above, is supported by the ancient and many modern versions. What Dr. Horsley would have made of this passage, had he taken this Psalm in hand, may perhaps be conjectured from his version of Hos. v. 2, the only other place in which the noun occurs. "And the prickers have made a deep slaughter, &c." His notes in justification of this strange rendering are amusing, but too long to be transcribed.

5. "an ambitious heart," a am "latum corde, i. e. insolentem et ambitiosum, neque ullis modestia finibus et præscripto contentum."-Rosenm. Dr. Chandler renders it "an arrogant Leurt," but Mudge prefers the version of the Sep. anλnsw nagdia, "insatiably covetous," a sense which the term would undoubtedly bear, denoting a character, as he says, be avoided by a good prince as the proud."

66 as much to

Ib. "I will not endure." The infin. being understood. The full phrase occurs in Jer. xliv. 22, Prov. xxx. 21, but the abbreviated one, as here, in Isa. i. 13. The Sep. has TOUTH OU OUVYOJIOV, followed by Vulg. Syr. Arab. and Ethiop. "I will not

eat with him." This, as Geddes observes, is no improbable reading, but the other is to be preferred.

6. " dwell with me," i. e. as my mi

nisters and counsellors.

it metaphorically, for immediately, without delay, assiduously, &c. &c.

Ib. "all the wicked," i. e. all who shall be convicted whenever I sit in judgment. Some, as Geddes, think that the term is to be taken in a restricted sense, to signify some.

The reflections which Dr. Chandler makes on this Psalin (Life of David, Vol. II. p. 20.) are so excellent, that I hope here.

may venture to add them

"This Psalm," he observes, "affords an admirable lesson for princes, to direct themselves in the administration of their affairs in private and public life. They should be the patrons of religion and virtue, and encourage them by their own example and practice. Those of their household, their servants, ministers, and particularly their favourites and friends, should be of unblameable characters, and, if possible, eminent for every thing that is excellent and praiseworthy. Subtle and fraudulent men, backbiters and slanderers, and private informers against others, they should detest, and shew the utmost marks of displeasure to them. They should maintain the honour of the laws, aud impartially punish all transgressors against them; and instead of indulging to ease, and being engrossed and dissipated by pleasure and amusements, they should consecrate a just portion of their time to the public service, and promoting the real happiness of their people. Thus they will be indeed truly patriot kings, honoured of God, and esteemed and beloved of men."

Dreamless is the pilgrim's sleep, Lulled on nature's peaceful breast; There no wearied spirits weep,

All is slumber, silence, rest: Sweet and soft that pillow-there Dew-drops fall-but falls no tear..

Sober-clad forgetfulness

Hovers o'er the pilgrim's tomb; No shrill accents of distress

Interrupt the holy gloom :

In death's darksome shades unknown Guilt's deep pang, and sorrow's groan.

ART. I.-Dr. Price's Sermons on Various Subjects.

THE

[Concluded from p. 48.]

HE eleventh Sermon in this volume, proves that the writer of it was the strenuous and eloquent advocate of the noblest kind of freedom:

there is yet a liberty, unsung By poets, and by senators unprais'd, Which monarchs cannot grant, nor all the pow'rs

Of earth and hell confed' rate take away." From 2 Pet. ii. 19 [" While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; &c."] Dr. Price discourses "on spiritual or . inward liberty." "There is a moral slavery," says he, "which ought to be the principal object of our detestation, and consequently a moral liberty which ought to be the principal object of our attachment:" and he proposes to explain this liberty, and to shew it's importance and excellence.

He begins with observing that the conscience of a man is the man; the reflecting principle is our supreme principle. Liberty being an exemption from all such force as takes away from us the capacity of acting as we think best, it is plain that whenever any passion becomes predominant within us, or causes us to contradict our sentiments of rectitude, we lose our liberty, and fall into a state of slavery. A person governed by his appetites is most properly a slave. This is the case which Paul describes in Rom. vii. 22, 23.

licentiousness in a state is attended with an infringement of liberty, and some of the greatest evils of slavery. In such a state the rights of every member are liable to perpetual invasion. Oppression and violence prevail, and a riotous mob governs instead of a wise and a good legislature. What is similar to this may be said with great propriety of that licentiousness which takes place in the mind when the passions becouie tumultuous and ungovernable. That is the worst force we can be under, which prevents us from doing what our duty and interest require. The like is true of self-denial. It is not the man who denies bis passions in obe

dience to his judgment who most properly practices self-denial, but the man who does the contrary, -the man who denies his judgment in obedience to his This man denies what alone passions. is truly himself. He denies his reason.”

The preacher next shews "that the account now given of moral liberty" implies no inconsistency between it and natural liberty: for the most perfect moral liberty takes place where there is the strongest attachment to rectitude, and the least capacity of deviating from it; and where therefore there is the least degree of that indifference in which some have said that natural liberty Natural liberty, however," adds Dr. Price," by no means signifies an indifference of will with respect to the way in which we shall act, but merely the power of self-determination, and it is alike common to all agents as such, and incapable of any variety of degrees. The greatest certainty of acting in one way in consequence of the influence of motives, can never clash with it.”

consists.

We are little inclined to engage at present in a nietaphysical discussion; though we confess that we cannot subscribe to all the statements and reasonings of our author on this part of his subject. He afterwards says, "this is a speculation that may be too abstruse for this discourse:" and here we agree with him in opinion.

Dr. John Jebb's definitions of natural and moral liberty, appear to us at once concise and accurate: we lay them before our readers-

"The natural liberty of man consists in having a will to act, and an exemption from all restraints, arising from defects in the instrument of action, such as in hands, feet, from palsies, &c. as well as from the restraints arising from natural external circumstances."

"Moral liberty, when I have the will to act, and am not restrained by the prevalence of bad habits, which prevent that state of mind from being followed by actions or muscular motions. In this sense,

* See the definition of "will" in Hartley. Vol. I. [of the original edition] p. 3 and 871.

66

Of the twelfth sermon the text is Isaiah 1. 10, “ Who is among you that feareth the Lord, &c." and the subject, Trust in God, the best support of the righteous under afflictions." In the words from which he discourses Dr. P. considers three things: "Ist, the circumstances they describe, walking in darkness, and seeing no light. 2d, the very important truth, that in such circumstances our best relief is trusting in the name of the Lord, and staying ourselves upon God; and 3rd, this further truth, that the relief derived from hence can be enjoyed only by these that fear the Lord."

The words "walking in darkness, and having no light," are properly applicable only to circumstances of the deepest distress. In such a situation we should consider that the Deity is always intimately present with us, that he stands in the nearest relation to us, that he is almighty, all-wise, and all-benevolent: and hence we shall obtain relief. The exhortation however in the text, is addressed only to the pious and obedient: it is in well-doing that we are commanded to

commit our souls to God.

Works, Vol. IL 146, 147,

This discourse contains a very ener getic and beautiful summary of those arguments for the goodness of God which Dr. Price advanced in a volume of serons published during his life. We have been particularly impressed by the following passage:

66 My feelings have been sometimes sa shocked when I bave seen a fellow creature grouning under distress, that I have been ready to cry out in my haste, how is it possible that such sufferings should be consistent with the goodness of the Deity?' But I have soon corrected myself by considering, whence did I receive these feelings? Can I be more compassionate than the Being who gave me compassion? Were he malevolent, would he have made. me to detest malevolence? Is it credible that he should have planted within ine principles which render his own character shocking to me?"

In No. XIII. Dr. P. represents "The nature of true righteousness," and prefixes the memorable text, Matt. xxv. 46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." In explaining these words, he says,

By everlasting punishment here is plainly meant the same that is elsewhere called everlasting destruction and the second death, or the same with what our Lord means, when in other places he speaks of burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire, and throwing the tares into a furnace of fire, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It would be exin a sense strictly literal. They can mean tremely absurd to understand such phrases no more than a miserable extermination, like that of chaff or tares when thrown into an inextinguishable fire which consumes them. On the contrary, by everlasting life in my text is plainly meant preservation, in opposition to extermination to everlasting destruction,―a blessed tion, an everlasting existence in opposiimmortality in opposition to a second

death."

We have made this extract, that our readers might further judge of Dr. Price's opinion concerning the nature and duration of future punishment: they will consider how far his exposition of his text is correct; and some of them perhaps will concur in our doubts whether the passages referred to, Matt. iii. 12 (which, by the way, is the language of John the Baptist, and not of our Lord), xiii. 30. 42, are

parallel places the former, we conceive, relates solely to the destruction of the Jewish state.

This preacher insists "on the four following particulars as necessary to entitle us to the denomination and character of righteous men. 1st, The establishment within us of good principles, and acting from them. 2d, The superior efficacy of such principles within us to the efficacy of all other principles. 3rd, The manifestation of their superiority by avoiding all habitual guilt and practising all known duties and 4th, a constant endeavour to grow better." On these important points he enlarges with his usual excellence.

Two sermons, the fourteenth and fifteenth, follow "on the evil of sin;" the text being Prov. xiv. 9, Fools make a mock at sin. Here sin is represented as a transgression of the eternal laws of truth and righteousness, as contrary -to the order and constitution of the world, and to every person's private judgment and conviction as well as to the will of the Deity. Such is sin in it's nature and it's consequences are most pernicious. It pollutes and injures our minds: it renders human life miserable, and fills it with groans and lamentations. All that we now see of it's effects, is but the beginning of the wretchedness annexed to it. The complete infliction of it's assigned punishment, is reserved for another world. It is a very natural inquiry, whence came this evil? why is it permitted? In an extensive and complicated plan, contrived by Infinite Wisdom, there must be many things that the reason of man cannot explain or account for. Yet there are several considerations which may help to relieve our perplexity. The creation of free agents, that is, of beings endued with active and self-directing powers, is absolutely necessary to the production of the greatest happiness; such powers being the foundation of all virtue and merit. Now moral agency implies, in the very notion of it, a capacity of acting wrong as well as right. By not granting such powers, or by restraining the exercise of them, evil might have been excluded: but in this way would have been excluded also all that is most honourable and worthy in the creation. Further; a state from which moral evil is banished, or where it's existence is

VOL. XII.

rendered impossible, cannot be a state of trial and discipline. Add to this that the ends of goodness required the creation of the lower not less than of the higher orders of creatures. Somewhere or other in the scale of existence there must be introduced such a being as man.

This "perplexed and difficult" discussion our author closes by exhorting his hearers to remember that evil is permitted only for a time. He then observes that the account which he has given of sin recommends to our approbation and belief the Scripture history, serves to prevent or remove our surprise [astonishment] at the severity of the future punishment threatened to it, demands our gratitude to God for the hope he has given us in the gospel of it's being pardoned, and shews the presumption of those persons who imagine they can atone for it, and deliver themselves from it's consequences, by the tricks of superstition. It therefore becomes us to reflect what reason we have for sorrow that we have ever practised this evil; although no sincere penitent ought to give way to despondence.

"The eternal and eternally improving happiness of the righteous in a future state," forms the topic of the sixteenth and seventeenth discourses: and the preacher's text is 1 John ii. 25, "And this is the promise that he hath promised, even eternal life." First, the credibility of the promise is considered then the circumstance that the future life is to be an existencę always improving.

We

Under the former of these heads, Dr. P. argues from the nature of the human soul. "It is," says he, "a simple and indivisible substance," and therefore as such incorruptible. On this idea he enlarges through four pages. Surely it is too metaphysical for the basis of any reasoning on a subject so infinitely momentous! cannot admit the premises, and still less can we accede to the conclusion. The human sod, be it what it may, is the work of Omnipotence: it's du ration must accordingly depend on the will and energy of the Creator. It cannot be naturally incorruptible and immortal. What Almighty power has made Almighty power can destroy. The utmost which, even on this writer's own principles, can be proved from the nature, real or supposed, of