question? No one doubts that Josephus was able to treat of the subject, and M. Boehmert proves that he was: willing to do it, since he must have felt himself absolutely under the necessity of doing so. However unpleasing the topic might be to him, could he, in writing the history of his country, avoid mentioning the founder of a sect which was regarded so favourably as to have members even amongst the residents at the emperor's court? Did not Josephus then make mention of obscure impostors, each of whom gave himself out to be the long-expected deliverer of the Jews? He might, without doubt, remain ignorant of the character of the true Messiah, but he could not pass him over unnoticed; even his connexions at the court would oblige him to speak on the subject. Flavius Cleoners and his wife Domitilla, who were so nearly connected with the emperor by the ties of blood, and who had so much influence at court when Josephus wrote, were Christians; Epaphroditus, who induced him to write, appears to have been one also. Thus the first question is resolved. The solution of the second-whether Josephus did express himself concerning Jesus in the respectful terms attributed to him -was certainly much more difficult. M. Boehmert founds an affirmative answer on the impartiality and fidelity of the historian. He then treats on the internal evidence of the testimony, considering that no reason can be alleged for denying it to be written by Josephus. He lastly refutes the arguments of those who espouse the contrary opinion, and especially distinguishes himself by repelling the inference which they draw from the silence of Justin, Origen and Photius. SIR, WISH, with your correspondent Mr. Edward Taylor of Norwich (in your last Number,) that the Orthodox Dissenters may judge better than to follow up the inconsiderate quarrel which has lately taken place in Manchester. For I apprehend no good can come of it to either of the parties concerned. Certain it is that if the old Presbyterian chapels, and the funds connected with them, do not of right belong to those who are in pos session, they who seem to covet them have no better claim. These persons should recollect that the three denominations of Independents, Baptists and Presbyterians, have always subsisted as distinct sects ever since the Act of Toleration, or rather perhaps from the passing of the Act of Uniformity. And though the differences which existed between them may not in this age appear very important, they were considered matters of consequence by our ancestors, who assuredly never intended that the chapels they erected for Presbyterian worship, and the funds with which they endowed them, should be enjoyed by Independents or Baptists. The champions of Orthodoxy in the present controversy have overlooked this, and affect to claim fellowship with the old Presbyterians under the general naine of Orthodox Dissenters. But this will not do. Mere Orthodoxy will not give strangers a right either to our chapels or our funds-and the Calvinistic Methodists, or the Church of England, might claim them with as much propriety as either Independents or Baptists. In short, the pretension must be scouted by every considerate man, as presumptuous and altogether unfounded, not to call it dishonest and unprincipled. So that even admitting, what generally speaking I do not believe, that by the Trust Deeds the doctrines called Orthodox are required to be preached in these chapels, it comes to this, that if the present possessors have not a right to them, nobody else has, and according to the admission of Mr. Hadfield, the principal advocate of this scheme of spoliation, who is I understand an attorney in Manchester, they belong as unclaimed property to the Crown.* Let us hear no more then of holding property from its lawful owners, or of malverters of trusts, whom Dr. Pye Smith, in allusion I conceive to this subject, candidly classes with thieves. I Surely those into whose hands this property has descended from their fore Manchester Gazette, Nov. 20, under the * See this gentleman's letter in the signature of Another Orthodox Dissenter. + See the note to his reply to Mr. Gibson's questions in the last Number of the Repository. fathers may wait till somebody can shew a better title to it, or till the Crown asserts its claim. So much for the question in a legal view. If the zealots of Orthodoxy still say there is a moral offence in using these chapels and funds for the celebration of a worship which their founders disapproved, they do not consider perhaps how far this doctrine will carry them. On this principle the Reformation could hardly have taken place; for the Roman Catholics must have been left in possession of all the churches and church property which the zeal of our Popish ancestors had founded. Dr. Pye Smith, to be consistent, must include Cranmer and Ridley and the other heads of the Reformation in England, nay Luther and John Calvin himself, in his list of thieves.—Further, the early Christians, after the accession of Constantine, converted some of the temples erected in honour of the Heathen gods into Christian Churches. The Pantheon at Rome remains an instance of it to this day. Are those pious Christians to be classed with thieves? Nay more, the great Apostle of the Gentiles preached Christianity and the abrogation of the Mosaic dispensation in the Synogogues erected by Jews for Jewish worship only. What will the learned Doctor say to this? I leave it for his consideration. The truth is, that the intentions of the pious and benevolent founders of institutions either religious or charitable cannot, in the changes of the world, be always exactly fulfilled. "New scenes arise and different views engage." And I conceive that Trustees who hold property of this kind have a right, when the exact fulfilment of the intentions of the founders is impracticable or inexpedient, to consider what might probably have been the views of the founders under the new circumstances which may have arisen, and what upon the whole is best to be done. At all events they cannot be charged with dishonest malversation, unless they apply funds destined for a public object to their own private emolument. In conclusion, though we may differ on some important points from our worthy ancestors, it may be hoped that in what is essential we still agree with them. They could not, consistently with the great principle of dissent, the right of private judgment, shackle their posterity by the imposition of a creed; nor is it probable that they in general attempted it. It is evident, from the Manchester controversy on this subject, that those who assume the contrary, do it on mere conjecture. The argument of most of them seems to be" The founders of this chapel were Orthodox, the congregation is now Unitarian, therefore the chapel belongs to us." But Mr. Hadfield, the attorney, does not jump so fast to a conclusion. When asked the question, “if CrossStreet Chapel does not belong to the congregation, to whom does it belong?" He says, without the deeds; shew ine the deeds "I can do nothing and I'll tell you to whom it belongs." A modest request truly, which, as a lawyer, he should have known he had no right to make. But it shews that these people are in real ignorance of the subject on which they presume to give so confident an opinion. We may then equally despise the threats and the railing of envious bigots, if, while we differ somewhat from our forefathers on matters of doctrine and of discipline, we take care that our practice shall be no disgrace to them. A PRESBYTERIAN. SIR, S Birmingham, As I am compelled by the charity which thinketh no evil to believe that you would not, knowingly, allow the inventor or circulator of falsehood, the Monthly Repository to be either I confidently expect that you will do me the justice to contradict an assertion which, I am informed, was made in reference to myself by some writer in the reviewing department of the number for January. In a critique on Warned," it is affirmed, that I have a pamphlet entitled "The Plagiarist published a sermon, alluding, I supwhich is taken from the works of pose, to "The Scoffer Admonished,' Archbishop Tillotson. Now, Sir, this statement of the Reviewer's, for to him alone I reply, is altogether incorrect, as a comparison of my discourse with that of the Primate will most abundantly prove. I have given, it is true, some extracts from Tillotson, but they are acknowledged to be his, and in one or two places I have also adopted a similar train of thinking, as was to be looked for in the discussion of a subject too definite to allow of much latitude of illustration; but that the similarity is such as to amount to a plagiarism, I most positively deny, and for the truth of my assertion I refer to the sermons. If the Reviewer has read them he must know that he has done me injustice, but whether he has or not, he has paid me a compliment in attributing my production to the pen of so pious and elegant a writer as that bright ornament of the Church of England. As I am anxious that a contradiction of the assertion should appear in your March number, I make this communication upon the report of my friend, without losing a post by endeavouring to procure a sight of the Repository for myself. J. A. JAMES. [The passage complained of by Mr. James is in pp. 60, 61, of the present volume; the writer of it has sent us the following remarks upon Mr. James's letter, in fulfilment of the pledge given p. 128. "I have examined the charges of the author of "The Plagiary Warned,' with Mr. James's 'Scoffer Admonished,' and Tillotson's Sermons lying before me, and the result is, that I find the author of the pamphlet generally correct in his facts, though somewhat too severe in his strictures. Consciously or unconsciously, Mr. James evidently formed the plan of his sermon upon the Archbishop's second sermon, entitled The Folly of Scoffing at Religion;' and it can scarcely have been unconsciously, since he re fers to Tillotson, but in a general way. Some passages and remarks, and those not a little striking, are taken by Mr. James from that great writer without acknowledgment. This appears to me to be not quite honourable. What use Mr. James may have made of the Archbishop in other publications I have no means of ascertaining; nor am I at all concerned in any charge but that to which his letter refers. As to this, the charge of Plagiarism' is full strong. I do not acquit Mr. James of all blame, but he now appears to me less blameable, with regard to this one point, which alone I have examined, than he did when under the impression which was made upon me by the Birmingham pamphlet, I penned the paragraph of which Mr. James complains. "I must in honour say further that one or two expressions of mine require qualification. The reader might suppose that Mr. James was accused of taking an entire sermon of Archbishop Tillotson's and giving it to the world as his own. This, though a natural interpretation of my language, hastily written, would be an incorrect representation of my own view of the case. I wish, therefore, to alter the statement, so as to charge Mr. James with no more than using passages of Tillotson's without that specific acknowledgment which is usual amongst respectable writers. As I have fallen into some error in the use of the pen, it behoves me especially to be lenient towards similar errors in others; and if my heedless over-statement have caused any uneasiness to Mr. James, or done injustice to him in the mind of any reader, I beg that he and they will accept my sincere expression of regret."] New Version of Isaiah's celebrated Prophecy respecting Jesus Christ, ch. lii. 13-15, liii. 1–12. [Mr. Probert has obligingly sent us the Hebrew text of the above passage, with a few corrections, and also a Welsh Version corrected by Dr. Pughe, but we fear the majority of our readers would not thank us for laying before them a page or two of Welsh and Hebrew, however interesting they might be to the students of these languages. ED.] Ch. lii. 13. L O, my servant shall impart wisdom: He shall be raised up, be exalted, and become very high, 14. So that multitudes shall be greatly astonished at him. Though his form is disfigured by men, And his beauty by the sons of Adam; 15. Yet many nations shall gaze Upon him, and kings shall shut their mouths. For that which has not been related to them, they shall see: Ch. liii. 1. Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of Jehovah revealed? 2. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, There appeared no beauty in him, Nor honour, that we should reverence him, And we beheld him expiring, As smitten of God and afflicted. 5. But he was wounded by our crimes, The information of our peace is by him, 6. All of us, like sheep, have wandered, And Jehovah permitted to strike through him the iniquities of us 7. He was brought forth and required to answer, Like a lamb he was led to the slaughtering-place, 8. By oppression and by judgment he was taken, By the iniquity of my people he was smitten to death. And with the wealthy in his death. Though he did no evil, Nor was deceit in his lips, 10. Yet Jehovah was pleased to smite him with pain. He shall see his seed, he shall be enabled to prolong his days, 12. Therefore I will divide him a share with the mighty, And was numbered with the wicked; REVIEW. "Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame.”—Pope. ART. I.-Three Additional Letters addressed to the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham, M. A., Archdeacon of Cleveland, in Reply to his Animadversions on Three former Letters, in the Appendix to a Charge, delivered to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry, in August, 1823. By C. Wellbeloved. York, printed. Sold in London by Longman and Co., and by R. Hunter. 1824. 8vo. pp. 158. THIS HIS title-page sufficiently explains the occasion of Mr. Wellbeloved's second appearance on the stage of controversy. It could hardly be supposed, that the Archdeacon of Cleveland would permit the "Three Letters" to pass altogether in silence: and it depended upon the nature, the style, and the temper of his reply, whether he would be again noticed by the writer of those Letters. Had the dignitary's able opponent declined to engage in any further combat with him, such a resolution would have been justified by all the laws of honourable warfare. To the increased gratitude and respect of the friends of religious truth, our author is, nevertheless, entitled, for determining to renew the contest: in animadverting once more on Archdeacon Wrangham, he has poured fresh light on many important subjects, and given addítional strength to his former reasonings and conclusions. His antagonist accuses, but has not convicted, him of several improprieties in the management of the controversy, and seems, in particular, to complain, that the charges which, we must be allowed to say, himself has rashly and unadvisedly accumulated against Unitarian Christians, and their cause, are branded as "calumnious." Groundless charges Mr. Wellbeloved has proved them to be: and to such that gentleman has been "accustomed to apply, perhaps not in its most common acceptation, but yet not without the authority of Dr. Johnson,* the term calumny.”—P. 7. Certainly, this is not the most common acceptation of the word. A calumny is a known and wilful falsehood, devised and uttered, for the sake of injury. That is not calumnious, which is not false: that is calumnious, which, being known to be false, or which, (and it is frequently the same thing,) not being personally ascertained to be true, is said or written, in the way of accusation or reproach. The author of the "Three Letters," therefore, has been perfectly correct in charging the Archdeacon of Cleveland, the Archbishop of Dublin, and some other dignitaries, with the guilt of calumniating Unitarian Christians; and he has made the charge without asperity or aggravation. Where, in a moral view, is the difference between the man whose malicious invention arraigns his neighbours of faults and crimes, and the man who, actuated by the same deadly hatred, the same blind and implacable hostility, adopts and circulates the fabrication, against evidence, and without inquiry? Archdeacon Wrangham scorns to be suspected of being governed, in his polemical labours, by any motives of self-interest or preferment. His opponent, it appears, had spoken, in the Letters," of the efforts of those who beginning of the first of the "Three misrepresent Unitarians as " inglorious, but not unprofitable." This Mr. Wellbeloved said generally, and with no individual or personal application. He barely stated a fact, and a fact which he was fully warranted to state. The offence which the dignitary has taken at this language, on the part of his antagonist, is entirely unreasonable. Let us admit that he looks for no preferment, as the recompense of these services, in behalf of the Established Church: we are sure that, tionary, in v. Calumny,' and the example cited from Sir W. Temple." calumniating and vilifyingusually include the notion of falsehood." J. H. Tooke, in Westminster Hall, April 30, 1792. And see Dr. Maltby's Sermons, "See Dr. Johnson's English Dic- Vol. II. p. 570. 1 |