expedient of calumniating his nation; while those only who were favourable to him and his cause, wished to know the truth. On this side of the question we see Epaphroditus firmly enlisted. For Josephus nearly at the close of his work thus writes: "To thee, Epaphroditus, who lovest the truth, and to those who, like thee, wish to know our laws and nation, I dedicate this book." The Apostle Paul, writing from Rome, Philip. i. 14, declares that his bonds in Christ were made known in the whole palace; and he presently mentions Epaphroditus by name, as one who had hazarded his life in the service of Christ. And here the name, the time, the place, serve to identify the friend of the Apostle with the patron of Josephus. The words of the Apostle, though not a studied encomium, represent Epaphroditus as distinguished by sincerity, firmness and magnanimity; as having not only impaired his health, but risked his very existence, by attempting to shield his illustrious friend from the bigotry and malice of his imperial master; and Josephus affirms that he displayed a mind wonderfully powerful, and an inflexible adherence to virtue❞—meaning, no doubt, by virtue, that high integrity, that superiority to the world and even to the fear of death, with which the gospel inspired its early votaries. In the first and second centuries the notion seems to have been general that a convert from Heathenism ought immediately to relinquish his station in society, especially if engaged in pursuits under the Emperor inconsistent with the virtues of Christianity. Clement acted up to this opinion; and his seclusion brought upon him the imputation of "the most contemptible inertness." Epaphroditus followed an opposite course, and he thus incurred the suspicion and displeasure of the church at Philippi, when they "heard that he was infirm," meaning, not that he was sick in body, but infirm in the faith. Vide Rom. iv. 19. The Apostle takes up the term "infirm," and, agreeably to his usual manner, applies it in a new and energetic sense, to set forth his magnanimity and zeal in the cause of his divine Master. "For he was inVOL. XII. 5 B deed infirm, so as to be near death;' his infirmity was only an impaired health, arising from fatigue and anxiety, and a noble determination to meet death in the service of Christ. But Providence interposed and averted the fury of the Emperor; and he was thus restored to be the comfort and support of the Apostle. Epaphroditus naturally wished to visit the Christians at Philippi, thus hoping to dissipate their prejudices against him. With this wish the Apostle concurred; and having delegated him, he calls upon them to receive him as a man of deeds, and not a man of mere profession, iu Christ. The language of our Apostle when speaking of Epaphroditus is deduced by association from his occupation under Nero; and his object was to do away the odium attached to those names, by applying them in a secondary, metaphorical sense to his character as a believer in Christ. As From being a soldier under Nero, St. Paul calls him "my fellow-soldier." In reference to his being a minister or attendant on the emperor, he styles him "minister of my wants." "the slave of Nero," a reproach his conduct might have brought upon him even from his mistaken friends, the Apostle in his letter to the Colossians farther designates him as "the slave of Christ ;" meaning, that while he appeared as the servant of a tyrant, he was really the servant of that divine Master whose service is perfect freedom. As a minister of state, Epaphroditus possessed authority and wealth, and he nobly employed them in supplying the necessities and protecting the person of his illustrious friend. "For the work of Christ he was near death, having hazarded his life to fill up the deficiency of your service toward me." Some of the believers at Philippi had doubtless the means of relieving the wants, and perhaps by their influence and connexions at home, materially to aid the Apostle. But they neglected their duty at least in part: and the Apostle delicately reminds them, that the man whom they disparaged for not holding forth his profession to the world, had the merit to supply their neglect in both these respects. JOHN JONES. Additional Miscellaneous Communications, which arrived too late to come into their proper place.. SIR, HA Essex House, December 12, 1817. AD the Christian Surveyor of the Political World encountered the Plea for Infant Baptism with fair argument, instead of an insulting sueer, he would not have been visited with the severity of rebuke of which he now so grievously complains. He surely could not expect that an attack so wholly unprovoked, and so very improper, whether the writer was considered in the character of a gentleman or a Christian," would escape animadversion. But how far that animadversion may have exceeded the just limits of "due Christian animosity," is a question which the reader will probably decide with more impartiality than either of the contending parties. I do not mean to comment upon the " very bad taste" of substituting an offensive nickname, instead of a grave reason. "This sort of language is too common with such polemics as this writer, and escapes their pen almost as a thing of course." The writer very well knows that Infant Baptism is a very different thing from "babesprinkling," though it suits his purpose to confound them. The subject of the rite may be imperative, while the mode is discretional. And I cannot suppose him so ignorant as to maintain that baptism universally signifies total immersion. I willingly acknowledge that the charge of "wielding his theological hatchet with a more ruthless mind than the savage throws his tomahawk," is apparently very harsh. But this charge was alleged upon the supposition that the writer really intended what his words express, viz. to exclude the Pædo-baptists from the community of "true Christians:" in which case the censure would have been perfectly just. He now denies that he "ever intimated that babe-sprinklers should be excluded from eternal salvation." And to say the truth, I never suspected him of such extreme folly. Yet as he has not explained what he did mean by his extraordinary language, all that I can now do is to request, that when the explanation appears, the reader will have the goodness to dilute and modify the charge in due proportion. I am happy to learn, that this Friend of mine, for with this title he is pleased to honour me, even to excess, in every paragraph of his late reply, has taken the trouble to read before he wrote: I have known some, who professed friendship, who railed unmercifully before they had read. I must, however, deeply regret that the style and language of this unfortunate Plea is so obscure and intricate, that this worthy Friend, after having read the work over and over, "once and again," with "no small astonishment," with "pen in haud," and "a thought of making his observations public," and for this purpose having collected some voluminous "extracts," and, in short, after having read this mysterious volume, "with more attention than any one has ever done, or is hereafter likely to do," it is, I say, quite afflicting to think that, notwithstanding all these laudable exertions, this candid and industrious Friend should have completely misconceived, and most grossly misstated the main argument of the Plea. "I am amused," says he, "with the introduction of Messrs. Jerome and Augustine, Pelagius and Celestius, (such, I suppose, is the present fashionable way of referring to the celebrated writers of antiquity, by men of refined and approved taste,) in this controversy, who, with the most eminent men of the fifth century, are to decide it. They might as well be authorities for all the absurdities that then prevailed in the Christian world. It is not their assertion on this or any other point which has weight with me. Infant Baptism had crept in among Christians before their time, but their testimony is of no validity in this question.". Sir, I am sure it is impossible that this candid Friend should have read any thing in my book with half the astonishment with which I perused the above paragraph. Who would not conclude, from the writer's language, that the Author of the Plea had appealed to Messrs. Jerome, &c., as authorities to decide the controversy, and to establish the universal and perpetual obligation of Infant Baptism? Had this been, indeed, the case, the argument and its author would richly have deserved all that obloquy and contempt which this candid. Friend has so liberally poured out upon them. No, Sir. Of such an argument as this no one ever dreamed. The authority of Jerome and Augustine, of Pelagius and Celestius, is appealed to for no other purpose than to ascertain a matter of fact. And though this candid Friend is pleased to say, that "their assertion on this or any other point has no weight with him," I presume, that it will be generally allowed, that their testimony to a matter of fact of public notoriety, in their own time, is as much entitled to credit, as the testimony of the Christian Surveyor of the Political World to any of the best authenticated facts of the present day. They were the most learned, pious and respectable men of the age in which they lived: they resided in different quarters of the world: they differed materially in theological doctrines: and carried on a very sharp controversy with each other. But they all bore testimony to one fact, viz. that Infant Baptism, in their time, was the universal practice: they all declare that they never met with nor heard of any one, no not even any heretic, who disputed it: and that it was the universal belief that this rite derived its origin from apostolic institution, and had been uniformly observed by the Christian church from the primitive age. Such are the facts attested and authenticated by Jerome, who resided in Asia; by Augustine, who lived in Africa; and by Pelagius and Celestius, who were natives of the British Isles, and who sojourned at Rome. These are facts, supported beyond all reasonable doubt, by contemporaneous testimony. The argument built upon them is quite distinct, and not at all liable to be confounded with them by a discriminating mind. This general assent, this striking unanimity in the great body of Christians, so much split and divided upon other subjects, must have a cause. If Infant Baptism was really of apostolic origin, this singular phenomenon is easily explained. But if "Infant Baptism crept in among Christians," after the age of the apostles, how came it to pass that so gross a deviation from an apostolic institution should have esta blished itself peaceably and quietly through the universal church, so that in the lapse of four centuries, abounding with learned writers and subtle controversies, not one voice should have been raised, not a single pen should have been employed in defence of the genuine Christian rite, or in opposition to a gross and widely spreading innovation? If our candid Friend does not comprehend this argument, I cannot help it: nor is it in my power by any further elucidation, to bring it more within the level of his capacity. To me it appears clear, decisive and unanswerable, and precisely similar to that by which we establish the truth of Christianity itself from notoriety of fact. In what light it may be regarded, and how far it may impress the minds of others in different circumstances, it is not for me to say. But having now advanced all that appeared necessary to rescue the argument from this Friend's misconceptions and misrepresentations, I forbear to notice his personalities and sar casms. T. BELSHAM. P. S. I now willingly take leave of a cavilling opponent to reply to the objection of a more candid and consistent inquirer. T. G. (p. 657,) understands and fairly states the argument in the Plea. Actual apostolic institution is the hypothesis, and the only hypothesis which can account for the universal practice of Infant Baptism, and the uniform tradition that it was derived from the apostles. I have stated, that the permanent obligation of the Lord's Supper as a Christian institution, stands upon no other foundation than Infant Baptism. For though Christ instituted the Eucharist, he gave no precept for its permanent obligation: and though St. Paul incidentally mentions that in the Lord's Supper "we shew forth his death until he come,” such an oblique notice is by no means equivalent to an express command. But the uniform universal practice of the church, shews how the precept was understood, and, consequently, how it was intended to be understood. So with respect to Baptism, the precept is, Go and baptize the prac tice shews in what sense the precept was understood, and, of course, how it was intended. The argument to me appears equal and even identical with that which relates to the Lord's Supper. Especially if we consider that baptizing the descendants of baptized persons was a perfectly novel practice: which would never have been thought of, much less universally adopted, without an express apostolical authority. It is true, that the New Testament contains many accounts of the cele bration of the Lord's Supper, and noue of the baptism of the infant descendants of baptized persons. The reason of this is very obvious: and, consequently, the argument in favour of the permanent obligation of the Lord's Supper may be more apparent, though to a reflecting mind, not, I think, more forcible, than the argument for Infant Baptism. Mr. Morrison, the Chinese Missionary. street, Newcastle, with whom he read most of the usual Latin authors, made himself master of the Greek Grammar, and read the Greek Testament. Hav ing intimated his wish to enter on a course of theological studies, with a view to becoming a missionary, Mr. Laidlaw recommended to his perusal some of the best books on the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and prescribed to him several subjects for composition, suited to his future views. During this period he was also very useful as a visitor in the ser vice of a society for the relief of the friendless poor, established in New castle in 1797. In January 1903, he was sent to the Academy at Hoxton, where he was admitted a probationer on the 7th of that mouth, and fully admitted on the 21st. Here he con tinued about three years, and, it is believed, during this time, as well as afterwards, while at Gosport under Dr. Bogue, he studied the Chinese language under a native of that coun Ober, (p.670,) that it is asserted in tay. But concerning his conduct and a note, that Mr. Morrison, the learned Chinese Missionary, is a native of Aberdeenshire, and studied at Aberbeen, I think it due to the honour of the real places of his birth, early residence and education, to set your readers right in these particulars, which I have the opportunity of doing on the best authority. ROBERT MORRISON was born at Morpeth, on the 5th of June, 1782. His father removed to Newcastle when he was about three years old: at a proper age he was placed under the care of his uncle, Mr. John Nicholson, à respectable mathematical teacher in that town, from whom he learned the elements of English grammar, arithmetic, &c. and was then taken apprentice to his father's business, which was that of a last and boot-tree maker. Though very industrious in this mechanical employment, he all along discovered an ardent thirst after knowledge; and, in the latter part of his apprenticeship, and for some short time after, while he worked with his father as a journeyman, applied his earnings to the purchase of books and the procuring of assistance in his classical studies. These he pursued under the direction of the Rev. Adam Laidlaw, minister of the Scots' church in Silver proficiency in these seminaries, it will be the agreeable province of some of their directors to afford the public correct information. Of his important labours as a missionary and philologist and interpreter to the late embassy, the readers of the Reports of the Mis sionary and Bible Societies, of the First Part of his Chinese Dictionary, and of the publications of Messrs. Ellis, Abel and Macleod, will need no information from SIR, TH V. F. Dec. 14, 1817. HE more I read, the more am I persuaded that “there is nothing new under the sun." This reflexion occurred to me the other day when reading Myles's History of the Metho dists. Relating the first introduction of Wesleian preachers into Scotland, in the year 1751, that honest writer says, "Methodism has not prospered much in that country. One great de sign in sending preachers thither, is to make a stand against the overflowing of Arianism and Socinianism in that coun try." (12mo. third edition, p. 65.) Can any of your readers tell what this means? Is Unitarianism an old and prevalent heresy in Scotland? E. REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame."-POPE. : ART. I.-Unitarianism the Essence of Vital Christianity A Sermon, preached at George's Meeting, Exeter, July 10, 1817, before the Members of the Western Unitarian Society and of the Devon and Cornwall Association. By John Kenrick, M. A. 8vo. and 12mo. pp. 48. Hunter and Eaton. should see what a doctrine of ungodliness polytheism still continues to be." On the Calvinistic tenet of atonement Mr. Kenrick animadverts in the following manner (25, 26): "The heathen superstitions degraded the Creator by assimilating him to the creature; but this theology inflicts on his character a deeper degradation :-for man, F the superior ability and taste fallen and corrupt as he is, is not so ma of the union which it exhibits of a mind at once zealous and enlightened, philosophical and elegant, our readers will judge from the extracts which we shall lay before them. Mr. Kenrick professes briefly to review "those doctrines of Christianity which make it deserve the title of the doctrine according to godliness." He discourses from 1 Tim. vi. 2-4, and endeavours to ascertain whether the marks of truth are inscribed on the prevailing or on the Unitarian creed. An appeal is made to facts (9, 10) in testimony of the connexion subsisting between the Christian doctrine of THE UNITY OF GOD and practical godliness: "Need I (says this preacher) undertake to prove that Christianity, in teaching the unity of God and exterminating polytheism, has shewn itself pre-eminently a doctrine according to godliness?' Rather, let those who would maintain the contrary shew me the nation of ancient or modern times, which has worshiped a multitude of gods, without debasing itself by the puerilities, and defiling itself with the horrors and pollutions of superstition. The mythology of the Greeks and Romans may be called elegant by him who contemplates it only in the breathing marbles which embodied the forms of their divinities, or in the poetry to which their agency gives majesty and animation; but he would revoke the strange epithet could be see it as it was, inflaming the brutal appetites of the vulgar, exercising no moral influence over the minds of the majority, and secretly despised by the lettered and reflecting few. And could the dark grottos of Hindoo idolatry utter forth their sepulchral voice to tell us what rites honour and what sacrifices propitiate the demons whose monstrous images are carved upon their walls, we for the smallest of sins, and refuse to remit fested the most sincere contrition for his this sentence though the offender manifault, and the most earnest desire to return to the way of obedience; or for the imputed transgression of some distant ancestor. Were I compelled to think thus of the Being in whose hands my present and everlasting destiny were placed, I would indeed throw myself prostrate before the throne of his power; I would endeavour if haply I might yet move his pity by pouring out the agony of my soul under his condemning sentence; I would inflict on myself every species of bodily mortification for the chance that he might be induced to accept the extremity of my present misery as a commutation for the pains of hell for ever :-but to call upon him as my Father who is in heaven, what would this be but the bitterness of a spirit that mocked its own wretchedness, or the insolent irony with which a slave revenges himself on the author of his oppression,or a libel on his memory who first taught me what are the tenderness and long-suffering of a parent's heart?" Nor does a modified representation of the doctrine escape his strictures. With particular reference to the statement that the death of Christ was "a public declaration of God's holy displeasure against sin," he remarks (32, 33), "Gospel truth gains nothing, either in distinctness or in force, by the additions which this system makes to it, but, on the contrary, this and every other scheme of atonement takes something from its simplicity, its consistency and its practical efficacy. Some of them may intercept more and some less of the rays of the divine benignity and mercy, or tinge what they transmit with a deeper or a fainter hue of blood; but they all spread a veil before our heavenly Father's character; their operation resembles the optical experiment, |