settled, (see Acts xv.) was the first of the councils held by the christians, and that all the other councils of later times, flowed from this. Some even go further, and assume that they can demonstrate the divine right of councils from this meeting; for they say that the Apostles, by calling the Jerusalem church together, wished to teach posterity, that religious controversies were to be subjected to the cognizance and judgment of councils.

:

But let us confess what is the real truth! We have learned to speak and think thus from the friends of the Roman Pontiff, who, when they can find nothing in the sacred books which goes to establish the divine authority of councils, fly at last to this meeting summoned by the Apostles at Jerusalem, as to a sure and sacred anchor. I have no objection, if any one chooses to call this meeting a council: for every lawful meeting was formerly called a council and you may show by many examples, that even the meeting of the teachers of one church was often called by this name. But our meeting at Jerusalem differs in all its character, toto genere distat, from those assemblies of the rulers of the church which were held from the second century, and which are properly called councils: and therefore they effect noth ing at all who seek the origin of councils from that meeting. Paul Sarpi among the Romanists, a man of accurate and powerful genius, has expressed this opinion in his "History of the Council of Trent." Lib. II. P. 240: but yet he seemed to his own mind, to have found something, by the help of which he could vindicate for this meeting the name of a real council. For this reason truly, he judges that meeting to be worthy the name of the first council, because not only the Apostles spoke, and the elders and brethren of Jerusalem, but also the messengers sent from Antioch, Paul and Barnabas. I certainly do not see

how there can possibly be any thing weaker than this. Possibly this reasoning might stand some how or other, if it appeared that the messengers from Antioch gave their votes in this assembly, and sat among the judges, exactly like the elders of Jerusalem. But it is ev.. dent that they sustained only the character of delegates, and left the decision to the Apostles and other members of the Jerusalem Church: they spoke indeed; and there was a necessity that they should speak: but they did not offer their opinion on the question proposed. Add to this, that in this meeting the debate was not decided by the number o votes, as is done in councils, but was settled entirely by the opinion of the Apostles. Perhaps if the votes had been counted, the worse opinion would have prevailed; for most of the Jerusalem christians immoderately favoured the Mosaic law, and sharply disputed for its authority in this very meeting. But the speeches of Peter and James composed these tumults, and prescribed the mode of judging and determining. To resist these men seemed to the multitude to be criminal. There is therefore nothing like a council here: nay, the sentence which was given, was indeed not the decree of the Jerusalem church, but of the Apostles, who brought the doubting and disputing church to accede to their mind. With these views, I must wholly disapprove the opinion of Boehmer, proposed in his "Dissertationes Juris Ecclesiae Antiqui," Diss. III. sect. lxxi. and in other places. He considers the judgment of this meeting pro laudo, as jurists say, as an award, and thinks that th Antiochians submitted the controversy to the decision of the Apostles and mother church, in the way of compromise, or mutual agreement. Perhaps Paul Sarpi himself was the author of this opinion, by whom it is proposed, though timidly and briefly, in book II. p. 240, of the

"History of the Council of Trent." But here in the first place, I question what he assumes, that the Antiochians submitted their controversy to be settled, not to the Apostles alone, but to the whole Jerusalem church. For Luke most clearly testifies, Acts xv. 2. that they called as judges the Apostles alone, with the elders whom men knew to be of the number who were equally with the Apostles divinely illuminated; and not with them the people who dwelt at Jerusalem. The Apostles indeed, and elders, summoned the people to a meeting, when they wished to decide on the question which distracted the people of Antioch: but this they yielded not to necessity, but only to prudence for they had the power, by the authority which they had received of God, to solve what appeared to the Antiochians to be doubtful, without the presence and council of the multitude, if they had chosen to do it: of which authority they give a distinguished exemplification, when they bring together the people who were splitting into parties, and declare how the case is to be decided. Then again I think this the less to be adopted, because, if you choose to follow this opinion, the Apostles only ought to be introduced in the cause as honorary arbiters. They were divinely constituted judges of such sort of controversies about religion: nor was it therefore optional to the Antiochians, whether they would refer their dispute to them or not; but the divine law itself directed them to come to the tribunal of the Apostles. Finally the very words of the Jerusalem decree forbid that it should be compared with an award, or sentence of judges freely selected on account of respect. For the Apostles do not enforce it by their own words, but they give a rule, by the command and authority of the Holy Ghost. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us:" in which words, the phrase "to the

Holy Ghost" ought to be referred to the Apostles, through whom the Holy Ghost by which they were actuated, spoke, commanded, judged. The sense is, "It seemed good to us Apostles, in whom resides the power of the Holy Ghost, and whom the Holy Ghost animates." The same mode of speaking is adopted by St. Peter in that terrible speech with which he rebuked Annanias who attempted to deceive the Apostles. Acts v. 3, 4. Wherefore hath Satan filled thy heart that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost," (i. e. to us in whom the Holy Ghost dwells.) Thou hast not lied unto men" (alone) but unto God," (1. e. dwelling in us.)

us,

66

The following phrase," and to us," belongs not to the Apostles, but to the Jerusalem elders and brethren, who in the beginning of the letter are joined with the Apostles. For to these the name of the Holy Ghost could not be attributed, since only the ordinary illumination of the Holy Ghost came upon them. I thought these things worthy to be suggested, because I do not see that interpreters attend to the force of these words.

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator.

He

There is something in the breast of every one which compels him to do homage to the man of benerolent enterprize. The most selôsh man on earth, acquainted with the characters of Swartz, Bravard, Howard, and Martyn, will respect and acknowledge their worth. feels abashed and condemned, whenever their names are uttered in his hearing. Though he will ridicule the theories of benevolence which good men teach, yet when he sees them carried into effect, his mouth is shut.

In every age, exertions made for the benefit of mankind, have been opposed by the selfish and the wicked. At first they attempt to laugh

them down, as enthusiastic and visionary. If this does not succeed, they will try calumny. They will assert that, these men who pretend to so much benevolence, are at heart as selfish as others; that reputation, wealth, and influence, are their motives. And when they find that even this does not answer their purpose, and the current is setting in with too much force to be resisted; they make a virtue of necessity, and fall in with it, professing to approve the scheme in general, but finding fault with the manner in which it has been conducted.

This has been peculiarly the case in regard to foreign missions. When they were first proposed in this country, the common sense of a certain class of men, whose charity has ever begun, continued, and ended at home, was very highly offended. If the subject at any time happened to be mentioned in their presence, you might see on their countenances, a half grave, half laughing sneer, indicating that such visionary, transcendental notions ought never to be broached in their company. But the little rivulet which issued from the fountain of benevolence, gathered strength as it went on. At length opposition assumed a more serious tone. The advocates of missions were charged with grinding the face of the poor, and extorting from the widow and the fatherless the last farthing of their earthly support, in order to enrich themselves. They were accused of visiting the death-beds of the rich, and forcing their assent to wills which they never made, and which they were too far gone to understand. The missionaries them selves have been represented as men void of the common principles and feelings of humanity, intent only on the accomplishment of their own selfish purposes. And these calumnies still continue; though I perceive that the asperity of abuse is somewhat softened.

Even Unitarians, who have hitherto stood aloof from missions, are beginning to manifest some zeal for the cause. This new impulse they seem to have received from a late correspondence with Mr. Adam, formerly a Baptist Missionary at Serampore, but now a Unitarian, reriding at Calcutta. Enquiries have been sent out, and replies by Mr. A. and Rammohun Roy sent back and published in this country. The result is, that the Unitarians, pitying the intellectual darkness of the heathen, and still more the forlorn condition of Mr. Adam and his coadjutor Rammohun Roy; and being fully convinced of the utter insufficiency of the doctrines and measures of the Trinitarian Missionaries to convert the people to Christianity, do themselves seriously think of an attempt to do something in the way of missions. The plan of operations which, it is presumed, they will adopt is developed in a sermon entitled, "Causes, by which Unitarians have been withheld from exertions in the Cause of Foreign Missions"; preached in Boston and published in the Christian Examiner, for May and June.

As Unitarians have been greatly dissatisfied with the plans hitherte adopted, so much so as to make this the ground of their own apathy on the subject of missions, I think your readers will be pleased to learn at length what is the "more excellent way" which they show us for the conversion of the heathen.

When I read the text of the sermon just alluded to, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"; and then looked at the subject, "Causes by which Unitarians have been withheld from exertions in the cause of Foreign Missions"; or in other words. the reasons why they withhold obedience to a plain command, I was forcibly reminded of a certain parable, where it is said, " and they all with one con

sent began to make excuse." &c. However I am willing they should justify themseves for their neglect of duty if they can.

What then are the reasons which they assign for non-compliance with "I anthe injunction in the text? swer, in the first place," says the and preacher, "That one cause, not the least influential, is, that we think the heathen to be safe as far as respects the future world, even while they are unenlightened by Christianity. Or, in other words, we think every individual will be required to have lived, according to the light which he has received, or has had opportunity of receiving." The conduct of Unitarians then, has certainly not been without some

reason.

If I believed the heathen to be safe in their present condition, I would say, let them alone, by all means. If possible, never let them hear of Christianity; for the moment they become acquainted with its doctrines and precepts, they lose their present happy condition-they are no longer safe. But let us look But let us look at the above statement a little closer. The heathen are required to live "according to the light which they have received, or have had opportunity of receiving.' "They are safe as to the future." The fair conclusion is, that they do live according to the light which they have had opportunity of receiving: else how are they safe?

The author then goes on to state it as his opinion, that the heathen will be judged only by the light they have, and not by that which they have not. He further states that the Orthodox deny this doctrine of Paul; and represents us as believing, preaching and printing, that the heathens, merely from the circumstance that they are heathens, will be doomed to everlasting misery in hell. It is certainly possible that he may be ignorant of our sentiments on this subject; but if he does know them he is guilty of a

gross misrepresentation, and, such abuse has become so common, that it seems almost useless to state our belief. However in this case, it may be we shall be listened to: I will therefore, in a few words, state our opinion.

We believe, with the preacher, "that God never did require of any one that he should be better than he could be; that he should improve means than he possessed; nor did he ever account any one to be guilty, who had not done what he did not know, and had not the

more

means

They are perfect

of knowing, was wrong." We believe that the heathen, if they were so disposed, are perfectly able to discover the character of God from his works; and to ascertain the relations which necessarily exist between man and his Creator and Benefactor. ly able to obey the law of nature, which requires nothing less than complete holiness. But this they do not; and, therefore, we believe that God accounts them guilty, and deserving of everlasting punishment. They have so blinded their own minds by sin, that they never will obey the law of nature; but will continue "to change the truth of God into a lie," as they have done, until they shall receive the On clearer light of revelation. this ground, and this only, we believe them to be in danger of eternal misery.

We have no idea that they will be punished for not believing in Jesus Christ when they have never heard of such a being but they will be punished for not obeying the light which they have, or might have, if they were disposed to follow it. Believing these things, we cannot refuse to communicate to them the light which we possess, without incurring great guilt. "What a dreadful account has that rich man to render to God, who, having himself alone the means of supporting many missionaries is yet suffering tens of