On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    question ? Na one doubts that Jose ^ phus was * able to treat of the subject , and M * Boelnuert 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 ' 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 .

    Untitled Article

    Sir , WISH , with your correspondent I Mr . Edvyard Taylor of Norwich ( in your last Number , ) that the Orthodox Dissenters may judge belter than to

    follow up the inconsiderate quarrel which has lately taken place in Manchester . For I apprehend no good can come of it to cither of the parties concerned . Certain it is that if the

    old Presbyterian chapels , and the funds connected with them , do not of ri tfht ' belong to those who arc in pos-

    Untitled Article

    session , they who seem to covet them have no better claim . These persons should recollect thai the three denominations of Indepeadents , Baptists and Presbyterians , have always subsisted as distinct sects ever * since the Act of Toleration , or rather

    perhaps from the passing' of the Acfr of Uniformity . And though the dif- ' ferences 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 name of Orthodox Dissenters . But this will not do . Mere

    Orthodoxy will not give strangers a right either to our chapels or our funds—and theCalvinistie 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 . Hadiield ,, the principal advocate of this scheme of spoliation , who is I understand an attorney in Manchester , they belong as unclaimed property to the Grown . *

    Let vis hear no more then of holding property from its lawful owners , or of inalverters of trusts , whom Dr . Pye Smith , in allusion I conceive to tlm subject , candidly classes with thieves . \ Surely those into whose hands this property has descended from their

    fore-* See this gentleman ' s letter in the Manchester Gazette ; Nov . 20 , under the signature tff Another Orthodox Dissenter . \ See the note to his reply to Mr . Gibson ' s questions in ths last Number of the Repository .

    Untitled Article

    € & Evangelical" Declaration of War . 157

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1825, page 157, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2534/page/29/