ciple of undeserved indulgence granted to every fpecies of our enemies, under whatfoever form or name (which are almost innumerable) they may appear. The object of my prefent address is to call the attention of yourself and your readers, if you deem it deferving of a place in your mifcellany, to the above two points. Your correfpondent Clericus has very well noticed fome of the penal ftatutes which have been recently paffed, to compel incumbents to refide on their livings; and the reviewer of the late excellent publication of Mr. Thomas, intitled, "Strictures on Subjects relating to the Established Religion and the Clergy, &c." p. 210 of your last month's magazine, hath quoted a paffage from that timely publication, tending to fhew how exaggerated was the account of the number of non-refident incumbents in England, which those acts would lead unprejudiced perfons to believe. I fincerely hope, for the honour of my brethren, that this is really the cafe; and, on the fuppofition, that it is fo in a confiderable degree, how unkind is it in the legislature to endeavour to depreciate the national guardians of the established religion in the eyes of the public, by enacting (in many inftances) unequal and unjust laws against them. I may be allowed to ufe both epithets, because I believe inftances have been given in proof of them both on various occafions. But it is unwife alfo for the legislature to hold this conduct towards the clergy of the Establishment. For by the fame degrees as you bring into contempt the minifters of religion, you bring into contempt the religion itself; and, whilst we have fo many enemies already to contend with, it furely does not need that we fhould have more; and particularly the legiflature, which ought to guard and protect us.-But take, for a moment, the other fide of the queftion, and fuppofe that there really exifted, in confiderable degree, fuch a culpable want of refidence as the acts in question would lead us to fuppose; is this in fact the most likely means of curing that evil which could be taken? That men of no sense or care for religion, will evade every penalty that the laws can lay on them, we have abundance of inftances every day before our eyes. Unless men have a real pleasure in the performance of their duty, and act from principle and not from compulfion, little benefit can be rationally expected from the forced measures which have fo fyftematically been purfued for fome time paft. And I am clearly of opinion, that in point of advantage to the spiritual interefts of any parish whatever, the scale would would greatly preponderate in favour of a worthy and exemplary curate officiating in the place of an unworthy, and perhaps, diffipated incumbent; who was compelled to refide, contrary to his wish and inclination. It appears therefore to me, Mr. Editor, that, although the benefit of true religion may really be the object which the legislature has in view, by the late ftatutes concerning non-residence, yet that those acts are calculated to do more harm than good. Let us now turn our thoughts to the fecond point mentioned above, the undeferved indulgence of the fectaries and enemies of our establishment. The Act of Toleration, as it ftands at this day, is deserving of this epithet of undeserved indulgence, for by it every empty petulant and ignorant enthufiaft, however deftitute of abilities, or deficient in qualifications, may, not merely be permitted, connived at, or tolerated, (which is all they can in reafon or juftice expect,) in the free and undisturbed profeffion of his religious opinions, but likewise, on the bare profeffion of his diffent from the established religion, and his expreffed defire to preach and teach religious opinions contrary to it, demand, on the payment of fixpence, a license to teach and preach those religious opinions to the world. Now, whether the candidate for fuch license be qualified or not qualified, proper or improper in a vast variety of ways, to execute fo high an office as that of expounding the word of God, the magiftrates at the quarter-feffions, if I understand the matter right, have no power to inquire. The candidate complies with the letter of the act, and the magiftrates are compelled to license him, let him be ever fo unworthy, ever fo much difqualified for the office he demands. This, Mr. Editor, may be ftrong language, but it is not more strong than true: does it not then require fpeedy reformation? But this is not all; the licensed preacher to a diffenting congregation, is not only hereby permitted by law to bellow forth oftentimes fenfeJefs, and frequently blafphemous ribaldry to the gaping multitude, and to make out in noise what he wants in fenfe, but he is by fuch licence exempted from fundry parish-offices, which have both trouble and expence annexed to them, and hereby to throw an unequal burthen of thofe offices on others. Now pray Mr. Editor, inform me, if it be wifely or prudently done to continue this act in its prefent form, without revifing it, and accommodating it to the exigencies of the times in which we live. To me, I own, it appears not. And I fhould be glad to be informed, why penal ftatutes are to be made every feffions to be explained, amended, * amended, and altered continually, against the established clergy, (for fo I confider many of the late acts to be,) although the faid body of men in the late critical times, have by their public difcourfes from the pulpit, and by other means, rendered the moft effential fervices to the state by their zeal and loyalty, as witnefs the many excellent fermons that have been published: and why the diffenters, particularly the raving, ignorant, and artful enthufiafts, called Methodists, fhould, by the continuance of their prefent undeferved indulgences, have a reward, as it were, for acting in almost every inftance, diametrically the reverfe! I would not, Sir, be thought a perfecutor in any fenfe of the word, but I would wish to be confidered as a fupporter of truth, aud a favourer of defert. And I contend, that the fervices of the great body of the established clergy deferve praise and encouragement, instead of pains and penalties; and I equally affert, that the indecent revilings, the clamours, and the general conduct of modern enthufiafts, require several regulations and restraints to be impofed on them; and that alfo without delay, if we would preferve in its health and purity the religion at prefent established in these realms, inBead of feeing it rooted up from its very foundations. I am, Mr. Editor, April 21, 1808. Your faithful and obedient fervant, P. S. I am glad to find that your correfpondent Iota, whose contributions have at various times fo greatly enriched the pages of your magazine, has started the queftion, though only by inference and cafually, of "a connection between the visible and invifible world, or, that there are fpiritual beings continually furrounding us, who take an intereft, according to their natures, in our affairs." See p. 194, of your last month's magazine. What your correfpondent means in the above fentence, to which he appears to be favorable himself, is, I apprehend, Whether there be fuch beings as guardian angels under the prefent difpenfation of the Gofpel, (as there indifputably were under that of Mofes, and till our Saviour's appearance upon earth, and for fome time after it,) who are appointed by Almighty God to interfere in the affairs of particular individuals upon earth? * I say undeserved, because I know several instances in which this epithet is perfectly applicable, and I have heard of almost innumerable others in which it equally applies. earth? This is a very curious and interefting fubject, and by no means, in my humble opinion, unimportant in its confequences; and, as I have particularly, and in fome degree methodically, turned my thoughts to the confideration of it fome years ago, I should be extremely happy to see the opinion of Jota ftated at large, in the pages of your mifcellany, as foon as poffible: and I fhall not be backward, if he fhould defire it, to communicate my own opinions to him thereon. ON SELECT PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH. IV. On the FOUNDATION STONE in ZION, xxviii. 16, supported by 1 PET. ii. 6. INFID NFIDELS pretend that Hezekiah is here also to be understood, and that the promise is addressed to the people of Judah, and could not be of any comfort to the ten tribes, Ifrael going to be led captive, and swallowed up, &c.-But fure it might be a fource of comfort to the faithful among the Ifraelites, that this Stone was to be a fure foundation to their children, who fhould return and re-people Jerufalem, and be converted to Christianity. The expreffion "shall not make hafte," might be better thus, "will not," or "let him not;"-futures and imperatives being put for each other. Infidels also pretend that St. Peter, 1 Epif. ii. 7, 8. has borrowed from Isaiah viii. 15. the expreffion of Stumblingblock, "inconfiftent ideas being brought together only for the fake of words, without circumftances proper for their application.' But, furely, here is so far from any inconfiftency, that it is a proof of the prophecy's juft application to Chrift. -He who was the Foundation of the Church, was a Stumbling Stone to its adverfaries; a circumstance no-wife applicable to Hezekiah, or any prince but Christ. V. On the Prophecy of THE LAME LEAPING, and DUMB SINGING, &c. xxx. 6, supported by MATT. xi. 5. and JOHN x. 38. INFIDELS INFIDELS would confine all this to the joy of the people of Judah after the deftruction of Sennacherib's army. But any impartial perfon must confefs, that though these words might, in a lower sense, be fulfilled at that time, yet that they were beyond comparison, much more exactly fulfilled in the time of our Lord; and especially as the word "ransomed" in propriety, fignifies those who are bought with a price, and particularly Chriftians who are redeemed with Christ's blood. They pretend also, that the several expreffions in chap. XXXV. 7-10, do not agree to the hiftory of Chrift; but furely these figurative expreffions highly agree to the times of Christianity. VI. On the Prophecy of A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS, &c. xl. 3, fupported by MAT. iii, 1-3. MARK i. 2, 3. LUKE iii. 3, 4. JOHN i. 23. INFIDELS pretend that this Prophecy relates to the return from the Captivity in Babylon. But though these words were accomplished primarily, and in a lefs-perfect fense by that return, they were ultimately accomplished, and perfectly, in John the Baptift. The words were fo much more completely accomplished in the latter cafe, that there is no comparifon. No one literally and truly cried in the Wilderness to prepare the way of the return of the Jews; but John, for a confiderable time, literally cried thus to the world.-Befides; the way of the Lord, which. John the Baptift pointed out, was infinitely more truly so than that by which the Jews returned. Again; the making his paths ftraight, was ftrictly and properly the province of our Lord, and very imperfectly the work of the return. ing Jews. The whole life and character of John the Baptift was fo exact an accomplishment of this prediction of Ifaiah, that from this alone the Jews might have diftinguished our Lord to be the Meffiah. He indeed wrought no miracles, and fo gave no direct proof of a commiffion from God: but his business, so exactly predicted, was a proof fufficient that he was the Meffenger of the Lord; and his difinterestedness -his difowning himself to be the Meffiah-and his leading fuch a mortified life without hope of profit, and braving death to discharge his duty, were the strongest proofs of his making way for the Meffiah, as his Harbinger. |