λev's, ávρwños, our masters teach us to say, έκει, βάσιλευς, ανθρώπος, cum multis aliis. In this attention to the true accent consists one of the principal peculiarities of the proposed method, and one of its essential features. Some difficulty occurs, in certain cases, in maintaining a due observance of the quantity or time of the syllables: for instance, an Englishman laying the accent of the first syllable of avos, is apt to shorten the second, and pronounce the word as if it were written apos; but this is not necessary, and may be avoided by a little time and pains. The word áramos should be sounded pretty much like the English word schoolmistress. A fuller explanation of this matter has been already given in the Repository for August 1823, pp. 442-450.

The proposal of Hellenistes will, after all, by many of your readers be deemed whimsical and useless. Let them not, however, condemn it without consideration; for perhaps its general adoption among us might impart a new charm and interest to our society, and be the parent of very happy consequences.

T. F. B.

Letter from John Adams, Ex-President of the United States, to Dr. Bancroft, of Worcester (Mass.).

[The first number of a religious newspaper at New York, entitled "The Christian Inquirer," published so lately as Jan. 1, 1825, has been sent to us by the kindness of a friend. We perceive with pleasure that use is made in it of The Monthly Repository, and in return we take from it the following letter, which is a pleasing example of the way in which the statesmen of America employ their retirement.]

Quincy,

DEAR SIR, January 1, 1823.

THANK

I you for your kind letter

of the 30th December, and, above all, for the gift of a precious volume. It is a chain of diamonds set in a link of gold. I have never read or heard a volume of Sermons better calculated or adapted to the age and country in which it was written. How different from the sermons I heard and read in the town of Worcester, from the year 1755 to 1758! As my destiny in life has been somewhat uncommon, I must beg pardon for indulging in a little

egotism. I may say I was born and bred in the centre of theological and ecclesiastical controversy. A Sermon of Mr. Bryant, minister of the parish, who lived on the spot now a part of the farm on which I live, occasioned the controversy between him and Mr. Miles, Mr. Porter, Mr. Bass, and many others: it broke out like the eruption of a volcano, and blazed with portentous aspect for many years. The death of Dr. Miller, the Episcopal minister of this town, produced the controversy between Dr. Mayhew and Mr. Apthorp, who were both so connected with the town, that they might almost be considered inhabitants of it. I may say that my eyes opened upon books of controversy between the parties of Mr. Buckminster and Mr. Miller: I became acquainted with Dyer, Doolittle and Baldwin, three notable disputants. Mr. McCarty, though a Calvinist, was not a bigot; but the town of Worcester was a scene of disputes all the time I was there. When I left, I entered into a scene of other disputations at the bar, and not long afterwards, disputations of another kind, in polities. In later times, I have lived with Atheists, Deists, Sceptics; with cardinals, archbishops, monks, friars of the Roman Catholic persuasion; with archbishops, bishops, deans and priests, of Price, Priestley, Kippis, Rees, Derthe Church of England; with Farmer, ing (?) and Jebb; with the English and Scottish clergy in Holland, and especially with Dr. Maclean, at the Hague. I have conversed freely with most of the sects in America, and have not been wholly inattentive to the writings and reasonings of all these denominations of Christians and philosophers. You may well suppose, then, that I have had controversy enough: but, after all, I declare to you, that your twenty-nine Sermons have expressed the result of all my reading, experience and reflection, in a manner more satisfactory to me than I could have done in the best days of my strength.

The most afflictive circumstances that I have witnessed in the lot of humanity, are the narrow views, the unsocial humours, the fastidious scorn and repulsive temper, of all denominations, excepting one.

I cannot conclude this letter without adding an anecdote. One of the zealous mendicants for the contribu

tions to the funds of Missionary Societies, called on a gentleman in Haverhill and requested his charity. The gentleman declined subscribing, but added, that "there are in and about the town of, nine clergymen, ministers of nine congregations, not one of whom lives on terms of civility with any other, will admit none other into his pulpit, nor be permitted to go into the pulpit of any other. Now, if you will raise a fund to convert these nine clergymen to Christianity, I will contribute as much as any other

man."

In a sensible" Memoir concerning the Chinese," by John Francis Davis, Esq., F.R.S., M. R. A. S., inserted in the "Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society," Vol. I, the author states it as his opinion, that a careful examination of the authentic annals of China, undertaken with a proper degree of scepticism towards the misrepresentations of national vanity, will establish the following facts:" that the antiquity of China as an Empire, has been greatly exaggerated, and that it cannot be dated earlier than the reign of Chi-hoang-ti, about B. C. 200; that it was then confined almost entirely to that half of modern China, which lies between the great river Keang, and the confines of Tartary; that it was subsequently split into several independent nations, which, after various contests and revolutions, were formed into two Empires, the Northern and Southern, and became finally united under one head, about A. D. 585; that China has been the theatre of as bloody and continued wars, as have ravaged most of the other countries of the globe; that it has twice, and at no very distant periods of time, been completely conquered by foreign barbarians; and that its last conquerors exercise over it, at this day, an imperious, and by no means impartial sway, but one in which the precedence and the trust are, in most cases, conferred on the Tartar."

No. CCCCXIV. Conduct of Christians a Stumblingblock to Pagans.

WE sometimes wonder that all the world does not become Christian, forgetting that Heathen nations see ou religion for the first time in connexion with the character of Christians by profession, who exhibit all the vices and crimes incident to human nature The truth is thus hindered by our un righteousness, and the name of God is spoken ill of, or at least his revealed will is disparaged, by the Gentiles.

This reflection is forced upon us by a passage in the Quarterly Review, compiled from two works upon the North-American Indians, one by the celebrated Mr. John Hunter, who was brought up amongst them, and the other by Mr. Buchanan, a resident in Canada, who in an account of the Indians has inserted a description of their religion from the pen of Mr. Heckewelder, a Moravian missionary, long conversant with this people. The doubts of our "red brethren" are the artless expressions of strong and honest minds, and their want of faith may excite pity, but not resentment or despair of their eternal condition.

lieve that the Great Spirit, knowing the "The Indians, says Heckewelder, bewickedness of the white men, found it taught them how to read it, that they might necessary to give them a great book, and know and observe what he wished them to do and to abstain from. But they, the Indians, have no need of any such book to let them know the will of their Maker: they find it engraved on their own hearts; they have had sufficient discernment givet them to distinguish good from evil, and by following that guide they are sure not to err. "-"The white men told us a written in the good book, and wanted u great many things which they said were to believe it all. We would probably have done so, if we had seen them prac. tise what they pretended to believe, and act according to the good words they told us. But no! while they held their bi book in one hand, in the other they had murderous weapons, guns and swords to kill us poor Indians! Ah! and they did so too; they killed those who believed it They made no distinction!"-"When the their book as well as those who did not.

Indians converse on these subjects," ob serves Hunter," they say, The white me tell Indian be honest: Indian have no prison; Indian have no gaol for unfortunate debtors; Indian have no lock on his door."

ART. I.-Three Letters addressed to the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham, M. A., Archdeacon of Cleveland, in Reply to his Remarks on Unitarianism and Unitarians, contained in his Charge to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry. Delivered in July, 1822. By C. Wellbeloved. Second Edition. York, printed. Sold, in London, by Longman and Co., and by R. Hunter. 1823. 8vo. pp. 154.

"WHA

HAT are the doctrines of the New Testament, with regard to the person and pre-existence of Christ, is the grand controversy of the day; a controversy that is warmly agitated, and which is not likely to be soon brought to a conclusion." This remark was submitted to the public in 1788: nor is the fact which gave occasion to it, much less observable at present. We shall hereafter say a few words on the causes and probable consequences of such a state of things. Our immediate duty is to place before our readers a view of the contents of one among the most valuable polemical tracts with which it is our lot to be acquainted.

In July 1822," the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham," Archdeacon of Cleveland, addressed to his clergy a Charge, which has called forth these animadversions from Mr. Wellbeloved. Every minister, nor least every dignitary of the Established Church, must, in justice and candour, be supposed to exercise a cordial faith in the Articles to which he has subscribed. If Archdeacon Wrangham, therefore, had contented himself with any thing like a fair vindication of his creed; had his charge and the notes appended to it been worthy of his reputation for learning and talents; had they exhibited the result of his own investigations of the writings of Unitarians, stated in a truly Christian spirit, his pamphlet would certainly have passed without rebuke from the gentleman who now stands forward as his censor.

Mr. Wellbeloved would then have ho noured him as a Christian pastor, duly watchful over his flock: he would have gladly acknowledged for him a warm and sincere respect. Unhappily for the Archdeacon's credit, the Charge which his opponent notices in these first "Three Letters," is the very reverse of whatever becomes the character of the scholar, the gentleman, and the Christian: and Mr. Wellbeloved's painful duty is publicly to accuse and to endeavour to convict him of unfairness, illiberality and misrepresentation. Pp. 1-3.

The reluctance of the writer of the "Three Letters" to undertake this task, is not simply personal: he apprehends (though in the second edition he gladly acknowledges the failure of his apprehensions), that his performance will receive little attention from those for whose information it is principally designed. Pp. 3-5.

Mr. Wellbeloved reduces the subjects of his antagonist's Charge, Appendix and Notes, to something like methodical arrangement, and brings them, in a general view, under two heads. First, what the Archdeacon of Cleveland alleges against Unitarians and their creed. Secondly, his defence of that part of the creed of the Established Church, which relates more particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity. Guided in his own remarks by this leading division, our author, in the first place, endeavours to repel the accusations which the Archdeacon has with no sparing or lenient hand brought against Unitarian Christians. Pp. 5, 6.

This dignitary seems fond of even the language of warfare. Before he advances to his most serious and formidable attack, he indulges in what he calls lighter skirmishings. He objects to the appellation assumed by his adversaries: the title of Unitarians he will not allow them to use; nor will he even admit that they are a Christian sect. Nay, he asserts, after Bishop Burgess, that they reject the Christian doctrines in omnibus. This is not sufficient. He speaks of Unitarians as "sciolists and schismatics,

wretched partisans, teachers ill-informed and perverse, writers who betray a shallowness as to theological criticism, and whose works are a nauseating crambe recocta." These are some of the lighter skirmishings of Archdeacon Wrangham! To the same class may perhaps be referred his censure of Unitarians for claiming the association of great names, those of Newton, Locke, Watts, Paley, Bishop Watson, &c., upon the slightest pretexts. Pp. 6-12.

These several topics Mr. Wellbeloved discusses in the compass of the first of his Three Letters: and he discusses them with admirable intelligence, judgment, temper and effect. While he points out the variance of his antagonist's language with good sense, good taste, good manners and the genuine Christian spirit, he exposes the weakness of the ground on which his assertions rest, and the injustice and self-contradiction of his charges and insinuations. We particularly invite the attention of our readers to what the author of the "Three Letters" has written concerning the theological sentiments of the very distinguished men whose names we have copied.

Newton and Locke "both placed themselves in circumstances, as theological writers, in which, had they believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, they could scarcely have refrained from avowing that belief." But for withdrawing those truly great men from the ranks of orthodoxy we have more substantial reasons than their silence. No Trinitarian, we are confident, could say of the baptismal formula what Sir I. Newton has said,"That it was the place from which they at first tried to derive the Trinity." We have, moreover, the direct testimony of Mr. Hopton Haynes, Deputy Assay Master of the Mint, under Sir I. Newton, with whom he was intimately acquainted. He unequivocally declared that Sir I. Newton did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ; that he disapproved of Dr. Clarke's Arianism, and expressed his firm conviction, that the time will come, when the doctrine of the incarnation, as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation. The testimony of Mr. H. Haynes cannot justly be sus

pected, and it can be disproved only by Sir I. Newton's papers, in possession of a noble family,* who might, no doubt, be persuaded to lend their aid in supporting the orthodoxy of this illustrious person, if it were in their power. When to these considerations we add the fact, that Sir I. Newton addressed letters to Le Clere on the spuriousness of John v. 7, and on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, who can with justice question his Antitrinitarianism? Pp. 12-14.

As to Mr. Locke, can it be thought possible, that if he had been a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, no intimation of it would appear in his commentary upon so large a portion of Paul's epistles, or in his work on the "Reasonableness of Christianity"?— The attempt of Archdeacon Wrangham to prove the orthodoxy of this celebrated person, is ably refuted by the author of the "Three Letters; of the weight of whose arguments our readers will judge from the following passages.

In reply to the venerable dignitary's reasoning from the phraseology employed by Mr. Locke, his antagonist says, (p. 15,) "Here is your syllogism: Mr. Locke speaks of the mysteries of salvation; the moral precepts are not mysteries of salvation; ergo, Mr. Locke speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, Atonement, &c., and was a Trinitarian.-Had a Unitarian argued in this inconsequential manner, he would have met with little mercy at your hands; and, in truth, he would have deserved little."

The Archdeacon of Cleveland has not referred to the place where Mr. Locke expressly speaks of "the mysteries of salvation." On the other hand, the Rev. Gentleman's opponent points to texts in Paul's epistles, which fully shew the scriptural import of the word mystery; texts † which Locke has well explained, and the learned dignitary misapprehended.

Mr. Locke, in one of his letters to Limborch, (dated Oates, January 6, 1700,) informs his correspondent of the high estimation in which some persons held Allix's “ Judgment of

the Unitarians," of their persuasion that it was a death-blow to Unitarianism; and, without giving even a hint of his own opinion on the subject, he expresses his desire of receiving aid and information from every quarter, in his searches after truth. Hence Archdeacon Wrangham would infer, that in Locke's opinion, Allix had really succeeded in his attempt. Let us hear Mr. Wellbeloved, in answer:

"Because some thought that the cause

of the Unitarians was lost, that all their

arguments were overthrown, and orthodoxy firmly established, are we to conclude that Mr. Locke thought so? He does not give even a hint to his learned correspondent of his own opinion on the subject. How, indeed, could he, when he had formed no opinion; not having been able, as he says, though he had bought the work of Allix as soon as it appeared, to This important fact, which is stated in the sentence immediately preceding that which you have quoted, you have not noticed. Permit me to supply this defect. Allixii librum quam primùm prodiit coëmi animo legendi, sed otiose hactenus præ manibus jacuit, necdum sive per valetudinem sive per alias avocationes legere licuit, spero propediem pinguius et fructuosius otium. Quid de eo audias interim mihi dicas. Quidam apud nos,** &c. From this passage, therefore, your cause derives no aid."

find either health or leisure to read it?

Nor from the omission of such a passage does the present advocate of that cause derive any honour. The inadvertency (and inadvertency we must take it to be) is not a little censurable. We rejoice that the defect has been so well supplied by Mr. Wellbeloved. Pp. 14-20.

The question, if we are still to call it a question, respecting the theological creed of Dr. Watts, towards the end of his life, is accurately canvassed in this part of the first of the "Three Letters." We are highly pleased with the author's notice of the article on this most excellent man in the General Biographical Dictionary. For the valid reasons which he assigns, he hesitates in submitting to the late Dr. Aikin as an umpire in the dispute. The memory of that deeply-regretted individual will not cease to be honoured for his very estimable and

Familiar Letters, (1708,) p. 457.

I am not aware," remarks the writer of the "Three Letters," "that Watson, Paley, and Sir William Jones, have been generally, or with any degree of confidence, claimed by us." To such a claim we also are strangers. Mr. Wellbeloved's observations on some of the productions of Watson and of Paley, and on the sentiments of Dr. Wallis, and of other modal Trinitarians, well deserve the regard of the reader for their correctness, strength and pertinency. Addressing the Archdeacon of Cleveland, he says,

"I do not wonder that you dislike to be reminded of the ever-memorable contest at the end of the 17th century:yet the evident irritation under which you exclaim, 'Why am I to be harassed with the squabbles of South and Sherlock?' does not well accord with the dignity of your station and character. The controversy of which you have spoken thus contemptuously, was carried on by some of the most eminent divines of your church; by whom it was regarded as of high importance: and by its termination the character of your church was deeply affected," &c.-Pp. 30-34.

The cases of the late Rev. Robert Robinson and of Dr. Whitby are next considered by our author, who completely refutes the erroneous assertions of his opponent concerning them, together with his disgraceful mistake in respect of the theological faith and profession of Gagneius.-Pp. 34-38.

The second of the "Three Letters" is now to pass under our review. In this the writer meets the more serious attacks of his antagonist.

Against Unitarian Christians the