APPENDIX.

No. I.

See page 121.

What follows is tahen from a pamphlet, entitled, "A Brief Confutation of the Reo. Mr. DAUBENY'S Strictures on Mr. RICHARD BAXTER, in the Appendix to his Guide to the Church: And also of his Animadversions on Mrs. FANNAH MORE. In a Letter to the Editor of Sir JAMES STONHOUSE's Letters. By a Layman of the established Church. Second Edition. Printed by J. and W. EDDOWES, Shrewsbury, 1801." Price one shilling and sixpence,

"WHY should Mr. DAUBENY be so

angry at Mr. WILBERFORCE, for having placed BAXTER among the Divines of the Church of England? He had been episcopally ordained

VOL. 1.

W

ordained he never renounced his orders nor did he ever accept the charge of a dissenting congregation. Not having been in any preferment when the Act of Uniformity passed * he was not called upon to subscribe-but he still communicated with the Established Church, and attended its worship. - His mere non

acceptance of preferment did not imply, that he ceased to be a Clergyman.-He never was degraded. He never was excommunicated. -Of course, notwithstanding Mr. D.'s displeasure, he continued to be a Clergyman of the Church of England, in the eye both of the Ecclesiastical and Common Law.

But Mr. D. imagines, he was not even a member of the Established Church.

What,

not

BAXTER officiated as Minister of the Parish of Kidderminster, from the year 1641 until the Restoration. But he came in at first only as a Lecturer, on a compromise made by the Parishioners with their Vicar. Afterwards he was compelled to acquiesce in his appointment, by the then ruling powers, to the pastoral charge. But the Vicar was still living, in whom, of course, the legal right was vested; and as soon as the King was restored, he took possession of the Vicarage: consequently, BAXTER was possessed of no legal preferment in the Church. BAXTER had been ordained by the Bishop of Worcester.-BAXTER'S own Times, Part I. page 20 and 79, and Part II. page 283.

not a member! tho' episcopally ordained, and tho' for some time one of King CHARLES the Second's Chaplains.-What a calumny is it on King CHARLES and Lord CLARENDON, to suppose they would have made a man a royal chaplain, who so far from being a clergyman of the Church, was not even a member of it! And what is still more strange, that this man should have had it in his power to refuse a Bishoprick!-Is it conceivable, that so high a dignity should have been offered to a person, who was not deemed even within the pale of the Church?

Mr. D. talks of BAXTER'S "bigotted prejudices" against the Church. Prejudiced he might be, and no doubt was - but how does it appear that he was a bigot?- A bigot, I presume, is one whose attachments are exclusive and whose aversions are harsh and impassioned. Was this the case with BAXTER?" I constantly," says he, join with "the Church in Common Prayer: I commu"nicate in the Lord's Supper with the Church "of England: I exhort the People to Church"Communion, and I go into the Church "from my own house in the people's view, "that I may persuade them by my example,

as well as by my doctrine."-In the name of truth and justice, is this the language of bigotry?

W 2

bigotry? Who then is the real bigot, BAXTER, or he who gives him the appellation ?*

It is true, BAXTER could not conform to some of the injunctions of the Act of Uniformity; nor could he give his full assent and consent to every thing contained in the Liturgy and Articles.And because he could not, he sacrificed honours and emoluments to what he conceived his duty.-But does this make him justly liable to opprobrious epithets? Such scruples were certainly not more absurd,

than

Archdeacon SHARP, in one of his visitation Charges, speaking of the propriety of admitting separatists, or, as he terms them, schismaticks, to the Lord's Supper, after observing that this matter had been thoroughly considered in the case of Mr. RICHARD BAXTER, "The famous NON-CONFORMIST," adds these words-" if he may be called So, who con"stantly attended the Church Service and Sacrament in "the Parish where he lived, at those times when he "was not engaged at his own Meeting-House." See SHARP's Visitation Charges, page 54. — The Archdeacon is a little inaccurate in speaking of BAXTER'S Meeting-House. When in the country, he used to have religious meetings between church hours in his own house; and when in London, he preached occasionally in Mr. SYLVESTER'S MeetingHouse. Just after the Restoration, a kind of chapel was built for him, which he soon gave up, to be an episcopal chapel of ease. But, it is the fact, that he never accepted of the charge of a Dissenting Congregation.

than the prejudice against eating flesh, of which St. PAUL speaks in the 14th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.-But does the apos tle, in speaking of the persons who abstained from flesh, use any harshness of expression? No. He strongly prohibits every thing of the kind. "Let not him that eateth despise him "that eateth not; and let not him that eat"eth not judge him that eateth.” "Who art “thou," he adds, "who judgest another man's "servant? To his own master he standeth or "falleth." -Who then has a right to censure BAXTER for his scruples about conformity? -If he could have overcome those scruples by reason, it would have been well. But when he could not overcome them, he had the sanction of St. PAUL for yielding to them. "He that doubteth is condemned if he eat "for whatever is not of faith is sin." If Mr. D. had consulted this great apostle, instead of COLLIER, HICKES, and other nonjuring zealots, he would have learned to be more liberal in his spirit, and less acrimonious in his language."

Mr. D. presumes nothing can be said in favour of BAXTER's political principles.-Yes -much more than in favour of those of HOOKER. HOOKER was a favourer of demo