form of the warmth of that man's attachment to
his Sovereign, who, at seasons of recreation, should seek his pleasures
in scenes as ill accordant with the principle of loyalty, as those of
which we have been speaking are with the genius of religion? If for this
purpose he were to select the place, and frequent the amusements, to
which Democrats and Jacobins[94] should love to resort for
entertainment, and in which they should find themselves so much at home,
as invariably to select the spot for their abiding habitation; where
dialogue, and song, and the intelligible language of gesticulation,
should be used to convey ideas and sentiments, not perhaps palpably
treasonable, or directly falling within the strict precision of any
legal limits, but yet palpably contrary to the spirit of monarchical
government; which, further, the highest authorities had recommended as
sovereign specifics for cooling the warmth, and enlarging the narrowness
of an excessive loyalty! What opinion should we form of the delicacy of
that friendship, or of the fidelity of that love, which, in relation to
their respective objects, should exhibit the same contradictions?

In truth, the _hard measure_, if the phrase may be pardoned, which, as
has been before remarked, we give to God; and the very different way in
which we allow ourselves to act, and speak, and feel, where he is
concerned, from that which we require, or even practise in the case of
our fellow-creatures, is in itself the most decisive proof that the
principle of the love of God, if not altogether extinct in us, is at
least in the lowest possible degree of languor.

From examining the degree in which the bulk of nominal Christians are
defective in the love of God, if we proceed to inquire concerning the
strength of their love towards their fellow-creatures, the writer is
well aware of its being generally held, that here at least they may
rather challenge praise than submit to censure. And the many beneficent
institutions in which this country abounds, probably above every other,
whether in ancient or modern times, may be perhaps appealed to in proof
of the opinion. Much of what might have been otherwise urged in the
discussion of this topic, has been anticipated in the inquiry into the
grounds of the extravagant estimation, assigned to amiable tempers and
useful lives, when unconnected with religious principle. What was then
stated may serve in many cases to lower, in the present instanc