the actions of man, are the necessary result of his nature and circumstances, he has the consolation of a less tremendous responsibility, but then it is in contradiction to all the general systems of religion. AN INQUIRER. P. S. I will take the liberty of adding a few remarks upon Dr. Paley's Scheme of Chance. He says that there may be chance in the midst of design; two men travelling by design between London and York, meet by accident, or chance, on the road. Here is chance in the midst of design. This principle must be admitted to its full extent, when human design only is contemplated. Thus the consequences of nine tenths of the actions of men are consequences of chance. No man by design injures his circumstances, few by design injure their health, thus every man's death nearly, is by chance. Very few men when they marry design children, this is not their motive or design, therefore, every man's birth is by chance. There is according to this scheme, very little that affects the being or happiness of sensible beings the effect of design. And this is perfectly agreeable to my second scheme of the Divine government, which is the only doctrine consistent with the philosophical free agency of man, and which, as it excludes foreknowledge of effect from the Deity completely as to whatever relates to man in this world, excludes also effective design. God wills that if men are born, they should possess a definite organization, and be subject to certain general circumstances, and there the design of the Deity stops. Their future, not their present destination, depends entirely on his will, and if there be either justice or goodness in it, must be as various as the variety of human character. This is Dr. Paley's doctrine of chance, and seems to be agreeable to appearances, and the common apprehensions of mankind. Every middle scheme is a system of confusion and contradiction, or of constant miracle, so that there appears to be no alternative between Paley's Chance, and Hobbes's Necessity. This is the full extent of my assertion, I meddle not with the question as to which scheme is the true one. I SIR, Newington Green, September 10th, 1816. OFFER a few remarks on a communication in your last Number, (p. 448), respecting the Greek Article, but without the smallest intention of stepping in between your Correspondent and Dr. Charles Lloyd. I have not the least doubt that a gentleman of the Doctor's learning can " prove to demonstration that the Deity of Christ is not to be inferred by any right application of the Article to passages in the New Testament;" and shall be glad to see such proof in the Monthly Reposi tory or in a separate publication. Your respectable Correspondent will not, I trust, be offended with my remarks on some parts of his letter. His object seems to be useful knowledge, and therefore I presume that my notice of his communication will be as well received as it is well intended. "The Article (your Correspondent remarks) is only an index." I thought so when I wrote the following sentence in Reason the Arbiter of Language: " This and that are merely two indexes or pointers, such as we often see on way-posts or buildings to direct the eye to some object, and which are properly printed as a hand, because they supply its place. So that or this supplies the place of a hand, or rather of a finger, and was originally nothing but its name." Such was my opinion at that time: whether I invented or borrowed it I cannot now ascertain; but I recollect well that even then the nature and origin of the parts of speech had cost me much hard thinking and tiresome searching. But on further inquiry (and, I trust, clearer, deeper reflection), I was compelled (somewhat reluctantly, for I had published an opinion), by what I deemed convincing evidence, to abandon the idea of index, and proclaim the fallibility of my understanding. The final decision of my erring judgment is expressed very fully in Philosophic Etymology. If your Correspondent will favour my Work with a perusal, he will find that my opinion coincides with that of Aristotle and that of Dr. Middleton at the same time. In representing the Greek as having no resemblance to the English Article, indeed I suspect the Doctor knew not what he said nor whereof he affirmed. He was right in saying that the Greek Article is the pronoun relative o; but National Wealth and Social Institutions. he would have been equally right had he said that the relative pronoun is the Article. The terms relative and article seem both to have originated in just conception. Your Correspondent remarks:"though it be granted that was originally a pronoun, it is no more a pronoun now than it is a verb or adjective." Dugald Stewart employs similar language in his remarks upon the Diversions of Purley, which I do not wonder at; but I would submit to the re-consideration of your Correspondent, whether such fanguage be suited to rigorous inquiry and just conception. The question of any importance, is not what technical names have been applied to o, but what it is. What is its nature or use? Will your Correspondent have the goodness to explain what a pronoun or a verb is? I can assure him the question is not captious, for if he can give a simpler, more intelligible and satisfactory account of these matters than I have endeavoured to give, he shall have my best and sincerest thanks. "The Monthly Reviewer (it is said) has justly maintained the superiority of the English over the Greek in precision, by the means of the indefinite-an-in combination with the definitive." But I suspect if the Monthly Reviewer were asked this simple question-what is the definite or what is the indefinite article? he would not give a very ready or very intelligible answer. What is called the definite article has no necessary connection with definiteness; and what is absurdly called the indefinite article is merely a varied spelling and pronunciation of the numeral one. There is a gentleman with whose remarks on these subjects I should be extremely glad to see your pages enriched, for I consider his understanding of a much higher order than that of either the mere linguist or the mere metaphysician. He has only to think as freely, clearly and profoundly on philology, as on Philosophical Necessity, to render important services to true grammar and sound logic. He has with much candour (I ought perhaps to say generosity after the poignancy of some of my strictures) acknowledged that I have successfully illustrated several obscure points; and if he will point out some of the more essential particulars wherein I may have failed 520 in developing the principles of language satisfactorily, I trust that I shall treat his remarks with becoming respect. He may have more reverence for scholastic authority than I can adınire, but I feel confident that he will be at the trouble of understanding my meaning, though I fear much that some of my readers will resemble those alluded to in the following sentence: "When men have once acquiesced in untrue opinions, and registered them as authentical records in their minds, it is no less impossible to speak intelligibly (or convincingly) to them, than to write legibly upon a paper already scribbled over." Unfortunately for useful learning and true science, the minds of many teachers are scribbled over with school-boy nonsense; but as the judicious Locke justly remarks: "It is not strange that methods of learning which scholars have been ac customed to in their beginning and entrance upon the sciences, should influence them all their lives, and be settled in their minds by an overruling reverence, especially if they be such as universal use has established. Learners must at first be believers, and their master's rules having been once made axioms to them, it is no wonder they should keep that dignity, and, by the authority they have once got, mislead those, who think it sufficient to excuse them, if they go out of their way in a well beaten tract. And when fashion hath once established what folly began, custom makes it sacred, and it will be thought impudence or madness to contradict or question it.” If I have not already occupied too much of the room allotted in the Repository to communications of this nature, I should be glad to have some queries inserted in reference to a subject which has received some notice in your pages, hoping that some of your readers will be induced to reply to them. What are the principal advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of government? Wherein consists true national prosperity? Is the doctrine of Malthus an insurmountable obstar to the perfectibility or improvabler any great degree of human s In other words, are vice and necessary to keep population the level of the means of sub Are private vices public benefits? In other words, is what is called a great, powerful and flourishing state of society, necessarily corrupt or vicious? What are the advantages and disadvantages of foreign commerce? What are the advantages and disadvantages of luxury of the fine arts-of large towns of immense fortunes-of hereditary wealth and titles of abridging labour by machinery, &c. &c.? Have public amusements, as the theatre, the opera, &c. a good or bad tendency? Have works of fiction, as plays, novels, poesies, &c. a good or bad tendency? What are the true origin, nature and tendency of gallantry, cicisheism, &c.? What are the origin, nature and tendency of politeness? Is it (as Mandeville represents it) essentially insincere or hypocritical, the slavish offspring of despotic courts? What is the real value of what are called accomplishments? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the modern plan of education? What parts of modern education are useful-what parts are useless-what parts are mischievous ? What are the advantages and disadvantages respectively of universities, colleges, day-schools, boarding-schools, &c.? Is it probable that there might be more of useful learning and true science without any of them? Whether are maxims and manners or laws and institutions of greatest importance to the well-being of commonwealths? Is it possible to have a system of laws so simple as to preclude the necessity of professional lawyers? Is it possible to have justice administered in a well ordered commonwealth without a code of laws? Are there any absolute or abstract principles of justice? What is the firmest and broadest basis of equity? What is the fairest or least arbitrary title to property? What are the best preventives of faction, commotion, fraud, violence, discontent, &c. in a commonwealth? What are the most effectual means of preserving a commonwealth in the even tenour of progressive improvement, equi-distant from despotism and anarchy? What is the great central principle, round which a commonwealth must constantly revolve, to have the greatest sum of freedom, dignity and happiness, and most security from despotism and anarchy-external and internal war? Is it possible and desirable to raise a whole people into a philosophical society? What are the best means for that purpose? What are the advantages and disadvantages of ecclesiastical establishments? Are they compatible with the peace, security and progressive improvement of a well-ordered comnonwealth? Are any religions sects or factions (two or more congregations united into one body), whether esta blished or tolerated, compatible with the well-being of commonwealths? Are charities of any description benefits or injuries to society? These, Sir, are a few of such queries as 1 should be glad to see well answered in your pages. Crude thoughts in loose remarks will serve no good purpose; but if some of your readers will digest or think any of the above queries into simple, clear, distinct, selfevident, or demonstrable propositions, they will confer a benefit on society, and very much oblige Your Correspondent, JAMES GILCHRIST. GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING. No. CCLXXII. Lord Clarendon's Character of the Emperor Julian. "And now succeeded Julian in the Empire; whether an apostate or no, may for aught I know be law. fully doubted. That he was a great enemy to the Christians, and that he found a way more to discredit and dishonour Christianity by his wit and mirth and scoffs and discountenance, (which made a greater impression upon the Christians of that age, and made more of them to renounce their faith, than any one of the fiery and bloody persecutions had done) is very clear: yet I have never seen ground enough to conclude that he ever embraced the Christian faith, or was instructed in it; for though he had conformed in some outward appearance, to the commands of his uncle the Emperor Constantine, yet he appeared always addicted to the religion of the Gentiles, in which he was very learned; and taking him as a Gentile, he may well be looked upon as a prince of extraordinary virtue, and one, who if he had not been carried by a wonderful providence, and against all the advice of his friends Gleanings. and several predictions (to which he was naturally superstitious enough) into that war where he was slain, it is probable might have extended his empire to as great an extent of dominion and reputation as ever it had under any of his predecessors. And here it may not be unfit (though I believe it will be very unpopular) to observe how much passion and prejudice contribute to the corruption of history for we know not to what else to impute all those relations of the manner of his death, and his last speech in contempt of our Saviour, than to the over zeal of religious persons of that age; who, believing his apostacy, thought they could not load his memory with too many reproaches, nor sufficiently celebrate God's mercy in the vengeance acted upon him in so extraordinary a manner. And the Spaniards do still believe that he was killed by Saint Mercurius with one of the lances which was always kept in that Saint's tomb, as it was missed on the day in which Julian was killed, and found again the next day in its place, all bloody. Whereas, if we will believe Ammianus Marcellinus, (who is incomparably the best writer of that age and was himself in that battle,) he was hurt in a very sharp charge of the enemy when great numbers fell on both sides; and being carried out of the field into his tent, where he lived some days after he found his wound to be mortal, he sent for the principal officers of his army, made a long discourse to them of the public affairs and of his particular person and his actions and intentions, full of wisdom and magnanimity, and died with as great serenity and tranquillity of mind as any Roman general of whom we have received very good account in 531 next morning he went to hunt, with all the train of his courtiers, and when they were got into the deepest woods of the forest, drew that nobleman away from the rest of the company, and spoke to him thus: "Behold! we are here alone, armed and mounted alike. Nobody sees or hears us, or can give either of us aid against the other. If then you are a brave man, if you have courage and spirit, perform your purpose; accomplish the promise you have made to my enemies. If you think I ought to be killed by you, when can you do it better? when more opportunely? when more manfully?-Have you prepared poison for me? that is a womanish treason. Or would you murder me in my bed? an adulteress could do that. Or have you hid a dagger to stab me secretly? that is the deed of a ruffian. Rather act like a soldier; act like a man; and fight with me hand to hand; that your treason may at least be free from baseness."At these words, the traitor, as if he had been struck with a thunderbolt, fell at his feet and implored his pardon. "Fear nothing: you shall not suffer any evil from me," replied the king, and kept his word. The above story is related (from the mouth of Malcolm's own son, David the First, to Henry II. of England, his great grandson,) by Ethelred, Abbot of Rivaux. [De Genealogia Reg. Angl, p. 367.] See Lord Lyttelton's Henry II. 8vo. No. CCLXXIV. Spiritual Comedy at Rome. "The Father-Jesuits at Rome have had a play, or spiritual comedy, acted.. in their Casa Professa (or part of their college where they read their lectures) concerning the conversion of Japan. In the first scene of which there appeared a Jesuit making a sermon to the pit about this subject. That God, being upon the work of renewing the world, has in this age raised up their society, which his Divine Majesty hath been so gracious to, that no human power has been able to oppose it, and such other jimcracks. which they brought in a Japanese to reply to: who said, that they did not believe that God sent them thither, but that some enemy of mankind wafted them over into their country, and there they make it their business to set people together by the ears, and to spy out the nakedness of their country, and divers others such conceits. And so the play went on, with divers other remarkable passages spoken by the actors, all against them. And I cannot imagine how this came into their heads, unless it be to tell the world to their teeth, that they know what folks talk and think of, them; and that they value no man a farthing for it." Father Paul's Letters, p. 326, No. CCLXXV. Jesuits Outwitted. "At Palermo these sweet fathers have met with a pretty accident. A certain wealthy gentleman died there, that was hugely devoted to them; and having made his will, and left his only son and those fathers together, his heirs, making them his executors, with a power of dividing the estate as they pleased, and of giving the son what they should see convenient; the fathers have divided it all into ten parts, and fairly given one part to the son, and kept the other nine for themselves. The son hereupon has made his complaint to the Duke of Ossuna (the viceroy) of this great inequality; who hearing both parties, has made good the division that the Jesuits made of the whole estate; but changing the terms, has ordered that the nine parts do (by the will) belong to the son, and one part (and no more) to the fathers, because they were to give him what pleased them." BIBLICAL CRITICISM. July 27th, 1816. Observations on MATT. xi. 27. HERE MYSTERY exists, there in points which are revealed there can be no mystery. If the sun burst on us in his splendour, darkness is immediately put to flight. To speak of the mysteries of Revelation, is at once to employ phraseology as incorrect as can well be conceived, and to arraign the Divine wisdom, goodness and fidelity in the doctrine of the Gospel. It is to say that God, having professed to give mankind the most important knowledge respecting himself, and the designs which he executes by Jesus Christ, has, nevertheless, failed of his intention, has withholden what, according to the persons whom I have in view, is yet essential to be believed; inasmuch as without the belief of it we can have no salvation. The question concerning this supposed alliance of mystery with Revelation, may be brought within a short compass and to an easy issue. Let all those passages of Scripture where the word mystery occurs be collected and compared together. This being done, if a single text can be produced which asserts the mysteriousness of any re tract as erroneous my opinion on the utter irreconcilableness of the term mystery with the term revelation. What then, it may be asked, is the import of the passage to which reference is made at the head of this paper? Must we not pronounce it somewhat favourable to the notion that even Revelation has its mysteries? So it may be thought, when torn away from it's context, when interpreted by readers whose minds have received a bias from human creeds: so it will not be considered after it has been thoroughly examined. As error is best confuted by the establishment of truth, I begin with endeavouring to ascertain the just sense of our Lord's declaration, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him." The Gospel was rejected by numbers |