fhould go about in every quarter threatening them with profecutions (as the diffenters do) and using all means to compel them? The Diffenter laments that your correfpondent should have meddled with a topic, which he hoped had often and long ago been fettled. No doubt, his lamentation is fincere: for I have heard, that within these few years, what with the importunities of the diffenters, and with their unexpected help from fome bishops, they have been very fuccessful in compelling the clergy to officiate at their graves. The defire of peace, and the averfion to all contention, I fincerely believe to be a leading virtue among both our bishops and clergy: but I conjecture, that it has been fometimes paramount, when it ought not to have been fo. I entertain an humble hope, that my "meddling," may by God's affiftance, have a tendency to put a stop to this fuccefs: a fuccefs, which is attended with confequences very seriously prejudicial to the interefts of found Chriftianity: for the queftion in point, is not that trivial, indifferent thing, that it is misreprefented to be, we are not at liberty to treat the faithful Chriftian within the church, and him who separates himfelf, (Jud. 19.) with the fame respect, and to teach others to express the fame hope for both. By your correfpondent's expreffing his hope, that the topic "had often and long ago been fettled," I prefume must be understood an affirmation, that it has often and long ago been fettled. I do not write upon fuch a fubject as this, without reading and enquiry; but neither my reading nor enquiry at prefent, afford me any information that this queftion has been fettled as the Diffenter would have it, and perhaps it may have occurred to you, Sir, that that must needs be very unsteady, which requires often fettling. But the cafe is this. The church, (particularly the Church of England), has indeed, fettled it long ago; but different governors in their respective diftricts, for reasons best known to themfelves, have at different times countenanced an unsettling of it. This aberration from the church's order, the Diffenter calls a fettling of the queftion; and every new aberration, ex cathedra, he calls, I fuppofe, another fettling: I am curious to know how he would exprefs the act of thofe bishops who have never countenanced this deviation from the laws of the Established Church; but have been in the habit of respecting all her canons and rubricks, and the opinions of her found and learned defenders. His idea of fettling a "topic of difcuffion," as he calls it, appears to be this. Should the rulers rulers of the church direct its minifters to proceed in a man. ner contrary to its laws, to pleafe the diffenters, then the "topic of difcuffion," it feems, is fettled. But when any cone attempts to fhew that her laws ought to be refpected, then is that man faid to "meddle with a topic of difcuffion very unfeasonably for the peace of fociety, and to agitate that which has been often and long ago fettled; but as it is managed, (that is, "the topic of difcuffion") it is to produce unpleafant effects to the clergy, and the diffenters too!" But we now come to what the Diffenter confiders, I fuppofe, as his proof, that our question has been often and long ago fettled. Let us examine them. In the year 1748, the clergyman of Watersfield, duly refpecting the laws of the church, confiders diffenters as having no right to the burial fervice of the church. The bishop of Norwich writes to the clergyman, and expreffes his hope, that no occafion would be given for fuch complaints in future. Does this fettle the queftion? Does it prove any thing against the clergyman's opinion, that diffenters have no . right to church burial? I muft confefs, Sir, I fee nothing of the fort. All I do fee is this: that the clergyman wifhed to abide by the fettled laws of the church: the diffenters wished the contrary and the bishop of Norwich takes fide with the diffenters, againft his clergyman. In 1769, the vicar of Marfhfield refufes to bury a child, and infifts that he has done right. Here, the bishop of Llandaff, (Dr. Jonathan Shipley, I fuppofe) reprimands him; and orders him to read the church fervice over the corpfe of any diffenter which fhould be brought to him, without afking any questions. There is fomething curious in this. The bishop reprimands the vicar for acting according to the laws of the church, and as many, if not moft of the clergy, are in the conflant habit of acting.-I muft declare, that I see no reason for any reprimand at all. But the bishop, it is reported, orders the minister to read the church service over every diffenter's corpfe, &c. and afk no queftions, that is, as it were, blindfold,-with defign of not seeing what might be feen, if a man were to open his eyes. He was ordered, in fhort, to keep himself in ignorance of all circumstances refpecting diffenters' corpfes; he was not to know whether it was a Baptift corpfe, or an Independent corpfe, or a Quaker corpfe, or a Socinian corpfe, a baptized or an unbaptized corpfe, &c. &c.-any thing of this fort, the vicar of Marshfield was not to know. He was ordered to pay no attention to the rubricks and canons, but to bury on, let the circumftances ftances be what they would. Here was a bishop indeed, exactly fitted for the purposes of the deputies and committees of the diffenters. He was a man of business, and did their work well. But it may be a queftion with some reflecting men, not in the diffenting intereft, not only whether the bishop of Llandaff could be juftified in his conduct, but whether the clergyman was juflified in implicitly obeying the bishop (I fuppofe the report means to hand down the fact of his compliance),-for fince the clergy of all ranks are bound to obferve the laws of the church, and fince one of thofe laws explicitly enjoins, that the burial fervice fhall not. be used for any that die unbaptized, how can a bishop prefume to enjoin his clergy to bury all promifcuously, and to remain in ignorance even of a diftinction, which the diffenters themselves admit? and how can a clergyman confcientiously observe such an injunction, which commands him to tranfgrefs the written laws of the church? If it was the vicar's duty to bury no unbaptized perfon, it was his duty to afcertain who were baptized, and who not: which was to be the refult of asking queftions. But the bishop orders, that no questions fhall be afked: that is, that the vicar fhall not ascertain who was unbaptized, that is, that he should not observe the rubrick of the church. And has the bishop of Llandaff fettled the queftion? Is this queftion of the diffenters' right to church burial to be fettled by an injunction to ask no queftions? Does the Diffenter ever admit the bishop's "Sic volo, fic jubeo; ftet pro ratione voluntas?"It is strange, Sir, that your correfpondent and I fhould fee things fo very differently: for I profefs, that I have not the leaft doubt, that the bishop was fo far from having any intention of fettling the question, that he made this remarkable injunction of asking no questions, in order to avoid fettling it. In 1784, the curate of Chefhunt, it feems, was recufant. The diffenting fecretary writes to him. The curate apologizes, and promises to behave better for the future. It will be diffi cult, I believe, to infer any thing from this anecdote, but that if it had not been for the diffenting fecretary, the curate would have been innocent of any breach of church law: as it turned out, it feems, he not only tranfgreffed, but promised that he would make no difficulty in tranfgreffing for the future. So the cúrate finned, and the fecretary triumphed. The laft inftance is dated 1792. The vicar of Margate would not permit the burial fervice to be read over the corpfe of a person who had been baptized by a diffenting minifter. The archbishop of Canterbury expreffed difap probation probation of the vicar's conduct, and faid he should be repri manded, and left to the courfe of the law, for any future mifbehaviour of that kind. It is unfortunate, Sir, that the Diffenter fhould bring his fourth inflance, and yet bring nothing that can poffibly pafs for a fettling the question. What does the primate do? He tells the complainant, that the vicar fhall be reprimanded, and left to the law; that is, he is pleafed to fhew his displeasure, and promises to fhew more of it; but as to the fettling of the queftion, he does nothing in that, but leaves it to be fettled by law; if he had a power of fettling it, why did he not fettle it at the time, and not leave it to the law? This plainly tells us, that he had no power of fettling it; and therefore the queftion of the diffenters' right to church burial, was no more fettled in this example, by the prime authority of the church, than it had been by any of the other three examples. The three bishops and the diffenting fecretary certainly did all they could to fettle it as the diffenters would have it, they all manifefted displeasure against the clergy who had not complied; and it feems, they fo far worked upon them as to extort a promife, that they would be governed in future by the diffenters; but there is no fettling of the question; fo far from it, that the archbishop himfelf, finding that the clergyman cannot be punished by him, promifes to leave him to the course of the law. But, it may be afked, could the primate have not left him to the course of the law? Could he have fnatched him from the paw of the fecretary, if he had thought good to defend his clergy against the fecretary, instead of taking part with the latter against the vicar? Perhaps, a man lefs alarmed than the poor vicar of Margate probably was, might have perceived more of terrific found than real sense in the threat of being turned over to the fecular arm. But to proceed, The Diffenter observes upon these four cafes in the following words. "Thefe are few cafes out of many, which may ferve to fhew, that the bishops confider diffenting baptifm as entitling them to the burial fervice, the church agreeing with the ftate, which confiders it as valid in any court of judicature." Here is confufion indeed! by the help of which, your correfpondent jumps to his wifhed-for conclufion, and feems to go off in triumph. But he must permit me to fhew him that he is a little too hafly in his inferences. In the first inftance, it must be denied that his four cafes fhew any thing refpecting the bishops, but that three of that venerable bodyacted fo and fo: it cannot fhew their judgment concerning the the validity of diffenting baptism; for the three bishops may have acted as they did, upon other motives than their convic tion of the validity of diffenting baptifm. I have been informed of one of their prefent lordfhips who was heard to declare his opinion of the invalidity of it, and that diffenters were plainly not entitled to church burial; who nevertheless had advised a certain clergyman to comply with the diffenters' demands, merely for the fake of peace. Befides it never can be admitted that the example of one bifhop in 1748, of ano ther in 1769, and of another in 1792, can poffibly exhibit the judgment of the many other bifhops living at thofe dates, and fince. But your correfpondent not only will tell you the opinion of the bifhops (that is of the bifhops in general) from his three cafes, but goes on to fhew you from the faid cafes, the opinion of the church too! I fhould never have thought of afcertaining the judgment of the national church from the opinion of a few individual bishops, who, at the time they were fuppofed (though erroneously) to manifeft an opinion, by directing the conduct of their clergy, it must be remembered were always oppofed in that opinion by the minister in question, whose opinion, in point of foundness, might be juft as good as the bishop's, although he could not fupport it by actual authority, as his fuperior might. The Bafingstoke Diffenter, Sir, has fo long quitted the church, that he forgets, I fuppofe, that her judgment is not to be collected from the opinions of individual bifhops, which frequently clafh one with the other, but from thofe public and authorised declarations, which are open to the world, in her articles, canons and liturgy. It is here that the judgment of the established church is to be learned; and by thefe, all her ruling as well as inferior clergy are bound and ought to be directed. Thefe are the laws of the church: and these are always to be confidered as the will of her governors, in the fame manner, as the fecular law of our land, is always confidered as the royal will and pleasure. But the Diffenter further fays, that dif fenting baptifms are valid in a court of judicature; and that church and state agree upon this point. Here, I take it, we muft affift your correfpondent a little, with a clear idea upon the point; for he feems confufed upon the word validity. Therefore let me remark, that when we speak of the validity of baptifm, we speak of it as it is valid, or not valid, to falvation: it is purely a fpiritual or ecclefiaftical phrafe. Whether the baptifms of Socinians, or Baptifts, &c. be valid to falvation, or not, is a queftion which I never knew had ever VOL. XIV. Chm. Mag. Jan. 1808. D come |