character as ministers of Christ, and the validity of their ministrations, on their being the spiritual offspring of her, whom their fathers called "a filthy, withered old harlot ?" An uninterrupted lineal succession from the apostles, they say, is necessary to constitute a valid and true minister in the church; but this lineal succession, or spiritual generation, is transmitted to the present clergy only through the hands of those monsters of impiety the pope and his bishops: and yet behold! the ecclesiastical character received from such hands, is their glory, and their strength; and all amongst us who are not thus ecclesiastically descended, are a spurious and false brood, and not to be acknowledged as valid ministers of Christ.

But to come closer to the inconsistency with which we are charged." They at first pretended the sinfulness of our communion, charging the terms of it as popish and antichristian: but afterwards, when they found the church established upon the principle of indulgence to scrupulous consciences, they abated of their ancient rigour." -And where, in the name of equity, is the inconsistency of this? Whilst the church was established upon principles of persecution, allowing no indulgence to scrupulous consciences, but fining, imprisoning, and delivering thousands to ruin, for no other crime than not owning her authority in matters of religion; she might, no doubt, most justly be said to be both popish and antichristian. For this claim of authority, and enforcing it on men's consciences by bodily pains, is the very essence of popery, and the grand fundamental principle on which the whole antichristian hierarchy rests. But when the church, convinced of this its gross and fundamental error, returned to a christian temper, and was no longer established on principles of tyranny, but of indul

gence and toleration, then our fathers, as well became them, returned occasionally to her communion; they forgave the horrid injuries which had been done them;* and declared their readiness to walk with her on terms of christian love. It was not our fault, surely, but our honour, to have softened "our first outrageous charge" (as it is called) when the outrageous treatment, which occasioned it, was softened into a just and generous indulgence.

But to conclude this point-If by those who at first gave, &c. he meant our fathers the Puritans, we absolutely deny the fact. The far greater part of that noble army of confessors never disowned the church of England as a true church, nor pronounced her communion sinful; but continued under great hardships to hold communion with her, till in her great clemency and wisdom she thrust out near two thousand of them, laborious and pious ministers and lecturers, at once. There were a party indeed called the Brownists, whose sentiments were more rigid, who said many plausible things to prove the church to be in its constitution and frame fundamentally wrong; in that it was formed much upon the same plan, supported by much the same power, and ran far into the same measures of violence and persecution with that of Rome; and therefore they renounced communion with her, as absolutely sinful; but these were comparatively a small number; the generality of the puritans had more catholic thoughts. Upon the whole then, this charge of "inconsistency," and "changing our sentiments "as times and circumstances change," vanishes into air or, could it ever so fully be proved.

See a sketch of the cruelties exercised upon them in the third paragraph after this.

upon us, it is well known where it rests with far greater weight. The dissenters are not the only hypocrites and time-servers," shifting their principles just as their ambition, and worldly interest, as reasons of state and crafty politics prompt them; they have brethren in this guilt, not quite so old as Jeroboam and the Samaritans-a venerable and grave body, whose company they much better like.

But the publisher has not done with these false brethren: there are further proofs of their "for"mal hypocrisy, and that they make religion only a cloak for their ungodly designs," which must not be forgot. "It had been long given out by "the leaders among the dissenters, that our "church was far gone in popery--But mark the "falsehood and hypocrisy of these accusers! When

"

popery really began to shew itself amongst us "was publicly professed, practised, and upheld by our civil governors, so that it became dangerous to oppose it; did these men then cry "out of popery, or any ways endeavour to stop its growth? No such matter: they rather encouraged it, and chose to side with it on all occasions. They were the ministers of the "church of England only who had the courage to obey GOD rather than men. They only wrote, preached, and publicly disputed against "the errors and corruptions of Rome, whilst the protestant dissenters either had nothing to say, or thought it best to sit still and say nothing; "and so deserted the defence of their religion, "and gave it over as a prey to the teeth of its adversaries."* Gross misrepresentation! We defy the publisher to support it; and intreat our worthy judges to hear our defence.

"

* Serm. II. page 36, 37, 38, 39.

The dissenters had a very few years before got themselves great honour by various tracts and sermons against popery; yea, by a celebrated course of sermons, which were then extant, well known, and commonly read. They moreover, at this very time, preached with great freedom both in city and country against it; they publicly catechised their youth upon the points of image worship, adoration of the host, transubstantiation, and the worshipping of angels; and this, in parts of the city where the Papists were most prevalent; and even when they were openly insulted for so doing. Public conferences were held, though not without great hazard, by a gentleman, a dissenter, afterward a minister, with a Jesuit of the Savoy; which issued in an entire victory over the priest, and the satisfaction of many gentlemen of the church of England then present. Besides, let us ask-The vast multitude of converts which then flocked into the church of Rome - whence came they? At all from the dissenters? It is. well known they did not so opposite were our principles, and our people so well fortified against the popish errors, that scarce an instance of such a convert from amongst us can be produced. But from the church of England there went thousands: and indeed, its XXth article being granted, viz. "That the church hath power to decree rites, "and authority in controversies of faith," the transition is extremely easy, nor can all the learning or wit of man easily prove it to be either unreasonable or unsafe.

But still it is urged, the dissenters did not pub"lish"-And is not this with barbarity thrown in their teeth, when the liberty of doing it was actually denied them? By several most flagrant and undeniable instances, this, if called for, can be proved. They wrote, they brought their wri

tings to the press; their pieces were highly approved and recommended by no less competent judges than Tillotson,and Clagget.--But the licensers (for the press was then under restraint) arbitrarily refused to let them be printed off: and when several were thus repulsed, no marvel if the rest thought it prudent to spare themselves the pains and yet behold! we are now insulted before the world, and openly traduced as "de"serting our religion, and tamely giving it up as "a prey to its foes." Oh the honour of such heroes! First to wrest our swords from us, and tie up our hands, and then post us for poltroons, as not daring to fight.

Besides had not the dissenters been now harrassed with above twenty years most grievous and wasting persecution? At the instigation of bishops, turned out of their livings, banished from their houses, forbid to come within five miles (unless upon the road) of any city, corporation, or borough town, or any place where they had been ministers; plundered and impoverished by villanous informers, rapacious courts-their pa pers rifled, and books sold either to pay fines, or to buy bread for themselves and their starving families. "An estimate has been published of near eight thousand protestant dissenters who had perished in prison in the reign of King Charles II. And by severe penalties inflicted on them for assembling to worship God, they suffered in their trades and estates, in the compass of three years, at least two millions. One Mr. Jer. White, having carefully collected a list of the dissenting sufferers and sufferings, had the names of sixty thousand persons who had suffered on a religious ac

• Pool's Continuators. Dr. Tuckney, Dr. Bates, Hanmer, Pendlebury, &c.