which, moft certainly, he never entertained nor uttered, thus not merely affuming, but fabricag, a fact, for the fole purpose of acquiring a pretext for fpitting forth his venom, and scattering his abufe! And this, too, in the pulpit!! In the fubfequent part of his fermon, adverting to the doctrine of original fin, he observed that no father and mother ever produced an innocent offspring, and that an examination into the inclinations of infants would fuffice to demonftrate their propenfity to error, even before they are capable of thought; but he deferred the farther remarks which he had to make, on the main topic of his fermon, until the enfuing Sunday.

Accordingly on the 3d inft. he refumed the fubject; and proceeded to explain the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith from the articles of the church of England. Coming to the 17th article, he declared that it taught the doctrine of abfolute predeftination; the expreffion in that article "mortifying the works of the flesh," he expounded to mean mortifying that pride which would fet up private opinion against the doctrines of the Gospel, as he understood them. And the important paffage, beginning with the words, "fo far curious and carnal perfons," and ending with those "no less perilous than defperation," he entirely omitted. He contended for the experimental workings of the fpirit, and faid, that the Reformers, who, if they were now alive, would be called enthusiasts, were so fond of free grace doctrines as to go out of their way to in troduce them. He faid, that though he thought it a great advan tage to poffefs a fcriptural form of worship, like the liturgy of the church of England, yet he looked upon those as brethren, who did not adopt that form, provided they agreed with him in fundamental points. And he confidered the bond of unity, to confift in giving to fuch perfons the right hand of fellowship; but, as for thofe, who did not hold the true faith, as he had explained it, whether they appeared as tares growing up among the wheat, or as the enemy without, no union, or fellowship, could exist with them. If it should even happen in any future time, (which God avert) that a fet of perfons fhould feek to mislead the church of Chrift by falfe and pharifaical doctrines, to introduce into it popery and Armenianifm, he would defcribe them by the name of the Endeavour! Here he betrayed confiderable agitation; on this fubject he acknow ledged he had been warm; but it had been a fin to be cool.

He affirmed that if the clergy of the church had preached the true doctrines of the Gofpel there would not have been either Methodifts or meeting-houses. And he reprobated every clergyman who either played at cards or went to the play-houfe, which practifes, he faid, were forbidden by the canons! In one part of his difcourfe; allu ding to the members of the Endeavour Society, he represented them as more unenlightened than Hottentots, and as deferving the abhorrence of a Chriftian!

This, Sir, is a brief but faithful account (which, if neceffary, could be fubftantiated by the oaths of moft refpectable perfons) of the most wanton and unprovoked attack, which was ever, I con.

NO. XXVII, VOL. VII.

H

ceive,

ceive, made from a pulpit; an attack upon a clergyman, highly refpected by all who know him, for his faithful and diligent difcharge of all the duties of his station, and for his exemplary conduct in every department of life; and upon a Society, inftituted for the laudable purpose of affording bodily relief and mental inftruction to the poor and the ignorant, and many of whofe members have dif tinguished themselves by the foundnefs of their principles, and the ftrength of their attachment to our civil and religious establishments. But how can we wonder at any perfonal attack from an individual whofe audacity extends to the infliction of his wild cenfures on ninetenths of the minifters of the church? I appeal to you, Sir, whether fuch conduct does not deferve the reprehenfion of the publick, and the immediate interpofition of the Bishop of the Diocese?

August 18, 1800.

MISO-REPARD (Our obfervations on the subject of this letter are unavoidably poftponed to a future Number.)

MORAL AND POLITICAL REFLECTIONS.

Intended as a Preface to a new Edition of Sir John Fortescue's Book in praife of the Englifb Laws.

IN an age like the prefent, when every artifice has been made ufe of to loosen the bands of religion and morality, and to diffolve thofe ties by which human fociety is held together; when it is the leading character of modern philofophy to vilify every government, and to reprefent the reftraints which the wisdom of mankind has devifed to check the indulgence of irregular appetites and malignant paffions, as the dictates of capricious folly, or the exactions of cruel tyranny; it furely becomes every man, who feels an attachment to the country which gave him birth, to the laws by which he has been protected, and above all, to that religion to which he is indebted for every virtuous habit and good propenfity, to oppose to the utmost of his power this torrent of vice and impiety, which in volves in its courfe, not,the ruin of a few individuals, not the deftruction of a fingle nation, but threatens the corruption if not the extinction of the whole human race. To a reflecting mind, it must be matter of no fmall aftonishment, on the contemplation of an evil, fo vaft and gigantic, to difcover that the propagation, if not the invention, of these fatal principles may be traced to men, few in number, who derived little advantage from the accidental circumftances of birth and fortune, who were generally profligate in their morals, and, compared with the advocates for religion and virtue, even contemptible in learning and ability-but it might be afked to what cause are we to afcribe their fuccefs? for to overturn opinions, which have been confecrated by the experience of ages, even if we fuppofe the co-operation of the moft favourable circumftances, muft be allowed to be an arduous undertaking. The most obvious answer

is, that the induftry of the enemies of religion and government almoft exceeds credibility. They have affumed every form, and appeared under every character: fometimes in a fentimental novel they confound the diftinctions of right and wrong, and inflame the paffions of the young and inexperienced. At other times they adopt a more ferious and impofing manner, flatter the ambition of the bold and afpiring, with the profpect of emoluments and honours; or, fhould the difciple be of a ftudious and contemplative turn, he is led through the mazes of the intricate and perplexing fophiftry of Helvetius or Rouffeau and while plotting the destruction of every thing facred and venerable, they infult our understandings with the cant of benevolence and philanthropy. Having feduced to their party the weak and vain, they find little difficulty in making converts among the profligate and vicious. Every wicked man is an enemy to the re ftraints of religion and government, and will eagerly embrace doctrines which profefs to release him from thofe obligations to which he never fubmitted without great reluctance: but the indefatigable labours and fubtle machinations of thefe mifcreants, aided as they have been by the blindness of human paffion, and the perverfity of human will, could never have produced fuch wonderful effects, had not the tafte of the age forwarded their defigns. No period in the history of the world abounded fo much in books as the prefent times, and never was the paffion for reading fo univerfal. But the knowledge acquired by this reading is, in general, light and fuperficial, and, by confequence, favourable for the adoption of falfe opinions for an imperfect comprehenfion of a fubject, not ignorance, is the real fource of error, and with men who derive all the learning of which they are mafters from the publications of the day, the doctrines of our modern philofophers may obtain credit from their boldness and novelty, and the plaufible manner in which they are fometimes delivered; and, perhaps, it may be of service to my country, to examine those principles on which our reformers attempt to justify the innovations they with to make in the conftitution of our church and ftate, as well as in every government in Europe. That the object of all governments ought to be the happiness of the people committed to their charge, has been confidered as an axiom in politics, on which we may fafely rely yet, fhould we allow its truth in the fullest extent, a pretence would never be wanting for fubjects to rebel. The fum of human happiness, even in the best regulated ftates, can never keep pace with the wishes of the benevolent, or the expectations of the proud and vain and the mifery and distress which many individuals muft unavoidably fuffer, may, when drawn up in the form of a pathetic tale, or heightened by acrimonious aggravation, render men of fober minds and good difpo fitions difcontented with the government under which they live: for it may be afferted, with fome degree of plaufibility, that if the government engages to make the people happy, and fails in the attempt, the failure must be afcribed to fome defect in the conftitution of that government; and it seems reasonable that the people should wish to remedy this defect, But this can feldom be done without contefts,

bloodshed, and all the horrors of a civil war; which, perhaps, may not be terminated till one party is extirpated, and the other fo much weakened, as to be an eafy prey to fome ambitious leader or factious demagogue. But even fhould thefe reformers find little oppofition to their views, yet, in fearch of theoretical happiness, they might farfeit peace, fecurity, protection, and the more folid comforts of life. It cannot, therefore, be furprifing, that men of a fober and temperate caft of mind, on taking a view of the fatal effects of these innovations, of which history and experience afford fuch numerous examples, fhould doubt whether the happiness of the people ever was, or ever can be, the primary object of any government.

To form a clear conception of the fubject, it may be necessary to examine into the nature of human happiness, and we fhall not be much miftaken, if we fuppofe a large portion of it to confift in the discharge of our domeftic duties, and the indulgence of thofe virtuous affections which Milton calls the charities of life. Now it will be admitted, that no government, however vigilant, can infpect the conduct of a man in the various relations of father, hufband, brother, and fon. Yet he cannot fail in any of the duties incident to thefe fituations, without involving fome innocent individuals in mifery, which may not, perhaps, be the lefs fevere, because they are obliged to mourn in filence. But fhould it be faid, that we have only taken a partial view of happinefs, and that philofophers of the greatest renown have placed it in the practice of virtue, and the confcientious discharge of our duties to God and man; that the fcience of morality, which enforces thefe duties, is the bafis of all law and government, which, if properly constituted, muft render men virtuous, and, by confequence, happy. To this we might answer, that all the writers on ethics have divided the duties one man owes to another, into the perfect and imperfect. The firit cannot be violated without deftroying the peace, and endangering the exiftence of civil fociety; and crimes of this fort are cognizable by human laws: but offences against the latter, though equally pernicious in their effects, are lefs violent in their operation; and the wisdom of man has not yet devised a punishment for envy, deceit, perfidy, and ingratitude; and yet to thefe, and other malignant properties of the fame nature, the greateft part of the mifery of life is owing. The real truth is, that government can only afford to its fubjects protection in perfon and property; and, in return, it requires obedience and a facrifice of fome of thofe rights, which man poffeffes in a ftate of nature, and which cannot be exercifed without danger of abufe. Now this protection can alone be secured by a ftrict and impartial adminiftration of juftice, which may be termed, with propriety, the vital principle of government. Dr. Thompson, whofe name can never be mentioned but with respect, has obferved, that most nations have the wisdom to make good laws, but few have the virtue to put them in execution: but this great moralift might have known, that for effecting this defirable purpose, power may be as neceffary as virtue. In an abfolute monarchy, where the authority of the ftate is concentrated in a fingle perfon, there can be no deficiency

of power. But this power may receive an oblique direction, from ignorance, folly, and vice, and judicial determinations, whilft under fuch malignant influence, muft neceffarily be uncertain, partial, and capricious. In a democracy, even if you fuppofe the body of the people to be virtuous and well difpofed, yet a controuling power is wanting to give a steadiness to their proceedings; and it has been frequently obferved, that their decifions are generally marked by cruelty, injustice, and ingratitude for the leading principle of that form of government is an extreme jealoufy of an invafion of their liberty; a pattion that, above all others, blinds the understanding, and fteels the heart against every fentiment of compaffion and juftice, To be fatisfied of this truth, we have only to perufe the hiftory of the Republics of Greece and Rome. Orators and hiftorians, in their declamatory difcourfes, have reprefented tyrants as enemies to virtue in their fubjects; but not one of thofe monfters, raised by the blindnefs of fortune to abfolute power, whofe crimes we now contemplate with horror, ever treated the benefactors of their country with fuch cruelty and injuftice, as Athens did her most renowned citizens. The Republic of Rome is justly chargeable with the fame folly and ingratitude; and if it was not guilty in the fame degree, it is to be afcribed to its having a larger portion of aristocracy in the conftitution of its government, which, in fome measure, counteracted the madness of the people. From every light we can derive from history, it appears that fecurity of perfon and property is better maintained under an abfolute monarchy than a democraey; for the folly and caprice of the people, when vefted with fovereign power, are more extenfive in their influence, and more fatal in their effects, than the vices of the most defpotic tyrant. Of an oligargical form of government I fhall fay little, fince of all tyrannies it is allowed to be the moft grievous; and in a pure ariftocracy, the ftate is divided into two parties, which agree in nothing but in neglecting the public good. We may, therefore, fafely affirm, that this union of power and virtue, which we deem effential for the fteady and impartial administration of justice, is alone to be found in a limited monarchy: and of all limited monarchies, we may, without being accufed of any unreafonable partiality, pronounce the government of Great Britain to be the beft; for by its happy conftitution, the crown poffeffes a controuling power, which is conftantly exerted for the good, and can never be mifapplied to the prejudice of the fubject: and the other branches of the Legislature, though vefted with feparate privileges, fufficient to fecure their independence, yet can make no law which is binding on the community but by their joint confent; and for the juft execution of the laws, we have every fecurity that the moft confummate wifdom could devife. Our judges are not only fuperior, by their rank and fortune, to every fufpicion of corruption, but are never raifed to that exalted station till after many years experience and daily practice in the profeffion of the law; fo that we have as little to fear from their ignorance, as from their want of integrity, But to guard againit even the poffibility of an abufe of power on the part of the judges, the final decifion of every caufe, civil