TO THE LONDON REVIEWERS. So, gentlemen, I fee that verfatile genius, your Editor, is indefatigable! No fooner is one game hunted down, but another is ftarted. Poor Priestley afforded him but little fport; for though the philofopher pufhed out of the thicket with fome spirit, the divine wanted foul to double and keep long in view. Opportunely, Scame Jenyns has broken cover, and promifes better diverfion.-Sans metaphor, gentlemen, I cannot help admiring that agility and dexterity, with which your colleague, Dr. K. fkips from play-writing to philofophizing, from mechanics, to metaphyfics, from poetry to politics, from politics to divinity, from panegyric to fatire, and even from fatire to fcurrility and vice verfa, as occafion offers. If I am not mistaken in my man, this fame editor of yours, Dr. K. was born an anabaptift, and bred a quaker; indeed, the religious leaven of old John Owen and Daniel Turner, feem, notwithstanding his plays and his philofophy, never to have been fairly worked out of him. Quo femel eft imbuta recens, fervabit odorem Not that the calvinistical climate of Geneva, or the damp air of the Dutch Netherlands, which he breathed fo long, promiled to effect any reformation; were it poffible for what is bred in the bone ever to be got out of the filefh. There was a time, however, when the faints imagined they had loft him; more than one congregation having affigned him over, for his Epiftles to Lorenzo, to the freethinking tribe of darknefs. It is wonderful, however, with what ingenuity he brings his darkness to light and ranges the equivocal arguments of that jefuitical performance on the fide of christianity.Let me give the doctor a piece of advice. It is this, to follow the example of his quondam bum-brushing pedagogue, Dr. Birch; who, if I mistake not, taught him his hic, hæc, boc, at the old quaker's; notwithstanding he was converted afterwards to the established church, poffeffed pluralities of good livings, and died, like your late affociate, fecretary of the Royal Society.—I have heard much talk of your profefed impartiality; to prove it real, print this, if you dare. Westminster, Aug. 26, 1776. Your's, ONE OF THE DOCTOR'S OLD SCHOOL-FELLOWS. *** On what authority this correfpondent, though prefuming on the freedom of an old school-fellow, takes upon him to infinuate, that our editor was born an anabaptift, we know not. We fhall not dispute with him what, where, or with whom Dr. K. was bred; but cannot help lamenting that any of his old fchool-fellows fhould appear fo deftitute of politenefs, that one would think they never had any breeding at all. However, to give the proof of our impartiality, which even this rude writer requires, we have inferted his laconic epifle without defalcation; though it may only feem to fhew, that, Drawcanfir-like, "All this we do, because we dare.” TO THE LONDON REVIEWERS. GENTLEMEN, After the many inftances you have given the public, of your impartiality and candour; and, in fome cafes, even for that infulted and exploded fect, the methodists, I was extremely furprized, in looking over one of your late numbers, at the very harsh expreffion, by which you teftify your disapprobation of the Rev. Mr. John Wefley's Primitive Phyfic. The author, you fay, "deferves neither more nor less than to be hanged." Surely, gentlemen, if you have seen that Divine's letter to Mr. Hawes, printed in the newspapers, fetting forth the still increasing fale of the above-mentioned tract, you must be convinced that it is not fo pernicious a publication as the faculty reprefents it, unless you fuppofe people mad enough wilfully to poifon themselves. The faculty have their inrerefts to ferve as well as Mr. Wefley; and, as doctors differ, you will probably think proper to retract the feverity of your cenfure, which, I can affure you, has given great offence to many of your otherwife well-wifhers; and to none more than to Aug. 16, 1776. Your's, A METHODIST. We are forry to give any of our well-wishers offence, and, therefore, having read Mr. Wefley's letter to Mr. Hawes, and being too well convinced that many people are mad enough to poifon themselves, we do readily retract the expreffion complained of, viz. "that the author of the Primitive Phyfic deferves neither more nor "less than to be hanged;" it being, on the contrary, our prefent opinion, that, if he be the writer alfo of the letter in queftion, and is pot abfolutely non-compos, hanging is too good for him. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. Our Suffolk SEEKER, who is in fuch a hurry to find the way to heaven that he cannot wait for the direction of God's grace, will in all probability be long enough before he hits upon itself, by himself. -As he does not deny, therefore, that Grace may be affiftant" we would advise him to feck that affistance in the way only in which it is to be found, that of penitence and prayer. What neceffity there is that he should remain, in the mean time, ignorant and immoral, we do not fee: certain we are, our colleague Dr. K, in his ftrictures on Mr. Jenyns's tract has infinuated no fuch neceffity. On the contrary, men may use their endeavours to become learned and virtuous, and yet, be virtuous and learned as they will, be ftill far from comprehending the mysteries of Divine Revelation: nay, we do not think fuch comprehenfion effential to the character of a good chriftian. Our Our Seeker's fuppofition that Methodist and Enthufiaft are fynonimous terms, is founded on the fuppofition that there may be a general rule without an exception, or that every individual of a fect must in every respect resemble the founders or leaders of it.-His notion of a fubordination in the perfons of the Godhead, or that Chrift may be a kind of demi-god, is in our opinion, a poor expedient to get rid of the Athanafian perplexity. We do not recollect where Sir Ifaac Newton fays the term God itfelf is relative; meaning a fovereign, to which the term fubject is correlative; but granting it be fo, and that the term be expreffive of relation, the abfolute Being, to which it is applied, cannot be fuppofed to depend in any fhape on its correlative; or that God (tho he can not be a fovereign without there be a fubject) would not exist, in and of himfelf, the independent and felf-existent firft caufe of all things, whether they be ordinate or fubordinate, fovereigns or fubjects.As to our Seeker's approving Mr. Jenyns's tract, because he thinks it was written more from the heart than the head, we think his reafon a bad one.-If the argument be found and good, it matters nothing to the auditor, though the orator were a ventriloquift and fpoke from the thorax or abdomen. It is the credibility and truth of the doctrine, and not the credit or credulity of the doctor, that should be attended to, by those who pretend to judge for themselves. It behoves, indeed, them who are fatisfied with pinning their faith on the fleeve of others, to look well both to the fleeve and the owner of it. After all which, they are very liable to be deceived; as no really-honest and difcerning man will fet himself up for an oracle; which must therefore be done either by a knave or fool. If the former, he may deceive them wilfully; if the latter, unwittingly, because he knows no better and is himself deceived. Perhaps even the former, however, is to be preferred. By thofe, who can fee, the blind have a chance at least to be led fafely, but the blind, leading the blind, must inevitably fall into a ditch together. *** We are obliged to the Reverend Mr. R. for his candid and elaborate remarks on Dr. K's critique on Mr. Jenyns's View, inferted in our last Appendix; but, as moft of the difficulties started, and obfcurities pointed out, are, in a great meafure, obviated and elucidated in his volume of Obfervations fince publifhed, we beg leave to decline the infertion of our correfpondent's letter, especially as fo much has already been faid on the fame fubject in the prefent Review. If, on the perufal of the Obfervations at large, Mr. R. fhould not find his doubts removed, we fhall be ready to give a place to any future communication, with which he may favour us. The length of this month's correfpondence obliges us to defer the letters of Philo--Philalethes-Morgan-T. B.-J. S.-A Metaphyfician and others; as alfo to poftpone fome literary articles intended for this number.-Our Editor's Remarks on Mr. Jenyns's Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil, are, of course, delayed till next month." THE LONDON REVIEW, FOR SEPTEMBER, 1776.. Remarks on Mr. Jenyns's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil. It is the duty, fays Mr. Jenyns, of every man, who comes into the world, to ufe his beft endeavours, however infignificant, to leave it as much wifer and as much better as he can.--As the Inquirer hath made this his apology for his treatise, let it be ours, for taking the prefent opportunity of making our remarks on it: a talk, however, on which we have ventured, without entertaining the vanity of making the world either much wifer or much better than we found it. Whence cometh Evil? is a queftion which hath been so frequently asked, that even the repetition of it feems to fuppofe it unanswered and unanswerable. By making proper diftinctions, nevertheless, in our modes of inquiry, it may probably not be found fo difficult of folution, as it is generally apprehended. "How Evil came into world," fays the celebrated author of the Rambler," is a queftion which philofophers have long afked, and which philofophy could never anfwer." It is, indeed, by no means, a philofophical queftion; at least it should be made a previous queftion in philofophy; "Whether Evil positively exifts," if this be taken for granted, it may well be afked, "where lies the error in imputing Evil to the firft caufe of every thing else ?"---No, fays the fophift, "God, the first caufe of all things, is good and from goodness cannot come Evil."---But whence do we learn that God is good ?---From philofophy? By no means. The philofopher encroaching on the province of the divine, deduces this principle from revelation. It is not to be drawn, like the principles of most other fciences, from moral obfervation or natural experiment. By revelation we are inftructed in the abfolute goodness of God, the depravity of man and his redemption, from the flavery of Satan and of Sin, by the mediation and merits of a Saviour. But, we may Loldly defy the greatest philofopher on earth to deduce, from natural caufes by the unaffifted powers of human reaion, one valid proof that God is good, that man is depraved, or that there exifts VOL. IV. Y ia in the universe any abfolute Evil. That man is a capricious, changeable creature, and therefore frequently miferable, is most certain. If he were not, he might never have had any idea of what it is to be happy; happiness and mifery appearing to be merely relative modes of exiftence, the contraft and reciprocally the eventual cause and effect of each other.---On the other hand were man incapable of happiness; had he not in fome degree experienced it in the tranfitory pleasures of human life, he might never have had any idea of goodness, or, without the direction of revelation, have been able to impute that attribute to the Deity. But, having tafted both happiness and mifery, it is natural for him to wifh for a full repaft of the former; and from whom can he hope or expect it, but from the great Creator of all things. Here, then, lie the grand obftacles to the rational folution of the queftion ;---the longing hope, the ardent defire, to be happy puts to filence every plea that opposes the right, the reafon, of fuch expectation at the fame time this expectation being founded merely on the goodness of God, forlorn would be that hope, and defperate that expectation, unless God were admitted to be ab folutely good. The philofopher, therefore, who fets out, in such an inquiry, on the principles that God is all goodness, and therefore his final purpofe is to make all his creatures happy, fets out on a desperate scheme; he sets out on principles, which he can by no means affume as purely philofophical; although they are fo fitly adapted to the inclinations, the defires, the wishes of mankind, that he must be a bold man indeed, who only, by way of hypothefis, will venture to call their truth a moment in queftion. The philofopher here takes advantage even of the prejudices of mankind, againft which he is perpetually deelaiming: he takes, befides, advantage of those principles, which are the foundation of Chriftianity, infidiously to demolish, if poffible, its fuperftructure. It were to do an effential service to the cause of Christianity, therefore, to fhew how groundless, how tottering is the fabrick of natural religion, when deprived of thofe powerful support it borrows from Revelation. Hence the real friends of the former must not think the argument merely difputatious, that calls for a while in question a most incontrovertible truth, with a view of disclosing the fource from whence it is derived. Being affured by the word which cannot lie, that "God is good, and his tender mercies are over all his works." Let us reft on that affurance, and fee whether the like can be deduced from any other authority. Mr Jenyns's Inquiry is divided into fix letters; in the first of which he treats of evils in general, endeavouring to prove, that they |