versity of opinion which prevails among all sects of Christians regarding the proper understanding of the Scriptures. This diversity of opinion, no doubt, is permitted by Providence for good purposes: among others it may be intended to preserve these holy records pure and uncorrupted. The experience of eighteen centuries clearly shews how apt men are to ingraft upon them ideas and interpretations foreign to the proper signification of the original language: but we may also perceive that in consequence of the strict criticism to which they have been constantly subjected, they are preserved to us in a state of purity which no other records of the same standing can boast of. Even if no intention could be traced by our fimited faculties in this dispensation of Providence, the existence of diversity of opinion being apparent, it must be allowed to be the imperative duty of all Christian teachers to promote uniformity; and if they act from no motive but a love of truth, it is impossible they can do any harm. Indeed it is only by bringing all men to agree on the proper interpretation of Scripture, that the necessity for doctrinal preaching can be superseded. Until that happy period arrive, our Saviour as well as all his apostles clearly point out to us both by precept and example, the duty of controverting generally-received opinions, when they are in opposition to the promotion of true Christianity. "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old,”- But I say unto you,"-this surely is controversial preaching, and the authority is undoubted. - It is true that doctrinal preaching, like every talent entrusted to us, may be abused; but the proper use of it must be left entirely to the discretion and judgment of the individual who is called upon to exercise it. It will not answer the purposes either of religion or morality (if there be a distinction), to suppress it altogether. It may be done in a manner the most concifiating, the most interesting, the most convincing. By means of it, the most elevated devotion to God may be excited; the most enlightened benevoence to man may be promoted, to the complete destruction of every irritable and revengeful feeling, and a love of frath may be cultivated, which will scrupulously reject all secondary objects of gratification or pursuit, while the mind is engaged in her cause alone: Let Christians, therefore, study to 66 upon SIR, N. B. Temple, Jan. 30, 1817. Tulpit eloquence may probably THE following curious morceau of furnish amusement to some of your readers. It is extracted from a small publication bearing the title of " Sermon preached in St. Giles Kirk, at Edinburgh, commonly called Pockmanty Preaching, by Mr. James Row, sometime Minister of Strowan." The tract is published without date, but its contents appear to determine the time of its delivery from the pulpit to be the year 1643, when the solemn league and covenant was framed at Edinburgh by the persuasion (accord ing to Hume) of Sir Henry Vane, one of the commissioners from the English Parliament, then at open war with the misguided Charles. The text is from Jer. xxx. 17, "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord; because they called thee an outcast, saying, this is Zion, whom no man seeketh after." The preacher thus opens and anatomises his subject. "I need not trouble you much by telling you what is meant by Zion here, ye all ken it is the poor Kirk of Scotland; for the Kirk of Scotland is wounded in her head, in her hands, in her heart and in her feet. First, in her head, in the government; 2dly, in her hands, in the discipline; 3dly, in her heart, as in the doctrine; 4thly, in her feet, as in the worship." The first of these general divisions was naturally susceptible of subdivision, and the preacher displayed much quaint ingenuity in pointing out in what respects the Kirk had been affected in each of her five senses, particularly in that of hearing, "by : the bringing in of the organs," since which she had become " as deaf as a door nail." After discussing the 2d and 3d general heads, Mr. Row proceeded as follows: "Now I come to tell you how she is wounded in her feet, and that I call the worship of the Kirk of Scotland. The Kirk of Scotland was a bonny trotting nag, but then she trotted sae hard, that never a man durst ride her but the bishops, wha after they gat on her back crosslanged her, hap-shacked her, and when she became a bonny pacing beast, they took great pleasure to ride on her; but their cadging her up and down from Edinburgh to London, and it may be from Rome too, gave her sik a het coat that we have these twelve months bygane been stirring her up and down to keep her fra foundying: yea, they made not only a horse but an ass of the Kirk of Scotland. How sae quo ye? What mean ye by this? I'll tell you how they made Balaam's ass of her; ye ken well enough Balaam was going an unlucky gait, and first the angel met him in a broad way, and then the ass bogled and started, but Balaani got by the angel and till her and batlarmed her sufficiently; that was when episcopacy came in, and then they gave the Kirk of Scotland her paiks. Afterwards Balaam met the angel in a strait gait, and then she startled mair the before; but Balaam till her again, and whaked her soundly; that was when the five articles of Perth were brought in. The third time the angel met Balaam in sae straight a gait that the ass could not win by, and then it pleased the Lord to open blind Balaam's eyes, and that is this happy day's work; now God has opened all our eyes. We were like blind Balaam ganging an unlucky gait, and riding post to Rome; and what was gotten behind him upon the ass wot ye? I'll tell you, that was a pockmanty, and what was in it trow ye but the book of Canons, and of Common Prayer and the High Commission? but as soon as the ass sees the angel she falls a Ainging and a plonging and o'er gangs the pockmanty, and it hings by the string on the one side, and aff gaes blind Balaam, and he hings by the hough on the other side; and fain would the Carl have been on the saddle again and been content to leave his pockinanty; but, beloved, let not the false swinger get on again, for if he get on again he will be sure to get on his pockmanty also." This pious jeu d'esprit is closed by several quaint exhortations to subserve the covenant," which doubiless had their intended effect with numbers of the several classes to whom they were addressed. In comparison with this, how tame and impotent in effect would have been an oration in the liberal and philosophic tone and temper of the Freethinker in King Henry the Eighth's parliament (sce Mon. Repos. Vol. XI. p. 697), whose plan of reformation did not, like that of John Knox, put down" idle, ravenous and cruel" bishops, merely to substitute priestly dominion in another shape; but who seems to have been born out of due time," and to have had few auditors who could enter into his extended views of religious liberty and the right of individual judgment. SIR, TH R-D. Jan. 6, 1817. HERE can be no inquiry so interesting on the subject of re ligion as the state of the human dead. Indeed, on this point, the value of human existence turns, whether it is to be considered as a blessing or a curse, whether the Deity be benevolent or malevolent. For if the Scriptures teach the doctrine of eternal torments, human existence is represented by them as an mutterable curse. The Unitarians distinguish themselves in this inquiry, and are likely I think to bring the Scriptural doctrine to light, so that hereafter a greater harmony of opinion may be expected. That a Being the author of all men's appetites, passions, and circumstances, should mark the deviations to which these have led, with eternal misery, is incredible upon any other supposition than pure malevolence. But where are we to look for the Scriptural doctrine on this subject? In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark? When Mr. Evanson's arguments are answered with respect to these Gospels, then their authority may be acknowledged, and their language subjected to fair criti cism. It is certain that these Gospels, and also that of John, were written dong after Jesus delivered his dis courses which they profess to record, by expressions found in these Gospels themselves, as where it is said that certain false reports remain to this day. But of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, there is independent evidence, clearly pointed out by Paley, and these tend to es tablish the Gospel of Luke. Now, whatever be the doctrine of Paul, concerning the state of the human dead, it is probable that such doctrine is the genuine doctrine of the -Gospel; for his Epistles were clearly written before any of his Gospels, and it is certain that they are his genuine writings. Now the general doctrine of Paul seems to be that men shall be rewarded and punished according to their works; and if he had stopped here, we might have been left with an indefinite impression, that such a portion of good and evil would fall upon mankind, as is consistent with strict justice in the Being, who gave to all their appetites, passions and circumstances, which they have im proved or abused. But Paul appears to teach further, that the righteous shall be rewarded with eternal enjoy ment, and the wicked be visited with vindictive punishments, which shall end in their destruction. His language is always death, destruction, &c. And he used the words wrath and vengeance, applying them to God in his punishment of the wicked. Mr. Locke appears to state this to be the clear doctrine of the Gospel, and it does appear to me to be the doctrine of St. Paul. I would ask any man if he read the Epistles of Paul, without ever having heard of any doctrine concerning the human dead, would not this be the conclusion he would draw? Nor let any one startle at vindictive punishments. Are not all pubishments such? Is not the notion involved in the very idea of punishment? Punishment in common language has no other meaning, never has had · another meaning. Philosophers may call it suffering, but they cannot retain the word punishment, without accepting a vindictive meaning, All mankind have ever understood it in this sense. The doctrine of Paul, therefore, seems to be, that all men shall be raised from the dead, the good to eternal enjoyment, the bad to painful destruction, and that the pain of such destruction shall be ac cording to the degrees of their wickedness. If any of your readers favour these observations with notice, I shall be grateful, as too much attention cannot be called to this subject. Mr. Hume has said, and said justly, that taking all the popular doctrines of all religions for granted, it is the INTEREST of all men that none of them should be true. But if I have put a proper construction upon the doctrine of Paul, it is not the interest of all men that they should be false, because the good shall receive more than they deserve, and the bad shall receive no greater punishment than they merit. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? A CONSTANT READER. Anecdote of Dr. Franklin. Tenterden, Feb. 5, 1817. URING the residence of this distinguished philosopher and statesman in this country, and very soon after his examination at the council board, where he experienced a great deal of abuse, particularly from the attorney general, he visited an intimate friend and acquaintance who then resided at this place. Du ring his abode here, his friend took occasion one day to ask him, if the abusive and sarcastic language of the attorney general hurt his feelings? to which the Doctor jocularly replied; not at all, my friend; not at all:it fell off like the drops of rain from my oil skin coat.". A reply that shewed in a striking manner the amiableness of his disposition, a mind influenced only by integrity and conThe writer had scious innocence. the above anecdote from the Doctor's respectable, and at that time truly venerable friend. I SIR, Pontale, Jan. 28, 1817. RECOLLECT that you once invited Correspondents to send you any passages, in old writers, which contained early notices of Unitarianism in England, and might increase to a valuable collection of materials for a connected History. Such a work will probably be undertaken whenever those Unitarians who can afford to form libraries shall manifest some zeal to encourage what may be called their own literature. At present, as I fear your editorial experience can attest, they would, I believe, sooner expend pounds as patrons of some splendid and highly fashionable work, than shillings to assist one however devoted to an object which they profess to consider as of first importance, if brought out with no attractions but such as utility required, or were suited to the simplicity of truth. To contribute, however, the little in my power to such a collection as I have mentioned, for the use of better times, I send you what I found in an old pamphlet, with the following title, which I copy verbatim et literatim. "A Briefe Description or Character of the Religion and Manners of the Phanatiques in generall. Scil. Anabaptists, Independents, Brownists, Enthusiasts, Levellers, Quakers, Seekers, Fifth-Monarchy-Men, and Dippers. Shewing and refuting their Absurdities by due Application, reflecting much also on Sir John Præcisian, and other Novelists. Non seria semper. London, printed, and are to be sold by most stationers. 1660." Pp. 52. At page 12, the author, complaining of the dislike expressed by the Phanatiques to the forms practised by the clergy of the Church of England, adds, "If they use the ancient doxology giving glory to the Trinity, as the Greek and Latin Churches ever did, their Socinian and Arian ears are so offended, as if Christians should ask them leave to own the blessed Trinity." At page 15, this anonymous author pays his awkward compliments to a Unitarian work, in Latin, which is soon to be brought before the English reader. He describes the affections of the Phanatiques as "apt to run out into much disorder and confusion in rustical impertinencies, and pitiful rhapsodies of confused stuff, spitting out their poison like the Racovian Catechism, and such like primers of the devil, against all Christian duties, extern decency, and distinction of order or office; against all holiness, morality and modesty in men's lives." Having censured such as he deemed the more extravagant Phanatiques, my author adds, p. 42, "Some, though fiery, yet are orderly and patient in government; though they excel in gifts, yet are not swelled with tumours. But these are as unsavoury salt, that is good for nothing, unless it be new boiled in an Independent or Levelling cauldron, over a Socinian furnace, with a popular fire." Such are the manner and the connexion in which the opponents of the Trinity were introduced exactly at the era of the Restoration. I am tempted to go a little beyond my immediate purpose to give this author's character of all the Theologians whom he found without the sacred pale of the Epis copal Church. They are mothy and mongrel predicunts, centaurs in the church, hatt clerics and half laicks, the by-blows of the clergy, gifted hypocrites, severe momusses, a whining people, triololary Christians, new dwinding divines, the prophetical pigmies of this age, unordained, unblest, untried, unclean spirits, whose calling, commission and tenure, depends on popularity, flattery and beggary; their excellency consists in tautologizing, in praying extempore, that is, out of all time, without order or method; being eminent in nothing above the plebeian pitch and vulgar proportion. They spin out their sermons at their wheels, or weave them up at their looms, or dig them out with their spades, weigh or measure them in their shops, or stitch and cobble them with their thimble and lasts; or thrash them out with their flayls, and afterward preach them in some barn to their dusty disciples, who, the better to set off the oddness of their silly teachers, fancy themselves into some imaginary persecution, as if they were driven into dens, and cares, and woods. Their holy and learned academies, where they first conned this chymical new divinity, and are since come to so great proficiency, were Munster's Revelations, Geneva's Calvinism, Amsterdam's Toleration, and New England's Preciseness." Pp. 49, 50 To this invective is added an abomi. nable and unauthenticated charge against the moral character of Calvin, followed by a charge apparently as groundless, of" stealing the greatest part" of his Institutes "out of the Works of Melancthon and Hiperius Sarcerius." My author adds, Westphallius the Lutheran saith, he stole all from Ecolampadius." I have not met with these charges against the morality of Calvin's life, or his inte 66 or, as Propositiones Theologica de Religione et Ecclesia Christi. I. Deum existere, illumque esse unum, vel solo rationis lumine hominibus innotescit. II. Eadem ratio naturalis cultum Deo tum internum tum externum hibendam esse docet. III. Ratio naturalis sibi relicta plures veritates ad completam religionem pertinentes minime perspicere, neque voluntatem ad actiones veritatibus cognitis consentaneas satis efficaciter impellere potest. IV. Hinc nunquam genus humanum sine religione aliqua divinitus revelata extitit. V. Considerata religionis Christianæ natura, modoque quo primum instituta atque propagata fuit, dubitari non potest, quin auctor illius sit ipse Deus. VI. Salus æterna non potest in quâlibet religione Christiana fundamentales tantum admittente articulos obtineri, cum non fundamentales minime rejici possint utpote eadem revelantis Dei auctoritate innixi. VII. Libri omnes religiosi tam proto quam deutero-canonici, catalogo concilii Tridentini comprehensi, sunt a Deo inspirati. VIII. Libros sacros a Deo inspiratos esse quo ad res et sententias, plerique omnes theologi existimant. IX. Vulgata Latina editio est authentica eo sensu, quod cum libris genuinis congruat in omnibus quæ ad dem et moras pertinent. X. Libri sacri passim perobscuri difficilimique intellectu sunt. XI. Libri sacri una cum traditioni bus divinis sunt completa credendorum regula. XII. Librorum sacrorum lectio in lingua vernacula neque promiscue omnibus necessaria est, neque utilis. XIII. Christi ecclesia semper fuit, semperque erit conspicua. XIV. Notæ veræ ecclesiæ sunt, qund sit una, sancta, catholica et apostolica. XV. Notæ hæ omnes soli Romanæ eeclesiæ competunt. XVI. Non solum probi et prædestinati, sed etiam improbi et damnandi sunt in Christi ecclesia. XVII. Hæretici et schismatici sunt extra Christi ecclesiam. XVIII. Ecclesia nunquam errare potest in rebus quas Deus credendas aut faciendas revelavit. XIX. Neque in decidenda orthodoxia et heterodoxia quoruinvis textuum dogmaticorum. XX. Nec sacri codices, nec principes, magistratus ve civiles, nec spíritus privatus sunt judices controversiarum fidei. XXI. Episcopi duce Romano pontifice recte semper atque sine omni errandi periculo judicant de controversiis fidei, tam in concilio generali, quam extra concilium. XXII. Eadem erroris immunitate gaudet vel solus Romanus pontifex dum toti aliquid ecelesiæ credendum proponit, sive, ut aiunt, dum loquitur ex cathedra. XXIII. Munus convocandi generale. concilium, illique præsidendi, vel per se, vel per suos legatos, spectat ad pontificem Romanum. XXIV. Beatus Petrus fuit episcopus, Romæ, ibique supremum diem op-. petiit. XXV. Beatus Petrus a Christo principatum accepit in ecclesia, et ju- . risdictionem in rebus religionis in omnes fideles. XXVI. Principatus hic beati Petri et jurisdictio transit ad omnes successores ejus pontifices Romanos. Defendentur in Collegio Saxosylvensi (vulgo Stonyhurst) a Reverendo Richardo Norris, Theologiæ Auditore, anno 1817, mensis Januarii, die 14, ab hora nona matutina ad undecimam, Præside Reverendo Norberto Korsak, Theologiæ Professore. |