106 
make, in Baimlerded of immiediate, Ya 
ther than remote, payment. 
T am not aware, Sir,’ that it is incum- 
bent on me to take up more of your time. 
Tmay be very dull, and very ignorant, as 
M.N. has in direct terms afferted 5 but, 
believe me, I am not an “* obléquious WrL- 
ter,’ as he has unjaftly infinuated. Tam 
not, however, offended with this urifup- 
ported and groundlefs imputation, for I 
conceive, that by an amiable attachment 
to his friend, Mr. Morgan, he has been 
betrayed into the ule of i intemperate expref- 
tions, which his unprejudiced underftand- 
ing would refule to juftify, and his cooler 
moments would difpofe him to correct. 
Alnwick, Northumberland, oO. P. 
Feb, 2,1802. 
aE 
To the Editor of the a Magazine, . 
SIR, 
DOUBT not that there are many of 
your readers (though by no means all) 
_who, with myfelf, have perufed with 
much applaufe and admiration the ner- 
vous, eloquent, though fingularly- written, 
warning againft the revival of {uperftition 
and credulity, contained in your "late Re- 
trofpe&t of Domeftic Literature. Whe- 
ther the apprehenfions of the writer may 
not in fome meafure be carried to an ex- 
treme, I fhali not decide; but I am con- 
vinced that there is, upon the whole, jut 
foundation for alarm ; and that the prof- 
pect with which the r9th century commen- 
ces, is far from {uch asa friend'to light 
and truth would wifh. ‘This country, in 
particular, which fe lone took the lead in 
liberal fentiment, and was, indeed, the fo- 
cus whence illumination beamed on the reft - 
of Europe, feems rather ina retrograde 
than a progreflive career in the intelleétual 
orbit. I do not méan to affert that cre- 
dulity ts ina peculiar manner the attri- 
bate of the Englifh nation, yet in former 
times, no people were more docile to ab- 
furdity, or more fubmiffive to authority ; 
and firiking inflances have never failed’ 
occafionally to appeat in proof of a re- 
mar oy ee inthe Englifh public, to 
tavorfraudand delufion. Innocountry does 
uackery of all kinds reap amore abun- 
dant harveft, or lefs require the mafk of 
Jearning and ingenuity to give it credit. 
Bold pretenfion, backed: by “impudent afs 
fertion, is found abundantly fufficient. 
Nowhere. have the late extraordinary 
changes in the political world roufed more 
of the fanatical fpirit of prophecy. I 
gueftion whether there exifts any Chriftian, 
or, or at leaf, any Proteftant, country, 
in which a crack-brained ent alia; like 
Brothers, without a fingle claim to notice, 
xcept his fanaticif{m, would at the pre- 
Prefent Tenileney io Slavifh Opinions, 
[March 1, > 
fent day have drawn after him fucha train 
of believers, of all ranks, as crowded his 
. levees in the metropolis of England. *Nor 
was fuch‘a follyin the great and {mall vul- 
gar to be’ wondered at, where men of 
_learning, and even philofophers, could in- 
quire in n the book of Revelations, what feal 
was opening and what phial pouring out, 
during: the French revolution ! 
It is a mortifying confideration that, 
notwithftanding all the excellent works on 
civil and religious liberty, which our wri- 
ters have produced, no one fundamental 
principle relative to them, feems to have 
eftablifhed itfelf beyond the reach of con- 
tradiction: Doétrines as bafe and fervile 
as the moft ignorant and enflaved country 
could have ‘produced, are ftill openly 
maintained by word and writing, not only 
without’ difgrace, but with “oyédit and 
emolument. We have feen the very men- 
tion of the Rights of Man call forth in our 
fenates the yell of difdain and indignation! 
. We have feen the doétrine of paffive obe-~ 
dience again reclaimed as the poffeffion of 
the Chrifian religion, and made one offits 
diftinguifhing chara€teriftics ; and a poli- 
tical alliance thereby formed between: 
church-eftablifnments of every difcordant 
{pecies, as’ the common fatellites of civil 
authority. Whilf in fo many other coun~ 
tries, the ‘grand and liberal axiom has been 
admitted ‘ that difference in religious 
faith, ought to make no difference in poli- 
ticalrights;” in this, the whole energies of 
the ftate have been employed to perpetuate 
exclufive privileges ina fingle fect even 
among fellow-chriftians. Everrthe prin- 
ciple of ‘toleration, narrow as it is, may be 
fuppofed to be looked upon with no fa- 
vourable afpeét by fome of our Churchmen. 
On this fubje& I cannot help adverting 
to aremarkable circumftance: In the late 
{quabble about the Chriftian education of 
youth in our public feminaries, the Maf- 
ter of Weftminfter-fchool has triumphantly’ | 
proved that, as far as Latin prayers, ca- 
techifms, and exercifes, can go, his boys 
are thoroughly grounded in attachment to 
that which now feems to be the great ob- - 
je& of veneration—The religion of their 
country ;—fome of the fcholars are even 
initiated into its mof facred rite ; for the 
ftatutes of the public fchools and colleges 
enjoin the receiving of the Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper four times a year, ‘ in 
correfpondence (fays the Doétor) with the’ 
canons, which bind the whole body of the - 
laity under the fame obligation. The 
laity have freed ee te from this in- 
jun€tion ; the laws of toleration, and the 
manners of the times, have taken all power - 
out of the hands which ought to have en- 
forced ih and religion is prejudiced by ibe 
change.’ 
