heaven, and reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day? SIR, EVE JOHN MARSOM. VERY Dissenter must be amused with the controversy now carrying on with regard to what are called the "Peterborough Questions," that is, Eighty-seven Questions for trying the Orthodoxy of Candidates for Orders, and of Curates applying for Licenses. Bishop Marsh must have a great love of asking questions, for he has now drawn up 36 more. These new ones, he says, are to be answered by curates only, but the curates, if they were ordained in his diocese, must have previously answered the 87; so that they will have answered in all 123 questions, drawn up for the explanation of 39 articles, themselves compiled "for avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent touching True Religion.' "Where will this end? The Bishop of Peterborough has printed his speech on the discussion of this matter in the House of Lords, and the perusal of it has suggested this letter, in which I wish to call the attention of your readers particularly to this prelate's statement of the doctrine and practice of Toleration within the Church of England. "I hardly know" (he says, in a note to the Speech, pp. 29, 30) "what answer to give, when I am charged with want of Toleration in the use of these questions. Toleration is a term which ap as well in our own pulpits, as in licensed meeting-houses, it is a species of toleration which would shortly end in the destruction of the Church. The foundation, indeed, might thereby be widened; but it would be widened with materials which would soon let down the whole superstructure." This is, at least, a candid confession of intolerance in the internal government of the Church. Happy those that, in search of Christian liberty, have put themselves under the protection of English law, which allows such as choose to have churches without Bishops, or Bishops who are not Lords. Dr. Marsh was charged by the petitioner to the House of Lords, with treading in the steps of Archbishop Laud. He partly admits the charge, and he anticipates hypothetically a fate, which Heaven avert! "Nor is it improbable" (says his Lordship, Speech, p. 33) "that the fate which attended Archbishop Laud would befal the Bishop of Peterborough, if the same party should again obtain the ascendancy in the Church.” The manifest temper of the House of Lords on this occasion, must have shaken Dr. Marsh's confidence in his own proceedings; and it seems probable that in future Parliaments, Bishops will have something else to do than to defend and justify new tests of orthodoxy. SIR, CANTABRIGIENSIS. Warminster, July 8, 1822. HERE is a letter preserved of the much on the Christians of Alexandria in his time, as worshipers of the god Serapis. It is preserved by Flavius Vopiscus in his Life of Saturninus, a writer who flourished within two centuries of this emperor. The letter is as follows, addressed from Egypt to his brother-in-law, Servian, at that time Consul in Rome: plies only to Dissenters from the Es-Emperor Adrian's, which reflects tablished Church. It is quite inapplicable to those who profess conformity to the 39 articles, which were published for avoiding diversities of opinions.' Though we can understand, therefore, what is meant by the toleration of Dissenters, when they have perfect liberty to preach their own doctrines in their own places of worship, we involve ourselves in a contradiction, when we speak about the toleration of dissent on the part of those who are bound by Articles ⚫ for the stablishing of consent touching true religion.' But if the toleration, which the Examination Questions are supposed to infringe, denotes the privilege of preaching dissent from the doctrines of the Church, "Adrian Emperor to Servianus Consul, health. "You gave me great commendations of Egypt, my dear Servian; I have studied the nation well, and have discovered nothing but levity, caprice, inconstancy and a readiness to change with every wind. "The worshipers of Serapis are the Christians, and even the pontiffs of their religion worship Serapis. There is not a chief of a synagogue or priest of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, soothsayer or empiric. Even the patriarch of the Jews, when he comes into Egypt, is constrained to offer incense to Christ or to Serapis. They are a most inconsiderate, seditious race. The city of Alexandria is rich and powerful, with a great trade producing plenty. Nobody is idle there. Some blow glass; others make paper. Many are employed in the linen manufacture and ready-made garments. All follow some trade or other, however infirm in hands or feet, or even blind. 66 All of them, whether Jews or Christians, acknowledge but one God; that is, their interest. I wish to my soul that this city (the first in Egypt for its grandeur and riches) had better inhabitants. "I have granted them all that they desired. I have restored to them their ancient privileges, yet they have treated me with contempt in refusing honours to my adopted son Verus, and you know what they have said of Antoninus. All the punishment I wish them, is to feed themselves with the chickens hatched with their own filthy dung," &c. &c. This is a heavy charge brought against the early Christians of Alexandria, by so great and sensible a man as the Emperor Adrian, and must have been founded on some known facts, and requires, for the credit of Christianity, that this odious accusation should be repelled. This great Emperor travelling with great state throughout the whole Roman Empire, was received with great state and pomp every where; sacrifices and divine honours were paid him, and all the pompous rites of Heathen superstition. Alexandria was principally occupied by Jews and Christians, who could not conscientiously join in these impious ceremonies, nor be present on such occasions. Neither could they at other times frequent the public theatres, nor attend at the consecrations of images and the imperial standards. They, therefore, devoted their whole attention to trade and com. merce, and not incurring any great expenses in their way of living, they grew very rich, which often brought persecutions on them, and confisca tion of property, as was the case with the Jews in England under our Plantagenet princes. Adrian, therefore, not receiving those attentions and divine honours from them, of which he was very fond, it created a great disgust towards them. Why he calls them worshipers of Serapis is, that the god Serapis had a most pompous temple dedicated to him in that quarter of the city where it stood, which was called from it, the Serapian. Here stood the famous image of that god of the merchants, brought hither from Sinope, one of the greatest commercial cities in the time of the Ptolemies, one of whom seeing the high respect paid to it, thought the obtaining of this image to adorn his growing city, would be the surest way to promote its wealth and prosperity; for this deity was esteemed as the patron of trade and commerce, and had temples erected to him in after times in most of the principal seaports to which the merchants traded. A very beautiful temple to this deity stands at this time at Puteoli, now Puzzuoli, near Naples, though in ruins. Besides, the military oath was full of idolatry, and the worshiping of the standard and ensigns of war, and the attendant pompous sacrifices, were not to be dispensed with by the soldiery, which is the reason so few Christians could become soldiers. Those who refused to sacrifice to the Emperor, were by the Roman laws forbid to hold any dignity in the state, as appears by the Pandects, and from this Roman law our Test Act is supposed to have been adopted. Herodian, in his history of his own times, mentions the entrance of the Emperor Caracalla into Alexandria: "As soon as he entered the city with his whole army, he went first to the great Temple, where he sacrificed many hecatombs, and loaded the altars with incense. Thence he proceeded to Alexander's monument, where he pulled off his purple robe, his diamond rings, his belt studded with precious stones, and all his valuable articles, which he offers at the hero's shrine." The Heathen inhabitants of Alex andria took Serapis and Christ to be the same; hence Adrian's confused account of them. Adrian was far from a persecutor of the Christians, although many suffered in the beginning of his reign, from the edict of Trajan, his predecessor, not being suppressed. He was, generally speaking, of an easy temper, and to lerated all religious sects, being in his private character humane and courte ous and easy of access. H. W. Swedenborgian Doctrine of Atone ment. THE following Resolutions are extracted from the printed Report of an Annual Conference, held by the admirers and receivers of the Theological writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, assembled from various parts of the kingdom, at Hawkstone Inn, Hawkstone Park, July 5, 1822. J. W. SALMON, Esq., in the Chair. Resolved, 1. That it is a point of the utmost importance to the Christian Church, that all her members be enlightened with clear and just ideas on the subject of the Atonement made by the Great Saviour. 2. That at this day, throughout all Christendom, the popular and prevailing idea on this subject is, that God the Father was so grievously and so justly offended at the crying sins of mankind, as to be incapable, consistently with his justice, of entering into any covenant of reconciliation with them, until plenary satisfaction was made to that justice: it is further maintained, that such plenary satisfaction was made by the meritorious sufferings and death of an Only-begotten Son, and that, in consequence of this atoning sacrifice, the guilt of the offending sinner was instantly cancelled, and he was again restored, through faith in that sacrifice, to all the blessings of reconciliation with an offended God. 3. That it appears to this Meeting, that the above idea is grounded in a mistaken and unscriptural apprehension, 1st. of the nature of God; 2ndly, of the nature of sin; 3rdly, of the proper meaning of reconciliation between God and his creatures; and 4thly, of the true end and design of the sufferings and death of the Great Saviour. 4. That in regard, 1st, to the nature of God, the above idea evidently implies, that the Father of the Universe is changeable, inasmuch as it supposes that he is not in himself merciful, compassionate and forgiving, but is moved to mercy, compassion and forgiveness, by the deeds of another being. Thus it supposes that the God of Love requires excitations to love, and that he has besides, as it were, two faces, one marked with enmity, vengeance and rejection of his sinful creatures, whilst the other wears the contrary aspect of friendliness, forgiveness and a desire of reconciliation. It supposes further, what is contradictory to every rational idea, that there are two Gods, one an atoning God, and the other an atoned God, thus introducing a distracting perplexity into the human mind respecting the Divine Unity, and the proper object of divine worship. 5. That in regard, 2udly, to the nature of sin, the above idea regards its defilements rather as spots and filth which may be wiped away by another's innocence, than as a deep and radical infection, which can never be removed but by the sincere repentance and consequent change of mind and life on the part of the offender. For such is the view presented in the Sacred Scriptures concerning human defilement, as where it is written in Ezekiel, "When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive," xviii. 27; see also verses 21, 22; xxxiii. 15, 16; see also Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17; Luke xiii. 3, 5, xxiv. 47, besides numberless other passages. The connexion of the sinner too, with the power of darkness, is, by the above idea, kept entirely out of sight, when yet the atonement made by the Great Saviour evidently implies the emancipation of the human race from the tremendous tyranny resulting from such a connexion. (See Matt. xii. 29; Luke x 19, xi. 21, 22; John xii. 31, 32.) 6. That, 3rdly, as to the proper meaning of reconciliation between God and his creatures, the above idea is directly opposed to the apostolic testimony which declares, that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," (2 Cor. v. 10,) by which testimony it is manifest, that the reconciliation in question was not the reconciliation of God to the world, but of the world to God; thus it did not imply any change of the disposition of God towards man, but of man towards God; whereas, according to the above idea, a change is implied in the disposition of God towards man, whilst the effected reconciliation is supposed to consist in the reconciliation of God to the world, and not (as the apostle describes it) of the world unto God. 7. That the above idea is equally at variance with the true end and design of the sufferings and death of the great Saviour, since it supposes that those sufferings and that death were merely vicarious; in other words, that they were endured not only for man, but in man's stead, and that thus their high merit consisted in paying a debt for man, which man was unable to pay for himself; whereas it is most evident from the divine testimony of the Sacred Scriptures throughout, that the sufferings and death of the great Saviour, though endured for the sake of man, were not endured in the stead of man, inasmuch as they were the necessary results of that astonishing process, by which, with a view to promote man's salvation, that great Saviour, in the first place, combated, subdued, and thus removed from man the overwhelming influence of the powers of darkness, and by which, in the second place, he glorified or made divine his human essence, by uniting it fully with divinity in himself, and thus rendering it the medium of man's continual approach and access to that divinity. The great Saviour accordingly testifies on this occasion, "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out," and then triumphantly adds, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me,” (John xii. 31, 32,) plainly intimating that by his sufferings and death, he not only effected a work of divine judgment, but also glorified his human nature, thus making it the centre of all divine attractions, and the consequent only source of divine ability on the part of man to regain conjunction of life, or, what amounts to the same thing, reconciliation with his heavenly Father. It is accordingly written, "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." John i. 12; see also Luke x. 19; John x. 10, xv. 5. 8. That from the combined light of the above considerations, it is most evident to this meeting, that the Atonement or Reconciliation, (for both mean the same thing, and are expressed by the same term in the original Greek,) which was effected by the great Saviour, was the result, not of any vicarious sacrifice, (because no such sacrifice was necessary to move the Divine mercy,) but of that grandest of all events, the manifestation of God in the flesh, by virtue of which manifestation, the ardour of the Divine love to save mankind was most powerfully and unequivocally expressed, as it is written, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John iii. 16); and again, "In his love and in his pity he redeemed them" (Isa. lxiii. 9). The most cogent motives to excite man to repentance were thus brought into exercise; the return, too, of offending sinners to their heavenly Father, and consequently their reconciliation was facilitated, through the opening of a new door of approach and accession in the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ (John x. 7, 9); at the same time the door was closed of that overwhelming infernal influence which had before been open (Rev. i. 18); God was thus brought near to man in a visible and approachable humanity (John xiv. 6, 9); whilst man, by faith in this incarnate medium of salvation, was led to the acknowledgment of his Saviour Jesus Christ as the only God, and by repentance of life was brought near to him (Matt. iv. 7). In this sense, therefore, the great work of Atonement or Reconciliation was eminently accomplished, and the divine testimony fulfilled, where it is written concerning the incarnate God, "Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isa. liii. 4, 5). For by the great Saviour bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows, by his being wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, is evidently meant, that in his human nature he was pleased to submit, for our sakes, to every species of suffering, of trial, and of temptation; and this for the blessed purpose, that by his stripes we might be healed, since all his sufferings, trials and temptations, tended to the double effect of subduing the powers of darkness, and of glorifying his humanity, thus of providing the means of our healing, by removing from us the tyranny of those infernal powers, and giving us access, at the same time, in his glorified or divine humanity, to all the fulness of the Divine presence, mercy and protection, in agreement with his own words, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" (Luke xxiv. 26.) SIR, J. W. SALMON, President. A FRIEND has just put into my hands the second volume of a favourite book of his, "Lacon: or, Many Things in Few Words; addressed to those who Think. By the Rev. C. C. Colton, A. M., late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge." It must be allowed to be an amusing work; but I think that this attempt to modernize the quaint, punning style of the century before last, should not pass without observation. Mr. Colton endeavours to reduce every system to an apophthegm, every opinion to a maxim, every reflection to a joke. This way of writing may appear profound to small thinkers, but is in reality the easiest of all modes of discharging one's thoughts. It is only setting together clashing images, and returning upon one sentence another with words that clink. It is, in fact, the trick of young writers, or of old writers whose habits never improve. The worst of this style is, that it tempts a writer to throw an air of ludicrousness around every subject; smartness presently becomes jesting, and jesting ends in story-telling or punning. Some of Mr. Colton's stories are from no higher authority than "Joe Miller." Of those that are not taken from that notorious wag, some appear from their broad features to be his, though borrowed from more respectable authors; for instance, the tale of the fisherman who sold his fish for one hundred lashes, in order to take revenge upon a porter who would not let him into the house without a promise of sharing with him in half the produce of the sale, and who, consequently, received fifty lashes. (Pp. 130, 131.) This is from Fuller's Worthies, and is repeated in Sir J. Hawkins's edition of Walton's Angler. In one of his "Many Things," Mr. Colton refers to Mandeville, perhaps for the sake of the following succession of bad and not very decorous puns, which he has the modesty to put into a note: "If we were inclined to pun after the manner of Swift on the name of Mandeville, we might say that Mandeville was a devil of a man, who wrote a book to prove man a devil.” (P. 137.) His first antithesis, a double one, (pp. 7-9,) is evidently made for the sake of bringing in an anecdote, and, as this is one of the best stories, I shall transcribe it. "We are not more ingenious in searching out bad motives for good actions, when performed by others, than good motives for bad actions when performed by ourselves. I have observed elsewhere, that no swindler has assumed so many names as self-love, nor is so much ashamed of his own; selflove can gild the most nauseous pill, and can make the grossest venality, when tinselled over with the semblance of gratitude, sit easy on the weakest stomach. There is an anecdote of Sir Robert Walpole, so much to my present purpose, that I cannot refrain from relating it, as conceive that it will be considered apposite by all my readers, and may perhaps he new to some. Sir Robert wished to carry a favourite measure in the House of Commons. None understood better than this minister, two grand secrets of state-the great power of principal, and the great weakness of principle. A day or two previous to the agitation of the measure alluded to, he chanced upon a county member who sometimes looked to the weight |