as the reader will see presently, in the Corporation and Test Acts)" there is to do for the Protestant Dissenters." Still he allows that "there is no occasion that Dissenters should suffer grievances of any degree or of any description." The case of Sundaytolls on going to a place of worship is, we adinit, no hardship, if the Dissenter be put on a level with the Churchman. The assessment of meeting-houses to the poor-rates is of more consequence: the Reviewer takes the distinction between houses built merely for the purposes of religion, and houses of prayer built to make money by them, which indeed seems fair enough: but when he says that the question, whether money is made or not, must be left to the magistrates, he forgets that the magistrates are at present Churchmen, and in great part clergymen, and therefore too likely to look upon the question with some partiality. When the smallness of the sum which would be raised by the subjection of Dissent ing places of worship to parochial taxes is contrasted with the litigation and animosity to which such taxation would inevitably give rise, their being brought under assessment cannot appear to any one, to be in any view, expedient and the good which religious worship of every description does to the community, by teaching its richer attendants charity, and its poorer, sobriety, industry and frugality, may be very well accepted as an equivalent for the privilege of exemption from the parish rate. At least, the principle of toleration demands that there should be no pecuniary tax upon dissent, and that with regard to the freedom of places of worship there should be no difference between Churchmen and Dissenters. It is the law of England, as well as the doctrine of the Reviewer, that if Dissenters prefer "the orthodox church-yard," they have a right to be buried there; but there is irresistible force in his question, "Why do not such men provide themselves with a burial-ground?" He lays down the dictum of universal experience in the admission that "Clergymen, like other persons, will abuse power, if they are permitted to do so with impunity." -His concluding paragraph deserves to be quoted entire: it allows of no objection and requires no remark:

1

"As to the Corporation and Test Acts, they are really the most absurd enactments (as they at present stand) which ever disgraced the statute-book of any country. They are so severe, that it is They have been regularly suspended for absolutely impossible to execute them. nearly 20 years. Their suspension is as much a matter of course as an attack upon pockets by a good and faithful Commons; and yet, though, during this long period, the execution of these laws has not even been proposed—their suspension never objected to-their abolition is supposed to be replete with ruin and destruction. Is this the meaning of Nullum Tempus occurrit Ecclesia?" P. 72.

The other article in this Number of

the Edinburgh Review to which we proposed to draw the attention of the reader is on the "Education Bill," but we perceive that we must make way for other claims upon our pages, and defer our strictures to the next month; which we may do with the less reluctance as it is generally understood, and the Reviewer countenances the persuasion, that Mr. Brougham will not press his measure during the present session of Parliament.

ART. II.-An Examination, &c.

(Continued from p. 241.)

7HEN Bishop Magee began his controversial career, Dr.PRIESTLEY was the object at which the arrows from the orthodox quiver were chiefly aimed. The force with which they were cast depended upon the strength of the arm that held the bow, but they were all dipped deep in the odium theologicum, the poison of bigotry, Nothing was too slanderous to be said, or too monstrous to be believed, of the supposed heresiarch. Polemical writers copied from one another revilings and calumnies; the currency of them gave them a sort of authority; all who wished them to be well-founded, believed at length that they were so; the name of Priestley was proverbially associated with profane infidels, and, as Bishop Burgess would say, other "iniscreants;" it was quoted by young academics to enliven their themes, by versifiers to give point to their dull lines, and by ecclesiastical aspirants to shew they were sound in faith and held heresy in sufficient abhorrence; it was,

in short, an almost necessary act of devotion to make the pilgrimage of bigotry, and with more than Mahometan zeal to cast a stone at the daring Socinian ;" and if by some strange accident, an ecclesiastic discovered that Dr. Priestley was a man, with the usual faculties and feelings of the species, and especially that he was a good man, beloved, revered, admired by such as knew him best, the surprise was as great as that which is felt on finding out that one who has been always regarded as a malignant enemy, is and ever has been a cordial friend.

So great, for a long period, was the terror inspired by the name of Priestley, that philosophers treading in his steps, and availing themselves of his successful researches, dared not openly appeal to his authority. The discovery was proclaimed as an honour to England, but the discoverer was passed over in deference to prejudice. At length, the name was timidly pronounced, but always with a disclaimer of his theological and political sins. But the time is now come for doing this great man justice; his character as a philosopher is confirmed by the improvements of science; it is no longer profitable to revile the man, and it is almost esteemed a work of supererogation (excepting perhaps at Dublin) to anathematize the divine.

The Bishop of Raphoe will not, we apprehend, look back upon his treatment of Dr. Priestley with entire satisfaction in those moments in which men survey their actions in the light of Christian truth and charity. We would willingly hope that he did not sit down with the design of doing him a wrong, but he himself cannot read Dr. Carpenter's acute "Examination" without confessing, at least, that he has misrepresented the distinguished advocate of modern Unitarianism. He charges him, e. g. with denying the doctrine of redemption by Christ, because he renounced and exposed the doctrine of atonement by satisfaction to Divine Justice. This latter tenet the Bishop himself seems to abandon, though it is evidently the dogma of his church, But he adheres to the ambiguous word atonement, uses it in a sense which an Unitarian might approve, and though he must have seen

that Dr. Priestley employed the term in a different and more correct theological sense, accuses him of the impiety of rejecting the whole doctrine of Christian redemption, which he arbitrarily chooses to understand by the term. By such means any man may prove whatever he pleases; against such arts no argument, no character can stand.

From the Bishop's misrepresentations we turn with pleasure to Dr. Carpenter's description of this truly great man, who had indeed his imperfections, but none in which there was not a certain "soul of good":

"Dr. Priestley's character was marked by au almost childlike simplicity; and his open frankness and undisguisedness sometimes gave the advantage to those who had more of worldly wisdom. Like that Apostle whom in several respects he resembled, in simplicity and godly sincerity he had his conversation in the world. There was in him neither art nor guile: and he wrote as though_all the world were as guileless and as artless as himself. He said all he thought, and why he thought; and certainly did not enough consider the use which might be made of his less digested views and arguments, by bitter or prejudiced opponents, or by injudicious admirers.

"The success which in various ways attended his pursuits, and the degree in which he must have perceived that he outstripped the great bulk of his contemporaries, both in moral and in phy sical science, naturally produced a selfconfidence, which sometimes might really be without foundation, and which often would appear so, to those who could not understand the processes of his mind,

or appreciate, as they deserved, the excellencies of his character. This selfconfidence is most manifested, when the contemptuous sneers, the overbearing arrogance, or the paltry insinuations, of his opponents, or their brutal efforts to destroy his well-earned reputation, in order to destroy the force of his arguments,-led him to shew on what ground he felt that he stood, and firmly to maintain it.

"Indefatigable activity marked his life; but it was of that kind which, having great objects in view, seldom put ther he would ultimately have advanced on the form of minute drudgery. Whetruth more, by writing more cautiously, some may doubt. My own opinion is, that he would. His first thoughts were often happy; but there was sometimes a

boldness in them, which appeared like temerity, and which was only calculated for those who themselves sometimes soar ed towards the Sun. They afford indeed materials for thinking; and many they have set to think: but he sometimes relinquished them himself; and they served to throw an odium on himself and his opinions, which did not belong to either.

"His learning was much more solid and extensive than the Academic chooses or perhaps knows how to admit. His time had not been spent on the trifles of literature; and what was devoted to classical pursuits, enabled him to enter on the field of scriptural investigation with eminent success. Still, it must be admitted that minute verbal criticism was not his forte; and it must also be remembered, that less was known in his days than at present, of the principles and facts which respect the integrity of the sacred text.

"His attachment to Christianity, and indeed to Revelation in general, was earnest and cordial. It influenced all his theological and moral writings. The principles of his venerated Lord guided his life in ordinary circumstances, as well as in great and trying exigencies. And as bis faith was not a mere speculative principle, it purified, and elevated, and expanded, and warmed, his heart. It made him love God, and it made him love his brother also. It preserved him constantly in the path of Christian sobriety. It kept out every feeling of envy and jealousy, and every unjust and malignant disposition. In short, it made his life a practical comment on the great maxim of the Apostle, No MAN LIVETH

TO HIMSELF.

"The grand views which he enter tained of the Divine character and dispensations, gave a dignity to all his religious conduct, and made devotion the habit of his life. Those who cannot appreciate the piety of the heart, unless it is expressed in the language of modern Orthodoxy, will not believe this: but those who have formed their devotional taste and style on the language of Scripture, and especially on the Christian's model, will perceive that the devotion of Priestley was genuine; and that in the offering of stated prayer, as well as in the devotion of his life, he worshipped God in spirit and in truth.”—Pp. 132

136.

With some severity, but neither unprovoked nor disproportionate, Dr. Carpenter proceeds to contrast the character of the Bishop as an author with that of Dr. Priestley. Unlike

they certainly are, and it is only necessary to "look now at this picture, and now at that," in order to discover who is the greater lover of truth and the more consistent follower of Him who came not to condemn but to

save.

Dr. Priestley having quoted Philo to shew that the notions of the Jews did not correspond with the modern doctrine of Atonement, the Bishop takes great pains to extract a different testimony from that mystical writer. This leads Dr. Carpenter to discuss the character of the Hebrew philosopher:

"The philosophy and the religion of Philo, both conspired to produce devotion of soul; and his writings do vastly more credit to his principles and affections, than to his understanding. Even the mysticism of his master, Plato, had in it something singularly elevating and refining; and it was the spirit of the religion which Philo professed, to trace all to God. There was between them a general harmony and correspondence; and, rising in spiritual refinement far beyond those for whom the Mosaic ritual was originally instituted, he sought, and, with the aid of a lively imagination, he found, in the sacred books of his nation, ideas which they were never intended to convey, where the ordinary exercises of the understanding would have presented nothing but plain facts, or, at the most, significant services designed to lead a carnal people from objects of sense to those which are unseen and spiritual.

"The speculations of Plato, and still more those of his followers, had almost represented the Logos, or system of ideas in the Divine Mind, as a distinct being from Him in whom it existed; and it is not wonderful, therefore, (since so many instances occur in which sensible local manifestations were made to the people of Israel, of Him who is invisible and omnipresent,) that Philo, impressed with all the sublime but undefinable notions of his philosophy, should trace them in the Mosaic records. This he did: and sometimes employing the appellation Logos in the mystical sense of his philosophy, and sometimes for the personal medium of divine communications to his forefathers, he assigns to the latter, characteristics which his philosophy alone had taught him; and without, I am persuaded, any intentional reference to the Messiah, he gives to the supposed personal and constant Representative of God and Mediator of his will, qualities which the Christian (coming to Philo with preconceived ideas, as Philo came to the Jewish Scriptures)

is absolutely necessary that a general suspension of the usual employments and amusements should take place; and whatever interferes with the discharge of the duties of such worship, (unless required by some more immediately urgent duty,) or naturally tends to destroy the religious impressions which they produce, must be wrong. And he argues that the principles of Christian duty require that such as do not find that suspension of social intercourse and amusement necessary for religious improvement that others do, should yet be careful, lest in the use of what they deem lawful and harmless, others should be interrupted in their more strict, yet alike conscientious, observances, or their feelings unnecessarily wounded, or they themselves led to liberties which their consciences would condemn. This is unquestionably just and Christian, and we have no doubt that Mr. Belsham would willingly modify his general position so as to admit it all.

In connexion with this argument, we find Dr. Carpenter maintaining against Mr. Belsham the power of the Civil Magistrate over the sabbath! This might surprise us, if we did not soon perceive that the difference between these gentlemen is in the statement of the question. Mr. Belsham only says, that it is unreasonable and unjust that the laws of any country should enjoin a sabbatism which God has not required," and this, few will deny; and Dr. Carpenter, deprecating the interference of the Civil Magistrate in matters of religion, asserts, that it is a question of civil policy, whether one day in seven shall be relinquished from the labours of life, and of civil right, whether such relinquishment shall be enforced by law.

While on this point Dr. Carpenter candidly avows his difference of opinion from Mr. Belsham, if, indeed, there be a difference, he is eager to vindicate his friend from the Bishop of Raphoe's cruel misrepresentations, and the vindication is easy and complete. The same may be said of the next point discussed, viz. the inspiration and character of our Lord, on which the Bishop, by means of omissions and alterations in Mr. Belsham's words, makes him say what is abhorrent to Christian feelings. In what he does say in one or two places, Dr. Carpenter

allows that he finds reasons for dissent. Mr. Belsham states in the Calm Inquiry, (p. 451,) "that when Jesus or his apostles deliver opinions upon subjects unconnected with the objects of their mission, such opinions, and their reasonings upon them, are to be received with the same attention and caution with those of other persons, in similar circumstances, of similar education, and with similar habits of thinking." Upon this Dr. Carpenter says,

"As far as respects our Lord himself, no other person ever was in precisely similar circumstances. Believing in the genuineness of the Introduction of St. Luke's Gospel, I have myself no doubt, that, from his earliest childhood, he was impressed with the expectation of being one day called, by the direct appointment and honourable importance; and that the of God, to a service of the most extensive natural influence of this impression was aided by the constant pious cares of his

Mother: so that, from the first, his views were so guided, and his affections and principles so enlarged and refined, that, even without reference to subsequent divine communications, he was eminently qualified to see clearly the way of duty, and to trace the dealings of his Heavenly Father. But I must, for obvious reasons, waive this consideration; and I merely say, that he who, in addition to the expanding and animating influence of religious principle, had been favoured with the express manifestations of divine approbation, with peculiar intercourse with the Father of spirits, and with direct communications of His will, could in no respect stand on the same intellectual footing with those who, in other respects, were in similar circumstances and of similar education.””—Pp. 273, 274.

With this statement we agree, but we see nothing in it inconsistent with Mr. Belsham's hypothesis of our Lord and his apostles not being infallible with regard to subjects unconnected with their mission.

The Bishop of Raphoe makes sport of the doctrine of Final Restoration, which, knowing the power of words, he endeavours to render ridiculous in Protestant eyes by calling it (as it has been again and again called for the sake of prejudice) the doctrine of Purgatory. On this topic Dr. Carpenter writes with great feeling, great dignity and great_power. He remonstrates with the Bishop for venturing upon "the thoughtless profaneness of hold