AN ADDRESS

DEDICATORY, EXPOSTULATORY, AND CRITICAL,

TO THE

REV. E. W. WHITAKER,

RECTOR OF ST. MILDRED'S, CANTERBURY.

SIR,

YOU will perhaps think this a strange kind of Dedication.-Addresses from authors to men of eminence, have generally had some object of interest in view; either to recommend themselves to some preferment in life, or their performances to the notice of the public: be assured this has neither of those motives. It is intended chiefly to expostulate with you upon the uncivil, and, I must call it, unchristian-like censure, you have passed on a work, evidently designed, whatever may be the success, to promote the truths of the Gospel of Christ.

When I wrote the "Brief Commentaries upon such parts of the Revelation and other prophecies," &c. I believed those prophecies had, in many instances, been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied to improper events; by which they had been thrown into great confusion, disrepute, and neglect: and that the best, the only means of rescuing so important a part of the word of God, from threatened neglect and oblivion, would be to bring forward some of the principal

errors of former commentators into candid and critical examination. To this end I presumed, with deference and humility, to submit my thoughts to the unprejudiced reader for his approbation, or a refutation of the errors I might myself have unwillingly committed. Nothing but the Truth, which I trusted would be the effect of such examination, being my aim, I earnestly invited "the pious and the learned," meaning the clergy and other Christian believers of every denomination, to assist in the laudable search after it; solemnly promising, at the same time, I would confess and recant the errors that should be proved by fair argument and impartial criticism. Such being the piety and purity of my motive, and the solemnity of my engagement with the public, I had no reason to expect, that any candid mind would condemn the work in the lump, without discussing one principle, or refuting one argument to justify the dictatorial sentence; and much less could I look for such conduct in a clergyman, professing the mild and friendly Gospel of Christ: and yet Sir, as Nathan said unto David, "Thou art the man." 2 Sam. xxii. 7.

That you must have read my Commentaries before you published your own, there can be no doubt. The first were published in March, advertised to be sold by your own bookseller, and extracts from them appeared in three several monthly publications, before your's appeared in July. Besides, I am unwilling to conclude you possess so little candour, as to censure a work you had not read, although, it must be confessed, there is little difference between that measure, and the delivering it over to the demons of error, without particularly unfolding one of its blemishes. And as the principal object of it was to show the truth of the "notion," (as you are pleased sarcastically to call it) lately taken up, of the appearance of Antichrist under different characters, from that of the Church of Rome," it is a reason

able conclusion, that I am one, if not the principal, of the culprits, you have disingeniously, and without ceremony, condemned.

In the last paragraph of your Preface, after having obliquely censured the British Government for the late hospitable refuge given to the unfortunate members of the Church of Rome, from the furious destruction of Atheistical France, (a censure not altogether corresponding with the character of a minister of the Gospel of Christ, which commands to "do good unto all men," Gal. vi. 10." to love our enemies, bless them that curse "us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them "which despitefully use us and persecute us.") Matt. v. 44. you say, "At the same time the constancy with "which it (the Church of Rome) is holden up as the great persecutor of God's witnesses even to the last, "will convince him (the reader) that the notion lately "taken up of the appearance of Antichrist under dif"ferent characters, is not only an error, but one highly "pernicious in its consequences, in drawing the attention 'of Christians from a quarter (the Church of Rome) on which they should ever keep the strictest guard." This long sentence is replete with so much equivocal and sophistical froth, that it is impossible to find out the substance. If there be nothing in it to wonder at, its absurdity will create a smile. The happy knack of persuading yourself, that the credulity of your readers will answer as a substitute for reason and fair argument, is not ingenious, but delusive. For you trust that "the "constancy with which it (the Church of Rome) is hold"en up as the persecutor of God's witnesses even to "the last, will convince him (the reader), that the no"tion lately taken up of the appearance of Antichrist "under different characters, is an error." This, Sir, is really the first time. I have ever heard or read, that constancy in maintaining a doctrine, is the proper ground of mental conviction. Persons who have been ac

Q.2

quainted with what has passed in the world, have known, that the most mischievous doctrines, as well as evident truths, have been with great constancy and perseverance held up from age to age, and yet the former have been believed, and the latter rejected. Hence the rational part of mankind have ever conceived, that the only means of obtaining that knowledge which ought to produce solid and permanent conviction, is the right use of reason and fair argument in the comparison of our ideas of things, and not in the constant repetition of a doctrine, nor in indefinite censure. But, perhaps, you did not consider, that if the constancy of a doctrine were to become the test of that truth whence conviction ought to arise, Paganism, Mahomedanism, and Papacy, would be that test. The first of these has been invariably held up to the greatest part of the world three thousand years, and nearly twelve centuries longer than the Gospel of Christ; and the two latter much longer than the position you would prove by it, that

the Church of Rome is Antichrist;" and that by your logic, the advocates of those abominable falsehoods might prove them to be more impressive objects of conviction, than the truths of the revealed word of the ever-living God.

But, Sir, in an attempt to mislead your reader, I fear you have misled yourself. For you cannot, I think, but know the position, that the "Church of Rome is the Antichrist," has been merely an hypothetical opinion, often asserted, as often contradicted and never proved On the contrary, the more ancient, as well as a majority of the modern divines, have held up the negative doctrine. All the ancient fathers who have mentioned the subject, such as Iræneus, Cyril, Jerome, Austin, &c. &c. have, from the evident meaning of the Prophecies of Daniel and St. John, referred the era of the rise of Antichrist, to "the latter times," and the last time" of the Gospel of Christ; and