awful and perilous times, in which we live, every unprejudiced perfon will readily acknowledge, that the religious and political principles which are inftilled into the rifing generation, are of the utmost confequence to the future happiness and well-being of mankind. I perfectly agree with your correfpondent in the concluding fentiment of his letter, and am of opinion the charge he has brought against the "young pupil mongers of Eton," is a very serious one, and ought by all means to be fatisfactorily cleared up for the honour of the parties implicated in the charge, and for the fecurity of the principles of thofe who may be committed to their charge.

With the warmest good withes for the profperity of that true, genuine, and pure religion profeffed by the Church of England, and for a blefling upon all your endeavours and thofe of your coadjutors, in maintaining her righteous caufe," I remain, entlemen,

I

Sept. 6, 1802,

Your obedient and very humble fervant,

CLERICUS.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

I

Obferved with fome pain the commencement of a fingular and needlefs controversy, between one of your correfpondents who figns himfelf "A North Briton," and the worthy LONDON CURATE." I have a very great respect for the Scotch Epifcopal Church, and I do perfectly agree with your correfpondent and Mr. Daubeny, that he is a true member of the Apoftolical Visible Church of Chrift, notwithstanding any legislative act of man, by which the hath been "fhorn of her beams." am, moreover, thoroughly convinced that no orders are valid, spiritually confidered, but thofe which are epifcopally conveyed. It will follow, therefore, that the novelties of the Genevan, the Knoxian, the Dordtian, or, in one word, the Prefbyterian Difcipline are, in my account, things of nought. I am tolerably verfant in the Church Hiftory of Great Britain, North and South, and perceive with deep concern and indignation, that there is now at work the fame leaven of pharifaic puritanifm, which in former times effected the ruin, firft of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and afterwards that of her fifter, the Church of England. Having premised thus much, I humbly conceive, that both your zealous correspondents will readily permit me to moderate between them, fenfible as they muft be, that we are linked in the fame bonds, and actuated by the fame principles.

And now what is this mighty fubject which has fo extremely ruffled the paffions of our Northern Brother? Truly, nothing more than this: the writer of Dr. Mayo's Memoirs, when noticing the Doctor's liberality, expreffed himself thus: "The proper Presbyterian who differs from our Church only in matters of discipline, he knew how to value juftly." On this the North Briton remarks, that the proper Prefbyterian" differs doctrinally from the Church of England, as well as in matters of discipline, and refers us to Calvin's Inftitutes, and the Affembly's Confeffion of Faith, in proof of it. This, however, is not ftrictly correct, for the remonftrants, who oppofed predeftination and its confequences, were as properly Prefbyterians as their adverfaries, and yet they were esteemed by many zealous, learned, and orthodox English prelates. Calvinism and Prefbyterianifm are therefore not neceffarily, though frequently connected. It is fo far true, that the Confeflion of Faith and the Catechifms of the Vol. III. Churchm. Mag. Oct. 1802. G Church

Church of Scotland, (which, by the bye, were drawn up by that precious junto of fchifmatics, called the Affembly of Divines, at Westminster, in 1646) are in perfect unifon with the doctrines of Calvin: but the North Briton knows that most of the Prefbyterians, both in Scotland and England, have long fince renounced the rigid fenfe of the pofitions contained in their Confeffion and Catechifins. The generality of ftrict Calvinists are Independents, Seceders, and Methodists of various defcriptions.

I could have wished that our Northern brother had been satisfied with the judicious explanation which the London Curate gave of his expreffion, and of Dr. Mayo's fentiments, in your Magazine for June, p. 312. At a time like this, when the Church is furrounded by violent enemies, and has within her bofom fo many false friends, it is a pity there should be any contentions among brethren. The prefent has proved merely a ftrife about words, while both parties are perfectly agreed about fubftantial things, and even about perfons. Dr. Mayo, like a liberal and intelligent man, when viewing the heterogeneous mass of diffenters in this country, knew how to felect the better from the worse, and to treat them accordingly.

This is the jet of the matter; and nothing more ought to be faid about it. The little word only, indeed, in the obnoxious paragraph, might as well have been omitted; but even as it ftands it can do no mifchief. Watts, and Doddridge, I believe, differed from the Church of England only in matters of difcipline, and with fuch men I certainly should have been happy in cultivating an acquaintance; and I fay the fame thing now of many very learned and moderate and loyal minifters of the Kirk of Scotland. But with the hot-headed profcribing zealots who confine the "Church of Chrift" within the paling of their own narrow and gloomy inventions, I fhould be extremely unwilling to affociate.

As an Epifcopalian of the old fashioned ftamp, I can feel fympathetically for my brethren of the Scotch Epifcopal Church; I respect their piety, their patience, and their firmnefs, apoftolical virtues which muft entitle them to the esteem and admiration of every true Chriftian.—I know alfo that their fufferings have been unmeritedly great, and that the iron rod of Prefbyterian oppreffion long hung heavy, very heavy upon them. God knows my heart; but I think I can truly fay, that if Providence had placed me on the other fide of the Tweed, in the darkest and moft afflicted ftate of the Scotch Epifcopal Church, I fhould chearfully have caft in my lot with her, Ichufing rather to endure affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of fin for a season."

66

Hoping that this too-much lengthened difpute will now be terminated, that the North Briton, inftead of finding fault with every peccadillo he may meet with in the writings of orthodox men, will turn his talents to the attack of our common adverfaries, and that the LONDON CURATE may perfevere in his laudable courfe of expofing the artifices of Schifmatics, and in defending the truth, I beg leave to conclude myself, their and your fincere friend and well wither,

October 9, 1802.

SIR,

IOTA.

I WAS fome time ago told by a friend, that the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine for June laft, of which you are, I prefume, the publisher, contained an affertion, which may eventually prove injurious to me. And

as

as the affertion I allude to, is entirely deftitute of truth, I think it but justice, and I flatter myself you will agree with me, publicly to contradi&t it. In page 319, of the above mentioned Number, your correfpondent, in his Remarks on the late Duke of Bedford, obferves, "Now I declare, on the information of his Parith Prieft, that his Grace never once entered his Parish Church, for the fake of worship." As I have for these three years paft acted in that capacity, the world muft naturally think that it has a reference to me. And how in that cafe your correspondent can make such an affertion, I am utterly at a lofs to form any conjecture. I folemnly declare that I never uttered fuch a thing, for if I had, I should have afferted a falfhood. For his Grace did attend divine fervice in this his Parish Church, during the time that I have officiated-not, as your correspondent uncharitably observes, to give directions to his workmen, to beautify the Church, but out of a regard to God. And I have it in my power to declare from good authority, that had his life been prolonged, it was his intention, after the completion of its repairs, to be a more regular attendant. I am, Sir, Woburn, Bedfordshire, Your humble fervant,

Oct. 17, 1802.

JOHN PARRY.

P. S. In addition to what I afferted about the Duke of Bedford having attended his duty at this Parish Church, I know from indisputable autho rity, that he has taken the Sacrament.*

I

DISSENTERS' CHARITY SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

Obferved the following paragraph in the Publicans Paper of October 2, -"Thursday last the Seventh Anniversary for the cloathing and educating of the poor children belonging to the Tower Hamlet CharitySchool, was held at the Mermaid Tavern, Hackney, where upwards of 120 fubfcribers and other gentlemen attended. Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. was in the chair, who fubfcribed twenty guineas. By the other gentlemen present, the whole of the contribution amounted to upwards of 1501." -I fhould be glad to be informed where this School is fituated? There is a Methodistico-Diffenter's School in Mile-End New Town, attached to the meeting-house of a Mr. Cottingham; which has been fometimes called Mile-End New Town Chapel; as if it were a Chapel of Eafe to the Parish Church of St. Dunstan, Stepney.-This is a trick which is often played with fuccefs on the ignorant. They go in the fimplicity of their hearts to what is oftenfibly an adjunct of the Church; nominally a Chapel, but fubftantially a Schifm-fhop ;-here their principles are perverted from the pulpit, though the Liturgy is read in a garbled form from the desk ;· and they who left the Church at first through mistake, never enter it again through the diftaste excited in their hearts against it.—I am forry to tell you, gentlemen, that both Mr. Mainwaring's and Mr. Byng's name appears in the lifts of Vice-Prefidents of the foi difunt Mile-End New Town Charity School! I cannot help thinking, that the School mentioned in the paragraph above, is the fame with this. If fo, what have Meffrs. Mainwaring and Byng gained by becoming Vice-Prefidents of a school, * Our correspondent is called upon to answer this flat denial of his affertion, and our honour and credit, he is refpectfully requested to do so. fet

for

G g 2

EDITORS.

fet up in direct hoftility to the Church? They are not Diffenters. There could be nothing of religious principle in this measure-and now they fee how little it has promoted their political intereft ;-Sir Francis's auguft prefence, and twenty guineas-(for this is neither treating nor bribing) has given him a decided fuperiority over them both.

"THE CHILD UNBORN WILL RUE THE DAY" IN WHICH THE LAWS AGAINST DISSENTING SCHOOL-MASTERS WERE REPEALED.

If no hoftility against the Church be meant, why this multiplication of fchools? There is not a parish in the Tower Hamlets, but has its Charity School; and, therefore, if the education of poor children be alone intended-to increase the funds of the existing schools, and enable them to receive more scholars would fuffice.-But no. That were to fide with the Church. And therefore the Philological School muft parade the streets annually-which feems a rival to Chrift's Hospital itfelf-and the Tower Hamlets, or the Mile-End New Town Charity Schools must be set up in opposition to the Charity Schools in the neighbourhood.

Oct. 5, 1802.

I am, gentlemen, your's, &c.

VIGILANT.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

ILL

LLNESS, and a series of avocations have, for fome time, prevented my taking advantage of your kind indulgence.

After what you haye faid of R. H.'s principles and authorship, I shall only obferve, that I hope he will grow wifer by the benefit of your admonitions.

What encroachments the Diffenters in general are defirous of making, I believe, is very well known. I, who am mafter of a free grammar fchool, founded in the reign of Richard the Second, find myself, for peace fake, compelled to admit the children of Anabaptifts, Methodists, and Prefbyterians, who have hitherto been allowed to follow the cuf tomary mode of education; but now, a minifter of the former fect is endeavouring to create a fchifm in our feminary, by importunately requesting that his fons may neither learn our Catechifm, nor attend Church on Sundays with the reft of my pupils! To whom I have replied, that I cannot confent to fuch an innovation; wherefore, he has removed his boys for the prefent, and, I understand, is determined to complain of me to the Lord Chancellor ! It is but lately that fome matters, relative to this inftitution, were before his Lordship, and he heard, with astonishment, that this man pretended to have a claim of placing his boys under my tuition, with a view of getting the ftipend, viz. fix pounds a year to every youth, who is appointed to wear the academical habit. His Lordfhip having already been informed of such an unprecedented attempt to throw the school into diforder, I would perfuade myself, that my antagonist will not, at length, meet with the fuccefs, which he feems to expect. I fhall efteem it a peculiar favor, gentlemen, if you will vouchfafe to confider my conduct, and candidly beftow a few hints in regard to the difficulties of my fituation.

Your devoted humble fervant,

ECCLESIE ANGLICANE AMICUS.

To

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. GENTLEMEN,

FROM the profeffions made by the managers of the Chriftian Obferver,

I thought they would conduct themfelves with liberality as critics, especially when they were fo eager in cenfuring other periodical reviewers. In their laft Number, they have entered into an examination of the Bishop of London's Lectures; but how cold are they in their commendations, and how ready to find out inaccuracies in that excellent work! The Bifhop had said, and truly said, that the direction" to do all things to the glory of God," is to be reckoned among the figurative precepts; for if taken in a literal fense, it would be impoffible for us to continue a week longer in the world." On this the fqueamish critics are very feriously alarmed, left the Bishop's affertion fhould "lead fome of his readers into a dangerous error, respecting a fundamental principle of duty." Really, gentlemen, I cannot help fmiling at the gloomy apprehenfions of these men; it puts me so much in mind of the antient heretics, who used to repeat ejaculations in every circumftance of life; and even in fituations where one thould have least expected. The old Puritans too were of this ftamp; and I believe by their rigid prefcriptions, and taking this precept in literal fenfe," they occafioned all that torrent of licentiousness and infidelity which defiled this land after the Reftoration. But what surprised me moft, was the conclusion of this review, in which these critics thus exprefs themselves:-" The work which we have been examining, ufually holds an even course; not abounding in very deep views of doctrine, nor in applications fingularly striking. We fometimes meet with looseness, and ambiguity of expreflion; on one or two inftances of which involving FUNDAMENTAL POINTS OF DOCTRINE, we felt ftrongly disposed to enlarge; but were reftrained in part by a fear of inadvertently afcribing to this pious prelate, fentiments which his words might not be defigned to imply. The ftyle is generally plain and perfpicuous; and occafionally forcible.

a

If this is not a critical condemnation of a work, I am at a lofs what to call it; and if it is not an arrogant, hypocritical, and illiberal one, there is no meaning in language. Let us analyse this curious paffage. The work, they fay, "holds an even courfe;" that is, it is tame and infi pid" which they afterwards more roundly declare, by obferving, that the " ftyle is generally plain and perfpicuous, and occasionally forcible.” So much for the ftyle of the work; but here is fomething more ferious ftill. Thefe fagacious obfervers are poffeffed of very penetrating optics, they can fee danger a long way off; and spy out herefy where lefs gifted men can difcern nothing but found practical divinity. In their critical progrefs they have difcovered that the "ambiguities of the Bishop's expreffions fometimes involve "Fundamental DOCTRINES:" but then they are fo very good-natured, and fo tender to his Lordship, as to forbear mentioning what thofe ambiguities are. Now, for my part, I cannot help thinking, that as honeft critics, and Chriftian obfervers, they ought either to have expofed these flips of heterodoxy, (for fo their remark implies,) or not have expreffed themselves in this ambiguous manner. What is the reader of this paragraph to infer, but that the Bishop, in fome part of his Lectures, has either denied certain fundamental points of Chriftian_doctrine, or conceded them to heretics by the expreffion of doubts and evaJons? If the charge is juft, it ought to have been proved, in order that be on his guard, and that his Lordship may be enabled to correct

the reader

may.