during those days, and especially of attending again and again upon your delightful labours in the pulpit, which have left behind you a very dear memorial, not in my heart alone, and that of my wife, upon which I assure you they have made a most friendly impression, but also upon a great many of my people; one of whom I have already heard affectionately blessing God, in prayer, that he has given his church such a minister as you are, for that I know was the design of what he expressed. There was one thing that vexed me heartily, and it was entirely to be ascribed to that dissipation of thought, which my illness occasioned. I mean that after all the good services you had done us in publick, you should be suffered to pay for your own horse. The impropriety of this I recollected before you had been gone five minutes from the inn, and accordingly sent, but to no manner of purpose, in hopes of preventing it. I heartily wish you would let me know what that expence was, and would allow me to repay it.* I hope, dear Sir, I may, by this time, congratulate you on being returned, after a safe and prosperous journey, to your own delightful abode, where, I thank God, you are so easy and so happy, and where I pray that all desirable blessings may be multiplied upon you from the great and gracious Redeemer, who is capable of making all gifts and graces, of every kind, to abound to us. I think every sermon you preached seems to have grown more delightful to our friends than the former, and I really hope that many souls will have reason to bless God for what they heard from you, which I am sure will be the best equivalent

* Query. Are not our country ministers frequently exposed to considerable expense in this way, while in the service of the public? Surely the good Doctor's example is worthy of imitation.

you can receive for the expensive labour of love that brought you amongst us; and among people that honour you more, and love you better, I will venture to say, you cannot easily go. My humble service attends Mr. Eldridge, and Justice Marsh, and his lady, and all my other Norwich friends, when you write. Especially Mr. Scot and Miss, who, I dare say, will be glad to hear I am so much better than when Mr. Kippis left me. I hope all that has endeared, and all that has interrupted, our converse, will teach us, my dear friend, to look upward and quicken our desires after that blessed world, where the endearments of rational and Christian converse shall be infinitely improved, and no more interruptions shall be known.

In this pleasing hope, I subscribe myself, with a heart full of the sincerest and most cordial esteem, Rev. and dear Sir, your most affectionate brother and obliged friend and servant,

P. DODDRIDge.

་་་་་་་

REMARKS ON LUKE i. 16, 17. (To the Editors.)

Gentlemen,

"if

It has often been asked by Unitarians, with an air of triumph, and in the tone of confidence, Jesus were indeed God, how comes it to pass that the Evangelists nowhere plainly and distinctly affirm him to be such, and that in no part of their writings that title is employed to characterize him, whose life, and death, and resurrection, they record?" I should deem it perfectly unnecessary to refutation of this gratuitous and Occupy your pages with a formal unfounded assertion, after the elaborate, and, to every unprejudiced mind, most convincing discussion of this important subject, contained in Dr. J. P. Smith's late work, on the " Scripture Testimony to the Messiah." My present design is merely to point the

attention of your readers to the above-cited passage, as containing a most direct contradiction to all such assertions, by whomsoever they may be made. There is no meaning in words, if the obvious, the inevitable, import of this passage, when translated according to the established rules of grammar, be not, that HE, of whom John was the harbinger, before whom that prophet went, and whose way he was to prepare, was, in reality, the Lord God of Israel. No arguments can be necessary to prove, to any believer in Christian revelation, that John the Baptist was exhibited, in ancient prophecy, as the forerunner of the Messiah, and that to those prophecies there is a most obvious reference, in the words of the angel to Zacharias. If it be admitted, that Jesus Christ is that Messiah, the conclusion is most obvious and irresistible, that He must also be the Lord God of Israel. "He shall go before him," (πроεÀεVσεTαι Évάπiov ȧvre.) or, more literally," he shall go before in the presence, or sight of him." How accurately does this define the precise circumstances in which John was placed, with reference to the Messiah. He preceded him, as being his elder by birth, but only, as it were, by a single pace. Still his ministry was carried on "in the presence" of Jesus, who was amongst his auditors, and who received baptism at his hands! The grammarian, apart from all theological questions, naturally asks, "To whom does avт8 relate what is its antecedent?" He glances back to the preceding line, and instantly perceives, that the one, the only possible antecedent, is, κυριον τον θεον αυτων. Nor is it possible to resist the grammatical conclusion, that both words refer to the same person; that is, that HE, whom John preceded, was no other than " LORD GOD OF ISRAEL." I felt

THE

curious, Gentlemen, to see by what evasion the impugners of the doctrine of the deity of Christ had contrived to avoid a conclusion which must be so fatal to their system; and, for this purpose, turned to the passage in the soidisant Improved Version. Were not the subject of so solemn and sacred a nature, it would have been most amusing to perceive the miserable shift to which the learned editors of that work were driven, in rendering the passage, SO as to avoid both Scylla and Charybdis-so as neither to expose themselves to the charge of having grossly violated all the rules of grammatical construction, nor to commit a felo de se. It would not do to deny that John was the harbinger of the Messiah; it was equally impossible to find out another antecedent for avre; and to admit that these divine appellations were given by an inspired writer to the Messiah, was still more revolting to their prejudices. In this terrible dilemma, what was to be done? Not a manuscript was to be found in which the passage was wanting, or which contained a various reading suited to their purpose; not a version could be discovered, that warranted a different rendering of the Greek text; not one, even of the heterodox fathers, could be adduced, as an authority for some more convenient and practicable reading. Thus solitary and deserted, at their utmost need, no alternative remained, but at once to commit a literary fraud, and corrupt the sacred text, by foisting in a word, which is not in the original, and substituting another for the genuine reading. In that rare specimen of sacred criticism to which I have just referred, the passage in question is thus translated: "He shall go before Christ, in the sight of the Lord God." Here it is evident, that, without the least authority, the word

XOLTOV is introduced, and instead of aure, the phrase, Lord God, is repeated, from the former verse; thus endeavouring to make it appear, that two persons are spoken of, when both grammar and common sense show that the Evangelist intended but one. It is, how ever, worthy of remark, that both the points contended for in the preceding remarks are conceded. The translator admits, that the personage whom John was to precede is Christ; he admits, too, that the antecedent of aure is KupLOV TOV Dɛov; and being compelled to make these concessions, the unwelcome conclusion, that Christ, or the Messiah, is called expressly by the Evangelist "the Lord God of Israel," could no otherwise be avoided, than by a deliberate and wilful mistranslation of the sacred text. So much for the integrity of the most learned critics of the nineteenth century! But what else could be expected than the most degrading subserviency to system, from persons who would even represent the Apostle Thomas as uttering a profane oath in the presence of his Master, and the holy martyr Stephen as expiring in the very act of idolatry, rather than admit that the one devoutly acknowledged Jesus to be the Lord his God, and that the other employed his latest breath in prayer to the eternal Son of God! X. Y. Z.

branches of literature, has a tendency to impair devotional habits. This tendency has been considered as arising from the very nature of intellectual pursuits, which are said to be too abstract, speculative, and frigid, to comport with that warmth of religious feeling which is highly desirable. But a more serious, and apparently plausible, argument has been pointed out in that spirit of pride and mental ambition which have but too often been found the attendants of superior learning. These, it is alleged, generate a proportionate disregard to the authority of divine revelation.

Now, as the legitimate end of all education is the discipline and improvement of the mind, it is antecedently improbable that instructions, adapted to answer this purpose, should be productive of any bad consequences. That classical and philosophical inquiries are adapted to accomplish this object, no one, who understands their nature, will attempt to deny. In short, no one can rationally maintain the sentiment under examination, unless he is able to demonstrate that there is a necessary connexion between the improvement of the mental powers, and the deterioration of the moral qualities.

Fact cannot be alleged in support of the opinion, that intellectual pursuits have necessarily an unfavourable influence on the devout affections, or the religious are to be found of men, who, principle. Innumerable instances though endowed with the most splendid talents, were distinguished by the profoundest piety; and

who united to the loftiest attainments in literature, all that is amiable in humility, and all that is ardent in devotion. But let it be admitted, that literature and science do contribute sometimes to damp the fervour of the spirit, and to produce a habit of abstract thought on religious, as well as on other subjects: is this an objec

tion so weighty as to evince the propriety of abstaining from them altogether? Without being justly suspected of a wish to depreciate a high state of Christian feeling, may we not express a doubt that a tender susceptibility of religious impressions, is occasionally owing to nothing more than natural constitution, or physical excitement? Is the strength of the devout principle to be estimated merely by the ardour of the affections? Even on the supposition that mental pursuits do, in many cases, repress the warmth of sacred feeling, it will, perhaps, admit of discussion, whether what is lost in fervour, is not gained in judgment; and whether the alleged diminution of ardour is not amply compensated by an increase of knowledge, and by the formation of correct habits of thought. The best and most established Christians are not always distinguishable by the warmth of their spiritual affections; but of tener by the soundness of their principles, the humility of their dispositions, and the integrity and stability of their character. Strong feeling, too, unless under the salutary control of reason, is to be considered, even with respect to religious concerns, as an evil, rather than a benefit. The principal design of the wisest systems of ancient philosophy, was to subjugate the passions to the authority of the judgment: And it is a fact, established by the history of nations, as well as of individuals, that in proportion as we advance towards the perfection of our intellectual nature, feeling becomes chastened and regulated by the influence of enlightened reason.

If then a less vivid state of feeling is often connected with spiritual improvement, even as it respects those persons who are not accustomed to studious retirement, or abstract disquisitions, it is surely not very reasonable to censure, for the want of a high tone of religious animation, those whose pur

suits require habits of cautious examination and patient research. But let us suppose, what is frequently the case, that the coolness and deliberation sometimes produced by a course of literary study, are applied, in conjunction with piety, to the investigation of any religious subject: in this instance, would not the advantages arising from correctness and propriety of thought, apart from every other circumstance, fully counterbalance the want of that additional degree of feeling which was formerly possessed? It may be safely affirmed, that a man truly pious, and whose mind is stored with information, and habituated to accurate reasoning, is the most competent to give a just interpretation of the word of God. Such a person will not be satisfied with the licentious practice of accommodation; he will not affix to any passage of the sacred oracles, a meaning which suits his own fancy, and to which the whole scope and context are evidently opposed: he will, generally speaking, be supremely anxious, as well as best qualified, to discover that signification which the spirit of truth intended to convey. In short, while he endeavours to ascertain the genuine sense of Scripture, he will bow in humble submission to its authority, whenever its revelations are plainly above the capacity of finite mortals.

Perhaps it will be urged against. intellectual pursuits, that they have a tendency to produce an undue attachment to seclusion, and a consequent reluctance to occupy any sphere of public usefulness. But, we may ask, may not a person be quite as useful in the retired walks of life, as amidst all the bustle and commotion of the world? Are there not different ways of doing good? May not some individuals be more effectually useful, by devoting themselves to study, and enriching their minds with the treasures of literature, than by their most active and persevering

efforts in a public sphere of Christian beneficence? Must there be none whose talents fit them for the vindication of Christianity, in opposition to its enemies? Is the superiority which learning confers, to be possessed solely by the adversaries of the cross? Must the more intelligent and refined classes of society be suffered to perish in ignorance of the Gospel, because their cultivated minds refuse instruction from the untaught and the rude?

It has also been alleged, that the pursuits of learning frequently create a spirit of intellectual pride and ambition. Now it has been already observed, that there are many instances in which the deepest humility is associated with the greatest attainments; and, therefore, that the objection, as directed against the pursuits themselves, is altogether destitute of foundation. But let it be granted that pious persons, in consequence of attending to a course of mental improvement, have often been filled with flattering ideas of their own powers; have felt disposed to congratulate themselves on their fancied superiority; and to treat with neglect, if not with a degree of contempt, those of their religious acquaintance who might not have enjoyed equal advantages of education. Let it also be admitted, that this inclination to form an extravagant estimate of their own talents and acquirements, has, in certain cases, been productive of considerable injury, with respect to their examination of the inspired records; that it has sometimes led them to imagine they were competent to unravel every mystery in the Bible; and prevented them from receiving the instructions of the word of God with that docility and meekness, which are essential to the obtaining of any real benefit from the Scriptures. Did such effects invariably and necessarily flow from

the pursuits in question, it would be the duty of every man to reprobate and despise them: for, we may be certain, that whatever has an inevitably bad influence on the state of the heart, is in itself improper, and ought to be avoided. If mental attainments are incompatible with the profoundest subjection to the authority of God; if they must beget feelings of pride, or ambition, or repugnance to the doctrines of revelation; or be the means of retarding the growth of piety; then let us treat with contempt all the imposing claims of science and philosophy, and admit, as an article of our creed, and a rule of our pursuits, the old popish maxim, that "ignorance is the mother of devotion." But if it has been shown that literary acquisitions have no such unavoidable effect, but that, on the contrary, they are calculated to have a beneficial influence on the devout mind; it behoves us to reject every sentiment of hostility which we may have entertained against them, and to concede to them that award of approbation which sound judgment pronounces. In our present imperfect state, we may, though truly pious, receive injury from almost every employment and every acquisition: we may convert the most salutary food, which was intended to administer to our nourishment, into the deadliest poison.

The enjoyment of wealth is apt to render believers proud, and selfwilled, and not sufficiently mindful of their spiritual interests; but from this circumstance, are we to interdict the possession of riches, as in themselves evil? May they not be enjoyed without producing any bad consequences, and even be made subservient to the diffusion of extensive good? Intellectual acquirements may operate as powerful temptations, and these temptations may form no small part of our probationary disci