of the incumbent, Mr. Hollis presented this gentleman to the living in a most handsome manner.

Perhaps the following epitaph (extracted from Memoirs of Hollis, p. 784,) in honour of Algernon Sidney, may please some of the readers of your Repository:

"Algernon Sidney fills this tomb,
An atheist, for disclaiming Rome;
A rebel bold, for striving still
To keep the law above the will.

Crimes damned by Church government :
Oh! whither must his ghost be sent?

Of heaven it cannot but despair,

If holy Pope be turnkey there :
And hell will ne'er it entertain,

For there is all tyrannic reign.

more ingenious correspondents, and produce from them some profound disquisitions. I am, Yours, &c.

W. H.

P.S. All your readers must have been sensibly affected with the account of the premature death of Mr. Buckminster. This account, though I do not by any means compare them together, brought the great Crichton to my recollection, who, when he sat for his degree and the question was put to him, Quem librum profiteretur? answered Quem non? And, after the professors had tired him with every book which they thought puzzling, to no sort of

Dr. Chauncey, after some others who went before him, has given us an inviting description of the new heavens and the new earth, in which the righteous will dwell, when they shall have obtained the applauses of their Judge, supposing this habitation to mean a renovated state of the earth, assimilated to paradise. But, why may we not here, look forward to a new and more glorious world? We must presume that this present world existed thousands of ages before it became a Chaos, from which it was restored and fitted up as a receptacle for the posterity of Adam, and that in its former state, it was the habitation of rational beings, who, after having approved themselves the devoted servants of God, and finished their probationary course, were not annihilated, but translated to some other world, more congenial to their exalted characters, where they might be advancing in perfection and dig nity for ever. Why may not this be the case, then, with all the upright children of men? And, as each must be exercised in contemplating the wonders of creation, and he always increasing in divine knowledge, who can say, that the comets are not the habitations of all such, which are so admirably calculated, for animating them with this most sublime knowedge, whilst they are conveying them through millions of worlds? These thoughts may possibly amuse your

illegible book, on which he said, Tu legito domine, et ego exponam. But, the sermons which I reported to you in one of your former numbers, (ix. 401.) as published at Boston almost three years ago, were not written by Mr. B. but were published by Mr. Freeman: some of them, I am persuaded, are his own, though I am not authorized to say that they all or the greatest part of them are really his.

I have been lately reading Dr. Chauncey's book on Universal Salvation. I must confess his arguments to be very ingenious, though I cannot yet say, that I think he has altogether proved his doctrine. His introduction, however, of the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus Christ, have involved him in great obscurity.

I have also been reading an excellent pamphlet on repentance, by the late Mr. Mole, and think that he has proved his point, as far as he goes. But, there are some difficulties, to which he has not adverted. A man, for instance, may be influenced by certain predominant passions, until that period of his life, when these passions cease, and may suffer so much from reflecting on what he has done, as to be truly sorry that he had ever transgressed. But, how can such a one he accounted a true penitent, on the supposition that if his passions had not forsaken him he would have proceeded in still indulging them? And, hence the young should be taught to practice all purity and goodness in the prime of life, lest what they may at last be led to consider as true penitence, should be found to be no repentauce, but only a bodily infirmity or decrepitude.

30

doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and having upon a further investigation of the subject been induced to change my mind, I think it right, as a friend to truth and free inquiry, to acknowledge that I am now convinced that I was mistaken in my ideas on that subject, and as to the meaning of those passages of scripture by which I endeavoured to support that doctrine.

There is no passage of scripture, I believe, on which the advocates for the Arian hypothesis lay more stress than John xvii. 5. "And now O Father glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." On that passage, I myself have made the following remarks, * “It is almost impossible to conceive of any terms by which the fact of his (Christ's) pre-existence could be more fully ascertained, than by those here used, and it will surely require great critical skill to explain the words so as to set aside that idea." So I then thought; but further reflection has led me to think otherwise. It is true our Lord prays to be glorified with a glory which, he says, he had with the Father before the world was; but the inquiry is whether Jesus Christ by this expression meant to say that he was then in the actual possession of this glory? That the glory for which our Lord here prays, was actually bestowed upon him after his resurrection, the scriptures expressly affirm. Peter tells the Jews that God had glorified his son Jesus whom they slew and hanged on a tree. This glorification therefore, whether we refer it to his person, which was raised to a life of incorruption and invested with glory, or to the honour and dignity which was conferred upon him, when he had a name given him above every name, in heaven and earth, and all things subjected to him, was the glorification of a human being, of that man who suffered the death of a malefactor; and it is also represented as the reward of his obedience unto death;

* Mon. Repos. iii, 653.

as such he here prays for it, I have glorified thee on earth, and now Ŏ Father, glorify me with thine

66

self and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him." Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Now a glory which was the consequence of his resurrection and the reward of his obedience, could not be a glory which he actually possessed before he entered upon the performance of the work which his father gave him to do, and which he had before the world was.

If Jesus Christ, according to the Trinitarian hypothesis pre-existed as properly God, a divine person, necessarily possessing all the perfections of deity, his glory as such must be essential to his being, that glory therefore he could neither be divested of nor pray for, nor can that be the glory here intended.

If Jesus pre-existed as a superhuman being in a state of glory, the glory which he here prays for and which was conferred upon him in answer to his prayer, could not be his glory as such, because, as we have seen, he was glorified not as a superhuman, but as a human being, properly a man, who had suffered death, a man raised up of the seed of David, and made in all things like unto his brethren of mankind, nor could his glory as such be the reward of his obedience and consequently not the glory intended in this passage.

Again, if Jesus Christ was properly a man, as the scriptures always represent him to be, deriving his being, as all other men derive their's, by a natural descent from his parents, being made of the seed of David, then he could not have existed before he was born into the world, and consequently could not have been in possession of glory before the foundation of the world.

What then did our Lord mean when he said of the glory for which he prayed that he had it with his father before the world was? The expression "with thee," may, it is true, mean in the enjoyment of thy presence and in a participation of thy glory: so our Lord says, ch. xiii. 31, 32, anticipa

32

II. The second is the Samaritan. This version appears to have been made, at least, before the time of our Lord. John Morinus makes it more ancient than the Greek, viz. the time of Esdras.

III. The third is the Chaldee Paraphrase, which was made by various authors, and at different times. Onkelos translated the law about the time of Christ. Jonathan-Ben-Uzziel, a disciple of the celebrated Hillell, (concerning whom the Talmudists have some wonderful traditions,) translated the former and latter prophets. He lived about thirty years before Christ. Another paraphrase is ascribed to him of the Pentateuch, but this may be proved to be the work of a much later author.

IV. There is a tradition in the East, that the Syriac of the Old Testament as well as the New, was made not long after the times of the apostles, and arguments are not wanting to prove this. It is publicly read in the churches through the East. It follows principally the Hebrew text, from which the version of the Old Testament was made.

V. The fifth is the Ethiopic of the whole scripture, which is much more ancient than Joseph Scaliger thinks. It is mentioned by Chrysostom. It follows, for the most part, the Greek in the Old Testament, and agrees pretty much with the Vulgate in the New.

VI. An Armenim Version of the whole scripture is extant, as I have been informed by eye-witnesses. I have the Armenian four gospels, but so obliterated in many places that, without the assistance of another copy, they could not be engraven on types. Most affirm that it was made by Chry

sostom

VII. Origen arranged the Greek Versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus in his Tetrapla and Hexapla, and to them added a fifth and sixth with the Hebrew text, whence he called these volumes Octapla. Aquila, who revolted to the Jews, made his about Anno Christi, 150. Theodotion, a proselyte, becoming an apostate, first a Marcionite, afterwards a Jew, made his about Ammo Christi, 180. Symmachus, a proselyte also, edited his in the reign of Severus, about Anno Christi 200.

Vill. The Coptic or Egyptian, as

Athanasius conjectures, was made about the time of the council of Nice. P. S. There is an error, Mon. Rep. Vol. ix. p. 597. in the minute of Astley Meanley's death. He died in June and not in March.

SIR,

WAS glad to see announced in

your last number, that the controversy on future punishments was closed, and that the popular doctrine of atonement was to be brought under discussion. I could have wished indeed, that it had been simply the doctrine of atonement, and that the question had been confined solely to our selves, who are Unitarians. For, if we enter into the popular doctrine, a vast field of controversy is open on a variety of unimportant points, which are all set aside by the conviction in our own minds, that there is only one God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, as we deny that Jesus is other than a man, in the highest degree favoured by God and raised to a name above every name, we cannot enter into the metaphysical arguments on sin, of the necessity of an infinite Mediator, and similar points, by which the mind is led away from scripture to vain and frivolous disputes on the idle traditions of men. But the question of atonement itself is of a far more important nature, and according to the opinions entertained of it, will be the respect and reverence paid to our Saviour. I have found in the writings of several Unitarians, and the conversations of others, that I differ very materially from them in my view of our Saviour's character. Whilst they consider him merely as a teacher sent from God, mighty in word and deed, I look upon him as my Saviour, as one through whom the Creator bestows the greatest of gifts to the human race. He is not to me therefore merely the pointer out of immortal life to his followers, but the indispensable medium, by which we enter into eternity. I need not say with what terms of gratitude such a benefactor must be hailed by every one who looks up to the head of our community, the first-born from the dead, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, in the light I do. The language of St. Paul will not appear to us too glowing, nor are any metaphors too strong to us, who be

lieve, that the garments of the holy ones will be made white in the blood of the Lamb. We can enter into the spirit of all these figurative allusions, without in the least trenching on the distinction between him, who was made unto us sanctification, and the great Father of him and of us, who thus condescended to make him the instrument of our atonement. I here use the word atonement, since it is the English term in the vulgar translation forxalxλay; the more appropriate term being reconciliation, which is in fact the term used in other places. When I profess then my sincere belief in the atonement, let it be understood, that I do not involve any thing in that term, which is not comprehended by St. Paul in the term xalaλλay, or reconciliation; and on this I shall be glad to see a better union among Unitarian Christians. I need not say, that the inquiry into this interesting topic may be conducted in the spirit of brotherly love; and if I might be permitted to advise, I would recommend, that no appeal should be made to any other authority than that of the scriptures. The opinion of writers, living or dead, may be adopted; but if it is introduced, there is danger of it sleading into endless controversy: whereas, if we keep closely to the scriptures, our minds will be enlarged, and whatever mistaken views any of us may have entertained, they are most likely to be rectified when they are weighed in the balance of the sanctuary. I remain, Sir,

Your constant Reader,

W. FREND.

and rest their thoughts upon, I am very much inclined to think that they will continue to view the subject in the manner they now do and have long done.

Nothing, not a word of a controversial nature should be said in it, concerning the person of our Lord, &c. that the reader's mind may not, on that account, be prejudiced against it. Some writers, by attempt ing too much, effect little or nothing. They forget, hasten slowly. I am, &c.

J. JEVANS.

Chapter Coffee-house, Jan. 7, 1815. SIR,

Has; (ix. 993.) à Correspondent

TN your Repository for September

But

who calls himself " A Friend to Justice, Truth and Candour," extracts a note from Storer's" Graphical and Historical Description of the Cathedrals of Great Britain," which either he or you cite as an instance of "blundering bigotry." As a liberal Christian I was inclined to acquiesce in the propriety of this character, especially as you, Sir, expressed your approving wish for more of this ingenious correspondent's communicatious. one of the most decided Trinitarians eagerly seized this, to him propitious, opportunity of shewing what he called the " bigotry and intolerant illiberality of the professors of reformed Christianity." His arguments were so clear and unanswerable, that I was induced to read Storer's work alluded to, and consequently to address to you this note, that your correspondent might not again fall into the vulgar error of deciding on men's motives merely from their opinions. of the

faith his

vestigated your correspondent's letter paragraph by paragraph, and observed, "Now, Sir, it so happens that (although the able writer is himself an Unitarian) the main object of Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches (published in 1812) is not to demolish that Gothic and barbarous system of Christianity miscalled orthodoxy, "but to prove,as justly stated in the note cited in your Repository, that Josephus and Philo were apologists of Christianity. It is true, however, that the "Sequel to the Ecclesiastical Researches,"published nearly two years later, and either since or about the same period that the 6th number of