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 ministers 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 intelli-, gence, the Presbyterian claims will recede more and more," I know not. And as it does not arrogate power de-: rived 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.

SIR,

Ꭱ.

SENIOR.

MR. HALL of Leicester, in the last edition of 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

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 him. 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?

To

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. 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.

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 Jolin 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. 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

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 doc trine 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 referring 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 here 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 scantiness 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 dif ferently 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, calculated 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 pas sions 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 involves 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.".