the government of the world, or in other words would never communicate to mankind such a revelation as the Christian? And this improbability is the precise improbability which, if Mr. Hume is to be believed, no testimony can overcome. But such an interposition is contrary to experience. It has been observed that this expression is not quite accurate; but waving this, I ask, may it not with equal truth be affirmed that the falsehood of testimony in certain circumstances is contrary to experience? But to what experience is the interposition in question contrary? To say that it is contrary to universal experience is to beg the question. When, therefore, it is said that such an interposition is contrary to experience, the meaning must be that it is contrary either to our experience or to general experience. To urge that it is contrary to our experience would be to lay it down as an axiom, that if God should ever interfere miraculously in the affairs of men, he must interfere also in our age and for our particular satisfaction. To press the objection that such an interposition is contrary to general experience, would subject the objector to a very perplexing question. What reason is there to suppose that if God should interfere miraculously in the administration of the world, such interpositions would be so frequent as to be matters of general experience? In the case of events which must take place, if they take place at all, by the operation of the laws of nature, general experience will reasonably influence our belief, and the want of similar instances will render us slow in admitting facts which seem to set the ordinary course of nature at defiance. But to bring a miraculous interposition of Providence, which is recorded to have taken place at a certain time and for a certain purpose, to the test of general experience, is palpably absurd, unless it could be proved that if miracles were ever wrought they must be wrought frequently, which is a proposition that no one would choose to defend. But to shew how little experience has to do with the credibility of a Divine revelation, let us suppose that God had never interposed miraculously in the government of the world to the present hour, and that the question were now put, whether he ever would so interpose. The only

rational reply would be, who can telf but he who sees the end from the beginning? Allowing the improbability of such an interposition from the want of past experience, would this improbability amount to any thing like a proof that the future would in this respect correspond to the past? And shall that become incredible, when attested, which it was by no means certain would not take place? In a word, that any thing short of the absolute incredibility of a fact in itself considered should render it incapable of being proved by testimony, is a paradox which it may require some inge nuity to defend, but which it is truly wonderful that any human being should be found seriously to believe. I affirm, then, without fear of refutation, that the evidence of testimony may be so circumstanced as to render a miracle wrought for a certain purpose, the object of rational belief. And I have no hesitation to affirm, also, that whoever would not believe such miracle upon the strongest possible testimony, would not believe it on the evidence of ocular demonstration. But in fact, a being so incredulous does not exist. 1 once, indeed, heard an unbeliever say, that he would not believe a miracle if he saw it. I approved his consistency, though I did not give credit to his declaration. Man, however reluctant, may be compelled to believe his eyes, and he may also be compelled to put faith in testimony in spite of all the refined and subtle reasonings in the world. In many cases, he cannot wait to calculate between the strength of the evidence and the improbability of the fact; and in some cases, could he wait for ever, he would not know how to manage the calculation. And conscious of his infirmity he chooses in such cases rather to examine the validity of the testimony, of which he can judge with tolerable exactness, than to fatigue his faculties with endeavouring to balance the evidence which is laid before him against improbabilities, the force of which he cannot estimate. And in the case of Christianity, if he conceives himself to be an incompetent judge of the antecedent credibility of a Divine Revelation, his business is to inquire into the evidence with as much impartiality as he can, and to abide by the result of such inquiry. If any Christian has precisely calculated the preponderance of this evidence above

the à priori improbability of the facts, I should be glad to be acquainted with the balance. And if any disciple of Mr. Hume will point out the measure in which the antecedent improbability of the facts preponderates above the strength of the testimony, added to the improbability of the prevalence of Christianity, had the miracles been false, he may call upon me to abjure the Christian faith.

One word more on the subject of miracles, and I have done. Though we could not judge à priori whether God would interfere miraculously in the government of the world, yet when such an interposition has taken place, its credibility may be heightened by the end which was proposed by it, and the consequences by which it has been followed. Thus the Christian dispensation, among other objects, was avowedly intended to overthrow the idolatry of the heathen world, and to establish the worship of the One living and true God. And this purpose it has most fully and gloriously accomplished. The miracles, then, recorded in the Christian Scriptures, are not events which have left no trace behind them, but are events of which the effects have been experienced from the season of their occurrence to the present hour, and which will continue to be experienced till time shall be no more.

It has, I think, been made to appear that Mr. Hume, while he threat ens destruction to Christianity at a blow, has in fact effected nothing, and that the Christian does not set aside every principle of rational belief, when he acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth to have been a man approved of God by MIRACLES and signs which God did by him.

IT

E. COGAN.

A Sermon for Preachers. T is without any design to give of fence, and with a sincere wish to do good, that the writer would venture to point out a fault that he has observed in some preachers, and would earnestly desire to have it banished from among Unitarians. He means excessive egotism. That self-esteem is a powerful and universal passion of the human race he is well aware; and therefore clergymen as well as others may be expected to have their share of it. But it is obvious that in every transaction of life mankind feel it necessary to hide

647

this passion as much as possible from the view of others. For as every one is in some degree under its influence, it is certain that I cannot obtrude my own self-love upon the notice of others, without risking an abatement of that respect for me, which they might possibly feel while they were not sensible that my own vanity was an obstacle to my perceiving the preferable qualities, which they suppose themselves to possess. Hence, he is sure to succeed the best in obtaining the approbation of other men, who is not niggardly in his commendations of their virtues whether real or imaginary, and who says but little of his own. This forgetfulness of ourselves is of more importance in proportion to the publicity of the station we are called to occupy. Not only because more eyes are upon us, and our frailties are placed in a glare of light which scarcely allows one of them to be invisible; but also because it is generally expected that such men should live for the public and not for themselves, that they are wholly devoted to the public good, and consecrated to their advantage. No man can forget himself always, and certainly ought not. But it must surely be thought that when a preacher cannot get through a single paragraph of his sermon without some such phrases as I shall next observe-I propose to shew- affirm-In the course of my reading-In my opinion-In my former discourse-with perhaps twenty other similar forms of expression, his own views, and the operations of his own mind, have a disproportionate place in his thoughts. There are also gesticulations and accents, which can never be mistaken, as intimating the strong impression of self importance under which a teacher delivers his instructions. Whatever may be the temporary effect of such things on young and inexperienced persons, they almost uniformly produce in the minds of men of maturer years and extensive knowledge of the world, a low opinion of the judgment of such instructors, and a sort of pity for the vanity so unguardedly betrayed.

It is not necessary for the sake of avoiding egotism, studiously and universally to discard the use of the first personal pronoun in the singular num-ber, nor would this be always effectual, for by the perpetual substitution of the plural we, vanity is not a whit

HAVE for years felt at times affection towards thee, with a wish for thy salvation: to wit, the attainment, while on this stage of time (in the natural body) of a suitable portion of divine life, for otherwise we know little more than the life of nature, and therein are in danger of becoming inferior to the beasts which perish, in consequence of declining the offers of divine life made to every rational being. But 1 have long had better hopes of thee, and have thought (particularly in our little quiet meeting yesterday) that thou hast been faithful (at least) over a few things, and wish thou mayest become ruler over more, and enter into the joy of our Lord, and into his rest; and it occurred in order thereto, that we should become Christians, for he that hath not the spirit of Christ, is none of his, and this knowledge and belief is, I think, strongly insisted on by divers of the Apostles, who had personally seen, and were eye-witnesses to his Majesty, particularly in the Mount, and others who had not that in view, which however, was insufficient to perfect them, and was to be taken away that they might be more effectually turned to that spirit which leadeth into all truth, whose power alone is able to reduce the spirits of nature to suitable silence and submission. Thy Friend,

Reply by Thomas Jefferson.
SIR,

I HAVE duly received your favour of August 29, and am sensible of the kind intentions from which it flows, and truly thankful for them, the more as they could only be the result of a favourable estimate of my public course➡

as much devoted to study as a faithful transaction of the trust committed to me would permit. No subject has occupied more of my consideration than our relations with all the beings around us, our duties to them, and our future prospects. After hearing at which probably can be suggested concerning them, I have formed the best judgment I could as to the course they prescribe, and in the due observance of that course, I have no reflections which give me uneasiness. An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Mott, in a discourse of much unction and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist in heaven." Having paused to give his congregation time to stare and to wonder, he added, that, "in heaven God knows no distinction, but considered all men as his children and brethren of the same family." I believe with the Quaker preacher, that he who observes these moral precepts, in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven as to the dogmas in which ali differ: that on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristideses and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Papists, will find themselves united in all the principles which are in concert with the Supreme Mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus. He who follows this steadily, need not, I think, be uneasy, although he cannot comprehend the subtleties and mysteries erected on his doctrines by those who, calling themselves his special followers and favourites, would make him come into the world to lay snares for all understandings but theirs. Their metaphysical heads usurping the judgmentseat of God, denounce as his enemies all who cannot perceive the geometrical logic of Euclid, in the demonstrations of St. Athanasius, that three are one, or one three. In all essential points, you and I are of the same religion, and I am too old to go into the unessentials. Repeating, therefore, my thankfulness for the concern you have been so good as to express, I salute you with friendship and brotherly love.

T. JEFFERSON,
Monticello, Sept. 18, 1813.

SIR,

You

Bath, 9th Nov. 1816. YOUR Correspondent Sigma (p. 514) has made many good observations upon what is usually termed the doctrine of Original Sin. I wonder, however, that he has not noticed the 18th chap. of Ezekiel, in which that impious doctrine is so clearly and emphatically condemned. There the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, asks the people of Israel why they used this proverb, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge and there they are also assured that they should no longer have any reason to make use of this proverb. For, behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: consequently the souls of all his descendants, as well as the soul of their first progenitor, are the offspring of God. It is added, The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Therefore no man nor men shall be condemned for the crimes of any of his ancestors, but every man for his own transgressions only. The just, or righteous man, shall surely live, saith the Lord God. On the other hand, if this just man beget a wicked and impenitent son, he shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him. If he, however, have a son, who seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and doeth not such like, he shall not die

surely live. The soul that sinneth, it, that is, it alone, shall die. Then follows hope for the truly penitent and despair for every one who forsaketh righteousness and becomes iniquitous. In short, this chapter is a complete confutation of all the assertions which ever have been, or ever shall be introduced, in support of the doctrine of Original Sin.

In the next place, I wish your readers to consider what is the real meaning of praying or doing any thing in the name of Christ. There is a letter in the Theological Repository, which had the full approbation of Dr. Priestley: that letter clearly shewed, that doing any thing in the name of Christ, means acting as his disciples: we should therefore seriously consider, when we pray in his name, what we call down upon ourselves, if we be engaged in any iniquitous practices. As his disciples, we must depart from every known transgression, and cultivate every virtuous sentiment and holiness

640

W. H.

Mr. Cornish's Communication of a curious Ecclesiastical Document, with his Reply and Remarks, and of Two Letters of the late Dr. Toulmin's.

SIR,

Colyton, September 27th, 1816,

you on a lar HOUGH personally unknown to friendship with many of your correspondents and constant readers, several of whom have been very desirous that a letter addressed to me by four ministers, with my reply, might be inserted in the Monthly Repository.

The excellent Dr. Toulmin, who began his ministry at Colyton, was for fifty years my tried and faithful friend, and between him and the society here a mutual regard and attachment continued to the close of his valuable life. In all my personal and ministerial concerns he felt a warm interest. The attention paid to his memory by others, and particularly my good Brother Howe, in the Monthly Repository for January last, rendered any particular notice from me unnecessary. The letter and my reply were put into his hands, to procure his opinion as to the publication of them. His various engagements, attended with bodily indisposition, and his lamented death, prevented the correspondence, as I have no doubt, from being forwarded in due time to you.

Though often urged, I had given up the idea of bringing it forward now; but a judicious and amiable friend (Dr. Carpenter) lately urged the publication ast a curious anecdote in private ecclesiastical history.

Some of my friends were for giving the names of the ministers; others with myself thought it better not to publish them. They themselves might hereafter see the impropriety of their conduct; and the feelings of many of their particular acquaintance, who highly disapproved this part of their conduct, urge the suppression. If without them you think fit to insert their proposal and my answer, both are at your service.

It will give satisfaction to many respected friends at a distance, should the letters appear, to be informed that not one of my little flock has deserted me. A place has been built and opened these two years: though small, it is only occasionally well filled; those regularly attending are few, and such as before went to some neighbouring places. Strangers who contributed on the representation given that the place would be thronged by those who could not find the way to heaven without this aid, have been deceived.

and supremacy of the One God, and the honour and dignity of the One Lord Jesus Christ.

On my last visit to London, in 1800, that able supporter of the Dissenting cause, my friend and correspondent Mr. Palmer, of Hackney, informed me of an attempt made by some connected with the Hoxton Academy, which had given him such disgust, that he intended and I believe had withdrawn his subscription. A letter had been written to a member of the congregation at Kingston upon Thames, concerning the low state of the interest there, and proposing that they should dismiss their then minister, giving him a year's salary or so, and take one of their connection in his room. The indignation of the whole society was excited, an attachment to their minister increased, and some years afterwards, when by his removal and that of one of the most active members (with whom I am well acquainted) regular preaching was dis continued, none joined the independent place, which possibly most of them night have done, had it not been for the ungenerous proposal made by some of that party, which somewhat resembles that sent to

JOSEPH CORNISH.. P.S. Mr. William Morgan, in his Life of his Uncle, Dr. Price, thus writes: "I have often heard him say, that his attendants were now so few, as to make it impossible for him to be animated before such an assembly; nay that he thought every attempt at exertion or energy would be completely ridiculous." Pp. 30, 31.

nection.

Mr. Moffat, ever pious and progress ively liberal, carried on his useful ministry at Nailsworth, and honourably concluded them at Maluiesbury, several years since. Mr. Ward, whose valuable life Dr. Toulmin recorded in the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, adopted modern Unitarian ideas, or at least inclined to them. Dr. Amory, and his friend (whom I had the honour also to call mine) the venerable Mr. Towgood, ever adhered to Dr. Clarke's ideas, as securing effectually the unity

But he writes in another place, p. 28, Although grieved and dispirited, he never uttered a murmur of discontent. In time he became familiarized to those scenes which had at first so deeply depressed his spirits; and though always affected by them, he so far recovered himself as to divide his hours more equally between the study of philoso phical and religious subjects, and to review the result of his labours in both through a less gloomy and discouraging medium."

The close of Dr. Price's ministry at Poor Jewry Lane, was the period to which Mr. Morgan refers. I was then a

frequent hearer of that adipirable preacher, and used to wonder that, dis courses delivered with so much animation and such commanding seriousness, did not attract a numerous audience.