Wesley Corpus

One not greatly prejudiced in his favour does not charge him with want of virtue, (of this he judges him to have more than enough,) but with wanting those royal vices, which (with Machiavel and the ingenious Doctor Mandeville) he supposes would be public benefits. “But does he not likewise want understanding?” So it has been boldly affirmed. And it must be acknowledged, this charge is supported by facts which cannot be denied. The First is, he believes the Bible; the Second, he fears God; the Third, he loves the Queen. Now, suppose the First of these, considering the prejudice of education, might consist with some share of understanding, yet how can this be allowed with regard to the Second? For although, in the times of igno rance and barbarism men imagined, “the fear of God” was “the beginning of wisdom,” our enlightened age has discovered it is the end of it; that whenever the fear of God begins, wisdom is at an end. And with regard to the Third, for a man to love his wife, unless perhaps for a month or two, must argue such utter want of sense, as most men of rank are now ashamed of. But, after all, there are some who, allowing the facts, deny the consequence; who still believe, and that after the most accurate inquiry, from such as have had the best means of information, that there are few noblemen or gentle men in the nation, (and we have many not inferior to most in Europe,) who have either so good a natural understanding, or so general a knowledge of all the valuable parts of learning. “But suppose something might be said for His Majesty's understanding, what can be said in excuse of his bad actions; as, First, his pardoning a murderer?” I really think some thing may be said on this head also. Can you or I believe that the King knew him to be such? understood him to be a wilful murderer? I am not sure of it at all; neither have you any rational proof, even supposing this to have been the case, which is far from being clear. And if he did not know or believe him to be such, how can he be blamed for pardon ing him ? Not to have pardoned him in this case would have been inexcusable before God and man.