At Venice, on the 27th of January, the Countess of MINELLI met with a most dreadful accident. In the afternoon, being at the house of her daughter, the Countess of Sandi, and the weather very cold, she stood with her back to the fire, which communicated to one side of her dress. The persons in the apartment, alarmed at the progress of the flames, instead of assisting her, ran out to call in the aid of the domestics; during which interval, the unfortunate sufferer was so scorched, that in the evening she expired in the greatest tortures, in the 54th year of her age.

A few days ago as Miss BUTLER, sole surviving niece of the wealthy Mrs. Porter, of St. Andrew's-street, Cambridge, was warming herself before the fire, which seemed sufficiently guarded by a screen, a chance spark communicated itself to her muslin gown, and she was soon enveloped in flames. The gentleman to whom she was betrothed was the first that heard her cries, but he arrived too late, for before the flames could be extinguished, she was so much burnt as to expire the next morning in the greatest agonies. The intended bridegroom has been delirious ever since.

March 14. At Hamburgh, the cele, brated Poet KLOPSTOCK, in his 79th year,

Same day, at huntingdon, after a very short illness, the Reverend James MACK

INTOSH, Rector of Papworth Agnes, in Cambridgeshire.

Last week, aged 97, at Hampton-Wick, Middlesex, PETER DE LA RIVE, Esq. many years a respectable merchant in London. March 14. In George-street, Hanoversquare, aged 73, Mrs. Low TH, relict of the late Bishop of London.

March 21. At his seat at Twinsted-hall, near Sudbury, as he was sitting in his chair, aged 72, Sir JAMES MARRIOTT, many years Member for Sudbury, late Judge of the Admiralty Court, and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Same day, at Chiswick, the Honourable THOMAS WALPOLE, in his 76th year.

Reverend Mr. EYRE, Minister of Homerton Chapel.

At Bristol, the very Rev. Dr. LAYARD, Dean of that Cathedral. From the time of his appointment to that situation, he had been very assiduous in the discharge of his official duties, particularly in instructing the boys belonging to the choir, to whom, together with as many more as chose to attend, he was in the habit of expounding the church catechism twice a week. He had also, by his influence, effected the establishment in Bristol of a Society for the Suppression of Vice, similar to that instituted in London. He has left a large family, we are sorry to add, in very destitute circumstances.

THE following Letter ought to have been inserted in an earlier part of this Number. Our readers however will, we trust, excuse the irregularity which has thrown it out of its proper place.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. WHEN I considered the original professions of the gentlemen concerned in the publication of the Anti-jacobin Review, I naturally expected that, in the execution of their important undertaking, they would prove to be men of the first respectability for Christian piety and candour of mind, as well as for solidity of judgment and extensive erudition. I was hence induced to cherish the flattering hope, that our established Church would derive so substantial a support from their periodical lucubrations, as would kindle a modest blush in the cheek of sectariaaism; and that, while they wielded in her defence the sword of the spirit, they would, by an unvaried uniformity of sentiment, and a prominent meekness of temper, do honour to the cause

of truth, and disarm the rage of opposition.

But when I pay a calm attention to that part of their progressive labours, which relates to our ecclesiastical and ministerial concerns, (passing over every topic of a different hue;) when I reflect on the partial encomiums, with which they decorate the compositions of some of their correspondents, and the load of obloquy which they cast on the names of such writers, as honestly adhere to the literal meaning of the 39 articles; when I, moreover, revolve in my mind the glaring repugnancy that subsists between what they have boldly asserted at one time, and what, on a different occasion, has emanated from their pen; I am filled with sur prise. It is not my intention to follow their example in the adoption of coarse contumelious expressions; nor in levelling charges of a defamatory nature against any members of their corps, drawn from the uncertain source of private information: for whenever a man, engaged in the act of crimina

tion, or re-crimination, or even of self-vindication, deviates from the poLiteness of a gentleman, and, much more, from the urbanity of a Christian, I leave it to the world to determine, what are the discriminating features of his character: but I will confine my attention to a few things out of many, which they and their friends have openly advanced; and thus calm ly ground my complaint on irresistible evidence.

I had always supposed, that orthodory was a relative term, and implied an appeal to some acknowledged standard of religious truth. This standard, in a primary sense, is the Bible, or revealed word of God; but, in a secondary, which regards our manner of interpreting the scriptures in some essential points of doctrine, it is that system of theology which our Church maintains in her liturgy, articles, and homilies. I consider this representation of the case to be absolutely incontrovertible. If, therefore, these gentlemen would compare any tenets, occurring in the compositions that are the subjects of their review, with the aforesaid standard, and point out any instance of divergency from it, their mode of proceeding would be perfectly correct, and entitle them to commendation. But when, instead hereof, they launch out into bitter invectives, and even suffer such strange expressions to escape from them, as import a dissatisfaction with the standard itself, what shall we think are, at bottom, the articles of their creed? or, how shall we, at any time, be able to ascertain their real sentiments?

They profess to be in divinity staunch Churchmen, and present themselves to the public as the guardians of orthodoxy. Heresy and schism are the avowed objects of their exterminating zeal; and (what is very singular) they give us a new description of schism, by branding with that odious appellation, every doctrine which they disapprove; whereas hitherto it had been considered as a causeless separation from the communion of the Catholic Church of Christ. What is their own systematic Shibboleth, they have not ventured in express terms to acknowledge, but have partly supplied that omission by the critique, which they occasionally pass on other writers.

Here let it be asked, what do they require from that clergyman, whom they denominate heterodox, and whom

And

they charge with the introduction of schism into the Church, although he is by principle firmly attached to her communion? Is he, in complaisance to their judgment, to preach any doctrine of their's, which he does not be lieve to be true? Is he to give a stab to his own conscience, by making declarations from the pulpit, which to him appear to be both unscriptural and inconsistent with that standard of truth, which he has pledged himself to maintain? Would such be their conduct, if they were in his situation would it be consistent with even heathen honesty? But how is he to know, that in his doctrine he is heterodox, or (as they term it) schismatical, any otherwise than by a reference to some standard? And to what standard shall we appeal? To the doctrine of the Church in her 39 articles? Will not such an appeal as that, be the object of their ridicule? For when the Kev. Dr. Hawker, of Plymouth, took this very method of vindicating himself from the charge of maintaining false doctrine, they politely treated him with a smile courteous, and expressed their admiration at his placing himself behind such a shield, by subjoining three solemn marks of significance!!!

What is to be done for this obnoxious and unfortunate clergyman, for the cure of his errors? We must recommend to him, I suppose, a diligent perusal of all the numbers of the Anti-jacobin Review, in order to derive from that source of instruction the principles of Christianity, though they are to be found only in scattered hints.

In the year 1799, the Rev. Mr. Polwhele addressed a printed letter to the Rev. Dr. Hawker, of Plymouth, in which he denied the doctrine of original sin, in that sense in which our Church holds it; for our Church says in her catechism (over and above what she maintains in her 9th article), that we are "by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath." But in defiance of the catechism, and of the bap tismal offices, as well as of the 9th article, Mr. Polwhele asserts, that the calvinistic doctrine of original sin is FALSE; and he there maintains other tenets of the like complexion. But we may challenge Mr. Polwhele and all his abettors to cite any passage on the subject, from Calvin's Institutes, or from any other part of his works, that is expressed in stronger terms than what we find in the 9th article, or in

the following passage which occurs in the homily on the nativity of Christ. "As before, he (Adam) was most beautiful and precious; so now he was most vile and wretched in the sight of his Lord and Master. Instead of the image of God, he was now become the image of the devil; instead of the citizen of heaven, he was now become the bond slave of hell; having in himself no one part of his former purity and cleanness, but being altogether spotted and defiled, insomuch that he now seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin, and therefore by the just judgment of God was condemned to everlasting death. This, so great and miserable a plague, if it had only rested on Adam, who first offended, it had been so much the easier, and might the better have been borne. But it fell not only on him, but also on his posterity; so that the whole brood of Adam's flesh should sustain the selfsame fall and punishment, which their forefather, by his offence, most justly had sustained." Likewise, in the first part of the homily for Whit-Sunday, "Man, of his own nature, is fleshly, carnal, corrupt, naught, sinful, and disobedient to God; without any spark of goodness in him, without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds."

Mr. Polwhele, however, is so far from having incurred the censure of these gentlemen for any assertion of his, that they always speak of his compositions with high commendation; and, of late, have honourably ranked him with "a Whitaker, a Boucher, a Gleig, and a Gilpin," saying of them jointly, in No. 55, that they are "ornaments of literature, and supports of piety." Such is their zeal for Church of England orthodoxy! In this same number they review a pamphlet, intituled, "Considerations on the present State of Religion, speculative and practical, in this country." It is evident, that the author is very much disgusted with our 39 articles; for he represents them as giving countenance to Me thodism; particularly objects to the thirteenth; calls them "a stumblingblock," expressing his wish that it may be removed; and he proposes it as the best method of "securing purity of doctrine, and uniformity of worship in our national Church, to require of the clergy only an unequivocal assent to the book of common prayer," after it has undergone "a few incon

siderable omissions and verbal corrections." He also entertains us with a specimen of low wit, by observing, that such clergymen as are distinguished by the name of Gospel-preachers, should rather be denominated "Epistie-preachers;" as if the Epistles were not founded on the same divine authority as the Gospels, or the Apostles were not miraculously raised up as inspired interpreters of the doctrines of Christ. Here it is natural to suspect, that the aforesaid author is a man of Arian and Sociman principles under disguise. However, it is obvious to ask, What say the Editors of the Antijacobin Review, the professed guardians of orthodoxy? Hear, and be astonished. "A great deal of useful matter is contained in this little pamphlet; and we are very much OBLIGED to the author for LIBERAL SENTIMENT, guided by religious sincerity." Thus they begin to throw off the mask. They are advocates for liberal sentiment on divine subjects; that is, they are free-thinkers; and this anonymous writer is their prolocutor. They see that the 39 articles give countenance to what they erroneously appropriate to methodism; and hence they wish for the removal of so great a stumblingblock. But even this will not give them entire satisfaction, for the book of common-prayer must also undergo

a few inconsiderable omissions and verbal corrections." If, however what these gentlemen wish, should ever be carried into execution, instantly Socinianism, Arianism, and even barefaced Deism, will rush in upon us with a full tide. Yet in the accomplishment of their wish, they will experience a severe disappointment; because even the most rigid Calvinists, being extricated from the same trammels as all others, will be at liberty to propagate their sentiments without the possibility of controul, and without any shadow of pretence for censure. And even if those among us, whom they in jocular contempt style Epistle-preach ers, could ever be persuaded to confine their theology to the contracted limits of the four Gospels, still they would have an authority for enforcing the tenets contained in such passages as these, uttered by the Divine Jesus, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him." John vi. 44.-"In that day shall the son of man send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and

they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matt. xxiv. 31.

Let us now bestow a little attention on what has dropped from the pen of Dr. Croft, another of their admired correspondents, in No. 56, on the seventeenth article. "I have been taught," he says, "for many years, to believe it an article of peace, designed to accommodate two contending parties." As such, it must have a fixed and determinate meaning, and the meaning must be that, to which each of the contending parties can subscribe with a safe conscience. In this case, what room can there be for an outcry about Calvinism? For the article, according to the Doctor, is equally favourable to the Calvinist as to the Arminian. If then I maintain, that "predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation," not all mankind, but" THOSE whom he hath chosen in Christ OUT OF mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour;' that "they which be endued with so excellent a gift, be called according to God's purpose by his spirit working in due season," &c. &c. and that "the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feet," or experience," in themselves the working of Christ," &c.; who now shall venture to affirm, that I am a Calvinist? For the article, says Dr. Croft, "is an article of peace;" and steers so nicely between two extremes, as to accommodate each of the contending parties.

It has not escaped my observation, that in their representation of the Rev. E. Cooper's visitation sermon, in No. 52, they have given him his due meed of praise, and have expressed a warm approbation of all its contents. But in such conduct, where is their self-consistency? For the whole structure of that discourse is built on those principles, which are maintained by our Church in her 39 articles, and which they are pleased in other parts of their work to style Calvinistic.

It was not till after I had written the foregoing, that I saw what they have offered in exculpation of their

misconduct in No. 57. But what a mere evasion is their apology? How awkward, and insufficient! For, it seems, if one member of their body happen to be ill, the public, while reading their work, is to be exposed to any noxious principles, which an Arian or Socinian or Schismatic may send to their publisher. Would they have admitted the force of such an apology, had it been made by "the more than semi-methodistical Editor of the Christian Observer?" Their allegation itself amounts to an explicit confession that, notwithstanding all their former specious professions, they have admitted and retained in their fraternity a man, who is an enemy to the religion and polity of our ecclesiastical constitution., And let the world judge, whether it' be not reasonable to say, ex uno disce omnes. In an unguarded moment, their, plot is disclosed. Their phalanx (as they term it) is a Grecian phalanx, drawn up in battle array before the walls of Troy. Their principles and their aims are all assuredly the same: and what must be the final consequence? Whenever the boundaries of our Church shall be laid prostrate, and her land-marks removed; what will become of our national religion, and on what basis will the safety of the state be supported?

We may now, with peculiar propriety, recall to their remembrance two passages, that occur in the original prospectus of their work and their prefatory address, viz. "We are deeply prejudiced in favour of our country, and are highly partial to her constitution and laws, to HER RELIGION and government; these we shall defend to the utmost of our ability. If ever we shall be found to depart from those principles, on which this work was avowedly established, may we experience that neglect and disgrace, which must invariably attach to so flagrant a breach of duty."

That every unlettered reader may be duly acquainted with that refinement of manners, which stands foremost to view in the character of these gentlemen; it will be sufficient to state, amidst a multiplicity of illustrations, that the English translation of the Latin words, mentiris impudentissimé, which they have lately been in the habit of freely using, is plainly this, "YOU TELL

A MOST IMPUDENT LIE."

"

"Want of decency is want of sense." POPE.