On the Sources of Human Happiness. and discernment; to apply it steadily and effectually requires often a great share of self-government and selfdenial, and the frequent mortification and disappointment of our strongest propensities. By the unreflecting at all times, and by some sects among pilosophers, much more than their weight is attributed to original differences in mental and bodily constitutions. That such differences do exist, no one I think can doubt who observes the very great variety of character and disposition, which frequently appear in per sons whose circumstances and education, so far as we have been able to trace, or as human means were able to controul them, have been as nearly similar as possible. We are not either formed or educated after one common standard; nor is it desirable that we should: a dull, uniform sameness would doubtless take away greatly from the enjoyment of human life, and would be inconsistent with the proper discharge of the various duties which the convenience or the subsistence of mankind requires. Though however we admit that such original diversities do exist, yet by inuch the greater part of the actual diversity observable in human character is to be ascribed to those circumstances which we call accidental or adventitious; that is, they are the result of educa tion and experience, and are in some considerable measure subject to government and controul. The contrary opinion appears not only inconsistent with a just theory of the history of the human mind, but also leads to dan gerous practical consequences, and ought therefore to be diligently guarded against. But to return to our pro per subject. The weakness and irritability of temper which I have alluded to, is so inconsistent with our happiness, that it is necessary to take all possible me thods to restrain it. For this purpose it is very desirable to cultivate a habit of looking always in preference on the bright side of every character, and in deed of every object which attracts our notice. I would not recommend a total blindness to the defects and errors of others, for that might be fatal to our own personal security, and injurious to the important interests of those whose welfare it is our more immediate duty to promote; but a VOL. XI. 2 T 817 disposition to observe with satisfaction and duly to appreciate such good qua lities as are possessed even by the worst men, and to place in their due light all the excellencies of the really deserving, and which when justly es timated are sufficient to cast into the shade the infirmities or failings by which they may be accompanied. Candour in acknowledging all these would greatly contribute to the formation of an even and gentle disposition. Again, a habit, which may soon be acquired by care and practice, of checking the external signs of those emotions of contempt and anger to which we feel ourselves peculiarly liable, will succeed in time in preventing the inordinate rise of the emotions themselves. Such efforts at first produce nothing more than the external appearance of decorum and propriety of behaviour; but the influence soon becomes more extensive. Between the outward signs and the feelings which are represented by them, there is a sur prising connection; and as, on the one hand, the assumed language of violent emotion will, in many cases, excite a considerable degree of the emotion itself-so, on the other, the constant endeavour to check the external symp toms, soon chokes up and even entirely removes the source from whence they flow. The species of ill-humour which arises from a morbid sensibility to our own miseries, is equally inconsistent with real enjoyment. Nothing is more destructive of pleasure than a constant habit of complaining and grumbling; which leads a man to look in preference on those circumstances of his lot which are the least inviting, and is eternally brooding over them so as to preclude all attention to those which are more favourable and encou raging, and to magnify the others to such a degree in his disordered imagi nation, that what might have been but trifling grievances are exalted into evils of the first magnitude. A habit therefore of dwelling on whatever is in its nature fitted to give pleasure! and of endeavouring to look out for the beneficial consequences which are to flow even from those which cannot! in the first instance, be regarded with satisfaction, is exceedingly well caf vulated to secure and inercase our happiness. This is the disposition which every sincere Christian, every 318 On the Sources of Human Happiness. believer in the constant superintendance of an infinitely wise and kind Providence, will naturally cherish; and he will be led to this, by a sense not merely of its propriety, but of its immediate and direct influence on his present enjoyments. Let the more serious afflictions of life then teach us patience and resignation. As for the lighter grievances and petty miseries by which so many suffer their tempers to be ruffled and their cheerfulness destroyed, let them be regarded as fitter subjects of a laugh or jest than of any graver reflections. A very amusing book-which had a great run some years ago, but seems now almost forgotten-the "Miseries of Human Life," may perhaps show us the right way of dealing with these minor troubles. To allow them to destroy one's comfort would be the extreme of folly; and to talk about philosophy or resignation in connexion with such trifles would be equally absurd; the only method left therefore is to treat them with their own characteristic levity. Another circumstance of great importance to human happiness, is a wise management and distribution of our habits. The capacity of acquiring habits, both bodily and mental, is a most important and valuable part of our constitution. By its means we acquire and continually improve our skill in those occupations which are to be the means of our subsistence or the source of our usefulness to our fellow-creatures; and our various necessary employments become, through the operation of the same general prin ciple, not only easy but agreeable to us. Every thing however depends on the right application of this principle. It may minister to virtue or be made subservient to vice; it may contribute to happiness or greatly aggravate our misery, according as it is wisely or injudiciously directed. The object therefore in the regulation of our habits must be that those things be rendered easy and agreeable through frequent practice, which are most essentially requisite to our comfort and permanent well-being; and that we render our pleasures dependent, as much as possible, on those sources which are most easily attainable. Now all this may be done by habit. A habit of moderation in our desire, will enable us to take as much delight in the cheaper, more ordinary means fgratification, as others do in those which are most difficult to be procured In absolute enjoyment we are nearly upon a level; but the difference in our favour consists in this, that our pleasures are more secure and permahent than theirs, and also that almost every change is with us a change from contented tranquillity to a state of high enjoyment, while they, having foolishly placed their habitual station at the summit of all, cannot remove from it without descending. Such then are some of those sources from which the wise and prudent man may, in ordinary cases, depend upon deriving an abundant and secure supply of happiness ;-from innocent, or still better, from benefi cent, activity-from the exercise of the benevolent affections either to wards those with whom he is peculiarly connected by the ties of kindred or friendship, or as delighting in the more enlarged, expanded views of universal philanthropy-from a serene and even temper, unruffled either by trifling offences on the part of others, or by those petty miseries and vexations which occasionally occur to himself. From these, and such as these, the wise man may draw a never-failing supply of enjoyment. Not that he is to be always in transport or extacy. for this is inconsistent with human nature, and indeed is not in itself desirable; but a steady, uniform cheerfulness and tranquillity which, from its permanence and security, will certainly furnish in the end a much greater sum of real happiness. The enume ration is not by any means complete; for such is the admirable constitution of things, that, to the truly wise man, every object in nature, and almost every circumstance of life, may be made the source of pleasure. All the provinces of external nature-all the powers, desires and affections of his own mind, will contribute to his felicity: the powers of taste and imagination-the search after, and discovery of, knowledge-the interest he takes in the events which diversify the history of his species,-all these, and thousand other pleasures of the mind, which, though nothing can in this uncertain state be pronounced abso lutely imperishable and constantly within reach, may yet be said to be in general firmly secured to wise and good men as a just reward of intellectual and moral happiness. Mr. Wright on Dr. Adam Clarke's Notes on the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Wright's Remarks on Two Passages in Dr. Adam Clarke's Notes on the Holy Scriptures. IN his remarks on 1 Cor. i. 8, the Doctor relates two Jewish stories to illustrate the faithfulness of God the following is one of them :-"RabEi Simeon, the son of Shetach, bought an ass from some Edomites, at whose neck his disciples saw a diamond hanging: they said unto him, Rabbi, the blessing of the Lord maketh rich, Prov. x. 22. But he answered, The ass I have bought, but the diamond I have not bought; therefore he returned the diamond to the Edomites." To this story Dr. C. has added the following illiberal remark:-"This was an instance of rare honesty, not to be paralleled among the Jews of the present day; and probably among few Gentiles." On what authority the Gentiles are supposed to be so much better than the Jews, and the whole of the latter, as well as the greater part of the former, to be destitute of strict honesty, the Doctor has not stated. It is certain every strictly honest man would act as Rabbi Simeon is said to have acted. It has been too much the practice for Christians to speak of the Jews, because they do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, as men destitute of all piety and virtue; though proofs of the contrary might be produced. To treat a whole people as altogether depraved and worthless, is the way to debase them, and injure their moral character. It is inconsistent with Christian charity, and even with common justice, to represent a whole nation as not furnishing, in the present day, a single instance of the strictest honesty. I have been credibly in formed of an instance of what the Doctor calls rare honesty, in the conduct of a Jew, with whom I was well acquainted, which may be paralleled with the case he has stated. The Jew I referto, travelling with his box, hap pened to call at a house where he was asked if he would purchase a watch which was presented to him: he inquired what price the person who offered to sell him the watch required for it, and being told, he asked if the seller knew what the watch was, and was answered "Yes, it is a gilt one;" he replied, "No, you are mistaken, it is a gold one, and worth much more than you ask for it."-Will Dr. C. take upon him to say that none of the Jews, in the present day, are or 319 can be conscienciously such? And In his notes on 1 Cor. xvth. chap. the Doctor says, "One remark I cannot help making; the doctrine of the resurrection, appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now! How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience and cheerfulness through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it! So apostles preached; and so primitive Christians believed: so we preach; and so our hearers believe. There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid: and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect!" Is not this an acknowledgment that what is called evangelical preaching in the present day is essentially different from the preaching of the apostles? Dr. C. asserts that the doctrine which the apostles were continually insisting on, is seldom mentioned by those he calls their successors; but he does not state the reasons for this difference. He will not say the doctrine of the resurrection is of less importance now than it was in the days of the apostles. He does not attempt to justify the neglect of their doctrine by modern preachers. Surely if those who take to themselves the name of evangelical ministers in the present day had the same views of the gospel as the apostles had, they would preach as the apostles preached. Ought not Dr. C. and his readers to inquire whether the primitive doctrine of the gospel be not neglected on account of other doctrines being insisted on, as leading articles of faith, which the apostles did not preach, and which cannot be found in their discourses, of which we have an account in the book of Acts? There are ministers, but I fear the Doctor would hardly allow them to be evangelical, who insist more on the doctrine of the resurrection than all their more numerous brethren who disown them as legal teachers. R. WRIGHT. 320 SIR, Recent Case of Bigotry in Private Life.-Rheimish Version. Shore Place, Hackney, OBSERVE in the public papers an account of Lord Grosvenor having dismissed a number of his poor labourers from his employ because they could not conscientiously attend the Established Church. I have now to relate to you another circumstance of a similar description in the walks, of humbler life. My niece, about the age of eighteen, left me, about a fortnight ago, to take a situation as dressmaker to two maiden ladies, who have been long established in business, at Newport, in the Isle of Wight: both parties were perfectly satisfied with each other as far as related to business; but on the Sunday morning after her arrival at Newport, it was inquired of my niece, what place of worship she had attended; she answered, she had lately gone to an Unitarian chapel at Hackney: she was, told, they attended the Established Church, to which she said she had no objections, and went with them twice on that day and once on the following Sunday. Nothing more was said to her on the subject, but on the Friday following I received a letter from one of the ladies (A. F.) saying, my niece must immediately return, assigning as a reason, that as she was of a different religion to themselves they must be under the necessity of parting with her, for it would be very uncomfortable to be disunited not only in their places of worship but in their ideas. They regret they did not know this before, particularly as they think her a very nice young lady." I replied, wishing her to remain; but to no purpose: and she accordingly returned to me, in company with one of the ladies on her usual visit to London for the purposes of business. It does not appear that Unitarian worship is the particular objection, but the crime of attend ing any chapel; for they informed my niece they had before turned off a young female because she was a methodist. So you see, Sir, that though we hear so much of the liberality of the present age, the breed of a persecuting spirit is not yet extinct, more J. W. P. S. I observe this morning in the Public Ledger that Lord Grosvenor's affair is contradicted. SIR, Ditchling, May 28, 1816. IN number CXXIV. of the Month ly Repository, for April last, p. 199, is a letter purporting to come from the pen of a Ronian Catholic to Dr. Carpenter, as a complaint against you. This letter seems to me to have been written in an' arrogant style, with a considerable degree of pettishness. I suppose an editor of a periodical work is not bound to examine all the authorities which his correspondents may quote; therefore, no great blame belongs to you, if any of them should blunder or make mistakes: if you are always ready to admit corrections, as I believe you always are, it is as much as can reasonably be required. But what I would particularly wish to take notice of in the Roman Catholic's letter, is his account of the Rheimish version of the New Testament, as it respects its reception among the Roman Catholic clergy. He says it is the only translation sanctioned by the Roman Catholic clergy." This translation, then, is sanctioned by thẹ Roman Catholic clergy! Now, Sir, I wish to inquire, for really I feel myself a little alarmed, though I have always been a friend to Catholic emancipation, I wish to inquire, whether the sanction of the Roman Catholic clergy to the Rheimish translation extends to all the annotations annexed to each chapter? If it do, pity my weakness, I am afraid I see in it the direful demon or persecution. The following is the Rheimish rendering of Luke ix. 56:"The Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save." The annotation on these words is: Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of sinners is here forbidden, nor Elias, in fact, reprehended, nor the church or Christian princes blamed for putting heretics to death: but that none of these should be done for a desire of our particular revenge, or without discretion, and regard of their amendment, and example of others. There fore St. Peter used his power upon Ananias and Sapphira, when he struck them both down to death for defrauding the church." We all know, that in the Church of Rome's idea of heretics are included all those who differ and separate from her: according to the above annotation these may be rigorously punished; or, if it be said that the sinners are to be confined to Queries respecting the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. those who commit civil offences, yet heretics, both by the church and Christian princes may be put to death. Is not this persecution? Would not Roman Catholics call it so if they were the victims? So also Luke xiv. 23, the Rheimish translation is: "Compel them to enter, that my house may be filled." In the annotation we are told, "St. Augustine also referreth this compelling to the penal laws which Catholic Princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catholic church and are departed from the same after sects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the universal church again." Can any one be so blind as not to see to what this leads? If it be supposed, that these annotations were written by the spirit of infallibility, and if the sanction of the Roman Catholic clergy extends to them, and that by the same spirit, I see not how the church of Rome can give up the doctrine they contain, which is persecution. If, Sir, you permit this to have a place in the Monthly Repository, it will give an opportunity for any Roman Catholic, and particularly the writer of the letter who has been the occasion of these lines, to inform the public, whether the sentiments of persecution contained in the above annotations, are now sanctioned by the Roman Catholic clergy or not. I for one should be glad to hear on this subject. SIR, A. BENNETT. NOT being satisfied with the explanation generally given of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (see Matt. xii. 31, 32. Mark iii. 28, 29.) I beg leave to submit the following queries on the subject to the consider ation of your readers, and shall be thankful to any one who will candidly answer them. 1. Have we sufficient authority from the above passages to conclude that any of the Jews had, at the time when our Lord uttered the words, blasphemed against the Holy Spirit; as he does not charge this crime upon them, but warns them of the danger of committing it? 821 2. As the Jews had not been previously warned of a sin which would be unpardonable, if they had already uttered this blasphemy when the condemnation to which it exposed them was declared, would not their total exclusion from forgiveness be the same as proceeding against men on the ground of an ex post facto law? Is it not more consistent with the character of Jesus, and the conduct of God towards his creatures, to suppose the above passages contain an awful warning, than to construe them as expressive of the penalty of a crime already committed? 3. Were not the most malignant expressions which the Jews had ut tered at the time spoken against Jesus personally, against the Son of man; for they did not admit that he had the spirit of God? Is it not contrary to the whole account to say the blasphemy they had uttered was directed against the spirit; did they not evidently intend to degrade the character, and invalidate the preten sions of Jesus; was not this their whole object, and is it not the inten tion that characterizes the action under a moral view? 4. If the blasphemy they had already uttered was against the Spirit, how are we to distinguish between their speaking against the Son of man and their speaking against the Holy Spirit? 5. Are we not told that the Holy Spirit was not given till Christ was glorified: John vii. 39. Acts ii. 23.and could they blaspheme against the Holy Spirit before it was given in the sense in which the expression is used in the evangelical writings? 6. The Editors of the Improved Version, in a note on the pinceles of Jesus and his apostles to demoniacal agency, resisted the strongest possible evidence of the Christian religion, and were therefore incapable of being converted to the belief of it." But. can this observation be just, if restricted to the miracles wrought during our Lord's personal ministry; for he said to his Apostles, "He that be lieveth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works, than these shall he do because I go unto my Father?" John xiv. 12, Did not the resurrection of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit given to the apostles, They who ascribed |