tually constituted the gift in question. was But whatever this gift of tongues really was; whether what Mr. B. imagines or not; and whether it stood high or low-was of superior, or of inferior importance, among those extraordinary gifts conferred on the primitive Christians, it must be allowed that the account given of it in the New Testament is very obscurely expressed; so that men of the first character, in point of learning and intellectual sagacity, have entertained concerning it very different and contradictory opinions. This is particularly the case as to the first account of the communication of this miraculous gift, in the history of the occurrences of the Day of Pentecost. Some have conceived that the miracle wrought on the hearers, and not on the speakers, and that the latter spoke only the Jewish language, which became Latin to the Roman hearers, Greek to the Grecians, Coptic to the Egyptians, Arabic to the Arabians, and Persic to the Parthians and ElaOthers have imamites, and so on. gined, that the speaking with tongues which then took place, was speaking the old Hebrew, (then a dead language, or understood and spoken only by the doctors,) instead of the vulgar tongue of Judea, or the dialect of Galilee. Others again have understood that the speakers were miraculously empowered to speak all foreign lan. guages, or, at least, the languages of all those foreign countries where any of the strangers who were then in Jerusalem had settled or resided.-It may be just added, that others have fancied, that speaking with tongues only means speaking in tones, or musical notes, which, really, as Mr. B. has intimated, does not seem a very tenable notion. But untenable as it appears, and difficult as it may be to defend and establish it, the difficulty, perhaps, would not be much less as to any one of the other opinions, when all the passages of scripture that relate to the case in question are fairly brought to hear upon it. It is not, however, the wish of your correspondent to provoke a controversy upon this or any other subject. Nor is he inclined to lengthen the present communication. He thinks that he has said quite enough to induce Mr. B. or any of your other able correspondents to resume the discussion, if they can throw any additional light upon this dark and disputable question. THO SIR, Oct. 31, 1815. HOUGH several of your volumes contain valuable notices respecting Servetus, I am not aware that the following has appeared among them. I copy it from a pamphlet, entitled "Authentic Memoirs of the Life of Richard Mead, M. D. 1755," which is a translation from the " Eloge du Docteur Richard Mead," in the Journal Brittannique, 1754. xiv. 215, by Maty the elder, who acknowleges his obligation respecting that article, to Dr. Birch. "Mr. De Boze, for thirty-seven years Secretary of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, kept up the strictest correspondence with the Doctor. He frequently received from him some valuable piece for the Cabinet of the King of France, and never failed of making him a return of the same kind. The scarce and perhaps the only copy of Servetus's last book, passed from the shelves of our English Worthy to those of his friend,* in exchange for a thousand presents he had received from him." P. 55. The first notice of Servetus in English, after the translation of Calvin's Institutes, in 1634,† was probably in * L'exemplaire rare et peut-être unique du dernier livre de Servet passa du cabinet de notre Anglois dans celui de son ami.” Journ. Brit. xiv. 244. + It is remarkable that in the Index to this translation, there is only one reference to Servetus, and that incorrect. I find a very small volume, now before me, published in 1652. It is entitled, "Two Discourses. 1. Of God and his Providence. 2. Of Christ, his Miracles and Doctrine, out of the illustrious Hugo Grotius,* with An Appendix conceruing his judgment in sundry points controverted. By the Translator of the same Author de Imperio." The translator was Clements Barksdale, who dates from Hawling. The Appendix consists of passages selected from the Votum pro pace ecclesiastica contra Rivetum, and classed under different heads, among which is the following: "Of Servetus. Servetus's books, by the diligence of Calvin, were burnt, not only at Geneva, but in other places. Yet I confess, in my life time, I have seen one copy of Servetus's book in Latin; wherein truly I found not those things which Calvin objects against him. Michael Servetus, by the procurement of Calvin, was burnt alive at Geneva, in the year 1553. What Melancthon wrote of Servetus, after that time, he had from Calvin. Ecolompadius seems to have known him in Helvetia before that; but he thought him fit to be exploded, not killed. But Calvin speaketh of himself, I willingly acknowledge and own it that the accuser came forth from me.' He adds, It is not only free for the magistrate to punish the corrupters of heavenly doctrine, but that which unskilful men will not allow to be lawful for them is commanded them by God.' And in an Epistle to Farellus touching the same Servetus, I hope at least he will be sentenced to death." From the translator's taste in his selection, preceding that I have quoted with Grotius's Apology for his Letters to Socinians, and following it with one, of Calvin's Impatience, suspect that Mr. Barksdale was not very othodox. N. L. T. I by comparing the index, with the text, in an edition of the Institutio, printed at Geneva, 1602, that Calvin has named Servetus, a dozen times, at least, generally adding some reproachful epithet. *De Veritate, &c. On the Truth of the Christian Religion; the two first Books, I On Natural Religion. (Concluded from p. 622.) T is objected, that the advocates of this system, take of the things of the gospel, and exhibit them to the world, as parts of the religion of nature. But, how does this appear? They do not, in this view, trench upon any of the peculiarities of Christianity: no sober writer of this class, ever thought of comparing natural, with revealed religion, as a whole; or Socrates with Jesus Christ, as a Divine Teacher; or the heathen moralists with the sacred writers; or the profoundest reasonings, with complete and absolute assurance. The super-added authority of revelation, independent of other circumstances, must ever turn the scale. Nor are we to consider the actual state of the heathen world in different periods, and especially at the time of our Saviour's advent; or the extravagant sects and opinions of some of the ancient philosophers, as solid arguments against the verity and importance of natural religion. Are there no extravagant sects among the professors of the gcspel? No reveries among Christian philosophers and Christian divines ? The abuse, or neglect of a rule, is no It is an old but important maximreason against the rule. The gospel is a perfect law; but, has it abolished private and public robbery; murder and adultery; bigotry and superstition; war and slavery? Human sacrifices, and the dereliction of diseased and mis-shapen children, from mislence, were practised by some of the taken principles of piety and benevoancient heathens; and Christian Bishand destroyed the body for the good ops and Inquisitors, have persecuted undertaken, professedly for the glory of the soul; and holy wars have been of God and the propagation of the true religion: but certainly, nature no more teaches the oue, than the gospel the other. "The Romans," says Montesquieu, "deserved well of human nature, for making it a condition, in their treaty with the Carthaginians, that they should abstain dren to the Gods." Some of their in future, from offering their chilwriters have been supposed to justify suicide; but there are passages in Seneca against this opinion; and Epictetus expressly condemns it: he com pares it to a sentinel quitting his post, without the order of his commander. Polytheism and idolatry were indeed prodigious evils; and it was one principal design of the gospel to abolish them: yet, under this wild and fabulous system, (the corruption of natural religion,) were couched many important lessons and sublime truths, as it hath been well illustrated by Lord Bacon and other writers on the ancient Mythology. The grosser absurdities of the system, were however, obvious to every reflecting mind their best writers ridiculed them in private, though, in public, they indolently gave way to the popular superstitions. Thus, the language of Plato respecting the Deity, is the same with that of the sacred writers: he calls him, O Els, The One and in general, the wiser heathens, though they appeared to coincide with the notion of inferior and subordinate divinities, held the existence of one supreme, original, infinite Mind, the great Ruler and Lord of all things, his Providence (Epicurus excepted,) and moral government, together with the doctrines of a Divine afflatus, or assistance to the virtuous, and of a future state of retribution to all mankind.* But it is happy for those who have no leisure or inclination to read the works of " those old, wise spirits, who preserved natural reason and religion in the midst of heathen darkness,"+ that the sacred writers have ascertained these principles beyond all reasonable exception. In the 19th Psalm which needs no comment, David lays down this great principle, that the works of nature, lead us to the God of nature. "All people," says M. Henry, “ may hear these natural, immortal preachers speak to them in their own tongue, the wonderful works of God." St. Paul, Rom. i. and ii., is more precise and determinate. He clearly distinguishes between the actual state of the heathen, and their capabilities, or, what they might and ought to have done. He represents them as "holding or discerning the truth, in unrighteousness: for that which may be known of God 66 are is manifest in them," (mind the The History of Cornelius, recorded in the 10th chapter of the Acts, is worth a hundred books of controversy upon this subject; and appears to be precise and determinate, as to two points; the verity and acceptable ness of natural religion, as far as it extends, and also, the obligation of the true Theist to embrace any further divine communications with which he may be favoured. Commentators suppose that he was what the Jews call," a proselyte of the gate." We read, only, that he was A Roman Centurion, a devout man, fearing God, with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and praying to God alway." By deep reflection and occasional converse with pious Jews, he had attained to the knowledge and worship of the true God; was favoured with a heavenly vision to assure him of his present interest in the Divine regard, and directed to an apostle, from whom he was to acquire further degrees of light and knowledge, in the way of truth and salvation. But, supposing Cornelius had died, before, or immediately after, this divine communication ;-do you think that he would not have been saved? What-when he had been assured, that "his prayers and his alms had come up for a memorial before God?" The inference of the inspired apostle upon this occasion is very different: "Of a truth, I perceive, that God is no respecter of persons; but, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." Whether we consider this passage as an abstract or general proposition, or limit it to the qualification and fitness of a virtuous heathen to become a Jewish proselyte, or a Christian disciple; in either case, the conclusion will be much the same. In the first, it establishes the verity and acceptableness of natural religion, wherever it exists; in the latter, it proves such a one a fit subject for revealed religion, whenever it shall be fairly proposed to him; and consequently, till then, (unless invincible ignorance be considered as a crime,) an immediate and proper object of the Divine fa your. Accordingly, we find, that notwithstanding this general conclusion, Cornelius was to believe in Christ, and to be baptized. If it be said, that we cannot reason absolutely from the case of Cornelius, to that of a person destitute of his previous advantages; the answer is, that we have allowed different degrees of na tural advantages; but contend that every man, in the most imperfect state of nature, has advantages suffi cient to lead him to the knowledge of God, to the practice of his duty, and to the belief, the fears and hopes of futurity: and the apostle, in the dismal picture which he draws of the state of Gentilism, in his epistle to the Romans, never vilifies the powers of human nature, or insinuates that their ignorance and depravity were natural and invincible; or that they had no advantages, but expressly as sures us, that they had, and that for neglecting to improve them, they were "without excuse." In the case of Cornelius, says Dr. Cave," Peter tell us, it was now plain and evident that the partition wall was broken down, that God had now no longer a particular kindness for nations or persons; that it was not the nation but the religion; not the outward quality but the inward temper, that recommends us to God. That the devout and pious, the righteous and good man, whereever he be, is equally dear to Heaven, and that the Deity has as much respect for a just and virtuous person in the wilds of Scythia, as upon Mount Zion!" Some of the ancient philosophers, and some modern writers may have laid too much stress upon the idea of the inherent immortality of the soul : but this only proves, what we see every day, that men are apt to stretch a favourite topic beyond its due bounds: for though the death of the body does not necessarily infer the death of the whole man, yet two of the most learned and strenuous advocates of the separate state, Bishop Taylor and Dr. Watts, acknowledge, that "the souls of men are formed for union with their bodies," and that therefore, their subsistence in this state must needs be imperfect. In a strict and proper sense, the Deity "only hath immortality." The natural arguments for a future state, in respect of man, are chiefly moral, and not metaphysical. It would not be just, in a discus * Life of St. Peter. sion of this kind, to take no notice of some of those texts which have been urged against the system of natural religion. The apostle Paul, addressing his Ephesian converts, says of them, that they were formerly "Children of wrath, even as others, without hope, and without God in the world:" and, in his sublime illustration of the resurrection, speaking of Christians, themselves, he says, "If Christ be not risen, our preaching, and your faith are vain; they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished, and ye are yet in your sins." Now, though it would be a sufficient answer to these objections, to say, that the scripture cannot be inconsistent with itself, and that, when any point of importance is clearly as certained, every thing supposed to be contrary thereto, must fall of course; yet we need be under no insuperable difficulty in explaining these passages. "The children of wrath," are evidently not infants, but men and women of bad characters, "Children of disobedience, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind." These, he says, are, "by nature," or "in nature" (UG) that is, in character and disposition, "children of wrath," or obnoxious to the Divine anger. So that the words have no reference to a supposed original taint, but are merely the statement of a fact. Or, he considers them, in their heathen state, as out of the pale of the visible church, and so, externally, or relatively unholy,*-From this evil cast, or description of mankind, says the apostle, you Ephesians, by the instrumentality of the gospel, have been happily delivered. Ye were then, "afar off," some by actual transgression, all of you by an inferior dispensation and this class, from which you have been emancipated, may be considered in a general view, on account of their extreme ignorance and depravity, as "without hope, and without God in the world." Here, we have a Synechdoche, or figure of speech-all, for a great many: similar to those passages in the Old Testament, where, in a corrupt state of society, mankind are represented as having "all gone out of the way, there is none that doeth good, no not one." This was never true, literally, * See Locke and Taylor on the Romans. 66 even at the time of the flood, the most vicious and corrupt period in the history of the world: yet Moses, not supposing any mistake in his readers, uses the same phraseology: "God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt: for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." These general expressions form no bar against the actual or possible attainments of individuals, in knowledge, wisdom and goodness: for though the apostle, speaking of the Gentiles in general, says, they were "without hope and without God," or Atheists, as in the original, yet that we are not to interpret this mode of expression absolutely, is evident, because in the passages formerly referred to, he clearly lays down the obligation which all are under to dis cern the existence and perfections of the Deity from his works; and the principle of conscience, the "law in the mind" " accusing, or excusing." Now, if an evil conscience accuses and anticipates punishment, a good conscience must approve and anticipate, or hope for reward: for we can no more se parate hope from the one, than fear from the other; and both, in proportion to the respective degrees of virtue or demerit. A quotation from a heathen poet in the Spectator, says, "We may hope for every thing that is good, be cause there is nothing but what may be hoped for and nothing which the Gods are not able to give us." Some of the Stoics indeed may appear to have indulged extravagant ideas upon this head; and to represent their virtuous man, entering heaven, as it were, as a matter of course: but their expressions may have been mis-understood; or if not, we hear rant and extravagance every day; and even under the clear light of the gospel, not only from the imperfection of our own organs, but from the nature of the subjects themselves," we still see many things through a glass, darkly, and not face to face." As to the treatise on the resurrection, 1.Cor. xv. the apostle is addressing himself to some sceptical persons, who, notwithstanding all the light and evidence afforded them, denied this doctrine. This was a dangerous anomaly in the new dispensation; and it was necessary to shew its mischievous and fatal effects, and powerfully to enforce this additional, |