by some of whom it was protected. Mr. Belsham's deduction is untenable upon another account. Knowledge and virtue thrive best upon the soil of liberty. But the Eastern governments are mere tyrannies; whilst those of Europe, profiting by the light of science, commerce and the arts, have been gradually ameliorated, always keeping pace with the progress of information amongst the people. During the middle ages, established Christians in Europe were neither wiser nor better than their Eastern neighbours. Indeed, these, for a time, had decidedly the advantage. It appears to me, therefore, that the speculative parts of Christianity would have shared pretty much the same fate as the doctrines of philosophy; still bearing in mind, that, as governments became civilized, they would necessarily conform their laws as much as possible to the maxims of Christian morality.

If the fundamental principles of morality be eternal and immutable, and applicable equally to all sects and nations; if the peculiarities of the Christian system be addressed to the understanding of man as a reasonable and accountable agent, and, moreover, if the writings of the New Testament be supposed to contain a genuine and complete view of the religion of Jesus, the aid of the magistrate is not required either to recommend or enforce its acceptance, or to mould it to the shifting manners of society. Nay, more, the whole genius and spirit of the system expressly forbid it. Its institutions are none of them political; they depend neither upon the smiles nor frowns of princes, and may be observed as effectually in the secluded cottage, as in the palace or the gorgeous temple.

When the chief magistrate undertakes to drill a whole nation to a particular creed or mode of worship, there are a thousand chances to one against his making a proper selection. If he patronizes error, his influence and authority, to say nothing of penal sanctions, go far to extend the mischief; and the jealousy shewn by all governments in removing old landmarks, points out the danger of its descending to successive generations. But supposing this champion for religion to profess a great zeal for Christianity, and to say that he will establish the

religion of Jesus; how is he to go about it? If he takes the New Testament for his guide, he will find a paucity of materials to work with. Nothing can be farther removed from the pomps and vanities of the world; yet, without these, what is an establishment good for? The humility and self-denial, the zeal and devotedness, the patience and suffering practised by the apostles, and preached by their successors, would cut but a sorry figure in courts and senates. Yet, the least departure from the simplicity of the gospel, the annexation of worldly interests, or substitution of other objects than those held out by Christ and his apostles, is so far a deviation from genuine Christianity. The state may incorporate with its other institutions the profession of Christianity; it may establish the belief and practice of it with penal sanctions or without them, and if the latter, it does only half its work as the guardian of truth; it may fabricate a machinery of greater or less extent in order to give effect to its publication; but the religion so adopted and promulgated, let it go by what name it will, is merely the religion of that particular state-not the religion of Jesus Christ.

It is the opinion of Mr. Belsham, "that even admitting that the Chriзtian religion could stand without any external support, and could make its way in defiance of all opposition, yet if its progress could be in any degree accelerated by a judicious interference of the civil power, so great is its excellence, and so beneficial its effects in every form of civil society, that it would be the indispensable duty of the civil power to afford every reasonable aid and encouragement to its advancement in the world." Should the position here laid down be granted, still much difference of opinion would exist, as Mr. Belsham acknowledges, upon the degree of "aid" that would be "reasonable;" but when the door is once open to let in the magistrate, he alone will be the judge in this matter. Suppose him to be an Evangelical or an Unitarian Christian; in either case, he will give the aid and encouragement which he considers best adapted to advance the interests of the creed he espouses. For, it would be absurd to suppose that the civil magistrate, if he is made the guardian of religious wor

pestilent heresies. In truth, the subject is but little attended to excepting as a matter of feeling; to study it in connexion with the philosophy of mind, or the nature of civil government, falls to the lot of comparatively a few. It may be observed, however, in reply to Mr. Belsham, that some of the ablest writers who have appeared against the Church of England during the last half century, have attacked the principle of ecclesiastical establishments; and, I believe, it will be found that nearly the whole of those persons who maintain the right of private judgment in its most unlimited sense, have adopted sentiments adverse to the incorporation of religion with the state.

It appears to me that Mr. Belsham bears rather hard upon those Dissenters who participate in the parliamentary grants; for, whatever may have been their origin, they are now neither given nor received for any statepurpose. Their object is purely eleemosynary; and, although I do not stand forward as their advocate, yet I really see no reason why Dissenters should forego any advantages they can obtain with a good conscience under the present system, merely because they think that a better might be substituted in its stead. As little do I blame Mr. Belsham, with his views, for wishing to see the ministers of religion occasionally lifting "their mitred heads in courts and parliaments." The transition from an established church to a courtly clergy is both easy and natural; and if one sect is to be allowed to fill the seats of parliament with so much dead lumber, I see no reason why other sects should not be accommodated in a similar manner. But the principle itself is altogether pernicious: it is highly detrimental to civil liberty; it operates as a clog to reformation, and can only be regarded as an absurd relic of other times, when the ecclesiastical aristocracy claimed the privilege of intermeddling with the affairs of the state.

Upon the whole, I cannot agree with Mr. Belsham, that Christianity either claims or requires the protection and patronage of the civil power. Such a supposition might be fairly urged as prima facie evidence against the divinity of the system itself; for, if it is the offspring of Deity, it may surely be supposed to come better supported

and recommended than by civil pains and penalties, or the meretricious arts of the politician. The motives that draw people together into civil communities have nothing to do with religion, and the laws that are to bind them relate wholly to their civil conduct. It is true, that most nations have artfully contrived to mix them up together, but for the basest purposes. Although a zeal for religion has been the pretence, the real motive has been to strengthen the hands of the civil power. It is not to be concealed that a large class of persons imagine Christianity to be the basis of civil society, and they shudder for the fate of both were they parted asunder. This notion, however, is the effect rather of habit and feeling than of correct views of either. They rest on considerations perfectly distinct, as might easily be made appear to a calm and judicious inquirer. Matters of faith and of religious worship have really no more necessary connexion with the wellbeing of society than any particular theory relating to life, matter or motion, or the system of the universe. I do not mean to deny that they may not be made to have a powerful influence; for experience certainly proves that they have. Mr. Belsham well knows the effect upon society of an extensive belief in hereditary depravity, and that the moral demeanour of the great mass is supposed to be upheld by the fear of spending an eternity in hell-torments. Now, whether the theological opinions that influence mankind be true or false, it is not my present business to inquire; all I contend for is, that it is not the province of the magistrate to teach them, either himself or by his deputy.

Let no one tremble for the fate of Christianity when dissevered from the state. It has obtained too firm a hold upon society to be easily lost. The purest motives that now influence mankind to believe and to teach it will still remain in full force, and it involves considerations too interesting and important to be neglected or forgotten. Finally, if it come from heaven, its Author is fully able to protect it; and we may rest assured that he will no more suffer it to fail, than the air we breathe or the food that nourishes our animal existence. I must apologize for trespassing so long upon the pa

I

SIR,

Clapham. THINK the following extract from one of South's Sermons, entitled "The Doctrine of the Trinity as serted," may be worthy the attention of some of your readers, as shewing how many of most orthodox repute, and deeming themselves most sound in the Trinitarian faith, have in truth not a bit of the Trinity in their creed, but are as very Unitarian heretics as Socinus or Dr. Priestley. I need hardly remind your readers, that a notable controversy once arose between Dr. South and Dr. Sherlock, on the true and right mode of conceiving of the Trinity, and that finally Dr. South's explication of it received the approbation of the University of Oxford, in convocation assembled. So that it is not to be considered as the opinion merely of an individual Doctor, but as the last corrected edition of orthodoxy from the highest authority. The passage is as follows:

"But that we may a little aid and help out our apprehensions in conceiving of this great mystery, let us endeavour to see whether upon the grounds and notions of reason, we can frame to our selves any thing that may carry in it some shadow and resemblance, at least, of one single, undivided nature's casting itself into three subsistences without receding from its own unity. And for this purpose we may represent to ourselves an infinite rational Mind, which, considered under the first and original perfection of being or existence may be called the Father, inasmuch as the perfection of existence is the first, and productive of all others. Secondly, in the same Infinite Mind, may be considered the perfection of understanding, as being the first great perfection that issues from the perfection of existence, and so may be called the Son, who is also called Aoyos, the Word, as being the first emanation of that Infinite Mind. And then, thirdly, when that Infinite Mind, by its understanding reflects upon its own essential perfections, there cannot but ensue an act of volition and complacency in those perfections, arising from such an intellectual reflection upon them, which may be called the Holy Ghost, who, therefore, is said to proceed both from the Father and the Son, because there must be not only existence but also understanding before there can

be love and volition. Here then we see that one and the same mind is both being, understanding and willing, and yet we can neither say that being is understanding, nor that understanding is willing."

I shall not stay to point out the selfblazoning folly of this choice scheme, though it is certainly liable to more than one reductio ad absurdum. An obvious consequence from it, if it means any thing, is, that the Father, in himself, is destitute of both will and understanding, the Son of existence, and the Holy Ghost of both existence and understanding. Yet let it be remembered, the advocates of the Trinity, if they disrelish this, have only the alternative of the opposite doctrine maintained by the more honest Sherlock, that is, that the three persoES are to be regarded as three distinct minds. But this again has the misfortune of not being distinguishable from the doctrine of three Gods: as the University of Oxford perceived, and therefore pronounced it heretical. The Unitarian believes that God has both existence and understanding and will, and thus, wafting aside the smoke of unintelligible words, he believes precisely as much of the Trinity as South and his party: while, at the same time, believing that God is but one undivided mind, he avoids the Paganism of Sherlock. In arguing with Trinitarians I believe it would be expedient to bring them, if possible, to avow one of these alternatives before we proceed further. worthy of insertion in your Repository, If, Sir, you deem what I have written you will oblige

PHILOGRAPHUS.

Dr. J. Jones on the Introductory Chapters of Matthew and Luke.

HOPE I shall not encroach too much on the Editor or the readers of the Repository, if, together with the remarks which I intend on Lucian and other enemies of the gospel in ancient times, I make some strictures on the introductory chapters in Matthew and Luke, beginning with Griesbach's reasoning for the genuineness of those chapters. No argument, it is said, can be deduced against these chapters from Mark's silence, because, forsooth, many other things are omitted by him. To this it may be replied, first, The object of the miracles of

Christ is to prove his divine authority, his mission from God to preach the gospel. A few of these miracles, well defined and well attested, would be sufficient to prove this object, to establish his claim as a teacher from heaven; and Mark would have proved nothing more than he has actually proved, had he minutely recorded every thing said or done by his divine Master; but the end of his miraculous birth was to prove not his divine mission but his divine nature-to prove that, as he was born in a supernatural manner, he must have been a supernatural being. This peculiar object of the miraculous birth ascribed to Jesus, rendered it imperative on every one of his biographers, to record it as essential to the gospel; and nothing could have induced any one of them to omit it, but either a total ignorance of the story, or a conviction that it was not true. Secondly, The four Gospels being now combined into one volume, a person who peruses the narrative in Matthew, is not apt to be struck with the absence of it in Mark. But this is a prejudice which Griesbach, and such men as the correspondent N, instead of taking the lead in misleading modern readers, should be the first in dissipating. Mark wrote his Gospel in consequence of the establishment of a Christian church at Rome, who wanted an authentic document respecting Christ, and who, by the omission of that Evangelist, were left in ignorance of his supernatural birth, and consequently of the doctrines of his divinity grounded upon it: and this, we may be assured, no historian of our Lord would have done. Mark, therefore, was either a total stranger to the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus, or being acquainted with it he considered it as a fiction unworthy of notice. Thirdly, the fact was first taught by men who aimed at setting aside the Gospel, by assimilating it with Heathenism a few years after the resurrection of Christ, and that in the very spot where Mark first published his Gospel. This Evangelist was therefore fully aware of its existence and circulation; and he took care in the introduction and conduct of his Gospel to set it aside as a falsehood. His Gospel opens thus: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of

God, (as it is written in the prophets, behold, I send my Messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way in thy presence,) was a voice crying in the wilderness," &c. Here the Evangelist says positively and unequivocally, that the good news respecting the Son of God originated with John the Baptist, no intimation being given of him till he was pointed out by his forerunner: thus inculcating on his readers that the story of his birth, with all its wonders, had no foundation in truth. It is essential to the story of our Lord's miraculous birth, that his mother should have been acquainted with his destination as the Messiah; and to shew that she did not know this, Mark represents her as thinking her son mad for pursuing a conduct which implied that he considered himself in that light. Mark iii. 21.

I have said that the object of the supernatural birth of Christ was to prove his divine nature; accordingly the first teachers of this cunninglydevised fable, as Peter calls it, consistently enough supposed that Jesus had a supernatural power when he was a child, and represented him as actually having wrought many miracles in his infancy. Now Mark was called upon by his peculiar situation to set aside these things as false, by stating some well-attested facts that proved them so. Such facts he does state in chap. vi. 2, 3. Here he holds forth his divine Master as a common mechanic, and not only the people of Nazareth, but his own relations, as utterly perplexed as to the source of his divine power. Had Jesus been supernaturally born, and thus proved that he was a superior being, his early title would have been very different from that of a carpenter, and the people of Nazareth would have been at no loss as to the source of his supernatural power. And Mark brings forward the circumstance that he was a carpenter, and the astonishment of those who knew him from his birth, as a complete refutation of the miraculous birth ascribed to him. I shall continue these remarks: and I hope that N, to whom the Repository is so much indebted, will take the trouble to set me right, if I be found mistaken in any of my positions.

J. JONES.