taught from his early years, and which the hour of reflection and enquiry, instead of producing any doubt, had fully confirmed in him.

The Jury immediately found the defendant guilty; but what sentence was passed, or punishment inflicted, I have ot been able to learn.

Now as this Discourse of Mr. Stone seems to strike at the very fundamental articles of our Religion, viz., the Incarnation and Supernatural Birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, it would surely be adviseable to put him on the same footing with those notorious infidels, Woolston and T. Paine, and to proceed against and punish him in Westminster Hall.

With respect to the arguments advanced by the preacher in support of his cause, as I have not the Dis course by me, I cannot at present enter into a discription of the same.. I will, therefore, trouble you only with one or two observations on the subject. To prove that our Saviour was the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary, and nothing more than a mere man, the Preacher refers to the testimony of the Jews. "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren and his sisters, are they not all with us?" The Jews, indeed, who were disgusted with the mean appearance of our Saviour, and whose heads were filled with notions of a temporal Messiah, might well make use of such expressions. For, we read, that they were offended in him. But for a Christian Preacher thus to vilify and degrade the Saviour of the world, and deny the Lord who bought us, is surely unaccountable, and must appear to be a strange perversion of reason and argument.

And with respect to his assertion, that the two first chapters of St. Matthew are mere forgeries and fictions, it seems to rest solely upon his own ipse dixit, and has scarce the shadow of an argument to support it. If this is the case, the whole Christian world must have been in an error from the first planting of Christianity even to this day. In the Creed of every Christian Church, I will venture to affirm, profession of Faith is made as well in God the Father, as in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary. Not only the two first chapters of St. Matthew, but the first chapter of St. Luke, from the 30th to the 35th verse inclusive, is express to this pur

pose,

7

pose, and must convince the Christian reader of this great truth. But surely there is a manifest absurdity and inconsistency in this attempt of the preacher to cancel the two first chapters of St. Matthew from the canon of Scripture, while he leaves untouched the first chapter of St. John, the very chapter from which his text is taken. For in no place of Scripture is the pre-existence and divine nature of Christ more fully set forth than in this chapter. We there read, that the" Word was with God, and was God; that all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." We are further told that this Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth." And when John saw Jesus come unto him, he saith, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world." Can these things be spoken of Jesus as mere man, the natural son of Joseph and Mary?

But I will not trouble the reader with any further reply to this Discourse at present, but will leave this hoary veteran in blasphemy and heresy in the hands of the superior powers of the Church, and to the correction of the law of the land, against which he has so notoriously offended.

For my part, I have been taught from my earliest youth, to honour the Son even as we honour the Father; and inaturer years and study of the Holy Scriptures now fully confirm these sentiments. I glory in professing myself a member of the Church of England, as it is now by law established; and think myself bound by the confession of a true Faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity.

If the worship of Christ, therefore, was to be abolished, and the doctrines of this preacher established, I should certainly become a Dissenter, and should be obliged to relinquish the small preferment I enjoy in the Church; and after having been for thirty-six years a labourer in the vineyard, must seek to gain a livelihood in some other profession. But we are persuaded better things of our governors both in Church and State, and trust that they will be ever ready to maintain the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, and to uphold and support the Christian Religion, as it is by law established in these realms. It must be expected, indeed, in these evil days,

that

that offences will come, and that many will fall from the Faith being spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit. But though enthusiasm on the one hand, and heresy and infidelity on the other, direct their batteries against our Holy Mother the Church; yet are we persuaded that it is founded on a rock and cannot be shaken, and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.. I remain, yours, &c.

Nov. 24th, 1806.

CLERICUS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

HEN I addressed you the letter on the subject of Baptism against the doctrine of the Quakers, I fully intended sending you (having much matter nearly prepared) very early, further remarks on the peculiar tenets of this sect; and were it not, that I have really not been able to spare time from my numerous avocations, I should certainly have troubled you before now; and at this moment hastily snatch up my pen. Before I enter upon the particular investigation I have promised, let me loudly demand of the Quakers and every sectarian congregation, what would become of a nation without a national form of worship, what would become of a people were there not some establishment in religion? Public duty, and interest, and private feeling are distinct things. I know a man may feel the spiritual drawings the Quakers dwell so much upon; but why not yield to such emotions in private? If decency and order are ever necessary, surely they are most essentially so, in a national point of view; surely they are, where the public's best interests are concerned. And were there no pure, firm, solid, rational basis of established worship, I do not hazard much in venturing to say, we should soon have no religion at all.

I myself was born a Quaker, was bred one, but I saw when arrived at the years of discretion, that the necessity of some establishment was so strikingly evident, so clearly palpable, that I felt it a duty on mine own acVol. XI. Churchm, Mag. for Dec. 1806.

3 K

Count

count as well as on that of others, to set such an example to my fellow-beings, as I knew was right, and good for them to follow; I therefore attended the public established worship of the Church, and ever since I have been daily more and more convinced of its decided claim and superiority over every sect whatever, and that in point of sound sense, sound reason, and pure unsullied doctrine, it stands unrivalled. I care not who revile the Church, every good thing has been reviled, and ever will be reviled in this evil world. I have read much of Clarkson's celebrated work, and were I to take the trouble I could expose every page of it*.

Quakerism is root and branch a bad system, or rather no system at all, while a few individuals may make it suit their plans and views it would prove a most inadequate system for the aggregate of the people. What shall we say of CHRISTIANS without BAPTISM, a CHURCH without SACRAMENTS, a CONGREGATION without a TEACHER, having self-ordained preachers without any authority

* Clarkson in getting over the Quaker's rejection of baptism, is obliged to take the pitiful argument that our Saviour's disciples were not, as is generally received and allowed, qualified to know his mind on that, or other subjects, and that they betray great want of proper remem brance, and attention to his sayings. However, strikingly mistaken (as I will shew) Clarkson is, he quotes the passage I have taken in my former letter, for his opinion, where St. Peter exclaims, "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized you with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Now Clarkson forces the argument that the term "remembered", argued forgetfulness in Peter, and that, therefore, we are not warranted to trust much to the actions of a man who so soon forgot his master's words so lately delivered to him. For Clarkson cannot for a moment deny the palpable fact of Peter's calling for water. "Can any man forbid water," says he. What a miserable, contemptible subterfuge is Clarkson here guilty of, it is astonishing how any man, unless wilfully blind, could overlook the real meaning of the word remember, as used by Peter. For I say, it does not mean the remembrance of a thing forgotten, but a second recurrence of thought produced by the fuct then before him. When Peter saw the words fulfilled then was evinced to him the fulfilment of them. Then did this fulfilment peculiarly cause him to recur to the astonishing prediction of Christ, that such a thing should come to pass. Peter had not forgotten, and when he says that he remembered, his meaning is," then thought I on the word of my blessed Lord" which is now fulfilled.

This very part relating to baptism, as I shewed in my former letter is the most striking evidence which can be produced, and to say the Apostles were likely to be mistaken in their knowledge of the will of Jesus is too paltry a subterfuge to need my taking up one moment more of your valuable time to refute.

whatever

whatever? Can these things be? We admire the mo rality of the Quakers; let us imitate it, but let us still hold fast the faith which is in us, being fully persuaded it cannot fail to lead us into all righteousness. While I am convinced, that even martyrdom itself is not sufficient to establish the claims of many who have wonderfully un dergone all its torturing sufferings, shall. I be taken with the mere fallacious seeming of demure manners, demure works, and a formal behaviour? No, no; I have often argued, and still repeat the argument, that no one need enlist under any other banners than those of THE CHURCH, to become all that is praise-worthy, all that is good, all that is honourable in the sight of God and man. I care not for all the cant of modern times. I never saw any people more truly happy than the plain, honest, straight forward members of the Church of Eng land. I am not easily taken with outside appearances, I admire sound morality and worthy characters, whereever I see them; but I am not so simple as to say, or to think, I must follow their peculiar tenets, that I must walk in the path they point out, whose conduct I admire.. I feel and know that I have only to prove myself a wor thy member of the Church of England, to be what all those I respect, and revere, are, or can be. I want no new system, I want no new doctrine, I feel I only want more completely to act up to what the sound doctrine of the Church inculcates.

In my next, I will enter more fully into particulars, and trust, shall prove what I have advanced in this and my former letter. I now merely wish to declare in plain terms, that let the people be led as they may by po pular clamour, and popular declamation, sound sense, sound reason, sound experience, all inculcate the necessity of a public established faith and mode of worship in every nation. Let the individual in his private capacity, and in his retirement exercise his private devotions as often as he will, let the spiritually minded (who is more warm in his feelings of religion) pray in spirit, as often as he is led, to the God who made him ; but let him recollect that decency and good order enforce him in his public capacity, to join the solemn, devout worship of the Church, where he will find every incitement of his most zealous feeling. He is to consider that without a public established form of worship, all wor ship, nay, all religion, would soon cease.

3 K 2