vour alfo, by all poffible means, to contain them in a dull, ignorant, and formal way; knowing learning and knowledge to be their common enemy, as at once difcovering and overthrowing all the fuperftructures reared upon their fandy foundation. But, then, what wealth, what honour, and riches, do their clergy and orders enjoy? How glorious the popes? How fplendid the cardinals? How abounding, in riches and titles, all their relations, kindred, and dependants? All fucked from the people. Whilft, to lull and gratify the abused multitude, they have infinite devices, they have perpetual provisions for the dull fouls in their cells; the auftere may take their fill of difcipline and rigour; the impure and voluptuous have their conveniencies at hand; the lawlefs, who find themselves too freight-laced, may be eafed by difpenfations; the credulous fhall never want miracles; the fantastical, vifions; nor the fuperftitious, ceremonies; with infinite baubles more.'

But, bleffed be the merciful Father of the univerfe! the reign of ecclefiaftical tyranny feems now drawing towards an end, in all parts of the earth. Falfhood and impofition, on the natural rights of mankind, may, for a time, be fupported by eftablishments, aided by ignorance, and upheld by cuftom: but truth, GREAT TRUTH, will at length prevail, difpel the mifts of error, and clear up the clouds of fuperftition. The once dreaded terrors of fpiritual anathemas now make little impreffion, and the frightful thunders of the vatican roll in vain. The mere than imperial pontiff, who, heretofore, could proudly mount his fteed by ftepping on the necks of sovereign princes, is at length reduced to plead with the kings of the earth on terms of equality; and, when his exorbitant claims are difpured, or his pretended dominion invaded, dares to employ no other arms in his own defence than prayers and tears.-Happy change! Happy prefage of the return of thofe golden days when pious frauds, and holy outrage, were unknown in the Chriftian world;when the priests of the Lord, were the priests of the LORD indeed!-E'er the infernal fires of the inquifition began to blaze, or those acts of faith were inftituted that more refcmble the acts of devils than of men !-Gracious God! continue, we beseech thee, to let the light of thy countenance fo fhine upon us, that we may never more be involved in the dreadful darkness of Superftition,—that blackeft of fiends, the difgrace of our reafonable natures, the reproach, the curfe, and fcourge of both the moral and the material world !

This was written before we had perused the pamphlets relating to the encouragement faid to be given to the Roman Catholics in Grenada: See the article Colonies, in this month's catalogue.

5

ART. VIL

ÅRT. VII. A critical Commentary on Archbishop Secker's Letter to the Right Honourable Horatio Walpole, concerning Bishops in America. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Dilly. 1769.

I

was hardly to be expected that the curious epiftle here mentioned fhould have paffed, especially at this time of day, without fome animadverfion. Indeed, it is at all times right, and highly desirable, that any publications which appear to infringe on the real liberties of mankind, or wear any thing of an arbitrary and oppreffive afpect, however fpecious and plaufible they may otherwife be, fhould be freely expofed and cenfured: nay, the more fpecious and plaufible they are, the greater reafon is there for treating them in this manner. We will not take upon us abfolutely to determine that the pamphlet in queftion is of this kind; but we muft freely declare our perfect agreement with the prefent Commentator (in which we are perfuaded every impartial reader will join us) with respect to the great impropriety of fuch a publication at this particular juncture, when any attempt towards religious innovations in our colonies, feems to be highly unfeafonable.

This critical Commentary is a very fmart attack on the archbishop and his letter: fhould any one deem it unfair, in this manner, to disturb the repofe of the dead, the writer thus apologizes for himself, that he who contrives to fpread bad principles, and to recommend mischievous projects after his demife, which he does not chufe to publish and avow in his life-time *, is no longer entitled to the benefit of that common maxim, De mortuis nil nifi bonum.'

The first part of this pamphlet is employed in confidering fome circumftances relative to the occafion on which this remarkable letter was written, the time when, and the reason why it was published.

• Archbishop Secker, fays this Writer, being a very fincere convert from the religious errors in which he had been edu. cated in the early part of his life, appears, by many tokens, to have been folicitous to convince those whom he had left, of their dangerous delufions, and to bring as many of them as he could influence over to the church in which he himself had found fo much fatisfaction. With thefe fentiments, and in this attachment to them, it is not at all furprizing, that his grace fhould be deeply enamoured of this project of eftablishing bishops in our American colonies. By fome intimations in his fermon, preached before the Society for the Propagation of the

This reminds us of Dr. S. Jon's ftriking remark on the pofthumous publication of lord Bolingbroke's Philofophical Writings: The fcoundrel charged his blunderbufs against the happiness and peace of mankind; but, like a coward, not daring to let it off himfelf, he left Mallet to pull the trigger."

D 3

Gospel

Gofpel in foreign Parts, Feb. 20, 1742, it appears, that the accomplishment of it had early taken poffeffion of his grace's affections; and from the tenor of his conduct and converfation, from that time to the hour of his death, Mr. Walpole's Letter must have been a precious morfel to him, as it gave him an opportunity of figuring on his favourite fubject before a minifter of state.'

Though we are informed, that Mr. Walpole's Letter was written to Dr. Sherlock in the year 1750, it does not appear, it is here obferved, that he gave any answer to it, either by word or writing. Bishop Secker fuppofes, indeed, that if my lord of London had ever converfed with Mr. Walpole on the fubject, he had, doubtlefs, faid every thing material by way of reply; yet as nothing of this fort appears, and nothing in writing by way of anfer from Dr. Sherlock to Mr. Walpole was known to Dr. Secker, the more probable fuppofition, in our Author's opinion, is, that bishop Sherlock, convinced by Mr. Walpole's Letter, of the danger, the folly, or at least of the inexpedience of the project, made no reply at all.'

This Writer proceeds to afk a very proper queftion, viz. What is become of Mr. Walpole's Letter to bifhop Sherlock? He very justly obf. rves, if any circumftances made it either impracticable, or improper, to publifh that letter, candor and common juftice required, that this answer to it should have been fuppreffed for the fame length of time.- Mr. Walpole's Letter might have objections in it which archbishop Secker did not think proper to touch; and his Grace could not be uninformed, that to publifh anfwers to treatifes, which they who fhould judge between the parties have no poffible means of confulting, has always been a ftanding, and a very reasonable, prejudice against the fairnefs and impartiality of the answerers.

After fome other preliminary remarks, we are led on to the immediate contents of the Letter, which, in conformity to the title he has chofen, our Author very carefully and attentively confiders. As it is impoffible for us to attend him through many of these criticifms, we must reft fatisfied with a few particulars.

Whereas his Grace had thrown out fome intimations that the members of the church of England, acknowledging the king's fupremacy, are likely to be dutifuller fubjects than the Diffenters, who, he fays, do not acknowledge it, this Writer animadverts upon the affertion in the following terms: I am confident that this is a mere malevolent mifreprefentation, and that there is not one iiffenter in the colonies who denies the king to be his fupreme governor; and I am perfuaded the fame may be fid for every Proteftant in Great Britain. The true cafe is this: the Proteftant Diffenters hold, that the civil magi

ftrate

ftrate hath no authority to interfere in matters of religion which do not affect the fafety of his government, fo far as the private judgment or confcience of his fubjects is concerned, whether confidered as individuals, or united in religious fociety; and this they hold, not merely with respect to the authority of a king or a monarch as fuch, but of the aggregate power of legiflature, however conftituted. And is this principle peculiar to Diffenters? Has it not been, is it not ftill, the principle of as wife, learned, and worthy conformifts as ever exifted? Was it not the principle of Locke, Burnet, Clarke, Hoadly, and others of the laft generation? And had the kings or queens of thofe times, when these men flourished, dutifuller fubjects (to ufe his Grace's elegant language) than these illustrious perfons, in the kingdom? Does not the artificial author of the Alliance in Church and State, inform us, that this was the principle on which the toleration-act was grounded? And would his Grace himself have ventured to fay, had he been catechized on this head, that it was not his own principle too -For the reft, if it was ever understood that the Proteftant Diffenters denied the king's fupremacy, as oppofed to the fupremacy of the pope, or of anf foreign potentate, it is more than I ever heard.'

In this manner the anonymous Commentator pursues the archbifhop thro' all his arguments, and fometimes produces obfervations which, in his view, (and indeed they appear to do it in fact) bear hard upon his Grace's fincerity: one inftance of which we have in what his Letter has affirmed concerning Moravian bishops, when we are told that an act of parliament paffed in 1749, which exprefly established these bishops in America who, adds his Grace, have much higher and stricter notions of church government and difcipline than we have.' Now, according to this Writer's account, the act here mentioned, and to which he refers us, relates to fuch Moravians as fcruple to take an oath, or to ferve perfonally in the army, dispensing with them in both thefe articles, upon condition of their making a folemn affirmation inftead of an oath, and paying a fum of money fufficient to hire a fubftitute in their room: to prevent any perfon's claiming the benefit of this act, who are not of the Moravian fociery, it is enacted, that every perfon who does this fhall produce a certificate, figned by fome bishop of the faid church, or by the paftor of fuch church or congregation, nearest to the place where the claim is made, proving that he is actually a member of the faid church; and it is farther enacted, that a lift of the bishops of the faid church, with their hand-writing and feal, and of thofe hereafter confecrated, together with thofe of the paftors, fhould be laid before the commiffioners of trade and plantations. We have not our22 George II. cap. 30.

D 4

felves

felves read this act, but we conclude that a just and faithful account of it is here given us; and from hence we cannot fee any thing that looks like exprefly establishing Moravian bishops in America. It is not even faid, as this Writer observes, that thefe certifying bishops fhould be refident in America; and for any thing that appears, they might be fuch as refided in England, Poland, Pruffia, Silefia, &c. in all which, and in other places, the act fays, the Moravian church is fettled; and these bishops, indeed, are just as exprefly established by this act, in thofe countrics, as in America. Our Commentator feems, then, to have fome reafon for his reflection on this subject, when he adds,Bold and furprizing! his Grace ventures no lefs than the fuppofition that Mr. Walpole must never have seen the act in question, nor have known any thing of the contents of it.' Besides, had Moravian bishops been established in the manner contended for, they do not feem to poffefs any of thofe dignities, or that fuperiority, which are connected with English epifcopacy: we are told, that all the Moravian minifters are on an equal footing; the oldeft of them is always chofen a fenior or elder for the fake of ordinations, and is nothing else but primus inter pares, having not the least juridiction or authority over the other clergy.'

It muft appear fomewhat remarkable to any person who thinks upon the fubject in debate, that fo great zeal fhould be discovered in its favour by fome perfons here at home, and that we should hear fo little of any folicitude about it among our American brethren. The archbishop fuppofes this is to be afcribed, in part, to the thoughtleffness of mankind about their religious concerns. But after all, as was obferved in our account of his Grace's Letter, numbers will think that there are feveral more important points at home, which demand the affiduous attention of the governors of our church. They will afk, What real benefit to religion and virtue is to be expected from the establishment of American bishops? Any man of primitive fimplicity, of incorruptible integrity, piety, and benevolence, fettled in any place, in the minifterial character, may be greatly beneficial to his fellow-creatures; but how far the immediate title and office of a church of England bishop would contribute to this purpofe, will at least allow of debate for we fuppofe few, if any, fenfible perfons will, at this time of day, contend, for any inherent qualities in one or dained a bishop, by which he can of himfelf, in confirmation or ordination, or any other act, convey holiness and falvation. That plea which feems to have any confiderable weight in favour of the propofed establishment, must be drawn from the principles of religious liberty: it is certainly reasonable that every one fhould enjoy the free exercife of his religion, fo far * See Review for September last, p. 220.