did his utmost to stop the circulation of them: yet the wretched authors themselves he was so far from wishing to treat with any undue rigour, that he has more than once extended his bounty to them in distress. And when their writings could not properly be suppressed (as was too often the case) by lawful authority, he engaged men of abilities to answer them, and rewarded them for their trouble. His attention was every where. Even the falsehoods and misrepresentations of writers in the news-papers on religious or ecclesiastical subjects, he generally took care to have contradicted: and when they seemed likely to injure in any material degree the cause of virtue and religion, or the reputation of eminent and worthy men, he would sometimes take the trouble of answering them himself. One instance of this kind, which does him honour, and deserves mention, was his defence of Bishop Butler, who, in a pamphlet, published in the year 1767, was accused of having died a Papist. This strange slander, founded on the weakest pretences and most trivial circumstances that can be imagined, no one was better qualified to confute than the Archbishop; as well from his long and intimate knowledge of Bishop Butler, as from the information given him at the time by those who attended his Lordship in his last illness, and were with him when he died. Accordingly, by an article in a news-paper, signed Misopseudes, his Grace challenged the author of that pamphlet to produce his authority for what he had advanced; and in a second article defended the Bishop against him; and in a third (all with the same signature) confuted another writer, who under the name of A real Protestant, still maintained that ridiculous calumny. His antagonists were effectually subdued, and his

11

superiority to them was publicly acknowledged by a sensible and candid man, who signed himself, and who really was, A dissenting Minister. Surely, it is a very unwise piece of policy, in those who profess themselves enemies to Popery, to take so much pains to bring the most respectable names within its pale; and to give it the merit of having gained over those who were the brightest ornaments and firmest supports of the Protestant cause.

66

The welfare, the credit, the good influence of the clergy he had entirely at heart, and suffered nothing to escape his notice, that could in any proper way promote them. He earnestly endeavoured to prevent unworthy men from bringing disgrace on the profession and contempt on religion, by entering into orders. With this view it was that he so strongly recommended the greatest care and caution in signing testimonials. "They are," says he, "the only ordinary information that we have in a case of the " utmost importance, where we have a right to be "informed. For no one can imagine, that we are "to ordain whoever comes, or depend on clandestine intelligence. We must therefore, and do depend "on regular testimonials,-every part of which ought "to be considered before it is given, and no consideration paid to neighbourhood, acquaintance, "friendship, compassion, importunity, when they "stand in competition with truth.-It may be some"times hard for you to refuse your hand to improper persons; but it is only one of the many hardships which conscience bids men undergo resolutely when they are called to them. It would be much "harder, that your Bishop should be misled, the "Church of God injured, and the poor wretch himself * First Charge to the Diocese of Canterbury, p. 222.

4

66

"assisted to invade sacrilegiously an office, at the thought of which he hath cause to tremble." If any such however had unhappily found means to obtain ordination, he did his utmost to prevent their further progress; or if that could not be done, very openly signified his dislike of their conduct; nor could he ever bring himself to treat them, however considerable their rank might be, with any marks of esteem or respect.

66

66

Men of worth and eminence in the Church he cherished and befriended, and endeavoured to bring forward into stations where they might be singularly useful. Above all he distinguished, with peculiar marks of his favour, the conscientious and diligent parish priest. He was of opinion, that "the main support of piety and morals consisted in the paro"chial labours of the clergy; and that, if this country "could be preserved from utter profligateness and ruin, it must be by their means t." For their assistance therefore in one important branch of their duty, he gave them in his third archiepiscopal Charge directions for writing and speaking sermons. The thoughts of such a man, on so nice and difficult a subject, must naturally raise some expectation, and that expectation will not be disappointed. They are the evident result of a sound judgment, matured by long experience, and a thorough knowledge of mankind, and are every way worthy of one who was himself so great a master of that species of composition and elocution. It was his purpose, after speaking of stated instructions, to have gone on to occasional ones; but he did not live, as he himself foreboded he should not, to accomplish that design.

* First Charge to the Diocese of Canterbury, p. 226. Ibid. p. 239.

The conduct which he observed towards the several divisions and denominations of Christians in this kingdom, was such as shewed his way of thinking to be truly liberal and catholic. The dangerous spirit of Popery indeed, he thought, should always be kept under proper legal restraints, on account of its natural opposition not only to the religious, but the civil rights of mankind. He therefore observed its movements with care, and exhorted his clergy to do the same, especially those who were situated in the midst of Roman Catholic families; against whose influence they were charged to be upon their guard, and were furnished with proper books, or instructions for that purpose. He took all fit opportunities of combating the errors of the Church of Rome in his own writings; and the best answers, which were published to some of the late bold apologies for Popery, were written at his instance, and under his direction. He had the good fortune to preserve some persons of consequence from embracing that communion, and to receive several converts from it, both of the clergy. and laity, into the Church of England. When the Earl of Radnor moved in the House of Lords for an enquiry into the number of Roman Catholics in this kingdom, his Grace was very active in forwarding that measure. The return for his own diocese was no more than 271; that, for all the dioceses in England and Wales did not exceed 68,000; which even when all due allowances are made for unavoidable errors of computation in great towns, more especially in London, fell far short of what by some

See particularly his Sermons on the Rebellion in 1745, on the Protestant Working-schools in Ireland, on the 5th of November, and a great number of occasional passages to the same purpose, in various parts of his Lectures, Sermons, and other works.

well meaning persons they were supposed or represented to be*. And if we further reflect how many wealthy and noble families in these kingdoms have lately embraced the Protestant religion, each of which would probably draw after it several other converts of inferior rank, it will appear perhaps the bettergrounded conjecture of the two, (for it must at last be all conjecture) that Popery is rather in a declining than a progressive state amongst us. Certain at least it is, that some late events on the neighbouring continent have shaken this huge fabric of superstition to its very foundation. One of its grand supports, the society of Jesuits, is, in many places, totally subverted; and the Papal power itself is every where falling into contempt. One may therefore surely hope, that absurdities which visibly lose ground even in the most bigotted countries, will not stand much chance of retrieving their loss in this enlightened one.

But though thus prudently jealous of this corrupt church, towards his Protestant brethren of all persuasions, he demeaned himself with great mildness and moderation. One very striking proof of this occurs in the directions he gives his clergy, with regard to their conduct towards those who are commonly distinguished by the name of Methodists t. It is impossible to read that passage without acknowledging the justness of it, and conceiving the highest opinion of the writer's philanthrophy and good sense.

* Dr. Mayhew affirms, that in the year 1745 the Papists in London only were 100,000, and that the people there were said to be converted by hundreds and thousands, if not ten thousands every year. Remarks on an Anonymous Tract, &c. p. 73. Had the good Doctor's account been true, and these conversions gone on (as some have imagined) encreasing ever since, there would hardly have been a Protestant left by this time in the metropolis.

+ Second Archiepiscopal Charge, p. 280.