ployed; and that more able dispatches than his have feldom been read by a cabinet; and relying on your impartiality for the immediate infertion of this letter, haften to fubfcribe myself,

A LOVER OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR,

THE HE British Critic, in reviewing "a Layman's Remarks on Dr. Vine cent's Defer ce," obte ves, (Vol. XIX. p. 654,) "The attempt to purify the clatics has a pecious appearance; but who does not know that "the Delphin edit ons, where the offenave parts are either uninterpreted or removed to the end, inv te rather than repel the curiosity of youth?" Surely the Reviewer is here guilty, at leaft, of a little inconfitency, if not able to the charge of withing to retain the impurities and indecencies of the clafics. He appears, indeed, decidedly again any attemt to purify them, as a measure ipecious indeed, but impracticable; because, in one initance, where the attempt has been made, it has not only failed of furces, but has proved a remedy worfe than the difeafe. His charge against the Delphin editions, as viting rather than repelling the curiofity of youth, by leaving the offenfive parts uninterpreted, is true. But what then? because one attempt has failed, does it follow that all others must prove equally untuccefsful, or that no other attempt must be made? That that attempt should fail of fucce's was certainly no matter of furprife, because it applied not to the root of the evil. It retained all the offentive patlages, omitting only the interpretation of them; fo that wherever an hiatus occurred in the interpretation, there the eye of the learner was irrefiftibly attracted; and if he was incompetent to understand the paffage, divested of its intrepretation, a Dictionary readily fupplied that deficiency. But surely an obvious remedy might very effectually be applied; a remedy, indeed, fo obvious, that I am surprised it did not occur to a Reviewer, I mean that of expunging every offensive pallage of the author, inftead of leaving them uninterpreted, Such an "expurgata editio" of the principal claffics, for the ufe of fchools, would be a more valuable prefent, than the laborious difquifitions of learn ed commentators, or the various readings and emendations of verbal critics. And where would be the lots to learning, if all fuch paffages were to be facrificed at the fhrine of morality? Trifling confeffedly as that lofs would be, how would it be overbalanced, how would it fhrink into nothing, when compared with the advantages that would refult from it to the morals of our youth! But it will be faid, are we to give up our beft claffics to be curtailed and mutilated by the hand of ignorance? No, not by the hand of ignorance; but curtailed they ought to be, and purged of every paffage that has a tendency to cherish the corruption of human nature, to inflame the pallions, to vitiate the morals, and to debauch the heart. After all fuch curtailment, fufficient would ftill remain for every purpose of inftruction or illuftration which the ftudy of the claffics is intended to anfwer. Here then the "litare labor" would be moft commendably beltowed. Thus would the fources of inftruction become pure, ansi the effects might be ex pected to appear in the amelioration of morals. Thus also would the character of the respective authors rife to a more exalted height. And furely thofe authors themfelves would, if it were now in their power, very readily

confent

confent to cancel every paffage of an impure, indecent, immoral, or irreligious tendency., Lord Rochefter, we know, on his death-bed requefied that his lewd and profane poems and libels might not be published to the world. [See advertisement to Parfons's Sermon at Lord Rochester's Funeral] Pope, it is probable, left directions for fuppreffing fome of his juvenile productions, not remarkable for their decency; or, if it can be fuppofed that he did not leave any fuch expreís directions, his original editor, (Warburton) in the "delicacy of his friendhip," and regard for the reputation of the author, cr (it may be hoped) from better motives, from a fenfe of religious and moral duty, voluntarily fupprefied them. Not fo, a fubfequent editor of the fame poet; (Dr. Jofeph Warton) he, with an un blushing affurance, has brought forward and dilplayed to public view, what his more modeft predeceffor had induftriously concealed, and what the inte refts of religion and morality, nay, even a fenfe of common decency, ought to have taught a clergyman of the Church of England to conceal. [Sce Notes to the 4th Part of the Purfuits of Literature, and Introductory Letter to the Tranflation of Pallages in that mafierly work.] Nor is it fufficient to fay, in defence of fuch conduct, that every, even the moft trifling compofition of fuch a poet, is worthy of prefervation, or that, in order to form a true eftimate of the character of a poet, every production of his genius fhould be brought under review. Such a defence is too puerile to deferve a refutation. Let us rather recommend to writers and editors of every defeription, to endeavour to deferve the fame juft tribute of praise, which Lord Lyttelton beltowed on one of the most elegant and moral of our poets, (Thomion.)

"His chafte mufe empley'd her heav'n-taught lyre None but the nobleft pallions to infpire,

Not one immoral, one corrupted, thought,

One line, which dying he could wish to blot."

August 1, 1803.

Prologue to Thomson's Coriolanus.

I am, Sir, your's, &c.

CLERICUS ANGLICANUS.

SIR,

ON THE GOOD WORKS OF HEATHENS.

TO THE EDITOR.

"

Tauver of "coral, at this Court Spain pilet reviewed in HE author of "Confiderations on the prefent State of Religion, fpeyour Number for January, 1803, p. 88,) alluding to the 13th Article, obferves, "Left any opening fhould be left, through which a ray of hope might enter, that virtuous heathens might potibly efcape damnation, it was carefully inferted in the Articles, not that their good works were he fective, which would have been true, but that they had undoubtedly the nature of fin, forafmuch as they tprung not of faith in Jesus Chrift, of whom they never could have heard." Here to me there appears fome nuiconception. It may, I think, be querioned, whether our reformers conndered their Articles as addrefied to heathens, or ever had them in contempla tion. Admitting, however, that the Article in question was intended to allude to virtuous heathens, who never could have heard of Jeius Christ,

M m 3

and

and to include them as well as nominal Chriftians, whofe works, done be fore the grace of Chrill and the infpiration of his fpirit, (that is, before they have received Jelus Christ and his golpel by faith) are here declared undoubtedly to have the nature of fin; admitting this; yet the Article neither fays or implies that fuch perfons cannot poffibly elcape damnation. And must be a firange pervertion that deduces any fuch prefumptuous doctine 'rom it. The Article only fays, that fuch works have undoubtedly the nature of fin; it does not go the length of faying that fuch fin is unpardonable, it reftricts not the mercy of God, nor" denies the polibility of its exercife out of the pale of the covenant;" on fuch matters it is wiely flent. And it further declares why fuch works have the nature of fin, forafinuch as they fpring not of faith in Jefus Chrift, and because they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done." It is then to be confidered, whether this doctrine, viz. " that fuch works have the nature of tin becaule they fpring not of faith in Jefus Chrift, and are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done," be a true dofine, that is agrecable to feripture. This author certainly appears by implication to deny it to be a true doctrine, for he fays, "It was carefully inferted in the Articles, not that fuch works were defective, which would have bej i trac; but that they had undoubtedly the nature of fin; which of case he must sytose to be not tire. To be convinced of the truth of it, I will only refer him to the quotations in Welchman on the 11th, 12th, and 13th Articles. And in order to fee the opinions of our divines concerning the extension of God's mere, to virtuous heathens, who have never heard of thé varae of Jefus Chritt, 1 con'd with him to read and compare together the expolition of Binop Pretyman, or the more enlarged one of Bishop Burnet, on the 15th and isih Articles. Thefe, I am perfuaded, will be fufficient to clear up all doubts and difficulties on the fubject to his fatisfac

tion.

The f me author is of opinion, " that purity of doctrine and uniformity of wor.hip in our national el.urch might be fecured by only requiring of the clergy an unequivocal afent to the Book of Cominon Prayer; or that if a further text fould be thought abolutely neceflary to afcertain uniformity of opinion, thore articles might be expunged which are not indipenlably necesary to falvation" I do not think that the clergy, as a body, would be defirous of being relieved from fubicription to the prefent Articles. And as we fee that differences of opinion, on many confeiledly very important fubjects, have prevailed, and continue to prevail, notwithitanding the exiflence and enforcement of this Teft" for the avoiding of the diverities of opinions, and for the ettablithing of confent touching true reli gion" it certainly deferves to be feriouly and maturely confidered, whe ther the abolition of this Tet would not open a door to fill greater differences of opinion, and afford a wider range for licentioufnels and diffention, both in doctrine and worthip. And thus the remedy would become worfe *than the difeafe; or rather would it not contribute to its aggravation ? Having thus fiated my reasons why I cannot fubfcribe to fome of this author's fentiments, I have only to add, that to fome other fentiments fated in your Review, fee ibid. p. 90, (whether this author's or your own) on the fubject of Churches for the Poor, and on the dilapidated State of Country Churches and Parionage Houles, I do moft cordially tubferibe. I am, Sir, your's, &c.

August 1, 1803.

CLERICUS ANGLICANUS.
INDEX.

то

THE FIFTEENTH VOLUME.