tion, for the doctrine of eternal fleep, relieving them from the apprehenfion of future punishment, and fhadowing, with the black mantle of eternal oblivion, the complicated infamy of their lives, the enormous catalogue of their crimes, was an act of wisdom in the rebels, traitors, and regicides of France. But, whatever fuccefs fuch a doctrine may chance to obtain among that defcription of fectaries who compofe and protect the New Analytical Review, happily it only needs to be expofed in order to be reprobated by the great mafs of unphilofophic, unenlightened Chriftians of this yet unreformed country.

Mr. Lloyd is farther abused for his attack on modern philofophy, which, we are told, is "the cant phrase for principles as ancient as the reafon of man." Now the modern philofophy which Mr. Lloyd has attacked is the philofophy of Godwin and Paine; and we really were not aware that their principles were fo ancient as they are here ftated to be. It was perfectly natural, indeed, that thefe Reviewers fhould ftand forward as the champions of fuch worthy affociates, because they are evidently enlifted under the fame banners. They quote fome "acute French philofopher," to fhew that "the principles of but few men involve any confequences;" i. e. if we rightly understand them, that Rebels and Atheists should be permitted to confpire with impunity, whenever they have no immediate opportunity of carrying their principles into effect. We give them credit for the attempt-but it comes rather too late for their purpofe, fince the confequences of the principles of the acute philofophers of France have afforded the world an ample opportunity for appreciating them, and we do not apprehend that the unenlightened mafs of our countrymen will view the attempt to propagate them with complacency.

AS

To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine.

SIR,

your impartial Review affords every author an opportunity of correcting the mif-ftatements and mifreprefentations of other lefs impartial publications, I take the liberty of requesting your infertion of this reply to the Monthly Reviewers' obfervations on my late pamphlet, entitled, "An Appeal to the Nation," as I am not only mifreprefented, but charged with want of temper and decency. The Reviewer firft reprefents me as 66 pronouncing Mr. Wilber. force's book to be the best Expofition of the Old and New Tefta. ments which I had of late years met with." This is not perfectly correct; if you turn to the pamphlet, you will obferve I call it one of the best expofitions; and though it may be faid, perhaps, that this is

NO. X. VOL. II.

X x

only

only a fhade of difference, yet ftill it is a difference, and fuch a difference as might have induced the Reviewer to moderate the farcafm of his obfervation that I had been unfortunate. Were I fpeaking, for inftance, of the Duke of Norfolk, I fhould call him the first Peer of the Realm; of any other Duke, I fhould defcribe him as one of the first Peers. I fhould not prefume to call the late Bishop of Norwich (Dr. Horne) the best and most amiable man of his day; but I might very fairly prefume to fay, (and I will fay it from my own knowledge,) that he was one of the best and most amiable of men. It is poffible there may be fome things in Dr. Hammond and Whitby on the New Teftament, or in Mr. Locke on the Epiftles, which inay not exactly square with my own fentiments; but, furely, I may be allowed to rank them amongst the best of our commentators. In the fame manner, though there may be fome things in Mr. W.'s book which I do not perfectly approve, fome things expreffed in language apparently Methodistical, yet I may be permitted to rank it amongst fame of the best expofitions of fcripture. I will explain my reasons more at large. It ftates clearly the doctrines of fcripture, the prin ciples of Christianity; it enforces, in energetic language, the practice of Christianity, on the only true and folid foundation, viz. the prin ciples; it calls, in a mafterly manner, on the higher and middle ranks of fociety, (thofe who, amidst the cares and anxiety of riches, the avocations of bufinefs, and the pleasures and diffipations of the world, are but too apt to be unmindful of these things, and who are guilty of fetting a bad example to their inferiors,) it calls them to a recollection of these things, and, being written in a ftrong nervous style, it is calculated for the general information and conviction of those to whom it is more immediately addreffed; and it will not, I think, be denied, that it is more adapted to general reading than the long, laborious, and fcholaftic expofitions even of our beft commentators. The intention of the work is excellent, and the execution of it is, in my humble opinion, well calculated to promote the practice of piety and a general reformation of manners upon Chriftian principles. As fuch, my feeble commendation has been bestowed upon it, and 1 have recommended its perufal. But as my opinion is that of an individual merely, I will produce other and better teftimony. A very intelligent and impartial perfon, (he is no prieft, no bigot, but a phyfician, of great skill and eminence in his profeffion, and of very extenfive practice,) in a letter on the fubject of Mr. W.'s book, obferves, it is a work the most impreffive in fupport of genuine Christianity, and the best calculated to operate upon the minds of the higher ranks of this age, that has ever fallen into my hands." I can alfo produce inftances of very pious and exemplary Christians, who, upon their death-beds, have, in the most folemn and impreffive manner, recommended to their relations and friends a ferious perufal and confideration of the book. I can likewife, from the teftimony of a multitude of correfpondents, in various parts of the country, state, as a fact, the very extenfive fale, and the very general approbation, which it has experienced. Thefe things I have ftated, to obviate

the

the charge which the Reviewer has brought against me, of difgufting flattery to Mr. W. Neither knowing nor known to him, I meant not to offer at his fhrine the incenfe of fulfome adulation. I merely ftated my opinion of his book and of the truths contained therein. If the doctrines which he maintains be true, and the brief arguments I have brought in fupport of them be valid, the charge of difgufting flattery will be abated, at least, if not entirely done away. If, on the other hand, the doctrines be proved falfe, and the arguments weak and inefficient, I am content it fhall be called by a worle name than that of fulfome flattery. The Monthly Reviewers' preliminary obfervations on the "Effay on Population," (See Monthly Review, for Sept. 1798,) appear to me to be drawn up by a very able hand, and the fyftems of M. Condorcet and Mr. Godwin are very truly charac terized as abfurd, fantattical, and contrary to common fenfe and experience. In ftating fuch an opinion, am I to be charged with fulfome flattery? Praife and cenfure are not always (merely as fuch) to be interpreted as flattery and invective; the intention of the perfon in bestowing it, and his reafons for fo doing, together with the merit or demerit of the object, are to be taken into the account.* On the whole, then, I must continue to think that Mr. W.'s view is a truer reprefentation of Chriftianity than any that Mr. Wakefield has yet produced. Mr. W.'s" deficiency as an expofitor, in not diftinguishing between a natural depravity and a difeafed ftate of nature," cannot easily be difcuffed in the compafs of a letter. The corruption of human nature is a mysterious fubject, and difficult of comprehenfion; the precife nature and the accurate diftinction of it, and how it is tranfmitted to us, are things, perhaps, not neceffary to be known. We believe it from the concurrent teftimony of revelation and experience. I will only add this one obfervation, that the fcripture fpeaks of us as "naturally dead (not fick) in trefpaffes and fins," and that the atonement and propitiation made by the death of Chrift is the remedy provided to "raife us from the death (not fickness) of fin unto the life of righteoufnefs."

The Reviewer's ingenuity in difcovering that "my object is not fo much to depreciate Mr. Wakefield, or to praife Mr. Wilberforce, as to comment on the fashionable doctrines of the day," I am perfectly contented to admit. But what are these fashionable doctrines? If he means the corruption of human nature, juftification by faith, the divinity of Chrift, the atonement made by his death, his media torial office, the influence of the Holy Ghoft, fanctification, and divine grace, I must be allowed to obferve, that these are not the fashionable doctrines of the prefent day merely; they are, at leaft, as old as the Reformation, and they have continued to maintain their ground from that time to the present hour, not fo much from the

* If my flattery of Mr. Wilberforce be characterized as difgufting, I should be glad to know by what term we are to characterize Mr. Wakefield's flattery of Mr. Fox, at the conclufion of his Reply to the Bishop of Landaff.

pious endeavours of great and good men to fupport them, as from the foundation of truth on which they reft. If, therefore, Mr. Wakefield deny thefe doctrines, (and I obferve that Mr. Belfham has denied feveral of them, together with the existence of the evil fpirit, and the obfervance of the Chriftian fabbath, to have any foundation in fcripture,) if Mr. Wakefield deny thefe doctrines, I do not fee how he can defend himself from the charge of "taking away from the words of the book" of fcripture. But if, by thefe fashionable doctrines, be meant the perfectibility of human nature in this life, (a doctrine maintained by that half-philofopher, Mr. Godwin,) the eftablishment of a fyftem of univerfal equality, and the cafting off the fear of God, (and I have endeavoured, more at large, to shew, from the fcriptures themselves, that these have not only no foundation in fcripture, but are directly contrary to the whole tenor of it,) then I do not fee how Mr. Wakefield, who afferts them to be scripture doctrines, can acquit himfelf of the charge of "adding to the words of that book." In both these inftances, then, I must beg leave to fay, that Mr. Wakefield's View of Christianity, in my opinion, does not fo nearly refemble the divine original as that of Mr. Wilberforce.

With refpect to the charge of feverity to Mr. Wakefield, I can only fay, that, being equally unknown to him as he is to me, it is clear I can have no perfonal enmity against him. That I have made ufe of fome ftrong and fevere expreffions I do not deny. But in oppofing opinions, which I felt perfuaded were not only contrary to fcripture, but also of pernicious tendency, furely fomething may be allowed to the heat of controverfy, fomething to natural warmth of temper, fomething to the important nature of the things controverted. It certainly was not my in ention to break the bond of peace, or burft the tie of Christian charity, and if I have been guilty of it, I fhall, at any time, be ready to repair the breach. But if the peace has been broken, I may be allowed to ask, who first fet the example? Is not Mr. Wakefield's language the mot violent, the most outrageous, the moft abufive, that man could invent? Not content with afperfing Mr. Wilberforce, he has gone out of his way (very anneceffarily at leaft) to overwhelm with his invectives Mr. Pitt, the Bishops, the Nobility, (has he even fpared the King himfelf?) every character, in fhort, which Englishmen have been accustomed to hold facred, venerable, or dignified. In my pamphlet, which extends to 82 pages, very clofely printed, the Reviewer has, with difficulty, gleaned fome few expreffions of harfhnefs or feverity; in Mr. Wakefield's letter, which, by being widely printed, contains not more than half the matter, (I fpeak in refpect to quantity,) you can fcarcely read three pages without being fhocked by the moft opprobrious and difgufting expreflions. But to the opinion of my fellowcountrymen I can be content, at any time, to refer the difpute; they well know how to diftinguish between a strong gale and a hurricane; if they can prevail upon themfelves to "fwallow a camel," they will not, I am perfuaded, "ftrain at a gnat." With the dignified affu

rance

rance of confidence, I am ready to make fuch an appeal. Or, as the public are a party concerned in the intemperate and indecent language of all authors, if Mr. Wakefield, who fet the example of such language, will fet the example of an apology to the public, proportionate to the offence he has given them, I will follow him, paffibus æquis, and make an apology proportionate to mine; I will not be behindhand with him in what a nervous writer ftyles "the magnanimous humility of Chriftian abafement." (See Dr. Rennel's Sermon, before the University of Cambridge, on Commencement Sunday, 1798.) I will repeat, that I have no perfonal enmity against Mr. Wakefield, and were he to prefent himfelf before me at this moment, in formâ pauperis, the hand of charity would be extended to him, in preference, perhaps, to any other petitioner, as he would come in the most unquestionable fhape, and with the most recommendatory claim, as Vir elegantis cultique ingenii cum malá fortuna compofitus."

And now, Sir, I flatter myfelf that I am entitled, no less than Mr. Wakefield, to an equal and impartial diftribution of juftice, The Reviewer accufes me of want of temper and decency; yet paffes over Mr. Wakefield with very flight reprehenfion, if any. In Mr. Wakefield's pamphlet, he obferves, there are many things worthy of Mr. Wilberforce's attention; of mine, he questions the tendency to do good in thefe times; though I think I may venture to affert, without incurring the imputation of vanity, that there are fome few things in it which even Mr. Wakefield himself might not unprofitably attend to. In the one cafe, every little fault that can be picked out is exaggerated; in the other, even great ones are foftened down, Why mete with fo different a measure? Is this equal juftice? Mr. Wakefield, in his reply to the Bishop of Landaff, profeffes "to write with ftudied lenity, and a perpetual repreffion of his feelings, on account of the diftinguifhed character whom he oppofes; and yet he reprefents the Bishop as an incarnate Satan in the pandemonium of infernal fpirits." If this be the repreffion of his feelings, what, I would afk, muft be the ebullition of them? I will not profane the name of a Chriftian by asking if this be Christian language; but I will fay, I muit beg leave to prefer Mr. Wilberforce's Chriftianity to that of Mr. Wakefield, whilft he holds fuch language as this; for "by their fruits ye shall know them." And has the Reviewer paffed over this obfervation without the caftigation which it deferved, and which he ought to have given it? If fo, I will fubmit the queftion-What must be the feelings of a Reviewer, who could filently pafs over fuch an obfervation? And what would he deferve for fo palpable a breach of his duty to the public? I will ask another question-If, under the influence of fome wayward and malignant planet, I had unluckily made fuch an obfervation, would he have buried it in filence-would he not have triumphantly expofed it to the indignant reprobation of his readers? If he had not done fo, he would have been deficient in his duty as a Reviewer; that he would have done fo is fufficiently evident, (if we may be allowed to conclude what he would have done from what he