servation. These I shall expose; for of these I have a right to complain. I shall simply state them without any comment or epithet. There is great incorrectness in the arrangement of facts, which gives a wrong colour to the whole transaction; but I shall not descend into minute particulars of this sort. When I shew the reader that the Summary contains assertions which are not true, I must leave him to judge of the correctness of the Summary alto gether. I. W. says that "the attention of the public was first called to the subject, by a long address of five columns of close, small print in a newspaper; and that the next week brought out a reply from the Baronet, dated 3d February." What will the reader say of the correctness of this statement, which professes to be a Summary, &c., when he may see in your Repository that the first letter was a short one, dated Ja nuary 14th, and that my long letter was not the first, but a reply to a long communication from Sir Rose Price, dated January 21st?-a vindication of myself. Secondly, I. W. says, and he writes the passage as a quotation between inverted commas, giving the following passage as my words, " Mr. Le Grice remarks, That he (Sir Rose Price) had gone to London and got himself introduced to Dr. Pearson, the King's private chaplain and spiritual adviser, and through his means had become acquainted with the fact of the King's private opinions; which he would not have discovered, had Dr. P. been cautioned against the insidious design of the Baronet."" These expressions are given as mine-as if used by me. I never used these expressions. I never said that Sir R. P. saw Dr. Pearson; nor is any such expression to be found in my Correspondence as "which he would not have discovered," &c. I. W. cannot excuse himself by saying, such a meaning might be implied. He professes to sum up, to act as a judge, and he gives words as mine, which Ï never used, and omits a letter of mine, (see Repository, p. 149,) which would have cleared up any misconception. 1. W. says, "A meeting was called, and Sir Rose Price soon received a copy of their resolution to displace VOL. XIX. 2 F him, and appoint his friend Le Grice But now, Sir, I come to a most serious charge. I. W. has accused me wrongfully and shamefully: he has given expressions as mine which I never used: he introduces the charge deliberately, and comments on it de liberately; and therefore it is not an inference drawn in haste. Indeed, if it were, this would be no excuse, for he professes to give a Summary, which implies analysis and due examination. "Sir Rose Price is charged He says, by Le Grice with endeavouring to get into Parliament, that he might attempt the overthrow of the Church altogether."" These words, which I never used, are given as a quotation. I. W. goes on to say, "Respecting such a line of conduct, he (Le Grice) observes that, Whoever shall presume to innovate, alter, or misrepresent any point in the Articles of the Church of England, ought to be arraigned as a traitor to the State; heterodoxy in the one naturally introducing heterodoxy in the other: a crime which it concerns the Civil magistrate to restrain and punish, as well as the Ecclesiastical."" I. W. then proceeds to comment on “such language as this." Now what will any man of common feeling and honesty say (I will make no comment myself) when I declare that no such expressions were ever uttered or written by me? In what a light must I have been viewed, if this Summary had been printed without the Correspondence! The whole of the Summary is very incorrect; but having exhibited such positive misstatements, I need add nothing more than that I am, &c. &c. C. V. LE GRICE. P.S. I. W. has in the above Summary treated me in such a manner, that he deprives me of the pleasure which I should have had in shewing "The Unitarian him my Reply to Doctrine Briefly Stated," in which I agree with him in sentiment on "reliIndeed if he had gious consistency." exercised only common observation, he would have seen that my contest has been not with principles, but with conduct connected with principles. How can a man be attached to the Church, who believes that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John are spurious? How can a man receive the sacrament, who believes that our Saviour was the son of Joseph? I honour and esteem the Dissenter whose conduct is consistent with his principles. N. B. The author of "The Unitarian Doctrine," &c. has in a subsequent pamphlet avowed his belief of the miraculous conception, which places him, I think, at an immense distance from the Evansonian. SIR, IN March 26th, 1824. N common with all the friends of humanity, your readers have doubt less been taking a deep and anxious interest in the recent measures of our government for the mitigation of colonial slavery. The termination of their labours, while it may not have perhaps reached the expectations or have satisfied the hopes of the more zealous advocates of the cause, must yet be considered as a glorious, and, as far as it does go, a valuable triumph of public opinion. The foundation that has thus been laid, by the wise and salutary code for the future regulation of one colony (Trinidad), can but be viewed as the corner-stone of an edifice that can only be completed by the final and absolute extinction of a system from which every better feeling of the heart revolts, and every principle of religion and humanity is alike abhorrent. As the law now constituted for this colony has been divulged for the avowed object of ascertaining, as an experiment, the practicability of its general application as the basis of a system directed to the ultimate extinction of slavery, it will become a matter of curious and not uninteresting speculation to attend to the impressions it may produce both on the objects of its legislation the negroes themselves and of their employers. And these impressions it will be more particularly deserving our attention to notice, for calculating on the probable success of the measure, in their influence on the minds of each of these classes in the un-mitigated colonies, if by such a title one may be allowed to designate the islands yet deprived of these ameliorations. With respect to the impressions on the negroes of these colonies, what can we suppose will be their feelings on discovering that so large a portion of the evils which their suffering race has for so many generations been enduring, are now removed, and that one favoured though but comparatively small portion of their number, are no longer exposed to the degradations and severities which they are still doomed to suffer? What will they think of the securities and privileges for the protection of their persons and their property which have been ceded to others, while it is not to be (at present at least) their happy allotment to share them? Will they be content to go on in hopeless drudgery, patiently bearing the more-than-ever galling yoke that fetters them, and which it can be no more justice that they should bear, than their happier compatriots at Trinidad? If it be justice and policy that an improved system of treatment, founded on principles of lenity and protection, should be granted to one portion of the transported Africans, what is the ground to justify the denial of these advantages to the rest of them, or to reconcile themselves to the continuance of a system by which they are to remain deprived of the boon? With respect again to the proprietors of the un-mitigated colonies-on this point we have scarcely to wait the issue of time to learn the impression likely to be produced on their minds. Already has the mortified and angered tone of those who trusted to their clamour on the long-dreaded and loudly-deprecated dangers of innovation to silence the voice of humanity in behalf of the suffering slave; already has that tone evinced the impression felt in this quarter. On one side we now hear of nothing but the impracticability of enforcing such idle and speculative theories of legislation-of the danger of demolishing that discretionary principle of coercion, to the existence and exercise of which, for the security of his property and the cultivation of his estates, the planter had only to look. On the other side we hear, that if the code laid down be enforced in any thing like a spirit of sincere and active execution, vain will it be to expect that the remaining colonies can ever more be kept in a state of tranquil subordination, without alike extending to them the same wild and disorganizing liberties. We may bid adieu to the security of our property, and that which is already depressed beyond measure in its value, will have but a short reign to run, before it becomes a dead and profitless waste! Such are the actual reasonings and the loud deprecations of those who have founded their views of the security of colonial interests on the existence and perpetuation of a system over which humanity sheds the tear of its warmest sympathy, and to the abolition of which, its most fervent energies are directed. The friend of humanity, however, will hail the amelioration now granted, not merely as the commencement of a reform in a system radically evil, but as the dawn of a day that will close in the extirpation of the system itself. SIR, ANDROPHILOS. [N my last (p. 137) I quoted a passage from Mr. Locke: and as it is always useful to point out the errors and inconsistencies of great men, that others may not be misled by them, I wish, with your leave, to say another word or two on the sentiment which is there expressed. Mr. Locke maintains that all mankind without the aid of revelation could have attained an undoubting conviction of the being of a God and a knowledge of the obedience which is due to him. When Mr. Locke expressed this opinion, he either could not have carefully considered what he meant by all mankind, or could not have had in his mind what he afterwards wrote on the existence of a God, which he regards as the most certain of all truth. Of this truth he gives a demonstration which no doubt he thought to be the most clear and simple. This demonstration, however, he acknowledges to be complex, when he says that he believes nobody can avoid the cogency of it who will but as carefully attend to it as to any other demonstration of so many parts." Of these parts, the first indeed is a proposition of which no man can doubt, but the rest consist of abstract and metaphysical reasoning. If your readers will turn to it, (Vol. II. p. 239 et seq.,) and then ask themselves whether the discovery of this demonstration is within the reach of a Hottentot or Indian savage, they will, I conceive, agree with me that even that truth which lies at the foundation of all religion, whether natural or revealed, is not so intelligible to all mankind as Mr. Locke has represented it; unless indeed they should fortunately hit upon some shorter and easier method of proof. But if the first principle of religion is involved in obscurity, as to multitudes of the human race, what shall we say of the whole system which is to be deduced from it? But Mr. Locke, as appears from what he says elsewhere, was misled by the opinion that it is inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God not to furnish all mankind with the means of knowing the great principles of religion. But surely we may leave in the hands of a merciful Creator those to whom these opportunities have been denied. If I have pointed out an error in Mr. Locke, I have done nothing but what this great and good man would have wished to be done, and, perhaps, nothing but what the light which he himself shed over the world of intellect has enabled me to do. One word more, and I have done. If the advocates of Natural Religion would content themselves with saying, that its principles may be discovered by men of thought and reflection, and by their means be diffused among mankind in general, they would not run into palpable absurdity; but when they maintain that the truths of this religion, that is, the truths of which this religion is usually said to consist, are intelligible to every human being who will give himself the trouble to inquire into them, (which implies that every human being is capable of conducting such an inquiry,) they lay down a position which is not to be surpassed in extravagance by the wildest vagaries of the human mind-a position which it would be the extreme of folly wilfully to misstate, and which it would be no easy task to caricature. E. COGAN. SIR, To April 1st, 1824. my remarks, (p. 110,) perhaps rather too unceremoniously expressed, on the Rev. Mr. Cogan's paper on the evidences of Christianity, that gentleman has replied, in your publication of this day, in a spirit of mildness and candour, which does him the highest honour, and which would greatly tend to increase, if that were possible, the respect with which his character is regarded by all who know him. I shall endeavour to follow his example, in the few observations I have to make on his reply. Mr. Cogan appears to treat with great scorn the supposition, that men unacquainted with the Christian revelation, may believe in the unity and perfections of God, the doctrine of a universal Providence, and the future existence and immortality of man. He declares that he should not think favourably either of the understanding or the modesty of the man who should venture to say so; and he says, "If Mr. Sturch is disposed to believe that they would have had the conviction of their truth which they now have, had not their lot been cast in a Christian land, I can only say, that he has my hearty consent." Now, Sir, Mr. Cogan, who is much better acquainted with antiquity than I can be supposed to be, well knows, that all these doctrines have been believed before the Christian revelation had any existence. He knows too, that the belief of a Deity and a future life, though always more or less disfigured and debased by superstition and absurdity, has been very general, I might say universal, in all ages. He knows that these doctrines were believed by the heathen inhabitants of this island, in their rude and savage state; and it is for Mr. Cogan to shew, which I think he will find it difficult to do, that they would not have been generally believed to this day, whether Christianity had been introduced or not. For my own part, I see no reason whatever to doubt that they would; and, probably, in a much improved state, bearing some proportion to the civilization of the country. But if by the words, "conviction of their truth which they now have," " Mr. Cogan means, the same clear, full, rational, and consistent in formation on these subjects, that we derive from the Christian revelation, I beg leave to assure him that no such supposition ever entered into my mind. For although I have no doubt whatever, that the light of nature opens to mankind in general the prospect of futurity; yet, I believe, that even to the strongest eyes, it must appear somewhat indistinct and imperfect; and I, therefore, rejoice in that splendid and glorious light, which the Christian revelation throws over the scene, and for which I can never be sufficiently thankful. Mr. Cogan seems desirous of declining the task of pointing out to us, in whose writings it is that the truths of Natural Religion are spoken of as "emblazoned in the heavens in characters which all can read, and none can misunderstand." The only passage he quotes is from Locke, and he thinks it will answer his purpose tolerably well; but, I confess, I think quite otherwise; inasmuch as I can discover in it nothing more than the plain, simple position, that the light of nature is sufficient to convince those who "set themselves to search," that there is a God to whom obedience is due; a position which, I presume, Mr. Co will not venture to deny, after b, in this very letter, on which I am remarking, told us, that he " readily concedes to the advocates for Natural Religion, that the argument for the being of a God, is as conclusive as need be; and that from the predominance of good which appears in his works, it is difficult not to conceive of him as benevolent.” By the word God, I presume, he means a Creator and Governor of the world; and if this Creator and Governor is also a kind and benevolent Benefactor, Mr. Cogan will, doubtless, admit the conclusion to be very natural, that obedience is due to him. In a note on this quotation, Mr. Cogan goes on to say, "Mr. Locke speaks of searching for the truths of Natural Religion; and I never supposed any man to say, that they could be understood by those who would not take the trouble to learn them. But that which is intelligible to all mankind, must be very easy to understand." Now, from this position, I must beg leave to withhold my assent. By all mankind, I suppose, we do not mean every individual with out exception. We do not intend, for instance, to include idiots; but we mean mankind in general. Now, I think, I know many things, which mankind in general are very capable of learning and understanding, if they will take the trouble to do so, which yet cannot be said to be very easy. It can hardly be doubted, I suppose, that at least nine out of ten of mankind, if taken at a proper age, may be taught the chief rules of arithmetic; though these are so far from being very easy, that they are certainly far more difficult to understand than the leading principles of morals. Indeed, the very phrases "take the trouble," and "set themselves to search," plainly imply that all is not perfectly easy, but that there are some difficulties to be overcome by persevering labour; and I will add, by all the assistance that the learner can obtain. For I will not hesitate a moment to satisfy Mr. Cogan's curiosity, by answering in the affirmative the question which he suggests, but modestly doubts whether he has any right to put to me, concerning the propriety of calling in as often as it may be needful, the aid of some person of superior mind, to explain whatever may be obscure and difficult. I would, however, advise Mr. Cogan not to distress himself with fears, lest the instructor should shew something of the spirit of the usurping priest, of which I think there is little danger; for to repeat what I have elsewhere said, there is "this unspeakable advantage in favour of Natural Religion, that whoever undertakes to inculcate its pure and salutary maxims, is on a footing of perfect equality with his fellow-men." He can assuine no dictatorial authority, nor exact from them any implicit obedience. As he cannot have the shadow of pretence for "dominion over their faith," he must content himself with being the "helper of their joy." In short, it appears to me that the quotations from Locke are extremely unfortunate, and not in any degree relevant to Mr. Cogan's purpose; and, as he has not produced any other authority to justify the use of the language to which I objected, I must consider his omit ting to do so, as a tacit admission, that if it was not the language of misstatement and caricature, it was, to say the least, a little too strong. I proceed now to remark on the surprise which Mr. Cogan expresses at my objecting to his notion of the value of belief without evidence. He tells us he is very sure that it is true; and he maintains, "that there are multitudes in every Christian country who are altogether incapable of deciding on the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion." Now, if he means that there are multitudes who are incapable of deciding with certainty on the external evidence of Christianity, that is, of the truth of every miracle related in the New Testament, or in any writer of the earliest Christian age, I not only admit the truth of the position, but I go a great deal farther. I believe that there is not one man upon the face of the earth who is competent to the decision. But if his meaning be, that men in general have no adequate means of judging whether the important truths incul cated in the New Testament, are worthy to be received and acted upon, I must be allowed to differ from him in toto. For, being fully persuaded that Cicero was right in vindicating the authority of Right Reason in his book De Republica-that St. Paul was right in asserting the universal obligation of the Law of Nature in his Epistle to the Romans-that Bishop Sherlock was right in maintaining that "the religion of the gospel is the true original religion of Reason and Nature" that Locke was right when he said, that "God had discovered to men the Unity and Majesty of his Eternal Godhead, and the truths of Natural Religion by the light of Reason"-that the learned and excellent Lardner was right in affirming "that St. Paul was not wont to deny and contest, but to improve, the natural notions which men had of religion”— that the Rev. Robert Robinson was right in saying, "a conformity between the dictates of Nature and the precepts of Revelation, is the BEST PROOF of the divinity of the latter"— and that Archdeacon Paley and a thousand others have been right in asserting the authority of both natural and supernatural revelation—and having |