fo recommending it to me to continue my walk on the Twift fide of the file, le quitted me and returned to the house." Vol. I. P. 50.

The progrefs and fymptoms of the author's love, not for Mifs Twift, but for a very different perfonage, is perfectly unlike the love of novels in general; but this, as it is gra dually developed cannot eafily be copied, and as it is very. humorous ought not to be anticipated. Among other varieties, Mr. Dermont (the hero's name) take a tour, but his love purfues him:-" poft equitem fedet," but not in the fhape of atra cura. The tour is original, and has many diverting paffages. It ends, however, and we are to come to the denouement, or difcovery of the hero's real affection. This is perhaps more novel-like than any other part of the book, but fufficiently original, and indeed interefling It is poffible, that fome fmall part of the fecond volume was written after the reft, for the fake of making up a certain extent of publication. It certainly does not fhine fo much in the original qualities of the writer as all that precedes it. Yet, if all is well that ends well," the heraldic difcuffion in the concluding pages is clearly original enough to redeem all flight deficiencies.

If we, like others, are "to think to ourselves, who" the real author may be, perhaps we fhould gain but little credit for fagacity by developing our thoughts. But what will the world think, if this lively tale fhould turn out to be the well-intended, and certainly innocent relaxation of a very fludious divine; whofe more ferious hours are deeply employed in mild though acute polemics, and in refearches of various kinds, all tending to the defence of religion. Will they think that he here difcredits his graver occupations? If fo we deny it.

Quid vetat ?

ridentem dicere verum

Humour may be as useful as reasoning, and if it can attract attention, when the other cannot, it is fo far better. It may feem odd, that talents fo oppofite fhould exift in the fame writer; but whoever knows the perfon we fuppofe to be the author, will be little furprised to find on paper the re flection of that natural and unaffected humour, which has al ways rendered him a favourite in the focial circle.

ART.

ART. X. Sermons, by the Rev. R. Polwhele, Vicar of Manaccan, and of St. Anthony, in Cornwall. A new Volume. 8vo. 401 PP. 10s. 6d. Longman and Co. 1810.

IN N the various lines of authorship fuccefsfully undertaken by Mr. Polwhele, there is no one, perhaps, in which he is better qualified to excel than in the compofition of ferThat activity of fancy, which leads him into the regions of poetry, is here fubdued by the temperate confideration of the divine, and produces no other effect, than that of giving originality to his views, and livelinefs to his expreffions and gratifies us with novelty of illuftration in fupport of ancient truth. Do we infinuate then that a poet must be the best writer of fermons ? By no means. It is easy to be too poetical for fuch a task. But poetical imagination, fubdued by found judgment, is always useful; and theology rejects not the aid which is fo valuable in other fciences.

Mr. Polwhele published fermons long ago; we believe before the commencement of our career; this however is profeffedly" a new volume," and to this we fhall confine our attention. The difcourfes here collected are twentyone; and the author mentions, in his dedication, that he publishes at the earnest defire of his parishioners, though, for reasons there intimated, not, in all inftances, the very fermons which occafioned the request. He fhould certainly be allowed to judge which of his fermons are fitteft for publication; and his friends will probably be fatisfied, as we are, with this declaration. We fhall give a brief account of the most remarkable among them.

The first fermon is on the circumftances attending our Saviour's nativity, and has fome new remarks, with a very clear ftatement of thofe that are more common. The Second

is on the circumftance of the altar dedicated at Athens TO THE UNKNOWN GOD; in which, to our apprehenfion, he exaggerates the powers even of Socrates, whom we acknowledge to have been the wifeft of all the heathens; and too readily admits the fuppofition that the altar in question was raifed by him. On the whole of this fubject, and on his interpretation of a famous paffage in Plato's Alcibiades, we could write an extenfive differtation: but for the prefent, at least, we wave the difcuffion; with a full admiffion, that there is nothing deferving of cenfure in what Mr. P. has advanced on the fubject, though we cannot adopt the fame

N

BRIT. CRIT, VOL. XXXVIII. AUG. 1811.

ideas.

ideas. The third difcourfe is of more importance. It is em ployed in collecting fome incidental proofs of our Saviour's divinity, which, while Unitarians are making fuch efforts, though we hope no proportionable progrefs, are particularly feafonable. The truth is, that, whether our Saviour was a divine perfon or not, he may be clearly proved to have affumed to be fo; and what real respect can they have for his character, who try to prove that he was not? The circumftances here noticed by Mr. P. are thefe: 1. The teftimony of John Baptift. 2. Our Saviour's anfwer to his ineffengers. 3. The intimate knowledge with which he speaks of heaven. 4. His behaviour to Zaccheus. 5. The cafting out of the buyers and fellers from the temple. 6. The character and conduct of Judas Iscariot. 7. Our Saviour's conduct at the house of the high priest. 8. His knowledge of St. Peter's denial of him, under the circumflances of the time. 9. His conduct to the penitent thief on the crofs. 10. The teftimony of the centurion. Thefe circumftances are not all of equal ftrength, nor the remarks upon them of equal novelty. The part which the preacher has worked with moft care is the 8th article; on the fubject of St. Peter's denial, the clofe of which therefore we fhall here introduce. After commenting properly on the character of St. Peter, and flating the accounts of this tranfaction from the feveral gofpels, he thus concludes:

"The evangelifts, we perceive, differ in regard to fome trivial circumftances; but with refpect to others, which should feem at the first glance equally unimportant, they exactly agree. They unite in reprefenting St. Peter as at a distance from our Saviour, and as engaged in accidental converfations with feveral perfons; and Jefus, at the fame inftant, before the high-prieft, examined with afperity, anfwering the high-prieft's question refpecting his pretenfions, infulted, buffetted, and fmitten.Though St. Peter feems to have fhifted his fituation from one part of the palace to another, (or rather from the porch to the middle of the hall, where he fat among the fervants) yet he cer tainly kept at a confiderable distance from our Saviour; which, indeed, he would naturally do, in order, if poffible, to preclude the fufpicion of his being connected with Chrift; and, when fufpected and accufed of that connection, of rendering the charge lefs probable. Befides, we can fcarcely conceive, that St. Peter could have had the audacity and effrontery to declare, that he krew not the man,' and to follow up his affertion with oaths and imprecations, whilft he was fenfibly within the hearing of his Lord and mafter. Yet Peter must have been within fight of Jefus, at the the third abjuration: for then the Lord turned and

locked

tooked upon Peter. Here we fee our Saviour, though involved in a bufinefs, that would fufficiently occupy the heart, and foul, and ftrength, of any human being, yet, all along attentive to St. Peter for the moft part not within hearing of our Lord in his human character, and fometimes not within fight-and marking the very moment when His prediction of the threefold abjuration was fulfilled, with a look, the expreffivenefs of which no imagination can conceive, and the effect of which no language can defcribe! Even admitting, that during the whole procefs of the examination, St. Peter ftood very near our Saviour, and in that pofition thrice denied him: we can hardly reflect without astonish. ment on that prefence of mind, that mental grandeur, that ferenity and verfatility, which, at fuch an hour of cruel perfecution, could pay a becoming regard to two objects at the fame inftant, and advert to either as occafion required! Could a mere man have exclaimed, in answer to his menacing judge, to a judge whom he faw thirsting for his blood, and refolved on his deftruction:. 'Hereafter, shall ye fee the Son of Man fitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven! Could a mere man have uttered an apostrophe fo awefully fublime, at the moment when he heard his once affectionate friend, his once zealous difciple, abjuring him with oaths and curfes? Would a frail mortal, who had avowed himself to be the Chrift, the Son of God, confcious of his hypocrify, fenfible of his blafphemies, (for in this cafe he must have been a hypocrite and a blafphemer)-would a child of the duft have ftood before the high-pricft, compofed and dignified, for fo long a period as is ftated by the evangelift; have calmly obferved the murderous rancour of his judges; have meekly, yet not timidly, fubmitted to mockery and blows, as they fpat in his face and fmote him with the palms of their hands; have attended, in the mean time, to the faithfulness of a follower deemed beyond example honeft-a faithleffnefs enough to rend a human heart afunder-and then to close up all, have turned round and looked on that apoftate friend; could an earthly criminal, at the very crifis of condemnation and defertion, have fupported his fimulated character, and concealed his guilty terrors, his confufion of foul, under the mafques of intrepidity, patience, innocence? Impoffible. No mortal could have thus food before his judge; No mortal could have thus looked on his distiple!

We are thrilled with fear and gladness at the portrait: "With trembling we rejoice" at the glance of an omnipotent deity! How various, then, how piercing and how deep, must have been St. Peter's feelings at that LOOK, which, inftantaneously, de. clared the PROPHET and difcovered THE GOD!" P. 52.

Sermon the fourth is on the characters of Jofeph of Ari, mathea and Nicodemus. We may here obferve an ingenious and remarkable conjecture, that Jofeph of Arimathea was actually

N 2

actually the rich young man, who could not prevail upon himfelf to fell his great poffeffions and follow Jefus. There is fomething pleafing in the conjecture, and we do not wish to throw any doubt upon it, though certainly not, capable of much proof. The fermon is altogether inftructive as well as ingenious. The fifth fermon is on fome of the circumstances which occurred between our Saviour's paffion and his ascenfion, as illuftrative of his divinity. In this the author, by choice, adopts the common opinion refpecting Mary Magdalene, as being the fame woman who was called a finner, which we believe we formerly refuted; which refutes itself on a careful reading of the paffages. The discourse, however, contains many valuable obfervations; and the author in a note (p. 90) gives a proof of his fagacity, by applauding the ingenuity of a remark made by a very valuable coadjutor to this work. His fuggeftion afterwards, as to the reason why our Saviour did not mix with mankind in general after his refurrection, as he had done before, is at once new and judicious. The following obfervations are alfo of the higheft order.

ހ

"From a view of all these ftriking points, from a comparison of our Saviour delivering to his apoftles their grand commiffion, with their conduct after his afcenfion, we may conclude upon principles that even infidelity can never impeach, that Jefus was no impoftor!

"If he were an impoftor, he must have been fenfible, like Mahomet or any other falfe prophet, that his pretended gofpel could be established only by the force or fagacity of man, and not by any fupernatural affiftance. He would not, therefore, have chofen thofe for his apoftles, who, from their incapacity and ignorance, were not able to comprehend, much lefs to explain to the world, his fyftem of religion; who from habitual prejudice had been expecting a very different kingdom from the kingdom of the Meffiah, and whose weaknefs and timidity were ready to fhrink from the flighteft appearance danger.

"If, however, we fuppofe that he had really made choice of perfons fo incompetent to their office, he would not have been induftrious in throwing difficulties in their way, in muftering before their eyes the numerous hardships, and the perils which they were deftined to meet in their new and unheard-of enterprife; for fuch conduct were to diffipate their hopes, throw upon their fpirits an overwhelming horror, and render the whole project abortive. If we think that the promises of a comforter from heaven might counteract the effects of this developement of the dangers attending their miffion; we cannot, after a moment's reflection, conceive that Jefus would have made fuch a promise at all, fince he muft