תמונות בעמוד

The original word in Genesis (chap.'1.) is in the plural number. And indeed this is the constant language of Scripture; not heaven, but hervens. Accordingly the ancient Jewish writers are accustoined to Lockon three heavens. In conformity to which the Apostle Paul speaks of his being “ caught up into the third heaven." It is this, the third heaven, which is usually supposed to be the more immediate residence of God--so far as any residence can be ascribed to his omnipresent spirit, who pervades and fills the whole universe. It is here (if we speak after the manner of men, that the Lord sitteth upon his throne, surrounded by angels and archangels, and by all his flaming ministers.

6. We cannot thi ik, that this heaven will undergo any change, any more than its great inhabitant. Surely this palace of the Most High was the same from eternity, and will be world without end. Only the inferior heavens are liable to change; the highest of which we usually call the starry heavens. This, St. Peter informs us, " is reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and destruction of men." In that day, “ being on fire," it shall first “ shrivel as a parchment scroll :" then it shall “ be dissolved," and "shall pass away with a great noise:" lastly, ji shall “ fee from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and there shall be found no place for it."

7. At the same time “ the stars shall fall from heaven," the secret chain being broken, which had retained them in their several orbits from the foundation of the world. In the meanwhile the lower, or sublunary “ heaven," with “ the elemer is (or principles that compose it) “ shall melt with fervent heat," while “ the earth, with the works that are therein, shall be burnt up." This is the introduction to a far nobler state of things, such as it has not yet entered into the heart of inen to conceive; the universal restoration, which is to succeed the universal destruction.


DEAR SIR, IN the Biographia Brittannica, published by the late excellent Dr.

Kippis, may be found the following curious anecdote respecting the doctrine of Universal Restoration. It is in the life of De Foe, and relates to his famous production of Robinson Crusoe : I have transcribed i, supposing it not altogether unsuitable to the nature of your instructive Miscellany.

MANY fine displays of natural sentiment (says Dr. Kippis) occur in Robinson Crusoe's man Friday; and there is one, which, in reading it, appeared, to the present writer, particularly striking. It is in the conversation which Crusoe has with Friday concerning the devil.-Friday, being informed by his master that God was stronger than the Devil, asks, “ If God inuch strong, much might as the devil, why God not kill the devil, so inake him no more wicked ?" At this question Crusoe was greatly surprised and embarrassed, but having recovered himself a little, he answered, that God would at last punish the devil severely; that he is reserved for judgment, and is to be cast into the bottomless pit to dwell with everlasting fire. Still, however, Friday, not being satisfied, returns upon his master, repeating his words 4. Reserve at last! ine no understand. But why not kill the devil now? why not kill great ago?" You may as well ask me, replied Crusoe, why God does not kill you and me when we do wicked things here that offend him ; we are reserved to 'repent and be pardoned." At this Friday, mused awhile, and then said, mighty affectionately, Well, well, that well; so you, I, devil, all wicked, ALL preserve, repent God hardon all."

Perhaps (observes the Doctor) it would be going too far to assert that De Foc intended covertly to insinuate that there night be a more merciful distribution of things, in the final results of divine providence, than he dared at that time openly to exhibit.

Be this as it may--and Dr. Kippis speaks very inodestly about it certain it is, that the honest unsophisticated heart of Friday thought, and rejoiced in the thought, that the mercy of the Supreme Being would embrace the whole creation.


Yours respectfully, . JAN. 28, 1800.



COON after the conclusion of she French war, in the time of Queen

Anne, a young pert officer, who had but lately entered the services came to the ordinary at the Black Horse Inn, Holborn, where Major Johnson, a brave, rough, old Scotch officer, a religious man, usually dined. The young gentleman, while at dinner, was venting some infidel notions, and speaking, in the gaiety of his humour, against the dispensations of providence. The major, at first, only desired him to speak more respectfully of one whom all the company reverenced; but finding him run on in his extravagance, began to reprimand him in a more serious manner. “ Young man, (said he) do not abuse your benefactor whilst you are eating his bread. Consider whose air you breathe, whose presence you are in, and who it is that gave you the power of that very speech which you make use of to his dishonour." The young spark, who thought to turn matters to jest, asked him if he was going to preach; but at the same time desired him to take care what he said to a man of honour. “A man of honour! (says the major) thou art an infidel and a blasphemer, and I shall use thee as such." In short, the quarrel ran so high, that the young officer challenged the major. Upon their coming into the garden, the old gentlemen advised his antagonist to consider the place into which one pass might plunge him; but finding him to grow upon him to a degree of scurrility, as believing the advice proceeded from fear, “ Sirrah! (said he) if a thunderbolt does not strike thée dead before I come at thee, I shall not fail to chastise thee for thy profaneness to thy Maker, and thy sauc ness to his servant." Upon this he drew his sword, and cried, with a loud voice, “ The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon!" His antagonist was so terrified, that he was presently disarmed, and thrown upon his knees. In this posture he begged his life; which the major granted, on condition that he asked pardon of God in a short extemporary prayer, which the old gentleman dictated to him upon the spot, and which his proselyte repeated to him in the presence of the whole company, to their great diversion.


SIR JOHN TREVOR, who had been expelled from parliament for

the enormities of his conduct, one day meeting the Archbishop, cried out aloud, “I hate to see an atheist in the shape of a churchman." _" And I (said the good bishop) hate to see a KNAVE in any shape."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

MR. EDITOR. T AM not insensible that, in combatting any established hypothesis, a

person may easily expose himself to censure; but as I am well convinced that every man is subject to error, I presume we ought.never to be too obstinate for correction.' Claiming, therefore, the same lenity which I would grant to others in a similar case, I shall inake a few remarks upon a passage of Scripture, which, in my estimation, is not so accurately translated as it ought to be.

In Hebrews, i. the eighth verse is thus translated." But to the son he saith, Thy throne, o God, is for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is a sceptre of thy kingdom.” How this text came to be thus trsanslated is not my province to determine. However, I will give it in the original, and leave every man of candour to judge how far it is justifiable. . . • Προς δε τον υιον ο θρονα σε ο ΘεG- εις τον αιώνα τα αιωνό- ραβδος ενθοτε1ος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σε.

I can see no just reason why o Go should not be the nominative to the verb understood, though our translators have rendered it in the vocative case, which, in my opinion, is not warranted by any authority, however it may support a certain hypothesis.

It is evident that the apostle is speaking of 77177 as he quotes the seventh verse from Psalm civ. which is as follows ,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

throne is to the age of the age : a sceptre of righteousness is a sceptre of thy kingdom.” It is evident that o 0:0, spoken of in the next verse, who is said to annoint the son, is the same who is spoken of in the eighth verse. Vide locum.



DEAR SIR, I SHOULD be much obliged to any of your correspondents for an

explanation of 2 Tim. iii. 16. and to point out what, in general, we are to understand by the term inspiration.



SIR, SHOULD be glad to be informed, through the channel of your

valuable Miscellany, what are the best reasons for admitting or rejecting 1 John, v. 7. as truly canonical Scripture.

2. Y.


SIR, . SOME time ago some questions on Atonement were published in your

Miscellany, Vol. ii. p. 312, and an answer appeared in p. 348. vol. iii. &c. but the author thereof, instead of taking up those questions, has gone to prove Christ the end of the law and substance of the types, with which I readily agree, having paid some attention to that subject : but the questions on Atonement and Pardon stand unanswered, as they were proposed : for the question was not, Whether these doctrines were true or not; but How the Sacred Scriptures held them forth, as not to clash with or contradict each other? I therefore renew the question to you, or any of your correspondents. As 1 have waited a long time, and no person comes forward, I request some friend of truth would, as it migt give satisfaction to other enquirers beside BATTLE,

Yours a espectfully, JANUARY 28, 1800.

S. B.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


THE Trinitarian table, or rule of Three, taken from the Athanasian

Greed, is is follows :
You are neither to confound the figures, nor divide the substance.

The first figure is 1,-the second figure is 1,--and the third tigure is 1.

And yet you are compelled, by this rule, to acknowledge that every one of these ones, is one by itself. · And yet you are forbidden, by the same rule, to say there are three ones :--for there are not three, but one.

Now, my request to the Trinitarians, is that they would work, and prove the following sums by this rule, in so complete and easy a manner, as to make the rule plain and useful to me:

If i make 3, how many must 12 make?

If 3 make only 1, how many must 72 make ?

The Dualian table is, That the Father and Holy Ghost are one; the Holy Ghost being no other than the power, the influence, and operation of God. That Jesus Christ was the very first existence produced by the Father ;---that all things were made by him, and that he is called God in the Scriptures.

My request to these is, that they would prove the propriety of the Scriptures in speaking of the Holy Ghost as a person ;--and, as they Say Jesus is not the same in person with the Father—that they would also prove, that they do not make two Gods.

The Unitarian table is, that Jesus Christ had no existence before he was conceived of the virgin, and that he was only a mere man, in whoin God dwelt in a wonderful manner. Now, my request to them is, that they will prove, in a plain and easy way, without putting any force upon the texts, that the following passages are not to be understood in their outward, plain, and literal sense.- John i. 1, 2, 3, & 10.-iii. 13.-xvi. 28.-xviii. 5.--2 Cor. viii. 9.-Eph. iii. 9.-Col. I. 15, 16.-Heb. i, 2._Rev. i. 11.-iii. 14.

A. B. C. is neither a Trinitarian, Dualian, nor Unitarian, but is waiting for conviction; and therefore if any of these descriptions will answer his request in a candid, plain, and concise manner, and get their performance inserted in any of the most public Magazines; or, if published by itself, get it inserted in the List of new Publications, in any of the Reviews, they will very much oblige their

Humble Servant,

A. B. C.

« הקודםהמשך »