Epist. ad Polycarp. Cap. iii. Consider the times, and look for him who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made manifest; impalpable and impassible, though subjected to suffering for us.'

Ignatius frequently speaks of Jesus Christ as God. Allow me to imitate the suffering of my God.' 'I glorify God, even Jesus Christ.' 'All happiness in our God, Jesus Christ.' 'The deacons of Christ, our God,' &c.*

POLYCARP. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and is thought by some to have been that angel of the church in Smyrna,' addressed in the second chapter of the Revelation. He suffered martyrdom about A. D. 147. Of his writings nothing remains, except an Epistle to the Philippians. He speaks of Christ as having been brought to death for our sins'-' to whom all things are now subjected, both in heaven and on earth, whom every living creature shall worship.' Cap. i. and ii.

Besides the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, from which I have here quoted, there is a Relation of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, and an Epistle of the church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, both of which are thought by good judges to have been written in the age immediately following that of the Apostles. The first of these pieces concludes with the following ascription: By whom (Christ) and with whom, all glory and power be to the Father, with the blessed Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.'-From the second, it appears that the Christians who followed Polycarp to the stake were forbidden by their enemies to save any part of his dead body from the consuming flame, 'Lest,' said they, you should forsake Him that was crucified, and worship this Polycarp ;'- not considering,' continue the Smyrneans, that it is not possible for us ever to forsake Christ.....nor worship any other besides him. For him indeed, the Son of God, we adore; but as for the martyrs, we worthily love them, as the disciples and followers of our Lord.' Cap. xvii.

6

The dying prayer of Polycarp is represented as concluding in the following manner: I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, with whom, to thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all succeeding ages. Amen.' Cap. xiv. The Epistle itself concludes with a similar ascription: To him (Christ) be honor, glory, majesty and an eternal throne, from generation to generation. Amen. We wish you, brethren, all happiness, by living according to the rule of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of his chosen saints.'

* Epist. ad Rom. Cap. vi. ad Smyr. Cap. i. and x. ad Polycarp. Cap. viii. ad Ephes. Cap. xviii.

REMARKS ON JUDGE HOPKINSON'S LETTER, IN A LETTER
ESQ. ATTORNEY AT LAW.

ΤΟ

The Letter remarked on in the following communication was written by Judge Hopkinson of Philadelphia to his friend in England. The learned Judge inveighs earnestly against the study of theology, and the pursuit of religious truth. "I have seldom seen a man able to embark in such discussions and studies, without becoming an enthusiast or a bigot." Questions of this nature "have been undecided for thousands of years, and will forever remain so." "The precepts of a good and acceptable life are accessible to all the human race, as the air they breathe in common, the sun which shines on them all alike, and the food and water which refresh them. Has God given to all men whatever is necessary for the support and health of their perishable bodies, and withheld almost from all that which is indispensable to their eternal welfare? This is the impious conceit of the few, who persuade themselves that they have the saving secret, the immortal panacea!"-"I have all my life avoided all knotty and disputed points in religion. I argue with nobody about the trinity or unity of the Godhead; the mysteries of free knowledge and free will; or the profound doctrine of the atonement by the death of Christ. I read nothing about them-I affirm or deny nothing-I know nothing. I profess not to understand them; and I know that much wiser and stronger men have come to no understanding about them, after centuries of learned and intolerant disputation, in which rivers of blood, as well as ink, have flowed in support of this savage and unchristian warfare." "I consider religion to have nothing to do with theologians, and the questions of the schools." 'Although I have been a constant and very general reader for more than forty years, I have never perused one page of any writer upon any controverted question of religion, not even a sermon."

And so, my dear friend, you have read Judge Hopkinson's letter with deep interest, and ask my opinion of its contents. I shall despatch in few words what I may find to say in answer to your inquiries and suggestions.

You say, that you cannot help wishing that Judge Hopkinson's views of thorough religious discussion-of a full and anxious examination of the doctrines of the Bible, may be shown to be sound and creditable. You admire them for the sake of their convenience. For, if whatever is requisite to "a good and acceptable life" is as obvious "to all the human race, as the sun which shines upon them," and may be secured with as little solicitude and effort, as "the air, they breathe in common," then what need of intense anxiety, fervent prayer, and exhausting study, to find and pursue the path-way to Heaven? And what a delightful privilege to be assured, that we may move on "with the multitude" through this merry world, secure of eternal blessedness at last. But is this privilege, which with such animation you call delightful, actually conferred upon us? This question, my dear

friend, we should do well, first of all, with a candid mind and a serious spirit, to examine and to settle.

The only argument, on which, so far as I can see, Judge H. relies for the support of his views, is derived from analogy. "Has God," he exclaims, "given to all men whatever is necessary for the support and health of their perishable bodies, and withheld almost from all that which is indispensable for their eternal welfare?" The point, you will perceive at once, which this analogy is brought to illustrate and support, is, not whether what "is indispensable to their eternal welfare" is placed within the reach of mankind generally, but whether this may be secured without anxiety and effort. What this argument is worth, it requires no great depth of penetration or stretch of thought to determine. Is it to be admitted then, that men may make provision for "the support and health of their perishable bodies" without anxiety and effort? If they neglect to employ the appropriate means of supplying their present wants, is there no danger of distress to themselves and their families? And are men able to enrich themselves with intellectual acquisitions with as little solicitude and effort, as "they breathe the air" or catch the sunbeams? Let the neglected family and clients of poor Condy, whose mispence of time and strength Judge H. so feelingly describes, answer these inquiries? This Mr. Condy, it seems, "was a man of distinguished learning in the profession of the law, and also of general knowledge and scholarship, with a most acute and penetrating mind. He would have been at the head of the bar, with wealth, reputation, and all the good he could have desired." Well, what hindered him from rising to such an eminence, and laying his hand on such substantial good? Why, the man neglected or abandoned his professional studies, his law books were laid aside, his clients unattended to. And what harm could come of that? Did not the sun continue to shine upon him? Did not the vital air still breathe upon him? And "whatever was necessary for the support and health of his perishable body," according to our oracle, he was sure of receiving on the same terms with air and sun-light. So far, then, as the bodily wants of himself and family were concerned, might he not with the utmost safety give his days and nights to "Hebrew bibles, Latin folios and learned criticisms and commentaries ?" But alas, our learned Judge spoils his own analogy-destroys his own argument. For Mr. Condy was "soon involved in the embarrassment of debt, and after a most miserable existence, died a few months since of a broken and mortified spirit, leaving a wife and children destitute." And all this, merely for neglecting solicitude and effort to promote his temporal interests! And this, too, under the government of a God, who affords "all men whatever is necessary for the support and health of their perishable bodies," on the same conditions on which he imparts the vital air and the

beams of the sun! The history of Mr. Condy sets in a glaring light the emptiness of Judge H.'s analogy. The argument stands thus; by giving over anxiety and effort in his professional pursuits Mr. Condy lost his reputation and beggared his family;—the inference, therefore, is plain and irresistible, that anxiety and effort cannot be requisite to secure those higher and more endearing benefits, which religion bids us seek!

A stranger to the condition of mankind would expect, from Judge H.'s reasoning and conclusions, to find the human family everywhere enjoying, without any deep solicitude or spirited exertions to obtain them, all those benefits on which their happiness depends. With this expectation, let him go abroad upon the face of the earth and visit the habitations of men. Would he find them everywhere enjoying ease and plenty? Would he everywhere find the cultivated intellect-the well-informed mind? Every where, would he feel the prevalence of true freedom? Or would he not find, that these benefits could no where be secured-however freely sunlight might be dispensed-without solicitude and labor? -labor often agonizing, and solicitude not unfrequently exhausting? Yes, surely. And facts, stubborn and notorious facts would impel him to the conclusion-however inconsistent it might appear that in proportion to the value of the benefits we need, is the strenuousness of efforts demanded to secure them. Judge then, my dear friend, whether analogy leads us to expect ETERNAL LIFE without care and exertion? Or whether it is not adapted to work in us the conviction, that if we would rise to Heaven, we must "strive" to find and pursue the narrow way.

On what ground, Judge H. could say, that "religion had nothing to do with theologians," I am unable to conceive. What does he claim to know of the principles, which they regard as lying at the very foundation of religion? What would he think of a judge, who, on a legal question of high importance,* involving much, that was profound in principle, remote in analogy, and intricate in argument, should hold language like the following: 'Lawyers may say what they will of the principles of jurisprudence. They may urge with whatever zeal they choose their various analogies and conflicting references. Knotty and disputed points in law I have always avoided. About such things, I read nothing, I affirm or deny nothing, I know nothing. Why should I spend my time and waste my strength in poring over thousands of pages, miscalled learned institutes and labored commentaries. The dry definitions and barbarous technicalities of legal science; what are they to me? The precepts of a good and acceptable life are accessible to all the human race, as the air they breathe in common, the sun which shines on them all alike, and the food and water, which refresh

* For instance, Dartmouth College, vs. Woodward.

them. I consider equity to have nothing to do with jurists. Every man knows what is right and what is wrong. Although I have been a constant and very general reader for more than forty years I have never perused a single page of any writer on any controverted law-question, not even a report!"

Judge H. needs not to be informed, that the principles of science have in different departments of life a bearing more or less direct and strong on the welfare of man. It is true, that practical results are often secured by those, who are ignorant of the principles, on which these results depend. What then? Would our learned Judge infer, that the arts have nothing to do with the sciences? Would he assert, that the latter might be despised and forgotten without hazard to the former? Had Judge H. witnessed the efforts, which, on scientific principles, Sir Humphrey Davy made to provide the "safety lamp" for the benefit of miners, he would have said, had he spoken in the spirit of the letter under hand; Study as you will the nature of flame, you are toiling in a barren field. Look around you. The ground is white with the bones of rash enthusiasts, who spent their strength in idle efforts to explore the secrets of nature, and turn them to good account. I consider useful arts to have nothing to do with scientific men. And this opinion deserves your careful consideration; for I speak on a subject, on which I read nothing, I affirm or deny nothing, I know nothing.' But had the Chemist, under the weight of such advice, abandoned his design, would the world have lost nothing? Let the hundreds, for whom he has furnished an effectual shield against a dreaded death, answer this inquiry, in the blessings they are continually pouring upon his memory!

Do you inquire, whether the connection between the principles of theological science and practical religion is as intimate and strong, as between science and art in other departments of human life? Most certainly. The leading principle of Christian theology-a principle which Judge H. expressly declares he always treated with marked indifference-is" the profound doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ." Now, will Judge H. affirm, that the Christian religion has anywhere, or at any time, exerted upon a barbarous people its enlightening, purifying influence ;-that it has anywhere or at any time enriched a heathen community with the peculiar blessings, which spring from its prevalence, without the agency of this principle? Let him point, if he is able, to a single spot on the globe, where the fruits of a Christian life have been produced, without the influence of this " profound doctrine." He has for "more than forty years been a constant and very general reader." Now, suppose a youth, in whose welfare he feels a lively interest, and to whose inquiries on literary subjects he often