bably, it was only introduced lest, having spoken of the decree for taxing, the person he addressed, and for whose information he wrote, might otherwise suppose that the actual taxing was immediately consequent thereupon.

66

Yet the opinion of Dr. S., as to the degree of credibility which the two Erst chapters in Matthew and in Luke are entitled to, is moderation itself when contrasted with the overwhelming demolition of Mr. Thomas Belsham, who tells us, in his " Calm Inquiry," 2d edition, p. 8, that " from Luke iii. 1, compared with verse 23, it appears that Jesus was born fifteen years before the death of Augustus; that is, at least two years after the death of Herod; a fact which completely falsifies the whole narrative contained in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke." Here, then, are not less than 176 verses, relating chiefly to the birth of our blessed Saviour, rooted out of the sacred volume by a single superlative stroke of our "Calm Inquirer's" magical weedhook! This is, in verity, the very loftiest sublimity of critical legerdemain; no petty carping at a phrase; no puny wrangle about a date; but, taking the field of controversy, like a great literary tactician, he at once leaped to his resolve; and, by one transcendent master-dash of generalship, consigned to reprobation as base impositions, all those statements concerning our Lord's nativity, which the Christian world has for ages received and reverenced as authentic and pure. Let it henceforth be imbibed as an axiom, that where, in one of two histories, independent also of each other, there happens to be a date which is apparently at variance with the period at which they are stated to commence, the whole of those histories for the next thirty years must necessarily be utterly false! Let not the reader exclaim with Partridge, that is a non sequitur, for we have the authority of a professor of divinity as to its logical accuracy. Critics, possessing a daring less lofty, or more sobriety of thought, would probably think it not unreasonable to presume, that there might be some mistake in one of the two figures which represent the age alluded to, rather than gratuitously to assume the correctness of that; and upon that assumption alone, imperiously pronounce 176 verses to be "completely falsified:" more especially where mention of the age is preceded by a word (about thirty) indicating that the person using it was not positive as to the exact age; and more especially also, when, in all likelihood, the very accounts respecting Herod in these identical histories, supplied the Evangelist with the only data for computing such age.

The narrative, however, relating to the birth of Jesus as contained in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke, will, it is believed, be found not only to accord perfectly well with his alleged age, but to be established on too firm a basis to be shaken either by the author of the Calm Inquiry, or any other of its oppugners.

To the young reader, it may perhaps be of some use to attempt to set the point in question in a more perspicuous position. It must be borne in mind, then, that the birth of Jesus is stated in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke to have been in the days of Herod the King, and also, that Augustus, the predecessor of Tiberius Cæsar, died A. U. 767: therefore, say they, the 15th of Tiberius mentioned in Luke iii. 1, must have been fifteen years more, or A. U. 782. If, then, as stated in Luke iii. 23, Jesus was thirty in A. Ú. 782, he must have been born thirty years before, or in A. U. 752, and consequently not in the days of Herod the King, because Herod died in A. U. 750 or 751 at the latest; and, therefore, (they continue,) there cannot be any truth in those accounts which, like the preliminary chapters, represent Jesus to have been born in the days of Herod

the King. Such is the conclusion of Mr. B. and others, and such the process of reasoning by which that conclusion is arrived at.

Now, certainly, it must without hesitation be admitted, that on a superficial view of the matter, there doth appear the semblance of an irreconcileable variance. But the fact is, that a little deeper inquiry, truly calm, will evince that there exists no contradiction in reality; neither would there have been the appearance of any, if Luke had not been interpreted by his translators in a sense which he himself never expressed; for it is to be observed, that Luke iii. 1, ought to have been rendered, "In the fifteenth year of the government or administration,” (¿yeμovías,) and not " reign" of Tiberius Cæsar. In the very same verse he uses a word of similar derivation and signification, (ἡγεμονεύοντος from ἡγεμονεύω, dur sum,/ to express that Pilate was "Governor" of Judea; whereas, when he means to speak of any thing relating to REIGNING properly so denominated, Luke makes use of the proper derivative from Baσiλɛów, regno, rex sum, to be a king, to reign. Thus, in Luke xix. 14, "to reign," Basha: and in twenty places, both in Luke and in the Acts, Barixía for kingdom, and Bariλes for king, are used. But when, on the contrary, he speaks of a person being governor, then he makes use of a word derived from the same root as the word in question, (yeμovías,) viz. year. For example, in the same verse, Acts xxvi. 30, ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμὼν, the king and the governor.

By the word yearías, therefore, in Luke iii. 1, it is impossible not to understand that he meant to express the government or administration of Tiberius, as contradistinguished from his "reign." Now, then, as Tiberius was admitted to the government or administration A. U. 764, which was three years before the death of Augustus, and in strictness three years before the reign of Tiberius, therefore the fifteenth year of the government or administration of Tiberius was A. U. 779; and supposing Jesus to have been then about thirty," (as stated and not disputed,) then he must have been born in A. U. 749, which was one or two years before Herod's death: so by merely giving to the word yovias, which Luke hath used, (and upon the true meaning of that word the whole question turns,) the identical signification which other words of a similar derivation unquestionably and invariably bear, wherever that Evangelist hath introduced them in other places; and, on the other hand, by rejecting that meaning which, in other places, the same writer employs a totally different word to express, (and surely it is a fair test by which to try the real import of any author's language,) the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke, and the stated age of Jesus, are caused perfectly to harmonize.

What then is the result but this? That it is Mr. Thomas Belsham's "Calm Inquiry" into the subject which is " COMPLETELY FALSIFIED,” and not the narrative which is contained in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke.

(To be continued.)

UNIVERSALISTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

To the Editor.

SIR, Hackney, Jan. 15, 1827. I REQUEST permission to lay before your readers part of the contents of a letter which I have lately received from a respectable minister of the gospel, before unknown to me, residing in the United States of America. This

gentleman is the Rev. Thomas Whittemore, pastor of a Universalist Society in the town of Cambridge, near Boston. He informs me that, in connexion with his ministerial brother, the Rev. Hosea Ballou, second of Roxbury, (a town which adjoins Boston on the South,) he is engaged in collecting materials for a history of the doctrine of Universal Salvation or Restoration; and he entreats answers to a number of biographical and historical questions relating to this work, some of which I may hereafter propose, on behalf of my correspondent, to your readers.

Mr. Whittemore tells me that the American Universalists were originally the disciples of Mr. Relly, who, I believe, deduced the doctrine of Universal Salvation from the high Calvinistic scheme. The doctrine was introduced into America by Mr. Murray, a follower and zealous admirer of the founder of the sect. The following account of the present state of the Universalists of the United States, in the words of my correspondent, is a pleasing proof of the natural tendency of serious minds towards scriptural truth, when they are not checked by the influence of institutions bearing a mingled civil and religious character.

"The denomination to which I belong is composed of upwards of three hundred societies, and about two hundred preachers. These numbers are continually receiving accessions. We have increased most in New England, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania; though there are Universalists scattered all over the United States. It will, perhaps, be pleasing to you to learn that this sect is, with indeed a very few exceptions, entirely Unitarian. I know of but three ministers, in the whole order, who are Trinitarians; and I behieve the greater proportion are Humanitarians. With the few exceptions just mentioned, we concur in rejecting, as absurd and unscriptural, the old idea of Atonement; believing that this scheme of man's redemption from sin originated in the Father of all, who sent his Son to commend his love to mankind.-Devoted to the interests of this order in the United States, are ten or twelve periodical publications. We have six societies in, and within fifteen minutes' ride of, Boston, each accommodated with an elegant, commodious house, and each maintaining a preacher."

My friend, as the tenor of his communication allows me to call him, apprizes me that the ministers of his denomination in Boston and its neighbourhood, have sent me a package of their publications, "presuming that it will be agreeable to the Unitarians in England to become acquainted with the numbers, doctrines and arguments of the Universalists in the United States." Of these, when they arrive, I may perhaps furnish you, Sir,

with some account.

In the package, I am informed, is a "Treatise on Atonement," by Mr. Ballou, whose labours, Mr. Whittemore says, have greatly promoted the change which has taken place amongst the American Universalists, with regard to the Atonement and the character of Christ. Of this "Treatise" and its author, he further says," that it is the first American work in which the doctrine of Unitarianism was ever advanced and defended. Here you find it distinctly stated and argued. This work was first published about the year 1803, two years before Sherman's Treatise, which has generally but erroneously been considered the first public attack on Trinitarianism which America afforded; Dr. Priestley, being an European, I except. Mr. Ballou's work is the fruit of his own mind, aided only by the Scriptures. He never read an author, either on Atonement or the Unity of God, till after he wrote. He is now fifty-six years old, in good health, and joint-editor

VOL. I.

N

with myself of the Universalist Magazine. He is also a decided Humanitarian."

I believe I have now extracted the whole of the intelligence relating to the Universalists, furnished by my highly-valued correspondent, which would be interesting to your readers, and remain,

Your obedient servant,

ROBERT ASPLAND.

THOUGHTS ON THE PROGRESS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY.

THOSE Christians whose peculiar tenet is the worship of one Supreme Father through Jesus Christ, have sometimes been reproached for the want of that fellowship and co-operation which distinguish most other sects, and for the little zeal which they appear to exhibit in the active propagation of their opinions. Without attempting to justify these deficiencies, so far as they arise from indifference and worldly-mindedness, I think a brief survey of the history and circumstances of Unitarianism may serve at least to explain them.

Most sects have passed off at once in a considerable body from the National Church on the ground of some disputed point of discipline and practice, which interested the prejudices and excited the imagination of the multitude, and became the broad and distinguishing badge of a party. Unitarianism, through a gradual change in the belief of individuals, has grown up imperceptibly in the bosom of a religious body with which it owned no necessary or original connexion. The spirit of Puritanism, to which, with all its extravagancies, England is deeply indebted, and which may be shortly characterized as a spirit of ultra opposition to Catholicism, embodied itself, as is very well known, in the course of the seventeenth century, in three leading sects, alike distinguished for their hatred of episcopacy; which, after the Revolution, were recognized by the laws as the three denominations of Protestant Dissenters, and jointly partook of the benefit of the Toleration Act. These three sects separated from the Establishment on the avowed principle that it was only half reformed, and that a great deal of Popery still lurked under its gorgeous and imposing ceremonial. This was a definite and intelligible principle, and it warmly interested the feelings of the people, who carried their abhorrence of the Roman Catholics to a most extravagant length. But with regard to the leaders of these Dissenting bodies, and especially of the Presbyterians, who numbered amongst them some of the nobility and many of the inferior gentry, it may be asserted, without any violation of truth and charity, that they were actuated by political as well as by religious motives, and that their contest with episcopacy was, in great measure, a contest for power. United with the Church for a time by a common dread of Popery, and in achieving the glorious work of the Revolution, the Presbyterians naturally expected, amongst the results of that event, some scheme of comprehension which should admit them to a share in the honours and emoluments of the Establishment. Disappointed of this expectation, the party still retained for a long time the political impulse by which it was originally actuated, and, together with it, an attachment to its peculiar mode of worship and ecclesiastical discipline. This impulse, however, grew feebler and feebler; persons of elevated rank disliked the stigma of belonging to an

excluded sect; while the favour shewn to Dissenters during the earlier periods of the Hanoverian dynasty, and the intimacy which subsisted between the more eminent Nonconformist divines and the Low-Church dignitaries of those days, contributed to soften the prejudices of the Presbyterian gentry, and gradually to absorb them into the bosom of the National Church. Their peculiar discipline being at length entirely abandoned among the Presby-: terians, and the doctrines of the Establishment at this period being at least as liberal as those of the Dissenters, and preached with more grace and eloquence, there seemed little left to excite sectarian vigour and zeal: and the spirit of Presbyterianism, such as it ever existed in England subsequent to the Revolution, had it not been superseded by a new interest, must inevitably have died out before the close of the eighteenth century, from the mere want of definite and palpable objects on which to employ itself. The case was somewhat different with the other two bodies of Dissenters. They con→ sisted more of the lower classes of society; their discipline was more popular; their ministers lived in closer dependence on their flocks; they had less of literature and refinement, demanded a more earnest and impassioned style of preaching, and were animated by a stronger spirit of opposition to the established hierarchy. These were sources of life and vigour that did not exist, generally speaking, amongst the Presbyterians. But, on the other hand, the situation of the Presbyterians was highly favourable to the prosecution of deep and earnest inquiries into religious truth. Their strength lay in the genteel and well-educated portion of the middle class, ennobled here and there by a lord or a baronet. Their ministers were usually men of education and learning, who diligently betook themselves to biblical studies, in prosecuting which they were wholly unrestrained by creeds and articles from following truth into all its consequences. The result was a gradual change of opinion from Orthodoxy to Arianism, and from Arianism to what is now more peculiarly called Unitarianism; perhaps first in the minister, and then in the most intelligent and inquiring members of his congregation. The ministers, in regard to liberality of opinion, were usually in advance of the majority of their people, and could not look for any sympathy or co-operation from them in the promotion of views which they were not yet prepared to receive. To demand union and zeal from such a scattered few, who had rarely opportunities for interchange of thought, and who, for the most part, were men of retired and studious habits and averse from publicity, and to expect that they should exhibit all the ardour and activity of a sect, would be absurd and the dilemma, in which they found themselves placed, of being unable either to preach any longer the orthodox system, or to carry the feeling of their congregations along with them in the open avowal of new views, drove them to occupy a sort of neutral ground, in which they followed the example of the more liberal clergy, and to preach almost entirely on moral topics, enforced by the general sanctions of Christianity. The sermons of our most celebrated Presbyterian preachers, forty or fifty years ago, evince the correctness of this remark. This style of preaching was ill suited to the multitude, and hardly compatible with that affectionate warmth and scriptural unction of manner which is found so interesting to their feelings; and as for the more wealthy and ancient families, amongst whom the old spirit of Presbyterianism might have been expected to survive, they were every year passing over in increasing numbers to the Establishment. The Presbyterian interest was almost extinct: its ambiguous and unmeaning character, the aversion which it føstered to an open avowal of Unitarianism, and the consequent want of plain and scriptural