lowed believers in that age were visible. Meck, gentle and humane; acute, I do not know of any at present. I do eloquent and profoundly skilled in po-not wish for angry discussion, but for litics and philosophy; take him for all information. Many persons refer me and all, the qualities of his heart, with to other parts of Scripture, and make the abilities of his head, and you may inferences from them. My object is rank PRICE among the first ornaments to get an explanation of the passages of his age. Let his enemies produce referred to above. In the prosecution from all their boasted despots and deof my inquiries on this subject, I find spotical satraps, any one of his conmany Unitarians have long held opi- temporaries whom, in the manner of nions similar to the author of the work Plutarch, they thay place by his side as I have referred to. a parallel. Posterity will do him the justice of which the proud have robbed him, and snatch him from the calumniators, to place him in the temple of personal honour, high among the benefactors to the human race. I SIR, J. H. Feb. 2, 1817. REQUEST your insertion of the following passage, which is peculiarly seasonable, and contains a just tribue to the memory of a man whose name and reputation are dear to most of your readers. The passage is quoted from The Spirit of Despotism, a 12mo. volume," printed in the year 1795," but not published. The author has entitled his Ninth Section, "On taking advantage of popular commotions, accidental excesses, and foreign revolutions, to extend prerogative and power, and encroach on the liberties of the people." --P. 62. At p. 69, he asks, "Who but a fool would wish to restore the perpetual de spotism of the old French government, through a dread of the transient outrages of a Parisian tumult?" remarking that both are despotic while they last; but the former is a torrent that flows for ever, the latter only a land flood, that covers the meadows to-day, and disappears on the morrow.” He then concludes the Section in the following terms: "Dr. Price has a passage so applicable to the present subject, that I shall beg leave to close this section by the citation of it: and on the mention of his name, I must pay a trifling tribute to his memory, which is the more necessary, as his character has been scan dalously aspersed by those who are ever busy in discrediting the people and their friends, and who, pretending a love of goodness and religion, blacken with their foulest calumny those who are singularly remarkable for both, for no other reason than that, under the influence of goodness and religion, such persons espouse the cause of freedom, and prefer the happiness of millions to the pomp and pride of a few aspirants at unlimited dominion. "But I return from the digression, into which I was led by an honest indignation against the vilest of calumnies against the best of men. These are the words of Dr. Price: "Licentiousness and despotism are more nearly allied than is commonly imagined. They are both alike incon sistent with liberty and the true end of government; nor is there any other difference between them, than that one is the licentiousness of GREAT MEN, and the other the licentiousness of little men; or that by one, the persons and property of a people are subject to outrage and invasion from a king, or á lawless body of grandees; and that by the other, they are subject to the like outrage from a lawless mob. In avoiding one of these evils, mankind have often run into the other. But all well-constituted governments guard equally against both. Indeed, of the two, the last is, on several accounts, the least to be dreaded, and has done the least mischief. It may truly be said, if licentiousness has destroyed its thousands, despotism has destroyed its millions. The former having little power, AND NO SYSTEM TO SUPPORT IT, necessarily finds its own remedy; and a people soon get out of the tumult and anarchy. attending it. But a despotism, wearing a form of government, and being armed with its force, is an evil not to be conquered without dreadful struggles. It goes on from age to age, debasing the human faculties, levelling all distinctions, and preying on the rights and blessings of society. It deserves to be added, that in a state disturbed by licentiousness, there is an ANIMATION which is favourable to the human mind, and puts it upon exerting its powers;' but in a state habituated to despotism, all is still and torpid. A dark and savage tyranny stifles every effort of genius, and the mind loses all its spirit and dignity'. Heaven grant, that in guarding against a fever, we fall not into a palsy. I shall thank any of your readers who can mention from what work, by Dr. Price, the quotation is taken, and especially to whom The Spirit of Despotism may have been attributed. He is now, probably, added to the great majority. That he was no every day writer, his general information, conveyed in correct and polished language, sufficiently declare. Nor was he a party writer, for he complains of "public men" as "appearing to forget, in their zeal for a few distinguished houses, the great ass of the people, the party of human nature." He was, of course, a determined enemy to war, ably exposing the courtly apologies for human destruction. Mr. Francis Blackmore, said to have died in 1761, was living in 1781. Mr. John Stokes was colleague to Mr. F. Blackmore. He was suspected of a leaning to heresy, and resigned his office before the appointment of Dr. Allen. Mr. Stokes lived to the age of 84, highly respectable in his character and connexions. He died about the year 1781 or 1782. Dr. Stokes, an eminent physician at Chesterfield, is his grandson: he is also a distinguished botanist: to whom the late Dr. Withering was under greater obligation in drawing up his celebrated treatise on Botany, than he chose to acknowledge. argument goes, must be given up by all, and I think is given up by all men of serious thought. Dr. Cogan, in his Ethical Questions just published, has well exposed this extraordinary argu inent. It is the opinion, however, of Dr. Hartley, who I take to be the greatest writer, on such subjects, that the last or any age has produced, for one of his hints is equal to a volume of other writers, that miracles were frequent in early ages; and if one well attested in heathen countries, were brought forward, he would not reject the miracle, but admit the testimony. This appears to me to be perfectly fair and consistent; for God is the Father of all nations, and may have interposed in all. It is therefore probable, admitting the Christian miracles, that some of the miracles of the second and third centuries were real. Nor is it any valid objection to their reality that some were false, any more than that much testimony is false, in ordinary facts; which, however, does not invalidate the true testimony to other facts, or was ever thought to do so. There seems, too, to have been great need of miracles in the second century; and I agree with Mr. Cogan, that upon any other supposition than miraculous in for the spread of a self-denying religion. That this religion did produce the greatest self-denial, in the early ages, and that it has done so in all ages, amongst many, cannot be denied. Its miraculous establishment, then, must be admitted. It is on any supposition difficult to account for such a miserable life as this is; but an after state seems to be the only possible solution of this difficulty, upon the admission of a benevolent Creator. But the very supposition of a future state seems to imply its communication to man in a way either miraculous or otherwise; and the most probable is a miraculous communication, since it is not so clearly discoverable in any other way. Nor do I think that the existence of a God could have been known so definitely in any other way. Having named Dr. Hartley, let me observe that Dr. Priestley, after he had reached his eminence of fame, was so modest as to pretend to be no more than a commentator on Hartley. There was great merit in this, as indeed in the whole life and conduct of Dr. January 12th, 1817. no profane historian, how creditable soever he may be as such, who records what appears to be miraculous. We believe no historic fact which does pột approve itself to our experience, or agree with the established order 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 64 very raised man 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, in one word, a teacher of goodness; and the test by which his disciples were to be known was, the observance of his commands and the imbibing of his spirit: goodness, therefore, is the caiterion 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, sor, 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, a 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 him 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, Malmsbury, 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 autho rities 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 provi 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 <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 uniformity 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 mind would form from the contemplation of his works and providence. The principles he hath left us for the regulation of our conduet, 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 YOL. TI. no proof; and a 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 individual ? SIR, A. B. C. Hotwells, January 22d, 1817. ALTHOUGH the pages of your Miscellany might be occupied with matter of far greater importance than the following, yet I would beg leave to offer a few words 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 enter tainment 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 Scripture 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, never 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 doctrinal are such in effect), might be seen by the disparity in numbers of those recommended to be doctrinal: and far be it from me 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 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. Edinburgh, February 7th, 1817. SIR, OBSERVE in your last Number 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 from stating what the Scriptures appear to him to declare concerning the proper Object of religious worship? And if I Vol. XI. p. 701), a Letter upon he does this, how can he decline stating 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 inoralists, 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 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 |