There was no fuch common judge. We judged for ourselves, He was our King,, our Magiftrate, our Trustee. When we found him to fail in the effential points of thefe offices, we took another. This was our right as Englifhmen;-but we fet afide one of his daughters from her turn in the fucceffion, and appointed instead a person who had no title by birth. The King's horse threw him, and the Lady fucceeded, but that was chance. It might in a courfe of nature very well have hap pened, that he had never been Queen. What had the done?— She had taken a remarkable part in the Revolution, and was totally unexceptionable. But there were in one fcale the welfare and happiness of many millions of people, and in the other the advancement of only one Lady, although a deferving one. There was therefore no equality, the latter could not but kick the beam.-Lanswer, that I fubfcribe to this with my hand and my heart. But this is one fide of the medal, let us turn the reverse. An American Governor is not fo big as a King; he don't wear a crown, nor bear a fcepter, nor fit on a throne, nor is worshipped on the knee, nor has a navy nor an army, nor makes Bishops nor Judges, nor is his Civil Lift perhaps above a thousand pounds a year; he feems to be much more responsible and more removable than a King. Suppofe then, that one of our Colonies fhould take the ftrongeft exceptions to their Governor, and defire to change him; would they in that cafe be permitted to judge for themfelves?-No.-Why not?-Because they are Americans. Who are to judge for them?-We. Why fo?-Because we are Englishmen.But would their application be to us a fufficient caufe for a removal?-Perhaps not; but, on the contrary, a reason to continue him at prefent, and to promote and advance him afterwards. That has been the cafe before, and may probably be fo again ;-but why is the meature which we mete to them, fo different from that which we measure to ourfelves?-Because we are Englishmen and they are Americans.-This must be owned to be perfectly juft and fatisfactory, and the Americans are the most unreasonable men in the world, if they don't see it exactly in the fame light. But fuppofe that the reprefentative body of the province fhould make the complaint? The answer would then be, that there was no accufer, or if any one chofe to speak Latin no delator.Suppofe that they complain of falfehood and treachery towards the province ?That would be no charge, no crimen.Suppofe that they gave in evidence the parties own letters?That would compleat the thing, for there would then be no evidence, no teflis-But will this hold water?-Admirably; with refpect to America and in Latin. It is ftrongly difputed, whether thefe American letters are of a publie or a private nature. This may not in itself be a 6. very i very important point; however, let us endeavour to fettle it, fince it lies in our way. Whatever concerns and affects the intereft, the welfare and happiness of a whole people, is, and muft be, of a public nature, whether papers, letters, or any other thing whatsoever. Good and evil are not matters of law or of logic. They are the most, if not the only effential circumftances of the world. They are what every thing else refers to. They ftamp an eternal mark and difference on all things which even imagination cannot cancel or erafe. The enjoyment of the one, and the avoiding of the other, is the very end of our being, and likewife of all the beings which do, or which even can, be fuppofed to exist, and which have a sense and perception of them. Whatever therefore relates to the general good and evil of a people, is of a public nature. It is that circumftance which makes it fo. The terms are as good as fynonymous. Whatever concerns on the contrary, only this or that individual, is of a private nature. It is confined to his or their happiness or welfare; to his or their good and evil. There is again the true and unerring diftinction. These things feem clear to the greatest degree of intuitive certainty. It is ftrange to be forced to reafon about them. However, we are told otherwife. If fome compliments happen in a letter to be made to an old Lady, it changes the effence of every thing; the contracts and confines the whole matter, and all becomes of a private nature, although the chief fubject of that very letter, fhould be to advise and point out the means of altering the charter, and of new modelling the conftitution of a colony; and that there fhould be recommended therein, the finding fome way according to its own language, "to take off the original incendiaries," left they fhould continue to inftil their poison into the minds of the people," but the mention of the old Dy makes it all private. (See Mr. Wedderburn's speech, page 94, and letter of Mr. A. Oliver, Feb. 13, 1769.) But fuppofe that thefe letters were really meant and intended to produce public effects, what will that do?-Nothing at all. If the perfon had not at that moment a place, to whom they were written, it fignifies nothing; although he might have had a poft before, and might look for one again, and although he might have communicated thefe letters to others for the very purpose of affecting the public. All this will be of no importance, if the perfon did not happen to have a place at the time. Would not one be tempted to think, that as fome endeavour to leave no property in America, others have a mind to banifh all human reafon out of American affairs?' The following paffage relating to a very great and a very good man, deferves particular notice: But our Colonies might be well enough, were it not for Dr. Franklin, who has with a brand lighted from the clouds, fet fire to all America.No governments care ever to acknowledge the people to be fairly against them. For whatever may be the cafe with the opinions of the multitude, in abftrufe and refined matters, which but little concern them, nor do they much trouble themfelves about; yet the end, and therefore the touchftone and trial of all government being their welfare and happiness, there is hardly common modefty in affecting to defpife and refufe their fense concerning their own good and evil, their own feelings, benefits or sufferings. It is in these things that the voice of the people is faid to approach that of their Maker. The fycophants of Minifters, endeavour therefore to throw on the artifice and influence of individuals, all difcontent or diffatisfaction of the public. Mr. Wilkes moves England, and Dr. Franklin America; as if we had here no feeling, but through the first, and they had neither eyes nor ears, but by the latter. It were happy for mankind, if Administrations procured their own votes and majorities, with as much fairness, as the voice of the people is commonly obtained. I wonder whether we fhould then have ever heard of any government in Europe indebted in the fum of a hundred and forty millions fterling, or be at this moment under the alarm of a parent state attacking its own Colonies, or of a great Empire fetting at work its fleets and armies, only to throw the parts of itself into mischief and confufion. It is idle and childish to be crying out against this or that private perfon. The truth is, that whenever governments heap up combuftibles, there will always be found a hand to put the match to them, or thefe would heat and fire of themfelves if there were not.' When the candid and fenfible Reader has accompanied us through these extracts, we imagine it will not be neceflary to recommend to him the perufal of the Pamphlet at large, ART. X. A Review of fome of the Articles of the Church of England, to which a Subfcription is required of Proteftant Diffenting Minifters. By Samuel Wilton. 8vo. 4s. Buckland, &c. 1774 TH HIS fenfible and judicious Review is intended to serve the great and important caufe of religious liberty, and to promote that efteem and veneration for the Sacred Scriptures which all Proteftants ought ever zealously to maintain. Some few perfons (lays Mr. Wilton in his preface) who are separated from the Communion of the Church of England, appear to be not only fully fatisfied with the authority of the Magiftrate, to impofe a fubfcription to human explanatory Articles upon the confciences of Chriftians; but also to be perfectly enamoured with all those Articles, to which a fubfcription is now required of Proteftant Diffenting Minifters. Hence they they vehemently opposed the relief of more scrupulous consciences, upon the apparent prefumption, that however any propofed alteration might favour the majority of Diffenting Minifters, it would have fome very injurious influence upon their hopes, their comfort, and their obedience. Chriftian charity would therefore forbid an attempt, which, if crowned with fuccefs, would be productive of fuch unhappy confequences to any of our Fellow chriftians. But as I was firmly perfuaded, that the facred Scriptures, without the aid of eftablished Creeds, are fufficient to answer every purpofe neceffary to Christian edification and confolation; so it alfo appeared to me, that many of the Articles to which our fubfcription is required, were very far from having the moft remote tendency to thefe ends; and that some of them feemed to wear a very contrary afpect. This apprehenfion led me in a former publication, to intimate my fufpicions, that the high opinion fome Diffenters entertained of the Articles, was grounded upon a very imperfect examination into their true meaning; and that a voluntary subscription to them, had in all probability frequently refulted, from a general apprehenfion of their orthodoxy, without entering into a critical in, quiry into the fenfe of each. The Expofition here attempted, is defigned more fully to justify the representation therein given. Upon this account, I have frequently brought into view, the high encomium paffed upon the Articles by our protefting Brethren, that the propriety of my conclufion may be more eafily determined. To this end, I have endeavoured to inveftigate the genuine fenfe of fome of the Articles, and to point out the difficulties of fubfcription thence refulting, to Protestant Diffenters of every denomination. I have confined my attention to objections of this general nature. The authorities produced in fupport of the feveral explications, will, I hope, be thought unexceptionable by every candid and impartial Reader. It has been my study that they fhould be fo. And if the testimony of Divines of the Church of England, and the decifions of the Canon Law are called in question, it will be impoffible to find any authority which will not be disputed.' The Articles which Mr. Wilton reviews are-the 3d, 4th, 6th, 8th, 23d, 33d, and 37th, and, in our opinion, he clearly proves that they must be liable to exception by every Proteftant Diffenting Minifter. Before he enters upon the examination of thefe Articles, he thinks it neceflary to aniwer a question which has been frequently agitated, and very warmly debated, viz. In. what fenfe are we required to fubfcribe the Articles of the Church of England? He anfwers, in the plain, literal, grammatical sense, as understood when the Articles were fet forth by public authority.' In confirmation of the propriety of this folution, we need only attend, he fays, to the language of the REV. May 1774. Royal Сс Royal Declaration; a Declaration, which will by no means admit of the fubterfuges, to which many ingenious Writers have had recourse, to justify a fubfcription to Articles which they do not believe. It is the declared end of the requifition, to avoid diverfities of opinions, and to establish confent touching true Religion. In reference to this end, the, Royal Declaration prohibits the leaft difference from the Articles in the moft explicit terms, viz. We will that no man hereafter shall either print or preach to draw the Article afide any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and ball not put his own fenfe or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical fenfe.. Towards the close of his Review of the Articles, Mr. Wilton confiders the oppofition of the Bishops to the Diffenters Bill, and makes fome very pertinent reflections upon it. For a further idea of this Writer, fee our account of his Apology for the Removal of an Application to Parliament by the Proteflant Diffenting Minifters. Review, vol. xlviii. p. 420. ART. XI. Obfervations upon Lightning, and the Nethod of fecuring A LTHOUGH electricians univerfally agree in opinion concerning the utility of metallic conductors, a fchifm has for fome time paft fubfifted among them, with regard to the proper form in which the upper part of the conducting rod ought to terminate. Dr. Franklin, and, we believe, a very confiderable majority of thofe who have ftudied this question, give a decifive preference to pointed rods; on an expectation, seemingly founded on the jufteft analogy, that they may, in fome cafes, prevent a discharge, by filently attracting, or transmitting, the electric fluid, when a pofitively or negatively charged electric cloud comes within their influence: and that, in all cases, they tend to diminish the magnitude or violence of an unavoidable explosion; while they are undoubtedly as well adapted as blunt conductors, to carry off its contents. For thefe and other reasons, we apprehend, a committee lately appointed by the Royal Society, at the inftance of the Board of Ordnance, to confider of the beft method of fecuring his Majefty's magazines of gunpowder at Purfleet from accidents by lightning, recommended the erection of elevated and pointed conductors. Mr. Wilson, on the contrary, has long contended that the upper part of a conducting apparatus ought to terminate in a knob, or flat furface. He maintains that, as fharp points folieit or invite the lightning, or electric matter, they must confe quently 1 |