and also that of John, were written long after Jesus delivered his dis courses which they profess to record, by expressions found in these Gospels themselves, as where it is said that certain false reports remain to this day. But of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, there is independent evidence, clearly pointed vout by Paley, and these tend to establish the Gospel of Luke. Now, whatever be the doctrine of Paul, concerning the state of the human dead, it is probable that such doctrine is the genuine doctrine of the Gospel; for his Epistles were clearly written before any of his Gospels, and it is certain that they are his genuine writings. Now the general doctrine of Paul seems to be that men shall be rewarded and punished according to their works; and if he had stopped here, we might have been left with an indefinite imp impression, that such portion of good and and evil would fall upon mankind, as is consistent with strict justice in the Being, who gave to all their appetites, passions and circumstances, which they have ima proved or abused. But Paul appears to teach further, that the righteous shall be rewarded with eternal enjoy ment, and the wicked be visited with vindictive punishments, which shall end in their destruction. His language is always death, destruction, &c. And he used the words wrath and vengeance, applying them to God in his punishment of the wicked. Mr. Locke appears to state this to be the clear doctrine of the Gospel, and it does appear to me to be the doctrine of St. Paul. I would ask any man if the read the Epistles of Paul, without ⚫ever having heard of any doctrine Se concerning the human dead, would not this be the conclusion he would draw? Nor let any one startle at vindictive punishments. Are not all pubanishments such? Is not the notion inyolved in the very idea of punishment? Srt Punishment in common language has no other meaning, never has had - another meaning. Philosophers may call it suffering; but they cannot retain the word punishment, without accepting a vindictive meaning. All mankind have ever understood it in this sense. The doctrine of Paul, - therefore, seems to be, that all men shall be raised from the dead, the good to eternal enjoyment, the bad to painful destruction, and that the If any of your readers favour these observations with notice, I shall be grateful, as too much attention cannot be called to this subject. Mr. Hume has said, and said justly, that taking all the popular doctrines of all religions for granted, it is the INTEREST of all men that none of them should be true. But if I have put a proper construction upon the doctrine of Paul, it is not the interest of all men that they should be false, because the good shall receive more than they deserve, and the bad shall receive no greater punishment than they merit. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Anecdote of Dr. Franklin. Tenterden, Feb. 5, 1817. respectable, and at that time truly Pontalc, Jan. 28, 1817. RECOLLECT that you once invited Correspondents to send you any passages, in old writers, which contained early notices of Unitarianism in England, and might increase to a valuable collection of materials for a connected History. Such a work will probably be undertaken whenever those Unitarians who can afford to form libraries shall manifest some zeal i : to encourage what may be called their own literature. At present, as I fear your editorial experience can attest, they would, I believe, sooner expend pounds as patrons of some splendid and highly fashionable work, than shillings to assist one however devoted to an object which they profess to consider as of first importance, if brought out with no attractions but such as utility required, or were suited to the simplicity of truth. To contribute, however, the little in my power to such a collection as I have mentioned, for the use of better times, I send you what I found in an old pamphlet, with the following title, which I copy verbatim et literatim. "A Briefe Description or Character of the Religion and Manners of the Phanatiques in generall. Scil. Anabaptists, Independents, Brownists, Enthusiasts, Levellers, Quakers, Seekers, Fifth-Monarchy-Men, and Dippers. Shewing and refuting their Absurdities by due Application, reflecting much also on Sir John Præcisian, and other Novelists. Non seria semper. London, printed, and are to be sold by most stationers. 1660." Pp. 52. At page 12, the author, complaining of the dislike expressed by the Phanatiques to the forins practised by the clergy of the Church of England, adds, "If they use the ancient doxology giving glory to the Trinity, as the Greek and Latin Churches, ever did, their Socinian and Arian ears are so offended, as if Christians should ask them leave to own the blessed Trinity." At page 15, this anonymous author pays his awkward compliments to a Unitarian work, in Latin, which is soon to be brought before the English reader. He describes the affections of the Phanatiques as "apt to run out into much disorder and confusion in rustical impertinencies, and pitiful rhapsodies of confused stuff, spitting out their poison like the Racovian Catechism, and such like primers of the devil, against all Christian duties, extern decency, and distinction of order or office; against all holiness, morality and modesty in men's lives." Having censured such as he deemed the more extravagant Phanatiques, my author adds, p. 42, "Some, though fiery, yet are orderly and patient in government; though they excel in gifts, yet are not swelled with tumours. But these are as unsavoury salt, that is good for nothing, unless it be new, boiled in an Independent or Levelling cauldron, over a Socinian furnace, with a popular fire." Such are the manner and the connexion in which the opponents of the Trinity were introduced exactly at the era of the Restoration. I am tempted to go a little beyond my immediate purpose to give this author's character of all the Theologians whom he found without the sacred pale of the Episcopal Church. "They are mothy and mongrel predicunts, centaurs in the church, haff clerics and half laicks, the by-blows of the clergy, gifted hypocrites, severe momusses, a whining people, triobolary Christians, new dwinding divines, the prophetical pigmies of this age, unordained, unblest, untried, unclean spirits, whose calling, commission and tenure, depends on popularity, flattery and beggary; their excellency consists in tautologizing, in praying extempore, that is, out of all time, without order or method; being eminent in nothing above the plebeian pitch and vulgar proportion. They spin out their sermons at their wheels, or weave them up at their looms, or dig them out with their spades, weigh or measure them in their shops, or stitch and cobble them with their thimble and lasts; or thrash them out with their flayls, and afterward preach them in some barn to their dusty disciples, who, the better to set off the oddness of their silly teachers, fancy themselves into some imaginary persecution, as if they were driven into dens, and cares, and woods. Their holy and learned academies, where they first conned this chymical new divinity, and are since come to so great proficiency, were Munster's Revelations, Geneva's Calvinism, Amsterdam's Toleration, and New England's Preciseness." Pp. 49, 50 To this invective is added an abominable and unauthenticated charge against the moral character of Calvin, followed by a charge apparently as groundless, of "stealing the greatest part" of his Institutes "out of the Works of Molancthon and Hiperius Sarcerius." My author adds, "or, as Westphallius the Lutheran saith, he stole all from Ecolampadius." I have not met with these charges against the morality of Calvin's life, or his inte Propositiones Theologicæ de Religione et Ecclesia Christi. I. Deum existere, illumque esse unum, vel solo rationis lumine hominibus innotescit. 11. Eadem ratio naturalis cultum Deo tum internum tum externum hibendum esse docet. III. Ratio naturalis sibi relicta plures veritates ad completam religionem pertinentes minime perspicere, neque voluntatem ad actiones veritatibus cognitis consentaneas satis efficaciter impellere potest. IV. Hinc nunquam genus humanum sine religione aliqua divinitus revelata extitit. V. Considerata religionis Christianæ natura, modoque quo primum instituta atque propagata fuit, dubitari non potest, quin auctor illius sit ipse Deus. VI. Salus æterna non potest in quâlibet religione Christiana fundamentales tantum admittente articulos obtineri, cum non fundamentales minime rejici possint utpote eadem revelantis Dei auctoritate innixi. VII. Libri omnes religiosi tam proto quam deutero-canonici, catalogo coneilii Tridentini comprehensi, sunt a Deo inspirati. VIII. Libros sacros a Deo inspiratos esse quo ad res et sententias, plerique omnes theologi existimant. IX. Vulgata Latina editio est authentica co sensu, quod cum libris genuinis congruat in omnibus quæ ad Adem et mores pertinent. X. Libri sacri passim perobscuri difficilimique intellectu sunt. XI. Libri sacri una cum traditionibus divinis sunt completa credendorum regula. XII. Librorum sacrorum lectio in lingua vernacula neque promiscue omnibus necessaria est, neque utilis. XIII. Christi ecclesia semper fuit, semperque erit conspicua. XIV. Notæ veræ ecclesiæ sunt, quod sit una, saneta, catholica et apostolica.. XV. Notæ hæ omnes soli Romanæ ecclesiæ competunt. XVI. Non solum probi et prædestinati, sed etiam improbi et damnandi sunt in Christi ecclesia. XVII. Hæretici et schismatici sunt extra Christi ecclesiam. XVIII. Ecclesia nunquam errare potest in rebus quas Deus credendas aut faciendas revelavit. XIX. Neque in decidenda orthodoxia et heterodoxia quorunvis textuum dogmaticorum. XX. Nec sacri codices, nec principes, magistratus ve civiles, nec spiritus privatus sunt judices controversiarum fidei. XXI. Episcopi duce Romano pontifice recte semper atque sine omni. errandi periculo judicant de controversiis fidei, tam in concilio generali,. quam extra concilium. XXII. Eadem erroris immunitate gaudet vel solus Romanus pontifex dum toti aliquid ecelesiæ credendum. proponit, sive, ut aiunt, dum loquitur ex cathedra. XXIII. Munus convocandi generale. concilium, illique præsidendi, vel per se, vel per suos legatos, spectat ad pontificem Romanum. XXIV. Beatus Petrus fuit episcopus, Romæ, ibique supremum diem oppetiit. XXV. Beatus Petrus a Christo principatum accepit in ecclesia, et jurisdictionem in rebus religionis in omnes fideles. XXVI. Principatus hic beati Petri et jurisdictio transit ad omnes successores ejus pontifices Romanos. Defendentur in Collegio Saxosylvensi (vulgo Stonyhurst) a Reverendo Richardo Norris, Theologiæ Auditore, anno 1817, mensis Januarii, die 14, ab hora nona matutina ad undecimam, Præside Reverendo Norberto Korsak, Theologiæ Professore. BIBLICAL CRITICISM, Jan. 16, 1817.. Qu the "sin unto death" spoken of by the Apostle John. 1 John v. 16, 17. Fany man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." I shall examine, severally, three interpretations of this passage; and shall then propose one which I consider as less fairly liable to objection. 1. The first of those which are now to be canvassed, is stated at large by Dr. Benson, who paraphrases the verses in the following manner: "if a Christian, by an impulse of the spirit, perceives that any Christian brother has sinned such a sin as to draw down upon himself a disease, which is not to end in death; but to be miraculously cured by him: then let him pray to God; and God, in answer to his prayer, will grant life and perfect health, unto such Christians as have sinned a sin which is not unto death. There is a sin, which draws down a disease upon Christians, that is to end in death. I do not say that he, who has the power of working miracles, shall pray for that: because, in such a case, God would not hear his prayer; nor miraculously cure his Christian brother, at his request." In a dissertation on the passage, this writer observes that " as God had treated his ancient people, the Israel ites, in a most remarkable and distinguishing manner, under the law, so did he treat the Christians, the subjects of the Messiah's kingdom, at the first erecting this spiritual kingdom ;-punishing some of the more irregular, and (perhaps) otherwise incorrigible offenders, with some remarkable disorders, or even with death itself." "A sin," he adds, "which brought on a disease, that ended in death, was called a sin unto death. And those crimes among the Jews, which brought on diseases, that were afterwards cared, might have been properly called sins not unto death; as those that were mortal, might as properly have been called sins unto death." Dr. Benson says, -a sin not unto death could not be known, any other way, than by a divine impulse, or immediate revelation. For, without that, it was impossible to know certainly that they should be able, by praying, miraculously to cure their Christian brother of his malady." And, further, "When any Christian thus knew that his Christian brother had sinned a sin not unto death, he was to pray for his recovery; and immediately God would grant him life and perfect health unto that offending, but sincerely penitent, Christian. But, without such a prophetic impulse, they were, by no means, to pray for him, in order to cure him by miracle." Again, (and here I agree with this author): "The sin unto death was not one particular crime; but any bad habit, or any act of great wickedness." My objections to Dr. Benson's ex-: position, are that it receives no countenance from the apostle's subject and context; that it creates difficulties, instead of removing them; that it as sumes a fact the existence of which requires proof; and that far from being sanctioned, it is even opposed, by Scriptural phraseology. In the two preceding verses, John had spoken generally of the readiness of God to grant the petitions offered by Christians in conformity with his will. It should be remembered, too, that not a word is said, in any former or subsequent part of the treatise, respecting bodily diseases. The grand topic of the writer is purity of faithboth speculative and practical-in the gospel. All expositors admit that the eighteenth verse has this reference. Why then should it be imagined that, in the passage before us, there is a sudden transition to another and very different theme? There is a considerable opposition to the apostle's language in Dr. Benson's paraphrase and reasoning: "if a man," says John, see (187) his brother sin a sin which is not unte it to present the prayer was so essentially connected with " an impulse of the spirit" that the petitioner could not otherwise be satisfied of the propriety or success of his request, both the command and the promise must have been superfluous. death, he shall ask, &c. Now to see the commission of this sin, is to know it personally, and on the evidence of seuse. But the learned commentator affixes a new and inadmissible signification to this word, see. For he glosses the clause thus it if a Christian, by an impulse of the spirit, perceives that any Christian brother has sinned such a sin, &c." No doubt, there is a reading * which, could be established, might give plausibility to this interpretation: the word however to which I allude, is not even noticed by Dr. Benson, and, in truth, is undeserving of regard. It reinains therefore, for those who adopt the opinion of this critic to shew by what process the verb employed in the text can be made to denote an impulse of the spirit. The excellent writer, contrary to his practice, has contented, himself here with an assumption, It faith spoken of in James v. 14, 15, is an assumption, too, by which we are far from being aided in discovering the import of the terms a sin not unto death and a sin unto death. If we take this author as our guide, a fresh perplexity occurs to us, in the midst of our investigation, We are desirous of exploring the respective senses of the phrases which I have just transcribed: and yet our attention must be diverted to an unusual and arbitrary comment on a verb of very familiar occurrence! Whether a sin not unto death, could be known, or not be known, any other way than by a Divine impulse, or immediate revelation, is an inquiry the issue of which depends on our previously ascertaining the nature of that sin. However, besides the extreme difficulty, if I may not call it the impossibility, of reconciling Dr. Benson's gloss on the term see with the principles of sound criticism, his hypothesis renders it necessary for us to suppose that the prayers of which the apostle speaks were not to be offered without "a prophetic impulse." Does John, let me ask, thus qualify and restrict, his assurance? No: he simply says, " If any man see his brother sin a şin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and shall obtain life for him." This passage contains at once a command and a promise. Here the future tense is manifestly equivalent with the imperative mood. But if the obligation • ειδη. Griesbach, in loc. death." It is conceded that" Almighty God did sometimes see proper to punish" offenders among the first Christians " in a very remarkablemanner, by sending upon them some bodily disorder; and, in the case of great crimes, even death itself." In 1 Cor. xi. 29, 30, and in other passages of the New Testament we have examples of the fact. To deliver over unto Satan an unworthy member of the church (1 Tim. i. 20), was simply to excommunicate him; to cast him out of the family of Christ into his own place, the world. As to the prayer of there is not the least evidence that the malady to be cured by it was the imme-> diate effect and punishment of sin': for the words of the apostle concerning the diseased person are, "IF he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Dr. Benson takes for granted that "a sin which brought on a disease ending in death was called a sin unto But he has not produced a single authority in behalf of this exposition. I am aware of it's being a current opinion that the healing of bodily disorders, and the forgiveness of sins are frequently represented in the New Testament as one and the same act. It is an opinion in which I cannot acquiesce. A supposed illustration and proof of it, have been found in Matt. ix. 5, 6. On curing "the sick of the palsy," our Lord said to him, "Take courage, son; thy sins are forgiven thee." But why should we imagine that the language of Jesus was, ænigmatical? Had he not lite-: rally a delegated "power on earth to forgive sins?" Did not he even communicate this power to his apostles?: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained," John xx. 23. This text must govern our interpretation of other passages containing the same phraseology. Forbearing to inquire, how far this power of forgiving sins extended, it, plainly, was not synonymous with the power of healing diseases; which prerogative had already been conferred on |