Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

but naturally-shews a state of mind so depraved, as to deserve the deepest self-abhorrence. Self-love may incline us to form a flattering pic ture of our own character, but we stand before God, and what we appear in his eyes, we ought to appear in our own. He cannot endure the least stain of pollution: how, then, must we appear before him, who, though the most highly favoured of his creatures, have dared to make light of his commands, to rebel against his authority, to be un. thankful for his goodness, to slight and abuse his mercies? Surely the remembrance of this ought to make us prostrate ourselves before him with the lowest self-abasement, not daring so much as to lift up our eyes to heaven, but crying, God be merci ful to us, sinners.

2. Let us learn, also, the unspeak able value of the Atonement provided for sin. It is a relief to the mind, on the view of so much unworthiness, to know that there is a way of access to God; and that he can be just, and yet the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. Yes, great as is our corruption, numerous and aggravated as our sins have been, there is a way in which we may be graciously received by God-not indeed on our own account, but for the sake of his beloved Son, who offered himself as the propitiation for our sins. How infinite was the love which led him to take our nature upon him, and to suffer in our behalf! Looking to Him, the penitent sinner may not only indulge hope, but, with well-founded joy, look forward to eternal happiness. And with what transport ought he to receive the inestimable gift of the Gospel! With what transport ought he to look to Him who was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our ini quities; and adore the wisdom and goodness of God, who has provided for man so great a salvation!

3. Let us, lastly, learn the necessity of Christian vigilance, self denial, and earnest prayer for the influence of the Holy Spirit. With

a nature so corrupt, and a world so abounding with temptation, we need to be on our guard. Mortification, therefore, must be practised: not, indeed, that which consists in outward penances, or in seclusion from the world; but the denial of those affections and passions which lead to sin; the denial of all intemperance, impurity, covetousness, pride; the mortification of the love of praise, or the guilty fear of man; the studious avoiding of all temptation. In a word, it must be the constant effort of every real Christian, to watch over, and subdue, all those corrupt inclinations which oppose the will of God. And, above all, with such a nature, what need have we earnestly to implore the Father of all good to give to us a new heart, and to renew a right spirit within us; to put his fear into our hearts, and to write his laws upon them! Now, to God the Father, &c.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I HAVE read with peculiar pleasure the remarks of your correspondent VERAX, in your number for June, and doubt not but I shall feel equal pleasure and equal gratitude for any future remarks with which your readers may be favoured from him.

Will you permit me to say, that I believe there is no copy of the Bible so correct, or so valuable, in other respects, as the one published by Dr. Blaney in the year 1769; a particular account of the revision of which, written by himself, will be found in the Gentleman's Ma gazine for November 1770? I know not whether I am correct as to the month: his letter is dated Hertford College, Oct. 25, 1769: (perhaps it may be November 1769). I read bis letter about that time; and could you lay your hand on it, and give it a place in the Christian Observer, I think it would be read with great pleasure, and be, in other respects, generally useful to those who may want a standard copy. What makes this edition very scarce, is the

fire which happened shortly after its publication, in which the greater part of the impression was consumed. I have in my possession the quarto edition, which is said not to be quite so correct as the folio; but such were the vigilance and care of Dr. Blaney, that be published a list of the errors discovered in over

running the quarto page for the folio edition, and with which I was. favoured by Mr. Dawson, who at that time kept the Oxford Bible warehouse in Paternoster-Row, The errors are very few, and of a very trivial nature; but they manifest the attention and correctness of the learned and laborious editor, G. W.

MISCELLANEOUS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I DID not advert with sufficient at tention at the time, to a paper in your Number for April, 1811, en titled, "On the Moral Construction of Wills," or I should then have accepted the invitation of your correspondent to discuss the subject, and have offered some reflections which have occurred on a late perusal of it.

A fictitious case is drawn, for the purpose of illustrating certain principles in the construction of wills, which the writer wishes to recommend. A plebeian, with the patrician fortune of 200,000l., leaves his house and 100,000l. to his eldest son, and the rest, in equal shares, to his ten other children, excepting his two married daughters, who were to receive but one half as much as the rest; the other half having been given them at their marriage. The object is, to prove, that a good or right moral principle will produce certain deviations from this distribution, founded upon the different circumstances of the children at any given time, or as often as any apparent alteration in those circumstances appear to require a corresponding alteration in the will. It is certainly no slender advantage to an argument, to frame a case exactly adapted to support it; and no great one to the opposing argument, to adopt the same.

The foundation, or the self-evident maxim, as your correspondent

affirms it to be, on which, in his opinion, testamentary distribution should be founded, is, to "give most where most is wanted." Now, in the case of charitable donations, I allow this maxim to be both just and useful, excepting that a regard should likewise be had to moral character. But the relation of a parent to his family, and, perhaps, to the connections of his family, imposes upon bim obligations and li mitations of a distinct sort, and such, from which, as a conscienti ous man, he will never feel himself at liberty to disengage himself. I shall find occasion to return to this part of the subject. For the present, I just observe, that although, abating the feelings of favouritism, a parent is a more impartial judge of what is, and what is not, wanted, than the individuals themselves; yet, on the subject itself, I apprehend there are almost as many opinions as interests.

Your correspondent directs his eloquence with great force against the common principle of equal distribution, or, "share and share alike." What is common in earthly concerns, is seldom without some good foundation, which, although its merits may not appear at first sight, is generally found to be most free from the injurious consequences attendant on other schemes. We often condemn, on first view, a wisdom, to which we are afterwards obliged to have recourse. For myself, Mr. Editor, I must confess,

that the chief objection to my mind against the principle of "share and share alike,” is, that it is not "share and share alike." Observe, that, in a large family particularly, the interval of age in the elder and the younger is very great. The elder come to their portion at a time of life when perhaps the whole of their income is wanted for their annual expenses. The fortune of the younger, while perhaps they are at school, or are maintained at comparatively trifling expense, lies by and accumulates; and when they are arrived at the age of the elder, by the mere vege tation of money, they are probably twice as rich. This inconvenience and injustice, considerable where the interval of age is great, might be rectified, were the testator to make a proportional gradation in his bequests an arrangement which, as it would evidently be free from all suspicion of partiality, would likewise be certain and fixed, once for all; in this respect much to be preferred to the plan of perpetually altering and adjusting the index of his testamentary barometer to the daily variations of the moral, physical, and financial atmosphere in his family *.

I am happy to agree with your correspondent in the admission, that in the case of birth, rank, or an equivalent consideration, the first-born should have the pre-eminence. But he denies this privilege to a novus homo. The opinion is specious: but I think at least doubtful. Who and what have been the founders of all our noble families? If a man, by honest and honourable means, has raised himself from mediocrity to opulence, and is become possess ed of an estate and mansion, which cannot descend to and be supported by all the children of the family, I

I have heard a printed form recommended for cases of emergency, which would be peculiarly necessary and serviceable, were the principle of your correspondent generally adopted..

see no reason why his eldest son should not be heir to this part of his father's fortunes, and have wherewith to support the same rank in life. I will, however, admit, that it is a first and very serious consideration, whether, after this deduction from his property, sufficient remains to enable the younger children to live as they have been educated. Although a friend to the institution of aristocracy, I am none to aristocratic monopoly. Wealth is as worthy as most worldly distinctions; and with the increase of population, the increased importance of riches, and particularly the opportunities they afford for education, there appears no reason why the ranks of nobility should not be swelled by the accession of the wealthy and respectable. It were well, if all nobility originated with so much innocence and honour. I just recollect Mr. Burke's Letter to the Duke of Bedford.

Your correspondent feels much for the supposed injustice to women, from the received custom. He is of course aware, that none applies to those who marry; and if it be a rule, as seems to be generally admitted, that women marry above themselves for fortune, not only their equality, but their pre-eminence, is thereby secured. But the unmarried woman receives only the interest of her fortune.

She has, however, only one person to provide for; and in this respect she is on a perfect equality with a clergyman, who may have to provide for a wife and family. She is superior; for she may legally invest her capital in trade in many instances. Your correspondent, however, seems to overrate the advantages of trade, at least as the certainty of them is concerned.

Health is another topic in favour of your correspondent's scheme, and in opposition to the common one.

I prefer this term to females, as more respectful to the sex.

The current expenses of the invalid he states to be greater than those of others: but he neglects to say, that his condition exempts him from many obligations of an expensive nature, which others lie under; and likewise from many gratifications, likewise expensive, in which persons in good health not only choose, but think it allowable, to indulge. I refer particularly to visits and entertainments, not of an immoral, but certainly of an expensive character. With respect to the advantage which is ascribed to genius and a lents over the mere plodder in business, I believe experienced persons will determine directly the reverse. The subject of connections, or marriage, affords a more ample field, and is discussed with proportionate industry by your correspondent. It is here particularly expedient to begin at the beginning. The young persons (such they generally are, and such I here suppose) are for the most part the first movers, whatever be the motive, in the intended marriage; but with respect to pecuniary provision, the respective parents are the contracting parties. As these alliances generally take place between persons nearly equal in station and opulence, it is naturally and justly expected, that the provision for each should be nearly equal. A portion is generally given to each on the marriage; but in few, if any, cases, is it feasible to give the whole of what is intended. The parents, on both sides, must live, and in their usual manner, and probably with increased expense; and it would be unreasonable in their children to expect any consi-derable part of their portion, while the parents are living. It is, therefore, expected from the parents on each side, that the remaining part of the portion, or share of paternal property, should be left to the son or daughter by will. And this is so universally understood, that it has in it the nature of an actual contract -a contract as binding as any that can be expressed in words- a con.

tract, which a conscientious man will the more religiously guard against violating, because he is sensible, how much, on this subject, it is in the power of low moral principle to invent subterfuges and evasions. I beg to remind your correspondent, that the contract, as pecuniary matters are concerned, is probably between the parents; and if one parent does his duty to his daughter in that respect, and the husband's parent fails in doing his, the former has just reason to complain of a breach of contract in the other. If indeed either parent, before the marriage, should distinctly avow any intention varying from the common practice, however unreasonable it might be in itself, this would be honest, and, in the event of the marriage, no blame would attach. But silence is the seal of the contract, and it should be esteemed sacred. Your correspondent thinks, that if two daughters marry two men, the one rich and the other poor, without regard to consent, contract, or any thing else, he should give to one as much as he can, and to the other as little, because the one wants money, and the other does not. Now, Sir, permit me to ask, where is the father who would allow, or, if he could, would not prohibit, his son to marry a woman, when he knew it to be the principle of her father, that in exact proportion as he himself provided better for his son, the daughter's parent should provide worse for her? I do not say, that such marriages would never take place, or that they would not, in some instances, be much happier than many others; for many extraordinary things happen; but if such principles are acted upon, without being avowed in time, one party will feel itself grossly imposed upon. I just add, how much such conduct seems to countenance the imputation, so opprobrious to both parties, of getting off daughters; and what encouragement it appears to hold out, when known, to needy suitors.

If any cause will justify a parent

in disinheriting a child, or cutting him off with a shilling, or with a small legacy*, which just serves to acknowledge the relationship, it is that of misconduct-gross misconduct. Not that I consider the parent of those whom he has brought into the world, as possessed of the same right over his property (that perhaps in part inherited from his father) as if he were childless. But unnatural conduct on the one part, if it be obstinate and incorrigible, dissolves the bond of flesh and blood. Most cases, however, are considerably short of this: and in such, it is perhaps less unnatural, and every way preferable, to leave the unhappy child his portion under certain restrictions, and on certain conditions, to be carried into effect by the elder brother, if his morality be such as can be understood and trust ed. For suppose this same libertine, or whatsoever he be, reform after his father's death: it appears to be cold comfort with which your correspondent satisfies himself, that he will repent and acquiesce. It is very possible that his elder brother, in the days of his youth, may have been as bad; but may have reformed in time, or may have feigned reform. Not only an affectionate, but a barely just, husband, would, if possible, provide that his widow, if such to be, should be empowered to live just as she had been accustomed to do before his death. But as, supposing a family, it is likewise supposed that she has as much interest as her husband in its prosperity, there is no impropriety, nothing but what she herself would desire, in securing their joint property to their children after her death; yet with such controul as should protect her against any disrespect arising from the selfimportance of youth just beginning

I had been accustomed to ascribe this practice to the "compunctious visitings of nature:" but a friend, learned in the law, informed me, that it is a deference to the ci

vil law, which did not allow a will to be

valid, if the name of a near relation were @mitted.

to touch, as it were, their own inheritance. By such an arrangement, she would likewise feel relieved from the necessity of guarding against any attempt, particularly in proposals of marriage, to practise on her feelings or irresolution, to the injury of her children.

Your correspondent, consistently with his own principles, supposes, that in the interval of nearly seven years, between the making of the will and the death of the testator, alterations should have been made; and particularly, that as one son's capital had received a considerable increase, and the health of one daughter was on the decline, a deduction from the legacy of the one should be made in favour of the other. This would be perfectly right, if the proposal came from the son, or, upon a fair and open representation, was assented to by him. But I see no equity in the fiat of a father, who should make the industry of one child pay for the ill health of another. And when a youth is just entering the career of life, and urged to attention and diligence, as beneficial to his mind as well as to his fortune, it seems but a paralysing encouragement, to let him know, that, just in proportion as he succeeds, his portion of the paternal estate shall be abridged. It may be his duty to give assistance to his sister: but the duty lies with him-it is his duty, not another's. How it may strike your more opulent readers I know not, but I must confess my own surprise to be informed, with the emphasis of italics, that a lady "contrives to travel on to the grave" with about 8001. per annum. Many single women would doubtless feel themselves contented to be condemned to such a contrivance.

"To all this it will be asked, by inconsiderate persons, Why did not the single sisters club their fortunes and live together? or, why did not Louisa reside with one of her brothers? with fifty questions of the same kind; not one of which would be asked, if I had given the secret

« PreviousContinue »