tors,contradict all the settledand inflexible laws of human nature and of the human mind we know of; for they boldly persist in proclaiming a fact which, if they were impostors, they knew to be à lie (and this at the hazard of their lives), and in the temple and council maintaining the truth of it; and that in a city where they must have known they had the power of falsifying all their assertions, and of exposing their imposture, by simply saying let us go to the sepulchre and identify the body of that man whom you say is not there, but that God has raised him from the dead; while, on the other hand, we find priests and counsellors, with every means in their own hands of refuting all these calumnies, and convicting the impostors in the most decided manner, content themselves with remonstrating, with beating, or imprisoning of them; but never once attempting to convict them upon evidence, though that evidence was so compleatly in their power, and although it was of so much importance to their interest and character, that there can be no doubt they would have parted with all they were worth to have convicted them to the satisfaction of the people.

How unlike is this case of the resurrection of Jesus to the story of General Washington. Let that story be accompanied with such circumstances as this is, and then, "let any man of sense and information ask himself, if he could hesitate for a single instant in giving credit to such a tale," though not sworn to, but merely asserted by, twelve poor fishermen of Galilee? Thus then I do not pretend to prove the resurrection of Jesus from its agreement with the laws of nature; but as there is "no Deist that I know of has ever said that God could not raise the dead, or do any other supernatural act," I contend that the agreement or non-agreement of this fact with the laws of nature is not the criterion to determine the truth or falsehood of it ; but that if there is such a combination of circumstances to prove that a man was really raised from the dead as to leave no rational ground to doubt its truth, we must either admit that.. there is some law in nature unknown to us, by which this act took place, or else that God did in this instance act out of, though not in violation of, the usual laws of nature; and to my mind, the evidence on this subject is so clear and decisive, that I confess I do not see how it can possibly be otherwise than true and I call upon the Deist to bring me one fact so well attested, and connected with such a variety of strong corroborative evidence as this is, that was ever proved to be

false.

I have here stated facts and effects, such as appear to me highly satisfactory, and I call upon those who deny the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, to assign adequate causes for them, and particularly for the conduct of the Apostles, who

had seen their master put to death, contrary to their expectation, and in violation of all their prejudices; who had given up every hope of seeing him again, and even were unwilling to believe the fact of his resurrection, when reported to them by those who declared they had seen him ; yet in a very few weeks are so convinced of its reality, as to enter the city where the crucifixion took place, and (admitting the resurrection to be false) where the body might be produced to their confusion, and there publicly charging the high priest, council, rulers, and people, with having been the murderers of a man whom they asserted to have risen from the dead; and this, whether true or false, at the hazard of their lives-I say, I call for an adequate cause for such conduct, independent of that which they have assigned, viz. that they had seen, conversed, and eaten with him, and knew him to be the same person who had been put to death, Here is a cause every way adequate to the effect, and if no other can be given, then is the resurrection of Jesus established beyond all possibility of doubt; for what they assert is not like an opinion or sentiment, in which they might be mistaken, but that of which it was impossible they could be deceived; and though many men have laid down their lives for a sentiment they believed to be true, the whole history of man does not furnish us with an instance of men chearfully laying down their lives to prove the truth of a fact which they knew to be false.

Again, I would ask for an adequate cause for the conduct of the high priest, rulers, and people of the Jews, who, if the testimony of the Apostles was false, submitted to bear the characters of murderers, and to suffer a falsehood to spread all over Jerusalem, when they had such effectual means in their power to have contradicted and prevented it altogether, by only going to the sepulchre and producing the dead body. Would the American congress, or any other government, have acted as they did under such charges, if they had known them to be false? Certainly not. The cause, and the only adequate cause which can account for the conduct of these men, is obvious~~ what the Apostles asserted was true, the body was not there-Jesus was risen indeed, and the Christian religion is true!

I have to apologize for the length of this essay, and what may appear to some tautology; but as my object is not fine writing, but to place the Evidences of Revealed Religion in the strongest and clearest manner possible, those who are benefited by my argument will readily excuse the style, especially as it is a subject which, to be made perspicuous, must necessarily require considerable repetition. Your's, &c.

CHRISTOPHILUS.

REMARKS ON AN ESSAY ON THE NATURE AND DISCIPLINE OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH, BY R. WRIGHT.

PREVIOUS to our noticing this small production, it may be necessary to state, who and what the author is. Mr. R.Wright is frequently noticed in a periodical work, called the Theological Repository, as the Rev. R. Wright, Unitarian missionary; but if we enquire for further particulars relative to this gentleman, we shall find that a few years ago he was known as a schoolmaster and Christian teacher, residing at Wisbeach, but occasionally visiting a church in London, under the pastoral care of a William Vidler. At that time he despised any distinction of dress between the teacher and the taught, and would on no account be called Reverend. His usual dress was a light coat-this soon degenerated into a blue one; the next step was to cover the buttons; and now we find him dressed in black-no longer the schoolmaster and Christian teacher, but the Rev. R. Wright, Unitarian missionary. Thus the writer of this pamphlet has "become all things to all men," even in the most corrupt sense of the text. Of course, we cannot help enquiring of whom the sect called Unitarians, by whom this gentleman is appointed missionary, consists-and what are the barriers to its increase-in order to determine the intention of the Rev. R. Wright, Unitarian missionary, in writing this tract.

The Unitarians consist of two parties; the first, men who have long professed the Christian religion from principle, and who, having maintained the right of free enquiry, have by a long series of investigation given up a variety of absurd doctrines, considering them anti-christian; at the same time contending that a man could not be a Christian unless he united himself to the Christian church, and that in that church high and low, rich and poor, were brethren on an equal footing, and that superior virtue alone demands superior respect. In this class 1 include those churches which were formerly known as "General Baptists" or "Universalists." The second class consists of rich men, who are ashamed of the ridi-· culous fables and stupid dogmas called Christian, yet feel they ought to be religious. But these are too proud to call the poor man brother, and therefore will not join the Christian church, though they wish to be considered as Christians; men who feel they ought to return in acts of kindness a portion of the property they have wrung from the hard earnings of industrious poverty, and therefore, to ease their consciences, they contribute largely to the support of the preachers; who, if thus supported, will benevolently teach men with empty bellies, starving families, and clothed in rags, to practise the

virtues of humility, gratitude, and submission. In this second class also are to be considered men who wish to be thought religious, but who are totally regardless of the principles of morality. These men dare not join a Christian church, because they know they must give up their vicious propensi ties; and therefore they contend a man may be a Christian without joining a body of men called the Christian church. The Rev. R. Wright, therefore, with the same facility with which he gave up his profession of schoolmaster, or changed the colour of his raiment, or assumed the title of Reverend, or became a Unitarian missionary, suits his principles to his circumstances, and writes the pamphlet we are about to review to reconcile the discordant parties above mentioned.

To endeavour to draw the first class from that union which leads men to know one another, and to watch over each other's conduct, or to draw men from a practice well known among the General Baptist and Universalist churches by the name of conference," or meetings, where the members had an opportunity of enquiring into the principles they professed, and performing their duty by edifying, admonishing, or instructing each other, and in this practically demonstrating the inutility of" Christian ministers." To lead these honest men from such practices, by bewildering the subject of church government (while, on the other hand, the minds of the rich and prophane might be lulled in security, so long as they supported the craft of Demetrius and his fellow labourers), the reverend gentleman in his introduction states, "it has been taken for granted, that a precise form of church government and discipline, to be maintained in all ages, was laid down by Jesus or his Apostles ;" and that his design in this essay is to attempt a removal of the evils arising from this opinion," at the same time to promote order in Christian societies, and to prevent disunion," &c.; and (page 3) he declares" it is a true maxim that the government and regulations adopted in any organized society should be suited to the nature of that society;" and (p. 4) we read of the privi leges of a Christian church, and of the end for which Christians united in such churches, viz. "Their mutual edification," &c. And (p. 10) we are told "officers are necessary." From all these observations, we should be led to suppose a Christian church was a compact organized body, even in the reverend writer's opinion; but on examining his production a little closer, and looking at his definition of the term church, we shall soon discover our mistake, for (page 3) he observes-"The word church is applicable to an assembly of any kind. It is applied to an assembly either lawfully convened, or come together in a tumultuous manner: see Acts xix. 32, 39, 41, where it is translated assembly. It is applied to any assembly,

or congregation of Christians, as may be seen by examining the New Testament at large. A Christian church is an assembly of persons professing the faith of Christ. In the New Testament, no distinction is made between the church and assembly or congregation at large, who unite in Christian worship; they are identical. The modern distinction of church and congregation is unauthorized by scripture, has no precedent in the apostolic writings, and involves a solecism."

And did this writer, we would ask, really believe that congregations were, in the primitive times, similar to what are now called congregations, and that as the word church signified assembly, therefore every Unitarian congregation, though composed of men of various opinions and characters, is a Christian church? if we read the history of the Acts of the Apostles, we never find any uniting in "Christian worship," but those who had joined themselves in the fellowship of the Christian church, and who gave proof of their sincerity by uniting with a despised and persecuted body of men. Does this reverend gentleman mean to say, that the assemblies at Athens, Ephesus, &c. to whom Paul preached (and who certainly bear a strong similitude to what are now called congregations), were identical" with the Christian church to which Paul found so much difficulty in joining himself? or with the church assembled by the elders at Ephesus, for the purpose of taking their farewell of Paul? We would ask this man if he has forgot that the Christian church was in the apostle's time a persecuted church; that Christians themselves would not admit strangers to their meetings, fearing they might be spies sent to entrap them; while, on the other hand, strangers would not attend them, lest they might be scoffed at or persecuted as Christians? we therefore cannot help thinking the identifying the church and congregation, as intended only to bewilder the honest disciple of Jesus, and to answer the purposes alluded to in our introduction; at the same time, we think the writer has too much knowledge to be deceived himself in this point.

Page 9. The author says "it is evident the Apostles began without any regular plan of discipline. At first the Apostles managed every thing," &c. The whole of this paragraph contradicts his position, unless he means to say the church had no regular plan of discipline" before it was a church; that a society could not be governed, edified, or improved, before it existed! If he does not mean this, we find, according to his own words, that immediately men united as believers in Christianity, then the Apostles who had converted them put them in order, by appointing the proper officers to regulate the things of the church, and to preserve decency and order in their assemblies; or the reverend Unitarian missionary perhaps means that the men who were com

1