Committees have been appointed for considering the poor laws and the state of the nation. To the labours of the former we look with considerable hope and confidence, judging, from the eflects of last year's Reports, that much benefit may be derived from their patient and enlightened exertions. The latter, which are secret, are concerned chiefly in examining into the circumstances connected with the late seditious proceedings, and the conduct of

ministers towards the persons confined under the powers of the suspension act. After attending carefully to all the circumstances disclosed in Parliament, we discover no reason to accuse ministers of any thing like harsh or intemperate conduct. Still a bill of indemnity is necessary to prevent their being obliged, in their own defence, to make such disclosures as might expose their informants to popular odium.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

We have received a farther communication from Dr. Watson, of the Deaf and Dumb Institution in London.-He disclaims all knowledge of the obligation, stated by the Secretary of the Edinburgh Institution to have been required by that in London, not to communicate, under a penalty of 1000l., the art of teaching the deaf and dumb to any other person. On that point we can only refer him to our informant, Mr. James Farquhar Gordon of Edinburgh, whose letter is now before us.- Dr. Watson denies that it is possible in a few months to qualify an efficient instructor of the deaf and dumb, and he is of opinion that experience will prove his view to be correct. We by no meaus intend to question its correctness. Our only question was, whether liberality did not require a free and unrestricted communication in England, as in France, of the art of teaching the deaf and dumb. On that point our sentiments are unaltered.Dr. Watson seems to apprehend that this discussion is calculated to injure the deaf and dumb institution in the public esteem, and proportionably to impair its usefulness. We should deeply regret such an effect: nor do we in the slightest degree apprehend it. The institution itself is above all praise. If it were less valuable and important, we should have been less solicitous respecting the diffusion of its benefits. The only point on which we have ventured to doubt the propriety of its rules is not one which renders it less adapted to benefit the immediate objects of its own benevolence, but which tends to confine its benefits too exclusively to those objects. Why should this particular school, supported by public bounty, remain under peculiar restrictions with respect to the communication of knowledge?-Dr. Watson explains the usual terms of engaging assistants to be, to allow them a salary, board, &c. for a period to be fixed by mutual consent, generally five years, the salary increasing yearly according to merit. Now this certainly seems to be very liberal treatment towards those who choose to engage themselves as assistants; but still the question recurs, why may not persons, like Mr. Gallaudet, who want neither salary nor board, and who do not choose to bind themselves to labour for years, ander indentures, at the bidding of another, but who would rather pay for the instruction they receive, be allowed to acquire their knowledge in some other way less irksome and onerous?

We beg to inform W. M. that, considering the whole of the circumstances, and the many claims of a similar kind which are made from time to time on our attention, we do not feel that we ought to bring forward his case in the way he proposes. We are requested to acknowledge, on behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society, an anonymous donation of one hundred pounds, from "A Friend," under date of the 18th February.

CLERICUS; A.Z.; 1; METRIOS; H. G.; R.; W. A. C.; A CHRISTIAN; E; JUVENIS; PAULINUS; P. C.; A CONSTANT READER; A COUNTRY CLERGY MAN; PACIFICATOR; and CLERICUS CESTRIENSIS, have been received, and are under consideration.

We are afraid to involve ourselves in the interminable controversy to which E. S.'s paper would give rise: we have therefore left his MS. at the Publisher's, as he desired.-G. W.'s papers are left there likewise.

We fully agree with J. R. that the epithet "adverse," used by a correspondent in our last Number, in reference to the Bishop of Chester's Chaplain, was much too strong. The extract from his sermon was eminently manly, candid, and conciliating.

For the Christian Observer.

CURSORY REMARKS ON UNITA

I

MENTS BY WHICH IT IS USU-
ALLY SUPPORTED.

(Continued from p. 73.)

No. III.

But what is the inference which our author derives from this princi

son of Jesus Christ?

RIANISM, AND THE ARGU- ple, in arguing respecting the per"Common sense," he remarks, "teaches, that the same individual person cannot be a being of two distinct orders at the same time. The same person cannot be a man and a creature of an inferior class; he cannot be of the angelic order and one of the human race; much less can he be the self-existent God and a creature at the same time. If the power of God transformed a man into an insect, it must cause him to cease to be man: so if God chose to become a man, he must necessarily cease to be God; for things essentially distinct cannot become identical. Such are the

NOW turn to Mr. Wright's inference from his next fundamental doctrine, the Messiahship of Christ. I am certainly ready to grant that any doctrine which is really inconsistent with the Messiahship of Christ, thereby proves itself to be no part of Divine Revelation; because the Messiahship of Christ is a distinct and indisputable part of that Revelation, which cannot contradict itself. But at the same time we cannot be at liberty to reject any testimony of the sacred volume, though it happen to be a matter of controversy, merely because it appears to us to clash with the doctrine of Christ's Messiahship. Every testimony in the sacred volume is of equal authority with the rest; and, if any two parts seem to us to be inconsistent with each other, the only inference which we have a right to draw is, that we are ourselves mistaken, either in the sense of one of them, or in the opinion respecting their inconsistency. But, surely, we are not authorised to conclude, that one of them is false, and the other true; still less to choose which of them shall be received, and which rejected. An assumption of such a right as this would lay the axe to the root, not of Divine Revelation only, but of sound reason and common sense, and set us afloat upou a wide sea of conjectures.

CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 195,

dictates of common sense. As all Christians admit that Christ was truly man, and this is so clearly the doctrine of the Gospel that it cannot be questioned, the unlearned may safely reject, as erroneous, all notions concerning his person which are inconsistent with his true humanity."

I need take no other method of proving how fallacious, how utterly untenable, is this mode of reasoning, than by simply transferring it to another case, on which there is no difference of opinion. Common sense teaches, that the same individual person cannot be a being of two distinct orders at the same time. The same person cannot be an animal and a creature of an inferior class. He cannot be of the order of animals, and one of the vegetable race, Much less can he be an immaterial spirit and a corporeal animal at the same time.

T

If the power of God transformed an animal into a plant, it must cause it to cease to be an animal. So, if a spirit were to become an animal, it must necessarily cease to be a spirit: for things essentially distinct cannot become iden ⚫tical. Such are the dictates of common sense. As all the world admits, that man is truly an animal, and this is so clearly the doc. trine of naturalists that it cannot be questioned, the unlearned may safely reject, as erroneous, all notions concerning his nature, which are inconsistent with his true auimality.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I might apply the same parallel to our author's next argument.

"Common sense teaches that God could not die: consequently that if Christ had been truly God he could not have died and risen from the dead, that the Second Person in the Trinity could no more die than the First or Third, and that, if the popular notion of the Divinity of his person be true, the real Christ was incapable of dying. It follows that, as it cannot be denied that the real Christ died, and not merely what was not essential to his existence, he could not be the true God.”

Common sense equally teaches, that spirits cannot die: consequently, that if man be truly a spirit, he can not die and rise from the dead; that a human spirit can no more die than an angel; and that, if the popular notion of the immateriality of the 'soul be true, men are incapable of dying. It follows that, as it cannot be denied that men do die, man cannot be a spirit.

This application of our author's reasoning may help to shew, that arguments which appear plausible upon the surface may not always be 'sound at the core; that grave questions are not always to be solved in a sentence; and that even appeals to common sense may be so con

ducted as to lead to conclusions with which common sense is at variance. Even admitting it to be a sound principle in religious controversy, thus to bring the points, on which Christians differ, to the test of those in which they agree—(and, if this mode of argument be not exclusively relied on, but every testimony of Scripture be impartially admitted in evidence, I do not dispute its soundness)-still it may not be sufficient of itself to guide the unlearned reader to a knowledge of the truth. He may be mistaken in the application of his test: he may be mistaken even in his conception of the standard by which he is to form his judgment; and the only safe appeal at last is to the law and to the testimony. Let, however, nothing be received, but what is plainly taught in the Bible

let every thing be alike received which is so taught and let the guidance of the Holy Spirit be sought in earnest prayer, that our judgments may be preserved from every bias, whether of prejudice or misconception, or unholy dis like of the truth-and then, but then only, may we hope, that the whole body of Christians, acting under such principles, will become fiually united, and walk in purity and love.

In the mean time, it is desirable to settle the principles in conformity with which scriptural doctrines may be justly examined and compared, and by which those persons who at present unhappily differ in judgment upon such doctrines may be brought to agree. The prin ciple recommended and acted upon by Mr. Wright—namely, that of de ducing some fundamental maxims from detached passages of Scripture, and then bringing down every other scriptural testimony to the level of those deductions - appears eminently unfair, because it exalts our deductions from Scrip ture above Scripture itself, and reduces the measure of revealed wisdom to a standard of our own