efit of Habeus Corpus: suspended and confined archbishop Abbot, because he would not license a sermon that asserted despotic power, whatever other cause was pretended: he suspended the bishop of Gloucester for refusing to swear never to consent to alter the government of the church supported all his arbitrary ministers against the Parliament, telling them, he "wondered at the foolish impudence of any one to think he would part with the meanest of his servants upon their account." And indeed, in his speeches, or rather menaces, he treated them like his footmen, calling them undutiful, seditious, and vipers: he brought unbeard-of innovations into the church, preferred men of arbitrary principles, and inclinable to Popery, especially those firebrands Laud, Montague, and Manwaring; one of whom had been complained of in Parliament, another impeached for advancing Popery, and the third condemned in the House of Lords: he dispensed with the laws against Papists, and both encouraged and preferred them: he called no Parliament for twelve years together, and in that time governed as arbitrarily as the Grand Seignior: he abetted the Irish massacre, as appears by their producing a commission under the great seal of Scotland; by the letter of Charles the Second in favour of the marquis of Antrim; by his stopping the succours that the Parliament sent to reduce Ireland, six months under the walls of Chester; by his entering into a treaty with the rebels, after he had engaged his faith to the Parliament to the contrary; and bringing over many thousands of them to fight against his people.

"Upon pretence of the Spanish and French war, he raised many thousand men, who lived upon free quarter, and robbed and destroyed wherever they came but being unsuccessful in his wars abroad, and pressed by the clamours of the people at home, he was forced to disband them. In 1627 he sent over 30,000l. to Holland, to raise 3000 German horse to force his arbitrary taxes; but this matter taking wind, and being examined by the Parliament, orders were sent to countermand them. In the 15th year of his reign, he gave a commission to Strafford to raise 8000 Irish to be brought into England: But before they could get hither, the Scots were in arms for the like oppressions, and marched into Northumberland; which forcing him to call a Parliament, prevented that design, and so that army was disbanded. Soon after he raised an army in England to oppose the Scots, and tampered with them to march to London, and dissolve the Parliament: but this army being composed, for the most part, of the militia, and the matter being communicated to the house, who immediately fell on the officers that were members, as Ashburnham, Wilmot, Pollard, &c. the design came to nothing."

I could quote much more from the same pamphlet; but, to use the words of the author, "it is endless to enumerate all the oppressions of his reign." What think you, holy father, of the panegyrics made upon such a prince for almost a century past by the clergy, or of the clergy who made and make those panegyrics either upon him or Laud?

I think nothing is more manifest, than that in those days there was a settled purpose both in the court and in the churchmen, to overturn the reformation and the constitution, nay, each of these designs was. well-nigh accomplished; and it was already the fashion, not only to treat such who adhered to the law, against the violence and mad max

ims which then prevailed, as traitors; but the name of traitors and rebels were, by Laud's followers and creatures, bestowed upon our first pious reformers; and with the reformation itself great faults were found, especially with those parts of it which retrenched the wealth and power of the clergy. Popish ceremonies were daily restored, with the bowings, grimaces, pictures, and forms usually seen at Popish chapels and masses; and all men were persecuted, many ruined, who opposed such scandalous innovations, tending only to advance superstition and priestcraft.

Why many of these innovations, and such defection from the reformation still continue, I leave you, holy Father, to consider and explain; I desire this of you, the rather, for that I am told, that you often hold up your hands, and wonder how clergymen can, by their writings, contradict what they have once subscribed.

That you should wonder at this, is indeed matter of wonder. Is there one of you that conforms to the genuine sense, or even to the words of the articles? Are not these articles Calvinistical? Were they not composed by Calvinists? And are you not now, and have been long, all Arminians? And do you not preach and write against the Presbyterians who defend predestination, which is one of your own articles?

Will you say that articles, will you say that oaths, are to be taken in a sense different from the words, different from the meaning of those who compose them? if you do, then you maintain that Papists, nay, that Mabometans may subscribe our Protestant articles, and be still Mahometans and Papists; and that Jacobites may take the state oaths, and be still Jacobites.

What subscriptions or declarations, or indeed what other ties can bind men, who, after they have solemnly testified that they are called by the Holy Ghost, yet subscribe the direct contrary to what they believe, subscribe the doctrines of Calvin, yet remain antagonists to Calvin? Is this practice, this solemn assertion of a falsehood, for the honour of religion, or of churchmen? Or, is it not the direct method to barden men against truth and conscience, and to turn holy things into contempt? Yet you still go on to subscribe those articles, still to disbeneve and contradict them, yet never attempt to alter or abolish them. Does such contradictory doings shew any regard for religion, or for truth or decency?

After such departure from the doctrinal articles, you cannot with any decency blame such who differ from your notions about church power and discipline. The church and constitution of England neither owns nor knows any clergyman but such who derive all their power from the law. All others are pretenders, or rather deserters, and would be usurpers, if the laity and the law would let them. Such clergymen therefore as disclaim all power, and pomp, and revenue whatsoever, but what the law and laymen give them, are the only clergy that layinen ought to reverence, or indeed acknowledge. All the rest, who assert a prior right, and have superior demands, should be considered as lurking enemies, or bold invaders, and carefully watched and resisted. Nor is it small want of modesty in you, and such as are like you, to censure such clergymen as adhere to the law and constitution, whilst you assume to yourselves a latitude to dissent from your very

articles, with spiritual characters and powers superior to the law, and independent upon it.

Can any layman, who has common sense, or common notions of truth and liberty, bear with patience a spirit so arrogant, with such a saucy and inconsistent behaviour? Far different, and indeed quite opposite was the spirit of the reformation. Nor is reverence due to any clergyman in whom this last spirit is not found. Neither are they at all clergymen of the church of England, in whom the contrary spirit is found. Can any layman be at a moment's loss to know, what sort of clergymen are most useful and amiable to him; they who set up to command him, and consequently to put chains upon him; or they who claim only the liberty to instruct and advise him, and therefore leave him still as free as he was before?

Be pleased also, holy Father, to instruct me in the nature and efficacy of absolution. Is it authoritative, and proceeding from the power of the priest only? or is it conditional, and only a declaration that God will accept, or hath accepted sincere repentance? If God pardons upon repentance, what force is in absolution, or what use, further than to ease poor sinners, by assuring them, that if they have repented, God has forgiven them? If this be all, any man, even the sinner himself, may pronounce such a declaration upon himself. Or does God stay to forgive, even after repentance, till the priest pronounces absolution? If so, has not the priests a greater share than God in saving men; nay, a superior power, if his part comes first, and his absolution takes place of, and introduces God's pardon? If repentance suffices without a priest, or absolution, then what signifies either upon such occasion, further than for a declaration of comfort? And without repentance, what avails absolution? Will you say that it avails? Or has our blessed Saviour ever said so? You must needs know what extravagant positions, and what impious claims of power, have been confidently derived from this privilege of priests to pronounce absolution, as if it inferred a power to damn and save; though it be really no more than what any man may pronounce to another, or to himself, or to many, if they desire it, or will hear it. Has not this therefore, as well as many other pious practices, been horribly abused and perverted by the ungodly craft of selfish priests?

Whilst I am giving you all this trouble, and tiring you with so many questions, permit me, holy Father, to mix a little comfort with so much freedom and importunity. I am told that your ease and rest are greatly interrupted and broken, by the increase and prevalence of free thinking. Be not too much frightened; the mob and the many will always be orthodox, always true to the church, to holy days, and pious rioting, for reasons too apparent to need mention. The number of free thinkers, that is, of men who bring all things to the bar and trial of right reason, can never be so very great as justly to alarm the clergy, can never greatly diminish the majority of a country, who will always be of the church in vogue, always have religion, if not that of reason and nature, yet surely that of authority, and of the priesthood, who are themselves always conformable to establishments and tithes, and the prevailing faith.

I doubt it will not be equally pleasing to you, to be told, at least to have the public told, that it is by no means free thinking which fills the

gaols, or loads the gallows, or even peoples Exchange Alley, or increases public or private knavery, or contributes at all towards it. Was the South Sea scheme the effect of free thinking? Sir John Blunt was a great saint, and frequenter of the ordinances; nor were any of his confederates suspected of deism. Was it free thinking that contrived or promoted national massacres, that of Ireland or of Paris? Has it produced or assisted the inquisition or persecution? Was the monk St. Dominic a free thinker, or was Bishop Laud one? Has free thinking encouraged, or have free thinkers perpretrated particular murders or assassinations? Was Ravillac a free thinker, or was he who murdered the prince of Orange? Or was he one who offered to murder the late king? Are the banditti and assassins in Italy free thinkers? Are not these villains good catholics, and frequenters of churches? Do any of our own thieves die tree thinkers? Do they not generally die good churchmen, catholic or protestant, and always of some religion? Was the famous murderess, Sarah Malcolm, a free thinker? Did she die one, or declare that she had lived one ?

No; holy father! Free thinking has no proselytes in Newgate or Exchange Alley. I doubt it will be found that it is not free thinking that steals in shops, or cheats behind counters, or robs houses, or cuts throats. Nor is it free thinking that absolves criminals of any sort, much less traitors and assassins; nor consequently encourages such crimes. I could, had I time, enlarge with success on this subject, and convince all men, that free thinking disclaims all alliance with vice and mobs, and dissolute men; and leaves all knaves, profligates and hypocrites, to conformity and creeds, and the numerous train of orthodoxy.

It seems you have likewise found great evils occasioned by people's not coming to church. My own opinion is, that when people find themselves edified by going, they will go; when they are not edified, their going avails not. If the people had the choice of their own ministers, as in the primitive times they had, 'tis more than probable they would go oftener. But when they neither like the man nor the matter, 'tis not likely that they will hear either. I was therefore surprized to hear that some of your scouts and humble agents, (employed, I suppose, to try the pulse of the public) have mentioned compulsory laws, still in force, to oblige people to go to church. Pray, can you reconcile such a law, if there be one, to the principles and laws of toleration? Could any such law be at first procured but by the solicitations of the persecuting clergy? Or could any but persecutors solicit such a law? Is it just or Christian, to force any man to hear what, or whom he likes not ? Would a high churchman care to be forced to hear a Presbyterian preacher, suppose in a country where there were no other, as in Geneva ? And should he not do as he would be done by? No penal laws whatsoever were, or ever could be prompted by a Christian spirit. And besides this consideration, I wonder how any man can contend for the continuance of tests and penalties here in England, as you do, and yet be against the exercise of such in Scotland. ▾ Is this equal justice, or equal charity?

I should be quite too tedious to my readers and myself (to you, holy father, I fear I have been so already) should I but touch every topic that deserves your animadversion, and that of the public. I cannot

forbear mentioning one practice, very common amongst you churchmen, though it be destitute of all candor, of all truth and charity. Whenever any clerical folly, or artifice, or usurpation, or false position, is attacked, he who does so, scarce ever fails of being accused, of baving attacked whatsoever is serious and sacred; and he is confidently charged with irreligion, though he has evidently espoused and defended religion against such as had profaned it, and blended it with superstition and power.

This method of yours may have some effect upon the vulgar; but with men of sense, it hurts you, by discovering what you mean by things serious and sacred. If by these words you understood only the gospel, and conscience, and the duties enjoyed by either, you could have taken no offence at any writings which commend and vindicate Christianity, and only expose what weakens and defaces it, even the pride, and violence of domineering and superstitious priests. That there are such priests, I presume you will not deny; nor that such priests act not in all things, or indeed hardly in any, upon the foot and motives of the gospel.

That my late sermon is entirely upon the Christian scheme, and in the Christian stile, I aver, and every man may perceive; and therefore no man, who regards Christianity and civil liberty, can possibly dislike it. What it attacks, is clerical wantonness, clerical superstition and fury, tyranny and usurpation both in the state and in the church. If therefore, that sermon provoke you, it is manifest what pleases you, what you approve and what you pursue. For myself, I can say truly, and therefore boldly, that my writings are entirely conformable to the religion and laws of my country: nor can any impartial judge affirm of that sermon, or of any performance of mine, what I have often heard the ablest lawyers in this nation affirm of a bulky performance of yours, that it is a libel upon the laws and constitution of England, and ought to be burned by the hand of the common hangman.

Here I humbly bend my knee, holy father, and kissing your vestment, subscribe myself with profound adoration,

Your Great Admirer,

And Dutiful Son,

A LAYMAN.

Lincoln's Inn, March 8, 1732-3.