Now in the beginning of this chapter we read of Christ's ascent to a mountain, and of his feeding on that mountain five thousand persons with a few loaves and fishes; and it clearly appears that those whom he now addresses, are the very same persons who had on the preceding day followed him up to the mountain, and were fed by his miraculous supply.

It seems, therefore, extremely natural to suppose, that in the words, "where he was before," Jesus had an exclusive, and, on the part of his hearers, a well-understood reference to the mountain on which he had wrought the miracle.

By a natural association, his allusion to the mountain would at once suggest the idea of the miracle he had just wrought upon it. The sentence we are naturally led to understand as implying that, after having seen him perform such a mighty and truly miraculous work for the supply of their want and the confirmation of his mission, and nevertheless remaining unconvinced of the truth of his pretensions and his doctrines, they would certainly remain so even though he should again ascend the mountain and perform on it the same astonishing kind of miracle he had done before.

SIR,

J. S. H.

N the paper with which the Chris

is introduced, it is observed, that in the present day "high points of doctrine are only here and there asserted," and that "the majority of congregations calling themselves orthodox are contented with the name without the reality of ancient orthodoxy." In this representation, which I have no doubt is just, I find, as in many other things, an evil blended with a good. That the improved state of theological knowledge should have led the nominal followers of Calvin to moderate their doctrine, so that the human heart should not shrink from it with horror, (in which case, however, it is Calvinism no longer,) must afford satisfaction to every sincere Christian, the true Calvinist alone excepted. This state of things may safely be regarded as an omen of still better

days, and portends an important change of opinion which will be experienced at no very distant period. Nor will any one who is acquainted with human nature be surprised that the progress of religious inquiry should, in a certain stage of it, exhibit the phenomenon above described. Though here and there an individual has possessed mental energy enough to pass at once from Calvinism to the simple doctrine of the Unitarian, this is too much to expect from the public mind, which always moves slowly, and is obstinately tenacious of ancient prejudices. But, as I intimated above, the good of which I have been speaking is not unmixed with evil. That an unscriptural system, which, if presented in its real colours, could not now maintain its ground, should be so softened and palliated as to be admitted under a certain modification, when otherwise it would repel belief, is a circumstance which is calculated to prolong the dominion of error, and consequently to retard the progress of truth. And the mischief is the greater because the system (if a system it can be called) which is sometimes substituted for the genuine doctrine of Calvin, assumes no fixed and definite character. A creed which is distinctly laid down, and so far clearly understood, submits itself to examination, so that its truth or falsehood may by impartial inquiry be easily ascertained. But a doctrine (or rather a phraseology) which wears an ambiguous and

of popular prejudices, addresses itself to the ear rather than to the understanding, eludes instead of inviting inquiry, and retains possession of the feelings, while it makes no distinct impression on the mind. When the preacher tells his hearers, in so many words, that the blood of Christ has saved the elect from the vindictive justice of the Father, the thoughtful mind may start at the declaration, and may be disposed to ask in what part of the sacred volume this doctrine is to be found. But when, instead of being thus explicit, the orator contents himself with merely haranguing on the great scheme of redemption without explaining what it is, every man is left at liberty to accommodate the description to his preconceived opinions; and as few hearers are so cap

tious as to quarrel with their instructors for treating them with words instead of ideas, all may agree to admire that which none can justly be said to comprehend. Here I cannot help noticing, as a thing much to be lamented, that preachers who entertain what are called moderate views in religion, should sometimes continue to use a language which they know will be misapprehended by those who hear them. They may say in their defence that the language which they employ is chiefly the language of scripture. But this in my judgment makes the case still worse. He who uses scriptural phraseology to which he is aware that ideas which he deems unscriptural will be attached, wilfully converts the oracles of truth into the means of confirming prejudice and error. If he must encourage the belief of opinions which he does not himself admit, let him adopt language of his own, that the mistaken views of men may rest on the basis of human authority. This authority many might dare to dispute, but what is considered as the authority of the word of God, is to the serious-minded Christian overwhelming and irresistible. And thus when erroneous opinions which have originated in the misinterpretation of scripture phraseology, are cherished by the perpetual application of this phraseology, the evil scarcely admits a remedy. Some Christian teachers endeavour to reconcile their consciences to this abuse of scriptural language by pleading, that were they to speak their whole mind they should injure their usefulness. It is not mine to pronounce a harsh judgment upon their conduct, but I must be allowed to say, that mistaken indeed must be those views of usefulness which shall lead a teacher of Christianity intentionally to refrain from declaring the whole counsel of God. If there is a class of men upon earth in whom simplicity and plain dealing are more eminently important and more peculiarly becoming than in all other men, they are the ministers of the gospel of Christ.

I will conclude this desultory letter by replying to an objection which has sometimes been brought against Unitarian preachers. It has been said, that when treating of certain topics, they are sparing in the use

of scriptural language, as though they were secretly conscious that their doctrine is but feebly supported by the authority of revelation. The fact may be admitted, but the inference is false; they have not the slightest suspi cion that their doctrine is unscriptural, but they know that in a mixed congregation there as yet may remain many in whose minds unscriptural notions have been associated with scriptural phraseology; and rather than use a language which, if they did not perpetually explain it when used, would be liable to misconception, they may reasonably prefer to express what they believe to be the truths of the gospel in terms which cannot be misunderstood. Moreover, there is a kind of language in the New Testament, which, in the age of the writers, was perfectly natural, and therefore perfectly proper; but which, if the general views of the Unitarian are just, it is now rather the business of the Christian teacher to explain than to adopt. Of this kind are the sacrificial allusions which the apostles make use of in relation to the death of Christ, allusions which it was scarcely possible for them not to employ; but which, if employed in the present day, unless illustrated by a just interpretation, must infallibly lead to error. I will only add, that if in the study of the New Testament a due attention had always been paid to the times and circumstances of the writers, the tenets of Calvinism would never have been heard of; tenets which ought not to have found an advocate in the world after sufficient time was allowed for the circulation of Dr. Taylor's Key to the Apostolic Writings, a work in which these tenets are refuted as fully and unanswerably as any error ever was refuted in any branch of science or of knowledge.

E. COGAN.

P. S. When I wrote the paper of which your correspondent G. B. W. does me the honour to speak so favourably, (p. 160 of your last number,) I was aware of the passage 1 John ii. 12, a passage which I think that your correspondent has explained satisfactorily enough. Had the expression for Christ's sake been a scriptural expression, the phrase da to ονομα αυτε might reasonably have been interpreted so as to bear the same

providing the nation with religious instruction and the conveniences of public worship: it is not pretended that they are any part of Christianity, and therefore they cannot be fairly represented as any encroachment of the civil power upon the kingdom of Christ. When, however, not merely a form of worship and an order of teachers, but Christianity itself, as a system of true religion, is identified with the law of the land, and protected from the assaults of its adversaries by temporal penalties, I know not how it would be possible to represent it more completely as a kingdom of this world. Every Christian, by virtue of his discipleship, possesses a right, and a right which he is in duty bound to exercise, to proclaim that such a representation amounts to a libel on the character of Christianity. We ask for the warrant from the lips of the Author of Christianity, for this alliance between his doctrine and systems of human jurisprudence. If the maxim be true in law, it has become so by a gross usurpation of that law, and ought therefore to be abandoned. Its title to authority was vicious from the beginning, and its long standing is therefore no just reason for its being continued. It has, in short, precisely that mark, which a great authority in these cases has laid down as a sufficient reason for its being no longer followed, it is " clearly contrary to the Divine law."

But, quitting this positive declaration of the Author of Christianity, let any one compare the nature of this religion with the power and objects of human laws; and they will appear too essentially dissimilar ever to amalgamate. The one can never be justly regarded as part of the other, until the broadest distinctions in nature can be annulled at the will of advocates and judges. Christianity is a system of faith, resting for the evidence of its claims chiefly upon the authenticity and genuineness of certain historical narratives. Its entire authority depends upon its truth, and its authority with every individual upon his belief of its truth. Can the law determine that the Christian histories * shall be

The following noble sentiments of one of the few Archbishops that ever made sacrifice for conscience' sake, de

worthy of credit, and that they shall appear so to all his Majesty's subjects, under pain of imprisonment? Or, can the law justly render it criminal, to deny the truth of that which is true or false, independently of any decisions which the law can make? Histories and doctrines appear, from their very nature, to be placed beyond the sphere of judicial interference. What should we think of being told that the History of Rome, or the latest Theory of Combustion, had been made part of the law of England? Surely, then, this maxim can be nothing more than one of those many amusing fictions, with which the law delights to charm away the tediousness of its proceedings. And however useful it may be found, to enable lawyers to effect what they would otherwise have no warrant for, when examined by the tests of reason and common sense, it appears altogether worthy to be classed with the well-known pleasantry of vi et armis.

A system of religion which, like the Pagan, or even the Jewish, should partly consist of certain ceremonial observances, essentially belonging to it, might, with some little show of propriety, be incorporated with the laws of a country; for, the interference of the magistrate in such a case would not be wholly absurd and inefficient, though it should be ever so unjust. The religion consisting in external forms and actions, would bear some analogy to the proper objects of civil jurisprudence. But human laws ought, surely, to be bounded in their contemplated operation, by the natural limits of human power: and what can human power effect for a religion, which has nothing in it of a positive and arbi

serve the attention of our modern Church

men, who wish to surround Christianity with penal sanctions: "The true and genuine Christian religion is a plain, and honest, and disinterested thing, full of sweet candour and holy simplicity, hath no tricks in it, no designs upon any man, but only to make him wise and good, and so, happy for ever: and it suits not at all with the noble fine spirit and ingenuousness of it, to pretend or desire to be taken upon trust, or to obtrude itself upon any man without examination."— Archbishop Sancroft's Address to James, Duke of York.

trary nature, which is altogether a religion of the mind, resting upon moral considerations, both for its authority in the first place, and for its influence upon individuals and society? Can the power of the law multiply the evidences of this religion, or exhibit them with greater advantage to the minds of unbelievers? Or can it even counteract the misrepresentations of scoffers and revilers, which may be conveyed in a whisper as well as in a book? The law can only provoke and injure the enemies of our faith, without in any effectual manner checking the progress of infidelity, while all the odium of its unjust proceedings is reflected upon Christianity; for which the enlightened friends of this religion cannot be expected to be very forward in the expression of their gratitude.

I cannot refrain from observing, in this place, that there is one sense in which it seems possible that Christianity may be made a portion of the law of the land; I mean, by infusing its just and benignant spirit into the whole system of our jurisprudence and domestic government. Doubtless, every Christian would rejoice to see our beloved country elevated above the nations of the earth, by the justice and mildness of her criminal code, and by the equitable manner in which all the operations of the law should provide for the liberty and welfare of all classes of the community. And when this system of wisdom and benevolence had been completed, no true disciple of his Master would blush to own it as the work of Christianity. But, can it be true, that Christianity is yet a part of the law in that country where its first injunctions are violated, by fighting against its adversaries with the weapons of oppression, and where the heart of humanity is daily afflicted, with beholding crowds of unhappy beings cut off from existence, almost in boyhood, for a fraud or a robbery? Ye archbishops and bishops, ye chancellors and judges, the joint guardians of our holy religion, make good the maxim of the law; dispense from your learned and right reverend benches a portion of the spirit of the Christian Lawgiver, and move the hearts of our legislators to establish the humane endeavours of Romilly and Mackintosh, and to cleanse the reputation of

our country from one of its foulest stains. Whence is it, we may ask, that the governments of the world have manifested so much readiness to take under their patronage the truth and the doctrines of Christianity, which admit of no beneficial alliance with temporal power, while so little reverence has been paid to its golden lessons of justice and humanity, which might so well be made the basis of legislation? It cannot be thought strange, if this circumstance should excite a suspicion, that when governments display so much zeal in defence of Christianity, they have usually other objects in view than the interests of true religion and the moral welfare of the people.

Little attention seems due to the plea for regarding Christianity as part of the law, drawn from the supposition that it is necessary to support the civil regulations of society, and the validity of judicial oaths. That Christianity is the foundation of all the institutions of the country, as has been asserted, appears to be a very vague and extravagant position. Some of our most valuable institutions, it has been thought, may be traced to a time prior to the introduction of Christianity into the country; and, at least, this religion professes no direct interference with the political relations and establishments of mankind. Yet it may be readily granted, that Christianity, by its tendency to render men upright, peaceable and lovers of truth, adds strength to judicial testimony, and in various ways affects the best interests of society. This, however, is not because it is the law of the land, but because it is the belief of the people : and unless we can be furnished with better evidence than experience has hitherto afforded, that the interference of the law is likely to promote the belief and reverence of Christianity among the people, we cannot admit, that such interference is conducive to the good order of the community.

A general glance at the history of the Christian religion, is not very likely to give its enlightened believers any great partiality for its close alliance with law and temporal authority. In proportion to the extent in which the civil power, in every country of Christendom, has been permitted to

embrace this religion with its false protection, its proper energies of truth and moral excellence have been enfeebled, and it has waned to a mass of pitiful superstitions. It has been the least understood and practised, and has consequently produced the fewest beneficial effects on the improvement and happiness of man, in those countries where it has been made most dangerous to call its truth or its supposed doctrines in question. And where has Christianity at length assumed the most respectable and dignified aspect in the eye of reason, and produced the happiest effects on the religious character and habits of the people? In those countries where its evidences, its doctrines and records, have been exposed to the most unlimited discussion; where the friends of religious liberty have succeeded to the greatest extent in wresting from the hands of the civil authorities the power to injure Christianity by their pretended patronage. These are plain and powerful lessons from experience, which, if governments overlook, reflecting and liberal Christians should keep constantly in mind.

There are also particular circumstances in the present times, which must render any interference of the law in behalf of Christianity altogether injurious. It is no longer possible for the civil power, as in past ages, to shield this religion from the inves tigation of unbelievers, nor even from their ignorant and malicious misrepresentations. The adversary or the reviler of Christianity cannot now be consumed at the stake. Only a few of the boldest can be chosen to be imprisoned and harassed as examples. By such examples the prejudices of unbelievers may be confirmed, and their passions excited, but their tongues cannot be silenced. Schism," says an old and sensible writer, "is an ailment in the body politic, not curable but by an utter extirpation of the limbs infected, and a steady cruelty, zealously pursued without pity or remorse. All petty severities, however wholesome they may appear, are only quack medicines, which put the patient to pain, without removing the distemper."* Such are

• Mandeville's Free Thoughts, Chap. 9.

the only medicines which the civil power can now administer for the cure of infidelity. The sting of the law, for this purpose, has lost its power; it can only irritate, not destroy its victims.

Many circumstances there undoubtedly are in the present condition of Christianity, calculated to excite a more than ordinary degree of interest in the minds of its serious professors. This religion is now perhaps more than at any former period, except at its first introduction, before the tribunal of the public. The body of the people, who have no learned systems to support, but whom the increased means of education, and the spirit of the times, have awakened to inquiry upon religious subjects, who have no secular interests depending upon their profession or denial of Christianity, but who cannot fail to be sensible, that the truth or falsehood of religion is a question that involves the most momentous consequences to themselves; these are the inquirers to whom Christianity is now appealing for belief and attachment in a more direct and open manner than the circumstances of the Christian world have heretofore admitted. Now these are the class of persons to whose minds it is most desirable that Christianity should be presented free from any association with objects foreign from its nature and spirit. Philosophers and men of habitual reflection cannot be so easily imposed upon, by the accidental association of things which have no proper connexion. But the mass of mankind judge from appearances and from general representations. Since, therefore, the question concerning the truth of Christianity appears to excite increasing attention amongst the people, it becomes daily more necessary, that they who consider this religion to be wholly independent of all human law and government, should vindicate it from every false representation; that they should openly denounce all means of persecution taken for its defence; in other words, that the principles of consistent Nonconformity and perfect liberty of opinion and discussion should be earnestly supported.

H. A.