and rest their thoughts upon, I am very much inclined to think that they will continue to view the subject in the manner they now do and have long done.

Nothing, not a word of a contreversial nature should be said in it, concerning the person of our Lord, &c. that the reader's mind may not, on that account, be prejudice‹l against it. Some writers, by attempt. ing too much, effect little or nothing. They forget, hasten slowly. I am, &c.

J. JEVANS.

Chapter Coffee-house, Jan. 7, 1815. SIR,

N your Repository for September

St. Paul in the term xalaλλay, or reconciliation; and on this I shall be glad to see a better union among Unitarian Christians. I need not say, that the inquiry into this interesting topic may be conducted in the spirit of brotherly love; and if I might be permitted to advise, I would recommend, that no appeal should be made to any other authority than that of the scriptures. The opinion of writers, living or dead, may be adopted; but if it is introduced, there is danger of it sleading into endless controversy: whereas, if wǝ keep closely to the scriptures, our minds will be enlarged, and whatever mistaken views any of us may have entertained, they are most likely to be rectified when they are weighed in the balance of the sanctuary. I remain, Sir,

Your constant Reader,

W. FREND.

But

who calls himself " A Friend to Justice, Truth and Candour," extracts a note from Storer's" Graphical and Historical Description of the Cathedrals of Great Britain," which either he or you cite as an instance of "blundering bigotry." As a liberal Christian I was inclined to acquiesce in the propriety of this character, especially as you, Sir, expressed your approving wish for more of this ingenious correspondent's communications. one of the most decided Trinitarians eagerly seized this, to him propitious, opportunity of shewing what he called the " bigotry and intolerant illiberality of the professors of reformed Christianity." His arguments were so clear and unanswerable, that I was induced to read Storer's work alluded to, and consequently to address to you this note, that your correspondent might not again fall into the vulgar error of deciding on men's motives merely from their opinions. the

faith, his

vestigated your correspondent's letter paragraph by paragraph, and observed, "Now, Sir, it so happens that (although the able writer is himself an Unitarian) the main object of Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches (published in 1812) is not to demolish that Gothic and barbarous system of Christianity miscalled orthodoxy, "but to prove,as justly stated in the note cited in your Repository, that Josephus and Philo were apologists of Christianity. It is true, however, that the " Sequel to the Ecclesiastical Researches,"published nearly two years later, and either since or about the same period that the 6th number of

34

66

Storer's Cathedrals appeared, has this object. Now, Sir, this " Friend of Justice, Truth and Candour" himself actually commits the very blunder which he erroneously and very uncandidly attributes to the orthodox writer; for he confounds the object of two works published at very different periods, which are very dissimilar, and support distinct paradoxes, although the inquiries in the one may have facilitated those in the other. Again, your " Friend of Truth," &c. roundly asserts "it is impossible that the writer of the note should have read Mr. Jones's book." This is an assertion certainly as bold, as dogmatical, egotistical and gratuitous, as any ever made by the most fanatical Methodist, or the most ferocious champion of election and reprobation. Had your correspondent, Sir, shewn only half as much candour and christian toleration as he has done blind zeal and vulgar dogmatism, he would have logically concluded, that the writer of the note was liberally willing to avail himself of every effort to support Christianity, whilst he with no less caution took care to guard against the adoption or implied reception of any sentiment which according to his mode of thinking was of a heterodox nature. If the Unitarians thus seek to stigmatize every writer who presumes to think for himself and to follow his own opinions, however contrary to theirs, then what are they better or more tolerant in this respect than the Papists? If the dogmas of Unitarianism be as infallible as those of Popery, if the one must be obeyed or received as well as the other, and if all Trinitarians are to be deemed knaves or fools, as all disbelievers in Popecraft are considered heretics, then what has society gained what have liberality and toleration to boast of by the Unitarian reform? Alas! poor Candour, how hardly art thou dealt with by both professed friends and enemies? Truly, Sir, I feel ashamed of such a professed friend, but real enemy, to "Justice, Truth and Candour." He adds, "had the writer read only the preface with as much sound judgment as orthodoxy, he would have known his man better." Where is the proof that he did not “ know his man," as it is vulgarly expressed? He candidly admits the talents and learning of Mr. Jones, at the same time he expresses his generous, liberal, and I

must say, truly christian hope, that his fancy may not prevail over his judgment, that he may not be misled "by every wind of false doctrine," and that he may not persist in what the orthodox note-writer supposes to be heterodox notions. Surely, Sir, the laconic expression of such sentiments and feelings can neither be "blundering bigotry," uncandid, illiberal nor unworthy selfishness. Mr. Jones has repeatedly in the Ecclesiastical Researches exposed the errors of Dr. Priestley, who wished to be considered the apostle of modern Unitarianism. As to the epithet, “puerilities of Unitarianism," I leave it where I found it. I wish mankind had no errors but those merely puerile. Yet I must observe, and I do it with regret, for poor human weakness, that this writer's sneer at bells, &c. is an example, even in the pages of the Mon. Repos. In the present state of society all poor men and women cannot have watches; public worship also is a little older than this invention for measuring time; and as there are to be no churches or houses of worship with bells, and consequently with clocks, how are the poor to know the hour of public meeting? Is it enmity to the arts that would exclude bells and clocks? or is it to imitate more closely the Mohammedans, in order to have a person sit on a high tower to call the time? The Unitarians are, I hope, as attentive to public worship as other Christians; they have also fixed hours for it, and as to "forms of prayer," the chiefs of them read all their prayers as formally as if they were printed. The scoff therefore at the very convenient use of bells is puerile and unphilosophical; the professed rejection of all forms being inconsistent and impracticable.

But the most flagrant instance of vulgar bigotry is your "candid correspondent's" assigning causes and ascribing motives to others merely from his own feelings. From time immemorial, merciless bigots, intolerant and unchristian dogmatists, men of fire and faggot, who would burn their neighbour for the glory of God, have uuiformly attributed their own motives to all other persons who differed from them in opinion. This has been the grand besetting sin of all professing Christians, and infidels have too truly observed, that "all sects and denominations persecute wherer it is in

their power;" and so also do the philosophicaland rational Unitarians," triumphantly exclaimed my orthodox antagonist. Because the orthodox note-writer parenthetically mentioned Unitarianism in the same paragraph with the name of Gibbon, it is candidly concluded that "this can arise only from one of three causes-want of charity-or of knowledge-or of honesty. Of which will the writer of the note make his choice?" [ix.] 554. Here, Sir, is an example of the most intolerant, uncandid and i liberal bigotry that ever existed; it is the more odious that it is found in an avowed friend to liberal sentiment and Christian charity, and cannot be surpassed by any thing in the Evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic or Antijacobin Magazines. To declare that a writer must be a bigot, an ignoramus or a knave, on no other grounds than the frank and manly expression of his real sentiments, or a simple allusion to a particular hypothesis, might perhaps be tolerable in the dark ages or in the tribunals of the Inquisition; but in the present, it is truly deplorable. "If this be the practice," he continued," of modern Unitarians, they may have changed names, but certainly not principles; τις πατρίδος φυγὰς ῶν, καὶ éadid puye, or as Seneca observed, Sequitur seipsum et urget gravissimus comes; and whatever they may call themselves, they are still practically Papists, Calvinists or dogmatists, and inasmuch as they profess but do not practice liberality, hypocrites." It is indeed strange that any man possessing the least knowledge of the human mind should ever consider mere opinions as virtues or vices, and found a general character on what may be as transitory as the morning dreams. A man may be a Unitarian to-day and a Trinitarian to-morrow, or vice versa, without any change in his moral character, provided that merely his motive is the love of truth to the best of his knowledge. Finally, Sir," Your correspondent," remarks my orthodox eritic, "evinces a very imperfect acquaintance with the Scriptures;" he gravely says, "We Unitarians are, in one respect, in the situation of Esau. The hand of every man is against us, and our hand is against every man." Perhaps this "Friend of Truth" meant Ishmael, whose "hand will be against every

man, and every man's hand against him." Gen. xvi. 12. "But," he punningly concluded, “the Unitarians are verily like Esau, they have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage!"

Such, Sir, are the remarks which have been repeatedly made to me, a professed and decided friend to liberal sentiment, candour and Christian charity in speaking of our neighbours, respecting the communication in question; and I have no doubt that you will prove your superior liberality by giving them a place in the Mon. Rep. as a caution to others, and as a proof that you are not so bigoted and intolerant as to refuse insertion to any. temperate observations which persons of different sentiments may make on the contents of your pages.

Another "Friend of Justice, Truth and Candour," and

A CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN.

Natural Theology. No. I.
Sir,

ASI presume it was never the intention of the projector of the Monthly Repository, nor the wish of the generality of its readers, that all its pages should be devoted to theological controversy and Scriptural criticism, however important these subjects may be in themselves, and necessary to the elucidation of a rational system of re ligion, I shall, if consistent with the plan of your work, commence a series of papers on a topic that is always interesting to young persons, and which may afford matter for useful and serious reflection to those further advanced in life, who, perhaps, may, from circumstances not necessary to be enumerated, have hitherto paid little or almost no attention to the wisdom and contrivance displayed in the works of the Almighty.

Those who are acquainted with the subject of Natural Theology will not expect originality, much less will they look for discovery. For persons of this class these papers are not intended: they hope to claim the attention and excite the interest of those readers only who would be glad to investigate the wonders of creation, without possessing the means of doing so.

It has been observed, that the great disadvantage of the subject is its ex

scruple, avail ourselves whenever the nature of our subject requires such aid.

No one, it might be readily imagined, if facts did not exist to contradict the theory, could understand and reflect upon the thousand evident proofs of the astonishing wisdom and design of the Creator in forming and sustaining an animal body such as ours, without feeling a pious and almost enthusiastic glow of gratitude toward its author and supporter.

"It has been said," says Dr. Paley, "that a man cannot lift his hand to his head without finding enough to convince him of the existence of a God: and it is well said, for he has only to reflect, familiar as the action is, and simple as it seems to be, how many things are requisite for the performing of it: how many things which we understand, to say nothing of many more, probably, which we do not; viz. first, a long, hard, strong cylinder to give to the arm its firmness and tension, but which being rigid, and in its substance inflexible, can only turn upon joints. Secondly, there are joints for this purpose, one at the shoulder to raise the arm, another at the elbow to bend it: these are continually fed with a soft mucilage, to make the parts slide easily upon one another, and they are holden together by strong braces, to keep them in their position; then thirdly, strings and wires, i. e. muscles and tendons artificially inserted for the purpose of drawing the bones in the directions in which the joints allow them to move. Hitherto, we seem to understand the mechanism pretty well, and understanding this, we possess enough for our conclusion: nevertheless we have hitherto only a machine standing still: a dead organization-an apparatus. To put the system in a state of activity: to set it at work, a further provision is necessary, viz. a communication with the brain by means of nerves. We know the existence of this communication, because we can see the communicating threads, and can trace them to the brain its necessity we all know, because if the thread be cut, if the communication be intercepted, the muscle becomes paralytic: but beyond this we know little, the organization being too minute and subtle for our inspection.

"To what has been enumerated, as officiating in the single act of a man's raising his hand to his head, must be added likewise all that is necessary, and all that contributes to the growth, nourishment and sustentation of the limb; the repair of its waste, the preservation of its health: such as the circulation of the blood through every part of it: its lymphatics, exhalants, absorbents: its excretions and integuments. All these share in the result; join in the effect; and how all these, or any of them come together without a desiguing, disposing intelligence, it is impossible to conceive."

But our more immediate object is with the five senses which are common to all animals, viz. seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling, and the organs which minister to these senses, together with the exact accommodation of those senses, and their organs, to the state and make of the different genera of animals. The consideration of these particulars, if there were no other demonstrations of the existence of a Supreme Being, would be abundantly sufficient to evince the wisdom, power and goodness of the Creator. For suppose the existence of an animal endowed with the powers of moving from place to place; to what purpose would those powers be applied without the advantage of sight. He could not stir a step, nor move a single limb without the apprehension and risk of danger. As without sight he could not tell where to find, or how to obtain the food necessary for his sustenance; so without the senses of smell and tuste, he could not distinguish the substances that are, and are not adapted for his nourishment, and discern between the wholesome and unwholesome. How, without the sense of hearing could he discern many dangers that are at a distance, understand the mind of others and perceive the harmonious sounds of music. Finally, without the sense of feeling how could man or other animals distinguish pleasure from pain, health from sickness, and of course be able to preserve the body sound and healthful. In the senses, therefore, which are common to all animals, we have such a display of the wisdom and benevolence of a Creator, as may challenge our adiniration, which will be rendered much more striking when we come