SHEPHERD’s SERMONS. 
scripture doctrine of a future day of ge- 
neral judgment. He cannot believe that 
the soul sleeps till the day of the resur- 
ction: he considers it as the doctrine 
f scripture, that the soul departs to her 
appointed future station, immediately 
after death; but in common with many 
other divines, he limits the happiness 
which the virtuous are to enjoy, though 
it must be necessarily spiritual, till the 
union between the mouldered dust and 
the never dying soul shall have again 
taken place. For our own parts, we con- 
fess that this hypothesis has ever appeared 
tous replete with difficulties. Does the 
language of scripture indeed teach a 
future general judgment? Are not the 
terms usually considered as referring to 
such an event, in truth to be interpreted 
as relating to a very important occur- 
jrence already long past? In a work 
written by the late Mr. Cappe, and 
which we noticed in oun last volume, 
this hypothesis was’started, and appear- 
ted to us worthy of consideration, as 
ikely to remove difficulties of which all 
eologians hitherto, whether they have 
natured to confess it or not, have been 
\fully sensible. 
| Before we came, in -our progress 
‘through this volume, to the sermon 
preached at Oxford on the 30th of Janu- 
y, we found reason to suspect that Dr. 
epherd is one of that class of church- 
nen (daily, we hope, diminishing) who 
regard moderation and candour as vir- 
Wtues which they are not called to exer- 
‘cise. As we perused this discourse, our 
)suspicions were fully justisfied. Dr. 
Price and Dr. Priestley here meet with 
more than their usual share of obloquy, 
id the ecclesiastical gunpowder of the 
atter is by no means fprgotten. “If 
‘there be those,” thunders forth our 
prea cher, page 307, ‘* who with the dark 
spirit that conducted the operations of 
the infamous Vaux, openly exult in a 
)exture of well conceived, and resolutely 
)oursued machinations which will blow 
ip our boasted constitution,” &c. &c. 
id as though his readers were ignorant 
the much misconceived and misrepre- 
ated passage to which he here refers, 
adds this note :—“ Dr. Priestley seems 
ave had Vaux’s plot in his eye, when, 
Dexcite the spirited efforts of his co- 
itors in the work of anarchy and con- 
Placing, as it were, grain by grain, a 
Ann. Rev. Vor. Il. 
‘with that party for indulgence.” 
161 
train of gunpowder,” &c. &c. Men 
who resort to such charges as these, 
must surely be fond of mischief, and con- 
scious of their total want of persuasive 
argument, or convincing facts; and all 
such we would advise, when they again 
bring forward this * tale of terror,” to 
relate it in the words of the late Dr. 
Geddes : 
Non aderas, Priestley! potior te cura tene- 
bat 
Rure, ubi magna inter centum miracula re- 
rum, e i 
Horslei caput in rutilantia fulmina forgis ; 
Sulphuris et satagis subtilia grana parare, 
Church quilus et churchmen, in celum up- 
blowere possis. 
In page 304, we meet with a charge 
of a more serious complexion. “ In 
some periods of the last century,’ Dr. 
Shepherd asserts, “* when on several try- 
ing occasions the bishops and episcopal 
clergy made their noble stand against 
popery, it is well known, and ought ne- 
ver to be forgetten, that the dissenters 
held back, or were privately bargaining 
We 
hesitate not to assert, with more than 
equal confidence, that this is not well 
known, and that the preacher has here 
been guilty of uttering a gross and un- 
founded libel. Is the arch-deacon of 
Bedford then so little read in the civil 
history of his country, as not to know 
who took a principal part in bringing in 
the families of Orange and of Bruns- 
wick? Has his eye never glanced over the 
page which records the jacobitism of 
churchmen, whilst the chevalier was 
maintained and patronized by our rival 
on the eastern side of the channel? Has 
his attention never been arrested by the 
tale of the patriotism of those whom he 
reviles; who, in times of public danger, 
from the enemies of liberty and the pro 
testant cause, when they, who lived upon 
the state, and were bound to defend it, 
deserted their duty, nobly and disinte- 
restedly came forward, and performed 
the most important services; for which, 
instead of claiming honours, they were 
compelled to sue for pardon? But it is an 
old doctrine, that truth, faith and justice 
may, with impunity, be violated, when a 
heretic is to be silenced; it is a doctrine 
which the arch-deacon seems highly to 
approve, and, perhaps conscientiously, 
to practice. 
M 
