ing multitudes that believed in it, among Jews and Greeks: its converts became very numerous under obsta, cles the most formidable, and persecutions the most cruel, and they conceived and reduced to practice the noble plan of exhibiting the happy influence of their faith on their own temper and conduct, as one of the best means of disarming their enemies and recommending it to the world at large. This is precisely the view which Philo, in language the most glowing, gives of that Divine Wisdom founded on the same promise made to Abraham. It spread from the east to the west, from the north to the south; its votaries became numerous as the sand; its efficacy in curbing the sins of men was mighty as the rock which curbs the waves of the sea; and the influence of their example in meliorating society, resembled the spices of Arabia which embalm the breeze. 8. Notwithstanding the divine virtues which the believers in Judea displayed, their enemies grievously persecuted them, Jesus their head being himself seized and put to death. Philo is very eloquent in describing their sufferings; and his testimony when developed and proved will be matter of high importance to the Christian cause. Many powerful men," says he, rise up against them in their own country. Some of these, being eager to surpass the untameable fierceness of beasts, omit nothing that may gratify their cruelty, and they cease not to sacrifice whole flocks of those within their power, or, like butchers, to tear their limbs to pieces, till themselves are brought to that justice which superintends the affairs of men." The Apostle Paul asserts the same fact in nearly the same language: "We are killed all the day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." And under what pretence were these cruelties inflicted? "Yet," says Philo," their furious persecutors have not been able to substantiate any one accusation against this band of holy men." And their consciousness of innoccence induced Paul triumphantly to put the question, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's chosen people?" But had such violence' any effect in suppressing their zeal or diminishing their numbers? "On the contrary," says the indignant Philo, "all men, captivated by their integrity and honour, unite with them as with men who enjoy the true freedom of nature, admiring their communion and liberality which language cannot describe, and which is the surest pledge of a happy and perfect life." To the same effect adds our Apostle: "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us; for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." J. JONES. Letter from the late Rev. Job Orton, to Mr. Joseph Jevans, on the Doctrine of Necessity. DEAR SIR, in April 29, 1776. SHALL be glad to give you any assistance in my power in the course of your studies; but there is no question concerning which you could desire my thoughts, that I am less capable of solving or giving you any light into, than the question you propose. Indeed, it is a subject I never did understand, and I believe never shall understand while I am in this world. It is the most intricate subject in the sciences: and I remember Milton, when he would describe the employment of the fallen angels, represents them as arguing and debating about free-will, free agency, necessity, &c., &c., and represents them as endless mazes lost." I (formerly) studied the controversy as carefully as I could, and read the books which then had been written upon it. But I never could get clear and distinct ideas upon the subject. I found insurmountable difficulties on both sides of the question, and could by no means solve some very puzzling que ries that the patrons of each side might and did suggest. I never found so much satisfaction on the subject, as since I read Beattie, as he doth not puzzle me with nice scholastic distinctions, but refers to my feelings. And if I may trust them, I think I am a free agent. I have another conviction of it, which is a painful one-a consciousness of having, in innumerable instances, "done those things which I ought not to have done," and which I had power not to do, and having "left undone those things which I ought to have done," and which I had power to do. While I feel my conscience accusing me in some instances and excusing me in some others, (which is, you know, the apostle's language, and his proof of the knowledge and the guilt of the heathen who had no express revelation,) I can no more doubt that I am a free agent, than I can that I exist. And while I feel this sensation within me, the objections against free agency all vanish, though I can by no means answer all the subtle arguments that may be brought in favour of necessity. I cannot possibly conceive how a Holy God can punish sinners, or how they can feel anguish and remorse of conscience, if they are any way, or by any superior agent, necessarily determined to act as they do. The whole scheme of the gospel, which supposes and addresseth us as guilty creatures, depends upon this. For where there is no self-agency, no power in man to act otherwise than he doth, I cannot see how he can be chargeable with guilt, any more than a beast, or a piece of matter, which is acted upon. I never read Edwards' book, (though I have seen extracts from it,) and I suppose never shall. I bought and read his tract upon religious affections, which I did not understand. And how that can be important, fundamental and essential, which a plain and unlearned man cannot understand, is to me a mystery. And indeed the supposition is absurd in itself, and contrary to all our natural ideas of God, and the account which the Scriptures give us of him; agreeable and correspondent to these-I see not how God can be the moral governor of the world, and as the Judge of the earth do right, if his creatures could not do otherwise than they do. How God foreknows future contingencies I know not, neither is it my business to inquire. A great deal depends on the idea you affix to the word contingency, and perhaps most of the difficulties attending this controversy have been owing to the use of words, to which various and even contra- Is it not something strange, that Edwards and Dr. Priestley (whose schemes of divinity are toto cælo different) should both be champions, strenuous champions, for necessity? But thus extremes meet. And you will often see reason to remark this, as you proceed in the course of your studies. When you meet with such texts as these, Why will ye die, O house of Israel? I would have gathered you but ye would not. Ye will not come unto me, &c.; and all those where the ruin of sinners is charged upon themselves, think what an idea we must entertain of God and his word, if men have not a natural liberty to hear and to obey, and some kind of moral liberty too! But enough of this dry subject. The manner in which you write pleases me much, and especially the modesty with which you propose the SIR, March 5, 1825. AM much obliged to Dr. Pye I Smith Up. 771581) for his civil and early attention to the questions I proposed to him in the Mon. Repos. (p. 17). To the first his answer appears unexceptionable. His definition of the term personal holiness is clear and accurate. The second and third questions are shortly answered by an affirmative and a negative. As to the fourth, after giving much attention to the Remarks, I am not sure I understand the answer: perhaps the terms I used did not convey a clear and accurate meaning. I request the favour of you to allow me space in a succeeding Number for a few remarks and one short question, that I may endeavour to remove the uncertainty. "The term Justification," says the learned gentleman, "expresses a state or relation with respect to God. It therefore does not admit of degress: it either is or is not. The act of Justification is the judicial decision of the Supreme Moral Ruler, by which he pardons the sins of those who are the subjects of this blessing, and bestows upon them the enjoyment of perfect and eternal happiness." When we speak of the moral characters of individuals, and use the language of blame or commendation, we usually have reference to their condition, to the advantages or disadvantages of the circumstances they are placed in. So also in our estimate of the attainments they are supposed to have made in virtue or personal holiness, we judge relatively rather than absolutely. Dr. Smith appears to have formed his estimate of "true Christians, who are justified before God" in this manner, in that part of his letter beginning with the words, "As among unconverted persons," p. 79. I refer to, rather than copy, the passage, that I may not intrude upon your pages. Keeping in mind the above definition of the act of Justification, and the rule by which we estimate the moral characters of mankind, I would submit the following question,-Will every individual be included in the act of Justification, who has improved to the utmost of his power the means for attaining personal holiness, placed within his reach by the Supreme Moral Ruler? Should Dr. Smith favour me with an answer to this question as explicitly as he has replied to the three former, I shall probably intrude upon you a few remarks upon his and my views of Justification before God: and probably the difference between them is not so great as from the Doctor's first expressions I was led to expect. The request that I would read Mr. Fuller's Sermon, I shall most cheerfully comply with. THOMAS GIBSON. Two Letters of Dr. Parr's. THE HE death of DR. PARR, which is announced in our present number, will be followed, we take for granted, by the publication of much of his correspondence; which, from his wide connexion, from the talents, character and station of his friends, from his habit of writing even notes in a finished style, and from his frankness in speaking of himself and declaring his opinions, cannot fail of being exceedingly interesting. The following Letters have been already published in the Life of the late Dr. Percival, of Manchester, prefixed to the edition of his Works, in 4 vols. 8vo., by his son, Edward Percival, M. D., of Dublin; but so many years have elapsed since that publication, and it is in so few hands, that we believe we shall gratify most of our readers by reprinting them. The first letter was addressed to the Rev. T. B. Percival, in acknowledgment of a copy of his Sermon on Hospital Duties. This gentleman was the eldest son of Dr. Percival, of Manchester, and, though brought up a Dissenter, conformed to the Church of England. A curious letter of Archdeacon Paley's to the father, on this subject, is copied into the Mon. Repos. III. 67, 68. In the same place is given a brief notice of the Rev. T. B. Percival, who died May 27, 1798, in the 32nd year of his age. The second letter was addressed to Dr. Percival himself on the receipt of his work on Medical Jurisprudence. A correspondent in the Mon. Repos., at the place just specified, had made some remarks upon Dr. Percival's character as a Dissenter, and these brought out, in the same volume, III. 368, &c., a vindication of Dr. Percival's character, with some account of him, from the pen of Mr. Higginson, then of Stockport, now of Derby. Dr. Percival was the first student on the list of the Warrington Academy (Mon. Repos. VIII. 5), and a pleasing memoir of him is given by the historian of that Establishment (Mon. Repos. IX. 201, &c.). A character from his pen of Mr. Seddon, of Manchester, may be seen in the account of Dr. Rotheram's pupils, Mon. Repos. V. 429, 430. LETTER I. From the Rev. Samuel Parr, LL. D. to the Rev. T. B. Percival, LL. B. I returned hither, a few days ago, from Birmingham, where I had an op portunity of receiving the publication, which your father did me the honour of sending for my acceptance. Permit me to convey, through you, my thankful acknowledgments for this mark of his attention; and to assure you, that the subject which you have chosen, and the relation in which you stand to Dr. Percival, gave me, on this occasion, a much keener curiosity than I usually feel in sitting down to the perusal of sermons, even where I have reason to presume that they are well intended, and well written. I am not accustomed to trifle with my correspondents, or to degrade myself by the jargon of vague and trite panegyric; but to you, Sir, I speak only the language of just and sincere commendation, when I say that my expectations, high and eager as they were, have not been disappointed. With striking and peculiar felicity, you have blended the elegance of a disserta tion with the seriousness of a sermon. Your topics are selected with propriety, * "Discourse on Hospital Duties," by the Rev. T. B. Percival, annexed to the Treatise on " Medical Ethics." and arranged with exactness; your style is polished without gaudiness, and animated without extravagance. Your remarks are such as could occur only to a mind deeply interested in the subject, and amply qualified for the discussion of it by frequent and accurate observation. In the appeals which you have made to the passions of your hearers, you have wisely abstained from popular and rampant exaggeration, and the facts which you have set before their understandings, equally deserve consideration from every prejudiced objector, and every enlightened well-wisher to the Institution which you meant to recommend. Through the range which you have taken over the various classes of duty assigned to persons of various professions, you will find a willing and attentive follower in every man who is capable of reflecting on that happy order of things, in which earthly and spiritual wisdom, compassion and piety, the diligence of the unlearned, and the skill of the learned, are all made to cooperate in the great and sacred cause of benevolence. Of philosophy you have employed enough, and not more than enough, to infuse fresh vigour into some of the more important parts; and over the whole you have sprinkled the precious dew of scripture, judiciously and reverently. Such, Sir, are the impressions left upon my mind by the perusal of your excellent discourse; and perhaps you will not be displeased to hear that my very accomplished and worthy friend, Dr. Johnstone, spoke of it in terms of approbation similar to my own, In regard to the advertisement which is prefixed to it in the name of Dr. Percival, I could not read it without a pang. I cannot reflect upon it without strong emotions of sympathy with him on the loss of such a son, trained up, under the auspicious example of such a father, to erudition, science and virtue. Present, Sir, I beg of you, my best respects to Dr. Percival; and forgive me, Sir, when I entreat, and even exhort you to soothe the anguish of his soul, by redoubling your own efforts in the acquisition of knowledge, in the exercise of humanity, and in the diffusion of those sound and salutary instructious which unite the best interests of society with the pure and sublime principles of true religion. With great esteem for your talents, and unfeigned wishes for your welfare, &c. LETTER II. From the same to Dr. Percival. Hatton, Sept. 24, 1794. Permit me to thank you for the kind and elegant letter which I last week had the honour of receiving from you; and to assure you that nothing but the pressure of numerous, and some of them important matters, would have prevented me from making a more early acknow ledgment. I am not only no stranger to the respectability of your general character, but I have read with great attention and great satisfaction several of the works by which you have adorned your profession, and endeavoured ably to enlighten and improve mankind: you have a right therefore to call upon my gratitude as well as my politeness, when you are disposed to ask my opinion upon any intended publication; and you may depend both upon my earnestness to judge rightly, and my readiness to communicate my judgment fairly and respectfully. I ought to do so whether I consider the importance of the subject, or the abilities and virtues of the writer. Last night I received a copy of your work on Medical Jurisprudence, and this morning I have given to the perusal of it all the time I could spare from some critical inquiries which I am making for the use of an old friend, and the result of which I must communicate by to-day's post. I have read the three first chapters, and in no one instance did I feel one mo. ment's hesitation in assenting to your sage and humane observations. The sight of Beccaria's name forcibly hurried away my eye to the last chapter; and there I found some difficulties which, after reconsidering them, I shall take the liberty to communicate. You will excuse me for stating that my father was an apothecary and surgeon at Harrow; that he was a man of very robust and vigorous intellect; that he wished to educate me in that profession which boasts of Dr. Percival as one of its noblest ornaments; that for two or three years I attended to his business; and that I have long been in the habit of reading on medical subjects. The great advantage I have derived from these circumstances is, that I have found opportunities for conversation and friendship with a class of men whom, after a long and attentive survey of character, I have found to be the most enlightened professional persons in the circle of human arts and sciences. Give me leave to congratulate you on the happy and honourable situation of your very accomplished son, and to express my sincere hope that in his encreasing knowledge and future prospects you may find some consolation for your melancholy loss. Testimony of Josephus to ́ Christ. THE HE passage in Josephus relating to our Lord has been so often referred to in our numbers, that we judge our readers will be gratified with the following translation, from the Revue Encyclopédique, of a review of a late German publication on the subject. Ueber des Flavius Josephus Zeugnis von Christo-On the Testimony of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. By C. F. Boehmert. Leipsic, 1823. The authenticity of a passage in the historian Josephus is here treated of.. M. Eichstaedt, in his ingenious and profound researches, seemed to put an end to the discussion of this subject, by proving that Josephus was not the author of the passage respecting Jesus Christ, and attributing the interpolation to a Christian who lived at the end of the third century. M. Boehmert, however, is not afraid of opposing so formidable an authority. He shews calmness and erudition in examining the question, and what he says merits the serious attention of of the authenticity of the passage rehis adversaries. He seeks the proof lating to Jesus in the life and the character of Josephus. His first chapter is dedicated to the life of that author; which was needful to enable him in the second to point out his character. This task was, nevertheless, attended with difficulty: Josephus self in his actions. was frequently inconsistent with him M. Boehmert proves that he was governed by ambition, and by an anxiety for his personal safety: but the Jewish historian in some measure atoned for these defects by his uprightness; for he loved truth, and he was exempt from the narrow views of his nation. From his inconsistencies, M. Boehmert brings out his characteristic points, as a man, an Israelite and an historian. He considers that, as an historian, he was not only capable of narrating events which passed under his own eye, but that he was firmly resolved to declare impartially all that he knew to be truth. M. Bohinert gives examples in proof of this assertion. Being thus qualified, has Josephus spoken of Jesus Christ? Has he spoken of him as he is spoken of in the passage in |