of Christian with Apollyon in the Valley of Humiliation, and the dismal scenes he was called to pass through in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, beset with infernal fiends suggesting horrid blasphemies, are more calculated to promote superstition than genuine piety, and to oppress the minds of people with those terrific apprehensions of evil and malignant spirits, which, in proportion as they prevail, diminish confidence in the paternal goodness and protection of the Father of mercies, and which often prove fatal to the human intellect. In this respect, indeed, the Pilgrim's Progress and Milton's Paradise Lost (I say it with the strongest conviction of the unparalleled beauties of this sublime poem) have been more injurious than any two books besides in the English language, and the former to a greater extent than the latter, being more generally read and better suited to common capacities. To counteract such pernicious effects, it is desirable that a new edition of the Pilgrim's Progress should be published, revised and corrected. To make it calculated to enlighten the mind with useful, religious knowledge, and to communicate important moral instructions suited to all classes of the community, requires a sound judgment with respect to the requisite omissions and alterations. As for the author's rhymes, they cannot be too soon consigned to utter oblivion. Whether others should be substituted in their stead, must depend on the taste and poetic genius of the editor. Some of the conversations which are introduced, need to be either wholly omitted, or made to convey very dif ferent sentiments. Let no one who has ability and leisure for the task decline it from an apprehension that it would be deemed unworthy of his talents and pursuits to engage in so humble an undertaking as that of preparing for the press an edition of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress on the plan above proposed. It night not add any splendour to his literary reputation, but, what is more valuable, it would merit the thanks of all the friends of pure religion for its utility. It cannot be expected that it would meet with the approbation of the advocates for Calvinistic divinity. They would probably censure the under taking as an undue liberty with the sentiments contained in the work, to make such material alterations. If these, however, be announced in the title-page, it is no act of injustice to the author; it can mislead no one, and is sanctioned by a very prevalent custom. My valuable friend who has for some years past resided at Sidmouth, and whose bodily infirmities, I am sorry to hear, disable him from pursuing his ministerial labours, but whose continued vigour of intellect is evinced by the third volume of his excellent Family Sermons which he has just published, will, I trust, excuse me for saying, that no one can be better qualified than himself for rendering this ingenious and popular allegory subservient to the noble cause which he, as an Unitarian Christian, is well known to have near at heart. T. HOWE. Christianity not Naturalism. (Concluded from p. 21.) THE stigmatizing prayer as "a by surprise; it is mere sophistry. The charm," is an attempt to take us exposing ourselves to impressions" as a means of virtue, may with equal the result of a certain disposition of reason be termed magic. Prayer is the mind or change of the heart, pleashim as the condition of his favour. ing to the Deity, because required by We may hence discern a reason why the Deity is accessible to prayer. But peculiarly disposed, it is not the cause as prayer is the expression of a mind of that disposition, but its effect: and as the approbation of the Deity is extended to the motive influencing prayer, and not to the prayer abstractedly from the motive, prayer in itself that approbation. Prayer, therefore, cannot be the cause of his extending cannot be a charm. In fact, a charm implies a verbal spell, similar to the is meant to express the emperichoresis Popish ternary invocation, by which it of the Trinity: Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, Can it be pretended that the prayer of "the spirit and the understanding" has any affinity with this? The dilemma proposed, that "if God immediately disposes mankind to good, he also immediately disposes them to evil," is irrelevant to the sort of divine influence which is the subject in dispute. It is not supposed that God arbitrarily disposes the mind by irresistible grace to follow what is good: it cannot, therefore, be inferred that he arbitrarily directs the mind to follow what is evil. If God dispenses aid to those who seek it, there is implied a predisposition to goodness: if God dispose to evil, it is where the heart is wilfully prone to evil; and this is illustrated in 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12, and Rom. i. 24. It is contended, that from God's immediate communications, knowledge cannot be excluded; because Christ says, "Every man that has learned of the Father cometh unto me:" "He will guide you into all truth" "He will teach you all things." Now the question properly is, whether doctrinal truth is here intended? For this was the sort of truth which it was doubted that God imparted to men, since the ceasing of the gift of his miraculous energy or spirit-a doubt which is founded on the absence of all authority that he does so, and which derives strength from the great improbability that he should interfere to direct the natural understanding of men, when his written word, transmitted from the hands of prophets and apostles, and the traditions of Christ's primitive church, are within their reach. The diversity of doctrine, in those who equally pretend to divine aid, is of itself a demonstration that doctrinal truth is not communicated: but if we can produce no proof of the communication of spiritual influences, independent of illumination on points of doctrine, no one can demonstrate their non-existence. The argument of the writer respect ing "supernatural periods," might here be retorted upon him; for if it be allowed that the truth spoken of was doctrine, it might be said that the teachings of mysterious knowledge were imparted in the apostolic age; but it does not follow that they are imparted still. The application of these texts, however, is a mere trifling with words. The divine truth here mentioned had nothing to do with the metaphysical nature of God, or any question about the person of Christ, which alone would be to the writer's purpose, and in connexion with the subject in hand; for these questions had not then been originated. No disciple of Jesus had any doubt of the unipersonal nature of Jehovah, or of his self-originating mercy, or of the humanity of Jesus, who was "called the Son of God." What the Jews had to learn, was that disposition of heart which would bring them to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ; and the knowledge of all things, to which the apostles were to be guided by the Spirit, related to the designs of the gospel dispensation. Knowledge, truth and wisdom are, moreover, equivalent, in scripture language, to a religious spirit, or a knowledge of the will of God, as is evident from that fine chapter, Prov. ii. To confound this with accurate theological doctrine, in the modern sense of orthodoxy, is to quibble with sounds. As the writer is apprehensive that the example of Christ in the garden (Luke xxii. 41) may have misled people into this foolish application to the "God of all hope and consolation," he shews an anxiety to invalidate this piece of gospel history, as if there were no other occasions on which Jesus betook himself to prayer. He seems, however, to do him justice, perfectly indifferent whether the passage be spurious or Christ amenable to censure. The question has been mooted, very unnecessarily, to say the least of it, whether Jesus were clear from human sin, in circumstances which did not respect his ministry? Now, as sin implies a wilful or conscious breach of some known commandment of God, it would be rather difficult to conceive how Jesus could yield to sin (whether little or great, in human computation, is indifferent, for, as respects the pure and perfect God," he that keepeth the whole law, yet offends in one point, is guilty of all") and could, at the same time, be "the beloved Son of God in whom he was well pleased." It was reserved, however, for the present writer to impute sin to Jesus in the very office of his Messiahship. I shall pass over the curious proof of the spuriousness of this whole relation from the impugned authenticity of the 42nd and 43rd verses, which do not include the circumstances to which his remarks apply, and are merely episodical, containing the appearance of the consoling angel and the sweat of blood (a phenomenon, we may observe, likely to excite suspicion, but which is by no means unprecedented: see Theol. Repos. VI. 347): nor shall I attempt any answer to the questions, How the facts came to be known? Whether Jesus himself reported what he had said? Whether the Holy Spirit revealed it afterwards, &c.? Cavils of a similar nature may be brought to bear on a variety of particulars in these ancient narrations, and thus the whole gospel history may be pulled to pieces. What we have to ask is, what credit is due to the text, and what is the authority of the writer? And if the old copies sanction the one in its general integrity, and the early churches acknowledged the other, we ought to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for the fact, though we may not be enabled to ascertain precisely in what manner it was made known to the evangelist. But this prayer, it seems, is very "unworthy of Christ." If this writer believe Christ to be God, or a secondary God, he may consistently think the supplication of Christ unworthy of him; but if Jesus were properly a man, as Peter and Paul affirmed, and as the Jews expected their Messiah would be, this is merely finding fault with his possessing the infirmities of our common nature; for as to his knowledge of his high destination, and his intimate participation of the counsels of the Eternal, it is well observed by the writer in the Theological Repository, that "in a highlyagitated state of mind, the thing night for a moment appear in a different light our Lord well knew that the appointments of God, even when expressed in the most absolute terms, are not always so intended. We have more instances than one of similar orders and appointments, by which nothing was meant but the trial of a person's faith. This was the case when Abraham was ordered to offer up his beloved son Isaac." This objection has therefore only force in respect to those who believe Christ to be a person in a plural godhead, or a superangelic, pre-existent spirit, the necessary instrument of the Deity's communications. Your readers cannot fail to remark, that, like some other : attempts which have lately been made through the medium of the Repository, the suspicion which it is endeavoured to cast upon this affecting incident, deprives the Unitarian of an important proof of the simple humanity of the Messiah. We are told that he "wished to avoid pain;" that "his pain was incomparably less than that which thousands of his followers have willingly endured in his cause, with motives infinitely inferior to his ;" and we are asked, "What conceivable ties could Jesus have had to this world which could have made life so exceedingly desirable to him?" Now it is merely begging the question (passing by the miserably poor and paltry view taken by the writer of the sufferings of Jesus) to say that Jesus wished to avoid pain, or that what he wished to obtain was longer life. His motives are degraded in order to favour the writer's positions: and as to the incomparably greater pain of the martyrs, (unless we are to understand the corporeal pain of burning or flaying or boiling in hot oil,) how can he be so sure that any martyr suffered mentally in the degree that Jesus suffered? As no one was ever so emphatically the onlybegotten or well-beloved of God, so none could have felt so sensibly the temporary suspension of God's upholding aid; and as no one was ever "in the bosom of the Father" in the same sense as Jesus was, no one could have had so clear a foresight of the precise amount of his sufferings; no one could therefore have exhibited so perfect an instance of entire self-annihilation and devotion to God. "Fa ther! if THOU BE WILLING, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, NOT my will, but THINE be done." Ver. 42. From this passage the writer most logically infers, that " he did, in this one instance, for some time seek his own will, and not the will of him who sent him"! The truth is, that the nature of this agony of Christ has totally escaped the writer's discernment: he has not even once guessed at what must be sufficiently plain to those who have accurate views of the design of Christ's ministry as personally affecting himself, namely, the fact that this agony was a trial; " a horror of great darkness fell upon him." He was to be "made perfect by suffering," and not, as this writer seems to imagine would have been more consistent with his dignity, by opportunities for the display of an impassive superiority to the sense of pain. Had there been no sense of suffering, it is obvious there would have been no merit. Had Jesus acted like an incarnate deity or subdeity, it is obvious he would have been no pattern for our imitation, and would have had no claim upon our sympathy. Had his sense of the apparent desertion of his God and Father been less, the resignation to his will would have lost proportionately in merit. The writer, in short, insists that to evince perfect dignity of virtue, it would have been necessary for Christ to resign himself to his Father's will, under a Stoical insensibility to the sufferings that awaited him; that in proportion as he felt his sufferings, his patience under them was less exemplary, and his magnanimity in meeting them more doubtful and imperfect. This is in entire consistency with the logic, that he who prays with submission to the will of God, is all the time secking his own! If, however, this be so, there is an end of the imitation of Christ altogether: if, instead of being "tempted as we are, yet without sin," he sinned just to a certain point, and "just so far" is not an object for our imitation, he is not an object for our imitation at all. The apostles must have been mistaken when they described him as "knowing no sin :" and the just appreciation of his character must have been reserved for the later sect of philosophizing Christians, to whom the age is indebted for a projected alliance between Deism and Christianity. SIR, N CORNELIUS. November 9, 1820. throughout the work, cannot but command admiration. I must confess,' however, I was much struck with the poverty of his reasoning, and could not but call to mind an anecdote of Jeremy Taylor, who, in his "Liberty of Prophesying," is supposed to have stated the case of his adversaries in so powerful a manner as to overturn the force of his own reasoning. My present remarks, however, will refer principally to Mr. Belsham's paper in the last Number of the "Repository." [XV. 575-578.] No one who is acquainted with the cool, deliberate mind of Mr. Belsham, as portrayed in his writings, or with his acuteness in conducting an argument, can imagine for a moment to impose upon him by rhetorical flourishes, hard words or inconclusive reasoning. If he is to be assailed by the rude arts of controversy, as he seems to anticipate, it will not be by the present writer. When a man of learning and talent advances an opinion upon any subject, even if it be ever so novel and repulsive, provided he does it in a gentlemanly manner, he is entitled to a candid hearing. But if the subject be hackneyed, and one upon which the wise and good confessedly differ, there is still farther ground for consideration and forbearance. If Mr. Belsham, after mature deliberation, considers that Christianity has ever gained, or is likely to gain, any good by the patronage of the civil power, he has unquestionably a right so to think, without incurring the displeasure or ill-will of any person upon that account. I think he is mistaken, and in the excise of this judgment must put in my claim to the same indulgence that I have granted to him, or that we should both of us be disposed to concede to his Grace of Canterbury. The question of civil establishments Incommon with many other pe Mr. of religion has never, perhaps, been so Belsham, I read with some surprise, during last summer, his Three Sermons on the Patronage of Christianity by the Civil Power; in which he exhibits a view of the subject very opposite to that which is commonly supposed to be entertained by the great bulk of Protestant Dissenters. The fairness and precision with which he states the arguments of his opponents, and the general candour displayed ably argued, with a view to their support, as by that prince of dogmatists Bishop Warburton. If you grant him his premises, I do not see with what propriety you can withstand the force of his conclusions. When the civil magistrate is once let in, who is to set bounds to his authority? What are the prescribed rules which say to him, "Hitherto shalt thou go, but no far, ther"? There are but two ways, as I conceive, of reasoning this subject. Ecclesiastical establishments must be defended on the score either of truth or of utility. If the former, the civil magistrate is converted at once into a teacher of Christianity; he is made the infallible expounder of the divine law, and the immediate vice-gerent of the Supreme Being upon the earth. In short, he approximates very near to the condition of the Roman pontiff, or the grand Lama of Thibet. But if truth is to be the basis of any particular religion before it is recommended and enforced by the civil magistrate, he can have no pretensions to deviate from the laws and regulations of its Founder, who must be best acquainted with both its nature and requirements. These can only be learnt by having recourse to his own testimony, or to that of agents immediately commissioned and authorized by him. Christians, I know, differ widely in the degree of authority which they attach to the writings of the New Tes tament. But every Christian, I presume, and Mr. Belsham amongst the rest, professes to derive his religion from thence. He builds upon no other authority, and any deviation from, or addition to, what was taught and prac tised by Jesus Christ and his apostles, must be considered so far a departure from their religion. I need not tell Mr. Belsham that there is not the shadow of an authority in the New Testament for investing the civil magistrate with the protection of Christianity, or for decorating him with the swelling title of "Defender of the Faith." The Jewish Church, indeed, was essentially involved with the state, it made an integral part of it, its worship was symbolical, and it was clothed, in the emphatical language of the apostle, with "the beggarly elements of the world." Now, if I understand any thing of the design of Christianity, it was to destroy this system altogether, and to substitute for the gross and unworthy views which then prevailed respecting the Divine nature and government, a worship of a more refined and intellectual nature. The Jewish religion was a system of worldly polity; but Jesus Christ says, My kingdom is not of this world," a declaration which, notwithstanding the ingenuity that has been exercised to explain it away, must ever remain a significant token of genuine Christianity, and effectually prevent it from being amalgamated with the policy of princes, or the institutions of civil society. Much unnecessary heat has been diffused by different contending parties in order to prove the superior practical efficacy of this or that particular system. It is quite natural that every man should consider his own religion the best, and that he should be desirous of recommending it to others; but charity, if not an enlightened understanding, should check the beginnings of hatred and resentment, and repress that imagined superiority which is seldom wanting in established Christians. The essential principles of human conduct belong, in fact, to every system, and these alone are legitimate objects of legislation. The more sublime and refined parts of religion, such as relate to the nature and being of a God, to the mode in which he is to be worshiped, to the nature of the soul, and the expectations of man in a future state, are subjects not cognizable to human laws, and can never be ingrafted on them without injury. The overfondness that has been always shewn for legislating in these matters, instead of being serviceable to mankind, as Mr. Belsham supposes, has, I doubt not, been of essential injury in impeding the progress of knowledge, and in paralyzing the best feelings of our nature. Mr. Belsham observes, that "if Christianity had been oppressed in Europe, as it was in Asia and Africa, which it probably would if it had not been established, it cannot be doubted that the Christian religion would have been reduced to the same miserable state in which it now exists in those extensive continents." Of this I have great doubts. Christianity was never in a more flourishing state than before it was polluted by the embraces of the Roman emperors. The history of our own country, and of all Europe, certifies that sects are most prosperous when under the rod of oppression. Look at the Nonconformists, for instance. Besides, it by no means fol lows that Christianity would have been always persecuted, if it had not been established. Such was not its fate always under the Roman emperors, |