or parts of the thirteen chapters which X. Y. Z. has the candour and courage to speak of favourably, since that time. When I was told of Mr. Overton's book, I thought I might have a call of duty (certainly not one of pleasure,) to revise them; and I purchased his book with that view; but my much-esteemed friend, and your excellent correspondent, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Ludlam, and Mr. Archdeacon Daubeny, have saved me the trouble of reading a work, which probably I never shall read, so long as I am persuaded that my duty does not oblige me to read it; and my present opinion is, that till Mr. Överton shall have retracted some things which these gentlemen have censured, he has no right to expect any farther remarks to be made on his works; and that my duty points out to me preferably other employments. This being the case, if I speak to what X. Y. Z. proposes, I must not be considered as speaking ex cathedrâ, or as the author of the work to which he refers, but merely as a private man. His difficulty arises from the third book of my Lectures in Divinity. Supposing the subject to be establishments in generul, religious ones might, I think, be compared with others, and yet no notice need be taken, which were, or were not sanctioned by laws; especially as the influence of the civil magistrate on religious society has a chapter allotted to it. The third book is entitled, "Of religious Societies in general." Yet it would have been full as well, as it seems to me now, if difficulty had been soon obviated by a distinction between establishments confirmed by law, and those not so confirmed. Whether this has been sufficiently done in the third book, I really do not know at this time. I think it was not absolutely necessary, at least before chap. xiv. which introduces the civil magistrate.Again, it does not appear to me, that "an attempt to improve an established doctrine," (established by law) "incurs the guilt of insincerity:"-to endeavour to improve every thing seems a duty. I see, by the heads of Lectures, there is some reasoning to this purpose, book 3. chap. ix. sect. 10, and 11. And chap. xv. is thus entitled, "Of improving religious Societies." And sect. 5. of that chapter is thus proposed :-" Whether a Teacher can be a Reformer of his own Church." Any account of this matter to be found in the Lectures, would be more worthy of attention than what I could offer now. In twelve years, at my time of life, the mental faculties suffer some decay, even if the bodily health be good. But 68 though though every one is bound to improve upon the present, there is, it must be confessed, considerable difficulty, when a man's notions become very different from those of the Society to whose doctrines he has assented. In some cases he may be called upon by duty to quit that Society; yet, not for every difference of opinion.-"Unity of doctrine does not require perfect unity of private opinion." (Div. Lect. book iii. chap. iv. sect. 1.). You have lately given us the lives of John Wickliffe, and Bishop Cox; with what feelings does X. Y. Z. read them? No blame seems to be laid upon those Reformers, because, though brought up Papists, they preached Protestantisın. -Perhaps they would defend themselves by saying, Necessity has no Law: Laws, when made, suppose Necessity not to have place.-A friend of mine, a few days ago, after reading the paper in question, signed X. Y. Z. observed, that Judges frequently disapprove of Laws which they enforce, and obedience to which they recommend, at the same time that they recommend improvements to the Legislature-as also, that Lawgivers in our Parliaments some times strive earnestly to prevent the passing of Laws, which, when passed, they think themselves bound in conscience to obey, and to cause others to obey. My own idea now is, that there are two culpable extremes; the one, doing nothing officially; the other, doing every thing so; (see printed Heads of Lectures, chap. xiii.). Ministers of a church must often do things as Ministers, not following their private judgment; as when a prayer of a political nature does not suit them in all its expressions. The Bishops compose the forms of prayer for fast days, &c.; the Curates (in the sense of our liturgy, and of the French Curé) read those forms: if the Curates judge of any form, so as to alter it, they encroach upon the province of the Bishops. (Heads of Lectures, book iii. chap. v. sect. 5.) Yet, there is an opposite extreme to that of doing nothing ministerially I could not approve of a man's engaging himself as a minister in a church, from whose more important or fundamental doctrines (Heads of Lectures, chap. xiii.) he dissented; though he should be willing to preach and read prayers officially and regularly. Many would be ready here to cry out, who is to draw the line between fundamentals and non-fundamentals?' I can only answer, conscience. Difficulties of this kind are subjects of what is called casuistry; in which no one man ought to judge another; to his own master, master, and to him alone, each man, in such cases, standeth or falleth. Nothing, in my opinion, can supersede our obligation to improve every matter, according to the abilities which God has given us, modes of religion as well as other things: no engagement with man, can supersede our prior engagement to God, to make the best use of the faculties and opportunities afforded us by Him, in order to purify religion. This principle may, no doubt, be abused; it may be made a pretence for duplicity and selfishness; that, however, is frequently unavoidable. But I run into too great length. I will only add, that X. Y. Z. has not taken up the idea intended, of improvements being owing to establishments. After established opinions have for a time continued exactly the same, they cannot be called improvements, though when they were first established they might be improvements upon preceding opinions; nor do fixed opinions, continuing fixed, generate improvements, merely of themselves: nevertheless, the state of things under establishments, the calmness of mind and judgment which they bring on, the freedom from controversy, and proud and angry contention, may be the best possible means of improvement.Arts and Sciences improve much more in times of peace than in times of war, insurrection, and rebellion; though peace does not itself immediately improve Arts and Sciences. The printed Heads of my Lectures point out something as said on this subject, book iii. chap. iv. sect. 7 and 8. but what that is, it would be vain for me to examine, unless I were to enter again upon the whole subject, in a way of regular study. With repeated thanks to your worthy correspondent for his kind encouragement of my labours, I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Passenham, near Stony-Stratford, JOHN HEY. P. S. Your candid correspondent X. Y. Z. seems to me to conceive that a preacher, who differed from his religious society in several points, would be so cramped and confined, that he could not preach without running into insincerity on the one hand, or disobedience to authority on the other. Yet it should be considered, that the subjects of sermons are innumerable. A man might make a sermon every week, for many years together, and never touch on any of the points where he found his conscience. : Vol. IX. Churchm. Mag. for Dec. 1805. SI tender; tender; nor ever neglect his duty. Besides, a man 'may have doubts for a time, and those doubts may be cleared away. In my printed Heads of Lectures, book iii. chap. xiii. sect. 8. I see these words: "Nothing can justify any "one's acting against the welfare of a church, of which "he is a member." Perhaps X. Y. Z. will have the goodness to read the explanation of this Head, and of such others as I have pointed out that method would afford him matter for his own reflections preferable to any that I could now supply. On reviewing what I have written, I seem not to have sufficiently noticed, that the principal difficulty of X. Y. Z. turns on what may be called an extreme case. There are a great number of these. The Author of our nature hath so constituted and so placed us, that it should be so; and nothing can be more suitable to a state of probation than a great number of instances in which conscience must be our guide; in which our fairness, honesty, sincerity must be put to the trial.-Yet it may be doubted how far the discussion of extreme cases is useful. To explain duties, and shew their grounds, for the ordinary course of things, is very useful; but when societies, domestic, civil, religious, are dissolved, or thrown into extreme confusion, men must, in a great measure, judge for themselves. Suppose a civil magistrate to be guilty of extreme oppression; some of the oppressed would favour passive obedience, others resistance; but discussions preparing men for such extraordinary situations, would generally be useless, if not hurtful, as leading to treason on the one hand, or to slavery on the other;-one is tempted here to parody the words of our Lord: Take therefore no thought for necessity; necessity will take thought for the things of herself; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Dr. Balguy, in his MS. of Heads of Lectures on Morality, has a chapter thus entitled, "Of the apparent "Inconsistency of social Rights and Obligations."-It contains ten Articles, "General Principles," and " nine Oppositions of Duties." It is greatly to be wished that the world could have his explanations; but I fear they are not in being. Dr. Drake, his nephew, very handsomely confided to me all the writings which he has left; but, after much consideration, I have thought it best on the whole, in my circumstances, to return them. This refers to what is said of those papers by Mr. Pearson in a note. See his Theory of Morals, p. 213. J. H. REMARKS REMARKS on the INTERNAL EVIDENCE for the DIVINITY of the APOCALYPSE. TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S GENTLEMEN, THE MAGAZINE. HE necessity of an enquiry into the divinity of a book generally received as canonical, when its divinity is called in question, must be obvious to every one; and the importance of such an enquiry will not be lessened, when the following warnings in this particular book are well considered, see chap. i. 3. and xxii. 18; and when the comprehensiveness and the awful nature of its contents are seriously weighed. See chap. i. 7. and ver. 4. and xiii. 9. and xiv. 9, &c. Professor Michaelis has summed up the evidence against the divinity of the Apocalypse: and the following remarks are designed to be a reply to a part of his objections. For the sake of argument I shall admit, that the divinity of the Apocalypse depends upon its being the genuine work of St. John the Evangelist. The external evidence in proof of this point stated by the judicious author of Letters to Mr. Marsh on this subject, has proved strikingly satisfactory and convincing; and why external evidences should not settle the question, I cannot comprehend. But as it has been asserted, that the internal evidence against the divinity of the prophecy outweighs the external, in favour of it, I shall offer a few remarks upon the internal evidence. The internal evidence in proof that St. John was the author, which I propose first to consider, consists of the places in the book which directly point out St. John to be the author. Of these places, chap. i. ver. 4. demands our first attention. Now, Michaelis somewhat positively assumes, on the conjecture of Eusebius, that John the Presbyter is the author. But Eusebius seems to have made this conjecture upon the ground that identity of name had produced a mistake respecting the real author, without any suspicion that the latter John personated the Evangelist, which Michaelis in the progress of his enquiry is compelled to suppose, or to admit the Evangelist for the author. If we consider the place before us, does not the description of the author's condition and situation through out |