Priestley. Allied to Dr. Priestley, in his modest merit, is Mr. Belshan, who ranks himself in no higher order, and who has, perhaps, no superior at this day, in moral philosophy, theology and practical good conduct. SIR, A. B. C. January 12th, 1817. CHRISTIANITY is a very ex : excel lent, because a very plain thing; it is neither encompassed with difficulties, nor involved in obscurity; its doctrines are the just deductions of a cultivated and enlarged mind, from the contemplation of the character and perfections of the Deity, as displayed in his visible works, and of the wants and condition of man in civil society. Its founder, who was the best and wisest of men, whose life was one continued scene of benevolence and love, and all whose efforts were directed to the calling of sinners to repentance, and the reforming of mankind, by teaching them to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them, was, Ain one word, a teacher of goodness; and the test by which his disciples were to he known was, the observance of his commands and the imbibing of his spirit: goodness, therefore, is the criterion of belief badness of unbelief. With this view of Christianity, I have been accustomed to consider every thing that was not purely practical, as, at least, unimportant; and, on the subject of miracles, I had fallen into the opinion of Mr. Hume, that a miracle being a violation of the order of nature, or, as Mr. Cogan would define it, a devintion from the order of nature, can never be rendered credible by testimony. The historians or biographers of the life of Jesus cannot, as such, be entitled to a greater degree of credit, than the historians or biographers of any other man. When they state his views of the Divine Being, and the moral principles he taught, we give full credit to their statement, because of the fitness of these to the condition of man as a social and relative being, and of the justness of those with the order of nature. But when they record a miraculous event, must we not be sceptical if the same rules of estimating the credit of all other historians, be justly applicable in estimating theirs? We give credit to → • M. Repos. Vol. XI. p. 644. no profane historian, how creditable soever he may be as sueb, who records what appears to be miraculous. Me believe no historic fact which does một approve itself to our experience, or agree with the established onder of things. "The actions and fate of the late Emperor of France" come within this rule; but were the historian of that great man to declare that he once raised a dead man to life again, I do not apprehend that his testimony would produce a conviction upon the mind of any individual. Why, then, should that degree of credit be extended to the historians of Jesus, who, we know, were frequently reproved by hin for their gross and inadequate apprehensions of the nature of the Messiah, and the quality of his dispensation, which is withheld from all other historians? If the evidence of testimony be conclusive here, can the testimony of Carté, Bradwardine, Malinsbury, Fortescue, and many others, be rejected, when they seriously declare that they witnessed the instantaneous cure of the king's evil by the touch? But, although they are acknowledged authorities upon other matters, who gives credit to their testimony upon this? Before, however, it can be admitted that the Divine Being interfered miraculously to communicate Christianity to mankind, it must be shown that such an interference was necessary, and that the genius of that religion required it. This appears to me a cardinal point; and I am somewhat surprised that my worthy friend Mr. Wright, who has written an Essay upon this subject, in which, as is usual with him, he has said a great many good things, has entirely overlooked it. Now in viewing the operations of the Deity, both in the natural and moral world, we perceive one undeviating, unbroken chain of cause and effect. True it is that nothing takes place without his direction and control; but he operates through secondary causes, and never labours in vain. Each effect hath its adequate cause, in the established constitution of things, and all the dispensations of his dence are accomplished by the ordinary operations of his power. His finger is in every thing, and every individual is his ministering agent. Thus it may be said he raised up Sir Isaac Newton, and enabled him to make those dis coveries which are of the first impor his provi tance for forming a just estimate of the grandeur of the universe, and the power and wisdom of the great Architect. For this purpose, Sir Isaac was the especial-messenger of God; his mind was especially illumined for the work; but I do not apprehend any direct communication took place between him and the Deity. Certainly his discoveries were made in the ordinary way, but they were not less the work of God on that account. It was precisely in this manner, I conceive, that Jesus was raised up and sent into the world to reform it. For while the established laws of God are equal to every thing, and all his providential plans are carried into effect without departing from them; why should we suppose a direct infringement or extension of those laws in the case of Jesus? If the Divine Being could accomplish by ordinary means the object he had in view, in introducing Christianity into the world, is it a just conclusion, from what we know of the uniforntity of his operations, that he would multiply means by resorting to an extraordinary exertion of his power? Would not this view of his character and perfections be the most grovelling and degrading? The mission of Newton was different in its nature from that of Jesus, but both were alike the messengers of God. The view which Jesus hath given us of the character of the Divine Being, is the just deduction which a rich and correct iniud would form from the contemplation of his works and providence. The principles he hath left us for the regulation of our conduct, perhaps never before expressly taught, but probably always practised in a greater or less degree by the virtuous and good in every age and clime, are the most natural conclusions which a survey of the institutions of society would suggest to an enlightened mind, understanding the natural rights of man, and the basis upon which such institutions should be formed. Jesus taught no doctrines but natural ones. Nature is the text, and revelation the context, is the favourite expression of a venerable friend of mine, who firmly believes the miraculous nature of Christianity. But what is there in the doctrines which Jesus taught, that required an extension of the laws of nature, or a deviation from them? Were the doctrines true? Truth is its own best evidence; it needs no proof; and as thousand miracles would not convince me of error.. That Jesus cast out devils, by healing the maladies of madmen, may be admitted; but whatever might be the means by which these cures were effected, the power does not appear to have been peculiar to him, but enjoyed in common with others who were not his disciples. Luke ix. 49, 50. Can then a power which is common, be evidence of a direct communication from God to an individuat? SIR, A. B. C. Hotwells, January 22d, 1817. ALTHOUGH the pages of your Miscellany might occupied with matter of far greater importance than the following, yet I would beg leave to offer a few worde in reply to your Correspondent, A. (Vol. XI. p. 704), who has evidently mistaken the intention of my former letter, signed J. B. wherein, after stating my opinion upon a subject there referred to, as well as in reference to circumstances that had passed under my own observation, I simply recommended the subject with two propositions to the consideration of Unitarian ministers generally, leaving it to them to pursue that line of duty which their superior judgment might suggest. What I there proposed was (however unlikely to answer the purpose) with a sincere desire to promote that, which a firm belief in the genuine doctrines of the gospel necessarily leads to, namely, the spread of pure religion and the practice of virtue; and gratifying as the entertainment might be, or however desirable the treat of controversial preaching, if it does not tend to that end, it is like sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. The epithet "dry" applied to Seripture morality, is what I by no means approve of the reason why it appeared in my letter was, because it had been so applied by those of whom I was then speaking. As to the cause of its being so called, whether it be on account of its being met by some morbid quality of the mind or not, thever having studied the doctrine of the mind, I shall not attempt to determine. That I am not averse to practical discourses (and those which are dactrinal are such in effect), might be seen by the disparity in numbers of those recommended to be doctrinal: and far be it from the to wish the ministers of the gospel to abate in their exertions in enforcing the precepts of the gospel, being fully persuaded that it is the union of of good works with faith which constitutes the religion of Christ. And If the neglect of good works be the natural result of doctrinal or controversial preaching, then by all means let us bid it farewell: but if that be not the result (and I firmly believe it to be quite the contrary), I must still recommend it, as it will not only be an entertaining treat to those who approve the doctrines preached, but a means of promoting the best interests of mankind. * I remember having read of a book entitled " Innocency with her Open Face;" and though I am far from wishing to assume that character, yet feeling a consciousness of it with respect to this part of my conduct, as well as in that to which it refers, it is with pleasure I subscribe myself, JOHN BARTON. I Edinburgh, February 7th, 1817. OBSERVE in your last Number (Vol. XI. p. 704), a Letter upon Doctrinal Preaching, which I regret to see written not in that spirit of moderation which the subject requires. The writer indulges some ill-placed wit upon the epithet "dry," as applied to morality, and inquires what dry moral discourses can mean? The answer I think is obvious, and deserves attention. When a minister supposes that he sufficiently discharges his duty by reading to his congregation an essay upon some branch of morality, composed in the style of the ancient heathen imoralists, and enforced by arguments of little more weight than such as they employed, presented to them entirely by the light of nature, then such essays or sermons must appear "dry" to an assembly of Christians possessing the superior advantages of a divine revelation. That such sermons are often brought forward in our Christian assemblies, falls within my own knowledge, whether by reputed Orthodox or Dissenters makes no difference in my present argument; and the reasons why they are made use of are also very obvious. It occurs not unfrequently that reputed Orthodoxy is in many respects not very agreeable either to the pastor or his people, even in the Establishments: so that it generally appears to the minister a kind of duty to avoid what would give offence. Amongst Unitarians or Presbyterian Dissenters the same considerations will operate much more powerfully, if the stronger dislike to established opinions which they entertain, is accompanied at the same time with a dread of singularity not inferior to that of their friends in the Establishments-a coincidence, I believe, by no means uncommon. If we examine farther what the proper preaching of Christian morality by either of these classes of Christians should be, it will inevitably be found to resolve itself into the opposite of the above, I mean into what is generally termed doctrinal preaching, choose what subject we may. For instance, how can any minister, who in the slightest degree disbelieves the doctrine of the Trinity, satisfy himself that he does all he can do, and ought to do, in recommending devotional exercise and exciting devotional habits, if he refrain froin stating what the Scriptures appear to him to declare concerning the proper Object of religious worship? And if he does this, how can he decline stating what the Scriptures appear to him to teach regarding the person and character of our Saviour? If another person shall see cause to think that the Scriptures do not countenance the unworthy notions supported by reputed Orthodoxy, concerning the justice, goodness and mercy of God, how can he treat of these attributes of the Deity without controverting generally-received opinions? If he shall also believe that certain Orthodox opinions have a tendency destructive of all moral obligation and practical Christianity, how can he enforce the observance of any of the moral virtues upon which such opinions have any effect, without declaring what appears to him to be the Scripture view both of the opinion he disbelieves, and of the moral precept he would inculcate? In fine, how can such ministers conscientiously preach pure Christianity, if they avoid doctrinal preaching? It is to be regretted there ever should have existed an idea that the proper discussion of Christian doctrines was inconsistent with the cultivation of Christian morality. The necessity for doctrinal preaching arises from the di versity of opinion which prevails among all sects of Christians regarding the proper understanding of the Scripuares. This diversity of opinion, no doubt, is perinitted by Providence for good purposes: among others it may be intended to preserve these holy records pure and uncorrupted. The experience of eighteen centuries clearly shews how apt men are to ingraft upon them ideas and interpretations foreign to the proper signification of the original language: but we may also perceive that in consequence of the strict criticisin to which they have been constantly subjected, they are preserved to us in a state of purity which no other records of the same standing can boast of. Even if no intention could be traced by our limited faculties in this dispensation of Providence, the existence of diversity of opinion being apparent, it must be allowed to be the imperative duty of all Christian teachers to promote uniformity; and if they act from no motive but a love of truth, it is impossible they can do any harm. Indeed it is only by bringing all men to agree on the proper interpretation of Scripture, that the necessity for doctrinal preaching can be superseded. Until that happy period arrive, our Saviour as well as all his apostles clearly point out to us both by precept and example, the duty of controverting generally-received opinions, when they are in opposition to the promotion of true Christianity. "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old," " But I say unto you," this surely is controversial preaching, and the authority is undoubted. It is true that doctrinal preaching, like every talent entrusted to us, may be abused; but the proper use of it must be left entirely to the discretion and judgment of the individual who is called upon to exercise it. It will not answer the purposes either of religion or morality (if there be a distinction), to suppress it altogether. It may be done in a manner the most conciliating, the most interesting, the most convincing. By means of it, the most elevated devotion to God may be excited; the most enlightened benevolence to man may be promoted, to the complete destruction of every irritable and revengeful feeling, and a love of Irath may be cultivated, which will scrupulously reject all secondary objects of gratification or pursuit, while the SIR, Temple, Jan. 30, 1817. T HE following curious morceau of pulpit eloquence may probably furnish amusement to some of your readers. It is extracted from a small publication bearing the title of "Sermon preached in St. Giles Kirk, at Edinburgh, commonly called Pockmanty Preaching, by Mr. James Row, sometime Minister of Strowan." The tract is published without date, but its contents appear to determine the time of its delivery from the pulpit to be the year 1643, when the solemn league and covenant was framed at Edinburgh by the persuasion (according to Hume) of Sir Henry Vane, one of the commissioners from the English Parliament, then at open war with the misguided Charles. The text is from Jer. xxx. 17, "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord; because they called thee an outcast, saying, this is Zion, whon no man seeketh after." The preacher thus opens and anatomises his subject. "I need not trouble you much by telling you what is meant by Zion here, ye all ken it is the poor Kirk of Scotland; for the Kirk of Scotland is wounded in her head, in her hands, in her heart and in her feet. First, in her head, in the government; 2dly, in her hands, in the discipline; 3dly, in her heart, as in the doctrine; 4thly, in her feet, as in the worship." The first of these general divisions was naturally susceptible of subdivision, and the preacher displayed much quaint ingenuity in pointing out in what respects the Kirk had been affected in each of her five senses, particularly in that of hearing, " by the bringing in of the organs," since which she had become "as deaf as a door nail." After discussing the 2d and 3d general heads, Mr. Row proceeded as follows: "Now I come to tell you how she is wounded in her feet, and that I call the worship of the Kirk of Scotland. The Kirk of Scotland was a bonny trotting nag, but then she trotted sae hard, that never a man durst ride her bat the bishops, wha after they gat on her back crosslanged her, hap-shacked her, and when she became a bonny pacing heast, they took great pleasure to ride on her; bat their cadging her up and down from Edinburgh to London, and it may be from Roine too, gave her sik a het coat that we have these twelve months bygane been stirring her up and down to keep her fra foundying: yea, they made not only a horse but an ass of the Kirk of Scotland. How sae quo ye? What mean ye by this? I'll tell you how they made Balaam's ass of her; ye ken well enough Balaam was going an unlucky gait, and first the augel met him in a broad way, and then the ass bogled and started, but Balaanı got by the angel and till her and battarmed her sufficiently; that was when episcopacy came in, and then they gave the Kirk of Scotland her paiks. Afterwards Balaam met the angel in a strait gait, and then she startled mair the before; but Balaam till her again, and whaked her soundly; that was when the five articles of Perth were brought in. The third time the angel met Balaam in sae straight a gait that the ass could not win by, and then it pleased the Lord to open blind Balaam's eyes, and that is this happy day's work; now God has opened all our eyes. We were like blind Balaam ganging an unlucky gait, and riding post to Rome; and what was gotten behind him upon the ass wot ye? I'll tell you, that was a pockmanty, and what was in it trow ye but the book of Canons, and of Common Prayer and the High Commission? but as soon as the ass sees the angel she falls a ***Hinging and a plonging and o'er gangs the pockmanty, and it hings by the string on the one side, and aft gaes blind Balaam, and he hings by the hough on the other side; and fain would the Carl have been on the saddle again and been content to leave his pockmanty; but, beloved, let not the false swinger get on again, for if he get on again he will be sure to get on his pockmanty also." This pious jeu d'esprit is closed by several quaint exhortations" to subserve the covenant," which doubitess had their intended effect with numbers of the several classes to whom they were addressed. In comparison with this, how tame and impotent in effect impotent would have been an oration in the liberal and philosophic tone and temper of the Freethinker in King Henry the Eighth's parliament (see Mon. Repos. Vol. XI. p. 697), whose plan of reformation did not, like that of John Knox, put down idle, ravenous and cruel" bishops, merely to substitute priestly dominion in another shape; but who seems to have been "born out of due time," and to have had few auditors who could enter into his extended views of religious liberty and the right of individual judgment. SIR, T R-D. Jan. 6, 1817. HERE ERE can be no inquiry so interesting on the subject of re ligion as the state of the human dead. Indeed, on this point, the value of human existence turns, whether it is to be considered as a blessing or a curse, whether the Deity be benevolent or malevolent. For if the Scriptures teach the doctrine of eternal torments, human existence is represented by them as an unutterable curse. The Unitarians distinguish themselves in this inquiry, and are likely I think to bring the Scriptural doctrine to light, so that hereafter a greater harmony of opinion may be expected. That a Being the author of all men's appetites, passions, and circumstances, should mark the deviations to which these have led, with eternal misery, is incredible upon any other supposition than pure malevolence. But where are we to look for the Scriptural doctrine: on this subject? In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark? When Mr. Evanson's arguments are answered with respect to these Gospels, then their authority may be acknowledged, and their language subjected to fair criticism. It is certain that these Gospels, : |