they be done before the images of Christ, the Cross, or of our Lady, or any Saint besides. Concerning honouring of saints; that we should not trust to obtain at their hands that which is to be had only of God. Yet that they were to be honoured, because they reigned in glory, and were examples of virtue; as not fearing to die for Christ; and, therefore, to be taken (in that they may) to be the advancers of our prayers and demands unto Christ, but not to be had in other reverence and honour." The passage which follows, is a striking proof that even while our Lord is made to take from his heavenly Father that prerogative of free mercy which he ever ascribed to him, yet Christians, however professedly Trinitarian, cannot always escape the Unitarianism of the Bible, in addressing the object of their supreme worship. 66 Concerning praying to them," (the saints,)" that it is very laudable to use these words, All holy angels and saints in heaven, pray for us and with us, unto the Father that for his dear Son Jesus Christ's sake, we may have grace of him, and remission of sins, with an earnest purpose (not wanting ghostly strength) to observe and keep his holy commandments.And that in this manner we should pray to our blessed Lady, St. John the Baptist, and other apostles, so that it be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us sooner than Christ, or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same." (P. 348.) Thus (except that the sacraments were reduced to Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist) it appears that the present religion of the Roman Catholics in England, accords with the State-religion, which the Supreme Head, assisted by a complaisant Convocation, directed his people to believe, or, at least, to profess to believe, at their peril, in 1536. This compromise between Papal and Protestant Churchmen was signed among others by Cranmer. It was entitled, "The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man," and called from the composers of it, among whom were two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops, "The Bishops' Book." Lord Herbert, mentioning the "bishops and divines who stood divided in opinion," says, that their " argu ments on either side the King himself took pains to peruse and moderate, adding animadversions with his own hand, which are to be seen in our records." Fox, the Martyrologist, in a MS. Life of Cranmer, as quoted by Strype, goes farther, and says that "the error of praying, kissing and kneeling before images, was added by the King, after the bishops had set their hands to the contrary." Thus, as Bishop Hurd remarks, with seeming approbation, in his Sermons, (I. S. xiii. 239,) "the Reformation with us-advanced under the eye of the magistrate, by slow degrees; nay, it was, more than once, checked and kept back by him." The ceremony of creeping to the cross, I witnessed on Good-Friday, about 10 years since, in the Chapel, Lincolns-Inn-Fields. After the usual service, a crucifix, covered with black velvet, was placed on a cushion, immediately without the altar. A priest then delivered from the pulpit an oration, in English, which was often eloquent, and appeared to be, throughout, a plausible apology for the ceremony, addressed to Protestant rather than to Catholic spectators. He declaimed, I recollect, among other topics, on the reverence with which a person versed in history would regard the sword of a famed and fortunate warrior, and endeavoured to apply this martial reflection to his purpose, disavowing, like Mr. Oliver, any design of worshiping the Cross. When the Orator had concluded, another priest prostrated himself on the ground, at a short distance from the crucifix, which he slowly approached in a very solemn manner. He then, several times at short intervals, lifted up the velvet covering, and kissed, as I supposed, each time, one of the five wounds, for which there is a service in the Romish Church, entitled Festum quinque plagarum Christi. Some of the congregation then performed the same devotion. I remember to have read, but cannot recollect where, of a carpet being provided in a Chapel Royal, on which the King and his family used, on Good-Friday, to creep to the cross. J. T. RUTT. P. S. Dr. Macknight (p. 476,) has been anticipated by the learned Dr. W. Wotton, who, just a century ago, published a discourse, entitled "The Omniscience of the Son of God, an Argument of his Divinity." To this discourse the preacher had the courage to prefix "Mr. Hutton's text, Mark xiii. 32;" of which he says, (p. 4,) My notion in short is this; that the angels did probably not know it, and that the Son was not willing to make that day and that hour known, which the Father had then reserved to himself." He afterwards quotes (p. 40) "the determination of St. Augustine (De Trinitate, L. i. C. xxiii.) upon this passage. Hoc nescit quod nescientes facit, id est, quod non ita sciebat ut tunc discipulis indicaret." This Dr. Wotton translates, "He is ignorant of that which he will not suffer others to know, that is, which he did not know so as to tell his disciples at that time." It appears from what Dr. Wotton adds, (p. 43,) that "two very learned Jesuits, Bellarmin, and his advocate Gretser, made use of St. Austin's authority to prove that Jesus Christ, as man, knew the last day and hour," and thus, from our Lord's language, on that supposition, would defend their doctrine of mental reservations. It is remarkable that Le Clerc, although he claimed to be a Trinitarian of some description, (as appears by his Parrhasiana, quoted by Gale against Wall, p. 37,) is yet unqualifiedly Unitarian on this passage. In his Harmony, as translated 1701, (p. 451,) he thus comments: "But as for the precise day and hour-no one knows them but the Father, who as yet has not revealed them to his angels nor to me myself." In his Nour. Test., 1703, he refers to the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 36, in his note on which he represents the communications of divine knowledge to our Lord, as limited to the purposes of his divine mission. Considering the subject of Christ's discourse to be rather the destruction of Jerusalem than the last judgment, he says, "Rien n'empêche de croire que Dieu n'avoit pas encore alors découvert à son Fils, pendant qu'il étoit sur la terre, le jour et l'heure de la prise de Jerusalem; parce que cette connoissance ne lui étoit point nécessaire, pour s' acquiter des devoirs de sa charge de Médiateur. Il étoit néanmoins important qu'il sût que Jerusalem devoit périr, avant que tous ceux à qu'il parloit fussent morts; pour leur pou voir donner les avertissements, qui étoient de très-grande conséquence pour eux." (We may readily believe that God did not discover to his Son, while upon earth, the day and hour of the capture of Jerusalem, as that knowledge was unnecessary to the fulfilment of his office as Mediator. It was, however, important for him to know that Jerusalem would be destroyed before all his auditors were dead, that he might thus address to them those warnings which it highly concerned them to receive.) The management of Doddridge in disposing of this troublesome text, may be well contrasted with the plaindealing of Le Clerc. The former expositor, assuming in his note “the two natures in our Lord," supposes him to have designed thus to instruct his disciples: "There is no one who knows the precise time, neither the angels in heaven, nor even the Son of Man himself, with respect to his human nature, or as a part of what he is commissioned to reveal." Thus, as Wakefield remarks, (on Matthew, p. 344,) "the Trinitarian steps in with his ambidextrous distinctions and reservations-Jesus is God, and not man; man, and not God, just as the argument requires and difficulties press. If these despicable distinctions," he adds, "were to be employed by any man, upon any other subject whatsoever, they would effectually ruin his cause with every judicious person, and deservedly expose him to the laughter of the world." In another place, my friend justly complains that "this particular of our Lord's ignorance, which he mentions of himself, is very improperly omitted by Bishop Newcome in his Observations, Pt. i. Ch. i. S. ii.," and quotes from Irenæus (II.48) the following contrast: "Scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem: sed dixit quod verum est." (The knowledge of that day, the Son did not scruple to refer to the Father: but declared the truth.) See Wakefield's " Enquiry concerning the Person of Christ," 1784, p. 63. Before I close this P. S., which has been unreasonably extended, I will venture to use the freedom, which I know they will excuse, of asking my excellent and enlightened friends, the "Eastern Unitarian Society," (p. 483,) whether they go back to the 17th century when they speak of "the old Nonconformists"? In that case, where, unless we read them over with a lover's eye, can we discover" their desire to remove all the degrading obstacles which hinder the spread of truth," tracing them as a community of Christian professors, through their prosperous and adverse fortune, and not confining ourselves to a very few characters who form a mere spot of azure in a clouded sky; men who may be said to have lived a century, at least, before their contemporaries ? June 19, 1820. SIR, gradation of science and the arts in Those nations which once shone like lamps in the firmament of heaven, dazzling the earth with the resplendence of their brightness, are now the prey of barbarians, and the habitations of ignorance and brutality. Even Rome, the mistress of the world, as she has been justly styled in proud distinction, is now" decayed in her glory and sunk in her worth;" the effeminacy and superstition of her present inhabitants being more degrading VOL. XV. 4 N than the savage state from which she first arose. There seem to be three principal causes which, in all ages, and in various countries, have produced, or tend to produce, similar effects. In the first place, it is a striking fact, that science never arose or flourished long, but in a republic, or under a monarchy so limited as to approach the republican form. It must be conceded, that despotic monarchies have, occasionally, given birth to an individual of extraordinary genius, who, like a palm-tree in the desart, has flourished amidst sterility and desolation; but the atmosphere of tyranny is too chilling, its soil is uncongenial to the growth of science, and even if trans kindly gions, it quickly withers, droops and perishes. In a republic, no laws can be enacted but by general consent, which consent can never be obtained but for the general good. "From law," says Mr. Hume, "proceeds security, from security leisure, from leisure curiosity, and from curiosity knowledge." This acute philosopher observes, in another place, that "to expect that the arts and sciences should take their first rise in a monarchy, is to expect a contradiction." Egypt, the fountain of science, it is true, was a kingdom; but, under the protecting influence of just and wise laws, the kingly office was stript of its noxious qualities; it had little resemblance to other monarchies of ancient or modern times, and was in fact a free nation; its princes had not the power of becoming tyrants, and considered themselves only as the first citizens of the state; consequently they were the objects of complacency rather than of aversion, of love rather than of terror. Attica, the most enlightened and polished state in Greece, was a pure democracy; here no restraints were laid on the eloquence of the orator; he thought as he pleased, and spake what he thought. If a few solitary examples of the contrary may be adduced, they are only exceptions to the general rule, and resemble passing "clouds upon a summer sky, which have no business there." Here many of the arts were brought to perfection, and science attained a state of excellence which future ages published a discourse, entitled "The périr, avant que tous ceux à Omniscience of the Son of God, an parloit fussent morts; pour leur Argument of his Divinity." To this voir donner les avertissements, discourse the preacher had the courage étoient de très-grande conséquence the to prefix "Mr. Hutton's text, Mark eux." (We may readily believe xiii. 32;" of which he says, (p. 4,) God did not discover to his Son, "My notion in short is this; that the upon earth, the day and hour" thei that the Son was not willing to make ledge was unnecessary to the fue spread of angels did probably not know it, and capture of Jerusalem, as that degrading the Father had then reserved to him- however, important for himgh their that day and that hour known, which of his office as Mediator.unity self." He afterwards quotes (p. 40) that Jerusalem would be ime, and (De Trinitate, L. i. C. xxiii.) upon that he might thus addres pot of "the determination of St. Augustine this passage. suffer others to know, that is, which before all his auditors what Dr. Wotton adds, (p. 43,) that those warnings which it and his advocate Gretser, made use of dealing of Le Clerc. him to have designed the knows the precise tim a very few ( ne who may d at least, a an the ling past ages, gro they flou- peris regions, the which ignorant of that which he will not may be well contrasted w9, 1820. he did not know so as to tell his dis- expositor, assuming in the retro- plan ciples at that time." It appears from two natures in our Lot de arts in gions "two very learned Jesuits, Bellarmin, his disciples: "There. In be en St. Austin's authority to prove that angels in heaven, nor have set but fo day and hour," and thus, from our nature, or as a part of de dense curity, Jesus Christ, as man, knew the last Man himself, with resp some faint law," Lord's language, on that supposition, missioned to reveal." them, leisure It is remarkable that Le Clerc, al- ambidextrous distine of their expect th "the Trinitarian se inhabi- observes of some description, (as appears by his man, and not God, anlation. expect a would defend their doctrine of mental reservations. though he claimed to be a Trinitarian field remarks, (on Parrhasiana, quoted by Gale against Wall, p. 37,) is yet unqualifiedly Unitarian on this passage. In his Harmony, as translated 1701, (p. 451,) he thus comments: "But as for the precise day vations-Jesus is G ment requires and di far Egypt, school of true, was protecting more stream laws, the k over- noxious qu , and hour-no one knows them but the with every judicio ralized blance to c Father, who as yet has not revealed them to his angels nor to me myself." In his Nouv. Test., 1703, he refers to the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv. 36, in his note on which he represents the communications of divine knowledge to our Lord, as limited to the purposes of his divine mission. Considering the subject of Christ's discourse to be rather the destruction of Jerusalem than the last judgment, he says, e what or modern free nation reyes arts, power of be emu-sidered then re as citizens of they were th to live free- rather than of Tis than of terro lightened and servedly expose hi Rien n'empêche de croire que Dieu n'avoit pas encore alors découvert à son Fils, pendant qu'il étoit sur la terre, le jour et l'heure de la prise de Jerusalem; parce que cette connoissance ne lui étoit point nécessaire, pour s' acquiter des devoirs de sa charge de Médiateur. Il étoit néanmoins important qu'il sût que Jerusalem devoit e like was a pure d aven, straints were plen- the orator; he the and spake wha lita- solitary examp Even be adduced, th as to the general ri und ing. her the been unreas ing 4N clouds u which have no b Here many of to perfection, an state of excellen Causes of the Degeneracy of Nations. Eastern Unitarian Society," (p. 483,) ther they go back to the 17th cenwhen they speak of " the old onformists"? In that case, where, we read them over with a eye, can we discover" their to remove all the degrading which hinder the spread of racing them as a community n professors, through their and adverse fortune, and ng ourselves to a very few ho form a mere spot of aded sky; men who may e lived a century, at least, temporaries? June 19, 1820. 637 than the savage state from which she first arose. causes which, in all ages, and in various fact, that science never arose or flou- the history of past ages, holy to trace the retrorience and the arts in where once they floutmost splendour. In favoured regions, the e seems to have set a others, some faint through the dense overshadow them, rless light, it serves degenerate inhabiand genius of their exciting in their park of emulation. philosophy, the and the school of as, but far more pt,whose stream own Nile, overnks, fertilized spread-what "From true, was a kingdom; but, under the turn our eyes free nation; its princes had not the at of the arts, ace of the mu souls pure as and con power of becoming tyrants, ht but to live they were the objects of complacency wreath of free- rather than of aversion, of fore rather e? ""Tis 30 more." e shone like than of terror. Attica, the most en the eloquence of If a few lightened and polished state in Greece, of heaven, straints was a pure democracy: here no rebe resplen- the orator ach as he pleased, are now the and spake what he thought. the habita- solitary examples of the contrary may ty. Even be to the general ruke, and re ing world, as in proud din her h;" the ther pre grading 4 N exceptions resemble passsky, brought which have no business there," to pericvises, and store attained sh state of excellar which future ages spapers, of some s month, igs, what ance may the late two docu St. Petersby attention ian Treaty, bable. This od, as on the may depend or the renewal alling horrors. rations will be, to King Ferdients which have ainions. Of the on of this docuresume to conjecng, however, the ate of Spain, and and requirements e, I have presumed, e individual, to draw out that one to this sent by these royal en, is more an object shes, than of any san |