APPENDIX. No. I. Letters between Dr. Waddington, Bishop of Reverend Sir, Eton, near Windsor, Nov. 14, 1729. I HAVE received at this place your most agreeable present of a Vindication, &c. against Mr. Woolston, and do beg leave to return you my most sincere and hearty thanks for it: you have certainly took a very proper and christian way with him, and I wish it may have the designed effect upon him: I have no manner of objection to make against any one line in the book; you have pursued both him and his Jew very closely; and if they are capable of conviction, you seem to be the man whom God has raised up for that great service: I cannot say less of your excellent performance; and what I have said comes, I assure you, from the sincerity of my heart. Will you then, dear Sir, give me leave, as sincerely, to take notice of a passage or two in your preface which as yet I cannot so well digest, if I take you right in them, and I am sure I have no intention to mistake you wilfully. Page 4, you have these words, If by way of such a reply he 'means a reply without abusive, railing terms, or invoking the ' aid of the civil magistrate;' and a line or two after you oppose 'solid reasons and arguments' to 'pains and penalties:' Now these are passages that I own I cannot perfectly approve of: you seem in the first to put abusive, railing terms, upon the same foot with invoking the aid of the civil magistrate; and in the latter, to intimate as if pains and penalties had been demanded by somebody or other to be inflicted upon Mr. Woolston, to supply the place of solid reasons and arguments. If I am right in putting this interpretation upon your words, I musi beg leave to say, that, in my poor opinion, there is no occasion for them; I don't know any one person of character, who, in writing against Mr. Woolston, has invoked the aids of the civil magistrate to inflict pains and penalties upon Mr. Woolston, for being an infidel, or writing against the christian religion; but only for writing against it in such a blasphemous, abusive, scandalous manner, as I think may very justly raise the indignation and resentment of every honest man, whether christian or not. The two bishops of London and St. David have expressly declared this in print and I believe it is the sentiment of many more of that order in the church, if not of all, that (as you very well express it in the 11th page of your preface) it is the pleasure of Christ that men should not be compelled to receive his law by the punishments of this life, or the fear of them; but that they should be left to propose their doubts and ob'jections provided it be done in a grave, serious manner.' But give me leave, dear Sir, to ask you, with some concern, whether Mr. Woolston has proposed his doubts and difficulties in a grave, serious manner? and if you say he has not done it, as I believe you will, do not you seem to intimate yourself, by putting in that reserve, as if you thought the civil magistrate might punish him for not observing it; or at least, that there is nothing, in punishing him for the breach of all the laws of christian charity and common decency, contrary to the will and pleasure of Jesus Christ? This then is the difficulty that sticks with me in respect to these passages in your preface and as I have very freely, and yet, I hope, in a very friendly manner, mentioned them to you, so I doubt not but you will, in the same free and kind way, endeavour to remove them; which will make me perfectly easy; for I am sorry to meet with any thing in your writings, (so truly serviceable to the christian religion,) that may give the least occasion of offence to the sincere lovers of Jesus Christ and his gospel. I am, with the utmost respect, esteem, and gratitude, Reverend Sir, Your affectionate EDWARD CHICHESTER. To this Mr. Lardner answered as follows: My Lord, I HAVE received the favour of your very kind and friendly letter, for which I am greatly indebted to your Lordship. As your approbation of what I have written in the defence of christianity affords me the highest satisfaction, so it is no small concern to me that there has been any thing said in the preface which is offensive to a person of your Lordship's known judgment and integrity; who have also expressed so much kindness to me, beyond my desert or expectation. I believe, (and think I may be positive,) that when I wrote those expressions, (preface, page 4.) I had no regard to a demand made by any one, of a punishment on Mr. Woolston for his writings. I only intended to disown, in plain terms, which might not be mistaken, the principles of persecution, which he had charged upon so many of his adversaries. As when I mentioned a reply without abusive terms, I had no reference to any reply written in that way; (for I have seen no such, nor has he complained of any thing of that nature, that I know of, besides his being called an infidel, whereas, he says he is a christian ;) so, when I wished his conviction without pains and penalties, I had no reference to any demand made of them. But I do own, that, in the first paragraph of page 11, I had a reference to a demand, which I thought had been made for punishing him for his writings. And, I suppose, if he should be punished it will be for writing against christianity, and not for his manner of doing it. I am far from thinking that Mr. Woolston has written in a grave and serious manner and I have strongly expressed my dislike of his manner in the latter end of page 11, and page 12. Your Lordship freely declares, he ought not to be punished for being an infidel, nor for writing at all against the christian religion; which appears to me a noble declaration. If the governors of the church and civil magistrates had all along acted up to this principle, I think, the christian religion had been before now well-nigh universal. But I have supposed it to be a consequence from this sentiment, that if men have an allowance to write against the christian religion, there must be also considerable indulgence as to the manner likewise. This has appeared to me a part of that meekness and forbearance, which the christian religion obliges us to; who are to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering. The proper punishment of a low, mean, indecent, scurrilous way of writing seems to be neglect, contempt, scorn, and general indignation. Your Lordship has observed (in my opinion) extremely well, that this way of writing is such as may justly raise the indignation and resentment of every honest man, whether christian or not. This punishment he has already had in part, and will probably have more and more, if he should go on in his rude and brutal way of writing. And if we leave all further punishment to Him, to whom vengeance belongs, I have thought it might be much for the honour of ourselves, and of our religion. But if he should be punished farther, the stream of resentment and indignation will turn; especially if the punishment should be severe; and it is likely, that a small punishment will not suffice to engage to silence, nor to an alteration of the manner of writing. f It I truly think, that the christians of this nation are at present under a great trial; and I heartily wish we may behave so under it, as may be most for the lasting honour of our religion. seems to me much better for us, as christians, to err somewhat (if it be an error) on the side of tenderness and meekness, rather than on the side of severity; nothing having done the christian cause greater prejudice, than the severities practised by some who have borne the name of christian. It has seemed to me (as I have said) to be a consequence of permitting men to write against christianity, that we must also show indulgence toward the manner, in some measure. But no one is to be allowed to say any thing injurious to men's characters; this is properly a breach of the peace. I am persuaded, that no man has been more sensibly grieved and offended than myself, at the abusive treatment that has been given to men of the highest order, and greatest merit in the church. And if any thing of this kind has been said, cognizable by the laws, no man can complain of a just punishment. I have, my Lord, freely represented my sentiments, which are submitted to your Lordship's consideration with the greatest humility and deference. I hope I have nothing more at heart, than the general interest of the christian religion. And if I have declared in favour of too great lenity, it has been purely because I have supposed it would be in the end most for the advantage of that good cause. I HAVE received yours of the 22d, and am very well satisfied with the explication you have been pleased to give me of your meaning in those passages in the 4th page of your preface, which, upon the first reading, seemed to me to have a more particular view than you now declare they had; and I can very readily believe what you now assert to be true, and should indeed beg your pardon for my mistake, (though it was by no means a wilful one,) if the candour that appears in every part of your letter did not tempt me to think you have granted it without my asking. I don't see that you and I are likely to differ much as to any other points touched upon in your letter; our general principles, with respect to the true method of propagating and defending our holy religion, are, I believe, the same; and I wish as heartily as you can do, that no other had ever been followed by ecclesiastical or civil governors; but still I am at a loss how to understand what you are pleased to say, That there must be likewise 'considerable indulgence allowed as to the manner of writing ' against the christian religion.' I am not sure whether, if Mr. Woolston heard this, he would not say, it is all the indulgence he desires; for he has declared, that he cannot write otherwise ' than he has done already;' and if for that reason, because he cannot write otherwise, he must be indulged in writing in his own way, there is no doubt but that he will go on in writing after such a manner, as you seem to think may justly raise the indignation and resentment of every honest man, whether christian or not; and for which I cannot, I own, think that bare contempt is a sufficient punishment; considering the great mischief such a way of writing must do, and daily does in the world: I am willing to indulge such writers as far as ever christian meekness and charity require me to go; but I would just beg leave to ask, what opinion you think St. Paul, or any other truly primitive christian, would have had, of any person writing in those days (and that while he still professed himself a christian) in such a manner as Mr. Woolston does in these? what do you imagine their conduct would have been? whether they would have carried the christian principles of meekness and tenderness so far as to have indulged him in such a manner of writing, in hopes of working his conviction in that way? It does not appear, by those instances we have in the epistles of the exercise of christian discipline in those days, that they were then indolent in matters of such consequence to the christian religion; nor do I think we are under any obligation to do so now, and therefore I should be unwilling to give any indulgence at all to such a manner' of writing, much less a' consider'able one,' as your words (considering the occasion on which they are used, and to which they must refer) seem to imply that we should. You, indeed, add afterwards, 'That no man is to be 'allowed to say any thing injurious to men's characters, and that if any thing of this kind has been said, no man can complain of a just punishment, for this is properly a breach of the peace.' Now no one who has read Mr. Woolston's books or prefaces can surely have the least doubt upon his mind, but that he is in this respect guilty to the highest degree; and therefore, in your opinion, deserves a just punishment; but besides this, I think a sincere christian may and ought to go farther; he may very justly be concerned for the honour of his blessed Saviour, and have some real stirrings in his breast for preventing such abuses of that holy name as have no sort of argument in them to persuade and convince; cannot be the result of any fair reasoning against the chris |