A question asked of the king by the bishop, in administering the coronation oath, is-" Will you, to your power, cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" The king answers—“ I will; so help me, God.”* Again, Blackstone tells us-" Justice is not derived from the king, as from his free gift; but he is the steward of the public, to dispense it to whom it is due. He is not the spring, but the reservoir, from whence right and equity are conducted, by a thousand channels, to every individual. The original power of judicature by the fundamental principles of society, is lodged in the society at large; but as it would be impracticable to render complete justice to every individual by the people in their collective capacity, therefore every nation has committed that power to certain select magistrates, who, with more ease and expedition, can hear and determine complaints: and in England, this authority has immemorially been exercised by the king, or his substitutes."+ I now ask any man of common sense, who is not wholly destitute of a feeling of respect for the laws of his country, if the responsible situation of Secretary of State ought to be filled by a man so indifferent to his duty, or ignorant of those laws and institutions which justice demands him to execute and observe, as Lord Melbourne has shewn him * Blackstone, vol. i. b. i. c. 6. + Blackstone, vol. i. b. i. c. 7. self to be in his conduct towards me? How am I to reconcile the treatment I have experienced with the principles of candour and rectitude? I sent a petition for Lord Melbourne, as Secretary of State, to present to his Majesty. It is required of his Lordship, as a servant of the King and people, to execute with fidelity the duties of his office. My request was for a legal right; it was to remove a grievance, and to reform an abuse, which could not be effected in any other way, without entering into a ruinous Court of Chancery. Lord Melbourne, I have reason to believe, did not present my petition to his Majesty; nor did he condescend to answer me, till after a month had elapsed, when I sent him a second letter on the subject. To this the note above given, dated Whitehall, is his Lordship's reply. Justice, liberty, and happiness, are the charters of God and nature, which no mortal, however elevated by conquest or inheritance, can annul or violate without impiety. Every king, and every minister, therefore, who will not advance the national right of every individual subject to their control, is a despot. "Not even the high-anointed hand of Heaven Can authorize oppression, give a law For lawless power, wed faith to violation, Allegiance to injustice." I now leave Lord Melbourne, and his character, to my readers.* I consider the affair as closed, and shall give myself no further trouble in a matter so indifferent to the interests of the Church of Christ. So far, I have done what I considered to be my duty, and feel relieved from the shackles in which I have been long held. It appears to be the will of God that I should no longer be ensnared, with a vain desire to submit to the government of the Church of England, till her discipline shall be amended by the legislature, or be united and bound to an authority founded in popery and spiritual slavery; but that I should at once come forward as the advocate of spiritual emancipation, freed from the spirit of temporizing, which so powerfully possessed many of the bishops in the reign of Edward VI., that after having complied with the impositions of * Since writing the above, I find that a petition has been sent to the King, by Mr. Arnold, a speculator in theatrical property, on the right of the patent theatres; which the Lord Chancellor of England deemed to be of sufficient importance to demand more than ordinary consideration. It appeared also to his Majesty, that genius and taste, intellectual improvement, and, above all, morality, might be benefited or injured by the result of the inquiry. His Majesty was, therefore, graciously pleased to permit the discussion to be carried on in public, to the end that more satisfaction might be afforded to all who had an interest in the question. This fact, of a private individual petitioning the King, in support of the stage, is of too glaring a nature to need comment! Henry VIII., they were desirous of bringing others under the same yoke, and of keeping up an alliance with the Church of Rome, lest they should lose the uninterrupted succession of their office from the apostles. Having lately had some leisure hours, I resolved to examine, more minutely than I had hitherto done, the ground on which the authority of bishops rested. I felt that whatever might be urged by them, in support of their dogmas and usurpation, it was certain that the great and eternal laws of truth and justice could not be violated with impunity. The violation may answer some sordid and temporary purpose, but in the end it must prove injurious, if not fatal, to those who are guilty of it. In the prosecution of my object, I have examined Eusebius, Socrates, Evigarius, and the writings of several of the Fathers and reformers of the Church. I have also consulted Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Strype's Annals, Neal's Puritans, Pierce's Vindication, Burnett's History of the Reformation, Clarendon's History, Fuller's Worthies, Mosheim and Collyer's Ecclesiastical Histories, Clark and Fox's Martyrs, Rapin, Hume, Gibbon, and Blackstone's Commentaries; as well as Le Clerk, Usher, Selden, and Robinson, and others of less note. From various books I have taken whatever subjects suited my purpose, and from the above-mentioned writers I have frequently borrowed with advantage. Whenever I have found their sentiments express my own ideas more clearly than my ability could represent them, I have made use of their language in preference to my Indeed, the reader may look upon the work as a compilation from others, rather than as a new work emanating from me. own. I have first endeavoured to prove the origin and gradual advance of papal tyranny in England; and then shewn that in the early ages of the Christian Church, there were only bishops or presbyters, and deacons; that bishops and presbyters, in the primitive Church; were synonymous, or of one degree; that there were many bishops in one town; that no bishop's authority extended beyond one city; that the bishops could ordain no minister, without the consent of the presbyters and Church; that they could confirm no children, but in their own parish; that they possessed but one living each, and served the cure; and that they dealt in no civil government by any established authority.* I have also shewn the unscriptural power of English bishops, that they have no authority on which to establish their power in the Church; and that archdeacons, deans, and other officials are antichristian dignitaries. I have given the history of fast days, and the history of tithes, with a comparative view of the wealth consumed by the clergy. I have shewn the innovations made on Chris * See Collyer's Church History, p. 543. |