men living the least liable to mistake my meaning, considering how lately I had been told by his friend Mr. Sykes, in a book which his lordship honored with a preface, that by the church I meant only the goods and revenues of the church. But instead of this plain, natural, and true reference of the words, his lordship has drawn them into a reflexion on himself, and is pleased to suppose that I meant to insinuate that he was bribed by the prospect of preferments; and on this imagination he grounds an appeal to my conscience, and a charge of personal rudeness. My conscience, I assure his lordship, tells me the words are innocent of the meaning laid to them; and whatever my thoughts were as to his lordship's inducements to begin and carry on this controversy in the manner he has done, yet in that passage I had no eye to them. Personal rudeness was indeed concerned in this matter; but I am afraid his lordship's resentments will cool now he sees who is answerable for it.

The next is a charge still of a higher nature; a charge in which his lordship is not principal, but appears only as a second to Mr. Peirce, whose words, he says, I have most grossly misunderstood and misrepresented, in a manner hardly ever seen before; that being admonished, I still continued the abuse in all the editions of my book; and though I have so little sense of shame for myself, his lordship adds that good and reasonable Christians will blush for me.

Had his lordship been describing the most profligate degree of shamelessness, he could not, I think, have laid on stronger colors. I shall make no other return to this, which may justly be called unparalleled usage, than to show the reader what ground there is for it. Mr. Peirce, I suppose, will be allowed to know his own meaning as well as his lordship; I will therefore transcribe his own defence of himself, and leave it with a few observations to the reader's judgment.

Mr. Peirce speaks thus :*

666

Among the rest,' says the dean, Dr. Snape seems to have been in this mistake; but by this time I presume he is convinced of his error, since Mr. Peirce has told him how highly affronting to the dissenters such an opinion of them is.' And

* Some Reflexions on Dean Sherlock's Vindication, p. 38.

here he cites what I say to the doctor- How could you suggest that we do not so much as pretend the terms of your communion are sinful? Since the dean has said nothing against this passage, I need not say any thing in defence of it.

"Speaking then farther concerning me, he says; and he goes on to give instances of sinful terms of our communion; and then, in the name of all his brethren, he passes a judgment that makes the whole ecclesiastical constitution sinful'—'You may depend on it that the great body of the dissenters judge the terms of communion sinfully imposed.'

"Which words I readily own, and will justify, if there be occasion."

Hitherto no harm is done, no misrepresentation complained of. Let us hear Mr. Peirce farther.

"He (the dean) goes on, making this remark on my words: This strikes not at one, or at many of our terms of communion, but at the whole establishment.' All the unscriptural terms of communion, I grant, it strikes at. 'The foundation itself is sin, and nothing good can be raised on it.'

"If by the foundation he means the principle on which they act, namely, that they have power of adding terms of communion over and above what Christ has appointed, I own the foundation is wrong, and nothing good can be raised on it; however there may by the same men on another and better foundation, the Scriptures. The superstructure is only so far evil, as it is not built on that foundation."

In this paragraph likewise we are still agreed. The foundation, that is, the principle on which the church acts in requiring any thing of its members not expressly required in Scripture, (as kneeling at the sacrament for instance,) is sin. This consequence Mr. Peirce owns and defends; and I stand clear hitherto of any misrepresentation of his sense.

It follows in Mr. Peirce.

:

"He adds and therefore he very frankly and consistently declares, we rejoice to see the foundations shaken, and the fabric sinking, as we never doubted but it would some time or other.'"

66

This passage, as the dean has placed it, may easily be misapplied by the reader. I therefore desire he would observe that

I am there speaking against people's being led by an implicit faith in men; and for their governing their faith and practice by the word of God as the only rule. I then tell the doctor, this is what we have always professed; and I am much mistaken, if we are likely to be moved by any reasons you have brought to the contrary. We cannot see the cause of slavery thrives under your management, which is a mean defence against a noble and brave opposition. We rejoice to see the foundations shaken, &c. Nor can I see why the dean should be offended either with my hopes or triumphs, on the prevailing of true and generous principles; especially when it is under the management of so bright an ornament of his own communion."

Here we begin to differ, and Mr. Peirce thinks his words may be misapplied as they are placed in my book: a very modest charge compared to the bishop's outcry! But let us see what account Mr. Peirce gives us of the foundations he beheld shaken.

He was speaking, he says, against people's being led by an implicit faith in men; and for their governing their faith and practice by the word of God as the only rule;" and he concludes that he cannot see why the dean should be offended either with his hopes or triumphs, on the prevailing of true and generous principles.

It is to be observed here that Mr. Peirce changes the ideas quite; which is not answering but shifting the charge. He was to tell us what he meant by rejoicing to see foundations shaken; and he answers that he rejoices to see true principles prevail. This is not to the purpose: the question is, what were the foundations which in his prophetic dream he beheld shaking, and what the ground of his joy in their approaching ruin. Look into his first book, and you will find that churches, councils, and convocations, were the sinking fabrics. In the very passage from which I quoted his words, “he is glad to see men seek to govern their faith and practice, not by the great names of men, churches, councils, convocations, or assemblies; but by the only rule, the word of God:" and he presently adds, "we rejoice to see the foundations shaken, and the fabric sinking." What now was the fabric that was sinking? Was it not the authority of men, churches,

councils, and convocations; which, it seems, can no more prescribe rules for men's practice or behavior in the church than they can make a new faith? And Mr. Peirce thinks the generous principle of refusing all obedience to churches, councils, and convocations, is now prevailing "under the management of a bright ornament of our own communion ;" and tells us frankly, that he and his brethren the dissenters look on “rejoicing to see the foundations shaken, and the fabric sinking.' How right Mr. Peirce may be in his judgment of our weak and tottering condition, I will not inquire; but I say again, what hopes, what triumphs are these!

But let us attend to Mr. Peirce's farther complaints.

66 6

'But to go on,' adds the dean, he charges the church with persecution;' I wish there was no cause for the charge; and all who differ from the Bishop of Bangor in the present controversy as maintainers of it.' Nor has the dean been able to prove they are not.

66 6

Agreeably to which he represents the dissenters as the holy remnant that have not bowed the knee to Baal: so that the church of England in this comparison (and should seem therefore in this gentleman's opinion) is an idolatress, and her priests are the priests of Baal.'

*This is not a just representation of my sense; though I do not much complain of him, since he has used me much better than he has the Bishop of Bangor. Those words have no relation to the church of England in particular. The case is thus : Mr. Pilloniere had complained of the smallness of the number of those protestants in general, who had gone on the true and only defensible principle of the reformation, that is, who were against persecution; and among others, he seemed to me to reckon the dissenters to be friends to persecution. He expressed likewise his judgment that the extreme smallness of the number of those who were for toleration and against persecution, was the only reason why the reformed religion did not more prevail in the world. Now when I had asserted that the dissenters declared for toleration, I added, and I hope it will be a comfort to him, who complains of the smallness of the number of those who go on the true and only defensible ground of the reformation, to hear that God has reserved to

himself, I do not say seven, but many times seven thousand who have not bowed the knee, &c.' I did not so much as put in the word Baal; and when it is added, it is evident that only persecution (which is a great idol with some men) is compared with Baal. And as one half of those whom Mr. Pilloniere commends as being against persecution, are of the church of England, and must be manifestly joined with those who have not bowed the knee, so the charge cannot be understood as brought against the church of England in general, but only against those in that or any other church who are for persecution. And therefore his complaint of me here, and again, p. 43. where he renews it, is wholly groundless." *

I have inserted this passage at large, that I may be sure of not injuring Mr. Peirce. And now I desire the reader to observe, 1. that Mr. Peirce does not deny that he charged the church of England with persecution. 2. He owns that in his comparison, the idol persecution is meant by Baal. This is all that I charged him with, and this is all confessed: it remains only to be considered what ground there was for the consequence I deduced from these positions, namely, that this comparison represented the church of England as an idolatress, and her priests as the priests of Baal. If in this I drew a false consequence, I should be glad to have it shown to be so by Mr. Peirce, or the bishop for him. The consequence stands thus: The priests of that church which sets up an idol, are priests of that idol.

But the church of England sets up the idol Baal (persecution.)

Therefore the priests of the church of England are priests of Baal.

Mr. Peirce says farther that his words (who have not bowed the knee, &c.') have no relation to the church of England in particular; very true, for I think he meant to charge all established churches that are or ever were; but is the reflexion therefore the less injurious to the church of England? Is it any consolation to us to be told that the churches of Christ, from the days of Constantine at least, have bowed the knee to Baal?

* See Vol. iv. p. 451-2.