licy of the clofet. It is unnceffary to purfue argument any farther.

the

Mr. Horne is now a very loyal fubje&t. He laments the wretched ftate of politics in this country, and fees, in a new light, the weaknefs and folly of the oppofition. Whoever or whatever is Sovereign, demands the refpect and Support of the people, it was not fo, when Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. Our gracious Sovereign has had wonderful fuccefs, in creating new attachments to his person and family. He owes it, I prefume, to the regular system he has purfued in the mystery of converfion. He began with an experiment upon the Scotch, and concludes with converting Mr. Horne.What a pity it is, that the Jews fhould be condemned by Providence to wait for a Meffiah of their own!

The priesthood are accufed of misinterpreting the fcriptures. Mr. Horne has improved upon his profeffion. He alters the text, and creates a refutable doctrine of his own. Such artifices cannot long delude the underftanding of the people; and without meaning an indecent comparifon, I may venture to foretel, that the Bible and Junius will be read, when the commentaries of the Jefuits are forgotten. JUNIUS.

The very foliloquy of Lord Suffolk before he passed the Rubicon.

LETTER XLIX.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVEKT

TISER.

SIR;

26. Auguft, 1771.

THE enemies of the people, having now

nothing better to object to my friend Junius, are at last obliged to quit his politics and to rail at him for crimes he is not guilty of. His vanity and impiety are now the perpetual topics of their abufe. I do not mean to leffen the force of fuch charges, (fuppofing they were true), but to fhew that they are not founded. If I admitted the premises, I fhould readily agree in all the confequences drawn from them. Vanity indeed is a venial error, for it ufually carries its own punishment with it:—but if I thought Junius capable of uttering a difrefpectful word of the religion of his country, I fhould be the first to renounce and give him up to the public contempt and indignation. As a man, I am fatisfied that he is a Chriftian upon the moft fincere conviction. As a writer, he would be grofsly inconfiftent with his political principles, if he dared to attack a religion efta

blished by thofe laws, which it feems to be the purpose of his life to defend.-Now for the proofs.-Junius is accufed of an impious allufion to the holy facrament, where he fays that, if Lord Weymouth be denied the cup, there will be no keeping him within the pale of the ministry. Now, Sir, I affirm that this paffage refers intirely to a ceremonial in the Roman catholic church, which denies the cup to the laity. It has no manner of relation to the Proteftant creed, and is, in this country, as fair an object of ridicule as tranfubftantiation, or any other part of Lord Peter's history in the Tale of the Tub,

But Junius is charged with equal vanity and impiety, in comparing his writings to the holy fcripture. The formal proteft he makes against any fuch comparifon, avails him nothing. It becomes neceffary then to fhew that the chargé deftroys itself.-If he be vain, he cannot be impious. A vain man does not usually compare himself to an object, which it is his defign to undervalue. On the other hand, if he be impious, he cannot be vain. For his impiety, if any, muft confift in his endeavouring to degrade the holy fcriptures by a comparison with his own contemptible writings. This would be folly indeed of the groffeft nature, but where lies the vanity?-I shall now be told, -"Sir, what you fay is plausible enough, but

"Atill

"ftill you must allow that it is shamefully impudent in Junius to tell us that his works "will live as long as the Bible." My answer is. Agreed: but firft prove that he has faid fo. Look at his words, and you will find that the utmoft he expects is, that the Bible and Junius will furvive the commentaries of the Jesuits, which may prove true in a fortnight. The moft malignant fagacity cannot fhew that his works are, in his opinion, to live as long as the Bible.-Suppofe I were to foretell that Jack and Tom would furvive Harry.-Does it follow that Jack muft live as long as Tom? I would only illuftrate my meaning and protest against the leaft idea of profaneness.

Yet this is the way in which Junius is anfwered, arraigned and convicted. These candid critics never remember any thing he fays in honour of our holy religion; though it is true that one of his leading arguments is made to rest upon the internal evidence which the pureft of all religions carries with it. I quote his

words, and conclude from them, that he is a true and hearty Chriftian, in fubftance, not in ceremony; though poffibly he may not agree with my Reverend Lords the Bishops, or with the Head of the Church, that prayers are morality, or that kneeling is religion.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LETTER L.

FROM THE REVEREND MR. HORNE TO

JUNIUS.

17. Auguft, 1771.

Congratulate you, Sir, on the recovery of your wonted ftyle, though it has coft you a fortnight. I compaffionate your labour in the compofition of your letters, and will communicate to you the fecret of my fluency.-Truth needs no ornament; and, in my opinion, what fhe borrows of the pencil is deformity.

You brought a pofitive charge against me of corruption. I denied the charge, and called for your proofs. You replied with abuse and re-afferted your charge. I called again for proofs. You reply again with abuse only, and drop your accufation. In your fortnight's letter there is not one word upon the fubject of my corruption.

I have no more to fay, but to return thanks to you for your condefcenfion, and to a grateful public and honeft miniftry for all the favours they have conferred upon me. The two latter, I am fure, will never refufe me any grace I shall folicit; and fince you have been pleased

to