quently produce internal impreffions, and that objects of fenfe can very powerfully affect and regulate mental difpofitions." This very plain and important truth it appears the Analytical Reviewers have yet to learn. Mr. P. treats the fubject, taken from St. Matthew, v. 18 and 20, in the following manner:-1ft. He confiders the import of the text as it is in itself-2dly. As affording argument and exhortation towards local communion among Chriftians; and concludes with fome obfervations particularly adapted to the circum-. ftances of the day. The text he confiders "not as an unmeaning intimation, infignificantly held forth by Jesus Christ, but as affording the moft rational grounds of hope and confidence that for all the purposes of Chriftian communication, for all the benefits to be derived to mankind through Jefus Christ, he is ever specially in the midst of his faithful followers, prefent in power, which is true and effectual prefence, as true and as effectual as if vifible to our perception, aiding and fupporting the good purpofes of thofe who are affembled in his name." Surely from this doctrine none but an enemy to the very effence of Chriftianity can diffent, and the fatisfaction to be derived from it forms no fmall portion of the happiness of a pious and devout mind. The progrefs of the church to the state in which it now appears, when Kings became its nurfing fathers and Queens its nurfing mothers, and it became invested with the form of what we call establishments, is concifely and clearly related. We will add one quotation more, to give the reader an idea of Mr. P.'s style : "On fuch principles as these, do we, as Chriftian Minifters, cordially take our part under our diocefan, in the completion of this day's undertaking; that by a legal dedication of this fpacious edifice to God's fervice, by a folemn confecration of all that is effential to a material church, after a practice as ancient as the nature of a progreffive fpiritual church would allow an epifcopal church of Chrift may at all times be here affembled; good-men here have the benefit of frequent intercourfe with their Creator, learn here the various duties of their respective fituations, be here inftructed in the proper objects and materials of their faith, their prayers, and their thanksgivings, and that from hence the fecureft principles of genuine Christianity may be tranfmitted to fucceeding generations." On the whole, we think Mr. P. has well difcharged the duty of the fituation in which he ftood; and we congratulate Mr. Townshend and the other gentlemen by whofe meritorious exertions a portion of that very populous neighbourhood has been brought back to the good old paths. To To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. MR. EDITOR, EMBOLDENED by that candour and liberality with which you permit writers, who have been treated with afperity and injuftice, to plead their own caufe, and by the refpectable teftimony which you have borne to the merits of my juvenile essays in poetry, I venture to request your infertion of the following. In the preface to the above-mentioned I had anticipated the im potent malevolence of the foi difant critic, but anticipated it with difregard and contempt. The relult has proved that my expectations were not unfounded. You know, Sir, the loyalty of the publication which, with a man of liberal mind, profeffing the fame fentiments, and ftrenuous in the fame caufe, would have far outweighed the refentment arifing from the laugh, which I chofe to indulge, at the inconfiftent remarks of the BRITISH CRITIC. In what is called, I fuppofe, the review of my "Poems," in the journal for laft month, (after a pretty fair delay,) the little-minded critic, in the very fpirit that characterizes the vehicles of philofo phifm, fedition, and blafphemy, cautiously avoids the mention of the fubjects on which they chiefly treat, and the defign of the publication. The greater part of the criticifm (forgive the abufe of the term) is employed in a nugatory, and not very fair, vindication of their own confiftency. Here they inform me that my preface is "puerite," and I am contented with its being called fo, provided their critique be read at the fame time. Never did the temper of a sentence more vilely belie the words in which it is couched. No, Mr. Editor, had this fhrewd gentleman thought it as puerile as he says, he would have laughed at it, and not have loft his good humour. You appear to have entertained a different opinion of it. (P. 537, Vol. I.) The critic then proceeds to grumble reluctant applaufe on fome paffages fomewhere in these poems, which he deigns to lay are deferving "very high praife," and flippantly afks, "Will this fatisfy this tefty youth ?" I always thought, Sir, that critics were the pilots of literature, whofe cautious experience might teach young adventurers to fteer clear of the rocks and quickfands, which might, otherwife, wreck them, ere they gained the wide expanfe of the ocean. I court no man's praife, I deprecate not cenfure; fair and ingenious criticism I love. If I delerve a mixture of praife and cenfure, let both be freely imparted; but let the fault or the excellence be pointed out, that the former may ferve as a buoy, to warn me against fhoals, and the latter as a magnet, to direct me in the courfe I ought to fteer. I am well aware that my poems have many imperfections, fuch as might well be expected in the productions of a young man, to whom it is irkfome to revife, and who feldom, but by a pleafing compulfion, leaves the luminous pages of antiquity for the purpofe of feebly delineating his own fels noble thoughts. I should I fhould be glad to know from what part of my writings this acute gentleman has collected that I am a "tefty youth." If from the preface, I am fure that you will bear me witness that it is written jokingly and in good humour. But grant that I am really fo. What then? Has it not been the chartered right and the privilege of the whole fraternity, from time immemorial, to be irritable? and were even that not the cafe, is he ignorant that the poor worm we tread on will turn in vengeance, however impotent its efforts, against the foot that preffes on it. I am, however, perfectly fatisfied with this growling approbation, more sterling than if it had been couched in smoother phrase. Yours, &c. ROBERT FARREN CHEETHAM. Oxford, March 5, 1799. To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. SIR, Uno avulfo non deficit alter. What tho' in gaol convicted Jn lie, WE uporical Review is deeply regretted by all E are informed, upon the beft authority, that the untimely the friends of liberal enquiry. Tom Paine, in Paris, is miserable; the expatriated illuftrious fufferer, in America, inconfolable; and the virtuous Godwin laments it nearly as much as the departure of his immaculate confort. The difciples of this diftinguifhed triumvirate are in the fame melancholy fituation as their mafters, Ambubaiarum, collegia, pharmacopolæ Mendici, mimi, balatrones, hoc genus omne, To footh, however, the forrows of thefe afflicted mourners, a New Analytical Review, attached alone to the facred cause of truth, unprejudiced, impartial as the old, conducted precifely upon the fame principles, evidently written by the fame authors, aliufque et idem nafcitur, and is gallantly offered to the patronage of the public. It commences, properly enough, with the work of an author who has already introduced its former editor to a gaol, and is himself convicted of a feditious and infamous libel; of course he is an object of panegyric. These old writers of the new review very judicioufly applaud him for inability to correct errors, for grofs vanity, an undefcribable fpecies of felf-fufficiency, and wonderful ingenuity in printing an equal number of lines, from Virgil and Lucretius, on oppofite pages. They piously with * The advertisement of the New Analytical Review. him him to expunge two lines, in which Mr. Fox is compared to our Saviour, because, they fay, that Mr. Fox does not relish the comparifon, and conclude with a fentence, whofe grammar, idiom, and ineaning, it is neceffary to correct, conftrue, and explain. "We fear much" (that) "his hopes will be frustrated. At least as long as the furious Bellona rages and ravages the world," (as long as the war lafts) "the gentle mufes will attract little refpect, unlels they be party, political mufes;" that is, party political mufes are the gentle mules. After this most notable difcovery, "Adolphus's Biographical Memoirs of the French Revolution" come under their cognizance, and they fcruple not to declare that the author is deprived of all title to attention, because he was not at Paris at the time of the Revolution, because he searches for matter of apology for one party, and of accufation for another, and, having chofen his party, is folicitous only for its defence. Adolphus fays, "From the publications of the best informed and moft impartial hiftorians, from the reluctant confeffions of his adverfaries, and from the evidence of authentic facts, I fhall endeavour to controvert the obloquy fo invariably pursued against the unhappy and truly amiable Louis, and to represent him the friend and model of virtue, the victim of intrigue and perfecution. Several well-informed hiftorians have borne teftimony to his virtues, and difplayed his motives in their proper light; but I have not relied entirely on their narratives; I have furveyed the contrary fide, and, in order. to establish truth, have explored the fource of calumny, and in-. vestigated the origin of every flander." This paffage, which the New Analytical Reviewers' ftupidly quote in their juftification, gives them the lie direct, and proves that the manly and candid author is entitled to the highest degree of credit and refpect. They, however, are of a different opinion, and, not fatisfied with accufing him of grofs partiality and tedious dulnefs, ftand forward in defence of the kindness and benevolence" of their friend and countryman, (as they call him,) Tom Paine. It may be asked, what has the kind and benevolent Paine done to deferve the praises of any Englishman? He has repeatedly inftigated the people to fubvert the Conftitution, reviled his King, and blafphemed his God. These are the merits of Paine, and these are claims to their gratitude, which have been, and always will be, admitted by the friends of liberal enquiry. The old and New Analytical Reviewers' remarks on this publication are clofed with an affertion that the "old defpotifm of France, for fome time previous to the Revolution, threw into the baftille every man who had written with freedom upon government."-"Seven prifoners (four of them not ftate ones) were the whole number found in the baftille when forced by the mob !*" This is a fact universally known, and the friends of truth alone, when they ftated the contrary, were perfectly aware that their statement was wilfully malignant and falle. I fhall not, See Young's Example to France. Mr. Mr. Editor, at present trefpafs upon your patience any longer, but if this taftelefs, bigoted,, lying Review, continues to infult the eye and understanding of the public, I will conftantly point out to you the most ftriking inftances of its falfehood, difaffection, and mifrepresentation. To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. SIR, WHILE C. S. WHILE I acknowledge the compliment which you paid my Sermon on Public Worship, by noticing it in your learned and patriotic Review, I beg leave to fuggeft that you feem to have miftaken the drift of my argument in one particular inftance. This I should have intimated in the course of last month, had I, at that time, had any copy of it in my poffeffion. Permit me now, Sir, to obviate the poffibility of mifconception, by explaining my own meaning. It is your opinion that, in the paffage quoted in . 672, Vol. I. of the Anti-Jacobin Review, I have confounded government with religion, in laying that the latter allows every denomination of Chriftians fuch modes of worship as their confciences most approve." My words are an appeal to the experience and candour of every thinking perfon, literally as follows:-" And can the human intellect conceive a more benevolent fyftem of religion and government than this" (viz. "the religious and civil government," mentioned in the preceding fentence) "which confults and provides for the immediate, as well as final, happiness of all its members; difpenfing to every individual as much liberty as is consistent with the fafety and good order of the whole, and allowing every denomination of Chriftians fuch modes of worship as their confciences moft approve?" (P. 25.) The inference intended, and which, I think, is fairly deducible from the words, is this-i.e. that the Conftitution of this realm had provided, with wife and affectionate folicitude, for the happiness of its fubjects, by fuch a liberal establishment of religion as was confiftent with the public fecurity, and the rights of private confcience. The modes of worship, which I here fuppofed to be within the limits of legal toleration are fuch as are founded on an acknowledgement not only of the divinity of our bleffed Saviour, but alfo of the Trinity, which cannot include thofe of the Unitarian, e deiftical Diffenter. Thefe, however refpectable they may be in regard to private character, are not comprehended in the toleration act, even as extended by 19 G. III. c. 44. Judge Blackftone, in his comment on the toleration act, excludes all those who deny the Trinity. Vol. IV. P. 54. Would you honour my fermon with a farther perufal, I think you would find in it no conceffions to any denominations of Chriftians incompatible with a decided preference for the church. of England. This preference I have always felt, and, on all fit occafions, NO. IX. VOL. II. |