is very true that in the former editions of the Divine Government, I did not enter into any proof of this most essential point. I do confess that in the simplicity of my heart, I did not "surmise it could be called in question." In the nineteenth century, in England, in this age and country of religion and philosophy, I was addressing Christians, and I did not suppose that any one would deny the position, that, under the administration of a God of infinite power, of unerring wisdom, and of perfect goodness, evil is the means of producing good. Since, however, this position is denied, and since it is distinctly admitted by the opponents of the doctrine of Universal Restoration, that this doctrine must follow of course, if that position can be established, I have now entered into the proof of it. In the new edition of the Divine Government, which will be published probably as soon as this article appears, I have stated that proof at length. Believing too, as I most sincerely and firmly believe, that, taken in its whole extent, this is a subject with which the virtue and happiness of mankind are more intimately connect ed than with any other whatever, I have also entered into a more comprehensive and careful investigation of the origin, the nature and the tendency of evil in general. I have considered separately and in detail the several classes of evil, namely, natural and moral evil, and the evils which have hitherto been found inseparable from the social state, namely, poverty, dependence and servitude. "I have endeavoured to shew why these evils exist in the creation of a Being of almighty power, of infinite wisdom, and of perfect goodness. I have endeavoured to lead the mind to the calm and serious consideration of principles which seem adequate to divest it of doubt, where doubt must be unhappiness, and to conduct it to a conclusion which, if once embraced from conviction, must secure it from misery." I have also read with great attention the work of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, entitled "The Salvation of all Men strictly examined," which is, perhaps, the ablest production on that side which has ever appeared. Every thing of importance, however, which he advances, and which had not been previously considered in the Illustrations, may be arranged under these two inquiries : 1. Whether punishment, under the Divine administration, be invariably corrective. 2. Whether it be consis tent with the Divine justice to inflict an endless punishment. Every argument that can be considered important, which he adduces under these heads, some of which he states with great acuteness and ability, and which deserve very serious consideration, I have examined and answered with all the care in my power. I must add, that further consideration has induced me to give up some passages of Scripture which were formerly adduced as express testimonies in favour of the doctrine, that all mankind will ultimately be restored to a state of purity and happiness. I may notice in conclusion, that under the evils of the social state some considerations are suggested which may assist the mind in determining the very important inquiry, whether the law of population, as stated by Mr. Malthus, be or be not consistent with the Divine benevolence. I had entered with some minuteness into this thorny question of population, but considering that this discussion might divert the mind too much from the main argument of the work, I resolved to omit the greater part of what I had prepared for the press. I have, therefore, contented myself with stating what appears to me to be the real state of the question as it now stands between Mr. Malthus and his opponents; and with suggesting what I think sufficient to lead the mind to the just conclusion respecting the degree in which this question, however it be settled, can influence our conceptions of the Divine benevolence. There are some other topics in Dr. Edwards's work which I could have wished to discuss, but as they are not essential to the argument, I have omitted them, lest my work should grow to too great a bulk. The same reason has prevented me from noticing any other part of the articles in the Eclectic Review than that which I have mentioned. This is the only essential point which, it appears to me, they Irish Presbyterianism. have brought into discussion, and on which there is any thing to be advanced which has not been already advanced. But there are several other topics of great interest and importance which I have always thought it would be very desirable to notice, and which I have always intended to request your permission, Mr. Editor, to discuss in your liberal and impartial Repository. But more than two years have passed away since that resolution was formed, and my time has been so little at my own command that I have not been able to accomplish my purpose. However, if you think that this is a proper subject for discussion in the Repository, and if no other person will undertake the task, (though I sincerely hope some of your able and less occupied correspondents will undertake it,) I will endeavour to do so: and if Quero do not find any thing in what is now added to the Illustrations to remove his doubts, I shall be happy to do all in my power to assist him in solving them, if he will state them with precision. SOUTHWOOD SMITH. "No Presbyterian,” replies with some degree of warmth to a charge of misrepresentation, absolutely imaginary; a charge which I never meant to bring against him, or any others of my English Dissenting brethren. With respect to the circumstance of which he complained, I did not feel interested in it, and, consequently, meant not to make any allusion to it. It was the paper in your valuable Repository, signed John M'Cready, [XVI. 473475,] which called forth my explanation of the peculiar circumstances of the ministers and congregations to whom he alluded, and my representation of what Presbyterianism now is, in a great part of Ireland, by which I wished to give information, which might be pleasing to my highly respected English friends; information which I deemed justice required. For Presbyterianism, as described in the Encyclopedia Perthensis, or as denounced by that most ainiable, pious and eminent labourer in the gospel vineyard, the late Dr. Toulmin, with 167 whom, I am proud to say, I was personally and intimately acquainted; for such Presbyterianism, which claimed authority from the Holy Ghost, which imposed creeds of human invention, and which abetted spiritual tyranny, nursed and nurtured in the very spirit and principles of religious liberty as I have been, I never could plead. Yet even in that age of dark superstition, Presbyterianism was, in many respects, an enlightened form of Christianity. Presbyterianism allowed no other head of the Christian church, than Christ, and called no man master upon earth. It was founded on the precept, one is your master, even Christ, and ye are brethren." It did, indeed, acknowledge different offices, and consequently different officers, in' the church of Christ, which existed in the days of the apostles; such as teachers, presbyters or elders, and deacons, administrators of its secular concerns. It must, however, be added, that Presbyterianism did insist upon faith in doctrines, which, to me, appear to be corruptions of the pure gospel of Christ. But let it likewise be remembered that this was not peculiar to that system, but, unfortunately, pre even in spiritual republics, styling themselves Independent. Yet, with all its faults and defects, it was productive of various utilities; its form of worship was plain and simple; it disavowed temporal authority in religious concerns. I beg leave to quote its character as drawn by the translator of the Memoirs of the Rebellion in 1745, by the Chevalier de Johnstone: "Wherever the Presbyterian system has been established-in Scotland, in the north of Ireland, in Holland, Germany and Switzerland, or in the wilds of North America, it has uniformly been accompanied by a marked elevation of character. The great body of the people identify themselves with Presbytery; the humblest individual feels himself something under it, and raised in his own eyes; and no virtue can exist without such respect; the grand foundation on which the structure of society rests, becomes thus firm and solid. The complete establishment of Presbytery produced such effects, that the Scotch, who, in one century, were the most unprincipled and desperate marauders, were, in the next, examples of sobriety and peace. It is not meant to defend the intolerance with which the Presbyterians, as well as other sects, were chargeable. Peace be to their errors! The austerity too of the Presbyterians may seem to throw an unnecessary gloom over human life, and it cannot be denied, that they formerly carried their hatred of pleasure to an unwarrantable excess; but the open profligacy of their opponents, the keen struggle they had so long maintained, and their almost unparalleled sufferings, could hardly fail to throw them into the ex treme of self-denial. To these times, succeeded others of a different complexion, in which nature asserted her dominion over the Presbyterians; and their austerity has long ceased to pass the bounds of propriety." At present, as it exists in a great part of this country, Presbyterianism is to be considered, not as implying belief in any particular controverted opinions, but rather as a religious association of various and (as to faith and worship) Independent Christian Societies, represented in annual Synods by their Elders and Ministers, and thus forming, as I mentioned in my former communication, tribunals for the preservation of temporal funds and property; for the settlement of such differences as may unhappily arise between pastors and their congregations, and for examining into the characters and qualifications, not the religious opinions, of candidates for the ministerial office. No creed is imposed; no authority is assumed over conscience, no absolute power of decision, but simply the Christian right and duty of exhorting, of admonishing, of warning. The greater part, I believe I may say all, of the minis ters of the Synods of Munster and Antrim, and many of the ministers of the far more numerous Synod of Ulster, hold the doctrine of the pure unity of God, and pay religious adoration to the Father only. This Presbyterianism (as I have already stated) claims no command over religious opinions or religious worship; to what claims, therefore, "No Presbyterian" refers, when he expresses his conviction, "that as ignorance and bigotry shall give way to the farther advances of knowledge, reflection and intelligence, the Presbyterian claims will recede more and more," I know not. And as it does not arrogate power derived from the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery; nor attempt to infringe, in any respect, the rights of conscience, but, as I conceive, is productive of many salutary effects, I cannot join in the wish, that the very name of Presbyterianism should be banished from the earth. SENIOR. SIR, M last edition of his " R. HALL of Leicester, in the Apology for the Liberty of the Press," has very properly omitted some acrimonious passages concerning Dr. Horsley, of which he has given notice to the reader in his Advertisement, and one reason he assigns for the omission of these passages is, that they were scarcely consistent with the " REVERENCE DUE TO DEPARTED GENIUS." Now with whatever feelings we contemplate what is called Genius, that of REVERENCE surely ought not to be one of them. I REVERENCE only moral excellence. In all the writings of the early Christians, I find no REVERENCE attached to Genius, living or departed. The Author of the Christian dispensation expresses no REVERENCE for men of Genius. If Christians were to become like little children, they were not permitted to value themselves or others as men of Genius. Indeed, this term Genius, as it is now used, inspires nothing but disgust. Now every poetastic and flippant witling is a man of Genius, and may think himself, for aught I know, entitled to REVERENCE! If Dr. Horsley in the privacy of his own heart, sacrificed either passion or interest to a sense of duty, I will not deny him REVERENCE, and he will have his reward. But Mr. Hall, in his REVERENCE FOR DEPARTED GENIUS, has omitted in this edition of his tract his elaborate eulogium on Dr. Priestley, WITHOUT giving to the reader the slightest intimation of such omission. Perhaps Dr. Priestley, when departed, was not to be regarded as a man of Genius, though whilst living, he received the Hall's "Apology for Freedom." homage of Mr. Hall! or, perhaps, Mr. 169 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? 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. Hunter. 3s. ART. X.-An Inquiry into the Opinions, Ancient and Modern, concerning Life and Organization. By John Barclay, M. D. Edinburgh. 1822. 128. [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 contemporaries 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 |