pentance is never too late, yet late" in every nation he that feareth God repentance is seldom true: that the early dedication of ourselves to God is peculiarly acceptable to him: and that it behoves every one to improve the present moment, and, according to the divine philosophy of our religion, "to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who worketh in him both to will and to do." That though in some particular circumstances the heart" may be considered as "foolish above all things, and desperately wicked," yet, on the other hand, good men in the present life have often attained to a steadiness and consistency of character, and to that state of "perfect love which casteth out" a bitter and tormenting "fear," and even "to a full assurance of hope," though they are never to judge of their spiritual state by animal sensations and transports, but by its effects upon their life and conversation. That it is impossible to plead merit with God, seeing we are all "concluded under sin," have nothing "which we have not received," and when we have done our best, are still, as to him, "but unprofitable servants:" nevertheless, that every good man, according to Solomon, is, in a certain sense, satisfied from himself," and with St. Paul, may and ought to "rejoice in the testimony of his own conscience." And that to depreciate holiness or moral rectitude, directly or indirectly, is to depreciate an essential and constituent part of true religion, and while we profess to be guiding men to heaven, to be in reality factors for hell.* That it is as impossible the Deity should be wanting to his creatures, as that he should cease to exist, and that every suggestion of a contrary kind should be rejected with abhorrence: that "all souls are his, who hateth nothing which he hath made, and with whom is no respect of persons:" that though natural religion is sufficient where no other is to be had, because and worketh righteousness is accepted of him;" yet, when a clearer manifestation of the Divine will is proposed to them, they will become highly criminal if they do not inquire into it, receive and obey it. That notwithstanding the sublime expectations to which we are raised by Christianity, we must guard against "a sinful weariness of life, an avarice for the hire without the work," but patiently wait "the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord," when, if we shall have performed our duty according to the light and means afforded us, we shall be received, by the grace of the gospel, into a state of elevated employment, and of a happiness far beyond our present conceptions, and which will be strictly everlasting. Rev. xxii. 3, 4. But if we have abused our talents and neglected our opportunities, so as to incur the charge of final impenitence, we shall be adjudged to a state of positive suffering, pointed out to us by significant and awful symbols, which, being awarded by the infinite justice of Him who cannot err, and all whose attributes are in strict unison and harmony, will be acknowledged as just, even by the objects of it, both with respect to its degree and duration, because exactly proportioned to the demerits of the offender. Luke xii. 47, 48. All this, and more than this, will a faithful Dispenser of Divine things set before his transmarine hearers and catechumens, in the course of his public and private ministrations," as they are able to bear it." And, lastly, when they shall have acquired the art of reading, and a fit opportunity occurs, he will commit to their keeping "the oracles of eternal truth," in their own language, guarded with a few plain rules for their interpretation, whereby, in conjunction with the other means of grace," they may become wise unto salvation!" Of these several modes of preaching the gospel to the uninformed abroad, or the uninformed at home, a question naturally arises, which appears to be most conformable to truth, and is likely to be attended with the most solid and lasting effects? AN OCCASIONAL READER. + Mosca Brown. SIR, Dec. 24, 1816. Athanasian Creed, that it might seem perly, the Christian church. It has gone, however, for many ages under the name of the creed of St. Athanasius, and I am inclined to believe that it was first published under that name, as being really the creed of this celebrated worldly disputant, though the author had a very different end in view in its publication, and one which rendered it necessary that his name should be concealed. In short, the more I consider the subject, the more it strikes me, that this famous creed was meant as a burlesque upon the faith, then generally prevailing in the world: and, if my opinion is right, it must be allowed that the author has fully succeeded in his intentions. That the hoax should have taken so completely, is probably more than he expected; and whilst we admire the ingenuity of the composition, we cannot but be surprised that its aim should not have been seen through, and that what was intended as ridicule should in so short a time be adopted, and for so many centuries be maintained as truth. Neither my employments or my inclinations permit me to turn over again the massy folios in which this question lies immersed: but it might amuse as well as instruct some younger inquirer, to examine the subject in the point of view in which I have placed it. I can hardly believe that the writer was a Christian, and I fear that the search after him will be as difficult as the one at present after the author of the Letters of Janius. It is not, however, of so much consequence to discover the name of the writer, as to establish the fact, that the Athanasian Creed was promulgated to burlesque the opinions of Athanasius, and to turn this celebrated champion of the apostate church into ridicule. Absurd, how of this metaphysical saint, I must defend SIR, INVESTIGATOR. Higham Hill, January 15th, 1817. somely invited to speak, it WHEN a man has been hand might appear disrespectful to be silent. This is my apology for saying a few words more on the subject of miracles, while I am not conscious that I have any thing to advance which is worthy the notice of your readers. I am happy that your ingenious Correspondent, A. B. C. agrees with me in the main point, that Mr. Hume's reasoning is inconclusive. The only remaining question, then, is, whether the testimony in favour of the miracles recorded in the New Testament is sufficient to establish facts confessedly so extraordinary: and of this question every man must judge for himself. There is no scale of improbability on the one hand, or of the strength of testimony on the other, to which such an appeal can be made as to force conviction on every mind. I agree with your Correspondent, that no event which has taken place according to the laws of nature, could in reality have been antecedently improbable. But I at the same time conceive that we can form no judgment of the improbability of a miracle, by a miracle being understood an evidence of a Divine interposition for a certain object. Your Correspondent observes that I should require stronger testimony to prove that a man had risen from the dead, than that a man had died. Undoubtedly. And if this supposed resurrection of a dead man were not referred to a Divine Power, and were not intended to answer some useful purpose, though I might perhaps be compelled to admit it (as no violation of the laws of nature can be more wanton and inexplicable than the falsehood of the strongest testimony), I should scarcely know how 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 iniracles 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. I am, Sir, Your's, &c. SIR, HE E. COGAN. Dec. 20, 1816. cre pected and desired by the learried, especially beyond seas, and an ordianance 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," order that no foreign impressions of English Bibles be vended here, without perusal of the Assembly." Id. p. 161. Can any of your readers say was a Tecta Bible. I SIR, what 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 Stonehouse. that Tditable to the literary character name, it is quoted in the late Mr: of the Assembly, and no ill refutation of the calumny against them, in Lord Clarendon's History, I copy from Whitclock'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 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.. YOUR SIR, Chichester, Jan. 3, 1817. YOUR 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 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 remarks 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 xoxos 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 reforming process must be equivalent to a prediction of its happy result, unless Omnipotence can be baffled. On Rom. viii. 19-23, it does not "suffice to say that the world itself may be delivered from the bondage of corruption, 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 (elra, 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 man. kind. 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. The condemnation, the sufferings, or even the unwilling homage of the wicked, can be no recompense to his benevolent mind, for having made exertions and endured death to promote their salvation. Nor can I imagine how his sentencing them to their unwelcome misery, 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. 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 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 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 cas 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. SIR, W. J. FOX. January 14th, 1817. IT appears to me that Dugald Stewart, in his Estimate of Barrow (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 disposi tions;" 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 approve." 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 |