beginning to the end, of express assertions of God's general and particular interference, without any allusion, or the conceivable implication of any such allusion, to a particular age, or the preternatural intercourse of God with a peculiar people: and this interference is described as something distinct from the fixed laws of nature, which imply what is perceptible to observation and experiment as the influence of the Creator's upholding energy in the "various processes of animal and vegetable life." It is described as direct or immediate; and it is only not miraculous because it is not visible.

The question whether the Supreme Being has exhibited more than two modes of his agency, "natural and supernatural," and the demand for a clear definition and description of that agency which, without being supernatural, is not to rank with natural phenomena, appear designed to reduce the advocate of Divine Influence to a dilemma. But the whole turns on the sound of words. The terms natural agency, as applied to the Deity, are, I conceive, improper in this question: they involve a taking for granted of the thing in dispute, namely, that God is only known to act on sensible or external things, or by the fixed general laws of mind and matter. As the term supernatural designates agency equally obvious to the senses, it is equally improper; for the believer in the Divine Influence here discussed, is not entan. gled with the difficulty of proof, as if he maintained miraculous influence: he affirms that there is a third mode of Divine agency, which is perhaps fitly described by the term providential; which is from its very nature incapable of proof, but which is not the less the subject of reasonable trust.

I do not see the consequential force of the writer's proposition, that "if it be necessary to our advancement in virtue that the Supreme Being should occasionally interfere with his aid, the grand and glorious apparatus of Christianity might have been spared as defective and inadequate to our wants." This supposes that a constant miraculous interposition is necessary, which is excluded from the question altogether. Why should Christianity be expected to supersede the ordinary providences and influences which God

had exercised since the beginning of his creation?

The soundness of this argument, which denies all positive interference of the secret providence of God, may well be suspected, when we see that it leads to a denial of the expediency and rationality of prayer. I must confess, Sir, that to me a prayerless Christian seems as great an anomaly as a Christless Christianity. How any man who professes to take the Scripture as his rule of life can reason himself into the propriety of dispensing with prayer, because it might only have been intended to be used in a miraculous age, is something extraordinary. Peter quotes David as authority for the fact that "the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ear is open to their prayers." 1 Pet. iii. 12; Psalm xxxiv. 15. Can it be pretended, with any colour of justice, that this assurance applied only to Jewish periods and circumstances? This is manifestly a general truth, connected with the character and providence of God, and if it was true in the times of David and Peter, it is true now. The confounding prayer, therefore, with institutions, the permanence of which beyond the apostolic period may be doubtful, is a mere sophism. To comment on the alleged uncertainty of these institutions, would lead me into too wide a digression from the subject in hand; but as to the washing the feet of the disciples, a custom purely oriental, the notion of the writer, "that this act" (considered in its literal ceremonial) "is much more solemnly enjoined than any other," exceeds any thing that I know of in the servile inferences of Popish commentators.

It seems strange that any person acquainted with the views of our Saviour respecting prayer, Matt. vi. 8, should exhibit such ignorance of its nature and design; which the writer appears to confine to the obtaining of specific requests. As to what he asserts, however, about "the want of correspondence between the answer and the petition," as being "too palpable to be denied," it is assertion merely. If the person who prays to God for

recovery from illness, mitigation of pain, preservation by land or water, direction and assistance in forming the moral character," cannot prove philo

sophically that God has answered him, the writer cannot prove that he has not. The burthen of proof is not with the Christian who founds his trust on scriptural data, but on the natural man who "seeks after wisdom," or, with the Jew, "requires a sign."

The writer seems, however, aware, that prayer is employed as a medium of access to God with other purposes than that of obtaining invariably and immediately answers to specific requests; for he ridicules persons who, praying for relief under the pressure of illness, pain or poverty, and not receiving any, funcy that they acquire patience and resignation to the Divine will." Why must this be fancy? And with respect to "these constant disappointments" (which he still takes for granted) naturally tending to produce murmuring, discontent and dissatisfaction, instead of exciting patient dispositions," all the experience of facts is directly in the teeth of his hypothesis; and that "patience and resignation to God's will," are eminently possessed by those who have habitual recourse to him in prayer. What description of Christians the writer may have met with, I am unable to say they seem of the class of those idolatrous savages who beat their wooden gods when they find their requests unheeded. A Christian erecting himself into a judge of the fitness of the ordinations of Providence, and giving way to "murmuring discontent" when the wishes of a miserable worm like himself are not immediately and unequivocally complied with, is a phenomenon no less extraordinary than a God who, with his attributes of omniscience and perfect goodness, should accede to every prayer addressed to him by his fallible and short-sighted creatures, lest some philosopher should infer, from " the want of correspondence" between the prayer and the answer, that "one shall cry unto him, yet cannot he answer, nor save him out of his trouble."

If the Deity does not invariably grant what is asked of him, will it follow that he never grants it? If he does not answer prayer at the moment, will it follow that he does not answer it in future time; or that he does not answer it in a manner equivalent to the supplicant's wants, though different

from his expectations? It is remarked by Dr. Priestley, that we may not always be able to scan the ways of God in human affairs; the series and connexion of events may often be plainly traced in the history of the ages that are past. So it is in the life of the individual: if he cannot always trace, he may often be able to trace back; to perceive the hand of God in instances where he thought that he had been neglected or overlooked.

We are told, that all "excellent qualities," meaning what are very different, Christian graces, are "abundantly possessed by persons who are not conscious of having any particular divine influences." This is just nothing to the purpose. The consciousness of a divine, co-operating grace or influence, is not necessary to the proof of its existence. The writer proceeds, "who do not feel that they want them, and who consequently never pray for them." It is not clear whether the writer is at this time speaking of instantaneous miraculous operations of God's spirit, or of those ordinary communications, consistent with the moral government of his providence, and which seem necessary to the conclusion that God is something more than a physical energy or mechanical soul of the universe; in other words, to the belief that "he is, and that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him." If he is speaking of the former, he has no right to argue from what is excluded: if of the latter, I may be allowed to doubt whether the pious friends to whom he alludes do really possess such an "abundance" of Christian virtues, such supererogatory merits, as he supposes. They remind us rather of the Pharisee (for he also seems to have thought petitionary devotion useless) who thanked God that he was "not as other men are." Let him who does not feel the want of that strength of God which is "made perfect in weakness," and who "thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall."

But what facts does the observation of human character supply to guide us in our decisions? Is it not a fact, that they who give themselves to a spirit of prayer, (I do not mean the gabbling of creeds and paternosters,) are precisely the persons most singularly dis

have the right of selecting the objects who receive the benefit of this foundation; and I have understood that no serious obstacle is in the way of esta blishing a theological professorship at Glasgow, from whence these students might derive the benefit. What particular objections might be alleged against this scheme, I am not aware, but it appears that the principal desideratum would be an adequate salary to the professor. Surely this would be attended with infinitely less burden to the Unitarian public than the establishment of an entire College, with the requisite masters and appendages. I much wish some of your correspondents, better informed on the subject than myself, would give their opinion as to the practicability of the plan I am proposing. What is the present state of the Unitarian interest, and particularly the Chapel, at Glasgow, I scarcely know; but the establishment of the congregation there was thought by many to be favourable to the scheme which I have suggested; for why might they not be rendered mutually serviceable, particularly in pecuniary affairs? T.

SIR,

T

January 11, 1821. HE anti-liberal spirit of the Society of Friends, as it stands displayed in their last Yearly Epistle, (XV. 561,) wherein they deprecate the perusal of Unitarian publications, has not, I think, yet met with that degree of public animadversion to which it is so eminently entitled.

When we consider the indefinite, generalizing nature of these annual manifestoes, it cannot fail to excite strong suspicion as to the motives which could impel so cautious a body as the Quakers, to step forth and display their zeal, by casting a stone at "the sect every where spoken against." There is, however, reason to believe, that this overt act has not escaped censure among the members of the Society, and that it ought to be considered as the unauthorized proceeding of a few officious persons who, attentive to the watch-words of party-politics, thought the present an opportunity not to be neglected, of paying court to "the powers that be." However unexpected this sally may have been, its effects will rather be to betray the weakness of the assailants, than to

prove injurious to the friends of free inquiry.

From conversations which I have had upon the subject with a member of this Society, who is himself an advocate for religious discussions, I think there is reason to believe, that among no class of professing Christians, in this country, do there exist, at the present day, such vague notions of Christian doctrine, and such ignorance upon the points of theological controversy, as among the Society of Friends. With respect to birth-sin," for instance, he informed me, that it was no uncommon circumstance to hear, in the same meeting-house, one preacher descant upon that doctrine as the foundation of the Christian dispensation, and in a few weeks afterwards, to hear another declare that by nature the heart of man is pure and disposed to all righteousness. Such discrepances of opinion lead it seems to no schisms or controversy : for, provided the preachers are energetic, and can infuse a warmth into the feelings of their auditors, they are both equally acceptable, and the clashing of their creeds excites no remark. If there were grounds for the belief that this latitudinarian spirit had for its foundation a sense of the infinite value of practical over speculative Christianity, it might admit of defence, if not of admiration; but as it is upon record, that bigotry and persecution pervade the public proceedings of that body, and that free inquiry on matters of religion is denounced, it savours more of credulity than of candour, to hold them in estimation as a religious sect. With regard to "Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken," my friend informs me, that some of the members do not like to hear that book mentioned; and they set up some such quibble as this, that although William Penn was the writer of it, he was not the author. How this distinction is maintained I cannot learn. It is, however, doubtful whether in some of the editions of his works which circulate in the Society, that tract is not wholly omitted.

Among the Quakers there are numerous individuals distinguished for their active support of the principles of civil and religious liberty. Let us hope that they will bestir themselves to redeem their Society from the reproach which their public proceedings

SIR,

1. H. X.

Cirencester, January 8, 1821.

HE following letter, copied from Tthe Bristol Observer of January 4, 1821, may deserve a place in the Repository; not as displaying any thing new or particularly striking on the subject, but as evincing a disposition which has long been suspected to exist among the members of the Establishment, to have a more rational and scriptural service. And "when the

charm is broken"-when once the necessity of a reformation in the Common-Prayer Book is acknowledged by competent authorities-we may rest assured that something more will be done than the expulsion of obsolete phrases and doggrel rhymes, even the removal of such " eye-sores" as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds.

F. HORSFIELD.

"To the Editor of the Bristol Observer.

«SIR,

"As long as I am permitted to live, I hope I shall always feel a sincere respect for the Protestant Establishment of this nation, as being an edifice reared by the pious dead, and the pillar and ground of the truth. From my infancy I was carefully trained up in its principles. I am somewhat familiar with the times which have gone over it,' and I know many among the clergy and laity who, I am certain, are the excellent of the earth.' Nevertheless, I cannot but deeply regret the want of spirit in our successive bishops, to which, I suppose, we are to impute the neglect of all improvement in what we call divine service, or the public ritual of the Church. If an individual should take it into his head always to appear in the costume of a century ago, we should think but meanly of his understanding, and should be apt to imagine that he intended to insult the better judgments of all about him. Apply this to our National Church. What was considered supremely excellent 300 years

ago, may be very ill-adapted to the present state of intellect and manners. Dissenting chapels are springing up on every side, and when we visit the more respectable of them, we are struck with the simplicity, spirituality and brevity of their worship; and who, for the sake of mere antiquity, would travel in a waggon when he might skim along in a light barouche? If I know any thing of my own mind, I speak quite impartially when I say the Church prayers require both amendment and abridgment. The whole service should be modernized, and every repetition in prayer carefully expunged, according to the admonition of our Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount. Nothing is neglected by the Dissenters-the psalmody, the prayers, the sermons, are brought to the highest possible excellence, and to argue the contrary, would only betray ignorance of the subject. Where three services are performed on the Sabbath-day in one church, some better plan might be devised than going through the whole of the prayers each time, which appears equally burtheusome to clergy and people. If, while the Dissenters improve every thing, the Church should go on improving nothing, it is easy to predict the consequence: instead of being in the front of the religious institutions of our country, it must fall back into the rear, and soon we shall scarcely have any body to attend the Church but parish tradesmen, parish officers, and parish paupers. Do we not live in an age of incessant improvement, when knowledge is widely diffusing, and when every department of science is making astonishing strides towards perfection? Can antiquated buildings and ceremonies command superstitious veneration as formerly? No; nor do I think they ever will more. We must try other methods to gain the esteem of the present and future generations, and I think improvement, far from being an injury, would be an unspeakable blessing to the Established Church. I am well aware that no officiating minister can legally alter any word in the Prayer Book; but I have been glad to see some things in Bristol and other places recently, which indicate a desire to keep pace with the Dissenters. Some clergymen encourage the practice of singing, and assist in it themselves; others have a few verses sung at the commencement and close of the worship, which is very becoming; others have a selection of psalms and hymns from various evangelical authors, and are consequently able to direct the singing of one after the sermon, illustrative of the subject of discourse; others, again, use great plainness and brevity in preaching, and quite dispense with read