the king. This would be strange divinity. I wish it were less urged. It can serve no interest but the interest of craft, or of enthusiasm. And generally, from one or other of these motives, the awful, the inscrutable judgments of God are boldly denounced and applied. This rashness, indeed impiety, has been often exposed, and always will be, as often as 'tis attacked, yet is always confidently resumed by demagogues, fanatics and craftsmen.

The nonjurors have been threatening the nation with divine judgments, ever since the revolution. The people and clergy are by them declared to be in a state of schism and damnation; the kingdom under an usurpation, and both king and subjects intitled to God's avenging wrath. A doom particularly denounced by Dr. Brett, whose Popish doctrine of authoritative absolution, was moved to be approved by the convocation in a late reign, and no censure passed upon the mo tion. I know not that our preacher was then a member of it. He was certainly one soon afterwards, one of the zealous committee for censuring and misrepresenting that truly Protestant and Christian sermon of bishop Hoadly, defending Christ's own doctrine, that "His kingdom is not of this world." Not a word from that pious synod against the nonjurors clergy, nor against the other incendiary preachers, who raised the former rebellion; so far from threatening them with judg

ments!

One comfort, however, the preacher finds in the general aversion of the nation to Popery, but a comfort that bath an abatement in it, namely, That a fear of Popery is not always a concern for the purity of the gospel, but a fear merely of the powers of a Popish church." Strange reasoning in an Englishman, and a Protestant preacher ! Whatever sincere Protestant knows Popery, must fear it; whoever fears it, will oppose it. Whoever opposes Popery, serves the interest of the gospel, and of liberty, and consequently serves his country, both in its spiritual and temporal interests. What would the preacher have more? Can he himself do more? Or ought he to mistrust the intentions of any man in serving so just, so divine a cause? How would he like to be charged with a bad design, or with an hypocritical meaning, in this or any other of his pious labours? Does not he himself fear Popery? So much the greater cause have his readers to fear it. As Cato pertinently said to Cæsar, in relation to Cataline's conspiracy, which Cæsar secretly encouraged, yet publicly railed at the conspirators, whilst he was striving to save them from capital punishment, by artfully transferring the present dread of the senators upon other objects.

If Popery be the bane of the gospel, as I think it is; be who assaults Popery is an instrument to restore the purity of the gospel. Popery is worse than no religion, as our best divines allow and assert; and its bitter, unsociable, burning, damning spirit, is pernicious to all religion, to reason, peace, and mercy. Ought not religion, ought not reason and humanity all justly to fear, what they all have cause to abhor, and what destroys them all, the power of a Popish church? And can there be higher merit than exposing and crushing the most dreadful devices and engines of human misery?

66

The preacher seems fond of this unfair, inconclusive reasoning, and adds, that those who have the least religion, have reason to be apprehensive of ecclesiastical courts and inquisitions, under the direction of

Popery." I hope he will not deny, that all who have any religion, or the most religion, have ample and equal cause for such apprehensions. Does he know any thing more terrible, more diabolical than the inquisition, to any reasonable man, who would not shipwreck his conscience, his liberty, his life and fortune? It is so far from being chiefly terrible to men of little or no religion, that such only are the safest from it. Men of no conscience will submit to any system, take any oaths, and die for no creed. The greatest atheists are known to be the most cruel inquisitors: the greatest hypocrites are generally the loudest professors every where; and he who has the least religion or honesty, is generally the readiest to charge others with the want of them.

But in this (that is, in the apprehension of the inquisition, under the direction of Popery) says the preacher, still more strangely, there is no virtue or merit. Surely there is little candor, and great want of charity in this assertion. Is there no virtue in anxiety for public and private liberty; in a passion to save our country, in an abhorrence of slavery, imposture, idolatry, persecution? No merit in the love of truth and freedom, in rescuing and defending all that is dear to men and society? If the preacher thinks all this not to be religion, namely, to love, to serve, and to endeavour to save the public by opposing and pulling down what destroys the public, and extirpates religion itself, he had better have kept his opinion to himself.

The famous doctor Gainham, many years resident in the fleet, hearing the Reverend Dr. L commended for bis great humanity, and great piety; cried out, with his usual modesty," Who the d- thanks him for that? His wife beats him. It is she that keeps him humble, and he appears pious by being sad."

What higher virtue can be required in society? What better religion in any member of it, than a warm zeal for his country, its religion and liberties, and a suitable detestation of slavery, imposture and idolatry? Will he oppose to so much useful merit, dry speculations, monkish distinctions, and the repetition of creeds? Will be set up any narrow bigot against so noble a character; a character justly esteemed beyond all others in all free, polite and rational nations? The antient Greeks and Romans never inquired, concerning a friend to the state, a hero in the field, a patriot in the senate, what form of prayer he used, or what mode of worship he practised, or what articles of belief he professed? His public services, his virtuous dealings, were all that the public wanted from him; and whoever had virtue was reckoned to have religion.

Virtue is religion, at least the surest proof and indication of it: whoever has virtue is a good citizen and a good man: nor need society or his neighbours inquire further about him. The contrary reasoning strikes at the very root of religion itself, and of all private and social virtue: thus the best man may be said to be just only from dread of the laws; the best women to be chaste from fear of obloquy; the most pious preachers to be disguised hypocrites, only courting preferment, or popular applause; the bravest soldiers animated by nothing but the love of glory or of pay; and the most devout Christian by the terrors of damnation.

Aristides, Epaminondas, Scipio, Paulus Æmilius, Cato, Cicero, all friends to mankind, all virtuous benefactors to their country, naturally loved liberty, naturally abhorred tyranny; animated to both by a prin.

ciple of virtue. Was not this religion? Will it be said, that they acted against tyrants, only from their fear of tyranny, and from no regard for liberty? And was it a lucky circumstance to Rome and Athens, that tyranny had something in it to be feared by men, who had no impulse but what led them to virtue and the public good?

The wise, the just, and the brave, have at all times been the aversion of bigots and craftsmen, two characters ever famous for little service to mankind. yet always loudest to profess it. What exploits did the common tribe of enthusiastic saints and designing faith-makers, ever perform for the age they lived in, but to darken, divide and enthral it?

"Ecclesiastical courts and inquisitions, under the direction of Popery." is a suspicious. at best an odd phrase, though perhaps not odd from him. He is noted for his zeal for ecclesiastical powers, and for penalties upon such as differ from him, even in religious modes and trifles invented by men: he is a known advocate for severe laws against tender consciences, who boggle at forms and rituals, though agreeing with himself in all fundamental principles, and equal to himself in all points of morality. He is therefore a champion for some ecclesiastical courts and inquisitions; and whoever is for any, where conscience is concerned, is for the worst and the highest, since where small penalties do not avail, the greatest must be applied. Nor doth it import the poor sufferer, by what name his sufferings are called, or under whose direction he suffers.

All persecution is a departure from Christianity, and the bane of it. All persecutors are alike; and where they are equally masters, would go equal lengths. They would be all inquisitors. In this Protestant country they have formerly rioted in fury and oppression, in fines and dungeons, by the mad assistance of the then civil magistrate, who favoured Popery, because Popery was the support of tyranny. That they failed in this their natural progress to erect an inquisition, was owing to Christian checks from the civil power better directed. Such "ecclesiastical inquisitions under the direction of Popery" know no bounds, because they own no controul: they are independent upon, and absolute over the civil power: an independency long claimed, and Sometimes confidently usurped in this free Protestant country, even since it enjoyed its highest freedom, derived from the revolution.

Against ecclesiastical inquisitions, even under the direction of Popery, the preacher says nothing. Though it fell so naturally in his way, at this alarming conjuncture, when Popery was making hideous advances to devour us, he only adds, very coolly, with the cautious softening of a perhaps and a may-be, that it is a happy circumstance at present, that there is something in Popery, for those to be afraid of, who have no regard for religion."

I thought that almost every thing in Popery was dreadful and shocking to those who have the most religion The doctrines of Popery are anti-christian, robbing the Almighty of his highest attributes, and vest

blasphemously in impostors. The powers of Popery are mur

implacable. The worship of Popery is buffoonery and Popery pretends to make God, and eat him. Popery locks Cod's word. Popery butchers Protestants. Such is the religion of

Popery; such are the ecclesiastical courts and inquisitions, under the direction of Popery.

Our author has therefore judiciously discovered that there is, or rather suggests, that there may be, something in Popery to be feared. I hope he would not restrain it to such as have no regard to religion. He would have done well, and it lay directly in his way, to have told us, how dreadful the whole of Popery was to every man of any religion or of any sense. It is the only sermon which I have seen upon this awakening occasion, where the horrors of Popery were not the just and chief scope and theme of the preacher. I have seen many excellent ones from many of our prelates, many excellent ones from the inferior clergy, with great pleasure and edification, all full of tremendous descriptions of Popery, and of warm indignation against it, pertinently adapted to the time, and to the people.

NUMBER 99.

Our National Sins no wise Analagous to those of the Jews, nor meriting equal punishment. The Rashness, and Danger of ascertaining and applying Divine Judgments.

SECTION II.

THE preacher referred to in my former, urges the idolatry of the Jews, and the judgments following it, in order by them to awaken us; us, who have nothing similar to the Jews, and do not run after false gods. Another preacher in his sermon upon the general Fast, has unanswerably shown us the vanity and danger of such idle reasonings and false comparisons.

"From the character given of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, in several places of the apostolic writings, men, he says, have not only been accustomed to regulate God's proceeding with particulars, but also to judge of the fate of kingdoms and societies, upon their ideas of his administration of the Jewish commonwealth. This, saith he, bath been the source of numberless superstitions, burtful both to religion and government; some even derogatory to the justice of God, others to the rights of mankind; but all of them violating the rational conclusions of that learning and instruction we are bid to seek for in Scripture, which is so abundantly able to make us wise unto salvation."

He proceeds to acquaint us, that though, in the Jewish dispensation, God might with the highest justice, punish the children for the crimes of their fathers; yet in the present disposition of things, such a dispensation would, according to all our ideas of right, intrench on that divine attribute (the justice of God.) He then shews how much "the title of the Lord's Anointed, given to the Jewish kings, who were pointed out by name by God himself, and anointed by the express

direction of God himself, has been perverted by court flatterers, to support modern tyranny, and so became a principal prop of that absurd and destructive doctrine of divine, indefeasible, hereditary right."

All this is true and plain, and justifies what the author had said before, that "to conclude of God's dealings with states and societies, from his dispensations to the Jewish people, will be the occasion of our turning to our delusion that scripture, which was written for our instruction; at this juncture, says he, it would be turning it to our apparent damage. Religion (says be afterwards) was, amongst the Jews, incorporated with their society, and had a public part. Hence vice and impiety became public crimes, and, as such, were severely punished on the state. But the Christian religion has no public part; it hath not the state for its subjects. Hence vice and impiety are not now public crimes, but only private crimes." He concludes therefore, as reasonably as charitably," that Great Britain, in its present circumstances, may reasonably aspire to the distinguished protection of heaven."

It is a daring undertaking, to settle the judgments of an infinitely wise, just, and merciful God; to ascertain what they are, or where it is that they fall. I hope and believe, that no national calamity can be called a judgment from God; since, during such, the most innocent are seen to suffer equally with the most guilty, often more; sometimes the guilty escape, and the innocent perish. Can we suppose, dare we presume, that his unerring justice makes no distinction between guilt and innocence, and weighs not exactly the degrees of both? It seems to be an affront to the Almighty, and a denial of his Providence, to maintain the contrary: it represents religion to be without sense, and the great Judge of all the earth to be void of equity.

Enthusiasts, who see the Almighty pleased or angry, just as they themselves are, may arm him with vengeance against times which they dislike, and against persons whom they hate they may even behold him slaying the cattle and desolating the soil, and confidently ascribe all this general undistinguishing havoc to the sins of particular men. Impostors, such as Romish monks, may represent him as actuated with human passions, and themselves directing and restraining his passions; represent him launcing his judgments, and themselves stopping his hand; thus guiding and controuling the Almighty, and thence governing his creatures. But a Protestant divine scattering judgments makes a very un-protestant figure, and borrows the colours and character of a Popish priest, who controuls the Deity, creates his Creator, eats his Creator, and directs his Creator whom to punish and whom to damn; whom to protect and whom to save; forsees judgments, applies judgments, and charms away judgments.

There cannot be a more lucrative branch of priestcraft than a monopoly of divine judgments. It infers the sovereign direction of superstition, of vain credulity, of panic fears, and of all the unaccountable whims and weaknesses of the poor human soul, the constant and liberal bubble of such pious traders.

As the Jesuits were busy in advancing this their staple spiritual traffic amongst the poor Indians, the Dutch, who are themselves keen traders, but traders of another sort, were too hard even for these vigilant fathers. The apostolic factors taking a pious, knavish advantage of an

G g