what he profeffes himself, an Anti-Godwin; yet, in others, he agrees with that vifionary theorift, Maurice, the MENTOR of the piece, reprobates the profeffion of a foldier as, in its general principle, wicked, cruel, and flavish.

Edmund Oliver, after a courfe of profligacy, and a disappointment in love, had enlifted in the army, in which fituation he was found by his friend Maurice, who, as the mouth-piece of the author, promulgates the following opinion and fentiments on war, and the military profefsion :

"But first, Edmund, let me extricate you from this detestable profeffion. You, my friend, difguifed in the badge of flavery and cruelty! my heart turns fick at the fight.

"You do not mean, Edmund, to enroll yourself among those who fell themselves to flaughter their fellow-men, to flaughter beings whom you have never feen, and who have done you no injury! "A juft caufe is difgraced by fuch unjust means of defending it;

AND THUS ΤΟ PROSECUTE AN UNJUST CAUSE IS THE VERY CLIMAX OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY! Why, my Edmund, it cannot be, that you will wear the garb of fyftematic and deliberate murder, of carnage by wholefale? Are you to become one of the ravagers of this beautiful earth? Are you going forth to defolate provinces, and to introduce fire and fword where peace and happinefs formerly dwelt? Does your heart no longer own the eloquence of the orphan's tear, the widow's pleading-are you quite callous?

"Be merciful, be merciful, Charles, (cried he,) you will drive me to defperation.

"Come, then, with me, Edmund, and be released from this mpany of EARTHLY FIENDS"

On this paffage we made the following obfervations :

"It would be a degradation of reafoning to employ it in answering this declamatory rant. Indeed, Mr. Charles Lloyd, you are a very young political arguer; you know very little of the hiftory of mankind, or of the principles of human nature, otherwife you would have perceived, that while human paffions continue as they are, the means of national defence, as well as of individuals, will be neceffary. The feebleness of your arguments prevents us, who do not think this war an unjust caufe, from being mortified, that our opinions are not fanctioned by the authority of your approbation, Mr. Charles Lloyd!"

To these remarks Mr. Lloyd replies in his Letter:-" Indeed, Meffrs. Reviewers, you must be very fhort-fighted, if you fuppofe that I could, for a moment, have doubted of the neceffity of wars." Certainly, whether short-fighted, or longfighted, we not only fuppofed, but were convinced, that he doubted the neceflity of wars, because he calls war, in general, without any qualification, "unjust means;" by admitting the neceflity

neceffity he contravenes his own imputation of injustice; fo that the amount of our fhort-fightedness is, that we did not foresee he would contradict himself. We certainly did difagree with Mr. Lloyd on the fubject of war in general: we think the system of morals which he inculcates by no means favourable to the higheft exertions of human virtue. In Edmund Oliver, as he obferves in his Letter, the object is " to recommend patience and forbearance, and all the long train of negative and Chriftian virtues, rather than fortitude and energy, and intellect, and benevolence-and all the Spurious progeny of pride, by a mifnomer of the Godwinian fchool, honoured with epithets they ill deferve." Though, by no means, of the Godwinian fchool, we are very far from thinking fortitude, energy, intellect, and benevolence, the progeny of pride; and, though we believe ourselves to be as found and rational Chriftians as Mr. Lloyd, we think that fortitude, energy, and benevolence, are much higher exertions of virtue than patience and forbearance, and much moré beneficial to fociety; and that patience and forbearance, unless prompted by fortitude or benevolence, and guided by intellect, are no virtues at all. We fhall here quote to Mr. Lloyd the words of a writer, who, though he reprobates his abufe of war and foldiers, expreffes his approbation of several parts of his work. Dr. Biffet, fpeaking on this subject,* makes the following remarks :

"We think that the virtue and religion which he inculcates, has too much fufferance and too little energy; not paffive, but active qualities, produce the welfare of fociety. Our Saviour did not merely endure, he performed; he not only bore evil, but did good. The very good that he did, fhewed, that not mere endurance, but action, was his object. In healing the fick, giving fight to the blind, ftrength to the lame, hearing to the deaf, he evidently intended that thefe men should act. Why impart, or reftore power, except for the fake of active operation? And what fort of active operation would be moft agreeable to a wife and benevolent being? Certainly that which prevented moft mifery, and conferred most happiness. Refistance to evil, very frequently, in this view, becomes an active operation, that muft be approved of by a benevolent and wife Being. Benevolence muft with the evil to be prevented, and wifdom muft fee that vigorous refitance is the only effectual way to oppose those evils that are attempted by the wicked. As long as there are bad paffions, bad actions will enfue, and, unless oppofed, will overwhelm the world with mifery. Thofe who endeavour, from the Chriftian religion, to deduce the doctrines of fufferance inftead of refiftance, muft argue

* See "Hiftorical Magazine," for April, 1799.

from

from a narrow view of particular paffages, instead of the comprehenfive confideration of the whole fyftem of precepts and examples."

Mr. Lloyd fays, in his Letter,

"I difapprove of all war; I would have as little to do with it as may be, left I should incur fome individual stain; it is the child of human frailty, and even exceeds its parent in deformity: but while I do this, I doubt not, nor have I ever doubted, (let modern democrats fay what they pleafe,) of the relative expediency and neceffity of the war with the regicides."

In the Anti-Jacobin Review we delivered an opinion that Edmund Oliver abused the war with regicides. The grounds of this opinion were his own words, especially those which we have marked in capitals. We conceived what he terms an unjuft caufe, was actually the war which we are now carrying on with the regicides. The time in which he reprefents Edmund Oliver as acting was a period fubfequent to the prevalence of the new philofophy of Godwin and others. The foldiers, among whom he defcribes Edmund as being enlisted, were British foldiers. The only war in the prosecution of which British foldiers have been employed in the period exhibited by Mr. Lloyd has been the war with the regicides. In faying that foldiers fo employed profecute an unjust caufe, we concluded him to maintain that this war with the regicides is unjuft. We refer to himself whether his words did not justify that conclufion.

We are happy to find, by his own declaration, that his meaning was diametrically oppofite to what his words appeared fo plainly to convey; and with many of the fentiments contained in his explanation we perfectly concur. The political creed (as far as we understand it) promulgated in this Letter is certainly very far removed from Jacobinifm and Republicanifin. It, indeed, enforces the doctrine of paffive obedience and non-refiftance. His moral creed, alfo, as promulgated both in Edmund Oliver and in the Letter, tends to make its votaries paffive, rather than active, beings. Both, however, appear to arife from a religious enthufiafm, which may be productive of many good and beneficent actions.

We now, from Mr. Lloy'd's account of himself, and from the report of others, conceive him to be a man well-affected towards the conftitution, although striking paffages of Edmund Oliver had given us a different opinion. The prefent Letter does honour to the writer's heart, although it contains no arguments to prove, that the Anti-Jacobin review of Edmund Oliver is not juftified by the work itself.

The Critical Review of this Letter gives us the fatisfaction to obferve, that our strictures on it have not been unfelt.

The

The Critical abufes us. Were the old Analytical to rise from the dead, we make no doubt it would do the fame.

Omnes hi metuunt odere.

Long may we be fo hated and feared; when the dread and hatred of fuch men fhall cease, we shall begin to fear that we have relaxed in the performance of our duty, and are no longer the ftrenuous and fuccefsful expofers of Jacobinifm.

ART. II. The Beauties of the Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner.

AVING already reviewed this work in a former volume,*

it only remains for us to take fome brief notice of the fcurrilous attack made on the editor by the conductors of that low wretched publication, entitled The Analytical Review. In the number for April last, (P. 395,) the conductor, who is understood to be a Diffenting Minifter, thus expreffes himfelf

"To the editor of thefe Beauties we have nothing to fay. His notes are few and impudent; and, in his prefatory advertisement, he adopts the deteftable morality-of the correfpondent whose signature is CATO."

That any morality is deteftable, in the eyes of a man who, to judge from the direct tendency of his labours, would, were his powers equal to his malignity, which, thank heaven! is far from being the cafe, corrupt the minds of the people, and fubvert the establishments of every defcription, will be easily credited. But the immorality of this minifter of Mammon will be beft difplayed by an extract from the letter which he reviles as deteftable. Cato, contending against Mucius, that the prefent times are not more virtuous than the past, observes—

"I fear, indeed, that a great and alarming increase of infidelitythat a growing profligacy of manners, particularly evidenced by the moft frequent, flagrant, fhamelefs, and aggravated violations of the nuptial tie-that the fcandalous indecency with which our half dreffed females, (to the difgrace of their fathers and husbands, as well as their own,) prefent themfelves, without a blufh, to the public eye; I fear, Sir, that thefe confiderations alone muft decide the question against the prefent age, even if we could plead an amendment in regard to the vices of drunkennefs, gaming, and duelling."

The whole letter breathes the fame fpirit, and is evidently the production of a writer who has the interefts of religion and morality nearest to his heart. But, we acknowledge, that the practices which he deprecates as vices, are, by the more enlightened difciples of the Godwinian and Wollstonecroftian fchool, confidered in a very different point of view. The modern philofophift, like the Cupid of the poet,

at fight of human ties,

Spreads his light wings, and in a moment flies."

By his liberal mind, female incontinence, we know, is regarded as an effort of nature to liberate herself from the galling trammels of tyranny and prieftcraft; the promiscuous intercourse of the fexes, according to his creed, is a civic virtue, tending to produce a general fraternization of the totality of citizens in a ftate, by the beft poffible means, a thorough contempt for odious establishments, a total .difregard of all illiberal prejudices, and a paffive, or rather active, obedience to the only true Deity, REASON, aptly represented, in the cathedral of Paris, by a naked prostitute. The Reviewer is evidently of this school, and therefore his conduct has, at leaft, the merit of confiftency; and, when he throws off his mafk, as in the prefent inftance, no danger is to be apprehended from his exertions. He is only to be dreaded when he affumes the cant of his fect, and profeffes to be liberal in his conceffions to his opponents, political and religious. But, as this very seldom happens, his means of injury are, fortunately, as circumfcribed as his powers. We fhould, therefore, leave the grovelling animal to wallow, undisturbed, in the mire of Jacobinifm, did we not feel it a duty to hold him up in his true colours, and entertain a hope that fome of his very few readers may poffibly be reclaimed.

Having reprefented this man as deeply impregnated with revolutionary principles, it behoves us to adduce fome proof of the juftice of our reprefentation. A fhort extract from the number before us will fuffice for the purpose:

"Arguing upon St. Paul's pofition, that the magistrate is the minister of God to the people for good, when the good is inferior to the evil, he is the minifter of God for evil. When the good is only equal to the evil, he is the minifter of God neither for the one, nor for the other. The good, therefore, muft fairly preponderate, otherwife the end of government is not anfwered; in which cafe refiftance is not only juftifiable, but highly expedient!!!" P. 379.

Now, whenever this critic has occafion to speak of the exifting government of the country, his language is fuch as

NO, XII. VOL. III.

clearly