in the heat of controversy, when his resentments were fresh; and the injury aggravated by every circumstance of the lowest malice and most barefaced misrepresentation. Since that time to the present, a course of many years, he has seen these miserable railers, some with names, and some without, go on in all the nonsense and billingsgate with which they set out. Yet though he has seen all this, and without any other marks of resentment than a contemptuous silence, he could not escape the character of a scurrilous and abusive Writer. It was in vain to appeal to his provocations then, or to his forbearance ever since.

But to return to the Author of the View. He was detected, it seems, by his scurrility and abuse. Surely there must be some mistake, and my Lord's own dirt imputed to his Answerer. The Author of the View seems to be in the case of a scavenger (his enemies, I hope, will take no offence at the comparison), who may not indeed be overclean while at such sort of work; but it would be hard to impute that stink to him, which is not of his making, but of his removing.

The Letters are universally read; and it is almost universally agreed that Lord Bolingbroke deserved any treatment from You, both as a man personally ill used by him, and a member of that ORDER, WHICH HE HAS TREATED IN THE LIKE MANNER-- In a Law of Vespasian, we read, Non oportere maledici Senatoribus; remaledici, civile fasque est. And the equity of it seems here to be allowed. But I will claim no benefit from the authority of Vespasian, nor even from that which I more reverence, my anonymous Friend's. The truth is, that nothing personal ever once entered into my thoughts while I was writing those two Letters.Had that been the case, it would rather have been the subject of my vanity, than my resentment. For nothing could be more glorious for an obscure writer of these dark and cold days, than to find himself treated in the same manner with the greatest and most famous of the golden Ages of ancient and modern Literature.

But (says the anonymous letter) it may dishonour a Gentleman and a Clergyman to give him that treatment he deserved, especially after his death. It is

falling

falling into the VERY FAULT so justly objected to him: every body would have applauded your selecting those instances of his railing, arrogance, and abuse, had not you followed his example.-This Public then takes it for granted, that treating a licentious Writer as HE DESERVES, may dishonour a Gentleman and a Clergyman. Here, I think, we should distinguish. When the thing concerns only the civil interests of particulars, a gentleman has but little provocation for unusual severity of language, and less right to personal reflection, especially on one of superior quality. But when the highest of our religious interests are attacked, the interests not of this man, nor of that; not of this community, nor the other; but of our common Nature itself; and where the People are appealed to, and invited to be judges, there, I think, all paltry distinctions of title cease, they vanish before so great an object, and every gentleman who loves his Religion and his Country should take the quarrel on himself, and repel the insult with all his vigour.

When TRUTH or VIRTUE an affront endures,

Th' affront is mine, my Friend, and should be yours.

POPE.

The manners of a Clergyman, if they are to be distinguished from the manners of a Gentleman, consist in zeal for God, and charity towards man. The occasion will sometimes call out one, sometimes the other: they may be exerted separately, but never at one another's expence; for they are disposed by Nature to be joint promoters of the common good: as in the case before us, I presume to say, a zeal for God is the greatest charity

to man.

Now when opinions of that kind, which the View of L. Bolingbroke's Philosophy exposes, proceed to their extreme, not to confute them in terms either of horror or ridicule, for fear of transgressing the civil maxims of politeness, would be like that Preacher, the Poet speaks of, who scrupled to mention Hell before his audience at Court.

If then, amongst the Christian duties, there be a force to be exerted against deceivers, as well as a patience to be observed in compassion to those who are misled; and

that

that the occasion before us was not a time for vigorous measures; I desire to know when this time comes?

When men are sincere in their mistakes, after a diligent and candid search; when the subject is of small moment, such as the mode of discipline, the measure of conformity, or a distinction in metaphysics; the mistaken, and even the perverse, should be treated with tenderness. But when the avowed end of a Writer is the destruction of Religion in all its forms; when the means he employs, are every trick of prevarication and ill faith; and every term of scurrility and abuse; when, to use the expression of Cicero, est inter nos non de terminis, sed de tota possessione contentio; Then, a practised calmness and an affected management look like betraying the cause we are intrusted to defend, or, what is almost as ill, like defending it in that way only which may turn most to our private advantage: as where, in questions of the greatest moment, we comply with this fashionable indifference; or flatter it into a virtue; when we should have striven to rekindle the dying sparks of Religion by a vigorous collision with its professed enemies, whose faces (to use the unpolite language of the prophet) are harder than a rock*.

Men who have had Christianity indeed at heart have never been disposed, in capital cases like the present, to spare or manage the offender. When the incomparable STILLINGFLEET undertook to expose the enormity of the Court of Rome, in turning the dispensation of the word into a lucrative trade, he prosecuted the controversy with so much vigour of style and sentiment, as to be reviled by those who found themselves affected by it, with the names of Buffoon and Comedian. The servant of the Lord (said they) must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves. An answer equally apt and satisfactory. Without doubt, offenders would find themselves much at their ease, when, secure from the resentment of the laws, they understand they have nothing to fear from the animadversion of the learned.

But this leads me to another consideration, which may further justify the Author of the View, in the account he

* Jer. v. 3.

has

has given of this relentless enemy of RELIGION and SOCIETY.

The English Government, secure in the divinity of that Religion which it hath established, and jealous of that liberty which at so much expence it hath procured, doth now, with a becoming consciousness of the superiority of truth and reason, think fit to suffer this, and many other writings (though none so criminal in the form and manner) to pass through the press, into the hands of the People; writings, in which not only the institutions of positive and national worship have been insulted, but even those very GROUNDS OF NATURAL RELIGION, which hitherto have been esteemed the bond of civil society, as they inforce obedience on the principle of conscience. A bond, which no nation under heaven but our own have ever suffered to be brought in question: because no nation but our own has a perfect confidence in truth, or is in perpetual alarm for Liberty.

But do flagitious Writers therefore become more privileged or respectable? Or rather, Is there not the greater need that those evils, which the Public cannot redress, should at least be checked and opposed by a private hand? Why do the civil laws of all other nations interfere to punish these offenders, but to prevent the mischiefs of their writings? Why are not the same laws put in execution here, but from the experience, or, at least, from a foresight, that recourse to them has been, or may prove, injurious to public liberty? However, the end is confessed to be of the utmost importance, though these means may be thought incommodious. What is left then, but to use others of a private nature, where no ill consequences are derived to any but to the instrument employed in the correction of these evils? Now the mischief done by licentious Writers is from their credit with the people. If their credit be undeserved, the way lies open for the defender of religion to lessen it, either by ridicule or serious expostulation. The Author of the View preferred. the first. He thought it more effectual; for now-a-days, folly discredits more than impiety: he thought it more generous; for he had no design of bringing in the magistrate to second his arguments. Nor is he one of those imper

4

impertinents who are for directing authority, or who think there is any need of such as him,

To virtue's work, to urge the tardy hall,

Or goad the prelate slumb'ring in his stall.

He rather thinks it becomes him to follow their example. The CONVOCATION, in their late address to his MAJESTY, lament the depravity of our times, evidenced beyond all former examples, by the publication of writings which strike at the very vitals of all religion, and shake the foundations of civil government. Yet they are so far from throwing the scandal on the State, or calling out upon the civil Magistrate for redress, that, as if they even respected the slander of their enemies, they engage themselves to his Majesty to exert themselves to the utmost, to maintain the honour of our most holy faith. Let no one therefore take offence, that a private man has adventured to lend his hand to that work which the whole body of the Clergy hath, with so much glory to themselves, engaged to undertake.

But his Lordship's death is a further objection to the manner in which his writings are treated.

Cuperem ipse Parens spectator adesset!

Had these Essays been published during his life, and had the Author of the View deferred his remarks upon them, in expectation of this good time, the censure might appear to have its weight. But what shall we say if his Lordship was publicly invited to give his Philosophy to the world, by the promise of a speedy answer? If a writer's death may skreen his Works from the treatment they would deserve in his life, he has a very effectual way to secure both his person and his principles from disgrace. Yet, where this is mentioned as an aggravation, it is confessed that in these posthumous Works published by his Lordship's direction, the Author of the View is abused in the grossest manner. Now, what is said in discredit of a living writer, and by one of his Lordship's authority in politics and letters, may prove a real injury: the harm to a dead writer is but imaginary. This is only said to shew, that, had the Author of the View retaliated, as he never had it in his thoughts, the return had been still short of the provocation.

VOL. XII.

G

But