return to Mr. Hazlitt and his remarks upon the country, that many of those who reside there are residents more from necessity than from choice. We must take them as we find them; but to mitigate the harshness of his censure it would be well to observe, that there are difficulties and discourage ments belonging to the situation of which Mr. Hazlitt does not dream. An indolent, weak, ineffective individual may make a tolerable figure in the city, where his weakness finds support from those better able to cope with ignorance and error than himself. If he fails, numbers fail with him. It requires little effort to join the crowd, and small glory is attached to success. In the country a man must be a cipher, or he must possess no small share of activity and resolution. If he acts at all, he commonly acts alone. He has no party to support or oppose him. It is not that there is nothing to do; not that a country life need be an inactive one: but that single and isolated individuals are often wanting in energy to perform their parts. From this unassisted mediocrity of talent often arises a character by no means amiable for how should a man love the beings he has never attempted to serve? We might reverse the picture however for, I am satisfied, that where party and ambition have little influence, there is greater room for much display of the kind and benevolent feelings, on minds previously well-disposed, and that among the poorer class of society in the country, if there is more indifference about pleasing those in higher stations, there is much more attention to the wants and wishes of those who occupy lower situations in life. : Mr. Hazlitt, in an excellent paper in the same volume, has the courage to avow his opinion, that no man can attain any high degree of excellence in the profession, art or science, to which he devotes himself, without in curring the charge of pedantry. I suppose no man can be perfectly satisfied with his lot, without being in some degree a pedant: without not only loving his home better than any other abode, but really thinking it superior to any other. On this principle country people forgive Mr. Hazlitt, and look for forgiveness from Number, (p. 491,] that steps were WAS pleased to find in your last taking to remove from our statutebook, the heavy load of national guilt occasioned by Custom-House oaths. But your Correspondent may not be aware that the matter has long engaged the attention of serious Christians. Some years ago, the late wor thy Mr. Thornton, of Clapham, was applied to, to interest those members in the House of Commons, with whom he was particularly connected, to move Parliament to correct the evil now complained of; why this was not done, or whether the application was made, and not sufficiently countenanced, I cannot recollect. At that time the late Mr. Palmer, of Hackney, used to relate the opinion of the venerable philanthropist Mr. Howard on that subject. Most likely some of his friends can give a correct statement of his expressions. I cannot; and I have looked for them in the late publication of his Life, by Mr. Brown, but could not find them. As far as my memory serves me, I should think, his words were, "Custom-House oaths are as useless to government, as they are snares to those by whom they are taken." Much as I value the opinions of those who now inherit the promises, it is to suggest a hint or two to the living that I now take up my pen. At the time to which I refer was visiting a friend near the sea. He one day took me to the CustomHouse in the neighbouring town. I conversed with two of the principal officers of the Custom-House. I found them ready to give me every informa tion I wished. They both declared their conviction of the total inexpediency of the present laws to prevent the revenue being injured. Now, at this season of the year many of the gentlemen who are earnest to serve their country, both by increasing its revenue and stopping the temptation to injure it, might gain useful infor mation at the several Custom-Houses where they are spending their time as bathers, or companions of their families, who are secking health from the sea breeze; and by communicating this, either through newspapers or to some permanent body, for, I suppose, such a body is or will be formed, a mass of evidence might be obtained that would be of national benefit. It is from little beginnings the greatest events often follow. Having been busily engaged in promoting the discussion on the Slave Trade, when the business was first brought forward, and having lived to see every remains of it viewed with abhorrence by my fellow-countrymen, I hope the same success will attend the measures now adopted for lessening the violation of our Redeemer's command, 44 swear not." This is a cause in which there appears to me to be no contending or opposing interest, and seems only to require proper exertion to call forth the public to have the evil speedily removed. Since I read your Correspondent's Letter, I have conversed with two persons of high rank, one from his office, the other from his birth, and both seemed convinced that the administration would render every assistance to facilitate the measure, if pursued in a becoming manner. If you think these observations worthy of your notice, you will receive them as the good wishes, instead of the active efforts of SIR, YOUR SENEX. Exeter, October 7, 1819. YOUR Correspondent Brevis, in his Brief Notes on Scripture, in your last Repository, [p. 544,] makes some very just observations on prolixity; and that I may not incur the censure of so candid a writer, I proceed immediately, and as briefly as possible, to state my views of the subject of John the Baptist's message to our Saviour. When our Lord entered on his ministry there were clear and illustrious signatures of divinity stamped on his mission, yet there were other circumstances also which gave a colour, through the ignorance of some and the perverseness of others, to represent him as an impostor. The Jews were, therefore, variously affected by his teaching and miracles. Some among them believed on them, others doubted, and others pursued him with impla cable malice, and sought to take away his life. His own disciples but ill understood the end of his manifestation and the design of his kingdom. And John, who had been his harbinger, appears to have adopted the prejudices of the Jews. I am fully aware that the generality of interpreters, indeed I know of none but Justin Martyr and Tertullian of a different opinion, have supposed that, notwithstanding the message which he sent by his disciples to Christ, he never entertained any doubt of his being the Messiah. Nevertheless, if I may venture to differ from so great and numerous authorities as concur in supporting this opinion, I cannot help apprehending that John was in some measure infected with the universal prepossession of the Jewish nation, that the Messiah would assume great outward splendor and magnificence; and perceiving himself, who was his messenger and forerunner, confined in a prisou, and forcibly restrained from publishing his message; and hearing that Christ wrought a variety of miracles wherever he went, and that he sent out his disciples to do the same, he impatiently presumed that if Christ were really the Messiah, he would work some miracle in order to release him. Not finding, after a considerable lapse of time, that any thing of this sort was attempted in his favour, he grew uneasy, and began to suspect whether Christ might not be only some great prophet who was likewise to introduce the Messiah. And this appears to be a supposition no way inconsistent with a due regard to John's prophetic character, which is very safe, notwithstanding we allow him to have been subject to the common frailties of human nature; and that severe afflictions might have begun to dishearten him. John had never named Christ expressly as the Messiah, but only had declared, that one who was coming after him was to be "preferred before him, whose shoe-latchet he was unworthy to unloose." John's doubting whether he was right in supposing Christ to be the Messiah, though it was an evidence of his weakness and instability, yet, at the same time, is a individuals would undoubtedly form a part of them; but I hope the time is at hand when they will be increased, so as to bear some proportion to the wealth of our body, and become equal to the demands made upon them. The necessity of forming Fellowship Funds is becoming more apparent, and the introduction of systematic proceedings would have a powerful tendency to make them universal. It might be optional with the congregations to pay the whole or a proportion of the amount raised by each, to the district treasurer, for general purposes; and this I conceive would concentrate their strength, on a plan preferable to that recommended by Mr. Awbrey, [XIII. 708,] of "making the gentlemen of the Unitarian Fund, in London, the central committee for the Fellowship Funds." Thus would the Association be the means of adding greatly to our resources, particularly from congregations, and on their contributions might be made to depend any benefits or privileges arising from it. Perhaps, above almost every other consideration, publicity in all our affairs is necessary, in order to interest and engage the attention of the individuals of our body. On this account, a detailed report from the London committee, somewhat like the Yearly Epistle of the Quakers, might be published after the annual meeting, and conveyed to congregations by the district secretaries, with any additional remarks of their own, that local cir cumstances might seem to demand. By these means would be established a chain of communication which would bring the affairs of our whole body home to every fireside, and this, I am persuaded, would amply repay any expense or trouble attending it, by removing the difficulty, too often perceived, of creating individual in terest in events passing at a distance. Objections have been raised by some against such an organization as I am proposing, on the ground that the Unitarian body is not sufficiently prepared to receive it; but to me it appears that this argument would have prevented the adoption of many of the most important establishments for human improvement. Besides this, I scarcely see the justice of such reasoning, when we look around us, and see that already proceeding in a detached, irregular way, which I would endeavour to render systematic, and more extended in its operation. It is evident that, were we to wait for uniformity of opinion, few things would ever be commenced; and I see no reason to believe that, were a beginning made, by however small a number of persons, and dis tricts formed, there would not be found energetic characters in each, willing to take an active part in the necessary arrangements. A number of individuals and congregations would undoubtedly at once enter into such a plan, and time, and the issue of events, must be left to work convic tion in the minds of those who do not at present see its utility. In thus advocating the formation of a General Unitarian Association, I am not supposing that the idea is a new one, or that the end required may not be arrived at by a better mode than ! have imagined. My chief wish is to excite the discussion of a proposition, the adoption of which, in some shape or other, I believe would effect that union which is called for in almost every number of the Repository, and enable us more effectually to advance the great cause of Christian_truth in the world. Experience has shewn the inefficiency of the present “ropt of sand," nor do I see what reasonable objections can be raised against our entering into such a compact as shall effectually bring to one common bearing our scattered and disjointed parts. SIR, DR T. June 17, 1819. R. LELAND remarks," that it is uo unusual thing for Christian writers, in their quotations from Heathen authors, to produce passages relating to the gods, as a proof that the Heathens acknowledged the government and attributes of the Deity in the Christian sense." This charge of inaccurate representation be sus tains by a reference to "Dr. Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion, Ch. xiv. p. 362." That learned divine had there ascribed to the Heathens “a know. ledge and firm persuasion that there existed one uuderived, eternal, preme, intelligent Being, Creator and Governor of the universe, good, placable, a punisher of vice, and rewarder of virtue, whom they thought it their duty to worship, and to pray to him, and this Being they called God." This knowledge and persuasion they are supposed to have attained" by the mere light of unassisted reason, without any help from revelation and tradition." Dr. Sykes, as Dr. Leland farther remarks, "observes that 'Cicero well argues, that, if we grant that God is an intelligent being, we must grant that he directs and governs all things. And yet Cicero, in that passage, as he himself quotes him, speaks not of God, in the singular number, but of the gods. Si concedimus intelligentes esse deos, concedimus etiam providentes, et rerum quidem maximarum.'. De Nat. Deor. Lib. ii." See Leland on "the Christian Revelation," Pt. i. Ch. xiv. 8vo. I. 311, Note. I was led to consider this subject lately, though not for the first time, by reading, in Dr. Enfield's able and very instructive History, the following concluding paragraph of the first book of Barbaric Philosophy: "In the midst of every appearance of ignorance, superstition and imposture, it is, however, an important fact, that the doctrines of a Supreme Deity, and the immortality of the soul, were universally received. 'Who does not admire (says Elian, Var. Hist. L. ii. C. 31) the wisdom of the Barbariaus, none of whom ever fell into the atheistical absurdities of Eumerus, Diagoras, Epicurus, and other philosophers? No Indian, Celt or Egyptian, ever questioned whether there were gods, or whether they concerned themselves in the affairs of men.' I have not Ælian at hand, but there is no reason to doubt Dr. Enfield's translation. It is extraordinary that the learned writer did not observe how ill his quotation served to establish his opinion, that "the doctrine of a Supreme Deity," not a belief in gods, had been “universally received" by those nations to whom he assigns "the Barbaric Philosophy." The reception of that doctrine must, I apprehend, be confined, on a strict examination, to "the ancient Hebrews," and we know where they discovered it. 919 I. K. SIR, Liverpool, I gives me pleasure to find I have In your last Number, (p. 478,) T. F. undertakes to defend the Compilers of the Liverpool Hymn Books, by stating that they did not mean to convey the idea that supernatural communications from the Deity are to be expected as the result of our petitions for divine illumination, any more than, when using the words of the Lord's Prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread," they would expect to receive a miraculous supply of food. They do, however, seem to believe that both truth and bread may be expected to be granted in answer to petitions for them, and yet strangely, as I think, deny such communications to be supernatural. I have always thought that the petitionary part of devotion must be included in the inquiry into the subject of the Divine Influence, and it was my intention to enter pretty fully into it; but as T. F. has introduced it in his letter, I shall, at present, content myself with offering a few queries and remarks respecting it. If it be a duty enjoined upon us in the New Testament, which T. F. assumes to be the case, I would ask, whether the precept and the promise are not given by the same authority; whether they do not appear to be inseparably connected, and whether they are not equally obligatory-if so, how' comes it to pass that, as the duty is in these days most unsparingly observed, it appears impossible to specify a single unequivocal instance of the appropriate observance of the promise? Was not the fulfilment of the promise, in the age in which it was given, exhibited in a great number of notorious facts; and by what means, excepting by undeniable facts, can the extension of the promise to the present time be proved? Can this be done by shewing merely the possibility or advantage of such facts? Can the Compilers of the Hymu Books produce a single instance, either in themselves or others, upon whose veracity and judgment they can rely, of a proper answer having been given to any one of those extraordinary petitions which I have selected? Are they sure that what the New Testament says of prayer and of consequent divine communications, was intended for all future ages, as well as for the miraculous age in which it was delivered? If they are not certain of this, may they not, by misapplying the Scriptures, have become "wise above what is written," or rather, unwise respecting what is written, and thus have inculcated sentiments which are mischievously erroneous, and excited expectations which cannot be realised? Those who in any way lead the public devotion, in my opinion, take on themselves great responsibility, and of this I highly applaud the Warrington Compilers for having been so fully aware. In order to prevent misconception, I shall just remark that, although I cannot perceive the probability of an answer, properly so called, being, in these days, given to any petition, yet I am as fully convinced, as any one can be, of the tendency which the expression of our wishes for good dispositions naturally has to strengthen and confirm these dispositions; and, I will further add, that I have no doubt that this effect is often produced when these desires are expressed in the form of prayer to Almighty God for them: at the same time it seems to me clear, that the petitioner deceives himself when he ascribes these effects to a particular divine agency, when they are nothing more than the result of the general laws of God, or, in other words, of the natural operations of his own mind under the influence of strong wishes and desires, and might, I think, be obtained by meaus much more simple and direct than that of supplication. In the next page of the same Number of the Repository, H. T. appears as the advocate of prayer and of Di vine Influence. Feeling, as I do, the advantages of all the other parts of devotion, I must confess that I do not think the devotional spirit requires such expressions as those which I have selected from the Liverpool Hymns, which H. T. approves, and of which he thinks it would be easy to give a rational and satisfactory explanation. This explanation, I much regret, he has not given, as it might have thrown much light on the subject of prayer, and, at the same time, on that of Divine Influence. It appears to me that all the phenomena of the universe, whether material, intellectual or moral, are the effects of the operation of what are called the laws of nature; that is, of the qualities and properties of the materials of which the universe is composed, and all these were created by Almighty God, in order to accomplish the grand plans of his benevo lence. These laws, however, excepting in miraculous times, seem to act uniformly, regularly, and without any interruption, even from any interference, direction or controul, of their great Former himself. Providence meaning nothing more than those regular operations, affecting all beings, however great, or however small, and producing sometimes happiness and sometimes misery, agreeably to the original views of the great designing Cause-thus he is "the Fountain of all our blessings" and of all our evils. H. T. seems to admit these operations of general laws; but in speaking of God giving "bread," "fruitful seasons," and “guidance in our spiritual course," which we are to have for praying for, he supposes that God "has at his command all the series of natural causes," that is, I should imagine, that he interrupts this series of natural causes, (which is precisely the definition of a miracle,)" by placing in our way the means of improvement, and adapting our principles to our trials." H. T. adds, “surely this cannot be thought irrational.” I confess it appears to me very irrational, and the more so, as "God has actually revealed his will to us in a supernatural manner," that he should now "so order his providence," that is, interrupt the action of his own laws, "that this holy will may be understood by us." I will grant H. T. that if the proper answer to the petition be given, we may fairly be content with our ignorance of the means by which the Almighty communicated it. If H. T. will shew me facts, indubitably proving the answer, 1 will promise not to be very curious about the means. What H. T. says of the conversion of a Heathen, I do not understand, as he asserts that the Supreme Being |
