would then ask but one plain question. If the case is not so, why did God speak as if it was? Say you, "To affright men from sin?" What, by guile? By dissimulation? By hanging out false colours? Can you possibly ascribe this to the God of truth? Can you believe it of him? Can you conceive the Most High dressing up a scare-crow, as we do to fright children? Far be it from him. If there be then any such fraud in the bible, the bible is not of God. And, indeed, this must be the result of all: if there be no unquenchable fire, no everlasting burnings, there is no dependence on those writings, wherein they are 30 expressly asserted, nor on the eternity of heaven, any more than of hell. So that if we give up the one, we must give up the other. No hell, no heaven, no revelation!

In vain you strive to supply the place of this, by putting purgatory in its room; by saying, "These virtues must have their perfect work in you, if not before, yet certainly after death, (Sp. of Love, P. II. p. 232.) Every thing else must be taken from you by fire, either here or hereafter,' (ibid.) Poor, broken reed! Nothing will "be taken from you" by that fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' but all rest, all joy, all comfort, all hope. For 'the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.'

I have now, Sir, delivered my own soul. And I have used great plainness of speech; such as I could not have prevailed on myself to use to one whom I so much respect, on any other occasion.

O that your latter works may be more and greater than your first! Surely they would, if you could ever be persuaded to study, instead of the writings of Tauler and Behmen, those of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John; to spue out of your mouth and out of your heart that vain philosophy, and speak neither higher nor lower things, neither more nor less than the Oracles of God: to renounce, despise, abhor all the high flown bombast, all the unintel ligible jargon of the mystics, and come back to the plain religion of the bible, We love him because he first loved us, LONDON, Jan. 6, 1756.

A

LETTER

TO THE

REV. MR. TOOGOOD,

OF EXETER;

OCCASIONED BY HIS

DISSENT FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND FULLY JUSTIFIED.

SIR,

IF you fairly represent Mr. White's arguments, they are liable to much exception. But whether they are or not, your answers to them are far from unexceptionable. To the manner of the whole 1 object, you are not serious: you do not write as did those excellent men, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Howe, Dr. Calamy, who seem always to speak not laughing but weeping. To the matter I object, That if your argument hold, as it is proposed in your very title-page, if "a dissent from our church be the genuine consequence of the allegiance due to Christ," then all who do not dissent, have renounced that allegiance, and are in a state of damnation!

I have not leisure to consider all that you advance, in proof of this severe sentence. I can only at present examine your main argument, which indeed contains the strength of your cause. "My separation from the Church of England," you say, " is a debt I owe to God, and an act of allegiance due to Christ, the only Lawgiver in the church,” p. 2.

Again, "The controversy turns upon one single point, Has the church power to decree rites and ceremonies? If it has this power, then all the objections of the Dissenters, about kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and the like, are impertinent; if it has no power at all of this kind, yea, if Christ the great Lawgiver and King of the church, hath expressly commanded, that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed or ever be yielded by any of his followers: then the dissenters will have honour before God for protesting against such usurpation,” p. 3.

I join issue on this single point: "If Christ hath expressly commanded, that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed, or ever yielded by any of his followers:" Then are all who yield it, all churchmen, in a state of damnation, as much as those who deny the Lord that bought them.' But if Christ hath not expressly commanded this, we may go to church, and yet not go to hell.

To the point then. The power I speak of is, a power of decreeing rites and ceremonies, of appointing such circum stantials (suppose) of public worship as are in themselves purely indifferent, being no way determined in Scripture.

And the question is, "Hath Christ expressly commanded, that this power shall never be claimed, nor ever yielded by any of his followers?" This I deny. How do you prove it?

Why thus." If the Church of England has this power, so has the Church of Rome," (p. 4.) Allowed. But this is not to the purpose. I want "the express command of Christ."

You say, "Secondly, The persons who have this power in England, are not the clergy, but the parliament,” (p. 8, 9.) Perhaps so. But this also strikes wide. Where is the "express command of Christ ?"

You ask, "Thirdly, How came the civil magistrate by this power? (p. 11.) Christ commands us to call no man on earth father and master,' that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion," (p. 12.) At length we are come to the express command, which, accord

ing to your interpretation, is express enough: "That is, acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion :" own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, any thing pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question.

We allow, Christ does here expressly command to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbies, whom they usually styled, either fathers or masters: implicitly believing all they affirmed, and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny, that he expressly commands, to acknowledge no authority of governors, in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God, or other matters.

You attempt to prove it by the following words, 'One is your Master' and Lawgiver, even Christ: and all ye are brethren;' (Matt. xxiii. 8, 9;) "all Christians; having no dominion over one another." True: no such dominion as their Rabbies claimed: but in all things indifferent, Christian Magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting, and Lawgiver, in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text: for it is not plain, that our Lord is here speaking of himself in that capacity. Adarnaλos, the word here rendered master, you well know, conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated, teacher. And indeed the whole text primarily relates to doctrines.

But you cite another text: The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them: but it shall not be so among you:' (Matt. xx. 25.) Very good: that is, Christian pastors, shall not exercise such dominion over their flocks, as Heathen princes do over their subjects. Most sure: but without any violation of this, they may appoint how things shall be done decently and in order.

"But Christ is the sole Lawgiver, Judge, and Sovereign in his church," (p. 12.) He is, the sole Sovereign, Judge, and Lawgiver. But it does not follow (what you continually infer) that there are no subordinate judges therein: nor, that there are none who have power, to make regula

tions therein in subordination to him. King George is sovereign, judge, and lawgiver, in these realms. But are there no subordinate judges? Nay, are there not many who have power to make rules or laws in their own little communities? And how does this "invade his authority and throne?" Not at all; unless they contradict the laws of his kingdom.

"However, he alone has authority to fix the terms of communion for his followers or church, (ibid.) And the terms he has fixed no men on earth have authority to set aside or alter." This I allow (although it is another question) none has authority to exclude from the church of Christ, those who comply with the terms which Christ has fixed. But, not to admit into the society called The Church of England, or, not to administer the Lord's Supper to them, is not the same thing with "excluding men from the church of Christ:" unless this society be The whole church of Christ, which neither you nor I will affirm. This society therefore may scruple to receive those as members, who do not observe her rules in things indifferent, without pretending" to set aside or alter the terms which Christ has fixed" for admission into the Christian church: and yet without "lording it over God's heritage, or usurping Christ's throne." Nor does all the allegiance we owe him," at all hinder our obeying them that have the rule over us, in things of a purely indifferent nature. Rather, our allegiance to him, requires our obedience to them. In being "their servants" thus far we are 66 Christ's servants." We obey his general command, by obeying our governors in particular instances.

Hitherto you have produced no express command of Christ to the contrary. Nor do you attempt to shew any such, but strike off from the question for the twelve or fourteen pages following. But after these you say, (p. 26,) "The subjects of Christ are expressly commanded to receive nothing as parts of religion, which are only commandments of men," (Matt. xv. 9.) We grant it: but this