the world, that I should bear testimony should we call it a National Church. to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." John xviii. 36, 37. In the above testimony, therefore, of the King of Martyrs, as Christ has been called, he explains his doctrine to his first followers, and exhibits his own character and ultimate pretensions. But nothing is so insinuating, so encroaching, as power. As soon as opportunity offered, and it offered very early, those who called themselves his disciples, first formed an hierarchy on Judaizing principles, and, soon afterwards combining it with the power of the civil magistrate, formed a Jewish civil establishment of Christianity; and on principles so opposite to those at first laid down by Christ, that it has been by way of contrast, with great significancy called "that spirit of Antichrist" which began, we are told, to work in the times of the Apostles. And all na tional established religions calling in the sword of the civil magistrate, eminently partake of this character, and must do so from their very nature. To appeal, therefore, and as your Correspondent, I perceive, has done, to the practice of such national churches, in favour of the purity of Baptism, or of any other Christian institution, or doctrine, would have rather a sus picious than a flattering aspect; and instead of furnishing an easy solution to any particular difficulty, would, in my humble opinion, only tie the knot more indissolubly tight and strong. But to return to Mr. Robinson and Mr. Belsham. The Roman Church, having absorbed in itself all the religious rights, privileges and pretensions of the nations with which it came into contact, called itself the Church; and we use the term in courtesy and custom, but contrary to its proper meaning, as used in the New Testament, where it stands for an assembly of persons formed for Christian purposes, or, as the established Church of England speaks, "an assembly of faithful men." In a way of similar accommodation we call, though incorrectly, a large corporation among us, the Church, the Church of England. In a political point of view we call this church in England the National Church, but, strictly speaking, in correctly, and still more incorrectly It is, properly speaking, considered politically, a peculiar corporation. This peculiar corporation-church has by-laws, creeds, canons and articles, which are so far constitutional as they are consistent with national law, but, properly speaking, it is not the National Church, still less is it exclusively a National Church. All the different sects are parts of the National Church; and each denomination, acknowledged and protected by the state, and receiving into its communion members of any parts of the nation, is, properly and logically, a national church, and not exclusively one sect only, however favoured and distinguished by peculiar privileges. The Presbyterian, Independent, Quaker Churches, are each a national church, as well as that other church, and so are the Baptists. It is not true then, I apprehend, logically true, that all national churches have admitted the sprinkling of new-born babes for baptism. In America, all the different Christian congregations constitute the National Church, being all by the laws of the Union protected by the civil magistrate, and under the authority of the legislature qualified for public services; and as the whole assemblage constitutes the National Church, so each sect is a National Church, into which any one may be chosen out of the nation, and from which any individual may proceed to the national advantages. The Baptist churches in the Union form a National Church of Baptists among the Americans. This, perhaps, may be called too nice a distinction, but we must distinguish when we wish to ascertain the truth. Rectè distinguendum, si rectè concludendum. But if the entire toleration of churches, by the national authority, should not suffice to constitute them National Churches, perhaps the entire subjection to the sovereign civil power may. Let us consider the Greek Church. This church, of such prodigious extent, was settled, in ancient time, according to the ordinances of the emperor of the East, and still it is kept in obedience to the Grand Seignior and the king of Persia, or the princes of the provinces: they always were, no individual church excepted, Baptists, that is, they always bap. tized by immersion, and they still continue to do so. The learned father Simon, who had so thoroughly studied the religion and customs of the Eastern nations, and who derived his information from the most authentic sources, says, "They delay the baptism of children until the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth, and eighteenth year of their age." The Melchites followed the common opinions of the Greeks,* being in all things true Greeks.† The Georgians or Iberians " are not very pressing to receive baptism; but they re-baptize those who return to the faith after apostacy: with baptism they administer to children confir mation and the eucharist:" a proof by the bye, that the Greek Church never administered baptism to newborn babes; for they always gave the eucharist immediately after bap. tism, and gave it to children in a spoon. "The Mingrelians administer baptism after the manner of the Georgians." In his supplement concerning the Georgians and Mingrelians, father Simon adds, Baptism is deferred fill the child be about two years old, then they baptize it, dipping it in hot water;" at length they give it bread that hath been blessed, to eat, and wine to drink, which appears to have been the ancient way of baptism. Observations similar to these he makes of other Greek Christians, as to the performance of the three sacraments, baptism, confirmation and the eucharist, with a little variety of some few ceremonies accompanying them, but not at all affecting baptism. 66 "The Greek Church, subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, was not always of that vast extent to which it attained after that it pleased the Eastern Emperors to lessen other patriarchates for greatening that of Constantinople; which they could the more easily do, because their power, as to things of that nature, hath been far greater than the Emperor of the West, and that for erecting new bishoprics, or granting new rights and jurisdictions, they stood but very little on the consent of patriarchs." "They Critical Hist. of the Religion and profess obedience to the Oriental canon law, and the ordinances of the Emperor "They (the Georgians or Iberians) obey not the patriarch, who takes the title of Catholic or Univèrsal; and yet it is not he who is the chief in spiritual affairs, but. the prince, who is supreme in spirituals and temporals. The prince has his voice with the bishops in the election of the patriarch, and all choose him whom he desires; and the will of the several lords within their territories stands for law." "The Abyssines or Ethiopians, who in all things follow the religion of the Cophlites, (who were of the Greek Church,) are under subjection to him, who is called the Emperor of the Greater and Upper Ethiopia." Some of the Oriental Churches are now in civil subjection to the Grand Seignior, the Armenians to the King of Persia, Now the established Greek Church never, in any instance, practised the sprinkling of new-born babes; and if Mr. R.'s account is well-founded, the Greek rituals were first composed only for adults, and afterwards adapted to the circumstances of children. But, without the advantage of this latter argument, all their churches being Baptist and (except those who afterwards became Latinized; Anabaptist, (all baptized by immersion,) being under the canon laws of the Eastern Church, and the civil imperial laws; under, too, the protection, authority, and supremacy of reigning sovereigns and princes; with this constitution of ecclesiastical and civil arrangements, what can there be wanting to denominate them, even according to the common acceptation of the word, National Churches ? I am surprised, I own, that a Unitarian (though I ought to beg pardon of him for wandering out of my record, by referring to his own book on Infant Baptism, as your Correspondent will perceive I am) should have employed such an argument, it being, as I humbly conceive, not only not founded in truth and fact, but cutting both ways, like a two-edged sword, against his Infaut Sprinkling, as well as his Unitarianism. I do not say, however, that because any particular doctrine has not been the established religion of any country, therefore it is not true, but only that if this gentle * man's argument has any force against Adult Baptism, it would have equal force against Unitarianism. For I doubt whether there is an Established, a National Church, of Christian Unitariaus, at least in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. In the Greek Established Church, Trinitarianism was sometimes the national religion, and sometimes Arianism, the difference lying between the pool and precio; it settled at length in the Trinitarian doctrine. The Latin Church was all Trinitarian; the Established Reformed Churches were all Trinitarian, as may be seen in their several confessions, in Quick's Synodicon. The Polish Unitarians, with all their talents, learning, dignity and power, (and they had much of each,) never rose to be a national, established religion. The religion of the ancient Jews, indeed, founded in the ipsa unitas of the Deity, without any distinctions or qualities, as Maimouides † expresses it, of time, place or person, (about which the Trinitarian and Unitarian controversies, through their many shades of difference, are concerned,) the religion of the Jews was a national Unitarian religion. Mahomet, too, colleaguing with a Jew and Nestorian Christians, and extracting from them a sort of essence of religion, a fundamental principle, (which appears to have been the foundation of most ancient theologics, till they degenerated into idolatry,) formed a national religion, on the abstract idea, the Unity of God. But I beg leave to submit to your learned Correspondent, whether in his sense of the words, there ever was, or is at this day, any National Church of Unitarian Christians ? In examining Christian antiquity, in reference to the question under discussion, it was thought no improper way to appeal, in a former letter, to the testimony of some learned and independent men, who, having gone over this ground with the same end in view, would be competent to give See Mr Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches. Church of Poland, p. 554. + Deus nullas habet qualitates-Quare constanter asserimus, illum absolutissimè esse unum Maimonidis. Moreh Nevocheim, pp. 79, 80. See Prideaux's Life of Mahomet. testimony. Your readers were thus furnished with the proper evidence to try the merits of the question. These learned men were taken from our own country; and they might very easily have been multiplied. But that our jury may be as complete as possible, we beg leave to add to them a few names of foreigners. They shall be taken from among critics of different opinions on other theological points, but all of the first eminence for learning and their knowledge of Christian antiquity among their several religious denominations. This part of my work being ready done to my hand by Van Dale, I shall do little more than translate their testimonies from him. The first is of Campegio Vitringa, the celebrated Professor of Theology and History at Amsterdam, well known for his critical works on Isaiah and the Revelations. He was doctrinally a Predestinarian. What is advanced out of Cyprian is more evident; although from all the other writers referred to, nothing can be collected but this; that infants might be baptized, and sometimes were; but not that it was the custom in the first Church that they should be baptized just after their birth, as is done in our sacred assemblies," &c. Observationum, Lib, ii. Cap. xvi. He then refers to Ludovicus Vives, and he shall be our next testimony, who, in his observations on Augustine, (De Civitate Dei, Cap. xxvii. Lib. i.) after other remarks, adds: "Let no one be deceived by this passage; no one formerly was laved by sacred baptism, till of an adult age, and when the same person both knew what he wished of that mystical water, and desired to be washed, and not merely once asked," &c. The next testimony that I shall produce is that of Salmasius, which may also be taken as that of Van Dale himself, who was equal at least to those whom he quotes, in that sort of literature which is necessary for a complete knowledge of his subject, as his own admirable work abundantly proves. "Something, therefore," says Van Dale, "must be said of the origin and progress of this Pædobaptism, which Hist. Baptismatum cum Hebraicorum tum Christianorum. I thus shew first from the celebrated Salmasius, a man of such great name among the Reformed. (Ex Epistolâ ad Justum Pacium sub nomine Simplicii Verini.) In the two first centuries nobody received baptism, but he who, being instructed in the faith, and imbued with the doctrine of Christ, could give testimony that he believed, on account of those words, He who shall believe and be baptized. Therefore, the first thing was to believe: thence arose the order of catechumens in the Church. The perpetual custom also then constantly prevailed, that the eucharist should be immediately given to those catechumens after baptism. Afterwards an opinion prevailed, that nobody could be saved, unless he had been baptized and thence arose the custom of giving baptism to infants. But because the eucharist was given to adult catechumens, as soon as they were washed with sacred baptism, without any space of time intervening, it was instituted that this also should be done to infants, after the introduction of Infant Baptism." Thus far Van Dale, who was not of the clerical profession, but all whose works are full of erudition. * I have already alluded to the opinion of Socinus, and other learned Unitarians in Poland. To the opinion also of the accomplished critic Grotius, an allusion has also been made; and his opinion was, that Infant Baptism might be practised, and was practised pretty early, but not by Christ or his apostles. Annot. in Matt. xix. Sensus est veniant ad Christum, ut instituantur, non ut baptizentur, nisi postquam vim baptismi intellixerent." My intention was, Mr. Editor, to have subjoined a few thoughts on Mr. Belsham's sense of Infant Baptism, in reference to Tertullian, and a critique on the word norint, as used by him, together with some remarks on Mr. Belsham's "important testimony of Justin Martyr," and his quotations from Irenæus and Origen. But these matters, I perceive, must be deferred. D. Il pratiqua cette science (Médecine) avec succès, et se fit une réputation dans r Europe par sa profonde érudition. Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique. PERMI SIR, Swakeleys, Jan. 6, 1819. ERMIT me to assure your Chichester Correspondent [Vol. XIII. p. 749,] that nothing he has written on the subject of my "Bible Only School at Binham, has in the "least annoyed" its well-meaning, however mistaken patron. He has warrantably enough, perhaps, bestowed upon it a title, which it seems however, it did not deserve. The whole difference of opinion that obtains between us, is indeed, I am willing to hope, no more than this: that while I am content to seat my little plebeian catechumens "at the feet of Jesus" and his apostles alone, he would place some Apollos beside them of the same way of thinking with himself, so long as they were under my exclusive jurisdiction; for beyond that moment I profess to give them up again to their parents. As little, I trust, will he be, in return, "annoyed" by my Anti-isms of every description, if, in a spirit which "thinketh no evil" of any other opposed to it, I venture to record my conviction, that, were every "note and comment now extant on the Bible, committed to-morrow to the flames, the religion of Christ might somewhere or other, in this our enlightened day and generation, arise from their ashes in a purer form than any it now exhibits iù any single established or non-established Church in Christendom. 19 With regard to my projected plan of a place of worship, it is indeed, I fear, still more Utopian than he justly represents it; for it by no means professes to aim at inoffensiveness on the ground of being alike and in common acceptable to every denomination of Christians. Its avowed object is an approximation to the apostolic model of religious homage: et jure aut injurià comprehends invocation of the Saviour of the world. The Unitarian would have to tolerate Idolatry under a roof beneath which the Trinitarian had connived at the blasphemy of not addressing the Son as " an equal person with" the Father; while The GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was alone ultimately addressed as "the Author of every good and every perfect gift," as "the GOD above all, as well as through and in us all," the "one Lord," the "made * 1 Cor. viii. 6. Lord," the "Advocate at the Father's right hand," and in the midst of a congregation met together in his name, would be also petitioned, prayed to, as able to save to the uttermost all who come unto that GOD through him. Towards such an approxima tion, the first step would be the abdi. cation of all unscriptural phraseology; the subordination and delegated authority of the Logos-Theos, the next: but within the ample range of this preliminary circumscription, the proposed Liturgy would expatiate as freely as the letter of the Bible would admit, and scarcely therefore propitiate, in all its parts, an unanimous, though concurrent expression of devotiou. While the mercy-seat " shone with none but borrowed rays, it would still perhaps peer as one of the most prominent features of the sanctuary; as the incense ascended from its altar, the high priest who wafted it towards heaven might still fix the fearful eye of many a suppliant, and when the Allelujah ascended with one heart and voice to Him who sitteth upon the throne, what if the Lamb were not all around, so with one heart and voice, forgotten? These are appalling annunciations, undoubtedly, to many a scriptural Christian; there are, on the other hand, not a few as consistent Biblists, whose ear they will by no means offend; and for one, I am free to confess, that though reformation proceeded no farther than to these limits, most cordially should I rejoice to see the religious service of the Established Sect (the best, in my opinion, but for its traditional deformities, with which I am acquainted,) so far purged of what every idolater of the litera scripta of the sacred records must deem its two capital pollutions. Whether the more sweeping Unitarian would patronize what he might deem so partial, so insufficient a compromise, I know not: but from the silence of our body, I certainly presume that mere man-ism, (I use the word in no invidious sense,) is averse from the experiment. To that implied decision, I now therefore respectfully bow with regret, and subscribe myself, J. T. CLARKE. * Acts ii. 36. See Griesbach in loc. SIR, TH Broom Bank, near Sheffield, January 17, 1819. HE Reviewer of my Discourse, which was preached in May last, before the Supporters of the Unitarian Fund, having intimated to me, [Vol. XHI. p. 766,]" that it is not quite correct" perhaps, "to quote Luke vi. 12, as a proof that our Lord continued a whole night in a dreary solitude,' since poσex, sometimes, and probably here, signifies an oratory, or "house of prayer;' I feel myself called upon to explain. I am well satisfied, and have always entertained the opinion, that the word poreux often signifies an oratory, and that such is the sense in the passage quoted, as well as in Acts xvi. 13, to which the reviewer has referred me. But the term “ dreary solitude" was a term which I applied, as every reader may see, not to the poor, but the mountain to which our Lord had gone, and on which he continued all night, (dızνυκτερεύων εν τη προσευχῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ) “ in the oratory of God."" Some indeed think this to be rather a harsh translation, and prefer the common version, which is also adopted in the new one, and which I have followed, notwithstanding its supposed incorrectness. Indeed this adoption cannot require much defence, when it must be admitted that prayer or devout communion with God (which is prayer taken in its most comprehensive sense) was our Saviour's object. Indeed it ought to be mentioned in favour of the common translation, that the Cambridge Manuscript has avrov after the word porevxy instead of rev. The reviewer has referred me to Acts xvi. 13, and Bishop Pearce's Commentary and Note. I have not that author at hand, but I admit that the Jews had their poσexas near to rivers, or by the seaside, and in other retired places on the plains; or, near to (as the preposition is sometimes signifies) the mountains; but they had them also on the hills an mountains themselves, the retreat of the most recluse, because the least exposed to intrusion. See Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, Vol. II. p. 91, also p. 69. These poreuxα included a certain space of ground enclosed with walls and open to the Heavens, according to Philo, Josephus and other writers, whither devout persons resorted alone, or in company, for reli |