philus and others from the truth, by pretending that they had been eyewitnesses of the falsehoods which they recorded. The other Evangelists make no such display of their credibility, for this reason, that they wrote in circumstances where it was not neces sary. The case is evidently so. Luke published his Gospel in Egypt, where many spurious gospels were in circulation, the authors of which, as we may reasonably suppose, had never seen the blessed Jesus, yet pretended to have been in the number of his disciples, and to have witnessed the fictions recorded by them. The Evangelist glances at their pretensions in this respect, when he says that the things about which many attempted to write "had been fulfilled among them," that is, among the Jewish believers in Judea, and not among pretended believers in Egypt. I was anxious to see what Boehmert has said about the disputed passage in Josephus; and I confess that the view given of his work has greatly disappointed me. I earnestly hoped that the writer had discovered the true character of the Jewish historian with regard to Christianity: but he has not; all, then, that he says, or can say, resolves itself into this,-A testimony to the miracles, the divine wis dom, the love of truth, the resurrection of Jesus; in short, to the justness of his claims as the Messiah, came from the hands of a man who himself did not believe in those miracles, who himself did not accede to those claims. Is this credible? No; whatever any writer, however learned, acute or profound, may say in support of a proposition so absurd, must all necessarily fall, like a dead weight, to the ground. But reverse the case: prove, as it may be proved with absolute certainty, that Josephus, in his works, is the historian, is the apologist, of the gospel, and all the objections to the authenticity of the controverted paragraph, become a heap of rubbish to be flung on the sand. When this is proved, such considerations as Boehmert may have adduced, will appear pleasing characteristics of the truth, and will have their full weight. When Echstædt and others talk of the passage being an interpolation inserted in Josephus, at the end of the third cen tury, they talk like children about what they do not understand. Josephus was a writer in the hands not only of the Christians, but of their enemies-the Pagans on one hand, the Jews on the other; and could a forger interpolate copies in the possession of innumerable foes? Could it be inserted in all the copies possessed even by the Christians, without being noticed and exposed by adversaries who were learned, able, and ever on the watch to detect forgeries in the opponents they cordially hated? If the passage were a forgery, then the books of Josephus, in the hands of the Jews at least, were without it. Some copies,. some versions, at least, would have come down to posterity without the disputed testimony. But no copy, no version, no manuscript, was ever found that did not contain the account which the Jewish historian gives of Jesus Christ. The writer of the disputed passage, whoever he might be, was an Ebionite, or, as we should now say, an Unitarian. What he asserts of Jesus, is but a syllabus of the Gospel of Matthew, beginning in substance with the third, and ending with the twentyeighth chapter. The contents of the first two, respecting our Lord's miraculous birth, he passes over as foreign to his true history; and not content with this negative testimony, he brings forward, in the context, the men who taught his divinity and supernatural birth, as wicked in every respect. On the other hand, in the third century and afterwards, the belief of these Pagan dogmas was universal; and those who deny the genuineness of this passage, call upon us to believe, that a forger in those times foisted into the works of Josephus a paragraph calculated to set aside his own sentiments; and that Eusebius and the ecclesiastical writers who succeeded him, concurred in the cheat, with no other prospect than the overthrow of those tenets which they considered essential to the Christian faith. This view of the question places the adversaries of the disputed testimony in their proper light. The objections which they urge, and on which they insist as on a solid rock, become at one glance a heap of sand; and the objectors themselves, like what we read of the wife of Lot, struck with favoured me with some animadversions on a note in a former communication, in which I had turned out of my way to put the designation of thieves upon two classes of men whose existence in real life is, unhappily, not very uncommon. But I made no applications. None can be hurt but those whom consciousness or public opinion charges with being literary plagiarists or perverters of trusts. I do not wish, however, to shelter myself thus from the observations which your correspondent has honourably and candidly made: nor, on the other hand, shall I make myself a party in the Manchester controversy. That may be very well left with those gentlemen who roused it, or who have since engaged in it. But, as I am sure you will allow me that freedom, I trust that your correspondent will not be displeased at my laying down a few positions which appear to me to be the dictates of reason in this matter. If I am mistaken, I shall be thankful to be corrected. I. As all sound writers on morals maintain that oaths are to be understood according to the mind of the imposer, so all other promissory engagements are to be understood, undertaken, and fulfilled according to the mind of the requirer. II. Trusteeships, whether created by deeds of gift or by wills, are a species of promissory engagements. III. Trustees are bound to fulfil the known intentions of founders or testators, faithfully and strictly, unless they be immoral, in which case the engagement is void from the beginning; or have become, from change of circumstances, physically impossible. IV. If, in any case, such an impossibility have accrued, it is the duty of trustees to approximate as closely as possible to the known intention of the trust. Your correspondent truly states that "the intentions of the pious and benevolent founders of institutions. cannot-be always exactly fulfilled:" and he therefore conceives, "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 the new circumstances which may have arisen, and what upon the whole is best to be done." Readily granted, when the exact compliance can be truly and honestly said to be impracticable: yet surely, in such case, reason and justice say, Approach to it as nearly as you can. But I cannot concede that trustees have a right to set up what they may deem expedient, and substitute that for the intention of their trust. Is it not most evident that this is a principle subversive of all truth and fidelity? Was there ever an act of injustice, fraud, or plunder perpetrated, which did not appear to the doer of it highly expedient? With respect to calculations upon "what might probably have been the views of the founders, under new circumstances," I can scarcely conceive of any principle of conduct more precarious, more hazardous, or more flexible to inclination and interest: but, on its application to the case before us, I request attention to the next position. V. The differences between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists or Independents, at the time when the trusts referred to were created, (a period which may be taken as from about 1670 to 1720,) were not "considered matters of consequence by our ancestors," in comparison with the differences of religious sentiment between both those denominations on the one side, and, on the other, the persons in their day who held opinions resembling or approaching to those of the Unitarians of the present time. The proof of this assertion is obvious to all who are acquainted with the history and the writings of the English Presbyterian Divines in the period referred to. It cannot be pretended that the Dissenting ministers and churches of that day were unacquainted with the subjects in controversy between the Unitarians and the Orthodox. The capital and essential sentiments of the modern Unitarians were maintained by the Polish Socinians, some among the Dutch Remonstrants, and Mr. Biddle, Mr. Emlyn, and others in our own country. In 1674, Dean Sherlock published his book on the "Knowledge of Jesus Christ;" in which he had drawn largely, though without acknowledgment, from Volkelius and the other Polish brethren. The Presbyterian divine, Mr. Vincent Alsop, replied in a volume of 730 pages, (London, 1675,) written indeed hastily, but with great talent and information, and entitled AntiSozzo, in order to premonish the reader that the Socinian doctrines were the subjects of his discussion. In his preface this acute and learned writer says, "The dispute is not now about decency and order, about fringes and phylacteries, about the tything of mint, anise, or cummin; nor about a pin or a peg in the superstructure of the church's polity; nor about the three innocent ceremonies; but about the influence of the righteousness of Christ's life, and the sacrifice of his death, upon our acceptance with God; about the interest of the blessed Spirit in the glorious work of the new creation;-whether God and man are reconciled, and we redeemed from the curse of the law, by the blood of Jesus, or not; whether we are justified before the Just and Holy God, by our own righteousness, or by the righteousness of a Mediator; and in a word, whether the death of Christ be the proper and immediate cause of any one single blessing, great or small, of the covenant of grace: in which the concerns, all the eternal hopes, of every Christian are wrapped up." (Pref. p. 13.) being a Sermon preached by the Appointment of the Ministers of the Congregational and Presbyterian Persuasion, at their Happy UNION; on April 6, 1691, which was a Day set apart by thein, partly to bewail former Divisions, and partly as a Thanksgiving to God for their present Agreement; and now, at their unanimous request, made public. By Matthew Mead, Pastor of a Church of Christ at Stepney." The theme of this sermon is rejoicing and gratitude on account of the visible and declared union in a public association, of those who possessed already a "Oneness-in the inward principles and outward practice of religion,-as joint members of Christ and one of another;" [acknowledging]" one Spirit to enlighten and teach,-to sanctify, -to direct and lead ;-one Lord, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we all worship and serve ;-one faith, one system of Christian doctrine.” (P. 25. I am obliged to cite in this broken manner, to avoid tediousness.) If your correspondent should not think this sufficient evidence, I would refer him to paragraphs without end, and to whole treatises, in the works of the most distinguished Presbyterian fathers of the Dissenting interest; in particular, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Howe, Dr. Bates, Dr. Daniel Williams, and Dr. Calamy. He will, perhaps, be surprised in reading the mere title of a quarto pamphlet which is lying before me: "The Excellency of Unity; VOL. XX. 2 E Allow me to quote also a passage from Dr. Calamy, who was among the most zealous maintainers of the Presbyterian plan of discipline. It is from his "Letter to a Divine in Germany, giving a Brief but True Account of the Protestant Dissenters in England." London, 1717. "There are some things in which they differ among themselves. For some of them are most desirous of the Presbyterian form of Church Government, as it is legally established in North Britain. Others are rather for the Congregational form of Government, by each worshiping assembly within itself; having no other reference to Classes or Synods than for advice in cases of need. But, notwithstanding these and some other such differences among themselves, they generally agree in the doctrinal articles of the Church of England,-the Confession of Faith and Larger and Smaller Catechisms compiled by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster." (P. 44.) From such evidences as these, I conclude that the difference on Church Government between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists at the beginning of the eighteenth century, would have been deemed by each of the parties lighter than the dust of the balance, in comparison with those doctrinal views in which they cordially agreed, and which they equally held to be of vital and eternal moment. The former difference was no bar to ministerial and ecclesiastical communion, or to a public and affectionate co-operation: but from any who had differed from them as completely as the modern Unitarians do, the old Presbyterians would unquestionably have inaintained the most complete separation. To every man who is acquainted with their character and writings, it is impossible for a doubt to exist, whether they would not have shrunk with the deepest horror from the idea of permitting their names, their property, or their influence, to go for the support of a system of doctrine which was subversive of all their own faith and labours, and which they conscientiously believed to be utterly ruinous to the everlasting welfare of mankind. Surely, Sir, your correspondent stated the case without due reflection, when he wrote, "We differ somewhat from our forefathers on matters of doctrine and of discipline." Who, in reading this clause, would imagine that the diminishing word somewhat represents a consideration beyond expression GREAT, a distance and opposition so wide that, in comparison with it, the dissent itself, and all the imaginable varieties of order, discipline, and rituals, sink into nothing? VI. It is by no means certain that all the places of worship to which your correspondent refers, were built or endowed or originally occupied by Presbyterians. Of one important instance I can speak with certainty. The Upper Chapel at Sheffield was built in 1700, for Mr. Jollie and his church, who were strictly Congregationalists. There is reason to suppose that, upon investigation, a similar origin would be discovered in other cases. VII. The modern Unitarian congregations are not really Presbyterian, and they are so designated only by a customary but improper application of the term. Are they not as completely Congregational and Independent as we are? Do they constitute ruling elders in each congregation, to act in conjunction with their pastors, for judging of the qualifications of com municants and other acts of discipline? Have they courts of review? Have they classical, provincial and synodical assemblies? Do they even, in general, maintain any kind of church discipline whatever? How then can they, upon any principle of truth and fairness, call themselves by an appellation which has not the semblance of propriety? In point of fact, they are as little entitled to be considered as the successors and representatives of the old Presbyterians, in relation to ecclesiastical order, as they are with respect to the most important principles of doctrine. Your correspondent thinks that he presses me hard by appealing to facts in the first introduction of Christianity, and at the Reformation. I feel no weight whatever in the argument which he deduces from them. The apostles never claimed a property in the synagogues in which, according to undisputed usage, they were admitted to preach the doctrine of Jesus; and Christianity was not a rival system to the Mosaic dispensation, but was its completion and perfection. The ancient heathen temples were the property of the state, and the use of them was directed by no assignments of trust. As little relevant do the confiscation and new application of Roman Catholic foundations, at the time of the Reformation, appear to me. Great injustice and cruelty were exercised by Henry VIII. and other persons, while they were throwing off a yoke of iniquity and oppression : but these were acts of the legislature, and might have been conducted with equity and liberality. Yet, in either vindicating or condemning the conduct of the states which, at that time, burst the fetters which ignorance, fraud, and force had forged, there are numerous and complicated considerations to be taken into the account. If your correspondent is not aware of them, I beg to refer him to Burnet's History of the Reformation; or, for a sketch of them, to the introductory part of Schiller's History of the Thirty Years' War. But all these facts, in the origin and the constitution of secular churchestablishments, are remote from the case under consideration, and can serve only to obscure a plain question: Is not a trust perverted, if it is ad Letter from Elias Hicks to Dr. Atleé. ministered knowingly and designedly in contradiction to the intention of the person who created the trust; when there is no interference of legis. lative authority, nor any impracticableness or even difficulty in the faithful observance of that intention? In the instances referred to, 1 conceive that the chief criminality lay with those trustees who, eighty or ninety years ago, began the system of violating their obvious duty: but I must confess myself unable to perceive that their successors down to the present time, though not equally chargeable with the blame, are free from the guilt of participation. I must, however, profess my conviction that, if any Unitarian were to intrust to me his property, for the endowment of academical institutions or places of religious worship, and I had the same kind and degree of evidence of his will and intention as exist in the cases adverted to; and if I were to apply the proceeds of that property to the support of Calvinistic chapels or colleges, I should well merit a place among those whom the apostle declares to be unqualified to inherit the kingdom of God. SIR, J. PYE SMITH. March 17, 1825. nications [as a minister] for more "Hence I have observed in my versation with the members of difpublic communications, and in conferent denominations, and others who held that the Scriptures are the primary and only rule of faith and practice, that according to the true analogy of reasoning, that for which a thing A Dr. Atlee, of Philadelphia, dated if seas, the thing itself is more such, "Jericho, 9th Mo. 27th, 1824," has BEREUS. "As to iny asserting that I believed the Scriptures were held in too high estimation by the professors of Christianity in general, I readily admit, as I have asserted in my public commu as the Spirit was before the Scriptures and above them, and without the Spirit they could not have been written or known. And with this simple but conclusive argument, I have convinced divers of the soundnesss of our doctrine in this respect, that not the Scriptures but the spirit of truth, which Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for, as their only rule, that would teach them all things and guide them into all truth, is the primary and only rule of faith and practice, and is the only means by which our salvation is effected. "I admit that I did assert and have long done it, that we cannot believe what we do not understand. This the Scripture affirms, Deut. xxix. 29, The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law;' and all that is not |
