than men," and an attempt to ascer tain a final cause of the nature of which we are profoundly ignorant, and likely to continue so.

"—— nature is but the name for an effect

Whose cause is God."

We have previously stated that our opinions on the nature of the vital principle are extremely unsettled: we hold it right to confess our ignorance, and to leave these secret things to the Lord our God. As liberal Christians, we shall never underrate the value of our reason. God forbid that we should countenance the folly of those who love to soak in mystery and contradictions; but we do condemn that presumptuous pride which, forgetting the limitation of the human understanding, soars beyond its sphere, and that inpious arrogance which, ignorant of the ends of the Deity, dares to judge of the fitness of the means he employs in the government of his creation. Intellectual pride is the Scylla of knowledge, and Infidelity its Charybdis. What innumerable errors does it originate, and how many youthful minds, ardent in the pursuit of knowledge, have been shipwrecked on its dangerous breakers! And how many delusive meteors have been mistaken for the lighthouse of reason!

"At best thou'rt but a glimmering light, Which serves not to direct our way; But, like the moon, confounds our sight, And only shews it is not day."

Oxford Miscell. 1685.

We are well aware of the popular imputations against Unitarianism: we may, perhaps, sometimes, in our ardour against the corruptions and abuses of religion, have fallen into the opposite extreme; and in our anxiety to root up the dogmatisms of orthodoxy, we may have planted speculative scions of our own. We do not think it necessary or liberal to animadvert on some backslidings of former years, however lamentable some of those instances may be regarded, or whatever their causes. But we repel with indignation the imputation of infidelity. The profession of the law, nay, the very bosom of the Established Church, and the annals of the mitre itself, will supply a larger comparative number of those who are known to have renounced revelation; and we need fear no misrepresentations, however wilfully de

We are not among those who consider that natural religion affords no hope of futurity; on the contrary, we consider its evidence as introductory to the revealed assurance. Its arguments have been enforced with peculiar strength by Dr. Jortin and Dr. Price, and lately in the luminous and this subject we differ from many dispractical sermons of Dr. Rees. On tinguished Unitarian writers, who, we think, have done great injury to the cause of natural and revealed religion, by denying the evidence of the former, in a weak jealousy, as if they could not otherwise enhance the value of revelation. Yet these same writers have written zealously on the analogy of natural and revealed religion, as if all other points of resemblance do not sink into insignificancy compared with the grand doctrine of a future state. And, surely, on the most important of all relations we may expect to discover some analogy. We are far from contending that the arguments from natural religion in favour of futurity, are by any means calculated for the generality of mankind; nor, indeed, can we consider them conclusive for the more enlightened and learned, since the contrary opinions of Deists, and the many pathetic lamentations of the ancient philosophers of their want of additional assurance, indisputably prove that they are not; and we also know, that much argument has been adduced against excepting human nature from the perishable fate of the whole material world. But still we cannot but place great confidence in the attributes of an all-wise, beneficent and omnipotent Being; in the moral evidence resulting from the unequal distribution of good and evil; from

the persecution and suffering of the virtuous, and the too frequent success and impunity of the vicious. These arguments, coupled with the power of the Creator, who first made us to recreate us, constitute, in our opinion, a very strong and rational ground for belief in a future state, independent of the evidence of Christianity; and form, also, a very important and secure ground-work for the superstructure of revelation.

These arguments, aided by the tradition of her ancestors, doubtless emboldened that heroic Jewess (whose story is so inimitably related in 2 Maccabees vii.) to encourage the immolation of her children by a foreign tyrant and her own martyrdom, rather than transgress the Mosaic law, and to cheer them in their dying agonies with that pious exhortation I cannot tell how ye came into my womb; for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you; but doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generations of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also, of his own mercy, give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his law's sake." This ancient and universal expectation of futurity is what the poetical author of the Cypress Grove, describes as "the voice of nature in almost all the religions of the world, that general testimony charactered in the minds of the most barbarous and savage people; for all have had some roving guesses at ages to come, and a dim, duskish light of another life, all appealing to one general judgment throne. To what else could serve so many expiations, *sacrifices, prayers, solemnities and mystical ceremonies? To what such sumptuous temples and care of the dead? To what all religion, if not to shew that they expected a more excellent manner of being, after the navigation of this life did take an end?"

But we should be sorry to rest that belief solely on tradition or metaphysics: we believe it on the authority of the New Testament; and though we are not prepared to say there is a demonstration, yet we do solemnly think it is little short of demonstration, when we duly consider the variety of evidence, from the indisputably recent origin of our race; from the con

nexion of the Jewish and Christian covenants; from the necessity of some super-human communication, (a necessity which sceptics themselves prove to exist by the folly they impute to the whole civilized world for believing revelation); from the evidence of prophecy and miracles; from the single, incomparable and inimitable personal character of our Saviour; from the unrivalled perfection of his moral code, a system of Ethics which, even if not original in all its principles, at all events embodies and concentrates every virtue which natural religion had taught the wise men of all previous ages and countries; the number and disinterestedness of the witnesses who handed down this revelation, and who, the more ignorant and bigoted they may be represented by sceptics, were, therefore, proportionably less able to invent such a system, and promulgate it with consistency and effect; from the numerous historical documents which in regular succession have transmitted these circumstances to the present times; from the peculiarly strong evidence contained in these writings, (the genuineness admitted,) for the grand miracle of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; from the final spread of his religion over the whole civilized world; from the effects it has already produced, and those that may be reasonably anticipated; from the remarkable accordance of its principles with those of civil liberty and the signs of the times; from the realization of its promises of hope and consolation to the afflicted and dying; and, lastly, in the recorded faith of most of the enlightened philosophers of all subsequent ages and countries; although too many of them, it must be admitted, have also given their assent to the most contradictory and unchristian additions.

Many men of distinguished intellect have credited revelation on single parts of this evidence: who, then, can deny Christianity with so much internal light of its own perfections; with so many miraculous, providential attestations, and with a knowledge of its effects? Mr. Lawrence has not inaptly quoted the authority of Socrates, that greatest of the ancient philosophers, as pointing out the surest admission into the temple of wisdom through the portal of doubt. Surely, then, on the

same principle, we may counsel the religious sceptic, with so much evidence for Christianity, to doubt ere he irrevocably makes up his mind against the truth of revelation. For this evidence, we affirm, constitutes a barrier of proof which, we confess, we cannot discover any means of surmounting by those who have studied its nature. We know we shall be answered, that ours is a spare faith, and that so long as Christians are not agreed as to what is Christianity, assent must be withheld from it. But would not this argument equally apply against the study of physiology itself, where we observe doctors so materially disagree? And, in the quaint language of old Richard Baxter," All arguments be not weak which some men dare deny. Is not the high way right except every man hit it? A drunken man may go beside it, and a wise man that is not used to it may miss it, or by credulity may be turned by others out of his way; and yet the way may be right and plain too, for all that. Will you think nothing certain in philosophy, because philosophers are of so many minds? Or will you renounce all physicians because they ordinarily disagree? Or if a Londoner have a journey into the countrey, which his life lyeth on, will he not go his journey because the clocks disagree? Or will he not set on till all the clocks in London strike at once? Or will he never give any credit to a clock till then ?"

But should there be those who, from ignorance of these accumulated evidences, or who, knowing them, are untrue to their understandings, deny the super-human origin of Christianity, and publicly disseminate their scepticism, we shall ever contend, that the immutable principles of religious freedom are as much their right, and may be as safely extended to their opinions, as to those of any Protestant Dissenters. Nay, many zealous Christian have contended that they ought to be encouraged to produce their objections, certain that TRUTH must emerge with renewed power and glory from the contest. PRIESTIANITY indeed may suffer, and the "alliance between Church and State" be endangered, but true Christianity will receive no wound from the assaults of

the sceptic. Those political Christians who regard churches in the light of barracks, may reasonably feel alarmed for legitimacy. What, however, can the cause of civil and religious liberty gain by the recent persecution of Deists, but prejudice against the doctrines of Christ in the hands of such followers? What effect can be wrought on the contemptible objects of such anti-christian zeal, but by this odious proscription to congregate unbelievers together, where they are sure to mistake the repetition of their objections for increased number and strength? This "illiterate policy" never yet attained its end, and never will: and that such barbarism should be varnished with the colouring of religion, "what is it," says the admirable Robinson, in his Remarks on Deism, "but the voice of Jacob and the hands of Esau ?"

We here again repeat, that our opinions are not those of the Materialist, since we cannot reconcile many of the phenomena of life and sensation to that hypothesis. All that we feel sure of is, and in this it appears all agree, that GoD imparted to us the "breath of life." The Pentateuch, whatever may be its authority, does not inform us how; nor, in our judgment, will men of science ever make such an addition to revelation. But Materialism having been the opinion of many eminent and Christian philosophers, we have often, on the possibility of its truth, examined its relation and consistency with the Christian doctrine of a future state. In those sequestered moments when the mind wanders beyond the grave, the reflections in these pages have arisen; and candour obliges us to concede an equally pious and rational hope of futurity to the Materialist as his prejudiced opponents arrogate to themselves; nor can we conceive how the mere belief of either party can affect their practice.

We have studiously avoided all reference to our title in the promises of the gospel. We have a humble trust that HE who gave us the blessing of this life, will continue his goodness in its renewal after death; 'knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus, and shall present us with you." Would

that Christians could be brought to believe that we are candidates for, not judges of, heaven.

In the eloquent language of an anonymous review of the controversy with Dr. Priestley on Matter and Spirit-" Then farewell the obscure speculation of metaphysics. They embarrass me no more. The mere philosopher may indulge them if he pleaseth; and if he can gain any amusement or any satisfaction from them, I envy him not. He purchaseth it at a rate too dear for me; and placeth his hopes on what I should regard as the most insecure foundation. But do not think me the enemy of science because I consider it as ill applied in the investigation of a subject so much beyond its reach. Let it operate in its own sphere, and, by a patient research into those natural objects which fall more immediately under the scrutiny of the senses, enlarge the boundaries of human knowledge. I hail her progress, and wish I could add a laurel to her brow. But let her not presume to trespass on the hallowed enclosures of heaven's own immediate messenger. Her feeble taper may light the curious philosophic eye through nature's walks. But it is the full, unciounded sun of the everlasting gospel that can alone, with safety, guide the doubting mind of man through the paths of religion to the world of immortality. The dove sent from the ark of reason and philosophy, wanders over a boundless expanse, a dreary waste of unfathomable waters. Fatigued with its fruitless excursions, it returns, but brings no olive branch to ME. Thanks be to the immortal Redeemer of the world, I receive this pledge of peace from a higher region. I press it to my trembling heart; and methinks it gains fresh verdure while I bedew it with the mingled tears of gratitude and penitence."

C-8.

ART. XI.-A Reply to a Review in The Christian Guardian, January, 1822, of "An Apology for the Freedom of the Press," &c. By Robert Hall, A. M. With the Review extracted. 8vo., 2nd ed., pp. 18. Holdsworth.

N our acknowledgements to Correspondents on the Wrapper of the

last Number we signified our intention of inserting in our work the whole of Mr. Hall's Letter from the Leicester Chronicle; but as it has been since published in the form of a pamphlet, as above, we deem it an act of fairness to the publisher, to content ourselves with this notice of it, in the shape of a review.

The "Apology" appeared nearly thirty years ago, and excited, as it deserved, considerable attention. Since that period, Mr. Hall has, until now, abstained from politics in his writings; or rather has manifested a leaning to a very different system from that which first engaged his affections and drew out his eloquence. It was for a long time supposed that he privately disavowed and would have been glad to recall the productions of his youthful enthusiasm on behalf of freedom. If the rumour were correct, he has undergone a re-conversion and returned to his first love. On this subject, Mr. Hall is entitled to speak for himself:

"It certainly is very unusual for a writer to suppress his own publications, unless he has recanted the principles they contain. To persevere in doing so, naturally exposes him to the suspicion either that he has renounced his former opinions, or that he is afraid to avow them; but neither of these situations is mine. I have changed no principle, and I feel no fear. Why then should I act in such liable to either of these imputations? a manner as must render me perpetually For a considerable time, indeed, after loud and repeated importunities, I declined a compliance with the wishes expressed for republication, from a sincere reluctance to engage in political controversy. By one party, in the mean while, claimed as a convert, and by the other it was my fortune to be so unequivocally so assailed with reproaches as an apostate,

that I was convinced by experience there the misrepresentations of both, but to was no other way of putting an end to republish the original pamphlet. Had I never written it, the same motives which made me reluctant to reprint, might probably have prevented my writing it; but since there is not a principle in it which I can conscientiously retract, and my silence has occasioned numerous misand manly part was doubtless to republish representatious and mistakes, the fair it. An ingenuous mind is not less ashamed of receiving praises it is conscious it has not deserved, than indignant at reproaches which are not merited."-P. 4.

The "Christian Guardian,” a minor theological journal, in the hands of the soi-disant "Evangelical" Churchmen, took occasion from the re-publication of the "Apology," to task the author, as if he had been guilty of apostacy. This class of men have been for some years accustomed to pay excessive homage to Mr. Hall's talents, and their present chagrin is equal to their former admiration. Their " Review" of the new edition of his pamphlet manifests the affectation of dislike of politics that is invariably expressed by the religionists that would bend the Bible and yoke the conscience to those very politics that foster corruption and tend to slavery. Mr. Hall exposes very plainly this hypocrisy :

But a minister of the gospel, it seems, is on no occasion to meddle with party politics. How exactly this maxim was adhered to at the commencement of the late war, when military banners were consecrated, and the people every where summoned to arms

By pulpit drum ecclesiastic,

Beat with fist instead of a stick,'

must be fresh in the recollection of my readers. The men who in the garb of clergymen bustle at electioneering meetings, forsooth, are not really such, but merely assume the disguise of that holy order, since it would be uncandid to sup pose they can so universally lose sight of what is befitting ministers of the gospel The venerable bench of Bishops who sit in the House of Lords, either attend in silent pomp, without taking any part in the deliberations, or they violate the character of ministers of the gospel. We must have been grossly imposed upon by the public prints which informed us of the clergy of a whole archdeaconry or diocese, meeting to petition Parliament against the Catholic Claims, since they could never with one consent depart so far from the decorum of ministers of the gospel.

"The plain state of the case is, not that the writer is offended at my med dling with politics, but that I have med dled on the wrong side. Had the same mediocrity of talent been exerted in eulogizing the measures of ministry, his greet ings would have been as loud as his invective is bitter. But it was exerted to expose public abuses, to urge the necessity of Reform, and lay open the tergiver sation of the Heaven-born Minister and Sunday Duellist, who, after devoting the

The original edition of the "Apology" contained some passages of severe crimination against Bishop Horsley, and of glowing eulogy on Drs. Price and Priestley: these, it would appear from our correspondent Homo, (pp. 168, 169,) are somewhat altered in the present edition: enough, how ever, remains to excite the disappro bation of "Evangelical" Churchmen, and accordingly the "Christian Guar dian" vents its pity or its rage at this desecration of a saint, and apotheosis of sinners. Mr. Hall's reply is, upon the whole, worthy of himself: we qualify our opinion, because we wonder that with his acute discernment he should applaud or even admit the "correctness" of Horsley's general "speculative theology:"

"Another head of accusation is, that I have censured the character of Bishop Horsley, whose character, the Reviewer tells us, is far removed beyond my attack, while I have eulogized Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley, Socinians." To this it is sufficient to reply that Dr. Price was not a Socinian, but an Arian; he wrote professedly in confutation of Socinianism; and though I disapprove of his religious principles, I feel no hesitation in affirming, in spite of the frantic and unprincipled abuse of Burke, that a more ardent and enlightened friend of his country never lived, than that venerable patriarch of freedom. Such were the sentiments of the worshipful Corporation of London, who, in token of their esteem, presented him with the freedom of the City in a golden box; such was the judgment of Mr. Pitt, who long professed himself his admirer, and condescended to seek his advice on questions of finance. Dr. Priestley, it is acknowledged, was a Socinian; but it was not under that character that he was eulogized. It was as the friend of liberty, the victim of intolerance, and the author of some of the most brilliant philosophical discoveries of modern times, for which he was celebrated throughout Europe, and his name enrolled as a member of the most illustrious institutions; so that my eulogy was but a mere feeble echo of the applause which resounded from every civilized portion of the globe. And are we suddenly fallen back into the darkness and ignorance of the middle ages, during which the spell of a stupid and unfeeling