for the misfortunes of others, when we withhold the relief which they want, and we can give.

This was the crime of the perfon before us; this was his condemnation: not fimply because he had received his good things in his life-time, but because he rioted in them without any thought of the next. Not becaufe Lazarus had his evil things, but because his evils were increased by the clofenefs of this man's hand and the hardness of his heart.'

The twenty firft is a Latin fermon, on Matt. x. 34, preached at Cambridge, in 1759.-At the conclufion the author has fubjoined a prayer, which he fometimes used before his ferThis is a fenfible and animated compofition; much fuperior to the cold and infipid forms which we have frequently heard on the fame occafion.

mon.

About ten of these discourses, or perhaps more, were feparately published, foon after the occafions on which they were delivered. The reft make their first appearance in the

prefent edition.

II. A Critical Commentary on Archbishop Secker's Letter to the Right Honourable Horatio Walpole, concerning Bishops in America, 8vo. Pr. 1s. 6d. Dilly.

THE

HE late archbishop of Canterbury, among other instances of his zeal for the fupport of ecclefiaftical discipline, took fome pains to promote the fcheme for eftablishing bishops in our American colonies. He recommended this point, foon after his advancement to the fee of Oxford, in a fermon which he preached before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts; and continued to make it an object of his wishes to the hour of his death, as appears by his order for the publication of his letter to Mr. Walpole. The ufe and expedience of fuch an establishment has, however, been much disputed. The author of this Commentary, who appears to be no contemptible judge, treats it as an unfeafonable, and a mischievous project.

Before he proceeds to examine his grace's letter, he takes notice of two or three circumstances relative to the occafion on which it was written, the time when, and the reason why it was published.

Mr. Walpole's letter, fays he, we are informed by an advertisement prefixed to the bishop's, was written in the year 1750, to the late Dr. Sherlock, then bishop of London. It

does

does not appear that bishop Sherlock gave any answer to it, either by word or writing. Bishop Secker indeed fuppofes, "that if my lord of London had ever converfed with Mr. Walpole on the fubject, fince he received Mr. Walpole's letter, he had doubtless faid every thing material by way of reply;" yet nothing of this fort appears, and as nothing in writing by way of answer from Dr. Sherlock to Mr. Walpole was known to Dr. Secker, the more probable fuppofition is, that bishop Sherlock, convinced by Mr. Walpole's letter of the danger, the folly, or at leaft of the inexpedience of the project, made no reply at all.

But the moment it is communicated to Dr. Secker, he eagerly feizes the opportunity, and attempts to answer the ftatefman's objections; very little, one would think, to that gentleman's fatisfaction, who from the beginning of the year 1751, to the day of his death, feems to have let this letter lie quietly by him, as other schemes might do with other minifters of ftate, who fhould be in no difpofition to be amused with the vifionary proposals of weak or designing projectors.

But fince his grace's executors, in compliance with his fiat of May 25, 1759, have thought fit to revive this letter, may we not afk, What is become of Mr. Walpole's letter to bishop Sherlock? That Dr. Secker, and confequently his executors, had it in their power to publish Mr. Walpole's letter is very probable. If any circumftances made it either impracti cable or improper to publish that letter, candor and common juftice required, that this anfwer to it fhould have been fuppreffed for the fame length of time. If the public had any claim upon archbishop Secker for his fentiments concerning American bishops, they had likewife a right to the whole procefs which drew thofe fentiments from him. Mr. Walpole's letter might have objections in it, which archbishop Secker did not think proper to touch, and his grace could not be uninformed, that to publish answers to treatifes, which they who fhould judge between the parties have no poffible means of confulting, has always been a ftanding and a very reafonable prejudice against the fairness and impartiality of the anfwerers.

As Mr. Walpole's letter is thus withheld, we can only conjecture, that it might be occafioned by fome previous conversation between himself and the bishop of London, concerning bishops in America. It is very unlikely Mr. Walpole should begin the fubject. Minifters of ftate were then faid to be particularly cautious of giving offence to the colonists, and thefe, they could not but know, had no predilection for epif

copacy.

copacy. The colonists, on the other hand, who were members of the church of England, were more cfpecially within the bishop of London's epifcopal department. It was therefore natural enough for his lordship to propofe an improvement of their religious condition. It was his peculiar business to remove, as far as he could, all obftacles to it, and confequently to answer Mr. Walpole's letter. He did not answer it. He plainly thought it unneceffary.

How then came this province to be turned over to the bishop of Oxford? If we look no farther than the advertisement before the pamphlet, there is fome appearance of a reason for it. We are there informed, that Mr. Walpole's letter was communicated to bishop Secker, by the bishop of London. And hence it might feem, that the bishop of London, having either lefs leifure, or lefs ability, left Mr. Walpole in the hands of his brother of Oxford. But in the very first page of this anfwer, bishop Secker fays, Mr. Walpole's letter was communicated to him by Mr. Walpole himself; nor does he seem to know any thing at all of the bishop of London's fentiments on the subject of that letter. It may therefore be furmifed, that bishop Secker was fet to work merely by his own alacrity. in fo good a cause.

There is little doubt but the editors of this letter think themselves well juftified in executing his grace's order for printing it after his death, as well as in taking an early opportunity to do it. And yet, might they not have had a reafonable apology for demurring to that order at this particular juncture, when any attempt at religious innovations in our colonies, feems to be highly unfeasonable?

At the 15th page of this letter, his grace moves a queftion," Whether the appointment of bishops in the colo-. nies, would not ftir up dangerous uneafineffes abroad or at home?"

There is I think little doubt but that thefe uneafineffes had been represented to bishop Sherlock, by Mr. Walpole (who had very good opportunities of knowing) as the inevitable confequences of fuch an appointment.

But whatever of this kind might then be apprehended, archbishop Secker lived to fee uneafineffes in the colonies of a very different nature from any that were dreamt of eighteen years ago: fuch indeed as might have fuggefted to him, that nothing could be more unfeafonable, than the trying his fa vourite experiment at a time when every wife and good man,. and every well-wisher to the peace and profperity of his ma jesty's government, faw how neceffary it was to avoid all occa

fions of irritating the British colonies of America. His grace's arguments, in anfwer to the queftion abovementioned, whatever weight they might have in 1751, or even in 1759, are lighter than vanity itself, when applied to the ftate of things in 1768. And whoever perufes a tenth part of the pamphlets which have appeared, during the late altercations on colonyfubjects, will easily perceive, that the publication of fuch a letter as this, in the midft of these jarrings, would be adding fuel to the flame. And yet the written order for the printing of it had laid by his grace, as appears, from 1759 to the time of his death, without one reflection of the very ill effects it might have when he was gone. And could his executors think of doing any honour to his grace's prudence, his charity, or his moderation, by expofing to the public his grace's earnestnefs for advancing his project, at the hazard of fo much confufion as must have attended any attempt to execute it at that time?'

After thefe and fome other preliminary remarks, the author paffes on to the contents of the letter.

There are two expedients, fays the commentator, in use at prefent for furnishing the colónifts of the church of England with minifters of their own communion; 1. By ordaining natives of America who come to England for that purpose. 2. By fending Englifh minifters to the colonies from hence.

As to the first of thefe, Dr. Secker obferves, that "fending their fons to fo diftant a climate must be very inconvenient and difagreeable, and taking the fmall pox here is faid to be peculiarly fatal to them," i. e. peculiarly to the perfons who come here for orders. For when his grace mentions a little below, that," their young men of fashion would still come to England for polite accomplishments," no apprehenfions of what would be inconvenient or disagreeable to them, are expreffed, nor any mention made of any peculiar fatality of the fmall-pox to fuch young men.

"The expence alfo, fays his grace, must be grievous to perfons of fmall fortunes, fuch as most are who breed up their children for orders; and yet not fufficient to bring any acceffion of wealth to this nation that would be worth naming, were more of that rank to come."

From the caft of this anfwer, one may conjecture, that Mr. Walpole had objected to American bishops, that fuch a measure would prevent the colonifts from coming hither, and fpending their money among us. To obviate this, his grace was obliged to fuppofe, that none would fend their fons to England to be ordained, but perfons in mean circumftances.

ftances. But I am inclined to believe that the statesman's objection would ftrike a little deeper, and that the confideration with him might be, that the more inducements the colonists in general fhould have to ftay at home, and the fewer occafions of perfonal intercourse with the mother country, the more they would afpire to independency; a matter of very ferious confideration among the ministers of those times.

• The statefinan, no doubt, argued, that if the colonists of the church of England were impowered to manufacture deacons and priests for themfelves, as well as other things, which they have hitherto imported from hence, they would in time have a church independent upon that in the mother country; a confideration of ten times more importance to Mr. Walpole, than them that would be gained by a few young men coming to England for crders, or that would be loft by their staying away.

2. With respect to the clergymen of the church of England who are fent from hence, it must be a matter of great concern to all who wish well to the interefts and credit of the establishment, to be told by an archbishop of Canterbury, that few of them, in proportion, "can answer the end for which they were defigned." That the rest are men of defperate fortunes, low qualifications, bad and doubtful characters, and a great part of them Scotch Jacobites." Is this for the honour of the fociety which fends them? How greatly does this reprefentation detract from the credibility of those accounts they give us from time to time, of the success of their labours in our plantations; which depend, in a great ineasure, on the veracity of men of these wretched characters ? When the public is folicited, as is often the case, to supply the deficiency of the fociety's funds, by their charitable contributions, will they not be apt to confider, before they give their money, upon what fort of men it is to be expended?

And how would the matter be mended by fending bishops instead of priests? Every confideration drawn from the nature of the fervice, the danger of the voyage, abfence from family.connexions. &c. which at prefent ferves to difcourage. private clergymen of eafy fortunes, good learning, found principles, and refpectable characters, would operate with equal force upon the mind of,a deftined bishop, and create the fame reluctance that other men have fhewn to engage in fuch an adventure.

Would his grace have faid in anfwer to this, that a larger ftipend, an increafe of power, and a more refpectable title, would have engaged more reputable candidates? I am afraid