[Létt. IV. 4. CONSTANTINE gave riches and coercive power to the church, without assuming this supremacy or headship. The ALLIANCE, when it gave riches and coercive power to the church, conferred the supremacy on the civil magistrate.

His Lordship's conclusion from this long story of CONSTANTINE is this, that "he and his successors "raised that spiritual tyranny, which was established "and grown into full strength before CHARLES THE "GREAT." And what could we expect less when every term in the alliance was violated or neglected? This was just as natural as that civil tyranny should grow to a head, when the terms of the original contract between prince and people had not been adverted to or observed? In a word, the mischiefs, which, his Lordship tells us, followed from Constantine's establishment, are the best recommendation of the theory of the Alliance; a theory formed, as it were, and fitted to avoid and guard against them: it has in fact done so, and rendered our present constitution of church and state the most happy and prosperous of any upon the face of the earth.

At last, as if on set purpose to recommend the theory of the Alliance, his Lordship concludes his section concerning CONSTANTINE in these words: "Thus it seems "to me that the great and fundamental error, from whence so many others proceeded, and which CONSTANTINE COMMITTED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTI66 ANITY, was this, he admitted a clergy into an esta"blishment, on the same foot, on which this order "had stood, while Christianity was the religion, and "these men were the heads, the directors, the govern

ors, and magistrates of a sect, by no authority, but "that of the sect itself. He admitted them vested with "this authority, which might be necessary as long as "Christians made a sect apart, out of the protection of "the laws; and which became unnecessary and danger"ous, when Christianity had a legal establishment.-The "conduct of Constantine on this occasion must needs appear extremely absurd to every one who considers "the consequences it had." Can there be a greater encomium on the principles of the Alliance? The fundamental

fundamental error of CONSTANTINE'S establishment was, the suffering the church to RETAIN ITS INDEPEN DENCY. The fundamental condition of establishment on the theory of alliance is, that the church GIVES UP ITS

INDEPENDENCY.

After this, would you expect to hear him return again to his abuse of the ALLIANCE? "The sole intention "and sole effect of it [the theologic system of the "schools] was to establish an ecclesiastical empire, un"der that spiritual monarch the Pope, and his spiritual "ministers the clergy. THIS WAS THE EFFECT OF 66 THAT SUPPOSED ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE."

Before, It was CONSTANTINE and his successors, who raised that spiritual tyranny and it was done, he says, by means of his establishment; which suffered the church to retain its independency, and admitted it on the same foot on which it had stood while it was a sect. But now, it is the supposed alliance between church and state which raised this spiritual tyranny; an alliance which will not suffer the church to retain its dependency; or admit it on the same foot on which it stood while it was a sect.

We have seen such amazing instances of his Lordship's contradictions, as not to be surprised at the boldest of them. Sometimes, when rapt in a fit of rhetoric, he does, by his contradictions, what the man in the play did by his ingratitude, he strives to cover the monstrous bulk of them, by a proportionable size of words sometimes again, to shew his utter contempt of the public, he chuses to follow the advice there given; to let them go naked, that men may see them the better.— But, when he masks his double face, the falsification of the theory of the Alliance always affords him the best play. He constantly takes it for granted or avouches it for a fact, throughout his whole argument against the book; that the Author contends for and maintains the independency of the church on the state, under an establish ment. This brings CONSTANTINE'S, establishment, and the establishment on the principles of the ALLIANCE, pretty much to the same thing; so that the mischiefs ascribed to one, may be safely transferred to the other.

And

And here, Sir, in conclusion, the odd fortune of this book of the Alliance is worth your notice. It had been writ against by many nameless scribblers, before his Lordship and two very capital crimes had been objected to it: the one was, That it makes the church a creature of the civil magistrate; the other, That it makes the civil magistrate a creature of the church. Some insisted on the first of these charges, some on the second. But to prevent its escaping, one furious fellow, in a thing called a Comment on the Alliance, roundly insisted upon both. So that his Lordship, whose care is for the state, and the Dissenting Answerers, who are as anxious for the church, will come in but for halves in the full merit of this illustrious commentator.

I have now, Sir, given you, as I promised, a view of his Lordship's POLITICAL TALENTS. The Author whom I have defended against him, is no further my concern than as he afforded me the occasion. Nor is there any reason he should grow vain of the superior distinction of being picked out to be immolated, as it were, to the FIRST PHILOSOPHY. For let me tell him, that as I defended him for want of a better, so his Lordship abused him because he could not find a worse. He had personally injured and affronted his Lordship. And to these insolencies, the following words allude, where his Lordship takes leave of his friend, in the last volume of his never-dying works: "You have, I know, at your elbow a very foul-mouthed and very trifling critic, who will "endeavour to IMPOSE UPON YOU ON THIS OCCASION, 66 AS HE DID ON A FORMER. He will tell you, again, "that I CONTRADICT myself, &c. But if the dogmatic pedant should make this objection, be pleased to give "him this answer," &c.

This, the curious will readily perceive, smells of the anecdote. As the secret has been communicated to me by a good hand, I shall not scruple to lay it before you. It may serve at least to entertain you, in the quality of farce to this serious piece.

Mr. POPE had permitted Lord BOLINGBROKE to be considered by the public, as his PHILOSOPHER AND GUIDE: and in their conversations concerning the impious complaints against Providence on account of the

unequal

unequal distribution of things natural and moral in the present system, they agreed that such objections might be well evaded on the Platonic principle of THE BEST. This encouraged the Poet to philosophise: and the fruits of his speculations we have in the celebrated ESSAY ON MAN. In which, if you will take his Lordship's word, or indeed, attend to his argument, you will find that Pope was so far from putting his prose into verse (as has been invidiously suggested) that he has put Pope's verse into prose. They agreed, as we observed, in the principle of the best. And Mr. Pope thought they had agreed in the question, to which this principle was to be applied. But time has since shewn that they differed very widely. The Essay on Man is a real vindication of Providence, against libertines and atheists. The Essays on the first Philosophy are a pretended vindication of Providence against an imaginary confederacy between divines and atheists. The Poet directs his argument against atheists and libertines in support of RELIGION;-The Philosopher, against divines, in support of NATURALISM. But though his Lordship thought fit to keep this a secret from his friend, as well as from the public; yet he took so friendly a share in the prodigious success of the Essay on Man, that he could not forbear making the Poet, then alive and at his devotion, the frequent topic of his ridicule amongst their common acquaintance, as a man who understood nothing of his own principles, nor saw to what they naturally tended. For the truth of this instance of his Lordship's virtuous emulation, I appeal to a right honourable Gentleman now living.

While things were in this state, M. de Crousaz wrote some malignant and absurd remarks on the Essay on Man; accusing it of Spinozism, Naturalism, and all the heretical -isms in the Bigot's dictionary. These remarks by great chance fell into the hands of the Author of the Divine Legation. And mere indignation at an illnatured caviller put him upon writing a defence of the first epistle. Which being well received by the public, he was induced to defend the rest on the same principles of natural and revealed religion, against this blundering Swiss philosopher; frequently indeed misled by a very faithless translation of the Essay into French verse,

Mr. Pope,

Mr. Pope, who was naturally on the side of religion, embraced the sense given to the Essay by his new Commentator, with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction; as appears by the letters he wrote on that occasion. You will hardly suppose, his Lordship took the same delight in them. He saw his pupil reasoned out of his hands; he saw (what was worse) the Essay republished with a Defence, which put the Poem on the side of religion, and the Poet out of the necessity of supporting himself on his Lordship's system, when he should condescend to impart it to him and (what was worst of all) he saw a great number of lines appear, which out of complaisance had been struck out of the MS. and which, at the Commentator's request, being now restored to their places, no longer left the religious sentiments of the Poet equivocal.

It was his chagrin at these changes which occasioned his Lordship (when he NEW MODELLED the introductory Letter to his Essays addressed to Mr. Pope) to end it in this manner: "I cannot conclude my discourse on "this occasion better than by putting you in mind of 46 a passage you quoted to me once with great applause "from a sermon of FORSTER, and to this effect, Where MYSTERY begins, RELIGION ends.' The apophthegm "pleased me much, and I was glad to hear such a truth " from any pulpit, since it shews an inclination at least, "to purify Christianity from the leaven of artificial theology; which consists principally in making things "that are very plain, mysterious; and in pretending to "make things that are impenetrably mysterious, very

66

plain. If you continue still of the same mind, I "shall have no excuse to make to you, for what "I have written, and shall write. Our opinions "coincide. If you have changed your mind, think "again, and examine further. You will find it is the

MODEST, not the PRESUMPTUOUS enquirer, who makes “a real and safe progress in the discovery of divine "truths. One follows nature and nature's God; that is, "he follows God in his works, and in his word; nor $4 presumes to go further, by metaphysical and theolo "gical commentaries of his own invention, than the two texts, if I may use this expression, carry him very evidently. They who have done otherwise, have been

"either