fhall not be his accufers. We may be allowed to add, that his delicacy and importance are a little too frequently brought forward; and he too often hints at paffages which he has fuppreffed in the Correfpondence. Hints of this kind muft neceffarily leave a stain, which may be fuppofed of the deepest hue, because its nature is concealed; and the author, in apparent tenderness, may become doubly cruel.

In our account of the evidence we have not noticed the two pamphlets which have fince appeared, and whofe titles we have tranfcribed. The first author is a zealous friend, and the last a virulent enemy of Dr. White. Their acquaintance with the fubject is nearly the fame: they are both equally ignorant. The firit, an eager fond admirer of Dr. White, cannot fufficiently calumniate Dr. Gabriel, whom he accufes of the crime of which the Laudian profeffor was arraigned, the having accepted of aliftance in the compofition of his pamphlet ; a crime, if true, as much greater than Dr. White's, as the Bampton Lectures are fuperior to the pamphlet. He obferves alfo, what is ftrictly juft, that Dr. White's Letters, written in the moment of neceflity, are, as compofitions, excellent. That to mifs Badcock, on the death of her brother, is of the fuperior kind. He, the Profeffor, truly obferves, that learning has loft one of her brightest ornaments, and religion one of her ableft defenders.'

The Appeal is extravagantly wild: the author will allow no credit to Dr. White, who, as he did not execute the whole, is fuppofed to deferve no praife. To combat fuch affertions, would be to wage war with Bedlam and the Mint.'-He alludes, as others have done, to another affiftant, who, perhaps, with more learning, poffeffes a fuperior fhare of delicacy than fome of thofe gentlemen who have stood forward in this contest. We can only fay, in concluding this fubject, that the meanness displayed in boafting of the literary affiftance bestowed, is fuperior to thar of accepting it: the one fhows a modeft difidence; the other a vain arrogance. This controverfy could never have arifen if the petulance of the moment had not been cagerly caught at; and the hafty language of refentment commented on, by the unwarrantable expofure of private letters.

A Difour e on the Love of our Country, delivered on Nov. 4, 1789, at the Meeting-Lonfe in the Old Jewry, to the Society for Commemorating the Revolution in Great Britain. With an Appendi, containing the Report of the Committee of the Society; an Account of the Population of France, &c. Second Edition. By Richard Price, D. D. LL. D. F. R. S. 8~0. 15. 6d. Cadell.

HE uncommon demand for this Difcourfe; the character

Tand abilities of the author; as well as the circumftances

of the moment in which it appears, makes it the object of unufual attention. We have often faid that we highly respect the literary character of Dr. Price; but we have generally found reafon to differ from him on political fubjects: it will not be therefore furprising, that on a fermon almoft wholly political; either containing peculiar opinions, or, as we fufpect, a defence of a particular conduct, we fhould often find occafion to diffent.

The text is that animated triumphal hymn, that heart-felt effufion of delight and gratitude, which the royal Pfalmift fo warmly expreffed when the ark had found a refting-place,' and men could fay, let us go into the Houfe of the Lord; our feet fhall stand within thy gates, O Jerufalem.' The first and third verses only of this Pfalm (cxxii.) are omitted. But, without any particular comment on thefe words,' or their occa fion, our author, from them, endeavours to explain the duty we owe to our country,' as well as the nature, foundation, and p oper expreffions of that love to it which we ought to cultivate.' This forms, he thinks, a proper fubject of confiderauon on the Anniverfary of the Revolution.

The love of our country is not, he tells us, the love of the fields and forefts; but of the community with which we are affociated, and with whom we are connected under the fame laws, and the fame civil policy; that this love does not imply any fuperiority in the country, which, as our own, we diftinguifh by a partial regard; and fhould be difcriminated from an ambition to extend its power and dominion. These are pro perly regulations for the love of our country, to guard us from a blind infatuation, or a mifdirection of our efforts.-When our author comes to explain the nature and effects of that love which is just and reafonable, he feems to evade his first pofition, and to point out a kind of paffion which has a very different direction. He allows the force of the nearer connections of family, benefactors, friends, and country; but confiders them as inferior to the interefts of mankind at large (page 9 and io.) We fee the tendency of this principle, and we think that we perceive its connexion; but, in the fenfe, conveyed by the Love of our Country, it has neither, we apprehend, a foundation in the Gofpel, or in reafon. Let us firft examine the polition as connected with the Chriftian difpentation. Our Saviour recommended, by precept and example, universal benevo lence: it was his object, and the leffon which he inculcated, to do good to all. Political diftinctions he overlooked or defpifed. He would render unto Cæfar the things which were Cæfar's; and his difciples were mcek, humble, modeft, unaffuming, unafpiring. Patriotifm is not found in this code, and oppofition to the powers that are is exprefsly forbidden. The difference between a pofitive prohibition, and filence refpecting a parti-. cular fubject, might be extended to an argument; but we would rather refolve the whole into what we have already faid,

that political diftinctions or precepts, in that state of Chriftianity, were not adverted to. The fuperiority of influence, therefore, which all mankind fhould poffefs over our friends and country, as political affociations, cannot be fupported by the Gofpel. In the view of reafon, that particular love, which is made to yield to a general love, no longer deferves the name; and the difference between our opinions arifes from Dr. Price arguing on the benevolence due from man to man, while we fpeak of the relations of men in political fociety. We mean not to deny that, as an abstract propofition, we might admit our author's fyftem without any limitations; but nothing short of infinite comprehenfion and omnifcience can determine refpecting the general good of the whole world. In our more limited lituation, we can only fpeak of the comparative good of one part; and we think neither reafon nor religion can war. rant our doing a certain injury to our own country, from an opinion that an accidental good may be derived by this means to another: yet, on this hinge, much former and much future controverfy will depend.

If then the love of our country be examined by the monitor within, independent of the fetters of a definition, a fyftem, or à fpeculative vifion, it will be found, an anxious defire for the wealth, honour, credit, and dominion of the community with which we are connected, and, in general, of that portion of the earth which we inhabit. We glow with ardour at the spirit, the benevolence, the humanity of our countrymen; and each of us feels himself braver, wifer, or better, according as they are diftinguifhed. If this dominion is to be extended by the horrors of war, or the treachery of villains, the benevolent man will confider the purchase as too dear, and the good man will wifh, with a proper deteftation, that he could difown the traitor. In fhort, the true lover of his country will with that its credit and character were augmented by every honest and benevolent plan.

Our author goes on to enquire how the intereft of our country is best promoted; and he thinks that this will be effected by the diffufion of truth, of virtue, and of liberty, By the diffufion of truth, our author means instruction. Enlighten mankind; tell them that they are men, and they' will act like men. To diffufe virtue, and confequently to difcourage vice, an attention to religion is neceffary, and the obstacles in the way of attending to public worship are to be removed. In all this part we can chearfully, and without referve, concur. What our author fays is truly liberal and proper; particularly when, instead of urging an alteration in the Liturgy, he recommends to thofe who'cannot join in it, to seek fome other fociety, more congenial to their fentiments, or ta fet up a feparate worship for themfelves. The observations on the neceffity of diffuting liberty, if we would promote the intereft af our country, are general only, and very just.

But

But our duty to our country obliges us alfo, in Dr. Price's opinion, to obey its laws, and refpect its magistrates. In our conduct towards our governors there are two extremes equally to be avoided, fervility and contempt. The late addresses to the throne were certainly too fervile; and, if the fears of our countrymen had not been excited by the most impending dangers, and their humanity wounded by the moft diftreffing circumftances, we fhould have thought many of these compofi-tions better fuited to the abjectness of an Afiatic flave. In that fituation, the circumftances we have mentioned afforded fome excufe. Our author goes on

Civil governors are properly the fervants of the public; and a king is no more than the first fervant of the public, created by it, maintained by it, and refponfible to it: and all the homage paid him, is due to him on no other account than his relation to the public. His facrednefs is the facredness of the community. His authority is the authority of the community; and the term MAJESTY, which it is ufual to apply to him, is by no means his own majefty, but the MAJESTY OF THE PEOPLE. For this reafon, whatever he may be in his private capacity; and though, in refpect of perfonal qualities, pot equal to, or even far below many among ourselves-For this reafon, I fay, (that is as reprefenting the community and its first magiftrate), he is entitled to our reverence and obedience. The words MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY are rightly applied to him; and there is.a refpect which it would be criminal to withold from him.'

We have transcribed this paffage, left we might have mifreprefented it; and we may add that, in more than one other place, Dr. Price fpeaks of the kingly power as a delegated one. If, in thefe paffages, he gives abftract, fpeculative propofitions, which, like the focial contract, never were, or can be reduced to practice, we would not oppose them. But, if he means to apply them to our own country, it is neceffary to obferve, that they convey falfe ideas, and may probably have a dangerous tendency. If kings have only the executive power, they are delegates, and fervants of the public: if they are only first magiftrates, their dignity is that of the people. In England, they are above either character: our conftitution has given them, not a delegated but a feparate power; it has not committed to them our rights, but given them rights of their own. We need not tell Dr. Price that a king is one member of the legislature; that the people are another; and that the arillocracy forms the third. In any act of parliament, is the power delegated from the people? Cannot the king, according to the strictest ideas of the conftitution, act contrary to the wishes of the people? Is he not, in all thefe acts, independent of them ?-We mean not to leffen the dignity of human nature, for we allow that the kingly power is originally from the peo

F4

ple;

ple; and when, in a late emergency, one point was left undefined by the Revolution, we more than once explicitly fupport ed the appeal to the people for the determination. The appeal was made, and they determined with a temper, a wifdom, and an uprightnefs, which will make the laft feffion the model of future ages. But when a conflitution, the boast of all who love their country; the object of imitation in a new world; warmly applauded by a people who have their own to form, is depreciated and mifreprefented, we truft we may be allowed to obviate the difadvantageous impreflion.

The other extreme, a contempt for our governors, is urged with propriety, as a mode of conduct to be avoided. To defend our country against our internal enemies, who may fubvert our liberties, or, under a pretence of establishing them, fubvert our contitution, as well as our external ones, is certainly a proof of our patriotifm: on thefe fubjects there cannot be two opinions. The principles of the Revolution are in the next place well explained, and our author enlarges chiefly on the three following ones:

ters.

First; The right to liberty of confcience in religious mat

Secondly; The right to refift power when abufed. And, Thirdly; The right to chufe our own governors; to cashier them for mifconduct; and to frame a government for ourselves.' The Revolution, in this view of it, Dr. Price tells us, was imperfect: liberty of confcience is, in fome degree, tettered by the teft act; and the power of the people is diminified by the inequality of reprefentation. Our author urges fhortly the progrefs of toleration in different parts of the world, and the inconfiftency of preventing thofe from executing laws, of which they are allowed to contribute to the formation. We may be permitted to add, that if this inconfiftency be very flagrant, there is one other mode of obviating it; but we think nothing can be added to Dr. Priestley's very candid and temperate reprefentation of this question.'

That his hearers and readers may continue worthy of a bleffing fo great as the Revolution; that they may deferve the chaacters of lovers of their country, Dr. Price adds fome strenuous exhortations, Thefe we fhall not tranfcribe; we are too truly lovers of our country to diffeminate fuch a degrading profpect, which, if there was an enemy capable of attacking us with fuccefs, might be induced by this reprefentation to attempt it. A fimilar mode of proceeding was once effectual: it induced France to throw off the mafk; and if events followed, which mocked all former experience as the criterion of judgment, and difgraced the exacteil calculation, we cannot defend either the head or the heart, which, in defiance of both, could dictate or purfue it.

The peroration is bold and animated: it relates to the Revo