revolution fociety to the national affembly, through Earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the fermon, and as a corollary from then. It was moved by the preacher of that difcourfe. It was paffed by those who came reeking from the effect of the fermon, without any cenfure or qualification, expreffed or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen concerned fhall wish to feparate the fermon from the refolution, they know how to acknowledge the one, and to disavow the other. They may do it: I

cannot.

For my part, I looked on that fermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers, and intriguing philofophers; with political theologians, and theological politicians, both at home and abroad. I know they fet him up as a fort of oracle; because, with the best intentions in the world, he naturally philippizes, and chaunts his prophetic fong in exact unifon with their defigns.

That fermon is in a ftrain which I believe has not been heard in this kingdom, in any of the pulpits which are tolerated or encouraged in it, fince the year 1648, when a predeceffor of Dr. Price, the Reverend Hugh Peters, made the vault of the King's own chapel at St. James's ring with the honour and privilege of the faints, who with the "high praifes "of God in their mouths, and a two-edged fword in "their hands, were to execute judgment on the hea"then, and punifliments upon the people to bind "their kings with chains, and their nobles with fet

ters of iron." Few harangues from the pulpit, except in the days of your league in France, or in the days of our folemn league and covenant in England, have ever breathed lefs of the fpirit of moderation than this lecture in the Old Jewry. Suppofing, however, that fomething like moderation were vifible in this political fermon; yet poli fics and the pulpit are terms that have little

agreement. No found ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of chriftian charity. The caufe of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this confufion of duties, Those who quit their proper character, to affume what does not belong to them, are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave, and of the character they affume. Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are fo fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs, on which they pronounce with fo much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the paflions they excite Surely the church is a place where one day's truce ought to be allowed to the diffenfions and animofities of mankind.

This pulpit ftyle, revived after fo long a difcontinuance, had to me the air of novelty, and of a novelty not wholly without danger, I do not charge this danger equally to every part of the difcourie. The hint given to a noble and reverend lay-divine, who is fuppofed high in office in one of our univerfities, and to other lay-divines" of rank and litera

ture," may be proper and feafonable, though fomewhat new. If the noble Seekers fhould find nothing to fatisfy their pious fancies in the old ftaple of the national church, or in all the rich variety to be found in the well-afforted warehoufes of the diffenting congregations, Dr. Price advifes them to improve upon non-conformity; and to fet up, each of them, a feparate meeting-houfe upon his own particular principles t. It is fomewhat remarkable that this reve

rend

Difcourfe on the Love of our Country, Nov. 4, 1789, by Dr. Richard Price, 3d edition, p. 17 and 18.

"Thofe who diflike that mode of worship which is prescribed "by public authority ought, if they can find no worship out of the "church which they approve, to fet up a separate worship for themselves; "and by doing this, and giving an example of a rational and man"ly worship, men of weight from their rank and literature may do "the greatest fervice to fociety and the world." P. 18. Dr. Price's * Sermon.

rend divine should be fo earnest for setting up new churches, and fo perfectly indifferent concerning the doctrine which may be taught in them. His zeal is of a curious charter. It is not for the propagation of his own opinions, but of any opinions. It is not for the diffufion of truth, but for the fpreading of contradiction. Let the noble teachers but diffent, it is no matter from whom or from what. This great point once fecured, it is taken for granted their religion will be rational and manly. I doubt whether religion would reap all the benefits which the calculating divine computes from this "great company of great preachers." It would certainly be a valuable addition of non-defcripts to the ample collection of known claffes, genera and fpecies, which at present beautify the hortus ficcus of diffent. A fermon from a noble duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increafe and diverfify the amufements of this town, which begins to grow fatiated with the uniform round of its vapid diffipations. I fhould only ftipulate that thefe new Mefs-Johns in robes and coronets fhould keep fome fort of bounds in the democratic and levelling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelifts will, I dare fay, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines, nor be difpofed fo to drill their congregations that they may, as in former bleffed times, preach their doctrines to regiments of dragoons, and corps of infantry and artillery. Such arrangements, however favourable to the cause of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquil lity. Thefe few reftrictions I hope are no great ftretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of defpotifm.

But I may fay of our preacher, "utinam nugis tota illa dediffet tempora fævitie."- All things in this his ful

minating

minating bull are not of fo innoxious a tendency. His doctrines affect our conftitution in its vital parts. He tells the revolution fociety, in this political fermon, that his majesty "is almoft the only lawful king in the world, because the only one who owes his crown to "the choice of his people." As to the kings of the world, all of whom (except one) this archpontiff of the rights of men, with all the plenitude, and with more than the boldness of the papal depofing power in its meridian fervour of the twelfth century, puts into one sweeping clause of ban and anathema, and proclaims ufurpers by circles of longitude and latitude, over the whole globe, it behoves them to confider how they admit into their territories thefe apoftolic miflionaries, who are to tell their fubjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domeftic intereft of fome moment, ferioufly to confider the folidity of the only principle upon which thefe gentlemen acknowledge a king of Great Britain to be entitled to their allegiance.

This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the British throne, either is nonsense, and therefore neither true nor false, or it affirms a moft unfounded, dangerous, illegal, and unconftitutional pofition. According to this fpiritual doctor of politics, if his majefty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is fo held by his majefty. Therefore if you follow their rule, the king of Great Britain, who moft certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no respect better than the reft of the gang of ufurpers, who reign, or rather rob, all over the face of this our miferable world, without any fort of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The policy of this ge neral doctrine, fo qualified, is evident enough. The propagators of this political gofpel are in hopes

their abstract principle (their principle that a popular choice is neceffary to the legal existence of the fovereign magiftracy) would be overlooked whilft the king of Great Britain was not affected by it. In the mean time the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if it were a first principle admitted without difpute. For the prefent it would only operate as a theory, pickled in the preferving juices of pulpit eloquence, and laid by for future ufe. Condo et compono quæ mox depromere poffim. By this policy, whilft our government is foothed with a refervation in its favour, to which it has no claim, the fecurity, which it has in common with all governments, fo far as opinion is fecurity, is taken

Thus these politicians proceed, whilft little notice is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to be examined upon the plain meaning of their words and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and flippery conftructions come into play. When they fay the king owes his crown to the choice of his people, and is therefore the only lawful fovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to fay no more, than that fome of the king's predeceffors have been called to the throne by fome fort of choice; and therefore he owes his crown to the choice of his people. Thus, by a miferable fubterfuge, they hope to render their propofition fafe, by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the afyJum, they feek for their offence, fince they take refuge in their folly. For, if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the fettlement of the crown in the Brunswick line derived from James the first, come to legalize our monarchy, rather than that of any of the neighbouring countries? At fome time or other, to be fure, all the beginners of dynasties were chofen by thofe who called them

to