homage of Mr. Hall! or, perhaps, Mr. Hall offers up the manes of Dr. Priestley, to the feelings of orthodox associates! But enough of conjecture, Mr. Hall alone knows his own motives of action. However, there are those who regard Dr. Priestley not only as a man of Genius, but as a man of the most solid claims to REVERENCE. Priestley, by nature or habit, or both, was a man of restless activity; but he uniformly directed that activity to what seemed to him the public good, seeking neither emolument nor honour from men. His youth, devoted to labour and spent in the habit of chastity, temperance, and every virtue, was a faultless example to all, and a striking contrast to that of some men who have been called men of Genius. He knew how to bear poverty without murmuring, and disappointment without fretfulness. He justified the will of his aunt, which deprived him of expectations she had excited. His attainments were various and extensive, yet such was his true Christian humility, that when his reputation as a discoverer in physics was higher than that of any man in Europe, he urged men to the pursuit of natural philosophy, alleging that the pursuit demanded nothing more than COMMON POWERS OF MIND. So far was he from demanding REVERENCE DUE TO GENIUS. When philosophy was in fashion, and he, as one of its great masters, was in fashion, he wrote on religion, to the injury of his reputation, only because he believed it still more important to mankind than any of the pursuits of philosophy. His writings in philosophy, history, theology, criticism, and metaphysics, remain monuments of a vigorous, varied and extensive Genius. But leaving his writings out of the case, he was one of the most laborious clergymen who ever lived. His preaching, catechising, and other ministerial labours, would have been beyond the ability of any other man. Some men have called him the head of a sect. If he were, no one who ever sustained that character, is worthy to be compared with bim. The Luthers, Calvins, Knoxes and Cranmers, for comprehension of mind, acuteness of distinction, depth of research and varied attainments were all mere children to Priestley. I confess I read his writings against the Trinity without interest; because writings for or against an impossibility, if they display all the acuteness of Scotus himself, are of little value. If there were a fault in the mental character of Priestley, I should be inclined to think it was too conclusive, as he seems to me to be confident sometimes on subjects which hardly admit of positive decision. But one should hesitate, perhaps, here; the fault may be in one's own mind. He wrote his life when he was in the zenith of his reputation, and disdains not then to tell us, where he preached in his youth, and with what acceptance his SERMONS were received by an unlettered audience. He was, in short, a perfect pattern of Christian simplicity, and such an union of talents and attainments, with so much sanctity of character, I believe never before existed. And shall we regard this DEPARTD GENIUS" without REVERENCE? 66 If Mr. Hall have ceased to praise Priestley, there is little to be lamented in this silence, when we perceive how liberal he is of his praise to his orthodox associates living or dead. This Tract contains very little "satis eloquentiæ, sapientiæ parùm," and the statesman and moralist will find in it nothing to direct their conduct. And as to eloquence, (of which Mr. Hall has an ample share,) I fear it is seldom subservient to the promotion of religion. The effect of eloquence is to rouse men to some sudden act. To give a vote, or to fight a battle, men may be roused by eloquence. But religion is no sudden impulse. The Christian warfare is constant, persevering, and ends only with life. Eloquence can do nothing here. Who that is bent upon the discharge of Christian duty, does not find in the simple but classic page of William Law, more efficacious persuasion than in all the eloquent declamation (rich and varied as it is) of Jeremy Taylor? Mr. Hall is eloquent; he is, perhaps, a man of Genius; but if he be a good man, is on that account only entitled to REVERENCE: sanctity of character, and that alone, is above all Greek, above all Roman praise. HOMO. REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-POPE. ART. I.-An Inquiry into the Probability and Rationality of Mr. Hunter's Theory of Life, &c. By John Abernethy, F. R. S., &c. 1814. ART. II.-An Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology, &c. By William Lawrence, F.R.S. 1816. ART. III.-Physiological Lectures, &c. By John Abernethy, F. R.S. 1817. ART. IV. Lectures on Physiology, Zoology and the Natural History of Man, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons. By William Lawrence, F. R. S. 1819. ART. V.-Sketches on the Philosophy of Life. By Sir T. C. Morgan. 1819. ART. VI. Remarks on Scepticism, being an Answer to the Views of Bichat, Sir T. C. Morgan, and Mr. Lawrence. By the Rev. Thomas Rennell, A. M., Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge. 1819. ART. VII. Cursory Observations upon the Lectures, &c. By one of the People called Christians. 1819. ART. VIII-A Letter to the Rev. Thomas Rennell. From a Graduate in Medicine. 1819. ART. IX.-A Letter on the Reputed Immateriality of the Human Soul: with Strictures on the Rev. T. Rennell's late Publication. 1821. Hun ter. 3s. ART. X.-An Inquiry into the Opinions, Ancient and Modern, con cerning Life and Organization. By John Barclay, M. D. Edinburgh. 1822. 12s. [A correspondent having sent the following paper in the form of a Review, the Editor publishes it in that form, though without pledging himself to every opinion expressed in it.] been treated by most of our conternporaries with disgraceful bigotry, we shall attempt a general retrospect of the publications we have enumerated, bespeaking the indulgence of our readers on account of our necessarily restricted limits. The inquiry into the principle of life and organization is intrinsically one of philosophical curiosity, and peculiarly so to Unitarians, who, perhaps, in their general sectarian character, may be denominated Materialists. On this particular question our own individual opinions are unsettled, and perhaps at variance with the theory of Materialism; but at the same time we cannot stand timidly by and witness the scandalous opinions imputed to the Materialists, as consequences of their doctrine, and repeated in a geometrical progressive ratio with the solemnity and repetition of denial: for what, in the year A. D. 1821, could exceed the following sentence in Mr. Rennell's (the Christian Advocate's) Remarks on Scepticism: "Atheism and Materialism go hand in hand"? We offer this "Christian Advocate" his choice of the two horns of the dilemma-ignorance or impudence. This controversy has also become more interesting from the recent suppression of Mr. Lawrence's works, which appears to have become necessary from the clamour of bigotry in fits, and the imminent danger of his gown and temporalities-the Professorship of Anatomy and Surgery to the Royal College of Surgeons, &c. The "HOLY ALLIANCE" (in the name of the Holy Trinity) and their connexions, it is well known, are great epicures in books, and seem to have given Mr. Lawrence a place in the revived Ind. Expurg. Anglicanus: such is the spirit of these literary incendiaries. The theory of life was, undoubtedly, at an earlier period of philosophical and religious knowledge, an object of more anxious importance than at present, since the possibility and probability of a future state were deeply implicated in the research, while the Heathen philosopher had no aid from "stumbling-block" to the Greeks. This was his defence before Felix: "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers; and have hope towards God that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust; and herein do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence towards God and men." So also before King Agrippa: "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, for which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" the light of revelation. Accordingly, we find it a favourite speculation of the Oriental philosophers, and of the "Wise Men" of Greece and Rome. Indeed it is probable, that the doctrine of Immateriality owed its early origin to the natural and proud desire of a future state, so inherent in man, and was the only theory on which, with their limited physical and metaphysical knowledge, they could found its belief. To enumerate or examine the several opinions of the Heathen philosophers on immortality and causation, is inconsistent with our limits; and we will take the liberty of refer ring our readers to a very interesting work on that subject, by Mr. Scott, Aberdeen Professor of Moral Philosophy. The philosophical inquirer also is familiar with the "intellectual system" of the learned and laborious Cudworth, who, in his refutation of Atheism, has amply explored the labyrinths of ancient metaphysics. Neither shall we bere enter into the controversies concerning the belief of the ancients in a future state, or the singular silence of the Old Testament on the subject. Both have occupied a distinguished rank in British literature, and engaged the learning and research of many celebrated names. Suffice it to observe, in processu, with respect to the hope and theories of the Heathens, that the faint and anxious expectation indulged by some few, and the bold denial of all possibility of futurity by others, constitute an unanswerable argument for the necessity or rather for the utility of revelation: and as to the question of the Jewish Scriptures, which engaged the pens of Warburton and Middleton, the very fact of the controversy is a plain proof that the doctrine of a future state and the immateriality of the human mind was not revealed; or, at all events, most imperfectly, and could not have been a principal object of the old covenant:" and, indeed, the existence of the sect of the Sadducees would of itself have afforded a strong proof. It was reserved for the glorious distinction of Christianity to bring "life and immortality to light," and Christ became "the first-fruits of them which slept." It was this glorious and invaluable privilege which Paul preached to the men of Athens, that Now to every reflecting and critical reader of the New Testament, it is notorious that the very few particulars communicated as to a future state, indeed it may almost be asserted, that the bare promise and the title to it, constitute the whole revelation. On some future occasion we shall enlarge on this interesting topic. The scanti ness of the divine communication has been often lamented, even by Christians themselves, and, we believe, is a cause of great anxiety with many very pious believers; but this limited knowledge appears to us perfectly consistent with the economy of the Divine government, and the silence of the sacred writers on this subject, a very remark able testimony of their integrity. We shall, however, at present, only observe, that these metaphysical obliquities, now under censure, are in themselves a fair proof how little the limited power of the human mind can comprehend on such a subject; and, consequently, that unless man was differently endowed than by his present constitution, such particulars could not be the objects of revelation, because he could not have comprehended them. Our future existence, caleulated for immortal duration, can be conceived by no analogical knowledge of our present mortal senses; for if man's understanding could comprehend the secrets and powers of Divine Omnipotency, it would of necessity be equal to it: sufficient that we are assured of our mental identity; and as to the mode of our resuming that, what could the knowledge of it add to the sense or influence of our moral responsibility, or to our grateful anticipation of future happiness? We are ignorant whether there be not passions in the human mind which, in this world, remain dormant and undiscovered, for want of objects to excite them; and with respect to the manner of our resurrection, we are described as the "workmanship of the Creator;" and all Deists have conceded, that the Creator who first made us could remake us after dissolution. The sculptor can mould his plaister into various shapes, can again confound it into a general mass, and again fashion them from the same; shall we deny the same power to the Great Sculptor of nature? Lord Herbert, in his celebrated Dialogues, p. 169, has the following admission: "His restoring the dead to life seems miraculous, because it is rare and unusual; though yet, if we consider things aright, the birth of a child would be the greater wonder: it not being so strange, that any which once was, should be again, as that which_never was, should be at all." Mr. Paine, also, in the 2nd part of his Age of Reason, makes the same confession, expressing his hope and expectation of futurity. We, as Christians, are no more bound to explain how this hope will be realized than the sceptic is. If God raise the dead, whether they have the same bodies they had formerly, or whether some other particles of matter be in the composition of them, or whether they will not have something added to counteract their former mortality, does he not do what he promised? The question is certainly a very immaterial one; and Alexander, in his Paraphrase on Corinthians, very pertinently remarks, that it is not the most interesting that can be imagined, since it may be reduced to this point-Whether our houses from heaven, as the apostle calls them, will be entirely new, both for matter and form, or fitted up in part out of the old materials. Nor do we consider that this physiological or metaphysical controversy at all in volves the question of an intermediate state; and we were, some months since, greatly surprised to hear the horror expressed by a venerable and learned ornament of the Dissenting Church, on the accidental introduction, by Mr. Belsham, of his (Mr. Belsham's) disbelief of an intermediate state preceding a day of general judgment. On the occasion alluded to, the "sleep of the soul," or this temporary suspension of existence, was denounced as incompatible with any rational hope of futurity. Surely nothing could be more unphilosophical than such an inference. We well know the flattering prospect which the dying Christian sees, of an immediate junction with those friends who have gone before him to their long home; but how vulgar is the prejudice against the heterodox belief in the temporary suspension of existence between the days of death and judgment, and an interregnum perhaps ordained by the superior wisdom of the Deity! This is purely a speculative subject, and we by no means assert a confident opinion against an intermediate state; but from the consideration we have hitherto given it, we do conceive that the doctrine of Materialism is here consistent with reason and scripture, and would argue against it. We shall make use of some very remarkable arguments of Alexander, selected from pp. 46, 47. "The time which passes between death and the resurrection may be very short. And though it should be some ages longer than we apprehend, yet to them that sleep, and are unconscious of what passes, it will appear less than a moment; and the very same instant which separates them from this mortal life, must, to their unites them for ever to their Saviour and thought and apprehension, be that which their God. I do not mention it with any considerable stress, that there seems a sort of equality, which is not unpleasing to the human mind, in such a constitution as we are speaking of, where no person is distinguished from another, either to his advantage or loss, on account of a difference in the time of his birth, which is wholly arbitrary, and conbut each man appearing in his own order, stitutes no part of his character or desert: and receiving at the hand of Providence the materials of his future character and hope, having filled up the station assigned him either to his honour or disgrace, retires at the appointed time, and waits till a general day of retribution; to receive, in common with all who have borne any part in the concerns of human life, that sentence which his conduct has Parent. And one person has no more deserved, from the universal Judge and has not been made into his character and reason to complain, that an examination conduct before this time, than another that he was not brought into the scene sooner." And to examine the justice of another imputed imperfection of revelation, namely, the indefinite period of the day of judgment, we shall further quote the observations of the same ingenious commentator, from pp. 89, 90. Many "probable reasons" may be mentioned, "why the precise time of this event was left so undetermined, or rather entirely unknown." "For as the gospel has fixed the time of judgment to the coming of Christ, and gives men no promise or expectation of à retribution before that period, to have determined this coming to any particular æra, would have been attended with two manifest inconveniences. First, the more remote any ages of men were from the period foretold, they would consider themselves as so much the less interested in its approach; and, therefore, the expectation of it would have a proportionably smaller influence upon their apprehensions and practice. Secondly, the nearer the world drew to its conclusion, men would be more strongly affected, and at last thrown into the utmost confusion, The springs of human action would by degrees lose their force, the business of the world come to a stand, while all were intent upon the approaching revolution. These inconveniences are sufficiently provided against by the wisdom of heaven. For as we are cautioned to beware of false prophets, who should pretend to tell us that Christ is in this or that place, and immediately to appear; so we are warned against another abuse, proceeding from a contrary cause, namely, a presumption of its delay, by which too many would be led to set at defiance an event which they thought afar off, and long in coming. Matt. xxiv. 48. And further, the suddenness with which it will take place is intended to prevent that disorder in human affairs which the apprehension of its near but slow approach would at any time occasion.-The uncertainty of this event bears a near resemblance to the natural uncertainty of human life, and seems calculated to produce the same effect. He who tells me that I am mortal, tells me that death is near, that life is short and the days few, that I may die soon or suddenly, that I should be continually expecting the end of life, and not be surprised if it should take place to-morrow. And he is equally a true prophet, whether I die the next day or live beyond fourscore. Is not this the language of Scripture, with respect to the coming of Christ ?" These remarks may, perhaps, be thought out of place, or foreign to the The really interesting question, therefore, arises, How was this spurious doctrine foisted into the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and at what period was the simplicity of Christianity destroyed by its introduction? It was the gift of Paganism to Revelation in that early defection of the Eastern and Western churches from the simple tenets taught by our Saviour and his primitive disciples; and the doctrine of Immateriality was the axis on which the doctrines of Purgatory, Transubstantiation and the "Hypostatic Union" revolved, and without which these ecclesiastical mints could not have been worked to any pecuniary advantage. On this was founded the institution of masses and saintly shrines; and was, indeed, the soul of that funding system of priestcraft, which ultimately saddled tive labour on the industry of the such a grinding weight of unproducpeople. In this subtle fluid was the credulity of the people steeped, and their whole faith was pinned on that crafty motto of monastic art-" Piu ci metti, piu meriti"-the more you give, the more's the merit! Dr. Priestley's able pedigree of this natural child of Heathenism is well known, and here we shall leave it; for no one, tolerably read in history, is ignorant how much more this doctrine owes its birth and existence to Plato and Eneas than to Christ or his apostles. This controversy, both in its physiological and metaphysical relations, has been often agitated in Europe. Our limits will not, however, allow us to sketch any particular outline of the systems which have successively supplanted each other. This will be found to have been performed in a very full and able manner by Dr. Barclay, in the 3rd and 4th chapters of his volume (the last article in our |