L

conduct; but even these are deficient in that delicacy of virtue, which fhould mark the profeffors of a pure religion. The truth is, a falfe refinement has made hypocrites of us all, and hypocrites of the most dangerous kind; I mean, who impofe upon themselves. We draw a veil over our own eyes, to fave others the trouble of appearing in mafquerade. Language is perverted, and the innocent and the guilty are undiftinguished by proper appellations. Scepticism and profanenefs are called liberality of fentiment: diffipation and extravagance affume the titles of fashion and refinement; impudence and indelicacy thofe of modeft affurance, wit, and humour. Deliberate murder is termed an act of honour; and the extreme of licentiousness is dignified by the very polite and fashionable phrafe, GAIETY. But, what is the true interpretation of this term, GAIETY?—It is a perpetual round of drunkennefs and debauchery. It is the infamy of gaminghouses. It is to blafpheme God, to injure human fociety. If we enquire into the deftruction of empires; its caufe we fhall find to have been, in general, a tafte for this GAIETY. If we look into the dif grace and ruin of families, GAIETY has effected it. GAIETY has feduced unguarded innocence; GAIETY has committed murder; GAIETY has, on fome occafions, concluded its career by an end very unfuitable to the real import of the word, by fuicide.'

Of Mr. Gregory's more cool didactic manner, as well as of his liberal turn of thinking, the following paffage on Toleration may ferve as a specimen :

Till Almighty Wisdom fhall otherwife difpofe the affairs of this world, I fear there is as little probability that men should become uniform in their religious fentiments, as that they should all speak the fame language. But, if we differ not in effentials, if only fome doctrine, obfcure in itfelf, and likely to remain fo, if fome petty ceremony, fome unavailing rite, be the ground of diffent; how unbecoming, how abfurd, to carry with us our religious opinions upon every occafion, as weapons with which to affault each other? Let us rather addrefs the Deity each in his oven language, nor any one officiously intrude upon the well-meant piety of his neighbour. I fay well-meant, becaufe, though there may be hypocrites in every church, the better part (in number as well as in principle) really mean to ferve God, and do it in the best manner they are capable.

But fuppofing, after all, that the difference is not in forms, but in effentials; fuppofing our brethren in the wrong, which is the way to reclaim them? By arms or by arguments? Ignorance in fact is generally the true parent of perfecution. Men will feldom be at the pains to inform themfelves of the principles of religion; and, when they have adopted a fet of opinions, without at all investigating their nature or harmony, they perfuade themfelves it is their duty to force them on the rest of mankind: fo much eafier is it to wield the weapons of violence than thofe of truth and reafon. You cannot poffibly, however, awe men into belief; by cruelty and rancour you will rather confirm their prejudices, for they are naturally attached to thofe things that cost them deareft. Again, fuppofe the falfe religion, which you attack in this manner, equally or more powerful in another part of the world, with how much greater advantage will he employ thofe weapons against the truth, which you have conde

fcended

fcended to make use of in its favour? Is this religion intolerant, of a favage and perfecuting fpirit?-In what do you differ from thofe who profefs it, if you adopt its maxims? You may call yourself by what name you pleafe, but you are of the fame religion, if you act upon the fame principles.

We fee, then, the nature and neceffity of Charity. She is the handmaid of philofophy and right reafon, and effential to both; the is the offspring of true religion, and infeparable from it. This dif courfe, my brethren, is not meant to make you lefs zealous members of that form of found doctrine which you profefs: its defign is to make you real members of the communion of our English church, firm bat moderate, charitable though fincere.'

On the fubject of Prayer, our Author has the following remarks in favour of a Liturgy, which well deferve the attention of those, who ftill retain the caput mortuum of extemporary prayer, after its volatile fpirit, enthufiafm, has been long fince evaporated:

Prayer ferves to keep alive in our minds a proper fenfe of the exiftence of a God, and of his divine attributes. It warms the heart with his praises, and animates the affections with the enthusiasm of virtue. It is of the utmost importance to a religious life, frequently to meditate on our paft conduct, and to infpect the faithful record of our confcience; and this we are obliged to do, if we confess our fins before God. The very hope of obtaining our petitions will naturally engage us to render ourselves agreeable to the Dispenser of every good and perfect gift, by a ftrict conformity to his precepts, and by a pure and uniform practice of virtue. Befides this, there is scarcely a fingle prayer in our excellent Liturgy which is not replete with moral instruction. The ufe and defign of a Liturgy has been canvaffed with much ardour, and with no lefs acrimony, by fome zealous difputants of the last century. But thofe, who plead against forms of prayer, do not feem to recollect, that there is but one fet of ideas, and that very limited, which may be addreffed to the Deity on general fubjects and in a public affembly: and, to ring changes upon words only is of no advantage, and can be little gratification to a rational perfon. It feems proper, alfo, that a congregation fhould have fome previous information of what nature the prayers are, in which they are expected to join. Every minifter of the Gofpel is not of equal capacity, nor are all of difpofitions equally amiable and fedate. It must be, to fay the leaft, a difagreeable thing to hear

One of the most common objections to a liturgy (though I think the fact may be very reasonably queftioned) is, that a compofition, to which the ears of the congregation are much accuftomed, is not fufficiently interefting to keep alive the attention. This, however, is, I think, amply counterbalanced by another circumftance, which is, that thefe prayers are generally impreffed upon the memory of the people; and, as every prayer contains fome precept or doctrine, moral or religious, their understandings are, by thefe means, furnished with a variety of ufeful ideas, which cannot fail to recur on different occafions in life.'

petitions

petitions offered up to the Deity in our names, and in which we are fuppofed to unite, which fhock our understandings by their abfurdity or unfeasonablenefs. Leaft proper of all must be extempore prayer. When we presume to addrefs the great Author of Nature, the allwife God, every fyllable fhould be duly weighed, and the greatest caution ought certainly to be obferved. It is a refpect we owe to God, and it may prevent fome great indecorums, if not appearances of actual impiety."

The Introductory Effay, on the Compofition and Delivery of a Sermon, rather contains mifcellaneous remarks, than a complete differtation on the fubject, method, and ftyle of Sermons. Many of these remarks, efpecially on the latter head, are general, belonging to literary excellence of every kind: they may, however, be of use to young writers; and may poffibly lead the Author, or fome other experienced preacher, to a more full difcuffion of the principles and rules of the art of preaching. Mr. Gregory expreffes a very juft contempt for that loose and flimfy E kind of preaching, which immediately addreffes itself to the paffions, without laying a folid foundation in good fenfe, and found reasoning,-which produces emotion without conviction.

6

• One of the most common and the most dangerous errors, however, is the mock pathos. Many (I doubt not well-intentioned) perfons conceive that they are to go to church for nothing but to weep; and the pitiful methods employed by fome preachers to excite their tears cannot fail to have a direct contrary effect with every rational perfon. I am fenfible that much will, in this cafe, depend upon the acting of a fermon (as Dr. Warburton calls it). I could mention a popular preacher, who regularly weeps at a certain period of his difcourfe, whether the fubject be pathetic or not. The device generally fucceeds with that part of the audience (and that is a pretty confiderable portion) who pay no attention to the matter, and regard only the gefticulation of the preacher. This religious buffoonery, however, muft neceffarily difguft every judicious hearer; and the cenfure of one perfon of fenfe is, in my opinion, but weakly counterbalanced by the overflowing fcale of vulgar popularity.'

In this cenfure of the mock pathos, Mr Gregory-if we are to judge from his own practice-certainly does not mean to difcourage that manly kind of eloquence, which, through the underftanding, makes its way to the heart.

On the whole, we fee fo much to approve, both in these Difcourfes, and in the Effay prefixed to them, that we do, without fcruple, recommend the former to the attention of our Readers in general, and both to the careful perufal of the younger clergy.

E.

ART.

ART. VII. Difcourfes on feveral Subjects, preached at the Cathedral Church of Winchefter. By James Webfter, B. D. Fellow of St. John's College, in Cambridge. Svo. 4s. Boards. Davis. 1787.

THE

HE fubjects of thefe Sermons are as follow: I. Examination of the five Caufes to which the fudden Propagation of Chriftianity is imputed by Mr. Gibbon. If. ix. 22. II. Rife, Progrefs, and Doctrines of Methodifm. Ezek. xiii. 3, 6. III. Obfcurity and Imperfection of religious Knowledge. Pf, Ixvii. 2. IV. V. Danger of Riches: Inconveniences of Poverty. Prov. xxx. 8. VI. Avarice. Job, xxxi. 24. VII. VIII. Vigilance. i Cor. x. 12. IX. Inconfiftency between the Love of Pleasure and the Love of God. 2 Tim. iii. 4. X. Duty of Parents. Prov. xxii. 6. XI. Duty of Children. Exod. xx. 12. XII. On the Manner of writing a Sermon. 2 Tim. ii. 15.

The juft and general character of thefe Difcourfes feems to be, that they are plain, fenfible, practical, and ufeful; yet not free from defects. If we allow, as we properly may, that Mr. Webfter has, in the fift Sermon, with ingenuity and judgment, replied to the infinuations of Mr. Gibbon; we must at the fame time pafs fome cenfure on his language and expreffion: why fhould he, for inftance, even before he enters on the argument, peremptorily pronounce on the opinion of his antagonist, as the fimfy phantom of a distempered brain? or farther fpeak of it, as no bard talk,to difcover at once both the weakness of his head, and the corruptions of his heart? Truth needs not the aid of human paffions; and fuch expreffions as thofe which we have juft quoted, will rather tend to exafperate an antagonist, than difpofe him to receive conviction.

The fecond Difcourfe, relative to Methodism, may please some fuperficial readers; we wish it was fuch as would enable us to fay that it confers any real honour on its Author. Certainly we are no encouragers of Methodifm, although, we hope, we juftly value good men, of any and every perfuafion. We cannot, however, but fmile, when this reverend preacher carries us back to the year 1541 for its rife, informing us that it originated with John Calvin, and that it is founded in his doctrine of Predeftination and Election. John Calvin was indeed a zealous Reformer, but not, we apprehend, a Method ift; and furely Mr. W. muft have known, that the particular points he mentions were debated in the Chriftian world, and ftedfaftly maintained by fome parts of it, long before Calvin made his appearance. Should we also advert to the Seventeenth Article of the Church of England, we meet with fentiments there which bear a ftrong resemblance to thofe which Mr. Webfter rejects with fo much ardour, and which he tells us are the very ground-work of that party whom he attacks. What human art can do, has been done, to give the Article a

different

different colour; yet, according to the plain meaning of words, it conveys ideas fimilar to those which Mr. Webfter charges on the Methodists. But it is farther to be confidered, that there is a large body in this kingdom, claffed under this denomination, who are confidered as Arminians, and whofe fentiments are therefore very different.

From fuch reflections it appears, that farther enquiry and deliberation might have been advifable, before our Author ventured to commit this Sermon to public notice. To this we muft add, that a kind of dictatorial manner, and fome air of fuperiority, in which this party of Chriftians are here addreffed, does not seem the most favourable, or likely to conciliate attention and regard.

The remaining Difcourfes in the volume, lay claim to the account given in the beginning of this Article, being well calculated to edify the reader. The title of the laft has a peculiarity, perhaps an oddity, in its appearance; but it is a judicious and an ufeful difcourfe.

At the end of the Sermons, we find the following Note: The Author begs leave to clofe this volume, with acknowledging, that in fome of the preceding Difcourfes, particularly in the third, the eleventh, and the twelfth, he has occafionally adopted, not only the fentiments, but the language of other writers.' Agreeably to this note, we have remarked, in one or two places, the names of Balguy and Ogden.

Hi.

ART. VIII. Two Dialogues, containing a comparative View of the Lives, Characters, and Writings of Philip the late Earl of Chefterfield, and Dr. S. Johnson. 8vo. 4s. Boards. Cadell. 1787.

DR

R. Johnfon has been compared to an old lion, whom few ventured to attack. Magna fuit tamen facies et non adeunda fene&us. Many, however, who would have trembled to have affaulted him while living, have mustered up refolution enough to treat him with a hearty kick after he was dead. Never was a poor carcase more feverely mauled! Friends and foes have confpired in mangling his memory, in drawing his frailties from their dread abode, and in bringing him to an inquifition fo rigid, that were the like practifed in the courts of Minos and Rhadamanthus, no mortal could pafs into the Elyfian Fields. His fall has infpired both wit and dulnefs with the itch of writing; and could every book which has Johnfon for its fubject, be collected together, placed upon his grave, and converted into marble, he would have the most ponderous monument in Westminster Abbey.-Enough indeed has been faid of him, but as he is a fashionable theme, writers will not yet have done with it. I i

REV. Dec. 1787.

The