ological Seminary, who addressed to Mr. C. a series of controversial letters, which passed almost immediately through two editions. Mr. Stuart," my friend says, "is one of the most learned, able and powerful supporters of what is deemed high orthodoxy." These letters are very ably reviewed in an interesting publication, entitled "The Christian Disciple," published at Boston every two months, by Wells and Lilly. My friend adds, probably there will be more publications in this controversy; indeed we are promised, perhaps I should say threatened, with a vindication of doctrinal points, in answer to Mr. C., by another Andover professor." Dr. H. regrets the personal asperities that too much mingle with this controversy, but hopes and trusts that," like the storms and tempests that sometimes visit the American region, it may have a salutary tendency, and, dispelling dark and noxious vapours, may leave the atmosphere more pure, and let in the light of heaven through a clearer medium.” "We," he says, may see this light but partially diffused, yet, with good old Simeon, we may depart in peace, encouraged by the assurance that it shall not only shed more of its glories in our own lands, but also enlighten the Gentiles who now sit in darkness, and ultimately spread joy through the whole earth."

JOSEPHUS has given a brief but

in which the Apostle James was put to death. It is to this effect, A. J. Lib. xx. C. 8. § 1: "The younger Ananus, who was made chief priest, was haughty in his behaviour and exceedingly daring. He moreover ranked with the Sadducees, who surpassed all the Jews in the cruelty of their judicial sentences: Ananus being thus disposed, summons a council of the judges, and bringing before it the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose naine was James, with some others, he accuses them of transgressing the

law, and delivered them up to be stoned. But those in the city most distinguished for their probity and accurate knowledge of the laws were grievously offended at this measure.” The ground of the accusation brought against James was assuredly his belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Stephen maintained the same opinion. And they said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God," Acts vi. 11. We may be assured also that the other persons who suffered with James, suffered for the same reason. Moreover, since the enemies of James insisted that he transgressed the law in holding forth Jesus as the Saviour, we are to infer that the men whom Josephus represents as most distinguished by their probity and accurate knowledge of the law, and who were grievously offended at his death, had the same views of Jesus with the apostle. These were such men as Gamaliel and the priests who became obedient to the faith, Acts vi. 7.

From this passage we may gather, that, in the dispute between the apos tles and their adversaries, the terms Gospel and Christianity were not employed. The sole question between the parties was, which of them rightly understood the laws of Moses. The believers in embracing the gospel, so far from professing a new or exclusive religion, professed only a more adequate and refined knowledge of the Mosaic law. The writings of Josephus, in an eminent degree, illustrate this fact. In his immortal work against Apion he has given, under the title of the law, a beautiful delineation of the gospel; and he asserts that, in his time, there was not a place, nor scarcely a family in the whole civi

Lardner and some other sagacious critics reject this passage of Josephus as a forgery, and one reason for the rejection is, that it gives an account of the death of James different from that which, through Eusebius, (H. E. Lib. ii. C. 23,) we have received from Hegesippus. But the two narratives are perfectly consistent with each other, only that the Jewish historian, in his brevity, has omitted the particulars related by the other. Josephus does not say, as Lardner represents him saying, that Ananus had James and

his brethren stoned, but that he delivered them up to be stoned: and this sentence, consistently with the spirit of it, might be executed either by pelting him with stones, or throwing him over a precipice. Those who were charged with the execution of the sentence chose the latter: they conveyed him to the battlement of the temple, and threw him thence, finishing him on the ground with a club. According to Hegesippus, James was murdered not only in the temple, but on the passover, when multitudes of Jews and Gentiles were assembled in Jerusalem; and so highly revered was the apostle for wisdom and piety, that Ananus and his party could not dare to execute the sentence passed upon him without suborning the Sicarii, who had come to the feast for that purpose. These particulars we have from Josephus :

"This murder (namely that of Jonathan) having continued unpunished, the Sicarii afterwards ascending in great multitudes to the feast with weapons, which, as before, they concealed, on mingling with the crowds slew, some their enemies, others whom they were suborned to murder; which they did not only in other parts of the city, but some even in the temple: for even in that sacred place they had the audacity to massacre: nor did they think that they were committing impiety. But I am of opinion that on this account God, who hates impiety, has demolished our city, and, regarding the temple as no longer a pure habitation for himself, brought upon us the Romans, and exposed it and the city to purifying fire, and ourselves, with our wives and children, that we might learn virtue from our calamities." A. J. Lib. xx. C. 7. § 5.

Origen, who thoroughly understood the writings of Josephus, properly concluded, that the persons here said to be massacred in the Temple were James and his brethren; James, the leading one among them, being specified by name in the succeeding chapter. Accordingly Origen says, that, according to Josephus, "These things befel the Jews in vindication of James, called the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, called the Christ: forasmuch as they killed him who was a most righteous man." See Lardner, Vol. VII. p. 121. Lardner broadly asserts that

this passage is not extant in the writings of Josephus, and the assertion illustrates the weight that ought to be ascribed to his opinion, that the passage concerning James is not genuine. The first authors of the Miraculous Conception represented the brothers and sisters of Jesus as childern of Joseph by a former wife: and as our Lord was not the son of Joseph, James could not in reality be his brother. But Josephus calls him the brother of Christ, and by that means intends to set aside as false the story of his miraculous birth. Origen understood this intention, and hence adds, with the view of setting it aside, "This James is the same whom Paul, that genuine disciple of Jesus, says he had seen, and calls the Lord's brother, not so much for the sake of consanguinity as their common education and agreement in manners and doctrine." This single circumstance proves that the author of the paragraph concerning James was an Unitarian believer in Christ, such as the Nazarenes or Ebionites were, and not a forger, who, in a future age, sought to fasten the divinity of Christ on the belief of mankind.

"Je

There is one circumstance farther, worthy of notice in the account given by Hegesippus. The enemies of James are represented as putting to him the apparently absurd question, Tisovpa του Ιησου ; Which is the door of Jesus? Now, in Hebrew the term Jesus means salvation. And the meaning of the adverse question, no doubt, was, "Which is the door of salvation?" James must have understood it so: but availing himself of the double meaning of yw, he answers, sus is the door," alluding to our Lord's own words, "I am the door." This reply amounted to "blasphemous words against Moses and against God" in the eyes of his enemies: and hence the charge brought against him, that he transgressed the law of Moses. Josephus brings forward the testimony of those "who were distinguished by their probity and accurate knowledge of the laws," that he was not guilty of any transgression: and as the opinion that he was not guilty, must be interpreted by the sense in which he was said to be guilty; and he was said to be guilty of transgressing the law, only because he believed and taught Jesus to be the door of salvation, it follows,

ought to prove that his thoughts have power to alter the nature of the subject in question. In the present instance such an idea is manifestly absurd, and the question itself is so very abstract and difficult, that very few persons are fit to give an opinion about the matter; and of those who do, their positiveness will be found in a very direct proportion with their degree of ignorance.” I begged him to give me some slight notion of the nature of those difficulties, as the question appeared to me simple and easy enough. This, Madam," said he, " is almost impossible in a short conversation, but, however, I may just hint that any one who assumes a right to decide the question, ought to begin with shewing the difference between the nature of the attraction of the particles of matter in a case of chemical affinity, a piece of zinc suspended in a solution of acitate of lead for instance, and that attraction which exists between the particles of matter in a seed, and the soil in which it is inserted. If he should succeed in this, he must proceed to the still more difficult task of tracing the cause of the distinction between the attractions in the former cases, and those exercised in the production of animal existence; which is so far from having ever been done, that we are entirely ignorant of the manner in which these operations of nature are performed. No Materialist is bold enough to say he can trace these various attractions; but he says a regular analogy may be observed from the most passive and inert matter, up to the most active and complicated; that with the first appearance of any thing like brain and nerves in an object, there is a glimpse of sensation, and that as the organization of these material organs improves, there is an equal rate of advance in the powers of feeling and intellect, till you arrive at their utmost terrestrial perfection in man; that whatever is the cause of feeling and intelligence in man, is exactly the same in nature, although differing in degree with that in all other sentient beings on this globe, and that it is no more necessary to suppose the addition of another principle, than it is to imagine the existence of a spirit of elasticity in the springs, or a spirit to move the wheels of a watch. Now this is all quite true, and the brains and nerves

of man may possibly contain within themselves, essentially, the properties of intelligence and sensation, as a piece. of steel does of elasticity, but till we know how the cause produces the effect, which is probably beyond the reach of the human faculties, we can never be competent to decide positively on the matter.

"The Immaterialist, on the other hand, starts with the position, that there is a manifest contrast between mind and matter, and that to talk of a material intellect is as absurd as it would be to speak of a thought as being square, or an argument as being triangular. That the mind of man, glancing in an instant from pole to pole, from the earliest records of history to the present moment; darting with a rapidity, greater far than that of light, from the sun to the utmost planet, and thence into the regions of infinite space, can never be justly considered as a mere quality of the dull, heavy clod of earth which, for a moment, it is made to inhabit. That we have even a consciousness that we ourselves are something distinct from our bodies, and that when a man's limbs are mutilated, his sense of integrity is no more affected than by a change of his clothes. But all this is evidently mere assertion, and assuming as granted the very subject of dispute; and the Immaterialist is just as incapable of proving that the mind of man is something separate from his body, as his adversary is of the reverse. If the Immaterialist denies a soul to brutes, he gets involved in an inextricable maze of contradiction, which he in vain attempts to get out of by saying that God is himself to them a soul; because that is a mere sophism,-words without meaning,an assumption without the least proof. There is still another theory on this subject perhaps more profound, more logical, and more consistent than either of the others, viz. that which supposes the non-existence of matter. Spiritualist asks, what is matter? You say, every object in nature which comes within the cognizance of the senses; any thing that is hard, soft, rough, smooth, coloured, plain, odorous, heavy, and so on-the table, chair, picture or statue in this room for instance. The Spiritualist answers, that you have only described your own sensations, and can, in the nature of

The

things, do nothing more; for you can never go beyond the impression made on your senses, and say what that is which produces them. He will tell you that an impression on a bodily sense is no proof of a material cause. Look in that mirror, you will see the table, chair, picture and statue expressed to your eye with the same accuracy and distinctness as the objects themselves, and yet they are mere phantasms, the reality of which only exists in the mind of the sentient being. Our other senses do not afford such plain examples, obvious to any understanding, but their case is precisely similar, and the whole world is nothing but a phantasmagoria, and sentient beings the only real things in it. Now pray, my dear Madam, can you think that your surgeon is the less estimable for having directed his attention to these high subjects; and, do you still think that the evidence for any one of these theories is so conclusive as to stamp with contempt or infamy him who inclines to a contrary? You will say, perhaps, that the Christian religion has long ago decided the question, and established the fact of our having immortal souls. The Christian religion, Madam, has, if you please, established the fact of a future state of existence, in which we are to be rewarded or punished for our moral conduct in this world; but all sound and rational divines have long agreed that the inspired writers had no authority to reveal any thing beyond the great truths of religion. It was the absurd doctrine of what is called the plenary inspiration which induced the inquisitors of Rome to imprison Galileo for proving that the earth was not immoveable. There is, perhaps, hardly an individual in England, however ignorant or intolerant, not even one of the governors of Bedlam or St. Bartholomew's, who would now attempt to screen those inquisitors from contempt and abhorrence; but they should be told that their own conduct is precisely similar, that they are actuated by the very same spirit and motives, and that it is just as probable that St. Paul might have wrong notions of the animal economy, as King David of the movements of the heavenly bodies. Unfortunately, such behaviour in public bodies towards a man of science, stamps a character on a whole

age and nation, and this it is which renders it a duty on every man of public spirit or enlightened patriotism, to enter his protest against conduct so mean and disgraceful."

I have only to add, Mr. Editor, that as the Doctor's discourse has had the effect of entirely changing my opinion on the subject, I have written it to you, in order, if you please, to communicate it to your readers.

S. W.

WAS solicited some time since, by

more than one of your readers, and, I believe, subscribers, to send you some remarks on Mr. Belsham's Censure of Mr. Robinson's History of Baptism. I was unwilling at first to engage, partly because I had paid my respects already to that gentleman's memory, and partly because I had a place in reserve, in which I meant, at the proper time, to say something more concerning him. At length, however, I complied, for which I have been justly condemned by some friends, and I have condemned myself, as Í was engaged in business at the time from which nothing ought to have diverted me, and as I could not engage in such remarks without going into detail. My motives, as I have explained them, were rather general than particular. I had no personal dislikes nor private seekings, and I was as little influenced by the love of controversy, or a desire of obtruding myself on the notice of your Correspondents. I sent, as you know, no signature, nor did I intend at first to be known as the writer. I have reason, on many accounts, to be sorry for dwelling on the subject so long, and the more so, if my aim to do justice to Mr. Robinson has at any time obtruded on more valuable communications.

That some of your subscribers may wish the subject to be discontinued, I can very readily believe, and, to speak freely, I was myself before-hand with their wishes. What I said on sending my last communication I have in part forgotten: but I had determined on my return to town to trouble you no more, as well because I was aware that what I had already offered could not interest many of your readers, as because I thought what I had yet in reserve could not (in the way I proposed to treat it) be offered with pro