4

saw the glory of Christ; and Matt. ii. 2-8, to prove the worship of Christ. This, Sir, is part of the Lecture.

As the minister made several incorrect statements, I solicited a personal interview with him, which he refused. I therefore addressed a letter to him, to which I have received no answer.

The following is a copy, with some little abridgment.

"As my solicitation for a personal interview, concerning the discourse you preached on the evening of December 30th, to prove the worship of Christ, has not been approved of, I presume to address the following lines to you, flattering myself you will pardon the liberty thus taken.

"What your motive is for preferring an interview with the Rev. C. Berry, I know not. Had he been present to hear your sermon, there would have appeared some degree of propriety in it; as it is, I cannot forbear saying, it appears to me a dereliction of duty on your part as a Christian minister, (after declaring you believed Socinians were in an error, and led captive at the will of Satan,) to refuse me an interview. I trust this observation will have a share in your private meditations, for if I am in an error, and the matter is of such importance as you consider it, pity, the love of Jesus, and a concern for the souls of your fellowcreatures, should have induced you gladly to comply with my request. This not being the case, I venture to point out a few things mentioned by you on that occasion.

"I shall not notice the futility of your attempting to prove the worship of Christ' from the angels appearing to Abraham, Lot, Jacob, and to Manoah's wife: things of greater importance claim consideration.

"1st. You said David worshiped Christ; in proof, you quoted Psalm xlv. and cii. I should be obliged to you to point out what part of these Psalms you consider applicable to the subject; for if he did actually worship him, Christ must necessarily have been in existence; how he could be, I am anxious to know, when it is positively recorded, Psalm cxxxii. 11, The Lord hath sworn, &c. to David;' which oath you will see, Acts ii. 30, the apostle says was fulfilled. How David could worship Christ, when these passages so plainly and positively say, of the

VOL. XIV.

P

fruit of David's loins Christ was, and did come,' is one thing I solicit you to solve.

!

2nd. You said God the Father commanded worship to be paid to Christ; in proof, you quoted John v. 23, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father,' &c. If you will refer to the words again, you will find Christ uttered them in contradiction to the Jews, who charged him with making himself equal with God. Especially notice latter clause of verses 18, 22, 26, 27, 30. This leads me to notice,

3rdly, That part where your veracity as a man, much more as a minister, is at stake, viz. you positively declared, when the Jews took up stones to cast at Jesus, and charged him with blasphemy, for making himself equal with God, he never denied it, but answered, I and my Father are one.' How you could make such an assertion I am utterly at a loss to conceive, when the very words I and my Father are one,' John x. 30, are the words for which the Jews took up stones to cast at him, &c. I hope it was your memory that betrayed you, or inattention to the subject, else you are guilty of grossly misrepresenting Scripture to support a system of doctrines they do not contain; for I find by reading the chapter, Jesus did actu, ally deny the charge: read from 30th to 38th verse, particularly 36th verse, where Jesus says himself he is the Son of God, which appears to me a plain contradiction to the charge.

4th. You affirmed that Dr. Priestley said the old apostle was nodding when he penned a certain passage, I call upon you, for the sake of your own veracity, to produce the passage of Scripture, with the book written by the Doctor, that I and others may have an opportunity of examining it.*

* He said Paul worshiped Christ; and quoted 2 Cor. xii. 7, 8, Phil. ii. 10, 11. "Bowing the knee," (he said) "was a sure token of religious worship." He read to the words, "Jesus Christ is Lord;" then stopped and exclaimed, What would Socinians say on this passage? perhaps, as Dr. Priestley said on another," that the old apostle was nodding when he penned it." Also, Acts ix. 5, Paul's conversion; Acts vii. 59; Heb. i. 6, and Matt. xxviii. 19; the form here used (he said) was a clear proof that Christ" ought to be worshiped equally with God the Father; else why not say, I baptize in the name of the Father, Gabriel and the Holy Ghost? But (he said) Socinianism, with all its brass, dare not do so." Likewise, that angelic beings worshiped Christ, Rev. v. 11—14.

5th. I presume you do not know that Socinus, the individual from whom originated Socinians, worshiped Christ, or you would not so uncandidly brand us with that name. See Evans's Sketch of Denominations, on Socinians. Unitarians do not follow the opinions of any individual; save Jesus and the Bible.

"6th. You said the apostle declared Jesus Christ was God over all, blessed for ever.' I cannot find such a passage in the Testament. If you can point it out, the information will be thankfully received, as would the passage of Scripture where Jesus commands his disciples to worship him: you said he did command them, but never named the passage.

66

These, Sir, are some of the subjects I anticipated conversing over with you. I trust you will not treat them slightly, because I am an obscure individual; but let me have your opinion in a few days, as truth, and nothing but the attainment of truth, is the object for which I write. If we are in an error, and you do not endeavour, by every means in your power, to help us out of that error, there is,' as you said, a higher tribunal where we must all appear. That we may each be prepared for that awful event, is the earnest prayer of, yours, &c.

"W. R."

This, Sir, is a brief account of this lecture, intended to prove the propriety of the worship of Christ. How far it answers the design I leave you and your readers to judge.

The successor to the most popular minister that has been in this town is equally conspicuous in delivering lectures. I will instance one which he preached on Sunday evening, January 27th, to prove the deity of Christ. In the former part of his discourse he said Jesus was really a man, subject to the infirmities of men, tempted like other men, and died like other men; and in the latter part he declared, Jesus was the only true God; and so abundant was the evidence to prove the divinity of Christ, that the more it was sought into, the more proof appeared.

Nor are the ministers in Leicester the only divines who preach against Socinians (as they call us); but one, within a few miles of this town, stated to his hearers, a short time ago, that it was sinful to enter a Socinian or Unitarian place of worship to give such ministers a hearing;

and scarcely a Sabbath-day passes but a certain minister of the Established Church is railing against us, and when one of his hearers was asked by a friend of mine, if he was not often preaching against the Great-Meeting people, or the Rev. C. Berry, the answer was, No, but often preached against Socinians and Unitarians; but supposed they were some heathens in a foreign land. I can attest the truth of these statements and many more, but I forbear, lest I prove tedious. I conclude with proposing to the serious consideration of the Unitarian ministers and friends round this part of the country, the following questions:

1st. Does not this state of things require corresponding exertions to counteract them?

2nd. Might not this be in part effected by the Unitarian ministers and congregations of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Warwickshire, forming themselves into a district association to disseminate the doctrines of Unitarianism?

The indifference of Unitarians is generally used as an argument against them. I rejoice that this is no longer to be said with truth against them in Leicester. This reproach has been removed by the commencement of a second cause with an adult school, which bids fair to be of essential service to the working classes. I could enlarge on the utility of this institution from my knowledge of it, but at present I omit it, fearing I have already trespassed too much on your columns.

W. R.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, WITH A BRIEF VIEW OF SCHLEIERMACHER'S THEORY.

Dr. PALEY, in his remarks on the Epistle to the Colossians in the Horæ Paulinæ, has shewn, I think, strong reasons for believing that Luke was not a Jew. If this be correct, he could not have been personally acquainted with Jesus, but must have written his gospel from the accounts of others. This agrees with what he says in the beginning of his gospel, where he says, "Forasmuch as many have

taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they, who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them unto us." This mode of

speaking, I think, clearly points out that he derived his information from the account of others. From the history in the Acts, xvi. 10, which is the first passage where Paul and his companions are spoken of in the first person, as we," it is plain, that Luke first joined Paul at Troas, and, I think, it is probable that that was the period of his conversion. He accompanied Paul as far as Philippi, and there reusained (Acts xvii. 1); from which I think it probable that he was a native of that place. Here he remained till Paul's return to Jerusalem on his third apostolic journey, when the same change occurs in the personal pronoun, Acts xx. 5. He remained with Paul during all the rest of the time recorded in the Acts, going to Cæsarea and Rome, perhaps as a witness of Paul's conduct at Jerusalem. From the abrupt manner in which the book of Acts concludes, it seems almost certain that it was written during Paul's imprisonment at Rome, and while the issue of that imprisonment was yet uncertain. Now, as the Gospel of Luke was evidently written some time before the Acts, no period seems so probable as during Paul's imprisonment at Cesarea, when Luke was for more than two years along with him at that place, and would therefore have ample opportunities of inquiring into the circumstances of the life of Jesus, and leisure for writing his gospel. If the preceding statement be correct, Luke must have derived the materials for his gospel entirely from the accounts of others, and therefore any circumstances which render it probable that he had written documents to guide him, increase the credibility of his history. This supposition has been adopted by several authors, particularly in Germany, with the view of accounting for the remarkable verbal agreements in the first three gospels. It has been made familiar to English readers by the dissertation of Dr. Marsh, now Bishop of Peterborough, who supposes that the three first Evangelists used three different copies of a brief account of the life of Jesus, each copy having various additions, some common to two and some peculiar to one. Since that period, the controversy has been carried on in Germany, and the only work relating to it which has been translated into English, is Schleiermacher's Essay on the Gospel of Luke. This writer, from a careful examination of the Gospel itself, observes, that besides the introduction i. 4, it is naturally divided into four parts; first, the time preceding the public life of Jesus, including the rest of