very unthinking moment, I am perfuaded, that you united together ander the fame cenfure the inhabitants of Billingsgate and of St. James's-street, and I can pofitively affure you, that your knowledge of honeft John Bull is neither fo intimate nor accurate as, perhaps, you imagine. A foreigner, and especially one who has never been in England, treads on ticklish ground when, in order to raise a laugh, or excite prejudices against that country, he makes allufions to local circumftances and local characters, which it is difficult even for the natives to manage with eafe, elegance, and effect. I must beg leave to inform you at the fame time, that England has not yet fallen into fuch a ftate of infignificance and of bad taste as you have been here pleased to affert; nor will you find the people receiving implicitly and without examination, as you have told us, any book, merely because it is filled with bloody news. There may be individuals, in high ftations, who believe, and even you yourself, I prefume, must allow that there is fome curious and important information even in Barruel; but I know no person who refers to his work as a diplomatic codex, and, I am credibly informed, that its merits have been ably canvaffed, and many of its faults feverely expofed in the journals the moft favour. able to the Government. Your remarks, therefore, on the pilots of the Britif veffel of State and on the members of the respectable Senate of the Imperial ifles (Raiferlichen Infeln, appealing in open Parlia ment and in State Papers to what you call the abfurdities of Barruel, fall harmless to the ground when narrowly infpected and compared with the facts; and your endeavouring to account for a folly, in great part of your own creation, by referring to the dazzling effects of party fpirit, and to the infolent licence in the ufe of means employed by Machiavelic politicians to win the public opinion, is fimilar to the conduct of those philofophers who endeavour to account for facts of which they have not established the existence. I am not ignorant of the wild and unfounded calumnies which have been circulated in Germany against the government of my country, in confequence of its conduct in the prefent war, and I cannot help remarking that an Englishman has at least as much reason to be indignant at fuch wanton and ignorant malice, as a German can have, on account of the works published in England againft the Illuminati, granting them to be in every respect as ill-founded as you would have us believe. It has been too much the fafhion of late years among the German writers to calumniate the British government, and to circulate, with unbounded confidence, the lies and mifreprefentations of the oppofition papers in England, and of the Republican Gazettes of France. Yet it is now as evident as day-light, and every perfon free from the party fpirit against which all fo loudly declaim will readily acknowledge, that had England followed the plan they fo ardently laboured to recommend, Europe would at this moment have exhibited only one common heap of ruin, devoid alike of religion, of learning, and of liberty. I love science and I love freedom, but I abhor all affectation of extravagant novelty both in the one and in the other, becaufe I believe it to be equally fatal to both. I think in fuch a country England, where liberty is acknowledged and eftifhed by the laws, You laws, that the parliament and the people have a right to watch over and even to be jealous of the government. But, on all occafions, with reafon and without, and efpecially in cafes totally unprecedented and of extreme difficulty and danger, to be crying out against the Machiavelifm of adminiftration, and the danger of liberty, is equally weak and wicked. I firmly believe, and am fure it would not be difficult to prove (in part it has been unanfwerably proved already) that there never was any government or adminiftration in Europe, lefs directed by Machiavelic principles than that of England during the prefent war; and pofterity, if pofterity escape the defolating principles of these times, will fee and acknowledge it, when the paffions and partialities of the feveral agents fhall have long been buried in oblivion; amongst many other epithets applied to Barruel, you call him a penfioned (befoldeten) prieft, an allegation which you certainly cannot prove, and which I am pofitive is not true. certainly with the fame thing to be believed of Mr. Robifon, from what you fay of his dedication to the minifter Windbam, though the fmalleft attention or enquiry would have proved to you, that this dedication was the effect of an early acquaintance at college, accidentally renewed in London, and not of minifterial patronage. Mr. Pitt has been, in a peculiar manner, accufed both abroad and at home of keeping in his pay a lift of writers to defend his administration. It would have been highly ufeful and highly praise-worthy in him if this had been the cafe, if he had employed a few perfons of fufficient abilities, integrity, and difcretion, and furnished them with fufficient materials, where circumftances rendered it neceffary, in order to expofe matters to the public eye in their juft light, and to prevent the baneful effects of the repeated lies, and continual mifrepresentations of the oppofition papers, fome of which were certainly known to be in the pay of the French Directory, and, perhaps, may still continue in the pay of the new government. Unfortunately the minifter has not the fame ideas on this fubject, for he fuffers all the odium (yet if placed on a proper and liberal footing I know not why it should be odious) without the advantages. No minifter, I imagine, was ever more carelefs of fuch means of fecuring the public opinion, though if exercifed in a manly liberal manner nothing could be more just or ufeful. He has, indeed, been ferved " by writers not his own." The idea feems to exift upon the Continent that every paper called minifterial is a Court Gazette, and thus Wieland denominates the St. James's Chronicle. There is no official or Court paper in England, except the London Gazette, which never contains any thing but official news, State Papers, and proclamations. The other newf. papers range themselves on the fide of the minifter, or on that of the oppofition, according to the principles or prejudices of their respective editors; and though we are daily entertained by the latter with re * For a cafe in point we refer our readers to P. 204. Vol. I. of our Review. And, we now add, that we have fince received indifputable proofs that one paper, at leaft, was in the pay of the French Directory. Editor. marks marks on the baneful influence of party spirit and of political corruption, a fufficient number of anecdotes are known refpecting the leading. papers of this description to prove that they are equal adepts in the practice, as in the theory, of what they thus frequently make the theme of their moft pathetic declamations. I do not mean, Sir, to affert that my country is totally, and in every respect, faultlefs, either in its government, or in the general conduct and character of the people. Whatever may be my own private opinion in comparing it with other countries, I fhall never fo far forget what I owe to foreigners, as to difguft them with fenfeless claims of fuperiority. But I reclaim loudly and pofitively against England's being represented (as she too often has been in Germany, and as the feems in a peculiar manner to be reprefented by you) as the patronefs of ignorance and defpotifm on the one hand, and the caufe of an unjust and unneceffary war on the other. I am well convinced, indeed, that if I had even the tongue of an angel, and could wield the pen of the readieft writer, I fhould attempt in vain to filence the envious calumnies and grofs mifreprefentations which are fo artfully and affiduously diffeminated amongst a certain fet of men both in England and on the Continent. But I conceive that I have the fullest right to call upon you to retract affertions both against Mr. R. and against my country, which as they are totally devoid of truth and juftice must be the effect of falfe information, or must have dropt from your pen, in an unguarded and unthinking moment. I am, Sir, your obedient humble fervant, IT SIR, TO THE EDITOR, T was far from my defign to provoke a reply to my first letter. And, to avoid any thing like controverfy with the Reviewer, I will only fay, in anfwer to the charge of mifquoting and mifreprefenting him, that I was not confcious of the faults imputed to me when I wrote to you; and, at this time, I do not believe I have been guilty of them. In my opinion, it does not require much ingenuity to interpret my letter more to the credit of the writer, and fo as to give no offence to the Reviewer.-Mrs. More's Statement of the Doctrines of Chriftianity is a very fmall part of her book on education: and the feverest censure of her opinions and expressions on religious fubjects will confift with a general admiration and praise of her talents as a moral writer... This one remark implies all I should fay, if I were to enter into a particular vindication of myself. But, I forbear. In his animadverfions on my first letter to you, the Reviewer intimated his conjecture of fome school to which I may belong. But, I know not any school, or fect, or party, in whofe lift I fhould not blush to read my name. I profess, indeed, to be one of the people called called Chriftians: and, it has been my good fortune to have been educated in the church of England. I have told you before, that I am a friend of the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers as defenders of our happy conftitution in church and state. I will explain, myself further on this fubject; and will endeavour to convince you, that I am a good churchman, and as much an enemy to schifm as the refpectable Mr. Daubeny. If any one were to ask, what has been the means, by which this nation has been preferved from the prevalence of revolutionary prin. ciples and from democratic ruin; I should ascribe our falvation to the revered character of our most gracious Sovereign, to a general con. fidence in the integrity of his heart, to the loyalty of a vast majority of his faithful fubjects, and their zealous attachment to the constitution. I should afcribe it to the wisdom, the courage, and firmness of administration. I should afcribe it to the wisdom of the parliament; and, to the conviction, which the most independent members, in both houfes, entertain, that his Majefty's Minifters are purfuing the true intereft of the people. Ifhould afcribe our salvation to the Alien Bill, to the prudent fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus Act, and to the armed affociations. I fhould afcribe it to thofe many excellent publications from the prefs, which have expofed the fophiftry, the weakness, and the wickedness, of feditious, democratic, and Jacobinical authors, reviewers, and fcribblers; and, in the catalogue of useful publications, and of those of the first importance, I would mention the AntiJacobin Newspaper and the Pursuits of Literature, the British Critic, and the Anti-Jacobin Review. I would fay thefe at home, and our brave foldiers and mariners abroad, have been the bulwarks of the nation against the domeftic and foreign enemies of Britain, and of our happy conftitution in Church and State. But, it would not be inconfiftent with a very high sense of the importance of the British Critic and of the Anti-Jacobin Review, if I confefs that I do not always approve either the praise or the blame, which I find in thefe ufeful publications, especially on religious fubjects. The compofitions of occafional correfpondents, writers of va rious talents, views, and tempers, are admitted into these periodical publications; and, I may diflike fome of them, or fome things contained in thefe compofitions, without any diflike of the Reviews themselves; and, without any unfriendliness towards thofe who are the principal writers and managers of them. To convince you that I am a good churchman and as much an enemy to fchifm as Mr. Daubeny is, I will transcribe a note, which I wrote only a few days before I read the Anti-Jacobin Review for the month of March; and which was written for a very different purpofe than its introduction into this letter, "It was one thing, to tolerate the fcruples of diffenting brethren; and quite another, to extend the original limits of toleration fo widely, that the very members of the established church, who have none of thofe fcruples, may defpife all rule, all order and government, and fet up fchifm-shops in ‚ 'every every parish. It was one thing, to tolerate religious Diffenters, who could fubscribe to the fame doctrinal articles with their brethren in the established church; and quite another, to give licence to political Diffenters, openly and publicly, to blafpheme thofe doctrines which are held moft facred by the nation; to deny the Lord that bought them, and blafpheme God and the King, by their bitter and indecent invectives against the established religion, i. e. against the constitu tion in church and ftate. This was giving licence to the modern Fawkefes, to carry on their horrible work in broad day-light: and, this exceffive latitudinarianifm, for I cannot call it charity, will probably end, in what the firft G. Fawkes and his affociates intended to perform, in the destruction of King and Parliament, and utter fub. verfion of the laws and religion of this country. They, who fhould guard against this danger, I fear, are too faft afleep, or too deeply infected with latitudinarian principles, to fee the danger till it be come impoffible to prevent the catastrophe." The term Calvinism was used, in my first letter, as the Reviewer fuppofed, in its general fenfe; becaufe the doctrine of irresistible grace was not mentioned by the Reviewer, and I did not perceive, in Mrs. More's Statement of the Doctrines of Chriftianity any thing to excite an idea that the might be charged with having taught this doctrine, either directly or by confequence. The expreffion irrefiftible grace is used by fome modern Calvinists; but, I think, Calvin had too much learning, and too much good fenfe, to use an expreffion fo very exceptionable as this is. I do not recollect any thing like it in his book of inftitutes. And most certainly, the doctrine of irre, fiftible grace is no part of Mrs. More's public creed; I mean, it is not afferted in her Statement of the Doctrines of Christianity. Recollect her words, "Grace must be used, or it will be withdrawn ;" i. e. it is imparted conditionally, and will be withdrawn, if not ufed: and, there is no medium between not using the grace of God and refifting it. She affirms, indeed, that "Chriftianity is a new principle infufed into the heart ;" and this, you may fay, looks fome thing like irrefiftible grace. But this is not the whole of what the affirms: the affirms, that Chriftianity is a new principle infused into the heart by the word and spirit of God. This addition makes a very material difference, by the word and Spirit of God; by the word received, by the word believed, by the fpirit yielded unto, and both obeyed. Not by the one without the other: for, if by the word without the fpirit, her doctrine would be Pelagianifm; and if by the fpirit without the word, it might be irrefiftible grace, or myftic enthufiafm. But, if infufed into the heart by means of the word, as well as by the influence of the divine fpirit, it is grace propofed and offered to us it is grace which may be refifted, and the infufion of it as a habit effectually prevented. And, if grace cannot be refifted, effectually and finally, even that grace of God which bringeth falvation; or, if the fpirit of God cannot be refifted in his operations; then, there can be no fuch fin as the fin of unbelief, and no fuch ་ thing |