real nature leads us to be influenced in some degree by reflection and conscience, but likewise in what degree we are to be influenced by it, if we will fall in with, and act agreeably to the constitution of our nature; that this faculty was placed within to be our proper governor, to direct and regulate all under principles, passions, and motives of action. This is its right and office; thus sacred is its authority. And how often soever men violate and rebelliously refuse to submit to it, for supposed interest which they cannot otherwise obtain, or for the sake of passion which they cannot otherwise gratify; this makes no alteration as to the natural right and office of conscience.

On Love to God.

As we cannot remove from this earth, or change our general business on it, so neither can we alter our real nature; therefore, no exercise of the mind can be recommended, but only the exercise of those faculties you are conscious of. Religion does not demand new affections, but only claims the direction of those you already have, those affections you daily feel, though unhappily confined to objects, not altogether unsuitable, but altogether unequal, to them. We only represent to you the higher, the adequate objects of those very faculties and affections. Let the man of ambition go on still to consider disgrace as the greatest evil, honour as his chief good. But disgrace, in whose estimation? Honour, in whose judgment? This is the only question. If shame, and delight in esteem be spoken of as real, as any settled ground of pain or pleasure, both these must be in proportion to the supposed wisdom and worth of him, by whom we are contemned or esteemed. Must it then be thought enthusiastical to speak of a sensibility of this sort, which shall have respect to an unerring judgment, to infinite wisdom, when we are assured this

unerring judgment, this infinite wisdom, does observe upon our actions?

It is the same with respect to the love of God in the strictest and most confined sense. We only offer and represent the highest object of an affection, supposed already in your mind. Some degree of goodness must be previously supposed. This always implies the love of itself, an affection to goodness. The highest, the adequate object of this affection, is perfect goodness, which, therefore, we are to love with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength. "Must we, then, forgetting our own interest, as it were, go out of ourselves, and love God for His own sake?" No more forget your own interest, no more go out of yourselves than when you prefer one place, one prospect, the conversation of one man to that of another. Does not every affection necessarily imply, that the object of it be itself loved? If it be not, it is not the object of the affection. You may, and ought, if you can, but it is a great mistake to think you can love, or fear, or hate anything, from consideration that such love, or fear, or hatred, may be a means of obtaining good or avoiding evil. But the question whether we ought to love God for His sake or for our own being a mere mistake in language, the real question, which this is mistaken for, will, I suppose, be answered by observing, that the goodness of God already exercised towards us, our present dependence upon Him, and our expectation of future benefits, ought and have a natural tendency to beget in us the affection of gratitude and greater love towards Him, than the same goodness exercised towards others, were it only for this reason, that every affection is moved in proportion to the sense we have of the object of it; and we cannot but have a more lively sense of goodness, when exercised towards ourselves, than when exercised towards others. I added expectation of future benefits, because the ground of that expectation is present goodness.

Thus Almighty God is the natural object of the several affections-love, reverence, fear, desire of approbation. For though He is simply one, yet we cannot but consider Him in partial and different views. He is in Himself one uniform being, and for ever the same, without variableness or shadow of turning; but His infinite greatness, His goodness, His wisdom, are different objects to our mind. To which is to be added, that from the changes in our own characters, together with His unchangeableness, we cannot but consider ourselves as more or less the objects of His approbation, and really be SO. For if He approves what is good, He cannot, merely from the unchangeableness of His nature, approve what is evil. Hence must arise more various movements of mind, more different kinds of affections. And this greater variety also is just and reasonable in such creatures as we are, though it respects a Being, simply one, good and perfect. As some of these affections are most particularly suitable to so imperfect a creature as man, in this mortal state we are passing through, so there may be other exercises of mind, or some of these in higher degrees, our employment and happiness in a state of perfection.

BISHOP WARBURTON.

WILLIAM WARBURTON was the son of the town-clerk of Newarkupon-Trent, and was born there, December 24, 1698. His first education was that of an attorney; but having an inclination for study greater than could be gratified in the bustle and interruption of a provincial lawyer's office, he exchanged it for the clerical profession. In 1723 he received deacon's orders, and in 1728 was presented to the rectory of Brand Broughton, near his native town. Here he pursued his favourite researches with uncommon energy, and here he wrote a work on "The Alliance between Church and State," which appeared in 1736, and produced a considerable sensation. The attention, how

ever, which this volume attracted was soon absorbed in the commotion produced by its successor at the opening of 1738. This was the first volume of the work with which the name of Warburton is now associated as intimately, if not as happily, as is that of Butler with the "Analogy." Its title sufficiently explains its object: "The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious Deist, from the omission of the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment in the Jewish Dispensation." The second volume, in two parts, succeeded in 1741. In this work he found ample scope for his adroit and daring ingenuity in maintaining its leading paradox; and for his multifarious erudition he created an outlet, as often as he pleased, in those brilliant episodes and amusing digressions which still allure the scholar to his animated pages.

The "Legation” gave rise to a vast amount of angry controversy, in which, however, no champion took the field more fierce or doughty than our author himself. In the meanwhile, a remarkable friendship had sprung up between the fiery polemic and the bard of Twickenham. Besides publishing a Vindication of "The Essay on Man," he wrote notes to "The Dunciad,” and revised the "Essay on Homer." As a mark of regard, Pope bequeathed to him the half of his library, and appointed him his literary executor. In 1751 he published Pope's Works, with notes, in nine volumes octavo.

In 1757 he was advanced to the deanery of Bristol, and was consecrated Bishop of Gloucester in 1760. He died at his palace there, June 7, 1779, and was buried in his own cathedral.

Of the invective and scurrility contained in "the most learned, most arrogant, and most absurd work of the eighteenth century," it is better not to give illustrations. As a specimen. of its better style, we quote the following remarks on

Abraham's Sacrifice of Esaac.

They say, God could never give such a command to Abraham, because it would throw him into inextricable doubts concerning the Author of it, as whether it proceeded from a good or evil being. Or if not so, but that he could persuade himself it came from God, it would then mislead him in his notions of the Divine attributes, and of the fundamental principles of morality. Because, though the revoking the command prevented the homicide, yet the action being commanded, and, at the revocation, not condemned, Abraham and his family must needs have thought human sacrifices grateful to the Almighty; for a simple revoking was no condemnation, but would be more naturally esteemed a peculiar indulgence for a ready obedience. Thus, the Pagan fable of Diana's substituting a hind in the place of Iphigenia did not make idolaters believe that she therefore abhorred human sacrifices, they having been before persuaded of the contrary. This is the whole substance, only set in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy dissertations on the case of Abraham.

1. Let us see, then, how his case stood. God had been pleased to reveal to him His eternal purpose of making all mankind blessed through him, and to confirm this promise, in a regular course of successive revelations, each fuller and more explicit than the other. By this time, the Father of the Faithful, as we must needs suppose from the nature of the thing, would be grown very desirous of knowing the manner how this blessing was to be brought about-a mystery, if we will believe the Author of our faith, that engaged the attention of other holy men, less concerned than Abraham, and, consequently, less stimulated and excited by their curiosity"And Jesus turned to his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see those