herds near Bethlehem; announcing the birth of Christ, and instructing them, by the most unusual circumstance of his lying in a manger, how to distinguish him from any other child then newly born: the song of the heavenly host, descriptive of the glorious results of Christ's appearance: the visit of the shepherds hereupon to the child, their communication of the vision they had seen to the persons about him, and return to their place.

9. The circumcision and naming of Jesus, the presenting him in the Temple, the prophecy and thanksgiving of Simeon and Anna; the former alluding therein to a revelation made to himself by the Holy Spirit. 10. The return (as it appears to have been understood at Jerusalem) of Joseph and Mary with the child Jesus to Nazareth: but which Matthew shows to have been

1

11. Their secret departure by night to go into Egypt:-a discrepancy which the interpolator of such a history would scarcely have suffered to appear in his part of the work.

12. The appearance of the Magi at Jerusalem, in consequence of their observation of the star which denoted the birth of the King of the East, to enquire after him; the consultation of Herod hereupon with the chief priests and scribes, and the citation by them also of the prophecy of Micah concerning him the sending of the Magi to Bethlehem, their direction by the motion of the star to the house; where they found the child, made their offerings, and, by a revelation from God went home without again seeing Herod: the fact of the slaughter of the infants, consequent on Herod's being disappointed by the Magi and losing his end.

Persons who can give up all this to such an objector, may be considered as prepared to give up the Christian religion altogether.

་་

There is not one page in the New Testament (says Dr. Jortin) which affords not internal characters of being composed by men, who lived at the time when the things happened which are there related. This is as evident, as it is that the noble English historian, who wrote an account of the troubles in the time of Charles the First, was himself concerned in those transactions. "A man of very ordinary abilities, who relates various things of which he had been an ear-and-eye witness, is under no difficulty or pain: but a forger (if he had the abilities of an angel) whose imagination must supply him with materials, can never write in such a manner and, if he has tolerable sense, will avoid entering into such a minute detail; in which he must perpetually expose his ignorance and his dishonesty."-Remarks on Eccl History, ii. 211.

Luke ch. ii. v. 38. And spake of the child to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.' These were of the people prepared for the Lord' by the visitations of his Holy Spirit; whom John the Baptist was afterwards to make ready' or put in array, (for so I think we may understand the croμara in i. 17,) and point out to them the Captain of their salvation and spiritual Lord.

6

Ver. 48. Child, why hast thou thus done unto us? Behold thy father and I have sought the sorrowing.' This might have been improved: odvwould admit of the sense, 'in the utmost distress of mind!' Let none wonder that, in this state of feeling, the distressed mother should have spoken before the doctors of the law, as she would have done at home,

νωμενοι

using the Civil and reputed relation of Christ to Joseph,-a step which Christ himself immediately corrects.

·

The temple was certainly not the house of Joseph, nor the law his business, save to keep it. He says in effect, to Joseph and his mother' (as Luke calls them, v. 43,) How is it that having lost me, you did not first go to my home? The Son of God was most likely to be found in God's house, and occupied in his affairs.'

6

But he was a 'child' of twelve years: and this indication of the wisdom of God stirring in him, expanding his intellect and prompting him to handle things so much above his age, was lost upon the parents. They understood not that which he spake to them: his mother' however, kept all these things in her heart'--to be brought forth in due time (as we need not doubt they were) from her own mouth, through the inspired Evangelist. We see, that, by slurring this passage together with the next, in italics, the Editors lose the benefit of the little support which this confession of the mother of Jesus, to his relation to her husband as his father-in-law, might have afforded to their cause.

Let the reader now judge for himself, on the principles above stated, whether it be possible that this part of the gospel history could be a fiction, therest being admitted to be true. Whether, to go further, it could also be the fiction of a Gentile convert to the Christian faith! They say (in the Note p. 2.) The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity of the Founder [to the rank of the heroes and demi-gods of the Heathen mythology, p. 121 Note] to abate the popular prejudice against the sect.' The narrative is exceedingly circumstantial, and (with a single and natural exception to be noticed hereafter,) consistent throughout: the speeches are altogether worthy of the characters to which they are ascribed, of the power which dictated them: there is no part of the whole New Testament more like itself, as a sacred record; or fuller of holy energy and of the sublime simplicity of truth! An early Gentile convert thus acquainted with the family history of Jesus, and of John the Baptist; thus intimately conversant with the manner of the service of the Temple, the Jewish law and prophecies; thus capable of adding new ones to these, equal in all respects to the old; thus imbued with the spirit and zeal of the true worshippers of Jehovah! I would as soon believe the Editors of this perverted version capable of forging a new Iliad, surpassing in every intrinsic quality the one we take for Homer's! Extremes, it is said, meet and surely, to reject these parts of the gospels as authentic history, and yet receive them as such a figment, is to pass at once from deplorable unbelief to yet more pitiable credulity: to confound the necessary distinction between true and false in history, and leave us open to any thing or every thing in that shape, which caprice or prejudice may move men of ingenious wits (not ingenuous minds) to put together for our perusal.

(To be continued.)

ART. I.— A Chronological Summary of events and circumstances connected with the origin and progress of the doctrine and practices of the Quakers.

(Continued from page 134.)

"To which the following answer was given To Thomas Foster, the appellant; Yearly Meeting, 5th day morning, 26th of 5th Mo.

"This meeting does not think it necessary to call upon the Deputation of the Committee on the Appeal to give any explanation of the grounds of that Committee's decision, in the present stage of the business; and is of the judgment, that it does not rest with either the Appellant or Respondents to call for such explanation, at any time.

"John Wilkinson, Clerk.'"

"5th Mo. 26th. This meeting having deliberately considered the case of Thomas Foster, on his appeal against the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex; also the Report of the Committee of this Meeting, appointed to hear and judge of the said appeal, is with much unanimity of the judgment, that the Report of the said Committee should be confirmed; and it is hereby confirmed accordingly. A Copy of this Minute to be given to the appellant, and to the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex."

The consequence of which decision was, that the Appellant finally lost his right of sitting in Meetings for discipline, with the other exclusive privileges attaching to members of our Religious Society.

To have retained these rights along with his inconsistent creed would, no doubt, have gratified Thomas Foster and his new friends; as it would have opened the door at once to the entrance of the Unitarian doctrine among us. I have not room remaining (nor would it consist fully with

VOL. V.

L

my plan) to state the arguments by which he endeavoured to show that he was disowned for holding opinions, sanctioned both by the New Testament and by the writings of our early preachers. The latter plea was metby Extracts from the same authors, directly opposed to those he brought in his favour and the like was done as to Scripture: though, as was justly urged by the Respondents, the question was, not whether he could prove his opinions by texts of Scripture; but whether they were in accordance, or at variance, with the acknowledged doctrine of the Society on the subject. Respecting the latter point, I believe there remains now no doubt on the minds of candid persons, that the Society is in strict agree ment, as far as it can be stated in Scripture terms, with the doctrine of the Church of England' and of the Christian church at large, on the subject of the Trinity.' The attempts made to introduce among us Unitarian opinions in the way of public controversy, have now, therefore wholly ceased.

The Respondents in this Case proceeded beyond the original ground of complaint, in noticing as a gravamen, the open support given by Appellant to the (so called) Improved Version of the New Testament;' as also to Belsham's Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.' They adduced from the former a number of quotations, chiefly from the Notes, showing the decidedly Unitarian character of the work and they opposed to them, lastly, the full acknowledgments of the doctrine impugned by the Appellant, which have been made by our most eminent early writers; e. g. Fox, Penington, Barclay, Penn, Ellwood, Claridge; and by Whitehead and others, in 1693. The character of the Unitarian 'Improved Version,' will be exposed in a separate part of this work. I shall finish this, by quoting the last three pages of the Defence.

"Before we conclude our defence, it may be proper to advert to the assurance which the Appellant has given, and on which he appears to lay considerable stress, that to the best of his knowledge he believes all that Christ is recorded in the New Testament to have said repecting himself and his doctrine; and to the general reference which the Appellant has so frequently made to the authority of Scripture. Far be it from us to derogate from this authority. We also acknowledge it. It is that to which our Society appeals in common with other Protestants. But, in the manner of understanding numerous and important passages of the Sacred Writings, the Appellant and we widely differ; and we may venture to assert it has been now shown to the Yearly Meeting, that his views, with respect to some points of doctrine of great moment, are at variance with those which our Society has constantly entertained. Is there then, simply on account of this common appeal to Scripture, that union in principle which connexion with a distinct religious Society implies. We allege that there is not. We assert that an argument to prove the affirmative, would prove more than could be conceded, not by us merely, but by those generally who are in connexion with any religious Society. The writings of the New Testament are appealed to by all Christians, at least by all Protestants, as records by which they are willing their doctrines should be examined. Now to bring the argument, to which we allude, to bear in some

striking instances on our own Society-are not the Testimonies of the Society, against Oaths and War, founded on the commands of Christ? As well might a Monthly Meeting be called upon to retain in the Society, a Member who might be in the violation of one of these Testimonies, and who should attempt to justify his conduct by a different construction of certain passages of Scripture, as to retain the present Appellant in consequence of the foregoing avowal.

"The Appellant has also repeatedly alleged, that he never denied the eternal divinity of that Power, which dwelt in and acted by or through the Man Christ Jesus. But in this we can discover no acknowledgment of the Divinity of our Lord, which would imply that He differs, except in the degree or measure of the power conferred, from eminently gifted servants, from the Prophets and Apostles. How remote from this, the manner in which, we believe the Meeting will judge us warranted in saying, our ancient Friends, the instruments under Providence in gathering and establishing our Society, understood those passages in Scripture which speak of Christ, as the Word which was in the beginning with God, and was God; which make mention of the glory that He had with the Father before the world was; of the Creation by Him of all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible; whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, that all things were created by him and for him-that he is before all things, and that by him all things consist of his coming down from heaven;-of his being in the form of God, thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, yet making himself of no reputation, and taking on him the form of a servant-which designate him as the Son, whom God hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (or substance) and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high-as the Lamb that was slain, to whom jointly with Him that sitteth on the Throne is ascribed blessing and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever!

"We may now, in conclusion, express our firm persuasion, that it will appear clear to the Yearly Meeting, that the Appellant has imbibed, and aided in propagating some opinions contrary to those of our Society; and that it was not, as he alleges, for adhering to and propagating the principles of our common faith, that he was called in question, and disowned; and we apprehend it will be equally clear, that having made no concession of being in error, it became the Monthly Meeting on this occasion of vital importance in regard to our Christian faith, to testify its disunity with him as a member of our Society; and consequently that it was incumbent on the Quarterly Meeting to confirm such judgment."

A. D.

By the Peace of Ghent, a contest of two years' duration, between 1814. Great Britain and the United States is brought to a conclusion.

I notice this short war only to have the opportunity of saying, that although it threw difficulties in the way of their intercourse as friends, it in no wise separated the Society of Quakers into political parties; or pre