Among the great majority of moderate and sincere Christians.

In this view I have not been deceived; the work has been well received, and, as the importance of its materials increases, will, I doubt not, continue to be so. My first anticipations have been equally realized by the scurrilous attacks aimed at me by the fanatical portions of the press. I am fortunately too well engaged to attend to such rhodomontades: in one instance, however, a show of argument has been made, and as the integrity of the work is basely slandered, I feel it a public duty to expose the fallacy, and with that view would request the insertion of the following letter in your candid pages.

J. D. H.

To the Editor of the Eclectic Review.
SIR,

Allow me to condole with you; for, Furely, nothing can be more pitiable than for a man to be led, by a blind confidence in others, into a situation where he cannot but feel emotions of shame! That this, Sir, is your case, I am not inclined to question; for, however involved in the trammels of party, it is hardly possible to imagine that a person of your general reputation was acquainted with the dishonourable nature of the production I am about to notice.

Having made these preliminary remarks, you will, of course, understand the succeeding observations as referring to the persons who have abused your confidence, by getting you to insert the paper alluded to; and also to the party principles your publication so evidently betrays.

The character of the Eclectic Review is properly understood, and its circulation confined to a peculiar portion of what is called the religious world. When, however, a publication claiming the high sanction of a religious responsibility be comes the vehicle of wilful misrepresentation, and, with party views, undermines the reputation of a wiiter whose life was devoted to the benign extension of our common Christianity, an error is conmitted which cannot be too soon exposed.

The article in question assumes to be a Review of the Two Volumes of the Correspondence and Diary of Dr. Doddridge, recently published. To those unacquainted with the views of the party, it will appear strange that they should select a character so generally esteemed as their victim. Their grudge against this amiable and learned divine is how. ever of long standing, as several years VOL. IV.

F

ago they threw out unworthy reproaches (which were ably confuted by the late Dr. Evans) against his mode of lecturing, as too candid an exposition of the disputed points of theology. In the present instance, the old offence is not only increased by the catholic spirit which breathes forth on every proper occasion, but a new cause of alarm is presented in the joyous urbanity of mind and endearing tenderness of heart which so delight. fully pervade the letters of Dr. Doddridge. That a good man should exult in the social pleasures of existence, finding amusement in all the little circumstances around him, and yet excel in the solemu duties of a Practical Divine, is a problem they find it inconvenient to solve !

They were, indeed, in a pitiful plight, and had they expressed their chagrin within the boundaries of decorum, much might have been forgiven.

The review commences with an awkward attempt at sarcasm. "This publication," say these learned Thebans,

66

was first brought under our notice by the London Literary Gazette, and the manner in which it is there hailed and applauded, will best speak for the true character and tendency of the work." Our dread operators, it will be observed, have now taken the razor in hand, but, like the ape in the fable, are doomed to feel the edge of their own jest. Talking about the Gazette might have done very well, but they venture to quote it also, and quote it against themselves!-viz., in speaking of Dr. Doddridge the Editor of the Gazette says, that he has found "instruction in studying his philosophical views of human nature, his frankness, his general love of his kind, and his mild and liberal religious tenets. The picture of such a man drawn by his own hand, in his letters on every occasion which could call forth his sentiments, opinions, and actious, is to us worth a thousand such lives as Job Orton, or even Dr. Kippis, could write." Puss is out of the bag at last. And so it was a crime to applaud Dr. Doddridge!-yes, for he was philosophical, frunk, and liberal! This is pretty well; but the rope is long enough, and they draw the noose still tighter by quoting their new authority again. “He (i.e. Dr. Doddridge) was neither guilty of the sourness of ascetic folly, uor of the worse guilt of that too common hypocrisy, so prevalent in his as well as in our times, which cloaks its pride under counterfeit sanctity, and covers its hidden indulgences under gloomy externals and rigid austerities."

They are next in high dudgeon

the records of Dr. Doddridge's innocent gallantries should afford amusement; but had I suppressed these ebullitions of a youthful heart, with what an air of specious solemnity would that very circumstance have been pronounced a proof that such letters were of an improper nature, for their existence was known: and in this view, how great is the satisfaction I feel in having placed the reputation of Dr. Doddridge beyond the reach of his enemies! Love is an old theme, and if the matter alluded to is amusing, it is instructive too; and were old Mortality himself to moralize upon it, he could not express himself more pertinently than by quoting the following lines :

"When wise men love, they love to folly ;

When blockheads love, they're melancholy;

When coxcombs love, they love for fashion,

And quaintly call it the belle passion.""

Now, seriously, unless the Eclectic Reviewers are advocates for celibacy, they will make their election from the two latter characters; for who would venture to charge them with folly?

They are next astounded that I should have compared the Letters of Doddridge with those of Pope, in point of style and gaiety of expression; and here they talk about the "erotic gallantry of the correspondent of Lady Mary Wortley Montague," in a way which curiously indicates the nature of their private studies, but has nothing to do with the work in question. They next run a tilt at the Editor; and finding they can make no fair impression, say no less, than that the publication was made "for the avow. ed purpose of rescuing the character of the reverend writer from the odium of too great sanctity." Now, so far from this being the fact, I have, in the Preface, avouched directly the contrary, as the following extract will attest:

Nor

am I unconscious of the important influence which the thrilling fervour of his private devotions, as they stand recorded in his Diary, will exert. These are circumstances which cannot fail of interesting the heart; and that heart which thus, as it were, cements a personal friendship with Dr. Doddridge, will have obtained a lasting advantage."

The next specimen of their dexterity occurs in the way of insinuation. I have tated in the Preface that a considerable

her of the letters in the two first

volumes, and some in the third (perhaps five or six), were transcribed from the Doctor's short hand. On this point our candid Reviewers dilate in the following strain:

"The obscurities and ambiguities inevitably attaching to such a manuscript must afford considerable scope for ingenuity of conjecture, if not for a discretionary use of the IMAGINATION, in deciphering it; and there is no reason to suppose that, for the sake of rendering them the more piquant, the fullest use would not be made of any latitude thus afforded."

Who would imagine that all the particulars relative to this short-haud manuscript had been explained to them; and that they wrote this slander with a knowledge that a great part of it was written out in long hand, many years ago, by that excellent man the late Rev. Thomas

Stedman; and that Obadiah Tomalin, Esq., the gentleman who transcribed the remainder, is expressly thanked in the preface for the scrupulous care he had devoted to the task, and which enabled him to produce a strictly faithful copy of the original! The system of short-hand, indeed, being Rich's, every person acquainted with it knows that it conveys every expression, and indeed every word in a full and literal manner. Both the original and transcript have been seen by many individuals, and may be examined by any one who applies in a proper way for the purpose. I have shewn this insinuation to be most unfair; but they soon recur to a more simple mode of attack. "Mr. Humphreys," exclaim our recreant kuights of the brazen visor, announces his intention to follow up these two volumes with we know not how many more, transcribed from the remaining part of the MS. documents !"

Who would suspect that this passage was written with the following contradiction staring them full in the face: "It appears almost unnecessary for me to observe that the great mass of matter from which this work has been printed are family documents, (i. e. letters) in my possession. To these, however, have been added a considerable number of original papers which were the property of the late Rev. Job Orton, and which have been most liberally contributed by my highly esteemed friend, Henry James Stedmau, Esq."

To exhibit their talents in another light, it may be remarked that they are

* Late Vicar of St. Chads, Shrewsbury, and editor of some valuable works.

equally adepts in the art of self-contradiction. After talking about "the of fence of publishing letters written in the confidence of friendship and the exuberance of youth," they observe that "the letters, though occasionally warm in their gallantry, could not easily be tortured, even by Mrs. Candour herself, into pruriency of meaning, nor do they in the least discredit the piety of the writer." This fact was before established on better authority than any the Eclectic Review can advance; but still it is satisfactory to find it incapable of perversion by men so deeply read in the "erotic gallantry" of "the wicked wasp of Twickenham."

After having so often convicted these sages, it would be a degradation to investigate their sinister reflections on the talents of Dr. Doddridge. The characteristic kick is, however, introduced with a degree of treachery which must not escape detection. At p. 373 of the second volume of the Correspondence, is a letter from a neighbouring clergyman to his young friend, Mr. Doddridge, who was not then ordained. In this letter, Mr. Saunders, after much in the same strain, concludes thus: "I have an oracle to consult beyond whatever Greece or Rome could boast of, to whose correction I readily submit all my performauces; and do assure him that I am, with a respect beyond expression, his most sincere friend and humble servant,

"THOMAS SAUNDERS."

In answer to these extravagant compliments, the reply of Doddridge breathes that profound humility for which he was remarkable. He even labours to depreciate his own unusual attainments! This very letter have these ungenerous Reviewers quoted as a proof of the little extent of his acquirements, without having so much as hinted at the cause which produced it, or the peculiar feelings under which it was written: such an insult to the dead, and imposition on the living, one would hope is without a parallel.

A short example may also be given as a specimen of the purity of their theology:

"We do not allude to the morbid dread of high orthodoxy' and 'bigotry,' which is occasionally betrayed, indicating the school in which he had been trained, so much as to certain expressions and sentiments utterly irreconcilable with the divinity of his riper years. For example, in writing to Miss Jennings, Mr. Dod.

dridge carries his complimentary strain so far as to say, 'I am fully persuaded that you are daily addressing the throne of grace, and I hope that you do not entirely forget one who prays for you as heartily as for his own soul. I question not but that so much innocence and so much goodness is heard by Him with peculiar indulgence; and I hope I may be, in many respects, the better for your prayers.'"

Now we are told in the Scriptures that the prayer of a good man availeth much, and of course of a good woman equally; and therefore Dr. Doddridge had a divine sanction for the mode of expression which these presumptuous men, in their folly, have dared to stigmatize.

The close is worthy of the rest. "He," (i. e. Dr. Doddridge,) remark these Luminaries, "lived in an age barren of greatness, and his name serves to cast a ray over a dark and cheerless portion of our ecclesiastical annals." Oh, most candid, just, and learned Reviewers!-You call yourselves Dissenters-and did you really never hear of one Dr. Watts, nor of the learned Dr. Lardner, nor of Neal, the historian of the Puritans, who were the personal friends and correspondents of Dr. Doddridge! And then are Wesley, Whitfield, Lady Huntingdon, and the noble renovator of the Moravians, to stand for nothing! Had you a glimmer of liberality, I could name Archbishops Secker and Herring, with that giant in learning (as Johnson termed him), Warburton-men distinguished as much by piety as for learning; and whose letters testify their admiration of the man you would meanly depreciate but it is enough,-there is a darkness, indeed, and may you have the grace to find it. It exists in the obscurity of your intellect. Having unmasked these your friendly coutributors, I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, J. D HUMPHREYS. Pentonville, Nov. 20, 1829.

Candid and Ingenious Reader," signed by W. Addy," Which is an admirer of all Virtuous Achievements."

The only other printed edition of Rich, that I am aware of, is that published by Ebenezer Palmer, in 1799, which has the characters made with a pen. On account of the great demand for it, this was followed by an Appendix with the characters engraved on copper-plate; but neither of these is executed with all the beauty and exactness which are to be desired.

The invention of lithography certainly gives the modern editor of a Short-hand a great advantage over his predecessors; and I consider myself fortunate in having had my work executed by Mr. Netherclift, who has this year obtained a prize

from the Society of Arts for the best method of transferring drawings from paper upon stone, and who is universally acknowledged to be the best lithographic writer in London. He has performed his task much to my satisfaction, and I am in hopes that many persons, who care nothing about Jeremiah Rich and his Short-hand, will be pleased to possess one of the most beautiful specimens of lithographic writing which has ever issued from the press.

Allow me to add, that the work has cost me both a larger outlay, and much more time and trouble than I expected, and that I trust the public will at least not suffer me to be a loser by that which has been undertaken for their benefit. S. WOOD.

MISS SARAH Powell.

1829. Nov. 13th, at Chichester, aged 29, SARAH, the eldest daughter of the late DR. POWELL, of that city. In a brief memoir of this excellent man and muchlamented physician, generally attributed to the elegant pen of his friend Dr. Sanden, prefixed to a funeral discourse, delivered on occasion of his death, by the Rev. W. J. Fox, at the Unitarian Chapel, Chichester, it is remarked, that "it is difficult to estimate Dr. Powell's character too highly," and his daughter seemed to inherit the acuteness of discrimination on general subjects, the fitness for judging in religious matters, the zeal in favour of liberty and popular rights, and the inflexible, stern integrity which belonged to her parent. Her views of Christianity were strictly Unitarian. She saw in the Scriptures no trace of what are called orthodox sentiments. The declarations of her Lord appeared to her to point decidedly to his simple humanity, and she had too high an idea of his wisdom and moral excellence to entertain the thought for a moment, that he would use, on an important topic, ambiguous language.

To the ordinance of adult baptism by immersion, Miss Powell, some years ago, submitted, thereby testifying, with her usual purity of spirit and boldness in the cause she thought important, a good profession; and though it is well known

that latterly she saw reason for doubting the perpetuity of the ordinance, she highly respected the members of the General Baptist persuasion, as being, in her estimation, more under the influence of genuine Christian philanthropy, in their conduct towards each other, than is the case with other sects.

When health permitted, which was frequently interrupted by constitutional debility, she regularly attended the Unitarian chapel in Chichester, and when prevented, as was the case at one time, from doing this, for a long period, she borrowed the discourses of the minister for private perusal; she was also constant in commemorating the death of her Lord according to his own affectionate request. From public worship, when conducted by those she really respected, and in a manner accordant with her views of propriety, she acknowledged she derived benefit, and she deemed such acts beneficial to the community. Yet was she decidedly of opinion, that a good life, and the pure intention, was the best incense that could be offered to heaven. This led her at times to defend strenuously the conduct of those whom some might be inclined to censure as criminal in their neglect of external religious forms; and from conversation at all impugning the motives of individuals on this, as well as on other subjects, she almost instiuctively turned with disgust,