may be endless discussions, are of no avail in the question. They are only tests of the opinion of fallible men in different ages; and as well might the writings of eminent philosophers who adopted the Ptolemaick system, be brought forward to establish it in the present days, as this argument ad verecundiam from the very general belief of past and present ages in the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead. Churches have erred, according to the thirty-nine articles, and on this ground the revolt from the Church of Rome is vindicated, and they who are called schismatics by that Church make their appeal to the Scriptures. From these schismatics I also make my appeal to the same authority, and by that and that alone do I consent to be tried. Shew me a single precept for worshiping the Trinity, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, and I have done.

I offer up my prayers to one Being only, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and why do I so? Because I have the precept of my Saviour to do it" When ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven.". Under this appellation he prayed to his God and our God, and neither he nor his apostles gave any command to authorize us to worship any other person. If I am supposed to be wrong in this important transaction of human life, what have I to say in my defence? I follow the commandment and example of my Saviour. If others are wrong in their worship, we followed, they may say, our interpretation of scripture, or it may be the mere traditions of men. But do not let them inveigh against me, who follow a plain and positive precept accompanied by the uniform example of my Saviour.

The British Critic insinuates in the latter clause of the extract at the beginning of this letter that I reject revealed truth. If he had said I reject what he believes to be revealed truth, he would have spoken correctly. But whatever has been revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures is my delight, my daily meditation. Nothing in this world would be a compensation to me for the loss of that which is my only support in this life, and the ground of my hope and confidence in a future state of existence. I do not

read the Scriptures with the eyes of the British Critic; but to reject any thing which appeared to me to be revealed in them is most abhorrent to my feelings and my principles.

So far from rejecting any revealed truth, I shall be found to lay much greater stress on revealed truths probably than the British Critic does, or any member of his sect. Your pages will bear testimony to my zeal for them, when a celebrated divine among the Unitarians promulgated what appeared to me to be a very unfounded notion that Moses, though a good divine, was a bad philosopher, and his opinion received the sanction of an Unitarian congregation. This divine will be supported by no small part of the Newtonians; but to me the first chapter of Genesis conveys the strongest proofs of its divine original. With the first sentence my faith begins, nor is it shaken by the taunts of philosophers in the whole of the history from the formation of the first man to the final triumph over the serpent delineated in the Revelation. I firmly believe in the temptation of our first mother, and moreover, that every one of her children has been or will be subject to similar trials till the head of the serpent is completely crushed, as foretold in the earliest prophecy upon record. But my faith does not presume to parcel out the Godhead, being content with the command, "There is only one God," of whose attributes I can have but a very imperfect knowledge, being contented with the conviction that he is my Father, and is more willing to attend to my petitions than any earthly father is to those of his children. Far from indulging in vain speculations respecting him who is unsearchable and past finding out, my faith is like that of Abraham, founded on the conviction that what he has promised he is able to perform; and having seen the completion of much that he has promised, I have not the least doubt that what remains will in the same manner be fulfilled, and in spite of all the contradictions of the world and of the opposition to divine truth, more by professing Christians than professed Infidels, his kingdom will be finally established. I shall have quitted this scene of existence, but the glorious

day will come when all enemies shall be put under foot, truth shall be established in the earth, and love, universal love, will be the glorious theme of all nations.

The belief in only one God, as distinguished from that of three persons in the Godhead, is acknowledged by persons who are not Christians; and notwithstanding what I have said above, my right even to the title of Christian may be called in question, because I may entertain erroneous

opinions not only with respect to the person of our Saviour, but also to the nature of his mission. Great have been the discussions lately on what is called the Atonement, and this word as rendered by different writers in reference to the death of Christ, sets them in hostility to each other, and they combat their opponents' opinions with all the arms that ridicule, sarcasm, and levity can bring to their aid. The word itself occurs, I believe, only once in the New Testament, and in the margin it is rendered by the translators reconciliation, which, in fact, is the true rendering of the Greek word. I am a firm believer in the reconciliation by the death of Christ, whom I look up to as my Saviour who was sent to make us sons of God, through whom alone is eternal life, not as some Unitarians say as a mere teacher, but as Paul expresses it, Eternal life is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. As through Adam we all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. Adam's sin produced death, Christ's obedience produced life. I acknowledge my obligations to Christ as my teacher, but these are slight compared to the debt of gratitude I owe to him in that comprehensive word so often used by his faithful missionaries, our Saviour. But all this is consistent with the distinction pointed out so accurately by Paul, between the Supreme and his beloved Son. To us there is only one God even the Father, and one Lord even Jesus Christ. I bow the knee therefore as the apos

tle did to the God and Father of our

Lord Jesus Christ, and to him alone, without any impeachment of the re

verence due to our Saviour in his character of Lord.

I was not aware when I begun, that this subject would have carried

me to so great a length; and as other points in the charge of the British Critic remain to be answered, you will perhaps indulge me with a place in a future Repository, when I shall endeavour to shew, that what the Critic has advanced against me and Unitarianism, it is not in his power to substantiate.

SIR,

W. FREND.

HAVE heard much wonder expressed at Dr. J. Jones's novel hypothesis that Josephus was a concealed Christian. But there is nothing new under the sun. Let your readers look into Whiston's Collection of Authentic Records, Part II. p. 960, and they will see that this learned man confidently affirms that Josephus" was no other than a Nazarene or Ebionite Christian, and with them (the Ebionites) esteemned our Saviour to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary." Honest Whiston laments over both "the Nazarenes or Ebionites, whom we now call Socinians" and the Athanasians, and says they are all convicted of their errors by the "denial of supernatural gifts." CANTABRIGIENSIS.

SIR,

HAVE been much surprised at

some recent compilers of Hymnbooks ascribing to Andrew Marvell the beautiful devotional poems, beginning "The spacious firmament on high," and "When all thy mercies, ( my God," which have been for a century regarded as Mr. Addison's. The only authority that I am aware of for this substitution of Marvell's name is Captain Thompson's statement, in his Preface to the 4to edition of Marvell's Works, in 3 volumes, published in 1776, that these with other poems were found in a manuscript of the Hull patriot's. On so slender a foundation, who would place so serious a charge against the pious Addison as every one knows is implied in the alteration? Nothing is extant of Marvell's undoubted writing which shews him to have been capable of writing verses of so much polish and sweetness as the hymns in question.

A PSALMODIST.

ART. I.-Not Paul, but Jesus. By Gamaliel Smith, Esq. London, 1823. Printed for John Hunt. 8vo. Pp. 403.

THE

HERE are four propositions concerning Paul, to the proof of which we shall apply ourselves :That his conversion was miraculous and real-that his divine commission was recognized by the rest of the apostles-that his views and conduct were perfectly disinterested-and that his writings authenticate themselves and the history of his labours.

The conversion of Paul was the effect not of a mere impulse upon his mind- an impulse which ordinary eircumstances might have occasioned -but of a miracle properly so styled: and it was a genuine or inward conversion, as distinguished from only an outward change of manners and deportment.

*

There was, we repeat, an actual miracle in the case. The event did not occur in a "secret chamber," and, therefore, did not resemble the alleged instances of Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, and of Colonel Gardiner; from both of which it differed as in other circumstances so in the fact of its having witnesses and spectators. We must carefully discriminate between the sincerity of a man's impression and its correctness. In the two examples that we have adduced, and in some resembling them, we cannot justly doubt of the parties having been ingenuous: they felt what they reported, they believed what they declared; yet testimony additional to

* Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, &c., (4th ed.,) Vol. I. pp. 24, &c. Lord Orford's Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors, &c. A. D. 1648.

+ Doddridge's "Remarkable Passages in the Life of the Honourable Colonel James Gardiner."-"That the impression made upon his" [Col. G.'s]" mind was in a dream, is sufficiently intimated to be the opinion of Dr. Doddridge.

As a dream it may very rationally be accounted for from the predisposing circumstances." Kippis's Life of Doddridge, cii., and Biog. Brit., 2d ed., V. 289.

their own is requisite, before we can be satisfied of the miraculousness of the appearance. Does the account, however, of Paul's conversion depend merely on the evidence of the individual himself? Does it rest on the authority of his historian? Our reply must be in the negative. Mes were not wanting who, on their personal the transaction: it took place on a knowledge, could attest the reality of public road, and in open day; and the attendants of the future apostle would not have failed to contradict him, had contradiction been practi

cable.

If we compare Luke's narrative with Paul's statements of the facts, we shall perceive the sure mark of truthsubstantial agreement in the relation, accompanied by some variety in the language. The candid and attentive reader will discern, that the immediate effect of the miracle was the utter astonishment of Saul and his companions; that the articulate sounds of the voice were distinctly heard by himself alone, while his associates, nevertheless, both saw the light, and were, in some measure, sensible of a noise; and that these men were so overpowered by the effulgence, as to remain silent, even after they had risen from the ground. The supposed contradiction of Acts ix. 7, to Acts xxii. 9, is well explained by Mr. Biscoe, who pertinently cites John xii. 28, 29, where it is said, "Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again: the people therefore that stood by and heard it, said that it thundered, others said that an angel spake unto him." Many of the bystanders heard only a noise like thunder, but heard not the particular words spoken. So it was with St. Paul's companions. They heard a sound, probably like that of thunder, but heard not the particular words spoken. It must also be observed, that the word akaa signifies to understand as

Acts ix., xxii., xxvi.

+ Sermons at Boyle's Lecture, &c. 665, 666.

that Paul's instructions accorded entirely with his great Master's, and, by consequence, with the preaching of the body of the apostles.

True; Paul was specially appointed to be the Apostle of the Gentiles; while the services of his fellow-labourers were directed to the Jews. The distinction is precisely what the infant state of the church required: they wrought in different fields, yet under one Lord, and for one and the same purpose; nor were their objects in any degree mutually opposed. Must we not regard this condition of things as being strictly agreeable to nature and to truth? Is it not presumptive of the genuineness of the history, and of the divine origin of the Gospel?

Upon one occasion, a dispute arose between Paul and Peter: and hence some persons heve inferred the absence of a recognition of the claims of the apostle to the Heathens, on the part of the apostle to the circumcision. The inference is perfectly unjustifiable. * Their dispute was of short duration: it grew out of Peter's temporizing spirit, and placed the enlightened zeal and inflexible honesty of Paul in the fairest point of view; it proves, moreover, that these illustrious men did not combine with each other to impose a fraud upon the world-and thus it becomes a separate and resistless argument in behalf of Christianity.

The apostles then co-operated with Paul. Would they have done so, had they discredited his conversion and his mission? Let the case be examined on the principles of human nature, on the laws of historical testimony: let it be decided by means of a rigorous application of those principles and laws to Luke's narrative and Paul's Epistles; and we cannot doubt as to what must be the answer.

We further maintain that the views and the conduct of Paul were entirely disinterested; that he was free from the influence of covetousness, of ambition, and of every sinister and merely selfish motive; and that he had a mind supremely intent on advancing the glory of God, the interests of his Saviour, and the highest welfare of mankind.

It is a strange and a novel intima

* Mon. Repos. VII. 699, &c.

tion, that avarice might prompt him to assume the profession of a Christian. Saul was evidently a person of no mean rank and consideration among his countrymen. Hence we may with reason judge it probable that he be longed to a family in easy circumstances, and surrendered all hope of sharing in its temporal advantages, when he embraced the religion, and entered into the specific service, of Jesus Christ. What, though he had learned a trade, by the exercise of which he afterwards gained a livelihood? Every Jew, even the most intelligent and accomplished, passed through the same discipline, and was taught to labour with his hands. * The education that Saul of Tarsus received, was not of an ordinary kind: and can a person of sound understanding fancy that such a man, by the act of joining the first Christians, would not forego and lose far more property than he could thence acquire?

Of what funds was the infant church possessed? To read and hear the language of certain individuals, on this subject, we might suppose that not a few of the apostle's followers were men of affluence. The contrary was the truth. Not many rich were called. Barnabas and some others, undoubtedly, sold estates, and threw the produce into a common stock, for the supply of common wants. But this was a spontaneous and a temporary measure the whole amount of the sums so contributed, would be inconsiderable; nor do we find that Paul had any controul over it, or any share in distributing it. That the hope of partaking in the management of such a fund might govern him, is one of the wildest of imaginations: and he who can form this opinion, shews how nearly allied to each other are scepticism and credulity. Whether the common property of which we are speaking existed after Saul's conversion, is far from being evident. Of the collections subsequently made, among a different class of believers, for the distressed Christians at Jerusalem, he, beyond question, was a bearer. Yet we cannot have forgotten his wise, disinterested conduct, on the

* See Michaelis' admirable chapter on the Character, &c. of St. Paul, Introd., &c., (Marsh,) IV. Ch. xxiii.