the Son," or it may not. The substitution of an equivalent phrase is a very different thing from obeying a command, in the institution of a ceremony, to use a certain prescribed form of words. That the apostles did employ the verba ipsissima of Christ, and that the historian uniformly substituted an equivalent phrase, (supposing it to be so,) is a wholly gratuitous assumption, a very bold one, and not particularly creditable to the accuracy of the historian. Are Registers kept thus at Worship Street? Do they baptize converts there" in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and then write down in the books that they were bap tized" in the name of the Lord Jesus"? Your Correspondent attempts to prove that the apostles understood Matt. xxviii. 19, as the institution of a ceremony, by the fact that they baptized afterwards. What, theu, does he say to the fact that they baptized previously? See John iv. 2. - If they baptized in consequence of Christ's = having instituted such a ceremony, the institution must have been, not after his resurrection, but at an early period of = his ministry. Where is the record? Until it is produced, I am entitled to assume that baptism, as practised by Christ's disciples, was an affair of custom and not of divine institution.

Baptism might have been a Jewish practice and yet not "one of those traditionary practices of which Christ spoke with such reprobation ;" and, if so, there could not be the inconsistency which Mr. Meaus supposes in our Lord's alluding to it. Some such cases there were, for Christ attended synagogueworship, which does not appear to have been of divine institution.

I cannot perceive the pertinence of your Correspondent's concluding question, "How is it we have no record or trage of any discontent on the part of the Jews, that baptism was enjoined on them; as we should expect, if they had previously known it as an ordinance applicable only to converts from heathenism?" The Critical Notice on which your Correspondent animadverts, contains no such view of baptism as is here intimated; and as it does not appear to me to be a correct one, I shall leave those to auswer it whom it may concern. To the Author of the Pamphlet I beg to explain myself as follows:

Christ commissioned his apostles to teach all nations, and specified three topics in particular with which they were to make their disciples fully acquainted, viz. the Divine paternity, his own mis.

VOL. III.

ЗР

sion, and the miraculous powers by which his kingdom was administered (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); into these they were (figuratively) to baptize them; an allusion to which there are many analogous ones not uncommon amongst ourselves, as when we talk of plunging into a subject, being immersed in it, &c., &c. It was the mind which was to be plunged, immersed, or baptized, not the body; and truth, (on those great topics,) not water, was the element; and the mental process was described in terms borrowed from a physical one to which they were accustomed. Christ gave a figurative command to teach, and the practice of baptism (about which he commanded nothing) supplied him with the figure. No very harsh one, for the enlightenment of the mind is the true circumcision as well as the true baptism.

"On few subjects are the mass of mankind less informed than on that of the Unitarian faith: by many it is confounded with Socinianism, from which it differs as essentially as light from darkness. Evaus, in his Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World,' was one of the first to identify Unitarianism with Socinianism. A calm and dispassionate perusal of the volume before us ought to satisfy every rational being as to the real tenets of the Unitatians. We have given the Work this perusal, and find that, so far from their worship being contrary to the Christian faith, as some persons have said, it approaches most near to what once was the orthodoxy of the Established Church. These 'Devotional Exercises' are selected from the Prayer-book of the Church of England, with a slight revision. The Litany, the Supplications, the Thanksgivings, are all from the same source; and so far from a denial or a rejection of the Saviour, these prayers usually end with a supplication to God through him. So much then for a sect whose doctrines all rational Christians will prefer to the canting Puritanism which, of late, has

thrown the Church of England into contempt "From the Birmingham Journal, Saturday, October 10, 1829.

When the acute and sagacious Franklin recommended the careful Parisians to economize, not by using lamps instead of candles, but by enjoying the clear light of day instead of either, and gravely aunounced his discovery, that for six months in the year the sun actually rose at or before six o'clock in the morning; his drift was clear, and his admirable satire on the foolish waste of the hours of day-light was instantly understood. But here is a case in which a discovery, almost similar, is made in sober sadness, and is, with philanthropic earnestness, promulgated. Oh, that all would conseut to expatiate in the free radiance of reason and revelation, instead of perversely groping their way by the bliuking glimmer of human creeds and articles!

The "Birmingham Journal," be it premised, is a newspaper conducted on what are technically called High Church and King principles; its editor delights to follow the "Standard" in its vituperation of all that is liberal, and was, as may be imagined, especially opposed to the progress of Catholic Emancipation. Like the Standard, too, it is, I am free to allow, conducted with considerable talent.

From such a quarter, then, we have the following points voluntarily, deliberately, and distinctly stated and admitted:

FIRST, that on the subject of the Unitarian faith, the mass of mankind are singularly and grossly ignorant.

SECONDLY, that Unitarians differ, essentially and totally, from Socinians.

THIRDLY, that Unitarianism, as exhibited in the form of worship offered to public notice, approaches what was the original, and what the writer evidently considers the true orthodoxy of the Church of England.

FOURTHLY, that Unitarians do by no means reject or deny the Saviour; but that they do actually address their prayers and supplications to their heavenly Father through him.

pre

FIFTHLY, that the Unitarian doctrine is, by all rational Christians, to be ferred to that of a certain class of persous forming a large proportion of the Established sect itself.

These positions 1 consider (with one exception) of prime importance, and shall briefly discuss them seriatim.

First, as to the ignorance avowed by the Journalist-I sincerely believe that

such was the benighted state of his own mind, until enlightened by the perusal of the Old Meeting Liturgy; and with equal fervency I hold that similar confusion prevails in the minds of the majority of those of other sects and parties, nor least in those who are loudest in their revilings of Unitarianism. When Lord Eldon asked, in the House of Lords, "What is a Unitarian ?" I am couvinced that he put the question in its simplest meaning, and that the first law officer in the land was really and truly as ignorant of the Unitarian faith as he was of the Rosicrucian Mysteries! This perverse absence of information is extremely annoying; but how shall the "Egyptian darkness" be removed? Unitarians may declare and explain their doctrines from the pulpit, they may avow them in their public prayers, but these modes present nothing permanently tangible. A solitary Calvinist may enter one of our places of worship, and at the close of the service exclaim, "I had uo idea till now, that you believed in Jesus Christ!"* But the conviction goes no further. Books of controversy, too, may be published, but they are little read by the opponent party. To me all this is a main and valid argument for the general use of a liturgy. The pages of such a work are open to and legible by all, and would be seen by many not of our communion. To these records we may point and irresistibly appeal from the bigotry and iguorauce of those who charge us with want of belief in divine revelation.

It is the second of my divisions which I consider of minor importance; it is, in fact, only a part of, and consequent on, the first. I shall not occupy a line in elucidating the Socinian Creed. Suffice it to assert that the persons correctly designated by that title are Christians; and could our worthy Journalist see a Socinian liturgy, I will venture to say, (though I myself never saw one,) that he would be equally surprised at the soundness of that sect, whose very name has been artfully made a

"Word of fear,

Unpleasing to a Churchman's ear." The third point again is more impor tant: Unitarian worship, we are told, approaches most nearly to the elder orthodoxy of the Church of England, that is, to the orthodoxy of the simple formula called "the Apostles' Creed," which is the working creed of the Church. And here is well illustrated the evil effect

This is simple matter of fact.

of the duplex nature of church orthodoxy. What plain man who rejoices in his faith as a member of the Church of Eugland, ever adverts in mind to the glories of Athanasian mystery? Do you ask for his creed; his tongue aud his mind are prepared, and he rapidly runs over his "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker," &c., &c., and is satisfied with himself and his orthodoxy. At Church, it is true, the Athanasian Creed is "sung or said" in his presence; but whether the clergymau commences with "Whosoever will be saved," or, as in the Romish church, disguises it under the Latin of "Quicunque vult," is of little consequence; his auditory comprehend it not, or, if they do, they feel that it is no creed of theirs, and do not much believe that it is the creed of their pastor. The Established sect itself may, in time, discover that the Janus-mask of its twofaced creeds has the unintended effect of concealing the operations of those who are sapping its foundations, by admitting within its pale the promulgators of extreme Calvinism, thus giving to many, who must otherwise have been Dissenters, the richest bonnes bouches among its store of fat things.

The fourth position of our candid and naif Editor is, his discovery that Uuitarians in their prayers end with a supplication to God through the Saviour. That is to say, Unitarians are Christians, in the full and efficient sense of the word, for they believe that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and meu, the man Christ Jesus," and, so believing, they address their prayers and supplications accordingly. This is worth recording, as the deliberate conclusion of a man who has evidently a general acquaintance with his Bible, and an abiding impression of its contents and requirements. He is surprised and pleased to find that a sect often calumniated as unbelievers, are, in fact, fully entitled to the honourable name of Christians. Alas! that the true Apostles' Creed, just quoted, was ever forsaken, thereby converting the olive-branch of a religion of peace into an exterminating sword; making it the interest of priests to disguise and conceal their dogmas by the adoption of a graduated scale of creeds; and the interest of laymen to shut their eyes against the deformities of the doctrines enjoined as 66 necessary to salva

tion"!

To conclude, fifthly-the Journalist declares that the Unitarian doctrine is worthy of all acceptation to every "rational Christian."-Jubilate! This term, which

was once assumed as a distinction by those who held the un-mysterious nature of the gospel doctrines; which was perpetuated by their enemies as a term of reproach, is here, in the frank cordiality of new acquaintance, applied from a quarter of unquestioned orthodoxy, as a laudable and decisive characteristic! To what party in the church is attached the reproach of " Puritanism" in the closing lines of my extract, I inquire not farther, leaving the Establishment to the fate of a house divided against itself. But I will hope, even though it seem against all hope, that the time will come when the general spread of knowledge will shew to an enlightened people, that the "true worshipers" being those "who worship the Father in spirit and in truth," and the true Christians, those who "believe in one God the Father, and in Jesus Christ whom he hath sent," all further forms are burdensome and unnecessary; that, gathered into one fold, under one shepherd, there may be no invidious distinc tious of Churchman and Dissenter; but that every man, interpreting the words of Scripture according to the best meaus afforded him by his own humble, serious, and careful inquiry, uuquestioned and unreproached by his neighbour, shall take to himself the simple and universal appellation of CHRISTIAN.

SIR,

On the Resurrection.

To the Editor.

Z.

Nov. 4, 1829. ON looking over the contents of the last Number of your Repository, as it was put into my hands, I turned, with considerable eagerness, to an article in the Miscellaneous Correspondence, on the Resurrection, which I found to be a reply to a communication of mine on the same subject, which was inserted in the number for last May. Notwithstanding the honourable sneer with which the writer sets out at my assumed name of ENQUIRER, I read it with every disposition to receive instruction, but though he is very confident in the truth of his own views, and ridicules the idea of inquiry on the subject, I must remain un convinced till he produces more cogent arguments.

Those of your readers who honoured my paper with a perusal, will recollect that I endeavoured to shew that the bodily resurrection of Jesus on the third day, and his visible appearance to his disciples, though highly useful and satisfactory to them, does not form a neces-

sary part of the proof of our immortality, which it was the main design of Christianity to teach. Our belief in a future state of existence rests upon the declarations of our Saviour, who was commissioned by God to make known our final destination; and had he never shewn himself alive to his followers after his execution, our faith would be equally strong and valid. The resurrection was very useful in confirming the languishing faith of the disciples, who, to the very last moment, expected that their Master would assert himself in a temporal capacity; and there was a marked propriety in their insisting on it in their public discourses, as the last grand proof of his divine authority: but we, at the present day, are concerned with this miracle only as with the mitacles wrought by Jesus in his life-time; it forms a link in the long chain of proof which our Saviour adduced in favour of his pretensions to the Jews: but, so far as I can see, has no immediate bearing on the grand doctrine of our immortality. That was already established; and though useful as giving additional confirmation, it cannot be said to belong to the nature of the proof.

A. E. asks," From whence could the conviction (of immortality) arise, irrespective of the evidence to be derived from such event?" I have said that the divine assurance given by Jesus, the accredited agent of God, was sufficient to satisfy every reasonable doubt.

If we

were to rise in the same manner as Jesus, if his resurrection was to be a pat. tern of ours, it might in that case afford an experimental proof of the possibility and certainty of such an event; but as there is no reason to suppose that it will be so, and, at all events, as an operation would have to take place on our bodies very different from what took place with our Saviour's, which had not been resolved into its original dust, I do not see how the fact of which we are speak ing can add any thing to the nature of the proof, or give us conviction superior to that derived from the divine promise which shall not pass away.

A. E. refers me, for the solution of my difficulties, to 1 Cor. xv. I had not written without duly considering this important and interesting chapter: nevertheless, at his recommendation, I did re-peruse it, in conjunction with Mr. Belsham's Commentary. I did not, however, find from it the satisfaction he anticipates. The apostle, in the first part, asserts the fact of the resurrection aud appearance of our Saviour as the grand

conclusive argument of the truth of the gospel. If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain. Ver. 14. But I apprehend he only means that if the resurrection had not taken place, an event which was unexpected by the disciples, and which was mainly instrumental in inducing them to resume their ministerial labours, which they seem to have abandoned, the whole gos. pel was false, and the doctrine of futu rity, which it chiefly taught, a delusion. Is there not (I throw out the hint with very great deference) a coufusion in the twelfth and other verses in the use of the terms being raised and resurrection? As applied to our Saviour, they denote his bodily resurrection: but in the other passages, the mere circumstance of our future existence. If Christ be not risen, as he prophesied and as we who have seen him declare, the gospel is false, our testimony is false, and those who adhere to it are under delusion. In the thirtyfifth verse, he replies to those who wanted to know the nature of our resurrection bodies, by shewing the folly of such speculations, and that the Divine Being will order the manner of our existence so as to be suitable to our future place of abode.

We may form some idea how useful the resurrection was to the apostles, from the scepticism of Thomas. Some of them at least had resumed their origiual trades, as is evident from the circumstance that Peter and his companions were fishing when their Master presented himself to them at the sea of Tiberias, and they would not have been easily induced, by any other means, to return to the work of preaching the gospel, which they fancied was at an end. And what so natural as to make this wonderful fact the chief topic of their public sermons? It was the triumph over the artifices of the Jews, and was more likely to make an impression on the unprejudiced among that nation, than any thing else. There is another reason why they should insist upon it, even before the Gentiles. It was a matter of fact more likely to impress the minds of the multitude, if clearly proved, than any abstract reasonings. An appeal to the senses is always more efficacious, among the uninstructed, than an address to the intellect. A miracle exhibited before their eyes, or satisfactorily proved to them to have been performed, would carry greater sway than the most eloquent descriptions of the excelleuces and the power of the gospel. How were the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost but

by Peter's asseveration that Jesus had actually risen? These three thousand proselytes we may consider as secondary witnesses to the reality of that fact, who would tell to others their wonderful relation, till men were inclined to examine the gospel itself, and yield conviction from the excellency and purity of its precepts. Thus it appears that there was a striking propriety in the stress which the apostles laid upon it in their discourses and their writings, even when speaking to the Gentiles, who had uone of the Jewish prejudices.

"The resurrection of Christ," he says, "I have long considered as the most forcible proof of his divine mission, it being in the nature of proof that it be exhibited." It is the most forcible proof of his divine mission. I consider the resurrection of our Saviour as the best authenticated event that has come down to us from distant times, and it is an eveut confessedly miraculous. The divine mission of him who was the subject of it is unequivocally established. But how it is in the nature of proof that it should be exhibited," I do not see. It was useful as an additional confirmation, but not a necessary part of the proof. All the other miracles recorded were useful; but will any one say that the divine mission of Jesus would have fallen to the ground had he exhibited one fewer than he did? If he had wrought but a

66

single one in the whole course of his ministry, we should be bound to believe the gospel as firmly as we do now, provided it were sufficiently authenticated. The resurrection was useful; it answered valuable purposes; but how it can be said to be in the nature of proof, when a multitude of other proofs, each perfect in its kind, had been afforded, I have yet to learn; and still more, how it belonged to the nature of the proof of our immortality, when there is no similarity between our exaltation to a future state of felicity and the resurrection and visible appearauce of Jesus

But, Mr. Editor, I am wearying you and trespassing on your valuable columns. I shall only beg, "by way of finis," to present to A. E. my warmest thanks for the truly Christian spirit in which he affects to doubt the sincerity of my Christian belief. He may, for aught I know, be accustomed to consider his own views as the standard of orthodoxy in matters of speculation; but, for my own part, I am of opinion there is often more true and lively faith in those who inquire and think for themselves, and believe from conviction, than in those who adhere implicitly to every thing that habit or education has instilled into them; and until he can shew better cause against what has offended him, I must beg, with due submission, to remain

ENQUIRER.

ROBERT GREEnhow, Esq.

1829. August 29, at Bryntirion, near Wrexham, North Wales, after a few days' illness, at the age of 72, ROBERT GREENHow, Esq., formerly of Castle Lodge, Kendal.

Born and educated near the latter place, he engaged in the study of the law; but after some years of application, unable to reconcile its intricacies with his high standard of Christian integrity, he relinquished the profession, and joiued his brothers in an extensive manufac tory in his native town. A few years previous to his death, he removed into Wales, where he continued his active pursuits till the close of life. Educated among the strict Calvinists, he supported the cause of the Independents at Kendal with a zeal and steadiness peculiar to his character; but at an advanced period of

life, after an anxious and careful investigation of the Scriptures, he gradually relinquished his former views; and having become firmly convinced of the Divine Unity, he successively embraced the opinions which necessarily spring from the endearing and consolatory views of the Divine character unfolded in divine revelation. He supported what he believed to be the truth, with a liberality known to few; and after their separation from the Calvinists, being anxious to promote the preaching of pure Christianity, he encouraged inde. pendence and vigorous exertion among his Unitarian brethren, and, with a cheerfulness seldom seen, supplied their deficiencies at the expense of very considerable pecuniary sacrifices. He considered it unreasonable to be burdensome to other societies, and thought that local