for the advice given to him by "one who is himself a pattern," it by no means follows that the adoption of ordination is expedient and useful. Many things might be invented which would, in some respects, have a beneficial influence on the mind, which, nevertheless, might be highly inexpedient, and, on the whole, injurious. Because a certain kind of instruction is good in itself, it ought, therefore, to be adopted under any circumstances, and in connexion with any ceremonies, is to my mind far from being clear. The advice which Mr. B. considers to be so valuable, was given under circumstances which rendered the whole business inexpedient;

66

circumstances which are calculated to impress men's minds with superstitious notions, especially with regard to the validity and sacredness of the clerical office and character." The service bears the name which is associated in the minds of men with priestly pretensions; and much of its outward form is similar to that where clerical power is actually assumed. Besides, the very fact of ministers being the prime and necessary officers on the occasion, must in itself tend to exalt them in the eyes of the people. But let facts decide the real tendency of this ceremony. I appeal to the impression made upon Mr. B.'s own mind. He sets out, indeed, with a specification of the naked objects of the service; but the state of his feel ings about it is plainly evidenced by the tone he afterwards assumes in speaking of the ministers who came, not only, it would appear, to "recognize," to "recommend" and to "aid,' but also to strengthen," to so lemnize," and to "consecrate," by their "presence and blessing." And, after all this, we are told, that no undue authority is attached to the "ministerial character." What! when it is declared to be expedient, that the choice of the people should be recognized by the ministers, though he has already been recognized by all the world: that he should be by them recommended to the favour of God: that the new connexion should be solemnized, strengthened and consecrated by them-by their presence and blessing is there no undue authority attached to the ministerial character? Not" in my opinion." Perhaps not;

but in the opinion of other people, any authority is undue. We have no authority amongst us. If ordination impresses the mind with the idea that we have any authority, it must point to the ministers as the persons in whom it resides, and is, on that ac count, admirably calculated to bring back that state of things, in which office dispenses with character, and the pulpit and the sacerdotal robes supply the place of argument and persuasion.

SIR,

R. A. M.

Manchester, May 15, 1825. THE ordination of priests is a

ceremony that may look well enough in the Catholic, English, Scotch Presbyterian, and all other Churches, which claim and exercise authority over their brethren; but among those denominations which, in compliance with our Saviour's command, "But it shall not be so among you," do not exercise authority over them, it is the shadow without the substance, the name without the thing. In such societies, the choice of a minister is the free, independent act of the members-the people. Their own opinion is the only guide of their choice. No certificate is required of the qualifications of a candidate his proficiency in sacred and profane literature-no inquisition into the soundness of his faith, no authorizing of him to administer the sacraments, and to be in all respects a Christian pastor; there is no pretence of conferring any kind of gifts; no greater aptitude or suitableness for his office, that can be specified or defined, is, or can be, conferred by any ministers, in any ceremony or solemnity of ordination.

In societies of the above description, there can be no proper ordination. Nothing can be more plainly a misnomer than to retain the name, when what is universally understood by the word is given up. Yet, if the empty form is continued, it may, with time and perseverance, resuscitate some of the prejudices and pretensions whose requiem we had sung. O that they were ever dead, and never forgotten!"

Should we ever be carried again by the retrograde motion now begun, to

the point of priestly pretensions and domination; should ministers have any power, or even any considerable influence, in the choice and appointment of ministers (no chimerical hypothesis!), our brethren would be able to learn, by living example, the hostility of this ceremony to Christian liberty. But I hope better things of rational Christians. They, surely, will not spontaneously submit their necks to the yoke of bondage.

But Mr BAKER assures us, that no encroachment is made upon liberty by the new system of ordination which he advocates. We will give him credit that none is intended." But who will assure us that in its progress it will not unfurl the ensign of ghostly power and authority? All will-worshipevery voluntary observance of superstition, is one of those things which, in its very nature, grows during its progress, crescit eundo. We are not ignorant of the puny beginnings of some of those towering superstitions which have long been extensively regarded with idolatrous veneration.

Perhaps some one will say, that by the kind of ordination now adopted, the clerical character will be suitably distinguished from the lay. Possibly it may be so. But it is at the expense of more trouble than the distinction is fairly worth.

As the ground of scriptural authority for the practice in question has been very generally abandoned, and as the passages quoted in the margin by Mr. B. can scarcely be said to have any reference to the subject, we are henceforth, I presume, at liberty to regard it as a ceremony, solemnity, or observance, which is unauthorized and unprecedented in the Scriptures. In them, indeed, the word to ordain, means simply to appoint or choose. From whence it is clear, that no ministers in solemn assembly did or could ordain Mr. B. as minister of the Bolton congregation. Why then should we still retain the word ordination, in that spurious ecclesiastical meaning, established by ages of ignorance and spiritual corruption; and by that means increase the difficulty, in this, as well as in numerous instances, of breaking the connexion in the minds of men, between certain misused expressions, and the wrong

and superstitious meanings attached to them? And is not this a matter of some little importance?

This argument of want of scriptural authority Mr. Baker thus answers: "There is no precept in the gospel for the observance of the sabbath; and yet it is so consistent with the tenor of Christ's teachings and prac tice, that no sound argument can be urged to controvert its expediency and usefulness. Upon the same grounds we plead the propriety of Ordination Services."

As Mr. Baker has not attempted to shew, by adducing even a single instance, the actual consistency of ordination services with the teachings and practice of Christ, his grounds become untenable of course. The teachings, the practice of Christ in reference to ordination why are we not referred to them?

Mr. B. adds: "Neither the present manner of conducting them, (i. e. ordination services,) nor the present style of preaching, is strictly agreeable to the original model.”

I will dispense, at present, with Mr. B.'s producing an original model of the style of preaching; but the argument will not dispense with his producing an original model of ordination services. Where shall we find one?

The insufficiency of the argument is abundantly manifest on another account. Is the absence of positive precept for the observance of the first day of the week, in the New Testament, a valid ground for the observance of every silly practice which may captivate men's fancy?

Also, is it presumed, as the reasoning seems to imply, that the arguments for ordination services are equally cogent with those for the observance of the first day of the week? Sic magnis componere parva solebam.

I will grant that we ought not to argue against the use of a thing from its abuse. But the question now is, not concerning right use or wrong use; it is concerning the use exclusively. If the use cannot be proved and established, it is all abuse. Trace the use to the New Testament-shew us that it is" eminently scriptural in its origin," before you charge us with attacking its abuses.

If, therefore, there be no legitimate

authority for the practice, the gratuitous solemnity of a modern ordination cannot be considered as a case parallel with that of a positive observance, to the time and occasion of the institution of which we can immediately refer, and quote the very words of the formula. But even in regard to that very institution, has it been found so very easy and practicable a task to eradicate from the minds of men, and even of rational Christians, the varied and debasing superstitions into which that simple rite has degenerated, as to banish all jealousy about the introduction of unauthorized rites and practices? I do not think so.

Mr. B. represents the positive advantages and utility of ordination services (when definitely stated) to consist in obtaining the prayers of the ministers for the Divine blessing upon the newly-formed union between the congregation and the minister, and the benefit of their advice and exhortations. In this manner, the minister is represented to be recognized, the union consecrated, and the mutual connexion solemnized.

I grant that the fervent and affectionate prayers of the church at Bolton, when Mr. B.'s real ordination took place, that is, when he was appointed minister, would have availed much, and that a very unexceptionable scriptural authority could have been alleged for such a mode of proceeding; but why it should have been thought that the prayers of distant ministers and the whole parade of an ordination service, would have proved of greater efficacy to draw down the blessing of the almighty and benevolent Father, on the connexion lately formed between the parties, I confess I am completely at a loss to know.

As to advice. If any particular advice respecting any particular difficulty be referred to, I do not think that such a thing was contemplated by any of the parties. If general advice respecting the duties of a Christian minister be regarded, there is enough of such advice already on record; an acquaintance with them is a necessary qualification for a candidate, and, judging from Mr. B.'s answer to the questions, (p. 25,) he did not by any means stand in need of such general advice and exhortation.

In concluding, it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the good temper and urbanity of Mr. Baker's answer to my first communication on the present topic, and to assure both our nearer and more distant friends that I oppose the practice in question on principle, but with perfect goodwill towards those who differ from me; and, that I may not appear to avail myself of anonymous concealment for advancing any thing with improper freedom or severity, concerning the opinions or conduct of my much-respected brethren, I lay aside the disguise of RURIS COLONUS, and subscribe my real name.

Sir,

WILLIAM JOHNS.

HEAR a report of a new College or

shall be open to all; and, in common with all that desire the improvement of the species, I wish well to the design, though I fear the influence of the Church is too preponderant to allow of such an establishment, with the usual University powers and privileges. But it occurs to me that, without parliamentary or royal sanction, which it might be difficult at present to obtain, there might easily be founded, not only in the metropolis, but likewise in all large towns, liberal schools, where the children of the middle classes might receive, on moderate terms, a complete education. A Joint-Stock Company might be formed in each place for this purpose, and would, indeed, be necessary, as the expense of commodious buildings would be considerable, and there would be some little risk in the first formation of the Institutions.

My idea is, that the instruction in these schools should be various, and suited to all classes that can afford to pay for a good education, but that in every department the education should be complete.

The plan would probably embrace lectures on the several branches of natural philosophy and of literature; and it would be perfect if it provided for classes of pupils at a more advanced age, whose education may have been neglected, but who would be able and willing to spare an hour in the

evening from shops and countinghouses, for recovering lost learning, or entering upon new studies.

Hoping that some of your readers may be able to assist me with hints of advice, I am

THE FATHER OF A FAMILY.

Peculiarities of Philo and Josephus as

Defenders of Christianity.

T must now appear beyond all rea

sephus are Christian writers. But a thick veil yet hangs upon the question which must be drawn asunder, and I will then close the discussion for ever. Though historians and apologists of Christ and his cause, they not only do not use the terms Christian and Christianity, but they have passed over in studied silence the personal name, the miracles, the death, resurrection, ascension, and the second coming of their Divine Master, to raise the dead and judge the world. These grand truths make a prominent figure almost in every page of the New Testament; yet they scarcely once appear in the writings of Philo and Josephus. I will account for this peculiarity, and shew that these two wise men adopted, in their writings, a plan of defending the gospel, pre-eminently fitted to defeat its enemies on its first promulgation, and to restore it to its original purity in modern days.

Philo and Josephus, it is granted, do not defend the followers of Jesus under the name of Christians, nor their religion under that of Christianity. The reason is obvious. These at first were terms of reproach, invented by enemies. Christ did not sanction them; the apostles did not recommend them; they no where address their converts as Christians; nor did a Jew exist in the first century who adopted that title as a badge of his belief in Christ. Jesus, his apostles, and his first followers in Judea, and even in the provinces, were Jews. This was their real name; and under this name Philo and Josephus speak of and defend them. Moreover, Christianity is the soul of Judaism; it is the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham; it is the substance of the shadows instituted by Moses; and as Christ himself affirms, it is the law and the prophets

fulfilled and perfected by him. Christianity then is Judaism; and no Jew who believed in Christ, ever considered it, or spoke of it, under any other name.

Philo and Josephus, who were themselves Jews, regarded it in the same light and it is demonstrable that, under whatever terins they describe in their immortal writings the religion of the Jews, they mean that religion as it was taught and refined No truth, after proper investigation, will appear more certain, more unequivocal than this and none more conducive to the restoration and final establishment of genuine Christianity.

as

was

Philo no where mentions Jesus personally; but he frequently uses those terms which dsignate him in his official capacity, which mark his offices and character as a commissioner from God. He notices his divine mission to restore mankind to the lost image of their Maker; describes the spotless purity of his character, as one through whom are to be obtained the forgiveness of sin and the hope of future bliss. He does not indeed notice the violent and ignominious death which our Lord underwent; but he alludes to it, and, what is more singular, by virtue of that death, he sets aside the whole Levitical code, which the Jews had hitherto regarded as essential to the law of Moses, as forming no part of true religion. Even on the miracles and resurrection of Christ, themes to which he might be expected again and again to recur, and in which he might well glory, he has been profoundly silent. Josephus has preserved the same silence on this subject; and it is remarkable that even in those places where he had the divine works of Jesus before his eyes, and where he is studious to establish their truth by means of momentous and notorious facts, he declines to state them in direct terms. This omission may be deemed suspicious: it is a cloud which hangs upon and obscures their writings. It is, however, but a cloud, which, when dissipated, leaves the effulgence of truth the more surprising, serene, and delightful.

The features which thus characterize the works of Philo and Josephus owe their existence to circumstances of an

:

important nature peculiar to those times. These I will bere state with all possible brevity. The reputed wise in Egypt and other Pagan countries believed, or affected to believe, Christ to be some God or a great demon, and referred his miracles and his resurrection to demoniacal agency. This was the obvious dictate of Heathenism, and the natural tendency of it to overturn Christianity was soon perceived by its enemies. The Alinighty delegated his Son Jesus to announce to the world the glad tidings of eternal life. To prove the truth of his delegation, his heavenly Father gave him power to work miracles, and raised him from the grave as a proof and pledge of the resurrection of mankind. This proof, this pledge, to be valid, supposes his simple humanity for the survival of death, on the part of a being who by nature is superior to death, furnishes no solid grounds of faith in the resurrection of beings who by nature are subject to death. Hence the divinity of Christ became an artful pretext in the hands of his enemies to set aside the doctrine of a future state, and to neutralize the purifying influence of his gospel. This was the object of the Pagan philosophers in acknowledging the divine nature of Christ; and it was still more directly the object of the Gnostics, who made his divinity the fundamental article of their system. And this is the precise state of things which gave the writings of Philo and Josephus their peculiar character. The adversary accounted for the miracles of Christ by referring them to a superior nature, or to the arts of magic, or to demoniacal agency. The vulgar superstition enabled the opponents of Christianity with some speciousness to prevent those means which, in the eye of enlightened reason, demonstrated the divine mission of Jesus, and consequently the truth of his gospel, into an instrument to destroy its end, namely, the deliverance of mankind from ignorance, vice, and inisery. The proper course which a judicious advocate was called upon to pursue in circumstances like these, was to sink the means, and insist on the end, that is, to overlook the miracles on which the gospel was founded, and describe its happy effects on the lives of those who embraced it,

and thus to hold it forth to the world as a gift descended from the Father of lights alone-as incompatible with the character of demons or the arts of magic, and as worthy of acceptance by all the human race. The course which wisdom thus dictated, was actually pursued by Philo and Josephus. They recommended Christianity by representing its divine influence, and, meeting its enemies on their own ground, wrenched from their hands the artful weapons which they wielded to destroy it. And if in these days they do not appear to be fighting under the banners of Christ, in the same field with the apostles, and with that magnanimity which characterized the early believers, it is because they concealed themselves in an ambuscade, attacking the advancing foe with masked batteries, and making him feel the force, without hearing the noise, of their powerful artillery. The nature of the service thus done to Christianity, though it prevented them from being conspicuous in the ranks of its friends, supposes a complete convic tion and undisguised avowal of its truth; and to suspect them of false shame or indecision, while they actu ally display consummate skill and intrepidity in many parts of their writings, would be as absurd as if we suspected the sun of not emitting his usual rays, because he is withdrawn from our view by the clouds that are just above us and bound our horizon. We, in modern days, have been misled by our very imperfect knowledge of the state of things at the first promulgation of the gospel, and still more by the prejudices of education. What is here advanced is not new: Philo and Josephus for ages were known to be historians and apologists of the Christian religion. The Greek and Latin fathers, as I shall shew, were fully aware of this important fact. On some occasions, which did not interfere with their corrupt views, they claim them as Christian writers: but in general they denied their claims to this character, fearing lest their writings should prove the means of blow ing up their peculiar tenets as the offspring of Paganism, and wishing them to descend along the stream of time, only as not enemies to Christ and his cause. J. JONES.