seem," he adds, "to have been inserted by a person who highly favoured the doctrine of the Millennium." Now this supposition is altogether destitute of external authority and support. Griesbach properly intimates, that we may read the clause in question with either what precedes or what follows. For my own part, I am inclined to connect it with our Lord's assurance, rather than with the description of the persons to whom that assurance is addressed.

My attention has been called to the passage by a curious and valuable communication occurring in a note to one of Mr. Wellbeloved's recently published "Three Additional Letters" to Wrangham (pp. 20, 21). I transcribe below the whole of the note, the reasoning of which is not less pertinent, spirited and able than the fact which forms the subject of it is extraordinary.

N.

throne of his glory. If further he had tried his hand' at interpretation, what ample scope would there have been for the display of ingenuity and talent, in setting forth the magnificent privilege to be enjoyed by the Twelve when Jesus should sit on his throne, and they should have a stop! If a Unitarian apostle' had committed such an egregious blunder, the Archdeacon of Cleveland would have dubbed him a Sciolist. Pray, what was the Archdeacon of Chester? For such ignorance on the part of a Unitarian critic, Unitarianism would have been reproached as a school of Sciolism. What then must we think of Trinitarianism? Such incompetency,' according to the Horsleian canons, would be deemed fatal to the whole system of Unitarianism; but will the present Bishop of St. David's allow that in this case it decides even the single question in the discussion of which it was manifested, and weakens, in any degree, the evidence that he imagines to exist, in favour of the genuineness of 1 John v. 7? The inference is very plain, (and for the sake of the inference, I repeat the fact,) that disputed points, whether of doctrine or criticism, should be decided by their own merits, not by the learning or the ignorance, by the accuracy or the blunders, of the disputants. Both truth and charity would be gainers by an attention to this equitable rule."

Letter of Dr. Hartley's to his Sister.

[The following letter has been sent to us by an unknown correspondent, under the signature of M., without any information concerning it. The spirit of it is so excellent and there is so much internal evidence of its genuineness, that we cannot hesitate a moment as to its insertion. reader may compare it with two letters from the same great man to the same relation, given Mon. Repos. V. 55-57. ED.]

The

HAVE lately gained the know

which have been of great use to me; but the chief of my studies are upon religious subjects, and especially upon the true meaning of the Bible. I cannot express to you what inward

them, because not solemnized according to the rules of the Church of England; he declared that he was not willing, on his own opinion, to make their children bastards, and give (qy. gave?) directions to the Jury to find it special. It was a reflection on the whole party, that one of them, to avoid an inconvenience he had fallen into, thought to have preserved himself by a defence, that, if it had been allowed in law, must have made their whole issue bastards, and incapable of succession; and if this Judge had not been more their friend, than one of those they so called, their posterity had been little beholding to them. But he governed himself, indeed, by the law of the gospel, of doing to others what he would have others do to him; and, therefore, because he would have thought it a hardship not without cruelty, if amongst Papists all marriages were nulled which had not been made with all the ceremonies in the Roman ritual; so, applying this to the case of sectaries, he thought all marriages made according to the several persuasions of men, ought to have their effects in law."

A small circle of your readers would be very thankful for some biographical memoirs of l'Abbé le Pluche; who appears from his works to have been an universal genius; and whose "Spectacle de la Nature," I have heard eulogized by a competent judge, in the same language used by Dr. Johnson, respecting Watts's Improvement of the Mind," viz., as a work which should never be left out of a rational system of education. I do not recollect whether, in the English translation of the above-named treatise, there be any account of the author.

R.

that “ say what I will, these matters ought to be left implicitly with God, who has promised to clear up every thing, and make us plead guilty and justify him at the day of judgment." You then proceed to insist upon the paramount importance of self-examination, with a view to ascertaining the true state of our own spiritual condition. I am sorry to be obliged so often to remind you that the question mooted by you had not relation to my own condition, but to certain opinions which I hold respecting the government of God, which opinions it was your object to correct. I am sure you do not mean to affirm that our spiritual safety is to be determined by our creeds in speculative doctrines, because this would lead to the conclusion that all men who subscribe to the general opinion as to the eternity of future punishment, would, simply in consequence, and in virtue of that subscription, be saved; whereas our Lord declares that those only shall be saved who do the will of his Father. And an apostle has added in the same strain that not the hearers but the doers of the law of Christ shall be justified. The Apostle Paul himself did not consider himself absolutely secure, although he might have all knowledge, unless charity (i. e. Universal Benevolence) were superadded. To close, therefore, all inquiry into a point of doctrine, by reiterating the observation that personal religion and personal happiness should occupy our chief attention, is to evade the question; and if your sole object has been to warn me of my slothfulness, and to exhort me to sobriety and diligence, you would have been spared the trouble of perusing, and I of writing a great deal of what has been submitted to you: indeed, it is most probable, that I should have merely acknowledged my sense of your kind intentions in administering salutary reproof, and expressing my hope of profiting by it. But this is not the state of the case. You most distinctly charge me with maintaining erroneous notions respecting the final doom of unbelievers, who unhappily constitute the great majority of mankind. I find no fault with your conduct in endeavouring to reclaim me from a supposed error; on the contrary, it indicates a concern for my

welfare which deserves my gratitude. But then if you are seriously intent upon doing me this service, you must pay the cost, that is to say, you must be at the trouble of hearing the reasons I have to offer for the opinions I entertain, and then proceed to shew that they are inconsistent with scripture and with good sense. Unless you are willing to undertake this task, you cannot expect to convince my judgment, although you may stop my mouth. You have forced me to say more than I could have wished in this strain.

"These matters (meaning the fate of the majority of mankind) ought to be left implicitly to God." Who disputes it? Not I. Sure I am that it never once entered my mind to deny the right of the Almighty to dispose of his creatures according to his will and pleasure. But it is the duty of his creatures to ascertain, as far as in them lies, what is his will and pleasure. Has he or has he not declared it? that is the question. We both of us admit that he has, and that the Bible contains that declaration. Now I ask, seeing of how much consequence it is to every son of Adam to know what it has pleased our Maker to make known to us, is it fitting that you and I should be content to gain our information at second-hand, or that we should refer to the proclamation which has been published in the name of the Majesty of heaven, and each judge for himself? I anticipate your answer. I know you will not permit me to judge for you, and neither ought you to take it amiss that I am not willing that you should judge for me. It is natural enough that we should wish to compare notes, and this is the very thing which I am engaged in doing, at your own desire. Do you admit this? Would you say that you demand; and when I prepare to tell you what I admit, and what I would say, ought you to turn round and tell me that I ought not to concern myself with such matters, but leave them to God? But then I humbly inquire in my turn why you, and those who think with you, have not so left them? Why have you presumed to describe the future condition of unbelievers? I will also answer for you, because the Bible contains numerous declarations upon the

subject; and because it is the duty of Christian teachers to make known the whole counsel of God. Still I am entitled to maintain the right of searching the Scriptures, as the Bereans did, in order that I may be assured that those who undertake the office of teachers have rightly divided the word of truth. They pretend not to speak from direct inspiration, but refer to the law and to the testimony. How very plain all this appears; and yet what labour it costs me to bring you to acknowledge this first principle, to recognize this letter in the language of free discussion. I grant you most cheerfully that the invaluable volume which you and I regard as of paramount authority, does teach us all things necessary for life and godliness; but this is not all. It professes to give an account of the creation of the world and of the designs of the Deity in regard to the whole human race. It even contains notices of angelical beings. Seeing, then, that all scripture is profitable to instruction, shall we presume to say to our fellow-christians you must not read this, nor judge of that, nor try to understand the meaning of what is written? Is it not said by the writer of one of the most obscure books of the Sacred Canon-" Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time is at hand"? The prophecy in many places adverts, in sublime but plain language, to the fate of the world and of those who dwell therein; and I defy any man to read or hear it read, without having his mind filled with a deep interest in the awful descriptions which it affords of the condition of nations, and of classes of men, and of the whole race of men, froin the date at which it was written, until the great drama closes in the consummation and renovation of all things. As to the disposition of mind in which our inquiries into these matters should be conducted, we should do well to follow the advice of St. Peter, who says, Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, as new born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." I do trust that you will not, after all this explana

66

tion, oblige me again to insist not only upon my right but upon my duty, to hear and to understand whatever it has pleased the Almighty_to declare respecting his designs. Say what you will, a duty it is, and like all other duties, its performance is attended with God's blessing. He has challenged us to judge of the equity of his dealings with the children of men; and it is at our peril that we refuse to exercise our best endeavours to obtain such clear views of the wisdom and goodness of his conduct as may fill our minds with love, adoration and unbounded confidence. An appeal to one's own consciousness, I am well aware, proves nothing to others; but I will nevertheless affirm that the very exercises which you condemn as fraught with danger, have proved unspeakably salutary to my mind, and have kept me from sinking into despair under afflictive dispensations of long continu ance. I doubt not that you too have derived consolation from the views you entertain but I venture to say, that, be the degree what it may, it has always corresponded precisely with the degree of your confidence in the mercy and goodness of God.

Having thus attempted to clear away those stumbling blocks from the threshold of discussion which have impeded our progress, I now proceed to answer a question which you have put to me more than once, though in somewhat different words.

In your paper of October 4th, you say, Our Lord Jesus Christ said that such persons (those who sinned against the Holy Ghost) would not be forgiven in the world to come. Had you been present, would you have told them they would, and that they would be blessed in heaven to all eternity?"

Again, October 5, "I cannot be lieve that you would tell a known sinner against the Holy Ghost that he would be blessed in heaven to all eternity."

I hesitate not to answer that I would not, feeling as I do at present, have said one word in contradiction to our Lord's declaration. I believe that the sinners to whom he directed his discourse were not forgiven; and yet I believe that they will, eventually, be created anew, be brought to bow

to the sceptre of Christ, to swear in his name, and be blessed to all eternity.

A man who suffers the punishment adjudged for his crime is not forgiven. The characters in question having died without repentance and without forgiveness, must necessarily be beaten with whatever number of stripes the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall see fit to inflict upon them. But still they are God's creatures, and however they may have denied him and his Christ, he cannot deny himself. He has declared that he will not contend for ever, nor be always wroth, lest the spirits should fail before him and the souls which he has made; that he does not grieve willingly, nor afflict the children of men; and we know that Abraham acknowledged Dives as his child in a future state, therefore, in the future state, as well as now, the term children of men will apply to the evil and the good of Adam's descendants. Moreover, we are expressly told that the work of judgment has been committed to the Son, and that the apostles and other saints shall share with him in the discharge of that office. Now, if there be any thing plainly taught in the Scriptures, it is that God will reward every man according to his works, without partiality or respect of persons-that there will be various degrees of punishment-many stripes and few stripes, as there are various degrees of guilt, and that Jesus Christ died for all men, and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; that, therefore, the Father hath given all things into his hands, and that of all the things (à fortiori, all men) thus given to him he shall lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day.

A learned writer, whose religious opinions are considered as orthodox, and who, at any rate, has not taken my side of the question in dispute, observes that the same method and the same principles of interpretation are common both to the sacred volumes and to the productions of uninspired men; and that, consequently, the signification of words in the Bible must be sought precisely in the same way in which the meaning of words in other works usually is, or ought to be sought. That is to say, we must first ascertain the notion affixed