"Then said Charity to Christian, Have you a family? Are you a married mau? "Chr. I have a wife and four small

children.

"Char. And why did not you bring them along with you?

"Chr. Then Christian wept, and said,

Oh! how willingly would I have done it! But they were all of them utterly averse to my going on pilgrimage.

"Char. But you should have talked to them, and have endeavoured to shew them the danger of being left behind.

"Chr. So I did; and told them also what God had shewn to me of the destruction of our city; but I seemed to them as one that mocked, and they be

lieved me not.

"Char. And did you pray to God, that he would bless your counsel to them?

"Chr. Yes, and that with much affection; for you must think my wife and poor children were very dear unto me. "Char. But did you tell them of your own sorrow, and fear of destruction? For I suppose that destruction was visible enough to you.

"Chr. Yes, over and over and over. They might also see my fears in my countenance, in my tears, and also in my trembling, under the apprehension of the judgment that did hang over our heads; but all was not sufficient to prevail with

them to come with me.

"Char. But what could they say for themselves, why they came not?

"Chr. Why, my wife was afraid of losing this world, and my children were given to the foolish delights of youth; so what by one thing and what by another, they left me to wander in this

manner alone."

What was Christian to do? It would have been extreme folly, however great his attachment, to remain and perish with them. The resolution he adopted, and in which he persisted, by no means justly exposes him to Mr. Dunlop's charge of selfishness and hard-heartedness. As to there being "little or no display of charity, beneficence, or even benevolence," it should be remembered, that Christian was in humble life, and is presented by Mr. Bunyan as an example chiefly for those who are placed by providence in that condition. He possessed not the means of displaying that beneficence which consists in supplying the worldly necessities of the indigent. On various occasions, however, he urged others to seek for that happiness which he was pursuing. Surely there is some bene

volence in this. When Obstinate and Pliable followed him with a view to bring him back, he said all he could to prevail on them to go with him, that they might escape the evils which threatened their native place, and become candidates for the glories of Mount Zion. On his journey he sees three men fast asleep with fetters upon their heels, Simple, Sloth and Presumption. Christian feels compassion for them, endeavours to awake them, and kindly offers to help them off with their irons. Yet our critic represents "his struggles and exertions to be wholly selfish."

Christian and Faithful in Vanity Fair, In the persecutions which befel they are described as "patient, not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise, blessing, and giving good words for bad, and kindness for injuries done." Yet, "with the exception of faith and perseverance, Christian is a mere negative character without one good quality to recommend him." When he and his companion were invited by Demas to go a little out of the way to share in the productions of a silver mine, Hopeful being disposed Christian, who was aware of the danto make the trial, was prevented by ger of turning aside from the right path for worldly gain. Other instances of this Pilgrim's displaying virtues suitable to the name he bore, might be produced, but these are sufficient to shew the injustice of Mr. Dunlop's censure. The character of Christian, as designed by the author, is that of a man in common life, sincerely engaged in a course of Christian faith and holiness, which he generally pursues, with benevolent wishes that others would be persuaded to adopt the same means of providing for their peace and salvation. Subject, however, to the imperfections and infirmities of human nature, and not entirely free from the habits he had formerly contracted, he is represented as chargeable with occasional deviations, which bring him into great dangers and perplexing difficulties. These convince him of his want of watchfulness and caution, and induce him to retrace his steps to the right way, wherein he finally perseveres, till he has obtained the object of his ardent exertions.

Should you, Mr. Editor, deem these observations on the character of Chris

beginning to the end, of express asser tions 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."

66

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, fancy 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 fuct, 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

tinguished by that vigilant holiness, active benevolence, patience under trials, and, in a word, all the fruits of spiritual-mindedness, which are the effects of a true, practical faith in the gospel? I can readily believe that L. J. J. may successfully have " exposed his mind to impressions" favourable to piety, and may have brought himself to feel love for a God who, when

his creatures cry unto him, is "talking,

or pursuing, or in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awakened." But general observation justifies the inference, that they who dispense with petitionary devotion are not the persons most remarkable for practical religion. Having disdained those helps to human infirmity which a right knowledge of ourselves would lead us to prize and cherish, to what do they attain by means of their philosophic plan? To a decent morality. But decent morality is not Christian perfection. Is it even certain that they attain to this? It has been said, and wisely said, that "either a habit of prayer will expel sin, or the habit of sin will expel prayer." It is not matter of doubt or debate, that persons who have unhappily acquired a custom of indulging some permitted sin, reason themselves into a neglect of prayer from a secret uneasy consciousness which renders open communication with God impossible: and if this be so, of which there is no reason to doubt, it is against all probability that a recovery from such ensnaring habits of sin can ever be effected by the mere "exposure of the mind" to virtuous impressions, or by any method short of direct application to the throne of grace.

Prayer is particularly an efficacious instrument for the amelioration of human character in seasons of affliction and adversity. When the hand of God is seen in circumstances that appear to the natural religionist the effect of blind chance or of a sort of fatalism, the mind is brought to consideration, and meditates on the design of the particular affliction sent. The belief that the wound is inflicted by him who "does not willingly grieve the children of men," sustains the mind while it purifies the affections. If "the broken and contrite spirit" be referred coldly back to "reason and common sense,' 39 it will be seen whether this Stoical

acquiescence in the series of causes and effects, and the nature of things, will avail with equal efficacy to support and amend the heart. CORNELIUS.

[To be concluded in the next Number.]

I

SIR,

Lancashire, January 11, 1821. OBSERVE that our Unitarian bre

"Unitarian

thren of Liverpool have revived the question relative to an Academy" for the education of young men for the ministry (XV. 623). No one would rejoice more than I should at the re-establishment of so highly useful an institution, and particularly at a time when there appears to be a lamentable want of active and efficient preachers of primitive Christian doctrine. I much fear, however, there are serious obstacles to overcome before we could expect the establishment of so important a measure as a new Unitarian College; and certainly it would answer no purpose whatever to make the attempt without fully ascertaining the public disposition to support it in a way equal to its objects. I am far from wishing to throw a damp over the ardour of my brethren in so excellent a cause, any where. Would to God I could be instrumental in promoting that union of heart and hand among us which, if effected, would be equal to the accomplishment of all our wishes, and gladly would I do all in my power to excite a spirit of liberality and earnest Christian zeal among those who are blest with the means of seconding the efforts of their active brethren in the cause of truth. Whatever may be our wishes, they must necessarily be bounded by our means of usefulness; and as the more extended object is, in my judgment, rather to be desired than expected, I trust I shall be excused if I offer a suggestion through the Monthly Repository, relative to a plan which I know has already been a favourite one with some of our well-informed brethren, and particularly with the late Dr. Percival, of Manchester. It is well known, that by the provisions of the will of Dr. Williams, a number of young men intended for the ministry, are entitled to certain exhibitions from his Trustees, on condition of studying at the College at Glasgow. The Trustees