in the old staple of the national church, or in all the rich variety to be found in the wellassorted warehouses of the dissenting congregations, Dr. Price advises them to improve upon non-conformity; and to set up, each of them, a separate meeting-house upon his own particular principles*. It is somewhat remarkable that this reverend divine should be so earnest for fetting up new churches, and so 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 diffusion of truth, but for the spreading 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 classes, genera and species, which at present beautify the bortus ficcus of dissent. A fermon from a noble * " Those who dislike that mode of worship which is pre" scribed by public authority ought, if they can find no wor ship out of the church which they approve, to set 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 " service to society and the world." P. 18. Dr. Price's Ser mon. 7 duke, duke, or a noble marquis, or a noble earl, or baron bold, would certainly increase and diversify the amusements of this town, which begins to grow fatiated with the uniform round of its vapid diffipations. I should only stipulate that these new Mess-Johns in robes and coronets should keep some fort of bounds in the democratic and levelling principles which are expected from their titled pulpits. The new evangelists will, I dare say, disappoint the hopes that are conceived of them. They will not become, literally as well as figuratively, polemic divines, nor be disposed so 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 tranquillity. These few restrictions I hope are no great stretches of intolerance, no very violent exertions of despotisin.. But I may fay of our preacher, " utinam nugis “ tota illa dedisset tempora sevitia." - All things in this his fulminating bull are not of so innoxious a tendency. His doctrines affect our constitution in its vital parts. He tells the Revolution Society, in this political fermon, that his majesty " is almost 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, 9 1 plenitude, and with more than the boldness of the papal deposing 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 missionaries, who are to tell their subjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domestic interest of fome moment, serioufly 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 nonfenfe, and therefore neither true nor false, or it affirms a most unfounded, dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional position. According to this spiritual doctor of politics, if his majesty 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 so held by his majesty. Therefore if you follow their rule, the king of Great Britain, who most certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no respect 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, so qualified, is evident enough. The propagators of this political gospel are in hopes their abstract principle (their principle that a popular choice is necessary to the legal existence of the sovereign magistracy) 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 present it would only ope rate as a theory, pickled in the preferving juices of pulpit eloquence, and laid by for future use. Condo et compono quæ mox depromere possim. By this policy, whilft our government is foothed with a refervation in its favour, to which it has no claim, the security, which it has in common with all governments, so far as opinion is security, is taken away. 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 constructions come into play. When they say 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 say no more than that some of the king's predecessors 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 proposition safe, by rendering it nugatory. nugatory. They are welcome to the asylum they feek for their offence, since 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 some time or other, to be fure, all the beginners of dynasties . were chosen by those who called them to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer limitations 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 whilst the legal conditions of the compact of sovereignty are performed by him (as they are performed) he holds his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single 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 successors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with the C2 |