of the members, clergy and laity of the Church of Rome in this country, are, no doubt, to a certain degree, under the genial influence of the mild and candid spirit more prevalent now than in times past among the religious professors around them. They read and think and exercise their judgment on the tenets which are the objects of discussion. The result is, that the sentiments of an English Catholic of literary attainments, are very different, I may venture to assert, from those of the priests and monks of Spain and Portugal, though professing to belong to the same infallible church.

I am led to these remarks by an Exeter newspaper, containing the Address of the Rev. G. Oliver, a respectable Catholic minister, residing in that city, delivered to his auditory on Good Friday last. Part of it I shall transcribe and subjoin to this letter for insertion, if you approve, in your liberal Repository, persuaded that it will prove interesting to many of your readers. Mr. Oliver rejects with indignation the charge of idolatry and of the worship of crucifixes and images, brought against his Church by many Protestants. He declares, that "from the dawn of reason, the Catholic has been taught, that to God alone is supreme adoration due." This sentiment seems to be verging towards Unitarian ism, as the next step is, that God is the only proper object of religious worship. Whatever be the practice of the modern Catholies, it is a pleasing fact, that most Protestants, reputed Trinitarian, follow the directions and model respecting prayer which Jesus Christ, our common Master, gave to his dis ciples, in their usual devotions; and nineteen out of twenty of their solemn addresses, are, I believe, directed to God the Father. When we consider this testimony to Unitarianism, the heterodoxy of the Lutherans and Calvinists in general on the continent of Europe, the recent accounts from India, and the spirit of free inquiry prevalent among many religious professors in North America, surely it is a fair inference, that a great change of senti ment is gradually taking place among different denominations of Christians both in Great Britain and foreign countries. The nature of this change we can be at no loss to determine; and to the Unitarian, who identifies his sys

tem with pure Christianity, it is a subject of ardent hope of its universal prevalence, and of pious exultation, believing, as he does, that it will contribute to promote the knowledge, virtue, peace and happiness of mankind. The steady and persevering exertions of the friends of Christian truth and virtue, recommended by a serious, candid and benevolent spirit, and a holy and dignified conduct suited to the noble cause in which they are engaged, will prepare the professors of the gospel for a second Reformation, more important in its nature, and probably more extensive in its consequences, than the first in which Protestants justly glory. The latter, indeed, may be said to be introductory to the former, just as the twilight of the morning gradually ushers in the glorious orb of day. Then will every church in Christendom have for its object of adoration and religious worship, God the Father only. T. HOWE.

(The Alfred-West-of-England Journal. "It is my duty to leave the people free as the thoughts of man."

ALFRED'S LAST WILL.)

Exeter, Tuesday, April 4, 1820. We feel great pleasure in giving pubkissing the Cross, as delivered by the licity to the following explanation of Rev. G. Oliver, at the Roman Catholic Chapel in Exeter, on Good-Friday, March 31, 1820:

"The custom of saluting the Cross has been so repeatedly explained, that I should hope it is generally understood. For fear, however, that any one should be present who is uninformed on the subject, or who knows nothing of the Catholic religion, but from the misrepresentations of our opponents, I shall again it is not asking too much, to be allowed venture to offer a few remarks. Surely the faculty of understanding my own religion; and I am very confident that I would not make any statement which I did not believe to be strictly true.

"I begin with assuming, that the public catechism of a church contains its actual doctrine. Now what is the doctrine of the Catholic Church in regard of crucifixes and images, as expounded in apply to any Catholic child who has her catechisms? If you cannot read, learned the catechism; but if you can read, consult the catechism yourself, and you will find that a decent respect is recommended to the memorials and representations of Christ and his saints

not that we believe there is any divinity or power in them for which we respect them-nor that any thing is to be asked of them-nor that any trust is to be placed in them, as the Heathens of old trusted in their idols; but because the honour given to them is referred to the prototype or thing represented. From the dawn of reason, the Catholic has been taught that to God alone is supreme adoration due, that we must worship him as our Creator, Redeemer and last end, that Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that nothing is granted to mankind but through the merits of his death and passion. We are expressly forbidden by our religion, as you will see in the catechism, to worship idols, or to give any thing else whatsoever the honour which belongs to God. On no consideration can we pray to relics, crucifixes or images. It would be consummate folly to address supplications to irrational and inanimate objects. This is the language of the catechism; it is clear to the meanest capacity; it conveys the Church doctrine in terms that cannot be misunderstood. It is strongly impressed upon us in our youthful age by our pastors; and the lesson is so consonant to religion and to common sense, as to be indelibly engraven on the mind and feelings.

"Let me now appeal to your candour and ask, whether the Catholic clergy (if they really wished and intended to train up youth in the notion and practice of idolatry) would take such effectual pains in public and in private to give them a contrary bias, and to implant a deeprooted horror of any derogation from the honour which is due to God? Those impressions and instructions which I received in early life, I have carefully delivered to my flock. I have invariably taught, as in duty bound, that they could not, no, not even to save their lives, pay divine honours to any crucifix or image -that to worship for God that which is not God, would be a crime of the blackest die, deserving the curse of heaven and earth.

"Disclaiming, then, as every Catholic must, the odious charge of idolatry detesting the horrid crime as sincerely as any of our calumniators can possibly do, we call upon every honourable and heard, but to study our religion, before they pretend to refute it. We caution them, as they will have to answer for it before the judgment-seat of Christ, to desist bearing false witness against us, and to remember, that he who breaks but one of the ten commandments will offend against all.”

Christian heart not to condemn us un

SIR,

THE

May 22, 1820.

HE discovery of truth is what to assist in; and as the following lines every member of society is bound are dictated purely by that object, I have no doubt they will have a place in a Journal which has the first claims to liberality and fairness.

The grand test of the truth of Christianity, is the authenticity of the miracles

in ascertaining, therefore, the soundness of their faith, Christians should vigilantly examine the testimony by which those miracles are supported. Of the various kinds of testimony applicable to that point, none is considered to be so unobjectionable, and to merit so much dependence, as the testimony of Anti-Christians; I mean admissions made by such persons of the truth of the miracles: and the additional value possessed by such sort of evidence is founded on this reason; that the enemies of Christianity would not have admitted the truth of the miracles on any other grounds than a decided conviction of the fact, and the absolute inutility of disputing it; although, at the same time, they would gladly deny the miracles if they had the shadow of a pretence so to do.

Josephus is one of those Anti-Christians in whose writings we find some mention of the resurrection of Christ; and, if I mistake not, the confirmation of that miraculous occurrence by this writer is deemed of the highest importance by Christians.

ineness of this passage in Josephus's But it appears to me that the genu writings has a suspicion attached to it which demands the deepest scrutiny; a suspicion which must be destroyed before any just weight can be placed on the evidence of this author. It is, therefore, in the hope that some theologian well read in the Testimonies of Christianity, may explain this mystery, that I have ventured to mention the subject: and when it is considered of what vast importance it is that the miracle to which this testimony applies, should be clearly established, I trust that some person who has well investigated the subject, may send an answer to the following observations,

The passage in question, said to be written by Josephus, in allusion to Christ, is to the following effect: "This was the Christ who rose again

from the dead on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold this and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

Now, Josephus was either a Jew, or he was not if he was not a Jew, then his testimony loses its chief value; because that value is grounded on his having been an Anti-Christian. If, however, he was a Jew, (and we have the assertions of all the early Christians that he was,) then it is indisputably certain, that he was not the author of the passage in question, but that it must have been a forgery; and for this obvious reason, because that passage strikes at the very root of Judaism. The Jews contended that Jesus was not the Christ; but the passage alluded to plainly recognizes him in that capacity. The difficulty which thus attaches itself to Josephus's testimony has not passed wholly unperceived. Some have tried to get over it by alleging that Josephus was an Ebionite Jew; that is, he believed Christ to be the Messiah, but denied that he was more than human.

This, however, is no answer to the difficulty; for the essential distinction between Judaism and Christianity is not whether Christ was human or divine, but whether he was the Messiah or not he who confesses Jesus to be the Christ cannot be a Jew; and he who rejects that belief cannot be a Christian.

It would be not less absurd to say that a passage confessing the Trinity could have been written by a Socinian, than to say that a passage confessing Jesus to be the Christ could have been written by a Jew.

The Jews in contemplating the predictions of their ancient prophets, denied that Jesus was the Messiah; but Josephus declares, or is made to declare, that he was the Messiah; he plainly identifies Christ with the whole line of prophecies which preceded his coming.

Thus Josephus is placed in the character of a Jew, striking at the foundation of his own religion: a circumstance which obviously creates a suspicion that the passage in question must have been a forgery, slipped into his writings by some impostor: and what seems to favour this suspicion is, that scarcely in any other part of his writings does Josephus make ny allu

sion to the subject; although had he believed the resurrection, and that Christ was the Messiah, one would naturally imagine he would often allude to a subject by far the most important of any in the annals of his country. Excepting, however, this one passage, one would scarcely know from Josephus that such a person as Christ ever existed. But what makes the passage to look still more like an interpolation is, that there is nothing immediately preceding or subsequent to it, which might be supposed either to lead the author to mention it, or to follow it by any matter connected with the subject. The passage stands solitarily by itself.

It is of the more importance that that these difliculties should be obviated; because if the suspicion should remain that this passage is a forgery, no one can satisfy himself to what extent the system has not been carried. If a forgery be practised in one instance, it may be in a hundred, for it does not necessarily follow that it must be confined to this instance in Josephus.

SIR,

W

R. C.

Hackney, February 10, 1820. ITHOUT having mixed with any sect or party, I have been a silent, but not inattentive, observer of the passing events that have lately so much agitated the public mind, and they have led me to a train of reflections, which, if you should think them worthy of a place in your valuable Repository, I will thank you to admit. In the opinion of the most candid and judicious, the cheap publications of Carlile and others, have had a strong tendency to inflame the passions of the more ignorant and lower orders of the people, already smarting under privations from the want of employment; to destroy in them a belief in the Christian religion and submission to the laws of their country. To stop this torrent, which threatened to overwhelm the peace and security of the nation, Government, as the guardian of the public tranquillity, seems to have thought there was no remedy but the powerful arm of the law. In opposition to this remedy it has been strongly contended both from the pulpit and the press, that Government

had no right to interfere with opinions in matters of religion; that if Christianity had been assailed by foul arguments, they should have been repelled by fair ones, and not by the AttorneyGeneral; and, that the antidote might have been circulated by the same means as the poison was administered; for, if Christianity cannot be supported by fair and sound argument, it cannot be worth defending. That Christianity gives no support to persecution for religious opinions, I should imagine no rational and enlightened Christian will deny; but what may be clear in the abstract, is not always reducible to practice; and an important question presents itself in the present case Was it practicable? I firmly believe not; and therefore think that Government has exercised a sound discretion in preventing the impending mischief, and thereby preserving the public tranquillity. But let me not be suspected of wishing to enter into any political discussion, or of defending the conduct of Government in all the measures they have adopted for the purpose. For, as far as I can judge, the same good ends might have been obtained without recurring to the severity of the late-enacted penal statutes, whereby the liberty of the unoffending part of the nation is so much abridged, and by which Government have drawn upon their own heads the severe condemnation of the more enlightened and judicious part of the nation. But my object is not political, but to shew the impracticability of convincing the Unbeliever in the Christian religion by argument.

In the first place, of what use could it be to discuss the subject in cheap publications with the labouring classes of the people? They are neither from education nor inquiry capable of understanding the subject, or at all fitted to unravel the perplexities in which it is involved. Their belief in Christianity goes no further than a belief in some of the discordant doctrines they have learned from their different teachers. It is only then to the wellinformed and enlightened objector to the Christian revelation that argument could be applied, and his rejection of Christianity does not arise from opposition to it in its native purity, (for in this state it has never been proposed to him,) but to its corruptions and

unintelligible doctrines, as they are professed under different shades of variety by all the churches in Christendom; which doctrines their different interpreters undertake to prove from the New Testament to be the word of God. Before I proceed to endeavour to convince the enlightened Theist of the truth of Christianity, instead of charging him with unreasonable prejudice, I will candidly confess to him that, if I did not believe it upon other and better evidence than that contended for by the orthodox church, I could not be a believer in the Christian revelation; but I hope, if he will have the candour and patience to attend to the arguments I shall offer for believing it, to produce in him the same firm conviction of its truth which I myself feel. In doing this I shall consider myself as reasoning with an enlightened and candid unbeliever, and shall examine his objections: for, as Paley justly observes, "the true Theist will be the first to listen to any creditable communications of divine knowledge, He wishes for light; his inward veneration for this great Being will incline him to attend to all that is taught by a revelation that gives reasonable proof of having proceeded from him."

The first objection of the Unbeliever is, that no revelation said to be from God, and received on historical testimony, can be worthy of credit, if, from its internal evidence, it contains doctrines contrary to the Divine perfections and character as discovered by the light of nature; such, he says, are the doctrines embraced and professed by all the churches in Christendom, and said by them to be contained in, and capable of proof from, the New Testament, the writers of which, they also affirm, were inspired. Now, on such evidence," says he, "I cannot believe in Christianity." The next objection, and a formidable one I confess it is, is, "How is it, if this revelation be from God, that, after having been promulgated almost 1800 years, there are scarcely any two interpreters or teachers of the different doctrines which they embrace, that can agree upon what it does teach, though most of them contend that their own creed is necessary to salvation?" He therefore says, that "A religion of so much contradiction and uncertainty cannot