paring notes. they could unite in their purely logical maxims, they must still become reconciled in matters of feeling, before they can move onward together in a harmonious agreement. Is not this, after all, the secret of most protracted religious disputes, and of the little success resulting from continued discussion? This Calvinist is in his very nature tremulous, gloomy, melancholy. Fear is the element of his soul. The Unitarian, on the contrary, is joyous, confident, daring. Now it is not possible to prevent these prevailing biasses from affecting their respective interpretations of scripture and views of God's character. There is too much lamentable truth in the following maxim of the Calvinist; "As respects spiritual affections and desires, I cannot see how it is possible that the two sects can harmonize." The influence of this very cause will prevent them also from harmonizing in their speculative views.

Before dismissing this paper, I must quote two impressive remarks from the Unitarian, which struck my mind with much force, and are worthy of no little deep and candid rumination on the part of Calvinists.

1. "No man is against reason, until he finds reason against him."

2. The experiment of the doctrine of never-ending punishment has been tried for ages, and has left men as hardened and as dissolute as ever." Is not this last a bold assertion? Cantabrigiensis is a keen remarker

enough.

Biographical Notice of Beauharnois. One ought not to quarrel with an interesting and well-written paper wherever it is found. But I could not help inquiring, while reading the present biography, how came it here? Perhaps the Monthly Repository has identified the cause of Napoleon and his adherents with that of general liberality. If so, it would be a good reason for the insertion of this paper, though the previous question, in my mind, remains yet to be settled, whether such identification be in all respects correct. This, Mr. Editor, might constitute a fair topic for yourself and correspondents to discuss.

Dr. J. P. Smith in reply to Professor Chenevière. I have been considerably interested by this communi

cation. Some of the statements and arguments are strong and very well pushed, though others are as feeble as water. There is much truth and good sense in the following remark: "A very small measure of the most rational zeal in the infinite concerns of religion is sufficient to stamp a person an enthusiast, in the opinion of many who would admire a far more impassioned enthusiast for music, the drama, or the dance."

The extract which Dr. Smith quotes from a private journal is rather unfortunate for him. I should suppose

the last paragraph would be taken in a court of justice as pretty good evidence in favour of M. Chenevière's suspicion of a "concerted movement" to evangelize Geneva and its vicinity. The coincidence, at any rate, is very remarkable between the projects suggested in that paragraph, and the events which have subsequently taken place in Geneva.

A great defect in Dr. Smith's reasoning is, that he frequently forgets that he is pleading before a liberal public, rather than an audience of sympathising, prejudiced Calvinists. His conclusions, even when right, seem to be accidental, and not to spring from broad, well-grounded principles. Sometimes I know not whether it is art or simplicity which causes him to assume, with quite an off-hand assurance, the unquestionable and unquestioned truth and correctness of the whole apparatus of Calvinistic doctrines and feelings. The same fault is to be detected in many positions of the "Calvinist" above-mentioned, who carries on the correspondence with your "Unitarian." Who but a Calvinist would be impressed with the extract from the journal before alluded to? Why every body supposes that members of that denomination would find infinite fault with the state of things in Geneva. And what a mighty dust has Dr. Smith raised, what foul-mouthed language has he poured forth at M. Chenevière's representation of the impressions produced on his mind by some statements in "The Refuge"! See him foam! "His heart must be hardened beyond even a very high degree of moral callousness. To such a heart, falsehood must be food, and the most outrageous calumnies a congenial de

light," &c. &c. Dr. Smith's quotation from the Refuge itself is not much more fascinating than these vindictive representations. Is there nothing apparently of a dangerous tendency in that paragraph, which places the most hardened sinner and the most virtuous saint on a perfect level in the sight of God?

Dr. Smith's defence of some of his friends by name is pitiably lame. He would better have let them alone. Why devote separate sections in such a formal manner to "(1.) M. Empaytaz," to "(4.) Henry Drummond, Esq.," and to others, if, after talking and conjecturing about and about them, he leaves them just where they were found under the load of M. Chenevière's charges? This is a poor way of backing one's friends.

În p. 470, where Dr. Smith quotes a sentence from M. Chenevière, on the insufficiency of good works to procure salvation, is a striking instance how nearly the most opposite sects approach each other, and how easily they might agree in general speculative principles and their consequent results, if sectarian jealousy and alarm did not interfere to drive them widely asunder.

"The substitute for despised Calvinism has proved its insufficiency to stem the torrent of moral corruption." First, we have a right to suspect in some of this moral corruption, a legitimate consequence of the ancient unnatural Calvinism. Second, the substitute for despised Calvinism, if not able to stem the existent torrent of corruption, may have prevented it from merging more than it has into the broad and overwhelming flood with which other parts of the continent have been deluged. Third, what perplexing inconsistency the above proposition introduces into the circle of Dr. Smith's own ideas! Unitarianism he all along represents as the identical instrument by which this torrent of moral corruption was necessarily and naturally let in upon Geneva. Of course, how could it, while letting in the torrent, have any sufficiency to stem the self-same flood?

On the whole, it is not to be regretted, that this buz has been excited about the Genevese Unitarians. We cannot doubt that it will do them

good. It is a most blessed thing in this world to be able to count a few enemies, and to have one's pure mind stirred up, not only by way of remembrance, but by way of annoyance. I hope that Calvinists and Trinitarians will never let us quite alone on this side of the grave. We are so good-natured, we have so much confidence in the great purposes of Providence, we have so much reliance on the better things in human nature, we have seen such deplorable effects from over-heated zeal, that perhaps our tendencies lie too much towards coldness and apathy. The late efforts of meddling travellers at Geneva, so far from giving Orthodoxy a large and firm footing there, will only cause Unitarianisin in that and perhaps other quarters to look to itself, to repair some possible defects, which long security may have suffered to steal in, and ere long to shine forth with renovated beauty, excellence, and power.

Corrector, on Mr. Worsley, must be answered by that gentleman himself.

Review. Ben David's Reply. The Reviewer questions the policy of Dr. Jones's "fearless avowal of Unitarianism." At this I humbly demur. In the first place, Dr. Jones's Unitarianism is so completely interwoven into all his views and speculations, that how could he help avowing it, in a work of this kind, even had he attempted its concealment ? Next, there is some "good policy" in contributing such additional reputation to the cause of Unitarianism as works of this description are adapted to effect. And lastly, if there be any strength in the arguments advanced by Dr. Jones in defence of Christianity, perhaps they would gain as much force of influence by coming from the unexpected quarter of Unitarianism, as they would lose by their alarming connexion with it.

If the Reviewer will carefully look over the first extract he has taken from Ben David, I think he will find nothing which will make him particularly demur to the statement quoted from p. 5, respecting the immortality of the soul. Ben David, I presume, alludes to the popular, metaphysical dogma of the inherent, essential immortality of the soul, which our Saviour cer

tainly so far "discarded," as never to discuss nor even to inculcate it. Ben David's criticism, described in p. 477, as "ingenious," does not strike me as particularly such. The scriptural references in the extract on p. 478, are either very incorrect, or very irrelevant.

Dissenting Registers of Births, &c. Although the legal question connected with this subject, has quietly slept for a long time, and may continue to do so for an indefinite time to come, yet sooner or later, it seems to me, soine crisis must unavoidably arrive, when the whole Dissenting body, and perhaps the whole British kingdom, will be startled from its repose, and shaken to its centre, by a judicial decision, clothed with constitutional authority, that shall mortally wound the interests of Dissenters, together with those of their possible Episcopalian descendants and connexions.

even

Intelligence. Protestant Society, &c. The introduction of the subject of West-Indian Episcopacy into Mr. Wilks's speech and the Society's resolutions, appears to me quite impertinent. It is not shewn, nor hinted, that the new colonial establishments will operate as a peculiar infringement upon Religious Liberty," and, therefore, there are a hundred questions with which this specific society might with as much propriety interfere as with this. There is in Lord Holland's fine speech, a passage somewhat obscure and confused, respecting political power and persecution (p. 489). Instead of the expressions. circumscribed," and "encumbered," would not imposing" or "armed with," convey his Lordship's meaning better? Even then, his ideas would not be lucidly brought out.

Parliamentary. The discoveries made respecting the indulgence allowed to Irish revenue officers, would prove that the English Government is as yet very far from being a government of laws instead of men.

Let me take occasion to bear my feeble testimony to the admirable deliberative spirit which appears to prevail at the present time in the British Parliament. I can of course judge only by the reports which I read at a distance. But in these I see much to be charmed with and to

approve. Every question produced on the floor appears to receive a thorough, patient, and adequate discnssion. If large ministerial majorities are secured by the corrupt state of the constitution, certain it is, that these majorities carry not their triumphs with an overbearing, unlistening petulance. Every objection from the opposition seems to receive a candid consideration and a patient answer. Profound and subtle argument, various and extensive knowledge, high and fair courtesy, are elicited from the combatants in every debate. Englishmen have reason to boast of their Parliament. In many respects, there is not an assembly of men on earth to compare with it. It is the fertile table-land of talents, of political and intellectual excellence. Proud and fond as I am of my own country and her institutions, yet in some things requisite to form the perfection of legislative qualifications, I feel and am willing to acknowledge the inferiority of the American Congress. Let not your haughty national spirit scorn this comparison. I think I can enumerate several circumstances calculated to modify the apparent difference of advantages in a competition between the two assemblies. I will first mention, however, some obvious causes, which would seem to account, in a great measure, for the existing superiority of Parliament. Its numbers are double those of Congress, and therefore the few, who are necessary to take a leading part in business and debate, might be supposed to present a more concentrated distillation of talents. Our age and condition as a nation call forth comparatively fewer exclusive, disciplined, professed statesmen. The general standard of education being less elevated in this country than in the other, fewer minds, intensely accomplished, are to be found assembled in our national council. Yet, on the other hand, is not the American Legislature superior to the British, in its constitution, its actual, living, essential contact with every portion of the people whose interests it watches over and preserves? I am aware of Mr. Canning's ingenious writings and speeches on the other side of this question. But surely they are only so many splendid and soothing apologies for the defects of the British

Constitution. They carry not the conviction home, that a better might not exist. The very nature of the case, when simply stated, would seem to warrant the preference in favour of an equitable and more general representation. And the simple fact must tell for something, that America, though harassed, as is to be expected, with a variety of subordinate feuds and conflicting opinions, has not, like England, a large, respectable, restless, and growing party of Reformers, who are discontented with the very frame of the government, and unceasingly aim at its alteration. But besides the preferable structure of Congress, it probably contains as large an average amount of wisdom and ability as any promiscuous half of the British Parliament. We have great names and choice spirits not to be shamed by yours. Generally speaking, each representative to Congress is among the cleverest of the fifty thousand who elect him. In numerous cases, it is quite a gratifying matter of curiosity to witness the instinctive attraction which causes populous cities and counties to select from among their inhabitants the master-mind of the whole, whose single name operates as a charm to reconcile the most inveterate parties, and to secure at the hustings an unanimous result, without the expense of one syllable of flattery, one dollar of bribery, one squeeze of solicitation, or one pint of whiskey. In the state of Georgia (one of the most democratical states of the union) at the very last election, there were nine representatives to be chosen to Congress, and only nine candidates offered themselves! In consequence of this spontaneous and unimpeded buoyancy of talents, we have no pure blockheads in Congress; no herd; no wielded mob of dandies; no personifications of vacuity; our most

Dr. Lushington and others charge him.

Dr. Lushington will find it hard to reconcile the two following propositions: "He (Dr. L) was always a friend to toleration in the utmost latitude * At the same time he would do every thing in his power to support that Establishment of which he was a member."

Lord Palmerstone said, "There was no principle of union so binding as community of opinion and religious belief." Hardly so. Interest, family, country, are in general stronger ties than that.

"He wished Dissenters to enjoy every toleration, but he did not desire they should increase.”

Grant them every toleration, and they will infallibly increase.

The mighty speeches of Sir Isaac Coffin remind me of an address which I heard that Honourable Gentleman deliver at an examination of the public Latin School of the city of Boston in 1822. He is by birth an American, and was educated at that seminary. After professing his gratification at the exercises, he addressed some of his usual sententious advice to the pupils, and, to encourage them in their future exertions by the sight of a living example, he bade them look upon him, who, in consequence of the advantages enjoyed by him in that very institution, had attained (according to his own words) "rank, wealth, and distinction, a command in the British navy, and a seat in the British Parliament."

Prussia New Common Prayer Book. It would have gratified one's intense curiosity to know what specific alterations have been introduced into this liturgy.

SIR,

Crediton, August 2, 1825. have permitted a correspon

In the debate on the New Churches' Bill, Mr. Hume must have made some remarks not recorded by the Reporter. I do not find in his speech any instances of the misrepresentation, nor some particular references, with which

worth, to insert some remarks (p. 393) upon a trifling composition of mine, the "Hymn of Mary Magdalene;" to which, I trust, that your feelings of justice will allow me a place in your miscellany to reply. Who the author of the communication may be, I have neither the means nor the wish to ascertain; and from this time I have only to say to him, as

Orlando does to Jacques-" I do desire that we may be better strangers." I had certainly imagined, that it was not altogether unlawful (more particularly among the Unitarian Nonconformists) for an individual to form an opinion for himself, upon any passage of Scripture without reserve; and to publish it without apprehending an accusation of "contributing to perpetuate an atrocious calumny." It appears, however, that I was decidedly mistaken; for here is a personage, whose "indignation has been roused," and who seems to think me worthy of "the darkest times of Gothic ignorance," because upon the character of Mary Magdalene I happen to have formed an opinion that is not his

own.

I know not, Sir, what your irascible correspondent will think, or what words he will find to do justice to his thoughts, when I candidly avow, that, after all his four columns of "indignant" dulness, I feel no wish to unwrite one line that I have written. I prefer my supposition to his demonstration; and I am happy to believe that my life (though not very long) has been sufficient to convince all whose praise or censure I would win or avoid, that it is not one of my

66

My parting advice, Sir, to your correspondent is this-that he reserve his indignation" in future for other and juster occasions; and that he pass over whatever compositions may appear in your periodical under the same local date as the " Hymn of Mary Magdalene." He that has any wish to avoid the plague will not make an unnecessary pilgrimage to Smyrna; and no man who has a particular dread to encounter a crocodile, will perform his ablutions in the waters of the Nile. THE AUTHOR, &c.

SIR,

June 26, 1825.

my pleasures to defame a woman.

I am, however, open to conviction. I will read, as soon as an opportunity is given me, the works to which your correspondent has done me the honour to refer me. In return for this condescending attention, will he allow me to recommend to his reperusal that chapter of Matthew, to which no man can recur too often, which begins with," Judge not, that ye be not judged"-and proceeds to intimate something respecting the folly of attempting to remove a mote from another's eye, while the operator himself has a beam in his own?

I have also, Sir, to thank my "indignant" monitor for his extraordinary advice respecting the quarters, in which I am in future "to seek subjects for my muse." I regret that I cannot pacify him by a promise of compliance; but a poet's privileges are too precious to be lightly resigned. The restrictions to which he submits must be imposed by himself alone; and the critic that shall prescribe

I

of a Family," (p. 285,) it occurs to me that there are schools established on the plan he speaks of, not exactly perhaps by a Joint-Stock Company, but by the union of individuals, who agree to subscribe so much a year, with a deposit to start with, to defray outfit, &c., and have for this a share and the privilege of nominating a scholar, such privilege to be transferable, subject to approbation. have been told, that at Plymouth, Chatham, Edinburgh, such associations exist, and are enabled at a moderate expense, say eight or ten guineas a year, to provide a very good educa tion. I am not acquainted with the details of their plans, which I suppose are capable of being adapted to various situations; perhaps some of your readers are and would favour us with them, which would be agreeable to

ANOTHER FATHER OF A FAMILY. [We earnestly request communications and information upon this subject. ED.]

* Shakspeare-As You Like It.