our Lord can we appeal in favour of prayer, we have his example also in the most direct and decisive manner. Upon the eve of the most important event of his history, when we cannot but suppose that he saw the horrors of a violent and ignominious death to be apparently inevitable, and while he acknowledges that his "soul is exceeding sorrowful," still does he open his heart to his heavenly Father, and entreat that his afflictions may be averted: "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." With these memorable words before us, coming from such an authority, and uttered at such a moment, how insignificant do the doubts, the suspicions and the speculations of the sceptic appear! Here we have an example how we may pray, and how we ought to feel when we pray. Though our Lord knew that the hour of the sufferings he had predicted was drawing near; though he knew that submission to death would be required of him, we find him expressing the wish that the cup might pass from him, but accompanying the wish with the most submissive acquiescence in the wisdom of all the appointments of his Father. Can we desire a stronger encouragement to pray than this? In the moment of mental anguish, when all worldly succours appear to fail us, we have the example of Christ to breathe our wishes in the ear of our heavenly Father, and with unlimited confidence in the wisdom and goodness of him who knows what is fit for us better than we do, to pray for what we, in our ignorance, may think best for us. In the chapter of St. Luke, (the xi.) where Christ gives the Lord's prayer as a model for praying to his disciples, who requested one, we find a further encouragement to the petitionary part of devotion in a parable. Though the language in this, as well as in other parables, is highly metaphorical, I cannot but consider the spirit of it as affording very strong evidence, in favour of the propriety of petitions to the throne of mercy. It is supposed by some that our requests in prayer should be confined to what are called spiritual blessings, as wisdom, virtue, &c. To me, however, it appears that all the arguments which support this opinion, may be extended also to petitions for those temporal blessings which are innocent in themselves, and which we believe to be good for us. Our Lord prayed for deliverance from the sorrows which awaited him, and instructed his disciples to pray for the supply of their " daily bread." It does not follow that we must be dissatisfied or discontented, because our prayers are not answered. It is the duty of a Christian, whenever he pours out before his heavenly Father the humble desires of his heart, to acknowledge his ignorance of what is best for him, and to hope for an answer to his supplications, only so far as they may be conducive to his real interest, and agreeable to the dispensations of unerring wisdom and unlimited goodness. With these views and feelings, whether we pray for spiritual assistance, or for those temporal blessings in which the welfare of ourselves and of those who are dear to us is intimately involved, our addresses cannot be injurious to ourselves, or unacceptable to that Being who is constantly watching over us, and who has graciously permitted us to look up to him with the reverential affection of children to a kind Father. Whatever we may consider the efficacy of prayer to be, it is not necessary for us to suppose that we can inform the Deity of what is proper for us, or that any alteration will be made in his plans in consequence of our prayers. We are ignorant of all his plans, and of the methods by which he brings them about it is enough for us to know that he has commanded us to pray to him for the blessings which we think will be conducive to our real interest, while, with perfect resignation, we leave to his wisdom the degree and mode in which they are to be granted.. Some have supposed that the efficacy of prayer is confined solely to ourselves, and that it is of no use farther than as it acts upon our minds, and renders us more diligent in the discharge of our duties. To meditate upon the perfections of the Deity, to contem plate the stupendous effects of his boundless power, to mark the harmonious operations of his wisdom, and to dwell upon the benevolence which shines forth through all his works, must refine, expand and elevate the mind: but, it is while viewing him under the character of a Parent, while acknowledging our dependence upon him for every thing we enjoy, and imploring for ourselves and others a continuance of his mercies, that the feelings and affections of our hearts are most awakened to love, and confidence, and holy joy. Such, I believe to be the constitution of the human mind, that without the belief that our petitions might (in what manner we know not) have some effect in procuring for us the blessings we supplicate, our devotions would soon be chilled, and their influence on our hearts soon destroyed. It is not necessary to know in what manner God will attend to our petitions, in order to be convinced that he will hear them, and that he may answer them. If we suppose that the act of acknowledging our dependence upon God, and imploring the bestowment of his blessings has the effect of rendering our minds more fitted for receiving what we ask, and thus disposes our heavenly Father to grant our requests, all for which I contend, is admitted. L. J. J. is ready to allow that the expression of our wishes, for good dispositions, has a tendency to strengthen and confirm them, and that this effect actually takes place, but he discourages all attempts to procure them in this pious manner, by adding, that they may "be obtained by means much more simple and direct than that of supplication." I am also much inclined to believe, that the gratitude which we ought to feel for the many mercies and blessings we are constantly experiencing, would have its fervency much diminished if we viewed the favours of Providence as bestowed upon us merely according to the original, fixed and immutable laws of nature. The philosopher may fancy that he can force his mind to this continued effort of gratitude, but to keep alive the feeling in the hearts of most, a sense of the more immediate and personal regard of the Deity, and that constant intercourse with him which a belief in his ever-watchful providence creates, will be necessary. It appears to me, that your Correspondent, from the fear of leading to superstition, has gone to the other extreme-an extreme, perhaps, not the less dangerous of the two. He seems to think that prayer cannot be answered excepting by some immediate, visible interference of Providence, some ob vious suspension of the usual laws by which he governs the universe, which, I presume, he means by " supernatural." If the remarks of T. F. and the excellent letter of H. T. upon this subject, inserted in your Number for August, (XIV. 476-479,) together with the interesting lecture of my friend Dr. Carpenter, upon the Divine Influence, in your Numbers for September and October, (XIV. 545–550 and 617-622,) are not satisfactory to L. J. J., I shall despair of giving any explanation that would be more so. I see no difficulty in the supposition that the Deity may execute any of his plans,-that he may bestow upon us blessings, of either a temporal or spiritual nature, without any miraculous interference. L. J. J. demands the proof that God answers the prayers of his creatures. It is equally incumbent upon him to prove that the Deity does not sometimes answer the prayers that are offered to him in sincerity and uprightness of heart. Though we see that events often happen contrary to our wishes and our prayers, yet we often observe, that they turn out beyond our most sanguine desires and expectations, and it by no means follows, because we cannot precisely say how far our petitions have been attended to, that they have been altogether neglected. It is apparently the design of the Deity, although he has commanded us to pray to him, that we are never to feel certain of the answer to our prayers. Were we conscious in praying for spiritual blessings that they were conceded to our request, the knowledge might slacken our exertions in the attainment of moral excellence, and lead us to depend more upon the assistance of heaven than upon our own endeavours. Though I believe that we have the example of Christ and his apostles, and the authority of every Christian community, from their time to the present day, to pray for temporal blessings, yet I agree with your Correspondent T. F. XIV. 476,) in thinking that the propriety of prayer for spiritual blessings rests upon even a more solid basis. In praying for wisdom and virtue, for religious knowledge, religious feelings and religious conduct, we cannot err. For the attainment of these we are placed in the world, and we know that our future state will be greatly affected by the progress we make in them: what, therefore, can be more proper, or more natural than to entreat the blessing of heaven upon exertions which our own frailty, and the temptations to which we are constantly exposed, are too apt to render weak and inefficient? petitioning his consolation and support, his mercy and kindness, his assistance and direction, under all the difficulties, distresses and frailties we are subject to. In the dubious moments of mental uncertainty, when the path of virtue is but dimly recognised, or, when the wavering will, beset by temptations, hesitates between the impulses of inclination and the pointings of duty, let us not be denied the encouraging permission of supplicating from our heavenly Father, that guidance which his frail and erring children so much require. And when anxiously watching the bed of sickness, while the messenger of death appears hovering over the form of one to whom our hearts are united by the tenderest sympathies of nature;-or, when unable to avail ourselves of any more earthly aids, we gaze upon the seemingly fastclosing eyes of him whose life is dear to his friends and important to the world;-in moments like these, oh! let us not be refused the sweet consolation of praying with earnestness,-but with perfect resignation to the whole of our Father's will, that the threatened affliction may be averted. I am unwilling to dismiss this subject without remarking, that it is the duty of all Christians to observe much discretion in offering objections to those opinions of their brethren which tend to afford consolation under affliction, support in the hour of temptation, and encouragement in the often arduous path of duty. Truth, it will be said, can do no harm but injudicious attempts to discover truth may be productive of a great deal of harm. Indeed, there are many truths that Providence chooses to withhold from our comprehension, and in the present limited state of our faculties, it is very probable that the knowledge of them would be injurious to us. There is a medium between enthusiasm and scepticism, and in our desire to avoid one extreme, let us not fall into the other. It is very easy to raise objections: there is no system in ethics, no creed in The advantages of this communion religion, to which some may not be with our heavenly Father must be apoffered: but we ought to be very cau- parent. It leads us to a closer intertious in destroying a good system, un- course with him than we can enjoy, if less we are prepared to substitute a we merely contemplate him as a Being better. To object to the use of sup- who governs the world by certain fixed plicatory prayer, because we cannot unvarying rules, who (according to comprehend how the Deity can an L. J.J.) preserves or destroys his swer our prayers without some mira- creatures agreeably to the general laws culous interposition, or some deviation of the universe." We need not fear from his all-wise purposes, appears to falling into superstitious opinions, if me much the same as opposing the we entertain those sentiments of God doctrine of a resurrection from the which the Scriptures teach; that his dead, because we cannot understand rational creatures are objects of his how God can re-organize the decom- peculiar care, that he will hear and posed parts of the animal frame, or accept their prayers, and that they are how the intellectual principle can exist to feel towards him the gratitude and in a state distinct from the body. The reverence, the love and veneration, the ways of Providence are past our find- confidence in his protection, guidance ing out: we must be patient and hum- and direction, which the relation of ble while on earth: in another state of "our Father in heaven" supposes and existence, a great source of satisfaction demands. We shall then be led to may arise from an intelligible view of have God always before us; in mothe plans and designs of the Almighty. ments of joy to raise our grateful But while we remain in the present thoughts to him; in temptation to scene of trial, exposed to pain and supplicate his assistance, in pain to sorrow, to temptation and sin, let us pray for relief from him; to implore not be deprived of that anchor of our from his benevolence health in sicksouls,-that high privilege of rational ness, consolation in sorrow, hope in and accountable beings, the liberty of despondence, and comfort and support pouring out our hearts to God, and under all the trials we may meet with. Happy but, I trust, not unattainable is the state of that man's mind, whose pious and well-regulated feelings enable him with sincerity to say, In every joy that crowns my days, My heart shall find delight in praise, Or seek relief in prayer. And surely we cannot err in imitating the example of our blessed Lord. If he prayed for release from suffering and sorrow, it cannot be wrong for us, his imperfect followers, if we feel equal resignation to the Divine will, to pray also for the mercies of our heavenly Father. These remarks have extended much beyond what I intended: the subject, however, is an important one, and, I trust, I shall be excused. I wished to advert to some other points, but I must not trespass any longer upon your valuable pages, or on the patience of your readers. SIR, J. B. ESTLIN. WAS very glad to see in your last Number, [XIV. 744-750,] that the subject on which I had taken the liberty of addressing you, had called forth the able pen of Dr. Lant Carpenter. In the greater part of what he has advanced I most cordially agree with him but I beg leave to submit to his consideration, and that of the Western Societies, formed on the plan of the Society at London, a few remarks on the alteration which he proposes to be made in the articles of their societies. Previous, however, to this, let me call your attention to what I stated in my last letter; namely, that several Unitarians at Cambridge quitted the Society formed in London for the distribution of books, on other grounds besides those stated by Mr. Belsham in his letter to you on this subject. [XIV. 657-660.] I have now before me the words of the Preamble, declaring the fundamental principle of the Society, in which it is stated we all agree. By which is evidently implied or intended to be implied, that all the subscribers to this Society should agree to its fundamental principle. I will not detain you with any remarks on the first part, relating to the Supreme Being, though its language, in my opinion, is reprehensible but I come to that relative to the character of Christ, which did not agree, as I have stated in my former letter, with the views we then at Cambridge entertained of it; and on reviewing this article my opinion remains unshaken. The words of the article imposed upon the subscribers are as follow: Jesus Christ was the most eminent of those messengers, which he (God) employed to reveal his will to mankind; possessing extraordinary powers similar to those received by other prophets, but in a much higher degree." Hence the Messiah is ranked among the messengers, and distinguished from them only by superiority of powers; and these powers are similar to those enjoyed by the other prophets. Now superiority of similar power being thus declared to be the distinguishing character of our Saviour, it follows that he himself was inferior to some of his disciples for he has declared, that they should do even greater works than he did; and that this prophecy was accomplished is evident to any one that reads attentively the Acts of the Apostles. Among the messengers above referred to, no one was, according to the words of our Saviour, greater than John the Baptist, yet we do not find one miracle to have been recorded by him, and hence we are at a loss to determine what was meant by the extraordinary powers possessed by the prophets; and besides, the least in the kingdom of God is declared to be even superior to John the Baptist. Thus our Saviour is the most eminent of the messengers; but as the least in the kingdom of God is declared to be greater than the greatest of them, except him, it does not appear from the account given of our Saviour, in this article of the Society, that many of the disciples may not be greater than their Master. Again, our Saviour in his beautiful parable speaks of messengers, sent by the master of the vineyard to the farmers of it, but without effect; and at last he sent his own son, saying, although they have not regarded my messengers, they will surely reverence my son. From which passage it appears to me evident, that a strong line of distinction is drawn between our Saviour and the messengers that appeared before him; and that his powers, so far from being similar to theirs, were of a quite different nature. Indeed it appears so from the language used by them: the prophets in addressing the people say, "thus saith the Lord;" but our Saviour speaks from himself, as a son invested with the authority of his father. In the customary language of the world we perceive a distinction in terms, according to the dignity of character supported by persons in office. Thus he, who is charged with an important mission from one sovereign to another, is called an embassador; the ordinary people who carry dispatches to him are called messengers; and embassadors themselves differ in rank, and are sometimes designated by inferior titles, as envoys, &c. Now, it may be said, that all these, being in fact employed on a message from the sovereign, may be called messengers; yet surely there would be great impropriety of language in saying, the messenger from England made his entry into Paris on such a day, and had an audience from his most Christian Majesty, by whom he was very graciously received. The same impropriety appears to be in the test of the Unitarian Book Society. The term messenger is improperly chosen, and is derogatory to the character of our Saviour; and I cannot persuade myself, that it would have been used, but from the fears in the persons who framed the test, that, if they used the terms of dignity, so frequently applied by the apostles to our Saviour, they should countenance the errors of those who have overstrained those terms, and given to him a character which he was the farthest in the world from assuming. Thus by avoiding one, they have fallen into the opposite extreme. In saying this, however, I may perhaps be supposed to countenance the opinions of those Unitarians who believe our Saviour to have existed in a superior state, or, in other words, to have been a pre-existing being. But when I left the sect established by law, which I did from an examination of the Holy Scriptures, and without any regard to the opinions or traditions of men, I left it on the conviction, that our Saviour was a man like to ourselves, sin only excepted, but distinguished from all who went before or will follow after him, in being the ap pointed mean under God for the salvation of mankind; that through him God bestows eternal life on his disciples; that we are bound to reverence him as our Saviour; and that all the titles we bestow on the messengers or prophets who preceded him, fall far short of the dignity of his character, and of the glory justly assigned to him for his active obedience to the will of his and their heavenly Father and God, and his submission to the most disgraceful death for our benefit. The prophets came with a message from God, and from the earliest records they unite in foretelling the humiliation and glory of him who should bruise the serpent's head. In that glory none of the prophets or messengers can participate with him, and when we look to the writings of the Apostles, and observe the exalted terms in which they speak of our Saviour, I cannot but think, that they would entertain a very mean opinion of the Christianity of those persons who should speak of our Saviour only as a messenger, and keep out of sight the more appropriate parts of his character. In fact, the term so often applied to him in Scripture, Our Saviour, carries with it enough to shew the impropriety of the test laid down by the Unitarian Book Society. At any rate this was the opinion of us at Cambridge, and the experience I have since had serves only to convince me, that that opinion was well founded. Indeed, it appears to me, that the language used by the Unitarian Book Society, is calculated to produce, and has produced very pernicious effects. It has a tendency to lead persons away from the spirituality of our holy religion. It has been my fate to hear sermons and prayers, in neither of which has been the least allusion to our Saviour; and they might have been addressed to, and received by a Deistical as well as a Christian audience. And this puts me in mind of the only sermon I ever heard from a celebrated preacher, Mr. Rowland Hill, which, with very slight exceptions, might be termed a truly evangelical discourse. In it he made a remark, on which he laid a becoming stress, and which, whenever a fit opportunity occurs, I endeavour to enforce on the minds of all who get into the pulpit; namely, that a discourse without the |