and the views and motives which influenced him in it;"-but I think he is mistaken in asserting that Elymas was punished" for the wilful rejection of the evidence given to the divine mission of Jesus, by the testimony of miracles." Surely this was a crime by no means peculiar to Elymas, neither are we justified in imputing this crime to Elymas, unless Mr. Scott can shew that he had witnessed any miracle before that which deprived him of sight. His guilt was precisely that of some modern infidels. Sergius Paulus desired to hear the word of God, and Elymas endeavoured by his sophistry to prevent the natural effect of the apostle's argument; he sought to turn away the deputy from the faith. Full of all subtilty and all mischief, as he was, and already possessed of some influence over the mind of his friend, he would probably have succeeded, but for the exercise of Paul's miraculous power. Any other miracle might have produced the same effect on the candid temper of the deputy; and as it was not the practice of our Saviour or his apostles to inflict disorders, though they frequently removed them, we are justified in believing that there are modes of opposing the progress of Christianity peculiarly deserving of temporal punishment.

Having shewn that Elymas acted the same part as some unbelievers of later date, I now come to another division of Mr. Scott's argument, in which he inquires "whether the treatment of Bar-Jesus can, in any respect, be considered as a precedent for us to follow?" And first, I must notice a misconception of the case; I do not know that any one contends for the right of punishing a man on account of his dissent from the religion of the Establishment, The Roman Catholic and the Protestant sectary are allowed the open profession and quiet enjoyment of their peculiar modes of faith and worship; but Christianity, in its most comprehensive sense, including the divine mission of our Lord, and the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment," is part of the common law of the land." Our civil institutions, our moral character as a nation, our ideas of social duty, our feelings of self-respect, are all founded upon that standard of right and wrong which is held forth by the religion of

Jesus, Nay, the very Deists themselves, whose sublime virtues have called forth such eloquent panegyric, borrow the noblest of those virtues from the precepts of Him, who knew what was in man, though they have not the candour to acknowledge the source of their pure and dignified morality. This being the case, if the blasphemer, the scoffer, the daring violater of the national law, the reviler of the national faith, the misleader of the simple, the abuser of the ignorant, the corrupter of youth, the destroyer of all that is sacred and venerable—if this man be not a proper object of punishment, shew me the offender who deserves it! For the protection of this offender, Mr. Scott would impose an absolute restraint upon the exercise of lawful authority. When they "can produce similar evidence of their being divinely commissioned; when they can act under the same especial authority and under the same divine impulse with the apostle; then, but not till then, let them punish the unbeliever in their creed; then, but not till then, let them adduce the punishment of Bar-Jesus as a sufficient scriptural authority for delivering over the opposer of their religious system into the hands of the civil power."

We have seen that the preservation of one ingenuous mind from the sophistry of an Infidel was deemed by the inspired apostle sufficient to justify an unwonted use of his miraculous power; then, shall the Christian magistrate sit with folded arms, and, because he cannot work a miracle, permit the minds of thousands and tens of thousands to be perverted with impunity? Ought he not rather, under the limitations of Christian benevolence, to exercise that power with which he is entrusted in defence of the dearest interests of men? I beseech you, says St. Paul, be ye followers of me. No, says Mr. Scott, you must not follow Paul's example, unless you can produce similar evidence of being divinely commissioned. Can he then suppose it possible that an apostle, acting under divine impulse, would perform an action unlawful for Christians in general? Let us also remember that this apostle was Paul-Paul, who on various occasions so carefully distinguished when he spoke by commandment, by permission, or after his

own judgment-Paul, who proposed himself as an example to the church Paul, who was peculiarly the apostle of the Gentiles, and to whom we therefore naturally look for precedent in the treatment of Unbelievers-this very Paul has left the striking case of Elymas, a case that in after ages was likely to be of frequent recurrence, unguarded by word or hint that his conduct on that memorable occasion was not to be imitated by future Christians.

But the force of the preacher's argument cannot be limited to the punishment of Elymas: it is fearful to think of the lengths to which we may be carried, if once we admit the principle he contends for. If we are at liberty to reject the example of a person acting immediately under divine influence in one case, we may do the same in another, and our own partial view of the moral fitness of things will become the rule of our conduct. Another fatal result of this principle I would mention with reverence-it tends to raise a barrier between us and that perfect Example, on whom the Spirit was poured without measure, and to remove it from our imitation.

All that I know of the character of Mr. Scott claims respect, and I believe nothing could be further from his intention than to misrepresent the facts or the doctrines contained in the New Testament; but I am inclined to think, that political or sectarian prejudice, or perhaps a mixture of both, has, in this instance, carried him further than scripture, when fairly interpreted, can warrant. I admire and esteem the candid and conciliating temper in which many passages of his Sermon appear to have been written, and therefore

lament that his better judgment did

not suppress the invidious remarks contained in pp. 26, 27. They are inconsistent with the excellent lesson deduced from them immediately afterwards.

There is one consideration arising from the differences of opinion in the Christian Church, which merits the attention of all, and especially of those who profess themselves anxious to restore the faith of that church to its pristine purity. When we reflect how very few were the points of faith insisted on by our Saviour and his apostles, and remember the busy inquisitive

ness of the human mind, the power of association, the influence of parents and teachers, and the varieties of natural temperament, we shall perceive the absolute impossibility of these pristine, essential truths remaining unaltered. The rays of heavenly light must be separated in passing through the prism of human imperfection; let each mind then reflect the colour it is prepared to receive, remembering that the most dissimilar tints proceed from the same source, and melt into each other by imperceptible gradations. The Christianity of England, of France, of Holland, of Germany and of Russia, may, in various particulars, be opposite as the winds of heaven; but all these modes of faith profess to be built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. May we not, therefore, rejoice in believing that these different systems will gradually approximate, like the sides of a pyramid, till at length they will be fitly framed together unto an holy temple in the Lord? That happy period may yet be far distant, but we know that, from the first promulgation of the Christian faith, In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that eall upon him; wherefore, let us comfort one another with these words.

THE INQUIRER.

Original Letter of the late Rev. Robert Robinson's; communicated by Mr. B. Flower.

SIR,

Dalston,

November 30, 1820. Tatter written by the late RoHE following is the major part of

BERT ROBINSON to an old acquaintance of mine, who has given me leave to send it to your Repository. The first part relates to some outlines of his History of Baptism, but which are now uninteresting. The remainder is, in my opinion, as interesting now, as it was at the time it was first written. It was intended more particularly for the use of Baptist societies: how far the remarks may be applicable to those of other denominations, I leave to the consideration of your readers.

BENJ. FLOWER.

Chesterton, Feb. 10, 1789.

"The other part of your letter is extremely difficult to arrange. I have long seen and lamented the condition of our churches in regard to a supply of ministers, but how to remedy it- there's the rub!" In the primitive churches, no doubt, the brethren who taught followed secular employments; and in the dark ages, I perceive, our pastors kept school, practised physic, agriculture, &c. In the present times, some of the most valuable of our ministers, though not the most noisy, pursue the same track; nor can I think of a greater man than he who teaches the gospel by word one day, and by example the other six. Men edify their neighbours, not by immuring themselves in cells, but by associating with other men, and by exemplifying the life of a Christian.

"As to those we often call learned ministers, they are to me the most insipid of all companions; ignorant of what is of the most importance for them to know, and overflowing with the trifles and the gall of the schools. The precise learning of a Christian minister, is a critical knowledge of the New Testament; and this kind of literature fills the pulpit with dignity and edification; for a sound critic is the plainest speaker in the world. Now, it is my opinion, if this kind of literature were separated from Pagan learning, the attainment of it would not be so very difficult as is generally supposed, nor may this be confounded with the saucy science that makes a priest; but fashionable education for the ministry seems calculated for little else. It strikes me, that the difficulty of forming a plan for remedying our ills doth not lie in our incapacity, but in our obstinate attachment to irrational customs. Our plans are schemes of reformed Popery; but Popery is not reformable; and he who would enter into the kingdom of Jesus must be regenerated, not merely reformed. What is a modern Baptist Church but a Catholic Church reformed? Latin is proper for a Catholic boy, brought up to support the Latin Church, to believe Latin fathers, to regulate himself by numerous folios of Latin and canon law; but what is Latin to our poor churches? It is a Sabbath feather to nod in the pulpit, but it is of no use to the flock. Would we then discard Latin? By no means, on condition a youth have money, capacity, time, discretion, and

so on.

"The Popish corporation is a worldly establishment of human creeds; but what have we, who hold the perfection of scripture, to do with human creeds?

Yet, so infatuated are some of us, we call them the gospel. A human creed is a human opinion of the gospel; and who that hath a tea-spoonful of brains, would leave the snow of Lebanon, for these polluted puddles? (Jer. xviii. 13, &c.)

"In short, I think it is possible, suppose a youth have genuine piety, to train him up to be an able minister of the New Testament, without the pedantry of the schools, in no great time, and at no great expense. Suppose such a thing accomplished, are our churches prepared to receive such men? I doubt that. I question whether we have liberality of sentiment enough. A modest, sensible man, master of the New Testament, well acquainted with ecclesiastial history, and an ornament by his life to any party, is not the man to our taste. We want a sacred man, and this is a plain man like other men. We want an almost inspired man; but this man durst not talk so high: he knows no more than the Scriptures teach, and he never utters oracles as inspired men should do, and as apes of inspiration will do. We want a learned man. It takes off the shame of the cross to sit under one who can say Is the parish priest a quid nunc ? So am I.' But this man would preach nothing but English; and you might hear him eighteen months, as the Corinthians heard Paul, without knowing he had any pretensions to literature. We want a guardian of the creed, a defender of the faith, who fills us with prelibations of heaven, such as the glorified saints enjoy, by proving that all men who do not hold our opinions, must sink into everlasting damnation; but this man cares for nobody's opinion, quotes no human authorities, and does nothing but interpret scripture by itself, professing that he hath but one Master, and Christ is he!

The

"My good friend, forgive my rhapsody: I am a little out of temper. A few weeks ago a superannuated minister, a member of our church, addressed a petition to a Baptist Fund for a little relief. Instead of sending the old man money, they sent him a high Calvinistical creed to sign, the first article of which is stark nonsense-" There are in the Unity of the Godhead, three divine persons." imposition of human opinions is tyranny any where, and such tyranny in Baptists is, to the last degree, preposterous. The barbarous Calvin is their guide; and on this ground he burnt Servetus. I do not mind his vain babble about faith. The voice of his brother's blood crieth to me from the ground! This is defending the faith, which yet is not faith, but belief of human positions! I have written my whole mind to the fuudees, for I detest

in the English lauguage of a fertile imagination, united with a piouslydisposed mind, none has been more generally read and admired than Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Many persons distinguished for their taste and literary acquirements, have borne tes timony to its ingenuity, and ranked its author for invention in the class of Homer and Shakspeare. Granger in his History of England, speaking of the writings of John Bunyan, says, "His master-piece is his Pilgrim's Progress, one of the most popular, and, I may add, one of the most ingenious books in the English language." Toulmin's Hist. of the Prot. Dissent. p. 340. He confines this encomium to the first part, to which also the following observations are to be limited. A person of an enlightened and sound judgment cannot fail of discerning many faults in it; he will not, however, be hereby prevented from perceiving its beauties, the inge nuity of the allegory, and the general consistency of language and conduct, which is preserved in the characters introduced. My attention has been lately directed to this book, by the perusal of Dunlop's interesting History of Fiction. His critique on this celebrated work, does not convey a very favourable idea of Christian, the hero or leading character of the piece. The charge brought against him is thus exhibited by Mr. Dunlop :

"It was, perhaps, ill-judged in the author to represent Christian as having a wife and family, since whatever be the spiritual lesson intended to be conveyed by his leaving them, one cannot help being impressed with a certain notion of selfishness and hard-heartedness in the hero. Now he had not run far from his own house,' says the author, but his wife and children per

ceiving it, began to cry after him to return; but the man put his fingers in his ears, and ran on crying life! life! eternal life! So he looked not behind him, but fled towards the middle of the plain. This does not impress us with a very favourable idea of the disposition of the hero, and, in fact, with the exception of faith and perseverance, he is a mere negative character without one good quality to recommend him. There is little or no display of charity, beneficence, or even

of his pilgrimage. The sentiments of benevolence, the whole Christian are narrow and illiberal, and his struggles and exertions wholly selfish."-Dunlop's History of Fiction, III. 66.

On reading these remarks, in order to determine their propriety, I endeavoured to call to my recollection those scenes of his pilgrimage, which in younger life were very familiar to me, and also gave the book another perusal. The result is a thorough conviction that the character of Christian is placed, by this respectable critic, in a lower class than justice requires. The impression unfavourable to the natural affection and tender feelings of Christian, which Mr. Dunlop thinks his quotation tends to produce on the reader, would probably be prevented by perusing the previous account given of his exertions to save his wife and children from supposed impending destruction, and of the harsh and ungenerous treatment he received from them. He addressed them in the tenderest manner, and earnestly remonstrated with them on the urgent necessity of their seeking the means of safety. In vain, however, were all his intreaties. They considered him as seized "with some phrenzy distemper. Sometimes they would deride, sometimes they would chide, and sometimes they would quite neglect him." This gave occasion to the exercise of his forbearance and compassion. "Wherefore he began to retire himself to his chamber to pray for and pity them." Of this he gives a particular and affecting account in his conversation with Charity, in the stately palace of Beautiful, which I think it proper to quote, as a favourable specimen of the author's mode of writing, and as throwing some light on the character of Christian.