the church, must, in the doctor's judgment, be at least a virtual supplicant on this important occasion.

This method of exaggerating facts, being the doctor's foible, it shall be my present business to consider this argument drawn from the increased numbers of his church, and the use he makes of it.

He says, page 56, "a general survey was made in 1762, of the proper British subjects in America, and communicated by a gen­tleman [Page 250]of veracity; that it was then found, (exclusive of the new colonies ceded by the last general treaty of the peace) they amount­ed to between two and three millions in the colonies and islands. Of the whites, the professors of the church of England, were about a third part.—The presbyterians, independents, and anabaptists not so many.—The Germans, papists and other denominations amounted to more." He adds, "the blacks in our islands and colonies were found, in the above mentioned survey, to be 844, 000; that many of these it is to be feared, are not Christians at all; yet, they may be said in an imperfect sense to belong to the reli­gious class of their owners, who are chiefly churchmen." Just before, he has these words; "should it be said, that the church of England in America, contains now a million of members, the affertion might be justified. It is not easy to ascertain the num­bers exactly in a country so widely extended, and unequally peo­pled; but from general calculations, it has been frequently said of late years, that the proper subjects of the British crown in America, amount to three millions." Elsewhere (page 89) we are told, "that of the inhabitants of this country, a full third belong to the CHURCH; and a considerable proportion of others, are professed episcopalians, who cannot consistently be supposed to have an aversion to bishops." And in page 7 [...], he speaks of the complaints of near a million of British subjects, suffering un­precedented hardships and intolerable grievances, for want of bishops; argues, that it is absurd, injurious and ungrateful, to entertain any suspicion, that the administration and legislature will treat so large a number of subjects, with such cruel partiality as to deny their request.

This is the amount of what doctor Chandler has advanced on this subject. Let us now examine what it amounts to. It may not be material to dispute the general number of people, here said to be, in the British plantations, nor the particular account of the negroes included in it; even tho' there might be some in­accuracies in the survey refer'd to. But it is of importance to ask, why all the American colonies, except Canada and the Flo­ridas, are here considered in one view, and brought into one cal­culation. Why countries, so disjointed and so remote from each other, as many of them are, should for the purposes of spiritual polity, be treated as capable of a convenient connection under bishops? Is it possible, that such an ecclesiastical superior placed at New-York, or elsewhere on the continent, could be of any more service to the islands, than his grace of London now is? Or, suppose two of these lords spiritual placed on the continent, and one in the islands, at Jamaica for instance, as the largest, (for three bishops are the most, says their apologist, that have been [Page 251]mentioned,) he must have a stronge eye* to see how the clergy behave at Barbados, and the other islands, which are at the dis­tance of five or six weeks sailing from Jamaica; yet these places, and people, distant and different from each other, in climate, customs, circumstances and religious sentiment, are all proposed to be included in one plan of church discipline, and that too a newly projected one.

I wonder this zealous advocate for the proposed American hierarchy, when he was thus striding over sea and land, did not stretch a little further than the island colonies, in order to bring some other country, (Ireland for instance) abounding with episco­palians into the survey, in order to counter-balance the great body of non-conformists in North-America; whose numbers stand so unluckily in the way of this grand scheme of the missionaries. By this means, they might have been alle to say, that the pro­fessors of episcopacy, in the dependencies of Great Britain, are a great majority of all the inhabitants of those countries, and therefore episcopacy ought to be established in the middle and eastern colonies in North-America. Ireland is as much a depen­dent state as Jamaica, and as much connected with North-Ame­rica. It is true, the major part of the people in that kingdom, are papists; but as they are "professed episcopalians" and full as good churchmen, as great part of the Dr's million, ‘they cannot consistently be supposed to have any aversion to bishops.’ In like manner it might be contended, that diocesan episcopacy ought to be established in Scotland; for the professors of the CHURCH, are at least, three parts in in four of the people of Great-Britain, taken into one account; Scotland containing lit­tle more than a million of people of all denominations; and the dissenters in England not exceeding a million, among seven or eight, which that part of the united kingdom is said to contain. Their union in legislation, and their adjacency, would be additi­onal arguments, not subsisting in the case of the colonies.

The white people in the islands, some few quakers, papists and jews excepted, are all professors of episcopacy as established in England. It has not yet appeared that they suffer persecution, nor have we heard them cry out for relief, on account of "unprece­dented hadships and intolerable grievances." If they want an episcopate in every island, and will provide for the support, and regulate the authority of such an ecclesiastical superior, by act of assembly, the way seems to be clear for them; and till the crown refuses to concur, there is no ground for complaint. As they have not offered to do this, we must take it for granted, they are [Page 252]content with the superitendency of the bishop of London, and do not wish for a bishop any nearer. The same must be said of Virginia, Maryland and other southern provinces, where the pro­fessors of the doctor's church have the upper hand; notwith­standing dissenters are numerous in those parts and increase daily. That power, which established parishes and taxes for the episcopal clergy, must be able to guard the CHURCH against all persecution, and to give it dignitaries residing in America, as soon as the re­spective legislatures, who are the best judges, find them necessary. How is it possible then, that near a million of people "in Ame­rica, are "suffering for their religious principles and denied the same privileges, as all other denominations enjoy?" Is it inge­nuous, is it consistent with the character of a minister of the "true religion" to represent the episcopal churches of America in general, as in distress and under persecution?

Tho' the people of the English islands, and of the episcopal colonies have been lugged into this busness, yet we find, they have nothing to do with it. They have neither been petitioners with the Dr. and his brethren, for bishops; nor are they distressed and persecuted. As the missionaries are the sole petitioners, so are they and their followers the only people who can have any cause of complaint.

But even as to them, the charge is most unjust and ungrateful; Unjust to their neighbours, and the civil governments under which they live; Ungrateful to their superiors and fellow subjects in England. They are here called on to shew any instance, wherein they are denied equal privileges with others. In three of the New-England governments, where a very lax kind of re­ligious establishment has obtained, the episcopal ministers are en­tuled to that part of the tax levied for supporting the clergy, which arises from their own church members. In the city of New-York, and in some of the counties of that colony, part of the poor tax is taken to maintain their ministers. In Rhode-Island, New-Jersey, and Pennsylvania, they are on a footing with the most favoured. And in all the old colonies, north-east of Mary­land, they have ministers called missionaries, (a name peculiar to such as are sent to instruct infidels) supported for them by the charity of well-disposed persons in England and Ireland, and in the reformed churches of Holland, Germany, and Switzerland; at an expence of between three and four thousand pounds sterling, per annum.

It is some of these pretended missionaries, and these only, who have raised all the late clamours for bishops; who are rest­less and unwearied in their endeavours to procure an establishment over the body of the people, among whom they reside. So un­reasonable are they, that not contented with being the most fa­voured, [Page 253]they would have their discipline extended over all other denominations, by act of parliament; tho' their church be not a fortieth part of the community. The state of episcopacy in the old colonies north east of Maryland, is nearly this. These districts having at first settled by people of non-conformist opinions, chiefly refugees from the persecutions of the Bishops in England, the sew professors of the church of England, who settled among them from time to time, would have almost generally joined with, and been un­distinguished at this day from the other protestant communions, had it not been for the society for propagating the gospel, or rather for propagating episcopacy. To their ‘indefatigable application and amazing perseverance,’ we will readily allow, it is owing, that there are above five or six such congregations in all the coun­try above particularized. What indeed are their societies, for the most part, but little parties, not deferving the name of congrega­tions, utterly unable to support their preachers? At this day, there is no city, town, or place, throughout the middle and eas­tern colonies, except Philadelphia, where the professors of the church of England support their clergy, without help; whilst other denominations, unassisted, maintain their pastors, to the number of eight or nine hundred; except it may be the papists.

The inquisitive and accurate Dr. Stiles, of Rhode-Island, in his discourse on Christian Union, tells us, he found the episcopa­lians, in all New-England, did not exceed 12,600 souls; yet they had 30 ministers, and 47 places of worship. This was in 1760. The people of other denominations appeared to be 487, 000; and they maintained above 600 pastors, exclusive of the public instruc­tors among the Friends. The ease is much the same in Pennsylva­nia. The Rev. Mr. Craig, of Chester, who has resided a long time, and in different parts of the province, in his letter to the society in 1764, says, "that of the people of the province, who as some calculate are 300, 000 souls, he can safely affirm not one fiftieth part, belong to the church of England; and that his communi­cants in his three congregations, were 15 only. The Rev. Mr. Thompson, itinerant missionary in the counties of York and Cum­berland, acquainted his venerable patrons the same year, that his people within those counties, did not exceed 202 souls; altho' it is well known those districts contained at that time, thirty or forty thousand inhabitants. And the Rev. Mr. Murray of Berks county, complained that his people at Mollattin, were reduced by removals, to twenty-nine families; that he despaired of seeing a church built within his mission; and expected soon to be re­duced to the society's allowance for his support* The episcopal [Page 254]societies in New-York and New-Jersey are in very little better cir­cumstances. At Cohanzie, in West-Jersey, stands a church, but there is not the shadow of a congregation in the county. At Sa­lem the episcopal cause is almost as low. It would be tedious, as it is needless, no [...]ply instances to illustrate this matter: Suf­fice it to say, that it is in the cities and some of the larger towns only, that their congregations are numerous. Yet the episcopal church in the non-episcopal colonies, never was in such outwardly flourishing circumstance: And no wonder; the society's expen­sive interposition, could not but have some considerable effects. It has brought it from nothing to something; it has kept the professors of the church of England together; and, as many like cheapness, even in the way to heaven, some have joined them from other churches, who were well enough pleased to have mi­nisters maintained for them, by good-natured people in England, and elsewhere. How unjust, how ungrateful then, are these mis­sionaries of New-York and New-Jersey in their complaints of hardship, grievances and persecution. They are unjust to their fellow subjects, among whom they reside: Ungrateful to their patrons and benefactors in Europe: and their behaviour must re­flect severely on their own characters, wherever this unfairness and disingenuity shall be opened up.

But the artifice of bringing all the old colonies and islands into one view and computation, is not the only or chief ground of complaint against Doctor Chandler, in his management of this argument. It is indeed but a small instance of his infirmity, compared to one I shall now mention.

No one will assert, that the whites of the Doctor's church in America, amount to "a million nearly." We may very safely say, they are not half that number. In all our islands, the white people do not come up to 90.000; and on the continent, the pro­fessors of the church of England cannot be four times as nume­rous. Where then [...] the Dr. get above 500, 000 of his church­men? Only among the Negroes, those virtual episcopalians, who chiefly belong to episcopal owners. An attentive reader will ea­sily perceive this, altho' the Dr. seems loth to speak it out plainly. Behold a crowd of Negroes, in the Islands, and southern colonies, almost all of whom "are not Christians at all" slipt into the episcopal scale, in order to balance, in some measure, the dead weight of non-conformists in the northern colonies; and yet it kicks the beam! Behold at least 500, 000 virtual churchmen, vir­tually petitioning by their friends the clergy of New-York and New-Jersey for bishops! What low artifice is this! How unbe­coming the clerical character! Well may deists represent dissimu­lation, as a vice of the order: Such behaviour, but too well justi­fies the charge.

[Page 255] Are bishops then to be introduced into, and imposed on the non-episcopal colonies, which were granted as asylums from the power of proud prelates, by the force of such wretched arguments, as this we have been considering? It must not, it cannot be: ‘It is absurd, injurious and ungrateful to entertain any suspicion, that the administration and legislature will treat so large a Number of good subjects with such cruel partiality’ as to put them ‘under a yoke, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear,’ merely to exalt a little party, some of whose clergy, affect importance, and make a great bustle, proudly ar­rogating to themselves the name of Church, as if all Christianity was confined within their narrow pale. It may be time enough a great while hence, to think of "settling" episcopacy (the Doc­tor uses this as a softer term than establish) in these colonies, if numbers are to determine the point. It would be fair, however, that the episcopal colonies, should try the experiment of import­ing bishops first; at least, whilst they neglect providing for ec­clesiastical superiors, the rejectors of episcopacy may be well ex­cused in opposing their establishment among them, by an act of the state.

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE, Monday June 27th.


Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.


The Good-nature of some unknown Correspondent, has furnished out Entertainment for this Week. The Extract contained in the Letter, breathes such an Air of Truth, that I imagined it would be injustice to deny the Public the same Satisfaction I my­self enjoy'd in perusing it.




IT is impossible for hypocrisy long to remain undetected, when she exposes her actions to public attention, "in the fair face of day." Passion and ungoverned zeal, will inevitably put her by her guard, her mask will fall off in the hurry of interest, and dis­cover the monster in her native hideousness. This has been the case with the bitter faction, which now is, and always has been endeavouring, to fix the vilest stains on the reputation of the church. In spite of all their former disguises, they now stand confess'd the real soawn of that invenom'd brood, who burst the bonds of gratitude, justice, and religion, and in a torrent over­turn'd [Page 256]turn'd altars, levell'd, churches, and laid waste "principalities and powers." Any person acquainted with the history of those times, must be struck with the resemblance there is visible, even in the soam they have cast forth. There is hardly a paper of the whig, "that whineth not of bloody persecutions, "the Power of a bishop's pastoral staff," "the scarlet whore." ‘mitred ge­neralissimo,’ "cup of fornication," ‘grandeur of St. Paul's church,’ "Popish apparel, prelacy," "onions of Egypt," and other like cant phrases, tun'd formerly from the noses of those Puritanical snufflers, who overwhelm'd the nation with bloody destruction. But what surprises me most is, that these dabblers in politics should insinuate, that "* the national church of Eng­land," was compos'd almost wholly of men who embrac'd pro­testantism merely to save their estates, and avoid persecu­tion." —Let history indubitably prove the falshood and illi­berality of this assertion! In the times of severest persecution, were not the clergy of the church most distinguish'd by their opposition to popery, as well in their writings as actions? Did not some of her most dignify'd ecclesiastics fall victims to the cruelty of papists? Where then (we may ask) were those firm defenders of the refor­mation, who so much boast of their fortitude and Christianity? Like serpents, when the cold winter of persecution approach'd, they shrunk into their hiding-places.—But now, enliven'd by the serene air of moderation and security, they march proudly abroad, discharging their venom, and aiming their stings, at that bosom, which cherish'd and protected them.

The cause of this enmity to the church (which has occasioned so many bitter jealousies and tumults in the nation) I could never account for, till I met by chance, with the inclosed paper, writ­ten many years ago, which (if it can any way show the danger of endeavouring to destroy the church) is at your service.

I am your's, &c, T. P.

IT has been the constant unhappiness of the English nation to suffer the most terrible convulsions, and to lie in a fatal posture of confusion and disorder upon the account of religion. The origi­nal enemy of our church is the papist: He appear'd in the infancy of the reformation, and ever since has been invincibly industrious to ruin the happy establishment; being persuaded, that the pa­pal power and obedience must sink low in the opinion of mankind, so long as the realms of Great-Britain, that bear so considerable a figure in the Christian world, continue in a revolt from the faith, and keep wide so desperate a breach in the Roman communion.89

[Page 257] The church of England has been always justly esteem'd the only bastion of the protestant interest, and has produc'd so illustri­ous a succession of able champions for the truth, as in all human prospect, will in time convince the world of the apost [...]y of Rome from the Christianity of the pu [...]est ages, and induce them to file off the shackles of blind homage and submission, which ignorance and the Romish artifice have fastened upon the hands of all princes and potentates under the papal jurisdiction; and whatsoever some people may imagine, there is nothing at all formidable to Rome in those little sects and separatists, who by their own eternally subdividing principles, will like the sheaf of arrows in the sable, be severally broken, without any Difficulty; but the church of England is a compact body, firm and well set together, she wears so much of the apostolick innocence and antiquity both in doctrine and discipline, that St. Peter's sword can never hope for an universal monarchy, without undermining the founda­tions of our constitutions; to accomplish which glorious design, the enemy inspires himself and all his engines, with all possible application and diligence.

And since the Roman statesmen have long despair'd by force and military violence to recover these kingdoms under the do­minion of the holy see, they betake themselves to stratagem, and artfully attempt to subvert that reformation by divisions, which they were unable to over-throw by a more open assault; it be­ing a maxim in the conclave, that there is no other way to pre­vent people from turning hereticks, and for the recovery of o­thers again to the mother church, than by a diversity of doc­trines.

Among all the religious orders of Rome, the Jesuits were soon distinguish'd as a body of men, subtil, enterprising, and auda­cious, acted by [...]incible resentments against the English settle­ment, and acco [...]ngly were ordained to manage in this mo [...]ori­ous undertaking, and dispatch'd very early to create schisms and separations in this reform'd church: Their Commission gave them full powers to revive the most infamous heresies, to profess the most abominable principles, to swear and forswear, to ap­pear in whatever disguise, so that the populace might be in­flamed against the establishment, and fixed at an irreconcileable dis­tance from the lawful communion: And these emissaries in a short time, became masters in this execrable policy; they insinuated themselves into the conventicles of the pu [...]tans; could bellow loudly, and cry out popery upon the ceremonies of our church; revile his holiness himself, and were so eminent in the gift of ex­temporary devotion, that the people were quickly pray'd out of their religion and allegiance; they press'd them to throw off the tyranny of bishops, to insist upon a liberty of [Page 258]conscience, to pull down Babylon, and took hold of all occasi­ons to run them into open hostilities and rebellion against the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and all this in hopes to destroy us with our own weapons, and erect the Roman trophies upon the ruin of the church of England, the only bulwark of the protest­ant faith.

To give the clearer light to these discoveries, let us look back a few ages ago, and we shall find a very remarkable history in the reign of queen Elizabeth, of one Faithful Commin, a Roman divine, who came over into England, and was generally reputed as a very zealous protestant; his seeming piety procur'd him a very great character with the inferior people, who were more particularly pleased with him for his severe raillery against the church of Rome, and his bitter invectives against the pope him­self: This imposter was at last detected, but by an escape avoid­ed the hands of justice, and returned to Rome. The pope im­mediately imprisoned him for the abuses he had spread about him in England; but Commin writ to his holiness, and acquainted him that he had something of importance to communicate to him, if he could have the honour to be admitted into his presence; the pope sent for him next day, and as soon as he saw him, sir, said he, I have heard the character you have bestow'd upon me and my predecessors, among your hereticks in England, by re­viling my person and exposing my church; Commin reply'd, I confess my lips have utter'd what my heart never thought; but your holiness little imagines the considerable services I have done you: To which the pope return'd, how, in the name of Jesus, Mary, and all the saints, hast thou done so? sir, said Commin, I preached against set forms of prayer, and I called the English liturgy a translation of the mass book; I have made the people fond of extempore prayer, and by that means the church of England, is become as odious to my proselytes, as mass is to the church of England, and this will be a stumbling-block to that church while it is a church: Upon which the pope commended him, and gave him a reward of two thousand ducats for his good service.

To give the greater evidence to what I have said upon this subject, I shall, for the benefit of the English reader, translate a copy of that publick instrument, a Jesuit receives from the pope, when he is sent as an emissary to advance the interest of Rome, in any of the reformed churches.

‘WHEREAS we (the pope) have found and daily find heresies increasing in several colonies, principalities, realms and countries, subject to the sacred see of St. Peter our predecessor, and they deserting our jurisdiction with [Page 259]their blasphemous and railing writings against us, our ceremo­nies, and apostolick privileges, granted unto us, and our suc­cessors from God, and formerly generally acknowledg'd by em­perors, kings, and princess to be ours, and our predecessors due and right.’

‘We therefore in the name of the holy Trinity of the blessed mother of God, the virgin Mary, of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the name of the holy host of heaven, of the arch-angels and angels, of the holy apostles, saints, and blessed martyrs, do will and authorise the wise and learned of our clergy, expert in divine service, to labour, endeavour, and devise all manner of devices to be devised, to abate and confound those heresies repugnant to our sacred laws, that thereby these hereticks might be either recalled to confess their errors and acknow­ledge our jurisdiction, or that a total infamy may be brought upon them and their posterities, by a perpetual discord and contention among themselves, by which means they may ei­ther speedily perish by God's wrath, or continue in eternal dif­ference, to the reproach of Jew, Turk, heathen, nay to the very devils themselves.’

To the Author of the American Whig.


WHEN I first saw the title of your paper, I flattered my­self, the public would have been improved and enter­tained, by an examination of a Subject of such moment, with all that candour, charity, and liberality of sentiment, which constitutes the true character of a Whig. Coolness and mildness ought to be preserved in every controversy, but especially, where an opponent makes use of the greatest moderation and tender­ness. —A contrary conduct serves but to inflame the passions, and confuses the subject in the noise of contention. Indeed from the constant tenor of your paper, this seems to have been your primary intention, and I must say, such a purpose has been ad­mirably answered;—for the sparks of resentment, which were before dying away, are kindled into a blaze, and will soon (I fear) rage with the greatest violence.—Your first paper, swel­ling with ill-nature, was all over beautified with such innocent puerilities, as were extremely diverting, but unfortunately, those bubbles of wit (you are fond of playing with) are so thin and lightsome, that they shrink at the touch, and if blown upon by the least breath of inquiry, burst into nothing.—'Tis true you promise us pretty largely in that paper, "that you would shew as well the falfity of the facts, as the futility of the reason­ing [Page 260]in the appeal; that you would defend the liberties of your country against every project calculated to ruin and enslave it." How have you performed this Promise? By asserting that the doctor does not mean what he says! By conjuring up an ideal hobgoblin to attack! By trumpetting out your own praises; or by throwing out the most uncharitable insinuations against the church and its clergy?—Your spending the time of the pub­lic, with long aggravated details of the evils of spiritual courts, or with weak, though imbittered attacks at episcopacy, is, I conceive, nothing to the purpose;—for the first is what the church does not appeal for; and as for the second, if the church imagines it necessary or beneficial to itself, your contrariety of opinion will not be of much consequence, since every denomina­tion of Christians, in his majesty's dominions, is allowed the free enjoyment of its religious opinions and privileges.

With respect to the subject in debate, I appeal to every unpre­judiced person, whether one ray of light has been cast on it; or whether the mists of prejudice, resentment and calumny, have not been raised to the almost utter extinction of friendship, love, and concord among our fellow citizens.

You must be solely guided by the meteor of rage and prejudice, or no public writer could have wandered so far from the path he proposed to tread.

As an answer to the appeal, the public has been entertained with a Welsh letter of kowz, and zowz, and goozy chickz. We have been puzzel'd with one in Dutch, de Staamp Act,—de act vaa soldaten de billeteeren, de act van suspensie of op schort­ing —envan de de tax en revenue of inkomst,—van spiritual courts—van de geestelike courts—poor de keerkenraad classis, en synode—van de Bischoppelyke court, de inquisitae van Portu­gaal en Spanje.—We have been frighted by a BULL— thundering out excommunications against the church of Rome— cutting it off from the body of Christ, and making it a Syna­gogue of Satan—raving,—of classes, Presbyteries, Synods, Praeses, Moderators.—Braying,—of meeting houses, made of lime stone and wood—of the orthodoxoy of bricks and oyster shells—of episcopalian bigots, masses, martyrs, cor­rupt translations, adulterating baptisms, popish episcopalians, and idolatrous transubstantiations—and grunting—of undoubted operations on the hearts of many to their conversion and confir­mation in faith—of ten thousand converted in Dutch churches, to one in episcopal meeting-houses, and twenty gain'd, to one lost. From this last effusion of incoherencies, I should be apt to magine you, some fiery, mortified, sour tempered zealot,

Who beats a drum ecclesiastic
With brawny fist, instead of a stick.

[Page 261]whose brain is clouded with visionary dreams of enthusiasin, and whose reason lies buried in the rubbish of bigotry.

How this, or any thing you have yet asserted, is pertinent to the point in question, my eye-sight, I must confess, is too weak to perceive.—Instead of entring (with politeness and calmness) into the merits of the cause: And by Christian charity, hushing our unhappy divisions into peace, the subject has been lost in scurrilous buffoonery.—You throw out the bitterest invectives against the advocates for a bishop; represent the church as of the most intolerant spirit—paint her clergy in the most odious colours and picture out in every paper, all bishops without distincti­on, as the most persecuting, cruel, inhuman monsters, deprived of all sensibility and conscience. O! But for all this you are no enemy to the church, you imagine it would be injustice to deny them a bishop, so curtailed and limitted as his future lordship is represented! This is not unlike the behaviour of a gentleman, who after he had (in a passion) sworn a hundred times, that all the fair sex were whores; yet (says he) ‘I like an honest woman as well as any man in the world.’

As I am a Whig in principles, I would willingly see all my country-men enjoying their religious liberties without being mo­lested by the envy or ambiton of party.

Benevolence and brotherly-love, as I imagine, are the princi­pal characteristics of Christians; if these were more inculcated, than that proud narrow-hearted, uncharitable spirit of hypocri­tical sectarism, which prevails among us, a mutual confidence would follow, productive of the greatest advantages both to our­selves and country.—But some men, influenced either by ambition or envy, have ever been (to the great detriment of this province) endeavouring to raise a monument of their literary abilities, on the ruin of public tranquility—to gorge their purses as well as spleen, by fomenting dissentions in religious as well as civil societies.

I am Your's, &c. A CANDID WHIG.
[Page 262]

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE. June 27.


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.



—Quid si nune coelum ruat?

TERENCE. Heautontimor.

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

your humble Servant, ANTIPROBUS.

TO my correspondent's observations, I beg leave to add, that tho' (even according to Tory historians) Henry VIII. re­nounced the Pope's supremacy, suppress'd monastries, &c. in spite of clerical opposition, and several rebellions, and at length arbitra­triry frighted his subjects, (even those of the convocation) into com­plaisance; yet it were doubtless very reasonable to suppose, that the reformation was effected with great mildness and Christian tem­per, considering, &c. and not so much by force as the Whig re­presents: And that, tho' Queen Mary's parliament renounced the reformation, which had been approved and confirmed by parliament, under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. yet we are not from thence to conclude, but that the most (especially the cler­gy,) embrac'd it for conscience sake. Having said thus much, I hope neither Squire T. nor Probus, will call my correspon­dent, or me, a Papist, or imagine, that either of us has the least fancy for a popish, any more than for a protestant, court-favour­ed law-dignified BISHOP.



NOTHING has occasioned greater mistakes, nor given room for warmer debates, than the varying and unsettled meaning of names and terms. A word, which in one age, has served to convey a particular idea, at some succeeding period, has been understood in a very different sense; and con­troversial [Page 271]writers have been so candid as to state the difference: more eager for victory, than truth, they have often disingenuous­ly laid hold of such an opportunity, to carry their point with the ignorant and prejudiced; whilst ever thing has made against them, except the construction and sound of the syllables.

This has been remarkably the case of the episcopal character in the Christian church. Many, who have no idea of a bishop, separate from the appendages of the office in some hierarchies, when they read any thing in the new testament concerning this minister of religion, apply it without hesitation to prelates of the establishment they are best acquainted with; and wonder at the preverseness of those who differ from them. Few professors of Christianity deny bishops to be of divine institution; but the dif­ficulty lies in adjusting their rank and powers. The Roman, the Greek, and other eastern churches hold, that bishops are of di­vine right, an order superior to priests; and that although they are presbyters, they have also an higher character, and are dis­tinguished from the other clergy, in like manner, as the apostles in the infancy of the church, were superior to the common teach­ers of the gospel. The protestant communions abroad, Lutheran and Calvinist, have rejected this opinion as unscriptural, as having been the source of much abuse and corruption. The sense of the Protestants of the German empire on this point, is set forth in the articles of the league concluded at Smalcald in 1530; in which they assert the power of ordaining to belong, by divine right, to presbyters. Accordingly the Lutheran super-intendants are only first among equals, or standing presidents of the councils of the clergy. It is almost needless to observe that the churches of the reformed, and the church of Scotland, have agreed in the aboli­tion of all prelacy; for with them every parish minister is a bishop. In England the established church has never explicitly declared herself on the point; if we attempt to deduce her judgment from her conduct, we shall find it unsettled; yet more favourable to the distinction of order in latter times, than formerly* The first reformers in England, with Dr. Cranmer at their head, perfectly agreed with their brethren the protestants abroad, and held presbyter and bishop to be the same in scripture. As they looked on church polity to be mutable, in much the same manner as civil govern­ment, [Page 272]they thought it very allowable for presbyters to wave their rights, and for the sake of better order, to submit to superiors of human institution.§

It is plain enough to all unprejudiced persons, that in the new testament, bishop, pastor, overseer, presbyter and elder, are used promiscuously, to describe one and the same office; and there is nothing any where said of an upper order in the Christian minis­try. As churches were gathered in different parts of the Roman empire chiefly in cities at fi [...]t, the people chose their instructors by common suffrage; and the apostles and evangelists, such as Paul, Silas, Barnabas, and Timothy, by a solemn imposition of hands (a ceremony derived from the Jews) invested these persons with the pastarol office. The choice of the people was the main point, the solemnity f [...]etting apart being "not of necessity, but only for good order and seemly fashion." Of these bishops, there was it seems one or more in every church or congregation, as the number of converts, and the prospect of new additions re­quired. At Ephems for instance, we find two, if not several elders, who are expresly called bishops; and Titus was directed to ordain elders in every city of Crete, who are spoken of as invest­ed with the episcopal office It was a long time before the original Christian congregations in the cities became so numerous as to make it necessary to divide their assemblies, they kept together till meer inconveniency forced them to it. Not having equal suc­cess in proselyting the country people, the difficulty was less selt, And when at length they allowed new places for holding assem­blies [Page 273]for public worship, they considered them as chapels of ease, and the people as part of the original congregation. The num­ber of pastors was in this manner necessarily increased within the parish or diocese, and it became, in process of time, orderly to have a president at the meetings of the consistory; to whom, by degrees the name of bishop was restrained. This head presbyter, however, was only primus inter pares. First among equals; th [...] affairs of the congregation being managed by him and his bre­thren, with the concurrence of the people. As it was natural for the Christians in the purer ages of the church to place the most respectable of their elders in the chair, it is easy to conceive, how superior abilities and character on the one hand, and undis­sembled love and respect on the other, might conspire to give a fatherly pre-eminence to a primitive bishop. His age and stand­ing, not to mention the sufferings which many of them endured, would unavoidably command this, and every other expression of reverence, which the members of a voluntary society, unsuspici­ous of any ambitious schemes, could give. It would of course happen that the bishop and the more aged presbyters would al­ways be resident near the mother church or cathedral, whilst their younger brethren itinerated thro' the parish, labouring from house to house, and in the dependent places of public worships: The bishop would be generally deputed to sit in the synods and councils of the church: And nothing of importance would be undertaken at home, without the advice of a person of so much experience and piety.

In all popular assemblies, great regard is paid to the opinion of a few of the best ability and most knowledge; but if a great mo­ral character accompanies these endowments, the influence of such persons is almost unlimitted

Such seems to have been the rise of the diocesan bishop; an office not known in Scripture. The very large extent of the dioceses in some parts, and the general conversion of the pagans (probably so called from pagi, a word signifying the people of the country) must have increased and confirmed the superiority of the bishop. As the people became too numerous to assemble and con­sider of their affairs, on every occasion, the care of them de­volved to the consistory; and the duties of instruction calling out the younger presbyters to different parts of the district, the busi­ness of discipline now increased, and occuring daily, gradually centered in the bishop and the aged elders, who remained with him. Hence rose the Chapter, or that body of clergy, who at this day make a mock choice of the bishop, and are as a council [Page 274]to him in some lesser matters; but in the most important are in­tirely laid aside.*

When wealth and corruption entered the church and lovers of Pre-eminence got into the Episcopal sees, that authority which had been conceded to the personal character of the former presi­dents of the clergy, was now claimed by, and yielded to their successors, as their proper jurisdiction. Instead of flying from a sta­tion, which formerly had set a man up as an object of persecution, and which was thought to require an uncommon share of zeal and faithfulness to discharge its duties with a good conscience, the vain and the ambitious secretly intrigued for Votes, and used every artifice to arrive at a dignity, endowed with riches, and consequently invested with state influence and worldly power. These abuses, of which the prince had by his insidious liberality been the chief author, rising into tumults and even bloodshed, gave him a specious pretence, for taking from the people, their right of choosing their bishops, and to farther debase the church and clergy, by turning religion into a state engine.

The See of Rome was tainted very early. This arose partly from the great benefactions entrusted with her bishops, for the purpose of sending out missionaries to the northern and western parts of Europe; which also served to advance their Influence, and promote their authority, even under the loss of the seat of empire, which was transferred to Constantinople. The bishop­rick of Rome therefore became early the object of competition a­mong those who sought after filthy lucre, and were disposed to [Page 275]lord it over the heritage of God. The conful Pre [...]extatus, [...] heathen, in the year 466, could say, "if you will make me bishop of Rome, I will make myself a Christian."

To those who are the least acquainted with church history, it seems strange to find Dr. Chandler arguing, that diocesan Epis­copacy must have been the original plan of government in the church, because of the supposed difficulty of altering things con­nected with religion. I would ask him, whence came arch-bish­ops and patriarchs? Whence arose that grand corruption of Christianity called popery? The truth is, the alteration was gradual, and at the time of his favourite St. Ignatius, the bish­op was, as primate Ulster wonds it, "only different in degree, not in order:" as a Lutheran super-intendant at this day presides over a consistory of pastors. To bring in the Episcopacy of the 1st. and 2d. centuries, then, to support that of the church of England, is plainly begging the question. It is to treat two characters as the same, who in fact are as different as the first commissioner of the treasury in England, and the lord high trea­surer; or as the Doge of Venice, the president of that republic, and the absolute duke of Florence.

[Page 276]


—quae mens tam dira, miserrime conjux,
Impulit his cingi telis? aut quo ruis? inquit.
Non tali auxillo, no defensoribus istis,
Tempus eget: non, si ipse meus nune afforet Hector.
What more than madness, 'midst these dire alarms,
Mov'd thee to load thy helpless age with arms?
No aid like thine this dreadful hour demands,
But asks far other aid, far other hands;
No; could my own dear* Hector arm again,
My own dear Hector now would arm in vain.

ALTHO' I profess myself an independent, I shall nevertheless always bear public testimony, as I ever have done, against all measures that seem calculated to injure the general interest of religion. Nor shall I at any time, be ashamed to reprehend even those of my own persuasion, whose proceedings may have the same tendency, tho' designed to answer a different purpose; or those who false to our cause, and true to none, see the consequen­ces in a just light, and yet continue to use means which must of necessity produce them. Now, since the American Whig, the Centinel, and Dr. Chauncey, have undertaken (to speak in their own polite manner) to grease the wheels of that carriage, which lays down a load of scandal at each man's door who happens to dis­sent—strange! that they should hate dissenters—from their opi­nions; I have made the few following remarks upon these men's spirit and behaviour, which are at your service; tho' I must can­didly own, that I should not have used your paper as a channel of conveyance to the publick, for my sentiments, had I not been ap­prehensive that the writers of my own denomination would want both fortitude to acknowledge,—and by publishing my reprehen­sions [Page 277]they must have acknowleged—their faults, and ingenuity to amend them.

Some time ago, eighteen presbyterian parsons, (or more pro­perly independents) under the unaccountable influence of some delusion or other, recommended in the warmest and most indis­creet, tho' it must be owned, in the most modest, dutiful, and decent manner, a person who had deserted our cause, or was thought to have done so, to the favour and patronage of one of the most distinguished and most virtuous prelates in Christendom; from whom nothing less could be expected, than the very genteel reprimand, with which he condescended to honour them. I then gave them a proper chastisement for their misconduct; which, it is true, they, and the public received in a very different manner. But I hoped however that they were not so far lost to their cause, and to themselves, as to have transgressed again, while their backs are yet reeking from the lash of publick indignation, by fall­ing upon schemes, under pretence, at least, and perhaps with a design, of supporting our cause, which have a direct tendency to ruin and subvert it. But how infecurely my hopes were founded, every week's experience doth again, and again, convince me—Once more therefore, am I obliged to take upon me the disagree­able, tho' necessary office of detecting the treasons, of our pre­tended friends, but real enemies, or correcting the errors (to give them the softest Name) of our very true brethren, but very incompetent advocates; I mean (what my reader already under­stands) the American Whig, the Philadelphia Centinel, and Aberratious Doctor.

All these write with great warmth against bishops; but then, alas! their zeal is without knowlege, policy, or purdence. The Whig, in his third numb. has cast the most odious reflections up­on the reformation itself, that the keenest malice could invent;—and the Centinel, in his sixth numb. has represented the clergy of al [...] denominations, and in every age, as the greatest villains that ever existed. Now the world will naturally suppose that he is more acquainted with the clergy of his own denomination, than with those of any other; and if people go a step farther, (as it is natural enough to believe they will) and suppose (which is also reasonable enough to be supposed) that the clergy of most other denominations, would not admit such a railing accuser many times into their company; their conclusion (a probable on [...] at least) will be this, that, if he is an honest man, he has paint­ed his own teachers in the colours which most aptly represent their genuine complection; but that let him be as honest as h [...] will, he cannot be depended upon for the description of other [...] whom he hath not had adequate opportunities of knowing; and [Page 278]whom it is probable he hath no acquaintance with at all; but that he must have formed his notions of all, from his knowledge of one particular sect; and because they are all clothed in black, have concluded them all together the children of darkness. This is acting strangely indeed! as if a statuary, who was ordered to make a most delicate resemblance of an Adonis, or a Ganymede, according to the best Ideas of their beauty he could form by the liveliest descriptions of the poets, should, in order to avoid the trouble of searching, or for any other cause, (it matters not what) immediately turn to Homer, and chizel out an Image of Thersites. 'Tis as if a painter should set Otway's Witch before him, while he was drawing a portrait of a Venus, or a Hellen. These are the conclusions, I say, that people who do not think with us, will be apt to form, and which it's too evident the Worthies above-mentioned either intended to suggest, and so are false brethren, or else they spoke at random, and therefore are not properly qualified for the office which they have assumed, viz. That of defenders general of the faith, which is one word more than his majesty himself claims in his title, and which, when taken in this Sense, viz. The faith of independents, or in­dependent faith, or faith on which there is no dependence; re­quires a much stronger advocacy than they (sweet babes!) are able to afford it.

This is one instance either of treachery or want of prudence. Another is, that they,—I say they, for I doubt not that what one asserts, the other will swear to—did publickly accuse a convention of Episcopalians, of writing a number of petitions to some of the most respectable personages in England, in order to have a bishop appointed for America;—which application, in­dependent as I avow myself, I cannot in my conscience either blame them for making, or think that their request ought not to be granted;—and also of saying sundry things therein to the disadvantage of dissenters.—With respect to the former part of this accusation, my sentiments are as above: With regard to the latter, our defenders,—(would not protectors, think you, Mr. Tickle, be a more significant term?)—have produced no evidence to support their charge. If they had evidence, why did they not produce it! If they had no evidence, and it was all poetical imagination, or, what they thought, probable conjec­ture,—and why they did think it probable becometh not me to say,—why did they bring the accusation so openly? unless it were purposely done to betray our cause, and give the enemy an advantage over us. For a calumny unsupported, will for ever recoil upon the head of the propagator. The public will [Page 279]always judge according to evidence; in the present case, they will condemn our protectors, and acquit the convention.

The Whig, and the Centinel, of all men, ought to be deep politicians: But they seem to be perfectly destitute of every qualification, save one,—and that one is not Chicanery,— which helps to form that modern character. Nothing could be­tray their inabilities in this respect, so much, as their endeavour­ing to represent the church of England in the light of a persecu­ting church. Who could not have foreseen,—that could see be­fore his nose,—that this representation would put men upon making comparisons; which, in this case more especially, are odi­ous, as they can only turn out to the advantage of the church, and the real mortification of us and our Zion.

How impolitic was it likewise, both in the Whig and Centinel, to cry out for the liberty of British subjects, at the same time they are opposing that liberty, and endeavouring with all their might to preclude a great,—was it consistent with my profession, I would add a good—part of those same British subjects in America, from the enjoyment of that liberty; I mean the most valuable branch of it, even in their own profession, the liberty of religion; wherewith I always was wont to think that Christ had made them, as well as ourselves, free? every reason­ing creature must at length perceive—whatever mists are raised to perplex and bewilder the unthinking traveller in his journey thro' the mazes of controversy,—that the liberty of British subjects, necessarily supposes, that those subjects have a right, if they choose the enjoyment of it, to bishops, with all the powers they are possessed of in Britain? But if the bishops that are prayed for, are to be vested with no civil power, who does not see that it would be manifest injustice, a most palpable infringement of every thing that is right and reasonable, to impede their arrival? And if Bishops are an obstruction to the liberty of Dissenters in England, by reason of the civil powers wherewith they are there invested; who can be so perverse as not to acknowledge, that, upon the plan of the appeal, the Dissenters in this country would not have any cause of complaint; because none of our liberties could thereby be possibly affected? Nay, I might ask farther, sup­posing some complaints of our brethren in England, be founded in justice, would it not be unjustifiable in us to depress our fellow-subjects in this part of the world, with similar hardships, be­cause some burthens continue there unremoved, which the church­men here cannot possibly be supposed to have had any hand in imposing? Suppose the parliament should grant these men their request, which is, that they may have the rights of British sub­jects; and should moreover send bishops to America, with all the [Page 280]powers, civil and ecclesiastical, which they enjoy in Britain; is it not plain that this would be British liberty? But if the episco­pal party make no such request, and only ask for bishops to or­dain, and govern the clergy, should not we be more ready, on our own principles, to assist, than to obstruct, so reasonable, so necessary, and so modest a design? May they not fairly con­clude, that we are, in heart, enemies to that religious Freedom, which our tongues so justly extol, if we continue any longer to obstruct its establishment?

As for the doctor above-mentioned, he has acted altogether beneath the character of an honest man: and has thus laid him­self open to so much censure and reproof, that whatever he ad­vances for the future, must rather disserve than promote our in­terest. His intentions in so doing are best known to himself; but the consequences are not to be avoided.

Out of the many falshoods he has published, I shall at this time, select but one, which is this; that all the candidates for holy or­ders in the church of England, have the expences of their voyage home, paid by the society, &c. The society, as I and every one else can see, publish every year an exact account of the monies they receive, and of the purposes to which they are ap­plied. If he can produce one instance, wherein the expences at­tending the voyage of any one candidate for orders, have been defrayed in the manner he mentions, it is more than I have ever seen; and I think, from my scrupulous inspection into the socie­ty's abstracts. I may venture to affirm that none is to be found. Let the candid therefore, of all denominations, judge (for in spite of the doctor, and all our other advocates, they will judge for themselves,) what spirit it was that dictated so infamous an assertion.

The doctor, too surely, in this instance has endeavoured to impose wretchedly upon the public. If he did it wickedly, (which I must not suppose) he is an improper instrument to ad­vance the cause of truth and righteousness; if he did it weakly, (which I cannot suppose, as information was so easily to be ob­tained) he has proved (as the Whig and Centinel, have done al­so,) that his abilities are not equal to the task which he has under­taken, and therefore, that our cause can hope for no advantages from his feeble efforts to support it. In short, if he has nothing better to say, than what he has already advanced, every man who wishes well either to himself or his neighbour, will desire him to put his hand upon his mouth, and say nothing. If this will not prevent him from injuring both our own cause, and the general cause of religion, he is hereby interdicted from any far­ther [Page 281]publication, without licence first had and obtained from the guardians of our church, who are appointed to take care—ne quid detrimenti capiat ecclesia.—that nothing be printed to her disgrace or disadvantage.

Depending upon your candour for the publication of this Epistle,

I am, with respect to all others, AN INDEPENDENT.

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE. July 4.


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."



—amphora coepit
Institui, currente ro [...]d our urceus exit?

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

From vulgar rules with wild disorder part,
And snatch a grace beyond the reach of art.

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.




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.

your humble Servant, ISSACHAR.



THE readiness, with which you published the letters, I sent you, emboldens me to offer some farther thoughts on the subject. I have endeavoured to shew that the church or rather every church in America has a right in itself to provide for its own discipline and government, that if civil laws are necessary for the support of its clergy, or for the regulation of its members, they ought to be made by the legislatures of the respective colonies; and therefore that any application to the parliament of Britain, or any power on earth, other than the legislatures of the colonies, to establish any sect or denomination of Christians in his majesty's American colonies, is an infringe­ment of the rights of the people, and as such ought to be re­sented. I shall now consider what it is, that Doctor Chandler and the applicants petition for, and hope to convince you, that it is not a minister of Christ, a publisher of the gospel, nor an officer of the Christian church, but a dangerous engine of state. This will appear if we consider for what purposes he is wanted with what powers he is to be invested, and in what manner he is to exercise those powers.

The liberty of America has ever been a matter of envy to the bigots and high flyers, as well as to the favourers and abettors of arbitrary power in England. Instances of this might be given, from the times of Laud, and [...] [...]oft down to the time of those venerable bishops, who with one accord entered their [Page 291]warm protest against the repeal of the American stamp act.—And it might easily be shewn, that whenever attempts have been made at home to increase the power of the crown, or subvert the British constitution and the liberties of the people; the liberty of America has at the same time been invaded. Nor is this to be wondered at; for while America remains a sacred asylum, she shackles of slavery cannot well be fixed upon Britons, nor can ecclesiastical tyrants exercise arbitrary sway.

But what is particularly worthy of observation is, that every attempt upon American liberty, has always been accompanied with endeavours to settle bishops among us. Thus in the reign of Charles I. when Laud attempted to subjugate the colonies, then in their infancy, he was not content with contriving to cramp their trade by foolish proclamations:* but to complete their mortification and effect their ruin, was upon the point of sending them a Bishop, with a military force to back his authority. the sam [...] a [...]pt was revived in the latter end of queen Anne's rei [...] [...] und, had not God in his providence inter­posed, and blasted the designs of the enemies of Britain, the same year might have been remarkable, for the downfal of pro­ [...]estan [...]sm. the introduction of the pretender, and the revival of popery in England, and for the establishment of bishops in Ame­rica. The unsettled state of the nation after the accession of George I. gave the enemies of that prince and of their coun­try some faint hopes of accomplishing their design; and, there­fore, in the year 1714, while the spirit of rebellion was kindling into a flame, and the friends of Popery and the pretender were forming their party and preparing to overturn the government, and the religion of their country, the same restless spirits, who in the last reign had laboured to get bishops established in America, 'renewed their attempt, and made one vigorous effort to accom­plish' what they call their 'grand affair.' But (thanks to the great over-ruler of events) the designs of both 'proved abor­tive.' The rebellion was quashed, and the scheme of an Ame­rican episcopate dropt of course: Some persons however still con­tinued to keep sight of the great object, and as they are always watching for seasonable opportunities of exerting themselves to ob­tain it," we find it resumed with great warmth not long before the rebellion in 1745.

With what views a bishop is so earnestly desired for America, and for what purposes he is sent, we are now to enquire. 'His [Page 282]'authority,' we are told, 'shall operate only on the clergy of the Church and 'not on the laity.' The bishop spoken of in the New-Testament is ordered to feed the flock, and take care of the church of God. But the American bishop is to exercise no authority over the laity or private members of the church, over which he presides. His business is to 'ordain, unite,' sup­port and govern the clergy. over these his power is to be abso­lute. He is to hold no spiritual court, p. 95. And yet he is to ‘have power to suspend any clergyman, to deprive him of his benefice and not only silence and depose him but excommu­nicate him from the society of Christians.’ All this he is to exercise ‘according to the directions of and by virtue of a com­mission from the diocesan,§ who may reside at London, Lambeth, or elsewhere. This Doctor C. assures us is 'the plan of the American episcopate, and that he does not know of a single instance wherein reason has been given to suspect a departure from it.’ How well this plan was calculated to an­swer the views of a Laud, who wants to introduce arbitrary government into church and state, is easy to see: Nor will it be difficult to reconcile it with the schemes of those, who laboured to introduce Popery and the Pretender.

But to add to the weight and importance of these bishops, and the better to enable them to promote the designs of the mi­nister, a hint is given that 'the government may hereafter see fit to invest them with some degree of civil power, worthy of their acceptance;' that as 'a clergyman may be made a justice of the peace or a judge of the quorum; so bishops may be invested with a proportionable degree of civil authority;* which can be no­thing less than a member of the upper house of assembly or go­vernor of a province. To this we are told, no one ought to object: For 'all that the happiness and safety of the public [Page 283]require, is, that the legislative and execute power be placed in the hands of such persons as are possessed of the greatest abili­ties, integrity and prudence; and it is hoped, says Dr. C. bishops will always be thought to deserve this character.'

Let us now consider what a dangerous engine of state this might be in the hands of an enterprising and ill-minded minis­ter. Where a man's private interest is united with the interest of his country, it is reasonable to suppose, he will heartily wish that country may thrive, and will extert himself in support and desence of its liberty; but this is not the case with those who are sent from another part of the world, to be employed in places of profit and power: Because they can bear no affection to the place where they sojourn; their sole business being to advance them­selves by following the directions of their principals: Neither will it be the case with those who are taken into offices, although natives of the land, because they are greater gainers while they keep their offices, than they can be by promoting and defending the interest of their country.

The people of America are to have no concern in the election of this bishop, over his actions they have no controul. The clergy as they will hold their livings at his pleasure, must pay the same implicit obedience to his commands, which he himself will always pay to the minister of state, whose creature he is, and on whom his hopes of preferment depend.

I cannot therefore wonder if the administration of a B—e or a G—e is distinguished with an attempt to introduce an Ame­rican episcopate.

I am, &c. A. B.


In all you speak, let Truth and Candour shine.


‘I Have engaged in this course of periodical papers, as an advocate for the’ religious 'liberties' of a very numerous and respectable body, ‘of my fellow-sub­jects in North-America. I have entered upon the question of an American episcopate, and the' defence 'of Dr. Chand­ler's appeal to the public, in favour of it; as I esteem the [Page 294]question to be of greater importance’ to the members of the church of England in America, than any ‘which affects not the rights of conscience’—and of some importance to others, whether they be the friends of religious liberty in general; or, like the American Whig, of that sour, spelnetic, perverse, un­christian, unbrotherly, inhuman, meager, lean-visaged dispo­sition, which sickens at the sight of other men's happiness.

'The Dr. addresses the public, with an air of the highest,' and most well grounded ‘assurance, of the propriety and expe­die [...] of his plan; and with design, no doubt, to engage his [...] in the immediate prosecution of it,’ he very justly observen, from the appearance of things, at the time of his writing, ‘that the apprehension of any general popular discon­tent or opposition, was entirely groundl [...]s.’ His good [...]pinion of the dissenters, he expressed in these words: ‘Of any conside­rable discontent or uneasiness, there is no reason to be appre­hensive. Whatever notions the dissenters of this country may have formerly entertained concerning the church, of late years they have greatly come off from their prejudices—ex­cepting here and there a hot-headed writer, or a pragramatical enthusiast,’

The Dr. I am persuaded, had good reasons for his general opinion; but I apprehend him to have been mistaken in one circumstance, as he seems not to have imagined that the number of 'hot-headed writers' against the proposed episcopate would be so considerable as now appears—and I will not affirm but he may have been also mistaken as to the real number of ‘prag­matical enthusiasts’ in this country. But this I do and will affirm, that none but the ‘hot-headed writers, or pragmatical enthusiasts’ aforesaid, and such as have been deceived by the misrepresentations of the former, or the blind zeal of the latter, discover the least disposition to oppose the episcopate in question—and that the number of people thus deceived is but small, in comparison with what the American Whig has re­presented it to be. There are many, even among the dissenters, upon whom all the sophistry of this writer has had no effect, and who most cordially despise the low, illiberal, ungenerous, and dishonest arts, whereby he and his associates have endeavoured to impose upon the ignorant and unwary; esteeming them to be an evidence of two Things, which they would willingly conceal, the badness of their hearts—and the wretchedness of the cause they have undertaken to maintain.

I pass over No. IX. of the Whig, as utterly unworthy of notice; being only a feeble effort to misrepresent a very harmless [Page 295]passage in the appeal, and pervert it to a sense which, I dare say, was never once thought of by the author. Besides, it is such a Burlesque upon several passages of scripture, that it can­not be read with patience by any one who has the least regard for religion, and could only be written by a man lost to all moral goodness.

The tenth production now before me, is qualis ab incepto,—such as was expected, and such as will be expected from him as long as he shall continue to write in the present controversy; be­ing one of those compounds of misrepresentation, deceit and falshood, which are inconsistent with common honesty.

The author of the appeal, after having answere, as he in [...] ­gined, all the objections against an American episcopate which he had ever heard of, says, with reference to such-Genius's as our Whig: ‘It is indeed possible that other objections may haw been offered, or may be here after suggested, against America [...] bishops; but I am persuaded, that upon examination they wil [...] generally be found to be proofs, rather of the dexterity, or ill-will of the inventors, than of the real sea [...]s and uneasiness of the inhabitants. Artiful men may ra [...]s [...] objections and difficul­ties in the plainest cases, and can make any thing [...] argument against any thing, in a way that shall appear plausible to those who are unacquainted with the legerdemain of cavillers and so­phists. But whoever employs his talents in this exercise, is as unworthy of the public attention, as the child that engages in crambo or push-pin,’

Now upon this passage the question arises, whether the author of the appeal has here said any thing that cannot be justified on the common principles of truth and candour? No small number of 'artful men' have been for several months, employed in raising objections against American bishops; and it is submitted to the judgment of every candid and intelligent person, whether they have yet produced any new objections, but such as are perhaps, some small proof of the 'dexterity,' but which are in reality, a much greater proof of the ill-will of the 'inventors?' Has it not been the study of the American Whig, and his confederates, to 'raise objections and difficulties in the plainest cases?' Have they not been sounding a false alarm, and aiming to terrify peo­ple with imaginary dangers? Have they not trifled with, and a­bused, the patience of the public to that degree, that several of their quondam friends have deserted them, and others are asha­med of them? In short, have they not 'employed their talents' in such a manner, as to have rendered themselves ‘as unworthy of the public attention, as the child that engages in crambo, or push-pin?’

[Page 296] The author of the appeal is accused of thundering out ‘cleri­cal anathema's' against his opponents, and of saying, that whoever employs his talents in this exercise,’ that is, gentle reader, says the Whig. of offering any objections to his darling episcopate, ‘is as unworthy of the public attention, as the child that engages at crambo or push-pin,’ the whole passage of the appeal, upon which the accusation is founded, is inserted above, and every reader can judge for himself, whether the author says any such thing as he is here made to say—or thunders out any such anathema's as he is made to thunder. He is evidently there considering, not objectors in general, but one species of ob­jectors, namely, 'cavillers and sophists,' who by their 'legerde­main' or the tricks of their art, ‘make any thing appear to be an argument against any thing,’ to the ignorant and inex­perienced. As to open and fair objectors, Dr. Chandler al­ways speaks of them decently and properly, and has declared his readiness to treat them with due respect. So that the Whig's representation of him is deceitful and false; it is a prepensely malicious attempt to impose upon the good-nature and gentle­ness of the reader, and merits the resentment of every lover of truth and sincerity. He that deceives another, or attempts to deceive him, is no better than a liar; and he that attempts it publickly, is a public liar, and as such should be treated. A man had better play at 'crambò or push-pin' to eternity, than engage in such practices. And so much for push-pin.

The author of the appeal had said, that he knew of no pub­lic clamour that had ever been made in this country upon the prospect of an American episcopate, and that he did not soresee that any would be made. The American Whig al [...]ows, that perhaps it may have been so—that Dr. Chandler had neither heard of any, nor did foresee any. But now, in his turn, he makes his appeal to the Doctor. ‘whether since the publication of his appeal, a very general uneasiness is not visible among the people; and a general popular opposition expressed against his episcopal project, among all ranks of men, as they become daily more diffusively acquainted with the reality of the de­sign.’ The Dr. will himself reply to this appeal, if he thinks it deserves a reply, in due time; in the mean while, if I may be allowed to make so free with his property, I will offer a few words upon it. If by, 'since the publication of the appeal' is meant from the time of its publication, my answer to the question must be in the negative. It is well known, that the appeal was published many months before there was any appear­ance of uneasiness on the account of it; nay, so far from it, that it was read by many of the dissenters, who declared them­selves [Page 297]perfectly easy and satisfied, with regard to the plan, and thought it liable to no reasonable objections.

But is not 'a very general Uneasiness' now ‘visible among the people?’ I answer again in the negative. What is visible is this, that some factious writers have endeavoured to create a 'general uneasiness among the people.' and have spared no pains, and neglected no arts, that were likely to effect it. Some suc­cess they have undoubtedly had, but in my opinion, far short of what is pretended. The late election in this, and a neighbour­ing province, has clearly evinced, that, in the several coun­ties where the matter was put to the trial, the majority of the people were free from the 'Uneasiness,' and 'very generally' expressed their contempt of the low and infa­mous methods that were used to deceive them. And I will venture to prophecy, that 'among all ranks of men, as they daily 'become more diffusively acquainted with th [...] [...]eality of the 'design,' the more it will be approved. The Whig, I believe has seen his best days, people for a while, were diverted with the caperings and twisting of such a scaramouch, but these things will not always entertain.

The American Whig pretends, that among the lay-mem­bers of the church, there are not a few ‘zealous opponents of an American episcopate.’ Others can judge of this matter as well as he; and I appeal to every reader, whether he knows of many such persons. For my part I have never met with a sin­gle churchman, to my knowledge, or so much as heard of one, who zealously opposes, or has a disposition to make any opposi­tion at all to American bishops, since the plan has been publick­ly explained; excepting always the Whig's friend, the Ameri­can churchman, whose good manners, if he ever had any, have been miserably corrupted by evil communications. Now if by 'not a few' be meant a single person, and if the American be in reality a churchman; then indeed it must be allowed, that 'not a few' churchmen are ‘zealous opponents of an American episcopate.’

What he says of churchmen in Virginia, he offers with unu­sual diffidence and modesty; from whence the consequence is as clear as any in Euclid, that he is destitute of evidence to support it. the people of Virginia are so distant, that neither he nor I can be supposed to be competent judges of this matter. But Maryland is nearer; and both by persons and letters from thence, I am well assured, that the laity of that province are, in general, most impatiently desirous of an episcopate—that they declare themselves ready to join in a petition for that purpose—and willing to do every thing in their power in order to obtain it [...] [Page 298]And I see not what should make any great difference between the people of Virginia and Maryland in this respect, unless the nature of the proposed episcopate has not been so well under­stood and considered in the former of these Provinces. In a word I have yet met with no reasons for believing, that there is a churchman upon the continent, among the laity, who under­stands the subject, that has any inclination to oppose the episco­pate in question, (excepting as before excepted)—or, that there are any clergymen in America, who do not earnestly desire it, excepting those only who have reason to fear it.

After a sly grin at the fate of the late stamp-act, our Whig pecks at the foundation of the appeal: But it is in no danger from such efforts. The plan of an American piscopate was formed by those persons whose p [...]per business it was to form it. They well understood what they were doing, and needed not the instruction of American Whigs. This being the case, not 'the basis of the appeal,' but the basis of this attack, will ‘be found to be chimerical and absurd.’

But ‘is not all the power here contended for, in the hands of the clergy themselves? Why is the civil government called upon to interpose?’ If this sagacious gentleman is unable to discover the true reason of this, I will inform him; and I desire him to remember, that the clergy of the church of England choose to have the approbation of the government in all their proceedings. They also think it their duty, not to proceed in an affair of such consequence, before the nature of the measure is explained, and application has been made to the higher pow­ers for their consent and patronage. They would choose also to have the approbation of all people, of every denomination, both at home and in the colonies; not forgetting the American Whigs. For this reason the plan has been freely submitted to the inspection of the public, that all persons may see with their own eyes, that nothing is proposed or intended which can inter­fere with their interest or happiness.

In return for this open, candid and generous conduct, the elergy have been most illiberally slandered and abused. They have been represented as so many public liars, furious bigots, and enemies to their country. In the very paper now before me, the elegant and polite author of it, charges them with ‘unavowed ecclesiastical machinations,’ and more than insinuates, ‘that tho' the voice may be Jacob's voice, yet the hands are the hands of Esau’—having thought fit, for reasons well known to himself, to drop his original metaphor of the Sheep and the Wolf.

In the next paragraph, a supposition is first made of the exe­cution [Page 299]of the plan for an American episcopate, in the manner wherein it has been proposed; and then ‘the inhabitants of South-Britain,’ (for there are no Englishmen nor Scotsmen, since the act of union,) are introduced as reflecting and reasoning upon the matter, at such a rate, as none but American Whigs have ever reasoned. ‘The Americans, (they are taught to say) are a peo­ple tenacious of their liberty; who have successfully opposed the introduction of bishops, as political persons, dangerous to their civil and religious privileges, &c.’ In which passage it is conceded, that the episcopate now in dispute is the same which is stated in the appeal, contrary to what this writer has ever pre­tended:—This episcopate is supposed to be carried into execu­tion, under the sanction of an act of parliament:—The epis­copate of the appeal is thus established, in consequence of the American Whig's successful opposition to it:—And his oppo­sition to it consisted in his opposing the introduction of such bish­ops as the appeal had no concern with. Amidst this strange confusion of concessions and suppositions, the inhabitants of South-Britain are properly furnished with corresponding reflections.

But I am tired with the 'inconsistency and jargon' of this writer; for, which reason, I will leave him his concluding para­graph intire, with my free consent that he may make the best of it.

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE. July 11.



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.)

[Page 306]


—furor arma ministrat.


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.


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?

[Page 309]


DR. Chandler, in the name of his brethren, adduces the wretched condition of the episcopal church in the colo­nies, for want of regular government and discipline without bishops, as an argument for their introduction. He esteems it a great grievance, and unparrelled hardship, and a disadvantage of greater consequence than the want of confirma­tion; although he imagines that by that rite, the gracious assistances of the holy Spirit are communicated.

Wretched indeed is the condition of that church, which is destitute of regular discipline: But there is ground to suspect that the episcopal missionaries in America are no more affected with this consideration, than their brethren on the other side of the atlantic, who are in the same wretched condition, yet make no attempts to get the grievance redressed.

The reformation of their church in this article, is not among the happy consequences, which they can expect from the esta­blishment of bishops in this country. The argument is only thrown out to work on the ignorant, and to excite compassion among well minded persons, for their suffering, persecuted church; which their apologist, Dr. Chandler, artfully repre­sents as 'perishing for want of necessaries' The missionaries must allow, there is no necessary connection between the esta­blishment of diocesan bishops in a church, and the administra­tion of Godly discipline: That there may be discipline in a church, where there are no prelates: And that there may be bishops in a communion, destitute even of the shadow of regular discipline. With respect to the first of these, they see other churches around them without bishops, exercising discipline over their own members; and they know that the church of England in the midst of all their uncharitable pretensions to be the only true apostolic church, the propagators of the true religion, the best reformed church in the world, the preservers of the true Christian faith, worship, and discipline, is solemnly confessing to God from year to year, that they are destitute of a godly discipline,* although they are aided by a civil establishment, and supported by the authority, grandeur and opulence of prelates and other dignitaries.

[Page 310] That this is truly the situation of the church of England, has been often acknowledged by her most judicious and candid members. They ingenuously confess, that there is a great pro­stration of discipline in their church: That it is ruined among them:—That the distemper of the times is evidently too hard for it:—That the discipline of the church has not been car­ried to any degree of perfection; and now lies under a general relaxation:—That their people are often indulged in all their unreasonable demands, and disorderly ways, to prevent their executing their threats of going to the meeting —That they have only the form and shadow of discipline, but trust in God, that 'these dry bones will one day live.'—And Dr. Chand­ler himself gives a like mournful account of its discipline. 'Ex­communication,' says he, 'the utmost effect of the church's power in this world, 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. A disposition to slight the highest punishment which the church can inflict has become general, and there appears no remedy, but in the use of reason and persuasion. But we live in an age in which reason will not be heard, nor the strength of arguments regarded, although supported by the declarations of Heaven, on the subject of church discipline.' The Doctor and his brethren know that the test has broken down all the inclosures of the church of England, and has laid open her most holy things to the most abandoned and profane. Rakes, debauchees, blas­phemers of God, infidels and scoffers at all religion, are often seen on their knees at her communion tables, eating her chil­dren's bread to qualify them for a post: And dare the clergy re­fuse them? No; they dare not refuse the most impious blasphe­mer the three kingdoms afford, when he comes to demand the Lord's Supper, as a qualification for a post in the fleet or army.

It is also notorious that the English bishop himself is excluded from having any power even in his own court; where a chancellor, generally a lay-man, sits supreme and uncontrouled by the bishop, and finally determines who shall be excommunicated from, or received into Christian fellowship. If there be any thing, says a great prelate of the church of England, in the office of a bishop to be challenged peculiar to themselves, certainly it should be this; yet it is in a manner quite relinquished to their chan­cellors, [Page 311]Laymen, who have no more capacity to sentence or ab­solve a sinner, than to dissolve the Heavens or the Earth. And this pretended power is sometimes purchased with money. Their money perish with them! good God! What an horrid abuse is this of the divine authority. But this notorious trangression is excused, as they think, because a minister calle the bishop's Surrogate, but is indeed the Chancellor's servant, chosen, called and placed there by him, to be his cryer in the court, no better, when he has heard, examined and sentenced the cause, then this minister forsooth pronounces the sentence. Just as if the rector of a parish should exclude any of his congregation, and lock him out of his church, then comes the clerk, shews and jingles the keys that all may take notice he is excluded.* It is also well known, that in these courts, the most scandalous sinner is suf­fered to commute, to have pardon for money; nay, when he is going to be delivered over to Satan, or when he is actually de­liver'd over, and the Devil has him in keeping, an handsome sum of money will restore him again to the soft, indulgent bosom of the church. —

——At vos
Discite Pontifices, in sacris, quid facit aurum.
Per. sat. 2.

Such is the melancholy situation of the church of England with respect to her discipline, even in full possession of an esta­blishment by law, and supported by all the splendor and influ­ence of lordly prelates and dignified priests. Yet it is said the episcopal church in the colonies suffers unparallelled hardships, for want of regular discipline, because she is destitute of bishops. But can the missionaries seriously believe this grievance would be removed by the introduction of bishops? No such matter. They declare, by Dr. Chandler, that no reformation in this respect will be attempted: that the discipline of the church, as far as it relates to the private members, will be left it is, under the proposed episcopate. Discipline was not the thing they had in view, when they petitioned for bishops to be set over them. They are meerly to unite, govern, support and defend the clergy. More solicitous for the honour of an useless ecclesiastical superior to cut a figure at their head, than to edify their people by restoring the primitive discipline of the church; they propose a mutilated prelate, such as never yet appeared in the churches of Christ. It would seem that when these gentle­men took a trip to England in their youth for orders, they were captivated with the magnificence of the episcopal palaces, the [Page 312]glare of the bishop's equipage, and the splendor of their reti­nues, and have never been able to get over this youthful preju­dice: But are always dreaming of lawn sleeves, the square cup and mi [...]re; and lusting after the leeks and onions of Egypt, even in this land of freedom and liberty.

Why then are these pitiful lamentations made over the want of discipline in the episcopal church in America, and considera­tions drawn from it to induce their superiors at home to send over bishops, to rescue their sinking church from inevitable perdition. Let us see how prettily the argument will conclude, when re­duced to a logical form. The church in America, without resi­dent bishops, is necessarily destitute of a regular discipline and government: 'But the discipline of the church, as far as it re­lates to private members will be left as it is, and no attempts of this nature will be made under the proposed American episco­pate.' Therefore an American episcopate is necessary for the re­storation of primitive discipline of the church. One not so well acquainted with the rules of logic, as Dr. C. is, would have been apt to suspect that the conclusion should have been, that it was by no means necessary for the regular government of the church, as it would contribute nothing to the redress of this 'intolerable and unprecedented hardship.' Yet notwithstand­ing the obstinacy of the premises, the doctor it seems was not willing to lose the wished for conclusion, nor the opportunity of displaying his talents in painting his church in such doleful co­lours. In making such bitter lamentations over her want of dis­cipline, he seems to have consulted poorly for her reputation, and as wretchedly for the credit of her clergy, in avowing to the world, that no amendment is proposed in point of discipline, ex­cept as to the clergy, the laity being professedly left out of the plan.* This being the case, it is expected that Dr. Chandler, or the next apologist for his church, will soften these mournful com­plaints, and for their own sakes prepare a more favourable account of the state of discipline in their congregations, and of the disposition of the clergy to reform it: Otherwise the world will scarce believe their church to be the best reformed church in the world; the purest church under Heaven; the bulwark of the reformation; the pure apostolic church; and the church, by way of eminence and exclusion, as if there was no other in the Christian world.

By this time, it must appear pretty plain, that the argument taken from the prostration of discipline in the episcopal churches in America, is meerly a delusive piece of declamation, no ways connected with the scheme of an American episcopate. Nay, [Page 313]bishops would rather tye up the hands of the clergy, and pre­vent any thing being done of this sort, if we may judge from what passes in England. Had it not been for civil establishments, what could have prevented the reformation of many abuses in the church of England, which every good member sees with re­gret? Dr. Chandler, imputes it to the want of good sense and candour enough in the body of the nation.* But in this en­lightened age, especially as the things which call for amendment have been held up to public view, for more than a century past, by some of the greatest men of the established church, as well as others, in a very striking point of light; this cannot be the case. The root of the evil lies deeper, and must be sought for in the civil establishment; by which even the most distant hopes of re­formation in any thing material, are cut off. establishments in religion may make hypocrites and occasional conformists, when their seculiar interests lead them that way; but never do great service to true Christianity. This needs not the chains of earthly grandeur, nor the force of civil power to spread and establish it. High dignities and preferments; mitres and thrones; lordships and princely revenues have ever been injurious to its interests; and instead of improving, have dreadfully corrupted, and de­praved the religion of Jesus, and robb'd it of its native glory and strength. Ecclesiastical history in all ages lamentably bears witness to the justness of these remarks; yet the want of these things is now made an excuse for suffering discipline in the episco­pal church to remain relaxed and prostrate.

What can the episcopal ministers in the colonies have to say in excuse for themselves, if they criminally neglect restoring primi­tive discipline? Dr. C. confesses that presbyters may have a sub­ordinate power to govern the church, and enjoy a right to exclude from the Sacraments all publickly vicious members. In this country they are un-restrained by the difficulties which em­barrass the conscientious parish ministers in England, their enclo­sures are not laid open by a political test; and they enjoy every power which other churches in the colonies have. Why then should they despair of accomplishing what is daily done by o­thers? They profess to wish for it; why do they not attempt it by reason and persuasion, the only rational way in which it can be brought about? no discipline was more severe than that of the primitive church; yet it was all voluntary, and received no countenance from civil power.

But in truth, these people are, themselves, little affected with the pathetic complaints, they make for want of a regular disci­pline. [Page 314]These are thrown out meerly to excite the public pity, and to skroen themselves from the charge of supine negligence, in not attempting to restore it; under an idle pretence that they want bishops to effect it for them. Yet at the same time they are so weak and inconsistent, as to declare that no attempts to re­store discipline, will be made under the proposed episcopate.

[Here No. XV. of the Whip for America Whig, being in Dutch is omitted.]

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE. July 18.


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.

DOR [...]RACEN [...]IS.
[Page 321]


Omn [...] tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.


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.

[Page 324]


WHEN designing men have any schemes to execute, which may be prejudicial to the rights and privileges of others, reasons, different from those which really influence them, are contrived and thrown out to amuse the populace, and to divert their attention from the consequences, that may follow from the execution of their schemes. This seems to be the poli­cy of the episcopal missionaries, in their attempts to introduce bishops into the American colonies.

In our last Centinel, we considered their idle pretence of the want of discipline, as it is urged by Dr. C. as an argument in favour of the proposed episcopate, We will now consider ano­ther artifice to gild the disagreeable pill that it may be swal­lowed without suspicion, namely, that these new bishops are to have no power over the laity.

It is well known, there are among the laity, many moderate members of the episcopal communion, who detest spiritual do­mination, as much as others, and who are as tenacious of their civil and religious liberties, as the members of any other church, and therefore likely to be alarmed at this dangerous innovation. Lest these should proceed on the supposition, that to prevent the yoke from being fixed upon them, it was the safest way to oppose the scheme, of introducing these new masters into the co­lonies, they are first deprived of their natural right of being consulted on the important article, and then they are amused with the false and inconsistent hopes of being entirely ex­empted from the jurisdiction of the American bishops. We call it an in [...]onsistent hope, as it is contradictory not only to the known sentiments of the English episcopal church, but also to the sentiments of every other Christian church in the world. This plan of American bishops is a mere novel invention, with­out any parallel in history either sacred or profane, since the first establishment of a church upon earth; and yet no doubt, some zealous clergy will tell us, it is the pure apostolic plan. It seems strange, indeed, that the clergy of the church of Eng­land, who are, doubtless, Dr. C's superiors at home, who have settled this plan, (if indeed they ever settled it) should deviate so much from the model of their own and of every other Christian church, as well as from the discipline prescribed in the scripture. A church, whose members are exempt from the government of [Page 325]its officers, is what no age can furnish an example of. The in­consistency, therefore, of this plan with the known principles of the church of England, give grounds to suspect that Dr. C. has not given us the plan on which bishops are to be sent to America, with that openness and candour that might have been expected.

But this is not the only reason we have to suspect, that there is something more at the Bottom, than what Dr. C. seems wil­ling to confess. Sundry passages in the appeal (where Dr. C. was off his Guard and therefore expressed the true sentiments of his heart) seem to convince us, that the laity must yield obedi­ence to the new spiritual lords, and subject their unpractised necks to the ecclesiastical yoke preparing for them. We shall point out some of these.

‘The church, says he, considered with relation to civil power, being in the very nature of it a voluntary society, it is left to men's consciences, whether they will become members of it or not. But after they are become members of it, the laws of the church are in force against them, and they are subject in ecclesi­astical matters to the authority of those who govern it. What the just penalties of disobedience are, we may learn from the na­ture of the church itself. The utmost effect of its power in this world is the cutting off and rejecting such members, as are incureably and dangerously corrupted.’ * Let the world, to which the doctor appeals, judge how consist­ent this is with the declaration, ‘That the American bishops are to have no authority, nor indeed to exercise any discipline over their own people, the clergy excepted.’ Let but bishops be once introduced to govern the clergy, and the laity will soon hear it asserted, and probably feel it to their cost, ‘That from the very nature of the church, its laws are in force against them, and they are and must be subject to the authority of those who govern it.’

Again Dr. C. tells us, ‘When bishops were first proposed or requested for this country, they were mentioned under the title of suffragans. This is no ambiguous term, it has a fixed and determinate meaning in the Laws of England, and cannot be mistaken. Suffragan bishops are the same with those, that were Chorespiscopi or bishops of the country, in the primitive church; and it is their business to exercise all offices merely episcopal, in the [...]ot [...] parts of the diocese, wherein they re­side, [Page 326]according to the direction, and by virtue of a com­mission from the diocesan.’ Is it then no part of the episco­pal office to govern the laity? Are they no part of the episcopal charge? Are they not the flock, over whom the Holy-Ghost has made them bishops?* If it is a suffragan bishop that is requested for America, whose power to govern the laity of the diocese is fixed and determined by the laws of England, with what confidence can Dr. C. and his brethren abuse the members of their own church, with the fond hopes of being exempted from his government and jurisdiction? Is it not an office merely episcopal to take notice of and to punish the irregular and scan­dalous behaviour of the members of the church, to take cogni­zance of scandal and causes matrimonial? If these suffragan bishops must hold their commissions from the bishop of London, or any other bishop in England, and discharge all parts of the episcopal office in the colonies, as being remote parts of his lordship's diocese, and if his power is fixed and determined by the laws of England, it is plain beyond contradiction, that the desire of the missionaries is to have such suffragan bishops import­ed into America, as shall have authority to exercise all the powers given them by the laws of England, although D. C. is obliged to confess that some of these ecclesiastical laws bear hard upon British liberty and need an amendment. The colonies in America, it seems, are to be made a part of some English bish­op's (it may be the bishop of London's) diocese, and the power and authority of his suffragan is to be reverentially submitted to, and acknowledged in as full and ample a manner as is specified in the English laws, by all that reside in this new erected diocese. In vain therefore, will the laity expect (if they disoblige the cler­gy) to escape the ‘utmost effects of the church's power in this world;’ happy for them, should their poverty hinder them to commute and purchase a pardon, if they escape her power in world to come; and if her excommunicated members are not made to feel, after death, or on the other world, the due effects of her sore displeasure. 'excommunication,' it is true, has, among protestants, lost much of the dreadful force' it once had in the Romish church, but Dr. C. it would seem by his modest hint, is not without hopes or at least without desire of 'restoring' it in America. Happy will it be for Americans if 'this power of the church' be confined to those who willingly 'become mem­bers of it.' There is reason to fear, that the members of every other communion will feel the effects of it, in this remote part of [Page 327]his lordship's diocese, when his suffragan bishops come over here ‘with as full and complete authority over the clergy as the laws and canons direct.’ For although it may appear miraculous, that a church should excommunicate or cast out those that never did belong to her; yet we know that the church of England daily works such miracles; and we have no reason to doubt, that the suffragan who is 'to discharge all episcopal offices' will exhi­bit in America the same evidences of his apostolic descent.

But lest there should remain any doubt about the power of this American suffragan, or the plan, upon which he was first re­quested for the benefit of the colonies, the whole affair is settled with sufficient precision, in the words of the supplicants, as Dr. C. has recorded them.§ Their request was 'that such gover­nors in the church should be constituted' in America. '1st. to rule and govern well the people, who are desirous to be com­mitted to their charge, without which (they are the very words of the supplicants) no wonder if some members grow remiss in their duty, if many fall into scandalous practices; and if atheism, deism, &c. prevail over more,' '2dly, protect and defend both laity and clergy.' Their power and business as set forth in the abstract quoted p, 52 is to 'govern both priests and people ac­cording to the model of the English church.' This was the plan, upon which suffragan bishops were first requested and to be esta­blished in America; and Dr. C. says, 'he knows not of a single instance, wherein reason has been given to suspect that a depart­ure from the same general plan has been aimed at or desired.'*

The power then of these suffragans is to rule and govern both priests and people, according to the model of the English church; to govern well the people, who are members of their church and put under their care; to correct remissness in duty, scandalous practices, atheism, deism, &c. and yet if we believe Dr. C. 'their authority shall operate only upon the clergy and not up-the laity, or dissenters of any denomination.'

Another thing I would just remark. It is agreed on all hands, that the American bishop is to govern the clergy. Dr. C. tells us 'his power over them shall be as full and as complete as the laws and canons of the church directs, and yet that 'spi­ritual courts will never be established here.' What is this but to say, that an arbitrary spiritual jurisdiction, unknown in the British constitution, and abhorrent to the rights of freemen is asked and about to be established in America. Alas for the poor clergy; if, when their characters and livings are in question, they must hear from the mouth of a proud ecclesiastic, sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.

[Page 328]

From Mr. GAINE'S GAZETTE. July 25.


Here march my Grammarians, skilled to torture words; there my Sons of sophistry, ever ready to wrest a meaning,


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.’


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,

Your very humble Servant, PRO ARIS.

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.

MR. Tickle's compliments to PRO ARIS,—is much obliged to him for his kind offer,—acknowledges the writing, but cannot call to mind the person of his friend; who is therefore re­quested to leave his address at the printer's, Mr. Tickle having something of importance to communicate.

From Mr. PARKER'S GAZETTE. July 25.


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.

[Page 334]

A letter from one of the society's Missionaries in America, to one of his Majesty's Chaplains.


THE cause of the church in America is so sacred and interesting a point, that every faithful friend to it, who even ventures to wish himself able to contribute the least in its favour, discovers a well affected zeal to express his affection, and intreat the promotion of it. This indeed more evidently appears in the clergy, where it ought to appear; having the concurrence of all, from whom the best wishes, and their religious needs in the present imper­fect state which they enjoy, the church can only be expected to strengthen and enforce the common plea; and also the adjuvant agency of others, that are conspicuous enough to afford some encouragement from their endeavours, spirited by that ardent af­fection for the church, which the faith of the invaluable trea­sure she contains in her divine apostolic authority and constitu­tion, and the wholesome doctrines she dispences in the scriptures, animates. The clergy of several of the provinces have respec­tively transmitted addresses to the throne, and some of the chief dignitaries of the church, and the incorporated society, for an American episcopate, to engage as extensive an interest in the affair as might be practicable; particulars have thought it expedient, and have applied to such persons as might, and from whom they had good grounds to hope, would be useful in a case so greatly beneficial to us, and the act so highly charitable to them; solicitous to bear a part in every effort of this kind, joint as well as separate, I take the freedom to propose the subject to you, as what I am persuaded must be esteemed by you, sufficient to me­rit your closest attention; the cause is sacred to the honour of God, and the souls of men: We also apprehend it so to the health of the constitution; a consideration proper to be attend­ed to, in these distant parts of his majesty's dominions; and what is conceived may be advantageously improved, as the ar­guments in favour of it, may be more pointedly urged and en­forced upon the minds of different persons, as they shall be in­clined to regard the church, in a religious or civil view; or both together. Your connections with some of the nobility, and with his majesty's chaplains, is apprehended to place you in a situation kind to this purpose; and this cherishes hopes of your readiness and ability, to be useful among those in this particular business. If the important affairs of the established church, could be properly laid before, and submitted to, the considera­tion of the duke of Chandois, and the earl of Carnarvon, in a [Page 335]point of view just and necessary; their interest in the dignities and prerogatives of the crown, and the royal government of the kingdom, exclusive of a pious regard to the true church of Christ, might possibly excite their deliberations, and lead them to do that essential good service, their superior discretion may deem practicable, to a cause that supplicates every charitable aid and assistance; and which is impregnated with such principles, as is most likely, in its fruits, richly to reward the exertions of those, in the security of their dignity and peace, who labour to promote it: By such an attempt executed by you, as shall ap­pear judicious and suitable, it is imagined may be discovered, how they are disposed, or by what means may be stirred up to a disposition, previously languid and wanting; and also what no­tice and help, we, in these parts, may expect to receive from that quarter.—Upon trial, if any good encouragements are offered, that will give licence for an importunate and respectful address, I dare venture to say, it will be most eagerly embraced; and you yourself be waited upon in a manner more respectable. Should you think proper to do this, it is most earnestly to be wished, you would also use your endeavours, to influence the rest of his majesty's chaplains, to bestir themselves, among the circle of their respective acquaintance, to render the cause diffu­sive; and spirit as many as may be, seriously and conscientiously to weigh the sacred suffering cause of the church of God, which even a cursory reflection will openly shew, how it needs must do here; while we are in a state imperfect and destitute, in a great measure, of that office and administrations, which our Lord has appointed in his church. It must be supposed that they, agreeable to the divine commission they have received in our excellent church, were led to do holy service at her altar, from the dictates and persuasives of a well directed conscience: How then, with deference I observe, can they, in the faith of Christ's authority, administer in her appointments as faith