only presume to reckon himself amongst "the beasts that "perish." It was revelation that gave man higher hopes and imparted to him a loftier character. But (whatever may be the ultimate destination of things) it was not the whole human race, but those who did his will, whom the Deity condescended, by means of that revelation, immediately to adopt as his children. This naturally leads us to the scriptural view of the subject, respecting which I think there has been much misrepresentation and exists much misunderstanding.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP is represented as the duty of all, and mankind are called upon to join in public prayer because (amongst other grounds) it is asserted, that Christianity and the scriptures reveal the Deity as "the common "parent" of the human race. The scriptures, on the contrary, uniformly describe the Deity as the creator of the human race; and as the father (and that figuratively and as it were by adoption) of his chosen people only. Let us briefly examine the arguments which are commonly and confidently adduced in support of a contrary opinion.

66

66

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" This inquiry of the prophet is quoted by Mr. Moore in proof that God is our common parent"-the common parent of all mankind. The fact, however, is, that as it is a Jew who speaks, so it is to the Jews, and to them alone, that the prophet addresses these question. They were the chosen people the subjects—the children of God, with whom they had entered into an express covenant; their boast was that they had one father-even God." The prophet is reproaching them-not the whole human race, but the Jewish people -that they had" departed out of the way, causing many to "stumble at the law and corrupting the covenant of Levi." (v.8) "Have not we," (that is, the Jewish people) he indignantly asks, "have not we one father; did not one God create us? "Why do ye deal treacherously every one against his brother by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" This passage therefore wholly fails to support the opinion which it is here brought to establish.

"Was not" (continues Mr. Moore ‡) "was not the favourite "notion of our great Master, concerning his God and our God, "that of the universal parent-his Father and our Father?" Was it not, I would ask in reply, the disciples, and the disciples

only, whom Jesus addressed in this language; and can a single instance be adduced in which he connected the sacred name of God with that of father to the whole human race?

66

But, further than this, Mr. Moore asks "And was not this" (that of the father)" the character in which the apostles, the im"mediate successors of Jesus in the great work of propagating "the gospel, in their discourses and epistles, delighted chiefly to present him to the confidence and veneration of mankind?" With all due deference I would beg to submit, that, towards the world, this was not the character in which the apostles delighted to represent the Deity. It was to Jesus, "the beloved son," and to such as, listening to his teaching, and that of his messengers, became members of the Christian church-it was to these, and only to these, that the apostles spoke of the great Creator of heaven and earth in the endearing relationship of being their father. It is true, indeed, as argued by Mr. Moore,*" that the just and liberal "dispensations of the gospel" is "glad tidings to all people," and that "with God there is no respect of persons;" but it is equally true that the good news, thus proclaimed to all, was listened to by but few, and that it was not all mankind whom Jesus expected to enter in at "the straight gate" of his kingdom. He only that had ears to hear was expected to hear; and the apostle John expressly says that "as many as "received him" (meaning, of course, those only who did receive him)" to them gave he the power" (or, as our marginal reading more correctly renders it "the right or privilege") to become the sons of God; EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE

66

66

"2 ON HIS NAME.'

This practice of transferring the language of scripture to others than the very individuals to whom that language was originally applicable-has been, if not the source of many of the corruptions of Christianity, yet the means by which they have been and are defended and perpetuated. The canon of criticism laid down by Robinson of Cambridge, ‡ in this respect, is valuable and important; and one to which in the course of my inquiries on the subject of religious worship I may have frequent occasions to appeal. "The laws "of revelation" (he says) "are positive, and are to be obeyed "precisely as they are enjoined; those given to individuals by individuals, and nobody else; those given occasionally on those

66

* Inquiry, &c. p. 12.

See "Ecclesiastical Rescarches."

↑ John i. 12.

66

"occasions, and on no other in the world; those given to the Jews by the Jews, and by no other people under heaven; those given for a time, for that period and no other; those given to "the apostles by the apostles, who have no successors; and "those given to all Christians by all Christians, and for the reason assigned by the lawgiver, and for no other in the "world." Had Mr. Moore attended to the spirit of these excellent principles he could not have applied to the whole human race, indiscriminately, passages of scripture which evidently bear an exclusive reference either to the Jewish people or the Christian church.

Is God the God of the Jews only?" (further inquires the same writer,* repeating the exclamation of an apostle.) "Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes" (he adds, replying to his own question)" of the Gentiles also." But our question with Mr. Moore is-Does Paul call Him the father of the Gentiles also? and that he certainly does not. So far from doing this, indeed, the same apostle in another of his letters— writing respecting these same Gentiles-calls, earnestly calls, upon the Corinthian church "not to be unequally yoked together with them;" to have "no fellowship-no concord-no agreement" with them; to "flee their idols and their temples, "for they themselves were as the temple of the living God:""Wherefore" (he adds)" come out from among them, and be ye "separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and" (then it is added in the way of consequence and because they had wholly separated themselves from the world, which is elsewhere described as at "enmity with God") then “I will 66 receive you AND BE A FATHER UNTO YOU and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." And yet this writer would wish to make it appear that this same apostle described the Deity as the father of those very Gentiles, a complete separation from whom Paul himself says he is commissioned by Deity to declare as a pre-requisite and an indispensable qualification for admission to that unequalled honour. This is the dilemma in which Paul is placed by the argument of Mr. Moore; even the most superficial reference, however, to the writings of the apostle would shew that he is not himself guilty of this inconsistency. He represents the Christian church as open indeed to all,

* Inquiry, &c. p. 12.

See further Mat. vi. 9. Rom. i. 7. Gal. i. 4. Eph. i. 2. 2 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. ii. 16.

whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free; and he argues, that all ,who enter therein, whatever may have been their birth, or their past condition, become the children of God; but he does not destroy his own work by contending that all mankind are by nature, and without this condition, already the sons of God.*

All this it may be said partakes of an exclusive spirit; such arguments may be regarded as narrow, bigoted, and illiberal. To these charges I am wholly indifferent; the simple question being, Are they correct? Are they consistent with reason and supported by scripture? I confess I know not how any one who professes to value the principles of Christianity, and who is willing to appeal to the authority of the scriptures, can take any other view than the one here taken. For myself, I am content to be regarded as narrowminded with

* For the authority of names I have myself no great respect; yet it may be worth remarking, for the information of the reader, that one of the ablest of the Unitarian priests stands directly opposed to the views taken by Mr. Moore on the above subject. Mr. Belsham, in the announcement of his New Translation of the Epistles of Paul, takes occasion to give a view of the leading arguments and of the general scope and tenor of the apostle's writings. God, he says, was regarded by the children of Israel as being their creator -redeemer-saviour-father, &c. "having been promised an inheritance in "Canaan they were made," he says, "the sons and children of God." The Jews having rejected the Messiah, Christians, he argues, are now "admitted into "the same relation with Deity, which the Israelites once held," and the same terms are now used to express their state and privileges. "All," he adds, "who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and who enter themselves as members "of that community of which he is the head, are introduced into the same "state of grace and privilege in which Israel formerly stood, and are "entitled to the same honourable distinctions. Believers in Christ are ❝acknowledged as the spiritual Israel; the true people of God, his servants, HIS CHILDREN. They are chosen, holy, redeemed, called, and saved: having once been enemies, they are now reconciled: they are new created, new "born. God is their creator, their redeemer, their governer, their FATHER : "they are 'translated out of darkness into light' and 'from the kingdom of Satan'- a state of idolatry-into that of God's dear son,' the Christian community: they are become fellow-citizens with the saints,' heirs of the "promises, and of the household of God!

66

"All these high and honourable titles are applied to them" (not in consequence of their nature, but) " in consequence of their having become "members of the Christian community; and do not generally express moral "character so much as an external state, a state of privilege and profession, "which if they duly improve, they shall obtain the promised blessings." This statement of the doctrines and arguments of Paul, which Mr. Belsham correctly describes as the theory of both Locke and Taylor, is clear and unanswerable; and compleatly exposes the fallacy of the position that the apostle Paul describes God as being "the universal parent”—and man as, by nature, his child.

Jesus, bigoted with Paul, and illiberal in common with the enlightened and ennobling principles of Christianity.

66

66

In the same spirit with the passages already quoted I find the arguments of another writer, Mr. Robert Wright of Wisbeach-whose two works on the general subject of public worship I may also have occasion hereafter to advert to. The error we are speaking of is, indeed, as common a one as it is delusive and pernicious. Mankind," we are told, not only "possess one common nature, having many feelings "and wants which are common," but they also "stand in one common relation to Deity, are all subjects of his government, are alike dependant on him, and the objects of his paternal care. That is, of course, man as man-the whole human race, whatever may be their character or their conduct, and whether obedient or disobedient to the revealed will of God. Now this principle, besides being, as I have already shewn it, in a high degree irrational, is in direct opposition to the plain language and direct import of scripture. The church of God-THE SONS of God, as they are called, are always spoken of as opposed to, and, in every possible way, distinguished from the world-from " the children of this world;" that is, mankind at large, the human race in general. "hold," says the Apostle, "what manner of love the father hath bestowed upon us, that we" (the members of the Christian church)" should be called the sons of God; therefore the "world" (that is, mankind in general) "knoweth us not, because "it knew him not."+ So far from all standing" in one common "relation to Deity," the Christian receives this caution, that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God;" and that "whosoever, therefore, would be the friend of the world is at enmity with God." So far from all the earth being united in one common family, and all peaceably submitting themselves to the paternal care of God, the Christian church was from the beginning, and perhaps for ages to come must continue, in a state of warfare with the world—with its principles -its members-aud its establishments. "We wrestle not," says Paul, (or rather "we wrestle not merely")" against flesh and blood; but against principalities, against powers, "against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against "spiritual wickedness in high places."§ Yet these powers→

+

66

Be

* An Essay on the Object, Nature, and Design of Religious Worship. By R. Wright. Wisbeach, 1805-p. 21.

+ 1 John iii. 1.

James iv. 4.

§ Eph. vi. 12.-See also 1 John ii. 15.-John xv. 19.