66

dead to a spiritual and immortal existence, by the immediate vivifying power of God. See chap. i. ver, 13. The subject of this new birth, or regeneration, is renewed in the third chapter of John's Gospel, in our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus says, verse 3, "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;" that is, he cannot partake of the kingdom of heaven till he rises from the dead, or is changed, at the last day. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," mortal and corruptible; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit," is incorruptible and immortal. The two states are widely different; and the latter we can have no conception of. St. Paul has asserted the same thing: "The first man is of the earth, earthy," weak and perishable; "the second man is from heaven," immortal and spiritual. "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly and as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." This requires no comment. The doctrine of a new birth to endless life and happiness, has given occasion to much controversy in the Christian world; but there seems to be no difficulty attached to the above solution: nor would the terms first-born, firstbegotten, and only-begotten Son of God, (the latter phrase is applied to the sons of Israel, see 2 Esdras vi. 58, a book which our Lord has quoted more than once, and calls it "The Wisdom of God;" see Luke xi. 49,*) -these terms, I repeat, would not be difficult to understand, if Christian commentators had distinguished the sentiments and phrases of the Evangelist John from the words of Christ. For St. John, as well as the other apostles, whenever they speak of their Master, (not historically,) speak of him in his present glorified and exalt ed state. So also does St. Paul. As

The term beloved is also applied to our Lord by God himself, in the Gospels, as it is to others in the Old Testament. Daniel, in particular, is said to be greatly beloved, chap. ix. 23, x. 11, 19.

611

they often also figuratively apply the death and resurrection of our Lord, so they figuratively allude to this great change at the resurrection of the just, in their exhortations to holiness and newness of life.

Here, then, is a plain truth in plain language, and such as is suited to the plainest understanding. And the more we study the Sacred Scriptures, the more we shall be convinced that they do not require the aid of metaphysical subtleties to elucidate them; and that the doctrines of Christianity are as plain and intelligible as are its precepts; or the poor to whom the gospel was preached, would not have understood and embraced it, or received it so gladly as they did. And this truth (to borrow an observation from an excellent writer in your last number) is founded upon a truly scriptural interpretation of Scripture phraseology.

PHILALETHES.

P. S. It is worthy of notice that St. Peter, in his first discourse to the Jews, after our Lord's ascension, in applying the words of David, in Ps. xvi., to the resurrection of Jesus, proves that this circumstance could not be applied to the patriarch David, who was both dead and buried, and whose sepulchre remained with them to that day. And he, moreover, asserts that David, from the foregoing circumstances, is not ascended into the heavens; but was considered by the apostle to be in his grave. And David himself contemplated his own restoration to life, at some future period, long after that of his Lord. For, though David himself “ fell on sleep and saw corruption," yet he immediately adds, (after representing the Holy One leaving the grave and being restored to life again and immortality,) "Thou wilt shew ME the path of life," &c., therefore "My flesh also shall rest in hope." Also in Ps. xvii. he says, "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." I would observe, that the terms sleep and wake, as applied by the writers of the Old and New Testament to the dead, and their restoration to life again, imply in the very terms a suspension of thought and action in death, as the faculties and functions of our bodies are suspended during a healthful repose and rest in

sleep. And they give no countenance whatever to the strange notion of our being awake and asleep at the same time, any more than they do, to the no less apparent absurdity, that we are dead and alive at the same time; except only in a figurative, metaphysical or moral sense; such as St. Paul uses in 1 Tim. v. 6: "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." And in Rom. vi. 11: "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin; but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Indeed, the doctrine of a separate state of existence independent of the body, is the strong hold of unbelievers in revelation; as it is also the foundation of the Popish doctrine of purgatory: but demolish this fortress, and the unbeliever must be compelled to embrace Christianity for the only sure and certain hope of future existence by a resurrection from the dead; and the Popish masses for the dead, and prayers to lifeless saints for intercession and pardon, lose all their support from the Sacred Scriptures. I must make one more observation on this most awful and sublime subject, that the apostle Paul informs us that the germ, "or seed sown in corruption," is deposited with the body in the grave; hence we may infer that the identity and individuality of every human being will be fully ascertained at the resurrection, whether it be found naked, or whether it be "clothed upon with its house which is from heaven," or spiritualized. See 2 Cor. v. 2, 3. This germ or seed is in fact that link in the chain which forms the natural connexion between our present and future existence. It is only from revelation that this great question, respecting the formation of man, with all his various attributes, can be fully ascertained: and we can go no further than what the Sacred Scriptures assure us is the fact concerning the powers of our nature, which must all originate and terminate in the wisdom, power and goodness of our Creator. See Meditations on the Scriptures, II. 72, Note.

your correspondents declares that to be the grand wish of his heart, I think he ought to be heard with indulgence, though some of his remarks may appear to convey censure which it is not very pleasant to hear. Even should those remarks be erroneous in themselves, if it appear that no unfriendly feelings have dictated them, he may be pardoned for making use of a privilege which no sect pretending to religious liberty ought to deny its membersthat of pointing out failings which, in his eyes, appear to hide the beauty and holiness of its doctrines from the view of those who cannot get near enough to behold them closely.

desired by Christians of every denomination, that, as long as any one of

Every sect, we know, has its besetting dangers and its besetting sins; and it has often struck me that the danger which most constantly assails the confirmed Unitarian, arises less from temptation to desert the standard of principle than from a superabundant hardihood; a sort of determination to be a law unto himself; to reckon all caution, timidity; to speak and act, in short, with too little brotherly regard for the opinions of his fellow-men. This is by no means wonderful; for Unitarians are so accustomed to be unjustly classed with unbelievers, that, galled by the indiscriminate nature of these censures, they are often driven back upon themselves; their pride is roused, and hence they are led to rate too cheaply the opinion of those who differ from them. We all know that those who feel that, let them do what they will, they shall still be regarded with a suspicious eye, gradually grow less watchful over their own conduct in those little daily circumstances of life which require circumspection. They would not do an immoral thing; but, seeing that their religious character is already forfeited in the eyes of their Calvinistic friends, they are not so anxious to save appearances here. Hence it does sometimes happen that accusations, originally unjust, assume a far more plausible appearance, in the course of time. Of these I shall perhaps mention one or two more particularly hereafter.

Some worthy members of the Unitarian fold have, I know, given it as

less eager after proselyting than we are. From this opinion, provided pro

selyting be carried on with apostolic meekness and zeal, I must dissent; for it is the conviction of my mind, that the more earnestly and assiduously we labour in this field, the more shall we be respected by those who differ from us. This is an age of strong excitement and it is indifference, and not zeal, which will bring down contempt and censure. The Unitarian Minister who will condescend to take pattern by a Wesleian brother in the unwearied, indefatigable, laborious exertion of body and soul in a religious cause, may meet with opposition for a time; but if his course be marked by mildness, tenderness towards others, and an earnest application of principles to practice, he must, he will be finally respected. It is not from such men as these that the better part of Calvinists and Methodists shrink with fear and trembling; nor is it against such that most of their pulpit invectives are levelled. For our bishops, who sit in high places, and know nothing of labour but the name,-for our worldly ones, who rather wish Unitarianism to remain a small and genteel sect,-they have but little reverence; and oftentimes, I fear, they are kept aloof from the plainer sort of Unitarians by the want of conciliation; the lack of attention towards the prejudices of their education which they meet with among them.

It has often struck me, that many conscientious Unitarians would be better known and more valued by their Calvinistic friends, if the little caution they do exercise, in their intercourse with them, were not sometimes misplaced. They are hardly explicit enough when opportunities occur in stating the grounds of their religious opinions, or rather they shrink from the trouble of explaining to their neighbours, when subjected to an illiberal remark, why they hold these opinions. They, in short, forget, or do not choose to consider, how often these remarks have their origin in mere ignorance and mistaken zeal for the honour of God, rather than from any real illiberality; and they will not stay to reason calmly with those who make them, but content themselves with declaiming generally on want of Christian candour and charity. In this, however, they are themselves nei

613

ther candid nor charitable, and still less, it seems to me, do they study the interests of religion. The remarks of ignorant, partially-informed people, may be abundantly provoking; but every individual ought to recollect, that it is one thing to take notice of every personal aspersion, and another to take every opportunity of rescuing religion from undeserved calumny: that no true Christian ought to grudge any labour or effort in the latter; nor to spare any degree of watchfulness in avoiding such actions as may reflect discredit on his principles. In short, what I wish to see among Unitarians, is a larger portion of that spirit of zealous charity, which led St. Paul to become "all things to all men, if by any means he might save some;" a greater condescension to the weaknesses, tenderness for the prejudices and regard for the opinions of others. I am quite of the mind of the good divine who, when his friend expressed some surprise at the meekness with which one of his flock received a very severe reproof from him, answered, "O my friend, when there's love in the heart, you may say any thing." People will bear the strongest things from those whose hearts they believe to be set upon their good. Instead of this, Unitarians are not sufficiently anxious to conciliate. They ought, surely, to recollect how closely interwoven with the pious and devotional feelings of numbers are those very tenets against which they war. They do not enough separate the pure gold from the dross; nor reflect how rooted and built up in the prejudices of education individuals may be found, whose friendly regard for themselves and their principles it is worth almost any labour to gain.

There is another point on which I would touch, but I feel that it ought to be done with delicacy. It is with reference to the friendships or, at any rate, combinations which Unitarians are led to form with others from political motives. It is so much the part of true Christians to bear their testimony, unshrinkingly, against public corruption, that we should be careful how we say a syllable which might check the career of the upright, evenhanded politician. But it is surely possible to serve one's country steadily and effectually, without connect

ing ourselves with individuals of doubtful character, or known enemies to religion. Granting that all state prosecutions for infidelity are unwise and unchristian; granting that in intercourse (if we must have it) with persons of this character, we ought to abstain from acrimony and ungentleness; still it does seem a plain duty that we should carefully restrict ourselves to necessary intercourse with such. That if we feel they can do us no personal harm, (a supposition which, by the bye, it seems to me can never be justified by human experience or Scripture example,) we ought to remember our often-reviled religion, and for her sake, forbear to associate ourselves with those whose religious or moral characters are at war with all our notions of piety or of equity. Political men are apt to regard public more than private character in their friendly intercourse, as if the salvation of their country were a thing (vast as it is) to be put in any sort of competition with the furtherance of religious interests. If it please the Supreme Being that even "the wrath of man" should praise him-if important and beneficial changes in the affairs of nations are sometimes brought about by individuals whom the utmost stretch of charity will not allow us to regard with a favourable eye,-let us admire his dispensations; but let not us thrust ourselves forward to "do evil that good may come;" let us not drive back the weak brother, and give the open foe opportunity to speak evil of our good. Observations of this kind may perhaps be applied with especial force to Unitarian Ministers; but laymen are too apt to make scapegoats of their pastors, and reserve to themselves the liberty of acting as they please. In such a time as this, every Unitarian should reckon himself (not as a motive for ostentation, but of wariness) a city set on a hill." May he that "never slumbereth nor sleepeth" "keep that city," and dispose us to unceasing vigilance, unwearied zeal and full and fervent charity!

as my knowledge extends, than the reports of the various associations of churches and ministers in the country. In reading them, from time to time, the question has unavoidably arisen in my own mind, and in the minds of several of my friends, Why have we no similar association in Londen? Are we too much divided in opinion, too lukewarm or too much immersed in secular affairs? I hope and trust that each of these questions may be confidently answered in the negative. Let then an individual humbly recommend that this matter be taken into consideration. The Independents and Baptists have long held periodical meetings of associated churches, and there appears no reason why the Presbyterians should not adopt a measure which they, I am told, have found essentially useful in cherishing a brotherly spirit and in forwarding their respective interests.

I could name several ministers in London and the neighbourhood who could instantly put this plan in motion; and may I be pardoned for specifying one, the venerable Dr. REES, to whom the Dissenters in general, and the Presbyterians in particular, are so largely indebted, and whose sanction would probably unite in the association projected, most of the churches of English Presbyterians in the metropolis and the vicinity?

The two other denominations, be fore mentioned, hold Monthly Meetings, but, considering the small number of Presbyterian congregations, Quarterly Meetings might be for them most expedient. At these meetings, each minister in the Union might preach in rotation; and the services of country ministers might be fre quently and advantageously obtained. To suit the altered manners of society, an afternoon would perhaps be more eligible than a morning-service. As in the country associations and in those of the London Independents and Baptists, the ministers and their friends might partake, after the services, of an economical and friendly dinner. Convenience would probably dictate that the meetings be held in London on the two winter meetings, and in the country on the two sunimer ones. Charities of various descriptions would be promoted by the mea