ginary good, favoured by visitings which we cannot trace, and delighted with occasional glimpses of our future glorious condition. In the human soul itself, its strengths and its weaknesses, its high cravings and natural instincts, its depths and its sublimities, there is enough to tremble at and admire. The vast riches of nature are to man but the faint shadows of things that he shall behold hereafter; the sources whence his spiritual associations arise, the fore-ground of his ethereal perspective. The stars" tell him of the glory of God," the loveliness of earth gives him a dim vision of paradise, and he rises from the contemplation of transitory scenes, "to breathe in worlds "To which the heaven of heavens is but a veil." And yet there are those who think he wants deeper mysteries--who can find no sublimity but in terms to which they can affix no idea-who, while they talk of the pride of human reason, wish to make the idea of God more sublime, by fancying contradictions in his existence, and think the universe itself too narrow for their lofty imaginations to inhabit ! SIR, S. N. D, April 5, 1816. SUSPECT that Dr. Thomas I Thomson, as quoted, R. 143, has brought, or at least credited, a charge against Horsley, the Champion of the Trinity," which is not well supported. Whether in any other case he "found Newton's papers unfit for publication" I know not; but scriptural inquirers, and especially Unitarians, are indebted to him for the first correct printed of Newton's criticopy cal testimony against the interpolation 1 John v. 7, and the common reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. I find it in Horsley's Newtoni Opera quæ extant omnia. 4to. 5 v. 1779-1785. The concluding article, p. 494, in the last volume, is entitled, "An Historical Account of two notable Corruptions of Scripture, in a Letter to a Friend. Now first published from the MS. in the author's hand-writing, in the possession of Dr. Ekens, Dean of Carlisle." Prefixed is the following "Advertisement. A very imperfect copy of these Tracts, wanting both the beginning and the end, and erroneous in many places, was published at London in the year 1754, under the title of Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. Le Clerc. But in the author's MS. the whole is one continued discourse, which, although it is conceived in the epistolary form, is not addressed to any particu lar person." It is to be regretted, that the author of these papers should have avoided so cautiously any direct declaration of his opinion on the subject of the Trinity. He says indeed, in the beginning of the first paper, referring to 1 John v. 7, that in the eastern nations, and for a long time in the western, the faith subsisted without this text," as if he would be understood to recognize the truth of the orthodox doctrine. Yet, in quoting the baptismal form in Matthew, he speaks of it as "the place from which they tried to derive the Trinity." And having observed that in Jerome's time, and both before and long enough after it, this text of the three in heaven was never once thought of," he adds, "it is now in every body's mouth, and accounted the main text for the business." Would a Trinitarian thus express himself, without taking some occasion to avow his orthodoxy, especially while he was exploding as notable corruptions" two main pillars on which the doctrine of a Trinity had rested for ages. These papers by Sir Isaac Newton are not dated, but they may be placed among his comparatively early productions, as he refers to a testimony of "Dr. Gilbert Burnet," as "lately" given "in the first letter of his Travels." Burnet's Travels were in 1685, and his Letters to Mr. Boyle describing them were first published in 1687. N. L. T. " Attack on Unitarians in the last Quarterly Review. In his awe before the episcopal throne, he is utterly astonished at Mr. Belsham's presumption in looking up to so elevated a personage, and at his irreverent boldness in contradicting a Bishop uttering his commands to his clergy. He then falls into his common places. We have another outcry at the "scandalous deception" practised by the Unitarians in the publication of the Improved Version;" they have republished an Archbishop's book with alterations and additions, and have still kept up his name in the titlepage: it is true they carefully explain all the additions and alterations, but their explanation is of no use to those that will not read it, and what ortho. dox writer, be he monthly or quarterly, will do this? The Unitarians, again, are haters of the Church of England: the proof of this charge is, that they united with the other Dissenters and the Methodists in opposing Lord Sidmouth's bill, which was so wise a provision even for their own respectability! What had that bill to do with the Church by law established? Its object was to fritter down the Toleration Act and bring Dissenters more completely under the surveillance of the government. The Unitarians generally did exert themselves to oppose Lord Sidmouth's insidious project; but the Reviewer's anger with them on this account is surely mistimed, when vented at the moment in which he was employed upon what he and his friends no doubt meant as a castigation of Mr. Belsham; for this gentleman, alone, we believe, of all ⚫ the Dissenters, vindicated and complimented Lord Sidmouth, maintaining that his lordship's design was good, and that his bill might have been shaped into a liberal and useful law. The Reviewer next takes up the old calumny; the Unitarians are Deists, or at least very much like them. They reject as much of revelation as they like! But what part of revelation do they reject, for the rejection of which they do not give a reason? They renounce the text 1 John v. 7, 8, and the Reviewer knows, or ought to know, that it is a forgery; and who are the better Christians, the Unitarians who explode this foul interpolation, or the governors of the Church of England who, with their eyes open, still impose it upon the multitude for genuine scripture? But the Unita VOL. XI. 2 G 221 rians resort to figurative interpretations The main subject of the article is, however, the late repeal of the statutes against Unitarians, on which the Reviewer writes cautiously; on one side urged on by his zeal for the Church, on the other restrained by his reverence of the government. He complains that the Unitarians have misrepresented the act of repeal, as if the government had repealed the Trinity itself; whereas he is authorized to say that his Majesty's ministers are sound in the faith. What Unitarian ever doubted their orthodoxy? They are orthodox by virtue of their places.The Reviewer cannot blame the repeal, for that would be to blame the government, which is not the business of a Quarterly Reviewer; but he thinks the Unitarians should not have sought it it became them to be quiet and contented. To be sure, Toleration is agreeable to the spirit of the English Constitution, and if we bear with Jews and Quakers, we cannot consistently drive Unitarians out of the country. In justice to the Reviewer be it said, that he fully exposes the fallacy of the distinction of doctrines as essential or non-essential, with regard to Toleration; all dissent must be allowed or none, at least all within the limits of scripture, though this does but partially comprehend the Jews, towards whom this writer is benevolent beyond his own measures of charity. Whether to account for the harmlessness of the repeal or to explain the grounds of his own attack, the Reviewer represents the Unitarians as few in number, cool and philosophical, fond of writing, but sure not to prevail to any great extent. The reason why they will not succeed is, that the consequence of discussion fairly conducted is the more complete developement of truth. This reason has led other minds to a different conclusion. But apparently fearing lest his liberality should encourage the heretical Unitarians to greater daring, he concludes with a warning to them and a salvo for the orthodoxy of his own spirit. We quote the passage as a curiosity. "There is one case, and one only, in which we should wish to see legal penalties put in force against the Unitarians; and this is, when they depart from the course of regular reasoning, and have recourse to light and indecent ribaldry in assailing the received doctrines of Christianity. Instances have occurred of late, in which some writers of that party have offended in this respect: we trust that they are not likely to recur. At all events, we are convinced that, notwithstanding the late repeal, the legislature will never be found backward in framing suitable enactments, which may effectually protect from ridicule and insult those sacred truths which are and have been received with reverence and awe by the great body of Christians in all ages and countries." Is the writer in earnest? Does he contend that the distinction cannot be made between essential and non-essential doctrines and at the same time assume to distinguish between “ regular" and irregular "reasoning" and to hold out the latter as punishable? A conclusive argument against the Trinity must be offensive to a Trinitarian. “Ribaldry" is a vague expression; it may mean only the playfulness of Jortin, or the indecency of Swift, or the scurrility of Warburton. Unitarians are not accounted witty, nor are they chargeable with foul speech. The bitterest invectives against the system of orthodoxy are to be found in writers of the Reviewer's own church. The Legislature protect the Church from ridicule! Idle. Men will laugh at folly and shake their heads at ab surdity, in spite of Acts of Parliament. What enactments, ecclesiastical or civil, could save from ridicule the doctrines of Transubstantiation, of Regeneration by Infant Baptism, of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the validity of Holy Orders! A Committee of the House of Commons would be curiously employed in The italics are not the Reviewer's. scrutinizing the writings of Unitarians and determining when they reason and when they scoff, when their arguments are regular and when irregular, when their wit is legitimate and when extravagant. A bigot with penal statutes in his hand is formidable; a bigot, with no other weapon of offence than the pen (the Reviewer must pardon us) is ri diculous. GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING. No. CCXLVIII. Death of James II. That Prince died in exile at the palace of St. Germains, Sept. 6, 1701, The celebrated Madam Maintenon, in of a lethargy, as our historians relate. a letter written from the French Court to Philip V. of Spain, grandson of Louis XIVth. gives the following account of the death of James, and the circumstances which preceded his interment. The Religio Medici in the case of human relics must be allowed to be rather equivocal, and a prepared toe or finger of a King would dignify any collection of anatomical curiosities. "We must not talk of deaths to your Majesty without mentioning one, which, however, you must already have heard of from others, and which must have been as pleasing to heaven, as it proved edifying to all those who witnessed it; I do not mean good and religious persons alone, but even the most profligate about the court have not beheld the King of England at this awful period, without surprise and admiration: during six days his life was entirely despaired of: all around him saw it; he took the sacrament twice, spoke to his son, to his Catholic and Protestant attendants, to our King, to the Queen, in short, to every person he knew; and all that he said evinced a presence of mind, a peaceful serenity, a zeal and fortitude which all were truly charmed in beholding. On his body being opened, the physicians and surgeons all took some particle of it to keep as a relic; his attendants dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, others their chaplets." Memoirs of Lewis the XIVth. written by himself. Translated from the French 1806. ii. 184. Gleanings. No. CCXLIX. Spanish Ambition. When Drake took St. Domingo, "in the Town-Hall were to be seen, amongst other things, the King of Spain's arms, and under them a globe of the world, out of which issued an horse with his fore-feet springing forward, with this inscription, non sufficit orbis, that is, the world sufficeth not. Which was laughed at, and looked upon as an argument of the boundless avarice and ambition of the Spaniards, as if nothing could suffice them." Camden, An. 1585. 223 soon after renewed his application; when the primate discoursed with him, and finding that he had attained considerable knowledge in the fundamentals of the Christian religion, asked him if he understood the Irish language, at the same time telling him that he could do little good in those parts without such an acquisition. He acknowledged his ignorance of it, but professed himself ready to undertake the task of learning it if his Grace accounted it a necessary preliminary to his ordination. About a year after, he returned again, and acquainted the primate that he was now able to express himself tolerably in that language, and therefore hoped he might at length be admitted to orders. The primate, thinking that a man of his character, capable of speaking to the people in their own style and tongue, was more likely to be serviceable to the cause than a Latin scholar without that qualification, complied with his request; nor had he reason to repent of his condescension, since the new clergyman proved a respectable and useful minister, and was very successful in making converts from the Catholics, till the rebellion put a period to his labours. No. CCLI. "The Learned Tradesman." Mr. William Pate, the friend and correspondent of Dean Swift, was edu cated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he regularly took the degree of LL.B. He afterwards became a most eminent woollen-draper, lived over against the Royal Exchange, and was commonly called " the learned tradesman." In 1734, he was one of the Sheriffs of London, and died in 1746. In the churchyard at Lee, in Kent, where he lived for many years, in a delightful house adjoining the rectory of that place in which he died, is the following epitaph to his memory: Hic jacent reliquiæ propter ingenii fœcunditatem haud minus eximii, ob morum urbanitatem suavitatemque dilecti ; hunc lapidem sequenti apophthegmate aureo incisum, Obiit nono die Decembris anno ætatis snæ octogesimo 284 REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame,” ART. I.-Two Essays; one on the Effects of Christianity, the other on the Sabbath. By the late John Simpson. London: Published by Hunter. 1815. 8vo. pp. 125. THE writings of the excellent author of these Essays, were directed to the illustration of the evidences of Revealed Religion, aud to the developement of some peculiarities in the language of the books which record its doctrines and history. Few of our readers can be ignorant of the services which he has thus rendered to the best interests of mankind: nor will they be ungrateful to "the Editor of this pamphlet, who "esteems it his most pleasing and bounden duty to comply with the wishes or intentions" of his deceased father, in laying "before the public in the same state in which he found them," the only papers which fr. Simpson left behind him ready for the press. In the former. the Essayist endea vours to shew," that no reasonable objection can be brought against the divine authority of the religion of Jesus, from its not having been more effectual in reforming the lives of men." He begins with concisely illustrating the natural tendency of the gospel, which he regards as favourable in a high degree to good morals and pure religion. Then he proves, on the authority of facts, that Christianity has actually caused great improvements of this kind, that it has abolished many savage and inhuman national practices, and has considerably softened and decreased the barbarity of others. Its beneficial influence on public laws, is not overlooked; nor its success in spreading the most proper means of increasing and diffusing these blessings. The obligations of sound learning to the gospel, are clearly and forcibly stated. A summary follows of the good effects of the Christian doctrine: and reasons are assigned for ascribing these to it and to no other cause. Having thus repelled the objection to Printed at Leicester, by Combe, and very neatly. + J. W. Simpson, Esq. of Rearsby, Leicestershire, REV. this revelation on account of its having it argues, however inconclusively. A physician is not responsible for either the inattention or the obstinacy of his patient. Let it not, further, be forgot ten that the first preachers of the gospel foretold its corruptions; which predictions evince the sincerity of the views of Christ and his apostles and the truth of their pretensions. Social union, government, learning, arts and science, are manifestly good means of This is their natural tendency. And improving the noblest faculties of men. it is no sufficient reason for declining to employ them, that they are capable of being perverted to bad purposes, and have been the occasion of innumerable evils. Why then should Christianity be rejected on this account? With what justice or impartiality do we make it answerable for consequences flowing from doctrines and institutions which, in truth, are not Christian? |