ways be a fufficient number of the "junior, or inferior, Bishops, who would be very willing to undertake the voyage.

Such a peregrination into a diftant country, for the fake of communicating the benefits that refult from the Epifcopal office to their brethren in America, would reflect honour on the Bishops who fhould undertake it; and their conduct would then be thought to bear some resemblance to the character of zeal and diligence and philanthropy by which the Apostles were diftinguished; who travelled about from country to country with indefatigable industry, over all the Roman empire, to plant and propagate the religion of their blessed Master.'

He gives an account, as an evidence of the wrong-headed zeal of fome of the Epifcopalian party in America, of a fevere profecution which was carried on against Mr. Francis MacKemie, a very worthy Prefbyterian minifter in the province of New York, under the government of Lord Cornbury. This profecution was in the year 1707. The inhabitants of the city of New York confifted, at that time, of Dutch Calvinifts, upon the plan of the church of Holland; French refugees, upon the Geneva model; a few English Epifcopalians; and a fill fmaller number of English and Irish Prefbyterians, who, having neither a minifter nor a church, ufed to affemble themfelves every Sunday at a private houfe for the worship of God. Such were their circumftances, when Francis MacKemie and John Hampton, two Prefbyterian minifters, arrived at New York in January, 1707. As foon as Lord Cornbury (who hated the whole perfuafion) heard that the Dutch had confented to MacKemie's preaching in their church, he fent to forbid it in confequence of which prohibition, the public worship of the Prefbyterians at New York, on the following Sunday, was performed with open doors, at a private houfe. Mr. Hampton preached on the fame day at the Prefbyterian church in the village of New-Town, at the dif tance of a few miles from New York. This was confidered by Lord Cornbury as a great offence, and a fit fubject for a profecution; and he thereupon iffued a warrant to the sheriff of the county (whofe name was Cardwell) to apprehend them and bring them before him, to aufwer for their misconduct in having preached without his lordship's licence. They were accordingly apprehended by the faid theriff at the faid village of New-Town two or three days after this pretended offence, and were led, as it were in triumph, by a round-about way of feveral miles, through a place called Jamaica in Long fland, to New York. They there appeared before Lord Cornbury, who behaved to them with much roughness and ill manners. They were not, however, daunted by this treatment, but defended themselves with a decent firmness. They grounded their defence upon the Englifh act of toleration, paffed in the first year of King William's reign, which they fuppofed to extend to the American colonies, as well as the penal ftatutes of Charles the Second's reign, against which it afforded a protection and they offered to produce teftimonials of their having complied with the conditions of the faid A&t of Toleration in the provinces of Virginia and Maryland, and promised to certify the houfe in which Mr. MacKemie had preached, to the next quarter feffions of the juftices of peace at New York, as the house in which they intended to officiate to the Prefbyterians of New York as a meeting

houfe

houfe for the purpose of divine worship, agreeably to the directions the faid Act of Toleration.'

Under an illegal warrant of commitment, the two minifters continued in prifon for the space of fix weeks and four days, by reafon of the abfence of Mr. Mompeffon, the chief juftice of the province, who was all that time in New Jerfey. But, upon his return to New York, they applied to him for writs of habeas corpus, that they might be brought before him, and have the caufe of their imprisonment inquired into, and determined upon according to law. They were accordingly brought before him upon fuch writs, and would have been difcharged by him from their confinement, on account of the illegality of the warrant by which they had been imprisoned (the chief justice being, as Mr. Smith fays, a man of learning in his profeffion), if Lord Cornbury had not, on the very morning of the day on which they were to be carried before the chief juftice, iffued another warrant for their detention, which was drawn up in better form than the former. But here his Lordship changed the grounds of his accu fation against them, and adopted the doctrine he had before rejected, to wit, that the penal acts of parliament paffed in King Charles the Second's time against Proteftant Diffenters extended to the American colonies. He accordingly ftated in the warrant he now iffued for their detention," that they had been guilty of preaching in a Dif fenting meeting-houfe, without having been qualified to do fo in the manner directed by the Toleration-act." Upon this warrant they were compelled to give bail for their appearance at the next fupreme court of the province, to answer fuch indictments as fhould be prefented against them for the faid offence. The court fat a few days after; and then (great pains having been taken to fecure a grand jury that fhould be inclined to favour the profecution), bills of indictment were preferred against them for this offence; and the grand jury found that against Mr. MacKemie, but threw out that against Mr. Hampton, no evidence having been offered to them in fupport of it. And Mr. Hampton was thereupon discharged.

The indictment being found against Mr. MacKemie, the trial of it was postponed till the following feffion of the court, which was to be in the month of June of the fame year, 1707.

It came on ac

cordingly on the 6th of that month; and, as it was a caufe of great expectation, a numerous audience attended it. Mr. Roger Mompef fon fat on the bench as chief juflice, and Mr. Robert Milward and Mr. Thomas Wenham were the affiftant judges. Mr. Bickley, the Queen's attorney-general for that province, managed the profecution in the name of the Queen; and three advocates, whofe names were Reignere, Nicoll, and Jamifon, appeared at the bar as counfel for the defendant. The indictment stated, That Francis MacKemie, pretending himself to be a Proteftant diffenting minifter, and contemning and endeavouring to fubvert the Queen's ecclefiaftical fupremacy, unlawfully preached without the Governor's licence first obtained, in derogation of the royal authority and prerogative:-That he ufed other rites and ceremonies than thofe contained in the Book of Common Prayer :- And that, being unqualified by law to preach, he nevertheless did preach at an illegal conventicle. And both these last charges were laid to be contrary to the form of

the

the English ftatutes made and provided in those cases. For Bickley, the Attorney-general, was, at the time of preparing that indictment, come to think that the penal laws of England against Proteftant Diffenters did extend to the American plantations, though at the first debating of the fubject, when the two minifters were first brought before the Governor, he had maintained the contrary opinion. And now, at the trial of the indictment, he endeavoured to prove the Queen's ecclefiaftical fupremacy in the Colonies; and that the faid fupremacy was delegated to her noble coufin, the Lord Cornbury, with his office of Governor of the province; and confequently that his lordship's inftructions relating to church matters had the force of laws. This was his firft ground of argument. And, in the fecond place, he contended, that the ftatute of Uniformity paffed in King Charles the Second's time, and the penal laws paffed against Proteftant Diffenters in the fame reign, were of force in the American plantations. And upon thefe premiffes he concluded, that the jury ought to bring in a verdict against the defendant. On the other fide, it was infifted by Mr. Reignere, Mr. Nicoll, and Mr. Jamifon (the defendant's counsel), that preaching was no crime by the common law of England ;-That the ftatutes of Uniformity and the penal laws of Charles the Second's time against Proteftant Diffenters, and the A& of Toleration, did not extend to the Province of New York ;—and that the Governor's inftructions were no laws. And Mr. MacKemie himself (as Mr. Smith informs us) concluded the whole defence in a fpeech which fets his capacity in a very advantageous light. jury were fatisfied with the reafons alleged in the defence, and, without any difficulty, brought in a verdict of Not guilty, notwithstanding the exhortations of the chief juftice to bring in a fpecial verdict. Mr. MacKemie ought upon this to have been fet at liberty; but the judges were fo fhamefully partial against him, that they would not discharge him from his recognizance till they had illegally extorted from him all the money expended in carrying on the profecution against him, which, together with his own expences in defending himself, amounted to eighty-three pounds, feven fhillings, and fix-pence.

The

This laft piece of oppreffion upon Mr. MacKemie gave occafion to a refolution of a committee of grievances in the new Affembly of New York, which met in Auguft, 1708, which is expreffed in thefe words: Refolved, That the compelling any man, upon trial by a jury or otherwife, to pay any fees for his profecution, or any thing whatfoever except the fees of the officers whom he employs for his neceffary defence, is a great grievance, and contrary to juftice."

Lord Cornbury, foon after this profecution, became univerfally odious to the people, both in the province of New York, and the adjoining province of New Jerfey, of which he was alfo Governor. And a variety of complaints were made against his government by the Affemblies of both provinces, he having abufed his power, and oppreffed the people entrusted to his care, in many other inftances befides the above malicious profecution, and (amongst other things) having embezzled a fum of the public money in the province of New York. These complaints were not without effect; for Queen Anne (tho' his lordship was her firft coufin) thought fit, in confequence of them, to remove him, in the following year 1708, from the government of both thofe provinces,

provinces, and to appoint Lord Lovelace to fucceed him; accompa nying this mark of her juft difpleasure with a public declaration, that he would not countenance her nearest relations in oppreffing her people."

This tranfaction, and fome others related in this work, lead the Author to a variety of observations on the fubject of toleration, which appear to be just and liberal. And if the fame Ipirit of equity and moderation, refpecting the government of the colonies, had been adopted which he has recommended, both in civil and religious matters, it would probably have prevented that fatal war with America in which we are now engaged, and which will ever be lamented by every fincere friend to the interefts of Great Britain.

Our Author has alfo made fome remarks on the fubject of martial law; and is of opinion, that martial law relates only to the government of an army, or militia, and not to the people at large; and that it can be lawfully established, by the King's fingle authority, only in times of actual invafion and rebellion, when recourfe cannot be had to the King's courts of justice, and not in times of common war, when there is no fuch invasion or rebellion, nor even in cafes of imminent danger of an invafion or rebellion.' He has alfo made fome fevere ftrictures on a fermon preached by Dr. Markham, Archbishop of York, before the Society for propagating the Gospel in foreign Parts, on the 21ft of February 1777; and an enquiry into the nature of the ecclefiaftical fupremacy of the Kings of England, or the powers belonging to them as fupreme heads of the church of England. But for these, and other particulars, we must refer to the work itself.

ART. IX. Efays on the Hiftory of Mankind in rude and uncultivated Ages. By James Dunbar, LL. D. Profeffor of Philofophy in the King's College and University of Aberdeen. 8vo. 5 s. Boards. Cadell. 1780.

N a fhort Preface to these very ingenious Effays, the Author acquaints his Readers, that the defign of his work isto folve fome appearances in civil life, and, by an appeal to the annals of mankind, to vindicate the character of the fpecies from vulgar prejudices, and thofe of philofophic theory. He further tells us, that the contents of his work are digefted on a regular plan, though he has preferred the loofer form of Effays to a more fyftematic arrangement.

Such of our Readers as have taken an enlarged and comprehenfive view of human nature; marked the gradual opening and expanfion of the human faculties; contemplated the fpecies more than the individual; confidered the earliest forms of civil life, and traced man from the first dawn of reafon, the first rude

efforts

efforts towards civilization, through the fucceffive ftages of im provement, till he reaches the higher degrees of refinement in arts and policy;-fuch readers, and fuch only, will receive both entertainment and inftruction from our Author's Effays. They plainly fhew an extenfive acquaintance with ancient and modern hiftory, and bear evident marks of good tafte and found judgment. The fubjects of his Effays haye indeed been frequently difcuffed, and by writers, too, of the moft diftinguished abilities; but they are far from being exhausted, or incapable of further elucidation. Our Author treats them like one who thinks for himself, who neither adopts nor fupports any particular fyftem; and though most of his obfervations are to be met with in other writers, they are placed in fo clear and distinct a point of view, and often fo happily illuftrated, that they seem to acquire new force, and have an air of originality.

The primeval Form of Society is the subject of his firft Effay; and here he fhews, that fociety does not derive its origin from mutual dependence and mutual wants; but that it is the free and legitimate offspring of the human heart; that a certain delight in their kind, congenial with all natures, constitutes the fundamental principle of affociation and harmony throughout the whole circle of being. He concludes the Effay with fome obfervations on a late publication, much read and admired in the fashionable world, but more dangerous than any fpeculative theory to the morals of the rifing generation.

As patrons of licentioufnefs, fays he, Epicurus and Hobbes, and even Machiavel and Mandeville, muft bow to the noble author.

It is in the fpirit of his performance to feparate the boneftum from the decorum of life; to infult whatever is venerable in domeftic alliance; to fubftitute artificial manners in the room of the natural; to raife fuperficial above folid accomplishment; and to hold up diffimulation and impofture as the effentials of character.

This is a fpecies of refinement avowed in no former age. It contains a folecism in education, and in the economy of civil affairs.

To exalt the Graces above Virtue, is, if I may say so, to exalt creatures above their Creator. The Graces are chiefly amiable as emblems of Virtue. Break this alliance, and they are no more. Unite them with the oppofite character, and this fantastical conjunction renders a monfter ftill more deformed. For my own part, I had as foor behold the monfter itfelf in all the horrors of its native deformity, as in fuch infolent attire.

• The Graces are the handmaids of Virtue, not the fovereigns; and all their honours are derived. But Virtue, though naked and unad orned, were Virtue ftill.

Quam ardentes amores non excitaret fui, fi videretur!

• How different was the conduct of a Roman ftatesman, when, in the perfon of a father, he delivered inftructions to youth! The infructions of the Roman fill the young with rapture. Thofe of the Briton excite indignation in the aged. But I ask pardon of the reader, when

7.