hour, no sect or body of men were zealous in the reformation of manners in society, without having been charged with the same vices in the same words.  When I hate a man, and see nothing bad in him, what remains possible but to accuse him of crimes which I cannot see, and which cannot be disproved, because they cannot be proved?  Surely, if Christian charity did not preclude these charges, the shame of convicted parrotry ought to prevent a man from repeating and republishing them.  The very same thoughts, almost the words, are to be found of the early Christians; of the poor Quakers; of the Republicans; of the first Reformers.—­Why need I say this?  Does not every one know, that a jovial pot-companion can never believe a water-drinker not to be a sneaking cheating knave who is afraid of his thoughts; that every libertine swears that those who pretend to be chaste, either have their mistress in secret, or far worse, and so on?

Ib. p. 89.

  The same religious abstinence from all appearance of recreation on the
  Lord’s day; and the same neglect of the weightier matters of the moral
  law, in the course of the week, &c.

This sentence thus smuggled in at the bottom of the chest ought not to pass unnoticed; for the whole force of the former depends on it.  It is a true trick, and deserves reprobation.

Ib. p. 97.

Note.  It was procured, Mr. Collyer informs us, by the merit of his “Lectures on Scripture facts.”  It should have been “Lectures on ‘Scriptural’ Facts.”  What should we think of the grammarian, who, instead of ‘Historical’, should present us with “Lectures on ‘History’ Facts?”

But Law Tracts?  And is not ‘Scripture’ as often used semi-adjectively?

Ib. p. 98.

“Do you really believe,” says Dr. Hawker, “that, because man by his apostacy hath lost his power and ability to obey, God hath lost his right to command?  Put the case that you were called upon, as a barrister, to recover a debt due from one man to another, and you knew the debtor had not the ability to pay the ‘creditor’, would you tell your client that his debtor was under no legal or moral obligation to pay what he had no power to do?  And would you tell him that the very expectation of his just right ’was as foolish as it was tyrannical’?” * * * I will give my reply to these questions distinctly and without hesitation. * * * Suppose A. to have lent B. a thousand pounds, as a capital to commence trade, and that, when he purchased his stock to this amount, and lodged it in his warehouse, a fire were to break out in the next dwelling, and, extending itself to ‘his’ warehouse, were to consume the whole of his property, and reduce him to a state of utter ruin.  If A., my client, were to ask my opinion as to his right to recover from B., I should tell him that this his right would exist should B. ever be in a condition to repay the sum borrowed; * * * but that to attempt to recover a thousand