have a property in the superfluous possessions of the fortunate; though I despair of seeing right done them until the day wherein those distinctions shall cease for ever, and they must both give an account for their behaviour under their respective sufferings, and enjoyments. However, you would do your part as a Guardian, if you would mention, in the most pathetic terms, these miserable objects, and put the good part of the world in mind of exerting the most noble benevolence that can be imagined, in alleviating the few remaining moments of the incurable.

species itself, and are unacquainted or unmoved with the calamities of others. But, alas! how monstrous is this hardness of heart! How is it possible that the returns of hunger and thirst should not importune men, though in the highest affluence, to consider the miseries of their fellowcreatures who languish under necessity: But as I hinted just now, the distinctions of mankind are almost wholly to be resolved into those of the rich and the poor; for as certainly as wealth gives acceptance and grace to all that its possessor says or does; so poverty creates disesteem, scorn, and prejudice to all the undertakings of the indigent. The necessitous man has neither hands, lips, or understanding, for his own or friend's use, but is in the same condition with the sick, with this difference only, that his is an infection no man will relieve, or assist, or if he does, it is seldom with so much pity as contempt, and rather for the ostentation of the physician, than compassion on the patient. It is a circumstance, wherein, a man finds all the good he deserves inaccessible, all the ill unavoidable; and the poor hero is as certainly ragged, as the poor villain hanged. Under these pressures the poor man speaks with hesitation, undertakes with irresolution, and acts with disappointment. He is slighted in men's conversation, overlooked in their assemblies, and beaten at their doors. But from whence, alas, has he this treatment? from a creature that has only the supply of, but not an exemption from, the wants, for which he despises him. Yet such is the unaccountable insolence of man, that he will not see that he who is supported, is in the same class of natural necessity with him that wants a support; and to be helped implies to be indigent. In a word, after all you

can say of a man, conclude that he is rich, and you have made him friends; nor have you utterly overthrown a man in the world's opinion, until you have said he is poor. This is the emphatical expression of praise and blame for men so stupidly forget their natural impotence and want, that riches and poverty have taken in our imagination the place of innocence and guilt.

Reflections of this kind do but waste one's being, without capacity of helping the distressed; yet though I know no way to do any service to my brethren under such calamities, I cannot help having so much respect for them, as to suffer with them in a fruitless fellow-feeling.

N° 80. FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1713.

-Calestibus Iræ.

Anger in heav'nly minds.

VIRG. En. i. 15.

I HAVE found by experience, that it is impossible to talk distinctly without defining the words of which we make use. There is not a term in our language which wants explanation so much as the word Church. One would think when people utter it, they should have in their minds ideas of virtue and religion; but that important monosyllable drags all the other words in the language after it, and it is made use of to express both praise and blame, according to the character of him who speaks it. By this means it happens,

that no one knows what his neighbour means when he says such a one is for, or against the church. It has happened that the person, who is seen every day at church, has not been in the eye of the world a churchman; and he who is very zealous to oblige every man to frequent it, but himself, has been held a very good son of the church. This prepossession is the best handle imaginable for politicians to make use of, for managing the loves, and hatreds of mankind, to the purposes to which they would lead them. But this is not a thing for fools to meddle with, for they only bring disesteem upon those whom they attempt to serve, when they unskilfully pronounce terms of art. I have observed great evils arise from this practice, and not only the cause of piety, but also the secular interest of clergymen, has extremely suffered by the general unexplained signification of the word church.

The Examiner, upon the strength of being a received churchman, has offended in this particular more grossly than any other man ever did before, and almost as grossly as ever he himself did, supposing the allegations in the following letter are just. To slander any man is a very heinous offence; but the crime is still greater, when it falls upon such as ought to give example to others. I cannot imagine how the Examiner can divest any part of the clergy of the respect due to their characters, so as to treat them as he does, without an indulgence unknown to our religion, though taken up in the name of it, in order to disparage such of its communicants, as will not sacrifice their conscience to their fortunes. This confusion and subdivision of interests and sentiments, among people of the same communion, is what would be a very good