have repeatedly referred you, I will not delay, I promife you, with a becoming fpirit to fulfil my engagement.

"Upon a theological fubject, you 'urely cannot poffibly mean by this expreffion, if you intend to lead me into the revelations, to preclude all recourfe to the Scriptures, the grand fountain from whence we can, in these ages, and in these things, with any propriety derive our fentiments.

"As the most venerable names do not appear to attract your esteem, you will give me leave to feud you to one whose memory you profefs to revere. It is clear, from many London Reviews in pal years, that the late very fenfible Dr. Kenrick did maintain and defend in his Review the influence of grace. Pleafe to look back to his own words. In the Appendix, which contains his most able critique on Soame Jenyns's View, he fays; At the fame time, if the operation of grace be neceffary to imprefs the true fenfe and meaning of the fcriptures on the mind and heart of the uncon verted finner, why fhould it be lefs neceffary, as it is evidently equally expedient, to convince him of the divine origin of revelation in general? We firmly believe, admitting the reality of our author's converfion to Christianity (of which we have no reason to doubt) he is much more indebted for it to the efficacious and irefiftible impulfe of divine grace, than to all the pains he has taken, and the ingenuity he has exerted, in investigating the moral proofs of its divine inftitution.' (Thefe words are in page 74 and 75 of the larger edition afterwards published.) With this quotation I will fimply content myfelf, without fubjoining remarks that naturally. prefent themfelves and only add, a burlefque upon inspiration, with the contradictory term Jelf-infpired, when the fubject was the operation of grace from the Father of lights, the giver of every good and perfect gift,' argues rather a deficiency in found fenfe, than is any indication of an enlarged understanding.

"It may justly be deemed matter of furprise, that you can fuppofe the fuggeftion I intimated with regard to the adopted tenets in the London Review of neceffity had nothing to do with the subject on which I was animadverting, which was the inconfiftency that has lately appeared to me in this periodical work, which by my first letter I wifhed (for the fake of the Review) to prevent for the future. You feem indeed frankly to acknowledge inadvertent errors may have crept into this publication; I will therefore in charity push the matter no farther. And now, Sir, if you are fo pleafantly minded, you may raife a laugh, (for in fome the rifible mufcles are mighty foon moved) and merrily effay to ridicule my charity. Without the least chagrin, I leave you to enjoy the field of fcornful derifion, as amply as you pleafe. But of this I muft affure you, I very fatisfactorily fubmit the whole of my behaviour in the prefent cafe before the public. Nor am I fo cafily vulnerable, as to be either aflamed or afraid where truth is concerned, to defend in a fuitable way, and in a proper place what I am convinced may be clearly, rationally, and fcripturally established.

"I would

"I would now prefent my compliments to your prefent Editor, and return him thanks for the infertion of my letters. Sir, with all due regard,

And am,

Your most obedient fervant,

Roche, Cornwall, Apr. 17, 1780.

SAMUEL FURLEY.

"P. S. If you, Sir, omit to take the course I have mentioned, it is probable I may, at fome future time, take the opportunity, in fome treatise or discourse, to answer your queries at large, in a manner that may be thought more fatisfactory than in a page or two at the end of a Review.

SIR,

Answer to the above.

When expreffions are vague, I fee no reafon for amazement at their being misunderstood. Had there been no other Reviews than ours, your expreffion I evidently alluded to more Reviews than one,' would have been fufficiently definite. As there is, one would almoft imagine you meant to be misunderstood, by not expreffing yourself intelligibly.

In regard to compofing a book in support of my opinion, I fee no reason for it, until thofe who deem them erroneous have endeavoured to prove them fo.

When I obferved that you need not fuppofe but the Review would admit your answers, I meant not that the subject in itself was fo limited, but that it might have place in a corner of the Review: My meaning was, that anfwers proportional to what was asked was all required, and for what the Review would find a place. But, fince you justly think the matter fo important as to be worthy of a more extenfive difcuffion, fo far from my tacitly giving up the point, 1 fhall wait, with the greatest impatience, your anfwers, in what form foever they may appear, whether in pamphlet or folio.

Do not fuppofe I mean to preclude all reference to scripture; for, I think it abfolutely neceffary, if, by fuch reference, we can develope any myftery repugnant to common fenfe: I have no objection to pay the feriptures a vifit, although I have to be confined or led into what I confefs I never could fatisfactorily understand. I experience fuch an awe in their company thatI lofe all my powers of reafoning. I wish every other perfon experienced this humiliation. We should not then be peftered with prefuming fanatics. But it is the characteristic of ignorance to be prefuming. It is therefore we have that abundance of abfurdity flowing upon us from fuch pretending to explain what is in itself inexplicable. The dictates of infinite wisdom can never be conceived by our finite understanding. Befide, it is impioufly arrogant in a reptile to prefume on his having the fcales to weigh and the standard to measure the laws of its Creator. There is another observation I

muft

1

must make on our difpute, as being theological, having a neceffary' relation to fcripture. If I rightly understand what theology means, I may be fafe in saying that whatever comes under its denomination (excepting the wrangling opinions of religionists) may be more rationally difcufled without fcripture reference. The free agency of men (which is the basis of our argument) is not confinable by any mode of religion. It is a matter between the Creator and the creature. It is not whether this path is wrong or that path is right, but whether we have a power to chufe the right. This I confider is within the limits of natural philofophy. Therefore, when a difputed fubject is within the pale of our reafoning faculty, why fhould we feek a labyrinth in which all human reafon must be lost.

You mistake me much in fuppofing I do not efteem the venerable. The virtuous and fenfible I fhall always efteem. I, therefore, revere the man you have thought proper to quote. Although you mention him as an object for my veneration, by reason you think him not the most venerable, I beg leave to inform you that a Doctor K might have more right to the naine than thofe mitred gentlemen you before mentioned. It is not the lawn nor mitre that claims my esteem unless the actions of the wearer give them luftre.

I am forry your found fenfe and enlarged understanding could not perceive that, by felf-infpired, I meant that the advocates for infpiration are more indebted to their own vanity for fuch a belief than to the truth of fuch a doctrine: they would fain believe infpiration for the fake of indulging themselves in the vain chimera of their being themselves infpired.

It

Notwithstanding your furprife, I fay again, that as far as your letter relates to my criticiim, I have every right to deem impertinent your mentioning the Review, having maintained the doctrine of neceffity. This was the art of another, not of me. would be as pertinent to foift into thofe letters, you are pleased to honour me with, every inconfiftency that you may any where perceive, fo that it relates to free-agency or divine grace.

You may perceive I have been, while writing this letter, particularly ferious. But now, Sir, not to laugh at your charity, do let me enjoy the rifible. If you knew how feldom I laugh, I have that opinion of your charity not thniking it too great an indul gence, to laugh once in a month or two. I am much obliged to you for the caufe, therefore do not be angry if I enjoy it. But, Sir, I have done. I will not laugh any more at prefent. Although, feldom-tafted pleasures are apt to be enjoyed in excefs, my charity forbids me to enjoy longer this, as it is at the painful expence of the wounded. So that I conclude, Sir,

Your most refpe&ful humble Servant,

W.

P. S. I fhall most impatiently wait your Treatife or Discourse in

anfwer to my queries.

Sermons, by Hugh Blair, D. D. one of the Minifters of the High Church, and Profeffor of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the University, of Edinburgh. vol. 2d. 5s. 8vo. fewed. Cadell.

[Continued from page 228.]

AS a farther fpecimen of these excellent fermons, we fhall prefent our readers with an extract from the beginning of the feventh difcourfe-ON THE PROPER ESTIMATE OF HUMAN LIFE. Ecclefiaftes xii. 8. Vanity of vanities, faith the preacher, all is vanity.

"No ferious maxim has been more generally adopted than that of the text. In every age, the vanity of human life has been the theme of declamation, and the fubject of complaint. It is a conclufion in which men of all characters and ranks, the high and the low, the young and the old, the religious and the worldly, have more frequently concurred than in any other. But how just foever the conclufion may be, the premises from which it is drawn are often falfe. For it is prompted by various motives, and derived from very different views of things. Sometimes the language of the text is affumed by a fceptic who cavils at Providence, and cenfures the conftitution of the world. Sometimes it is the complaint of a peevish man who is difcontented with his station, and ruffled by the disappointment of unreasonable hopes. Sometimes it is the style of the licentious, when groaning under miferies in which their vices have involved them: Invectives against the vanity of the world which come from any of these quarters deserve no regard; as they are the dictates of im piety, of spleen, or of folly. The only cafe in which the fentiment of the text claims our attention, is when uttered, not as an afperfion on Providence, or a reflection on human affairs in general; not as the language of private difcontent, or the refult of guilty fufferings; but as the fober conclufion of a wife and VOL. XI.

PP

good

good man concerning the imperfection of that happiness which refts folely on worldly pleafures. Thefe, in their fairest form, are not what they feem to be. They never beftow that complete fatisfaction which they promife; and therefore he who looks to nothing beyond them, fhall have frequent caufe to deplore their 'vanity.

Nothing is of higher importance to us as men and as Chriftians, than to form a proper estimate of human life, without either loading it with imaginary evils, or expecting from it greater advantages than it is able to yield. It fhall be my bufinefs, therefore, in this difcourfe, to diftinguish a juft and religious fenfe of the vanity of the world from the unreasonable complaints of it which we often hear. I fhall endeavour, I. To fhew in what fense it is true that all earthly pleasures are vanity. II. To inquire how this vanity of the world can be reconciled with the perfections of its great Author. III. To examine whether there are not fome real and folid enjoyments in human life which fall not under this general charge of vanity. And, IV. To point out the proper improvement to be made of such a state as the life of man shall appear on the whole to be.

"I. I AM to fhew in what sense it is true that all human pleasures are vanity. This is a topic which might be embellished with the pomp of much defcription. But I shall ftudioufly avoid exagge ration, and only point out a threefold vanity in human life which every impartial obferver cannot but admit, difappointment in purfuit, diffatisfaction in enjoyment, uncertainty in poffeffion.

"Firft, difappointment in purfuit. When we look around us. on the world, we every where behold a bufy multitude, intent on the profecution of various defigns which their wants or defires have fuggefted. We behold them employing every method which ingenuity can devife, fome the patience of industry, fome the boldness of enterprife, others the dexterity of ftratagem, in order to compass their ends. Of this inceflant fir and activity, what is the fruit? In comparifon of the crowd who have toiled in vain, how fmall is the number of the fuccessful? Or rather, where is the man who will declare that in every point he has completed his plan, and attained his utmost with? No extent of human abilities has been able to difcover a path which, in any line of life, leads unerringly to fuccefs. The race is not always to the fwift, nor the battle to the frong, nor riches to men of understanding. We may form our plans with the most profound fagacity, and with the most vigilant caution may guard against dangers on every fide. But fome unforeseen occurrence comes acrofs which baffles our wisdom, and lays cur labours in the dust.

"Were fuch difappointments confined to thofe who afpire att engroffing the higher departments of life, the misfortune were lefs. The humiliation of the mighty, and the fall of ambition from its towering height, little concern the bulk of mankind. Thefe are objects on which, as on diftant meteors, they gaze from afar, without drawing perfonal inftruction from events to much