to defend the belief of it on the ground of reason. But the credibility of this fact is altogether changed when I see that it is calculated to answer an important end, and moreover see this end effected by it. The event now supposed is not properly speaking a violation of the laws of nature, which I take for granted will continue to operate as before. It is necessary for the benefit of man that the laws of nature should be steady in their operation; but it may however also be necessary that God should for a certain purpose interpose and act without them. Your Correspondent observes, that we are not much disposed to admit the miracles of the second and third centuries, and asks, if we make thus free with testimony removed from us by the lapse of time, where are we to stop? I reply, when we arrive at miracles which were calculated to answer an important object, and which are supported by testimony which appears unexceptionable and satisfactory. And I cannot help remarking here, that the progress and present existence of Christianity, affords such a proof of the credit which was given to the miracles of the New Testament history in the earliest ages, as compensated for the distance to which the testimony is thrown by the intervention of time, and which, though it does not actually diminish the force of the testimony in itself considered, causes it to press with less force upon our minds, and leaves us at liberty to neglect it if we please. 1 am, Sir, Tiafoe with literary character HE following passage, of the Assembly, and no ill refutation of the calumny against them, in Lord Clarendon's History, I copy from Whitelock's Memorials, where it stands as "a lily among the thorns," amidst stratagems of war and diplomacy, and "hair-breadth 'scapes i' the imminent deadly breach." "The Assembly of Divines desired, by some of their brethren sent to the house, that Mr. Patrick Young might be encouraged in the printing of the Greek Testament, much ex pected and desired by the learned, especially beyond seas, and an ordinance was read for printing and publishing the Old Testament of the Septuagint translation; wherein. Mr. Young had formerly taken pains, and had in his hand, as library-keeper of St. James's, an original Tecta Bible of that translation." : 1646. March 13. W. Mem. 1682. p. 202. It appears, that, in consequence of this application to the House, on the 16th of October following “a committee was named to consider of printing the Septuagint Bible. Id. p. 229. Mr. Patrick Young, who was library-keeper by the king's appointment, before the war, was replaced in 1649, by Whitelock, who had the learned Mr. Duery for his deputy. The Presbyterian churchmen, though they would thus excite the Parliament to patronise the Greek learning, yet were as little disposed to encourage an Improved Version, if not a production of their own, as any Episcopalian Churchmen or Orthodox Nonconformists of our times. Thus, Aug. 20, 1645, the House, no doubt, at the suggestion of the divines, der that no foreign impressions of English Bibles be vended here, without perusal of the Assembly." Id. p. 161. Can any of your readers say what was a Tecta Bible. I SIR, IGNOTUS. Dec. 22, 1816. SHALL be thankful for information as to the authority on which an octavo volume published in 1761, anonymously, under the title of Universal Restitution a Scripture Doctrine, was attributed to Stonehouse. By that name it is quoted in the late Mr. Matthews's Recorder. The person designed is, I appre hend, the same who is mentioned in Hervey's Meditations. He died in 1795, and is thus described in the N. Ann. Reg. of that year, (p. 14). "The Rev. Sir James Stonehouse, Bart. M.D. Rector of Great and Little Cheverell, Wilts." Was there a second edition of the book? BREVIS. SIR, Chichester, Jan. 3, 1817. You VOUR Correspondent R. L. (XI. 700) has made it necessary for me to occupy (with your permission) a small space in the Repository with a defence of my interpretation of the passages adduced in the lecture at Worship Street, on Nov. 28th, to prove that the final happiness of all men is a fact predicted in Scripture. If I interpret the signature aright, this is not the first time that I have had to thank my friendly opponent for his favourable opinion and useful suggestions. His rémarks and my sermon have however much the same fate, for I am not more convinced by the one than he was by the other. Our debate lies within a very narrow compass. We agree in expecting ultimate universal felicity, and only differ as to the mode in which it is announced in Scripture. He believes it as an "inferential doctrine," while to me it seems to be promised explicitly. His remarks furnish one presumptive argument in my favour. If the doctrine in question be "a most rational conclusion from the known character of the Deity, from the observed tendencies of Providence, and from many very plain declarations of Scripture," it is highly probable that somewhere or other we shall find it expressly taught. I know of no tenet which possesses such claims to the rank of a Christian doctrine, and yet remains unrecognized and unsanctioned by the direct assertion of Scripture. It would be strange indeed that on so important a subject reason should speak plainly and revelation be profoundly silent. R. L. has dismissed Matt. xxv. 46, rather too hastily. On the term rendered everlasting, we have no dispute: but he should have shewn that the punishment here spoken of is indefinite, and may be either corrective or vindictive. Simpson's Essays (Vol. I. p. 56) may perhaps convince him that xoxais means not punishment in general, but corrective punishment or chastisement. And if so, in what does asserting that the wicked shall go into correction, inflicted by him whose plans never fail, differ from asserting that they shall be corrected? The prediction of a reformning process must be equivalent to a prediction of its happy result, unless Omnipotence can be baffled. On Rom. vin. 19-23, it does not "suffice to say, that the world itself may VOL. XIL.... be delivered from the bondage of cor ruption, being universally blessed with the liberty of God's children, during a long period of paradisaical happiness, in which the wicked who are dead shall not be partakers," The "world,” in ver. 20 and 23, obviously means all mankind in all ages; in ver. 19 it cannot possibly mean exclusively those who shall be living during the millennium, or be raised for its enjoyment: why then should it receive in ver. 21 this limited and strange interpretation? The term occurs four times in as many verses: twice it must mean mankind universally. The writer seems to be speaking of the same thing throughout; and nothing but the absolute absurdity or evident falsehood of the position should prevent our being satisfied with this plain declaration, that all "made subject to vanity" shall at length possess "the glorious freedom of the children of God." R. L. agrees with me in understanding this last phrase to mean a state of purity and happiness. It is not "quite a gratuitous assumption that the end in 1 Cor. xv. 24, signifies something beyond the resurrection and the judgment." Paul introduces it as a subsequent period-" Afterwards (eira, deinde, postea, deinceps, SCHLEUSNER) will be the end." And he assigns a reason for its not immediately following the judgment, viz. that Christ must reign till he have put all enemies under his feet, including the second death which awaits the wicked. The moral enemies of Christ are death, sin, and misery: how, "without torture," can then being put down," mean any thing else but the universality of life, holiness, and joy? While impurity and misery prevail in any part of his creation, how can the pure and blessed God be all in all? Phil. ii. 10, 11, is certainly a "declaration of the glory conferred upon Jesus Christ, in reward of his humility and obedience unto death;" but there are passages from which we may learn that his reward was something more than being made the Judge of mankind. He was lifted up from the earth that he might draw all men unto him: he tasted death for every man: he died for all, for the whole world. condemnation, the sufferings, or even the unwilling homage of the wicked, can be no recompense to his benevolent The mind, for having made exertions and endured death to promote their salvation. Nor can I imagine how his sentencing them to their unwelcome Inisery, should induce them to bow either at or in his name, or to confess him Lord to the glory of God the Father. There is nothing in the text to mark the unwillingness of the homage, or to distinguish it from that spiritual submission which (see Rom. x. 9) entitles to salvation. expressions for a resurrection to endless misery, or to sufferings terminated by annihilation. There is only one way in which a revival from the grave can be advantageous to those who are unfitted for pure enjoyment. The writer must therefore have had the notion of their subsequent reformation in his mind, and have intended by his language to produce it in the minds of his readers. Rev. iv. 13. John knew that Christ was to possess unlimited spiritual dominion, and he was favoured with a vision of its realization. The homage paid both to God and Christ is obviously voluntary and grateful; and if it be not strictly universal, language is unmeaning and useless. I hope, Sir, enough has been said to vindicate my quotations from the objections of R. L. As my only object was to reply to his observations, I have taken many things for granted, which, to an oppugner of the doctrine of re storation, would have required proof. 1 Tim. ii. 4 and 1 Tim. iv. 10, were not, I believe, either of them adduced by me, but they might have been, without injury to the cause I was advocating. As to the first, I prefer the reading of the Improved Version, God desireth all men to be saved, to that of Macknight, recommended by R. L. for two reasons: 1. Desireth expresses more accurately than commandeth the force of the original verb, and may be substituted in the very passages adduced by Macknight in support of his rendering, 2. It agrees better with the connexion. Paul exhorts to offer prayer for all men, especially for kings and those in authority, because God desires all men to be saved, and Christ gave himself a T ransom for all. Those only to whom the gospel was preached were commanded of God to repent, and they were a very small proportion of the rulers and all men whose salvation is prayed for by Christians, and desired (therefore determined) by the Almighty. The other passage must pass for a similar or stronger assertion of the doctrine in question, unless it can be shewn (which I very much doubt) that believers are, or were in the apostolic age, more specially preserved from adversity, danger, and death, than unbelievers. Three other passages were introduced in the sermon, which, as my friend has not noticed them, I will just mention. Matt. xxviii. 18. The power, authority, or dominion of Christ, is purely spiritual. It is the reign of holy and benignant principles in the heart. Its universality (here asserted) consists, and will be realized, in the unbounded prevalence of goodness and felicity. Rom. v. 12-21. Resurrection and everlasting life are here predicted as universal blessings. Grace," "the gift of grace," "the free gift," are odd 66 SIR, W. J. FOX. January 14th, 1817. It appears to me that Dugald (XI. 695), has mistaken the meaning of that eminent divine, and accused him of inconsistency where he has really committed none. In the one passage, Barrow considers "inordinate self-love as the main ingredient, and common source of our evil dispositions;" in the other, he observes that "reason prescribes to us a sober regard to our welfare, a self-love, which common sense cannot but allow and ap prove." Is not this saying, in other words, that mankind, even when their end is to benefit themselves, do not always listen to the dictates of reason and pursue the right means. But where is the inconsistency of this assertion? The inconsistency of the conduct every man will allow, even while he practises it. Many of your readers must be conversant with Barrow's Works, and some one of them would, perhaps, oblige me, through the medium of your Repository, by pointing out the inaccuracy complained of, if it really exists. In the propositions brought forward by the Professor, 1 can perceive nothing contradictory. D.. SIR, Jan. 2, 1817. THOUG HOUGH it is perhaps seldom worth while to employ many words in asserting or disclaiming a name, there is one appellative which has been coupled with the name of Christians, that I should be sorry to see grow into frequent use:-I allude to the term Philosophical Christians. If by it nothing more is meant than to describe that part of the Christian world which has received the Christian revelation, not from deference to authority, or in compliance with custom, but as a conviction of the judgment, the result of inquiry carried on with philosophical circumspection, the name can do neither good nor harm. Let the unbeliever shew if he can that he is a better philosopher in rejecting Christianity, than the believer is in receiving it. But if by the term be intended to describe a body of Christians, contradistinguished from all their brethren, by entertaining views of Christian doctrine more consonant with philosophy than those of other Christians, it is a name of bad omen, and one which those who hold the gospel in its simplest form, should least of all men choose for themselves. Christianity has not fared so well in the hands of philosophers, that any of its professors should affect the appellation of philosophical Christians. The interested craft of priests has scarcely done greater disservice to the Christian cause, than the temerity and subtlety of philosophical expounders of the faith. The first great corruption of the religion of Christ was effected by men who were disciples of Plato, and ventured to form an unhallowed combination of the dreams of their master of philosophy, with the doctrine of the great teacher of religion sent from God. For many centuries the philosophy of Aristotle was received in the schools with implicit faith, and it was necessary to interpret the Christian Scriptures, when they were interpreted at all, in consistency with the precepts of that philosophy. From the æra of the formation to the present day it has been but too plain, that the two great divisions of the Protestant Church have each its philosophical hypothesis, with which their system of theology must be made to accord. The followers of Calvin and Arminius have shaped their religious creed respectively in conformity with their notions of the nature of the human will, and the laws which they have assigned to the human mind. Both have their philosophy of the mind, and their religious views difler as their philosophy differs. It is honourable to the creed of the Unitarian, and presumptive of its truth, that it is distinguished from the more popular forms of faith, by indifference to every hypothesis of the powers and laws of the human mind. It asks no aid, it professes no alliance with any metaphysical speculation. The facts upon which it is built remain the same, the great events to which it points are equally the objects of hope or fear, whether the soul of man be material or immaterial, whethe will determine itself or be determined by causes out of itself, whether the moral nature of man result from his intellectual nature alone, or depend upon a distinct faculty, a moral sense. All that he believes as a Christian is well-attested historical fact; all that he as a Christian expects beyond the grave he expects solely on the ground of well attested facts. His faith has no necessary connection with any hypothesis of the human mind, which men have laboured either to establish or to explode; it can exist either with them or without them: it requires only that man possess a moral nature, and be a fit subject of a moral government; and that he is such a creature is matter of daily experience, a fact which demands no confirmation, and which fears no diminution of proof from any philosophical hypothesis whatsoever. It has, however, happened that many believe, and more affect to believe, that there is an intimate, and almost necessary connection between the Unitarian faith and certain metaphysical doctrines, those particularly of materialism and philosophical necessity. This will not appear surprising when it is recollected, that these words have always carried dread and odium with them; and that Dr. Priestley, who pursued fearlessly, wherever he thought the traces of truth were visible, was led by his inquiries to embrace the unpopular side in metaphysics, as well as in theology. It is also true, that many of his the ological followers, more probably than of any other class of Christians, have SIR, L. Dover, Jan. 10, 1817. Orelude the York application, N reading the letter signed A. F. in your last Number, (Vol. XI. p. 715,) I was led to the conclusion that your Correspondent was either not brought up in the true Unitarian school or that he was not much acquainted with the old General Baptist body. embraced the Doctor's philosophical reasoning, in the consciousness or in tenets, some, it may be, swayed by the philosophy, let the philosopher the authority of such a name, and determine. The Christian, and more many, charmed by the comprehension than all others, the Unitarian Christof his views, or convinced by the ian, may, if he will, be a spectator power of his arguments. It ought of the field without mingling in the however to be known and acknow- strife. ledged, that the simple form of Christianity which is maintained by Unitarians, requires no concomitant metaphysical creed, and that whether the name philosophical Christian be given them by enemies, or acknow fedged by friends, its application is not appropriate. Among them as among other Christians there may be men, who are philosophers as well as Christians, but they know nothing of philosophical Christianity. It is unnecessary to burthen their religious belief with the difficulties that may appear to be yoked with any system of moral, or mental philosophy. Let the will of man be free; to vindicate the hypothesis from absurdity is not more incumbent upon them than upon other men, for any thing that they receive or reject as Unitarians. Let every act of the will be necessary; that it is so is not more implied in their belief, than in that of every other body of Christians; and if this hypothesis appear to be at variance with the moral nature and responsibility of man, they are not obliged to reconcile them by any thing in their creed, which distinguishes it from the orthodox faith. It may be true, that philosophical necessity is demonstrable by reason; it may also be true, that our moral feelings are all such as they should be on the supposition that we are strictly speaking the authors of our own actions, or that they have their origin within us, independently of determination from without; and that they are such as they should not be on the supposition that we act only as we are acted upon, and that though agents in name we are in fact but instruments. It may be true, that though we reason thus it is not thus we feel in the consciousness of good or evil. We feel selfapprobation, and disapprobation; we feel complacency and remorse; we feel as it is right we should feel, if we are independent agents. Either therefore our moral feelings, or our logical conclusions are wrong; but whether the error be in our feelings or our It has not unfrequently been acknowledged that the Unitarian society in its infancy was nursed in the cradle of the General Baptist connection, that its missionaries are and have been with scarcely an exception, General Baptist ministers, that the General Baptists have not only preached and otherwise promoted Unitarian principles, but have and do many of them contribute to its funds, and that even those societies which hold with what is called strict communion, are in the habit of inviting and receiving Unitarian ministers, (and those too who reject adult Bap tism) into their families, societies and pulpits. If this which has so often been admitted by respectable Padobaptist Unitarians be true, and if with the knowledge of these circumstances, A. F. shall adhere to his former reso lution, will not his conduct savour of something unknown to the enlightened, liberal and highly respectable body to which he professes to belong? M. B. P. S. A. F. is referred to an article which appeared in the Repository for June, 1815, Vol. X. p. 320. SIR, Plymouth, Nov. 1816. is natural for men who enjoy I but few privileges to be over those few. Actuated by this principle, I went a short time since to proffer my vote for a county member in the character of a Dissenting minis ter who receives the rent of a freehold estate. My vote was rejected as I expected it would be; but I gained what I went för, a perfect knowledge |