BIOGRAPHY. A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE, CHARACTER, AND [Concluded from page 70.] DR. MAYHEW was very early in life known and esteemed on account of his writings. He did not however impose them on the world, nor suffer them to be published from the vanity of authorship; but in compliance with the soli citations of friends, who knew, and did not overrate their merit, His first publication was the volume commonly called his seven sermons, It was first published in this country, and reprinted in London in 1750, In closeness and brevity of style, lucid method, and perspicuous reasoning, these discourses would scarcely suffer on comparison with those of Butler or Sherlock, Four of them form a connected series, in which he illustrates the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong; shews that men are naturally endued with capacities for discerning this difference, and that they are under obligation to exert these capacities, and judge for themselves in things of religious concern. He concludes with a consideration of the objections urged against the exercise of free inquiry and private judgment. Our author suggests, that the attempt to mark the difference between truth and error in speculation, and right and wrong in conduct may appear frivolous. But his reader will thank him for the clearness, with which he has stated the distinction, and for his just severity on those, who would confound what nature and reason have separated. With respect to that species of sceptics, who deny the moral difference of actions, he remarks," there can be no danger of being too severe in censuring them. For what they say Concerning the indifference of actions is either false or truc. If it be false, nothing is too bad to be said of them for setting aside the moral difference of actions; for putting virtue and vice upon the same footing; for making it as innocent in a child to murder a parent, as to kill a viper, and to blaspheme his maker, as to deride a sot. On the other hand, if their assertion be true, there is not a possibility of injuring them; for there can be no wrong nor injury, if actjons are in their nature indifferent." From the immutable distinction between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, Dr. Mayhew infers, that truth and right are not necessarily on the side of the multitude. Those, who controvert this inference, he would haye decide, "how many votes would change a lie into a truth, a crime into a virtue, or a sinner into a saint." Leaving those, who deny any moral distinction in actions, our author proceeds to expose that class of sceptics, who insist, that all things are incomprehensible by us; that there is no criterion of truth and right; so that, although there may be in nature a distinction between right and wrong, we have no faculties for discovering it. He makes it appear, that this doctrine of incapacity to distinguish would be very similar in its consequences to the doctrine, which denies the moral difference of opinions and actions. After proying, that mankind have the faculties, which enable them to distinguish between truth and falsehood in speculation, and right and wrong in conduct, he allows all those limitations, which can reasonably be demanded. He grants, that all men are not equally capable of determining what is true and right; and hence, that this power can be exercised by some only in the most obvious cases; that the same persons have not this capacity in an equal degree in all conditions and circumstances, as the intellectual powers may be continually improving; that great assistance may, be derived from reading, and intercourse with the learned; that, the powers of the mind being limited, the wisest men are not equally able to determine on all points; and above all, that the faculties for discerning truth do not supersede the necessity of divine revelation. Having shown, that man is capable, the Dr. proceeds to Vindicate the right and duty of private judgment. In the exercise of this he would have us suspend judgment till some suitable reason be perceived for determining the mind; weigh the arguments and evidences, which occur, or are offered to us; and assent to a proposition in proportion to the degree of evidence, by which it is supported. The proofs, which he has drawn from reason and scripture in favor of the duty of mankind to avail themselves of their own judgment, es tablish it beyond the power of controversy. This discourse is concluded with some remarks on test acts and ecclesiastical usurpation; in which, though for the most part obviously correct, are the traces of a disposition somewhat too severe and sarcastic. For those "faith mak ers, who are so compassionate, as only to give their brethten to the devil," might, it is charitably hoped, have design ed to direct their pilgrimage the true way to heaven. He has attacked religious establishments, no doubt with sinceri ty, and perhaps with a great share of justice. This he has done, beside other remarks, by a comparison, which some may think too satirical for a sermon, but which may well illus trate his design. "Let us suppose," says he," that some great monarch a few centuries ago, together with the philosophers of that age, had interposed with their authority in the scis ences; that an oath of supremacy to the king or queen had been required, and devised in such terms as these. That the king or queen for the time being is the supreme head of the society of philosophers, vested with all powers to exe ercise all manner of philosophical discipline; and other phi losophical persons have no manner of jurisdiction philosoph ical, but by and under the king or queen's most excellent majesty, who hath full powers to hear and determine all causes philosophical, and to reform all philosophical errors, heresies, enormities, and abuses whatever within his or her realm. Let us suppose also, that philosophical creeds had been composed and issued with certain minatory and damna tory clauses, and registered among the laws of the land. Let us suppose further, that philosophical courts had bee erected, where heretics in philosophy, and all non subscrib ers to the philosophy by law established were to be arraigned, fined, whipped, hanged, or burnt. Had such a method been taken in season, might it not have been heresy still to think the earth a globe; to deny, that the sun revolves about it; or, to question the equality of the sun and moon ?” This subject is concluded with an answer to the objections, that are offered against the exercise of private judg ment; and it is done with ability and perspicuity. The three remaining sermons of this volume are on the love of God and our neighbor; on which we shall content ourselves with remarking, that the subjects are ably treated, and furnish a rich display of genuine christian morality. Dr. Mayhew in his parochial relation exhibited, together with fidelity to all classes, an uncommon solicitude for the morals and piety of the young. His sermons on sobriety addressed to that class of his hearers, and published at their request, are not among the least useful of his works. In style they are not so concise and sententious, as some of his writings; but they comprise a happy elucidation of those duties resulting from natural and revealed religion, which constitute sobriety of conduct. He enforces the practice of those duties on the young, from their reasonableness; from the obligations of religious education; from the goodness and providence of God; from a regard to their own peace, reputation, temporal prosperity, and usefulness to mankind; and from the exalted considerations of the love of the Redeemer, the hope of a happy death, and the desire of eternal glory. These discourses very strongly evince the piety of their author, discover his discernment in the method of reaching the hearts of those, for whom they were designed, and are calculated to raise the young to that high ground of exemplary christianity, from which they may defend their religion, and manifest it to the world. The society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, founded during the reign of William, in the year 1701, early began to send missionaries into this country. The numbers, which, as was thought, were unnecessarily sent into New England, became, about the middle of the last century, a subject of newspaper controversy. This induced Mr. Apthorp, then a missionary from the society, and resident in Cambridge, to offer the public his" considerations on" their ❝charter and conduct." In this publication, which was issued in 1762, he tells us, that he is "about to determine once for all, whether the spirit of the charter had been abused, or their funds misapplied." That this was not the case he has attempted to prove incontrovertibly, by what he styles "authentic vouchers ;" that is, if the reader may interpret, by selections from sermons delivered before the society. Dr. Mayhew, as it has already been remarked, was an enemy to ecclesiastical establishments; and conceived, that the design of sending such numbers of missionaries into New England was ultimately to promote the influence of the English Church. The publication of Mr. Apthorp, so peremptory in the outset, as to aim at establishing a controverted point once for all, provoked from the Dr. a reply. In these "observations" he follows Mr. Apthorp in considering the charter and conduct of the society, points out many abuses, which militated with the charter, and shows, that the society had either been imposed on by misrepresentations from this country, or had unjustifiably misapplied their funds. These "observations" drew from his adversaries various replies; some filled with scurrility and malicious invective, all anonymous, and none of them conducted with that candor and decency, which always ought to be, but rarely is preserved in the ardor of controversy. Such opponents the Dr. seems to have considered, as fit only to be ridiculed and satirized. Of this privilege, it must be confessed, he has very liberally availed himself in the "defence" of his "observations," his second publication on the same subject. Introducing it he remarks, "the manner, W |