hands of the editor of that valuable mifcellany, let him determine how much honour is reflected upon it by fuch criticifm.

Since the above was written, the New Annual Register for 1799 has been brought to me; and I there find it afferted, in the Review of Domestic Literature, that I have published an Apology, &c.

The Reviewer expreffes his furprife that I fhould, " even by impli

66

cation, adduce the existence of the "African Slave Trade as an argu"ment against christianity, because "it is an evil that has obtained only

" fince

66

fince that religion has become "known. Might he not (adds the Reviewer) with equal juftice allege. against it every other civil and "moral outrage on the rights and feelings of mankind which has originated in what is called the "christian world fince the reign of "the emperor Conftantine? Might "he not, with equal fairness and

66

σε

weight in point of argument, af"cribe to it that difeafe which many "writers contend the chriftian na

66

vigator Columbus imported from "America?"

From hence the reader is naturally led to conceive that I have reprefented the African flave trade as having originated from the chriftian refigion. I have done no fuch thing.

But

But I have reafoned after this manner:-If the object of the Supreme Being, in fending the christian religion into the world, was the reformation of mankind, i. e. their recovery to virtue and happiness, the grievous and manifold evils existing in the world, fince the chriftian æra, and that horrid enormity, the African flave trade, particularly, which, fince that æra, has fprung up in spite of the influence of christianity, prove that the object of it has not been attained. Christianity, it has been faid, was intended as a remedy to cure the

civil and moral outrages, &c." which have fo dreadfully prevailed: but thefe evils have not been cured. On the contrary, peculiar evils, of the worst description, have arisen out of this very remedy. Now rather than believe

believe that the Supreme Being has been thus cruelly disappointed in refpect of his object, I am difpofed to believe that he never had any fuch object.

The Reviewer, I dare fay, will not blush for having thus mifrepresented my argument. If this preface, however, fhould happen to fall in his way, I beg leave to affure him that, if I had undertaken to animadvert publicly on any production of his, or any other man's, and had done it after his [the reviewer's] fashion, it would not, I think, be poffible for me to escape my own reproaches.

3

SOBER