in the old ftaple of the national church, or in all the rich variety to be found in the wellafforted warehoufes of the diffenting congregations, Dr. Price advises them to improve upon non-conformity; and to fet up, each of them, a feparate meeting-houfe upon his own particular principles. It is fomewhat remarkable that this reverend divine fhould 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 character. 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 nondefcripts to the ample collection of known claffes, genera and fpecies, which at prefent beautify the bortus ficcus of diffent. A fermon from a noble "Those who diflike that mode of worship which is pre"fcribed by public authority ought, if they can find no worfhip 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 manly worship, men "of weight from their rank and literature may do the greatest "fervice to fociety and the world." P. 18. Dr. Price's Ser-' mon. duke, duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase 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 these 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 caufe of compulsory freedom, civil and religious, may not be equally conducive to the national tranquillity. Thefe few restrictions I hope are no great flretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of defpotifin. But I may fay of our preacher, "utinam nugis "tota illa dediffet tempora fævitiæ." -All things in this his fulminating bull are not of fo innoxious a tendency. His doctrines affect our conftitution in its vital parts. He tells the Revolution Society, in this political fermon, that his majefty" 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, 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 these apoftolic miffionaries, who are to tell their fubjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domestic intereft of fome moment, seriously to confider the folidity of the only principle upon which these 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 falfe, or it affirms a most 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 refpe&t better than the rest 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 general 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 exiftence of the fovereign magiftracy) would be overlooked whilst 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 use. Condo et compono que mox depromere poffim. By this policy, whilft our government is foothed with a reservation 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 away. Thus thefe 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. nugatory. They are welcome to the afylum they seek 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 firft, 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 those who called them to go.vern. There is ground enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer li mitations in the objects of choice; but whatever kings might have been here or elsewhere, a ́thousand years ago, or in whatever manner the ruling dynasties of England or France may have begun, the King of Great Britain is at this day king by a fixed rule of fucceffion, according to the laws of his country; and whilft the legal conditions of the compact of fovereignty are per- formed by him (as they are performed) he holds his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a fingle vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively; though I make no doubt they would foon erect themselves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to give effect to their claim. His majesty's heirs and fucceffors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with |