the Unity of a self-existent Being. I confessed my ignorance, as I had never read the Essay, being unacquainted with the language in which it is written. He then desired me seriously to urge you, if the question has not been considered in your Essay, to enlarge it, by introducing that subject, and firmly establishing the Unity of an independent Being, (Entis independentis). It seems manifest that an independent Being, comprehending in himself all perfection, can be only one; yet he wished to have this so fully proved as to exhaust the argument.

Within the last three days he inquired if I had written to you, and what answer I had received. I did not think him so much in earnest, but seeing how he has the affair at heart, I can no longer defer writing. I therefore request, if your engagements will allow, that you send me an answer which he can read. Your letter should be so managed that he may not suspect my having given you his name. You can answer, as if I had written to you, that some learned persons discussing this subject, one of them, who much esteemed you, wished to know your opinion, and desired that you would consider it in your Essay on the Human Understanding. You see how plainly I deal with you, and what I venture to expect from your friendship.

I was lately at the Hague, and visited the most Honourable the Earl of Pembroke, with whom I had an hour's conversation on various topics, some of them theological. I greatly admire to see a man of such high rank so attentive to religion. His conversation was indeed so interesting, that I seemed scarcely to have passed half an hour with him, when, ou taking leave, I found that a whole hour had elapsed. † I pray for that most ex

*This request produced the following letter, written in French :

+ It is surprising that this nobleman, of whose intellectual attainments Mr. Locke, in his Dedication of the Essay, in 1689, had taught the public to form so high an estimate, should now be remembered only by that Dedication, and his place, which the accident of birth has given him, in the peerage.

The Author of the Essay was careful not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but it may be

I wish that my Essay on the Understanding were written in a language

reasonably doubted, whether he was equally solicitous to think soberly in comparing himself with his noble patron. Who can forbear to smile, or rather to blush, for man at his best estate, when John Locke condescends to remind, or rather to inform, the Earl of Pembroke, of his Lordship's "large and comprehensive discoveries of truths, hitherto unknown ;" and when the Essay on Human Understanding is described by its Author as a present, “just such as the poor man makes to his rich and great neighbour, by whom the basket of Howers or fruit is not ill taken, though he has more plenty of his own growth, and in much greater perfection;" or as one of those "worthless things" which "receive a value, when they are made the offerings of respect, esteem and gratitude"? Even Mr. Locke could scarcely fail to become a contributor to what would be an amusing and not uninstructive work, a critical history of Epistles Dedicatory.

*The Earl of Pembroke was now Ambassador extraordinary to the States General. He afterwards filled several considerable posts in England, became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and immediately preceded Prince George of Denmark, as Lord High Admiral. The Earl died in 1733.

No. 36. Philip à Limborch to John Locke. [No Date.]

MY WORTHY FRIEND,

I DULY received your very ac ceptable letter of 29th October, and read it to that eminent person whose request I communicated to you. The subject on which he proposed the inquiry seems scarcely possible to be questioned by any sound mind, for the notion of Deity involves unity, nor allows us to imagine it communicable to several. Wherefore, in my judgment, no one who attentively considers what we mean by the term God, can possibly maintain the notion of a plurality of Gods. Yet as we see it maintained by the Heathens, with whom we cannot argue from the authority of Scripture, they must be convinced by considerations deduced from nature. Wherefore that eminent person wishes to see arguments of that description, by which it may be clearly demonstrated that a Being, independent and perfect, can be but one. The Unity of the Divine Essence being once firmly established, it becomes an easy task thence to deduce all the Divine attributes, and our duty towards God and our neighbour. He says that Descartes has not proved the Unity, but assumed it. He once drew up a demonstration for himself, but says it was too subtle; and because he defers much to your judgment, he earnestly desires to see your arguments. When I read your letter to him he rejoiced, because you say that you can do what he requires, and now he is more importunate than ever to have your thoughts on the subject.

He is sorry to find you' dragged into a controversy, and suspects that you may be averse to publish your opinions, lest undesignedly you should afford an occasion for new debates and insinuations. He requests that you would write to me privately, under the assurance of secrecy; as he has no wish to divulge your sentiments, but only asks them for his own instruction and confirmation in the truth. Besides himself and two intimate friends of mine, who took part in our first conversation, M. de Hartage, Advocate of the Dutch Exchequer, and Mr. Advocate Van den Ende-besides these 1 shall communicate what you

write to no human being, unless, perhaps, you will allow me to read it to Mr. Le Clerc, which may be as you please, for he is at present quite ignorant of my correspondence with you on these subjects. By compliance with the request of that eminent person, you will highly gratify him; and as your paper will be communicated only to a very few confidential friends, to none of whom I shall give a copy, it cannot come abroad. That I may more peremptorily deny a copy, I wish you would lay that restraint upon me, strictly, in your letter. I am unwilling that you should become still more suspected by the gownsmen (genti togata) of encouraging scepticism. Many of these, I have no doubt, are ready, eagerly, to bestow applause or censure, however undeserved, under the guidance of another's judgment, just as a log is moved by powers not its own.

When I read your letter, a pleasant story of Thomas More, in his Utopia, occurred to me. He says, that when Raphael Hythloday learnedly discoursed concerning the Republic, before the Cardinal [Morton] Archbishop of Canterbury, a certain learned lawyer, by shaking his head and distorting his countenance, expressed an entire disapprobation of all he said. The whole company, treading in the steps of the learned lawyer, presently avowed the same opinion. But when the Cardinal declared his concurrence with Hythloday's opinion, immediately they who had despised it, when uttered by him, now bestowed on it their highest commendations. † Such has been the fate of your Essay. It was received for six years with general approbation, till a bishop of great name appeared against it, when it was discovered to abound in errors, and to contain the secret springs of scepticism. Thus the common herd of theologues rely not on their own,

* It is the passage in which Sir Thomas More, under the disguise of his Utopia, declared against the sanguinary complexion of his country's criminal law, which three centuries of civilization have only served to aggravate. More is supposed to have written the Utopia about 1516, while he was under-sheriff of London. See Dr. Warner's edition, 1758, Adver, and p. 27. † Ibid. p. 50.

but on another's understanding. But your paper shall never be exposed to the judgment of such persons.

I blush when you plead in excuse for delay your want of sufficient readiness in the Latin tongue: what, then, I ask myself, must be your judgment of me, whose style, compared with yours, is so uncouth? All your letters, even though written in haste, are not only pure and terse, but also lively and elegant. If such displease you, I can easily determine what opinion you must have of mine. Yet relying on your friendship, I freely write to you whatever comes uppermost; still assured of your kindness which can overlook my defects. But if, in future, you continue to offer such an apology, I shall be still more timid in writing to you. So you perceive that such an excuse will be least of all admitted from you. But if your engagements forbid an earlier attention to your correspondents, I cannot allow myself to urge your more speedy replies, to the prejudice of more important concerns; but rather wish you to wait for a season of leisure. Write what and when you will to me, it will be most agreeable; nor can I fail to acknowledge your late speedy communication of two letters.

"Some Thoughts concerning Education," which reached a fourth edition in 1699. This Treatise was first published in 1693, and dedicated to the Author's friend, Mr. Clarke, of Chipley, to whom the substance of the book had been communicated in letters, to assist him in the education of his son.

One of Mr. Locke's foreign biographers says of these Pensées sur l'Education des

Enfuns, "Ce livre estimable a été traduit en François, en Allemand, en Hollandois et en Flamand " (This excellent work has been translated into French, German, Dutch and Flemish.) Nouv. Dict. Hist. Paris, 1772, IV. p. 131.

Conclusion of a Sermon on the Immutability of God, occasioned by the Death of Sir Samuel Romilly, delivered in the Unitarian Chapel, Yeovil, Nov. 15, 1818, by Dr. T. Southwood Smith.

Psalm cii. 11, 12: "My days are like a shadow that declineth, and I am withered like grass: but thou, O Lord, shalt endure for ever, and thy remembrance unto all generations.'

incorruptible and eternal; man's nature is frail and perishing: God's purpose is without the shadow of a change; man's purpose is fleeting as his sensations, and variable as the circumstances which induce them. All which God designs must be fulfilled; but man's intentions, even his noblest and his steadiest, are often brought to a swift and eternal close.

“How striking are the proofs which of the frailty of man! How little dependence can be placed on any thing that is human! How baseless is the hope which rests even on all that is most noble, dignified and permanent in our nature: on talent, integrity, experience, wisdom, benignity!

"It was at the commencement of this very month, last year, that the