Mr. Polwhele, who, at the fame time, reminds us, "that when our Saviour was reviled, he reviled not again";" and who gravely fays, "Let us no more interfere with one another in the spirit of contention; but let each individual purfue his course, according to his belief and his confcience. .... Let us look on our fellow-christians with eyes of candour, of compaffion, and of brotherly love; ready to make allowances for the infirmities common to many, and to affift our weaker brethren by every act of kindness." In this ftyle does Mr. P. treat a divine, whom he once publicly characterized "eloquent," "ingenious and pious;" to whom he has expreffed "a lively fenfe of obligation, which he felt in common with the rest of the public, for an Author who had delighted and informed his mind; and of whom he still says, that he is "the most popular preacher in the diocefe *." But Dr. Hawker has, it seems, perfectly changed his theological fentiments. "In your Sermons on the Divinity of our Saviour,' Mr. P., addreffing the Doctor, fays, "you tell us, that our beft deeds are largely tinctured with a mixture of infirmity.' But in your later publications you affirm, that we cannot do a good deed, or even think a good thought,' and that we are wholly corrupt and depraved in our highest attainments BY NATURE.' Quantum mutatus ab illo!" Mr. P. therefore exclaims. "And yet," he adds, "it seems, because I once praised you, I must pursue you ftill, through all your changes, with applaufe!" These are Mr. Polwhele's expreffions of admiration. Perhaps the reader may now think it his turn to admire.

Our Autijacobin friends highly applaud Mr. P.'s achievements; and, precifely after his manner, ftyle us "Sepa

(i) Ibid. p. 90.

(h) Letter, p. 77. (k) See Mr. P.'s Review of Dr. Hawker's Sermons on the Divinity of Chrift, in the English Review for April, 1793; and Mr. P.'s 2d Letter, p. 13—18; 3d Letter, p. 6. (1) Second Letter, p. 30, Note.

4

ratifts," "Sectaries," "Seceders," "Methodists," "Schifmatics," "Deceivers, &c. The Author whom Mr. 'Clapham fo "earneftly recommends," is, if poffible, more abufive. His impartial reprefentation of us is, that we "fet up faith in oppofition to a good life;" "make war upon reafon and upon all the plain duties of man;" grant men "a difpenfation from the obfervance of the moral law of God;" " open the prospect of everlasting happiness to finners of every degree without an abfolute forfaking of their fins," and "go a recruiting for the Devil;" and that "all they can know of our preaching is, that it is not a good life," that "it is fomething very averfe to morality ©.

All this furely is a fingular method of "creating conciliation, promoting peace, and recommending mutual for. bearance!" Surely it was not thus our Divine Mafter taught his difciples "to love one another!" Can the utmost stretch of Candour itfelf confider all this candid! We, doubtlefs, may be defective in regard to this virtue, but we muft out-herod Herod to exceed this degree of violation of it.

We will only further juft mention the virtue of charity, as it confifts in benevolence and beneficence toward our fellow-creatures.--To this virtue our opponents also make high pretenfions, and represent our doctrines as hoftile to it. We fee not however any traits of fuperior ftrictness on this head, in their treatment of their theological antagonists, already noticed. We recognize no extraordinary concern for the temporal and fpiritual welfare of their parishes in their arguments for habitual abfence from them. There is nothing here which reminds us of the Apoftle's affirmation, "I feek not your's, but you." This principle feems

(m) Review for April, 1799, p. 361; and June, p. 211, 212.

(c) Page 13-28.

(d) Page 259, &c. (e) Above, p. 253, &c.

rather to be inverted, and thofe of pure felfishness to be acted upon. We perceive not how this zeal for men's most important interefts, they would be thought to poffefs, is compatible with their extreme feverity against the errors of zeal in others, and their indifference to those of idleness and dereliction of duty. Yet fo it is, a fellow-minifter fcarcely can render himfelf an object of their general reprehenfion through carelessnejs, but if any are led to act or speak indifcreetly through seal in the execution of their office, all mouths are open against them, and they are immediately thunned as Enthufiafts and Fanatics.

And yet, furely here, if any where, it becomes us to act "with all our might." Unless we will admit, what fo many would infinuate, that our religion is indeed all "statecraft and priest-craft," a mere contrivance to over-awe the multitude; unless we will adinit, that our doctrines respecting a future ftate are, in themselves, of no importance at all, we must admit that their importance is immenfe, and that in proportion to this importance fhould be our exertions in inculcating them. Charity towards men, it should be confidered, is very different from a partiality for them, when judging of their religious ftate and character. The latter is generally the effect of mere felfishness, and disposes us to conclude favourably concerning them without fufficient evidence; the former is difinterested and folicitous refpecting their welfare, not fo much difpofed to believe. the objects of it fafe and happy already, as to ufe every endeavour to make them fo.

Let the reader fay whether party he would be most inclined to fufpect of want of charity, from the following defeription given of his opponents by Mr. Polwhele. "They affect," Mr. P. fays," a more than ordinary degree of charity towards their unfortunate brethren, Leading honeft labourers and artificers aftray by the feductive power of their eloquence, they work the ruin of numerous families; and then put the rich under contribution, in order to

S

6

relieve the neceffities of the poor. They inftitute afylums and hofpitals; and move heaven and earth in fupport of their charitable foundations; over which they reign as kings.' In favour of an alms-houfe, they folicit the great, and circumvent the lowly; impofe on credulous men, and lead captive filly women;'-' damn' the finner, and deify the faint; adminifter medicines to the fick, and dictate the wills of the dying "."-Now Jome credit is due to the representation of an opponent. Strip then this account of the colouring, which poffibly a want of charity may have given it, and we have the ftrong teftimony of Mr. P. in proof of the extraordinary charitable exertions of the perfons cenfured. At any rate, this is furely a curious charge to prefer against thofe, who, at other times, are reprefented, as making religion confift almost wholly in faith a devotion, and as regardless of that part of it which enjoins charity towards man.

But what fhall we fay of the extent and difinterestednefs of Mr. Ludlam's morality on this point?" There is nothing morally wrong," this advocate for exalted charity affirms," in him who feels more acutely for the lofs of a little finger, than for all those who perith in a great battle in Germany, by an earthquake in Italy, or the plague in Turkey." Mr. L's. proof of this doctrine is, "because neither reafon nor revelation command a man to love his neighbour more than himself."-But to do this, he muft feel more acutely for his neighbour's lofs of his little finger, than for the lofs of his own. But the man who conceives there is nothing morally affected about fuch a trifle which concerns himself, than the deftruction of many thousands of his fellow-creatures, must furely disclaim high pretenfions to philanthropy. Such a minifter of the gofpel is little likely "very gladly to spend

(z) Letter, p. 78. Effays, p. 108.

wrong in being more

and be fpent" for the good of others; or, if occafion fhould require it, " to lay down his life for the brethren "."

And ought that Minifter of Jefus to boast of fuperior Christian charity, who is an Apologift for that ftigma of our renowned nation, that monftrous traffic in human flesh, the African Slave Trade!-Yet fuch is Dr. Croft. Thus, fpeaking on the fubject, he fays, "What evils they (the Negroes) really labour under, is not in my power to determine.... Particular inftances of cruelty will no more be conclufive against planters in general, than Mrs. Brownrigge's conduct, against all mafters and miftreffes of parish apprentices. Appeals to Scripture are worse than useless; it is somewhat profane to appeal to a sentence which has never been pronounced by the facred penman. To make it kidnapping, is to aggravate the guilt of it, whatever that guilt may be, and without an actual furvey of the iflands no adequate judgment can be formed.... The advocates for abolition have certainly accumulated much unmerited abuse upon the planters. ... If we can abate the virulence of mutual invective, an intermediate way will probably be found, which may fatisfy the wishes of all par ties, and be perfectly confiftent with the benign spirit of the Christian religion." This is inculcating univerfal benevolence with a witness!

This then is the ground these Divines have for congratulating themselves, fufpecting the church, and cenfuring us, in regard to the RULE OF MORALS- -WE, in ftrict adherence to our Guide, prescribe a perfect standard, even the whole moral law of God. Perfect conformity in heart and conduct to this law, we maintain, is the duty of all men; and that after this conformity they ought continually to labour.THEY, in the ftead of this, fubstitute

(g) 2 Cor. xii. 15

(i) Preface to Strictures, p. 6, 7.

(b) 1 John, iii. 16.