him many maxims,) "We may esteem the man whom we cannot love, but, we cannot love long the man whom we do not esteem." P. 382.

"Paul before Felix" (Ser. XVI.) is a bold and animated discourse. Recent events give an interest to the following short paragraph, which at another time we might have passed over:

"The leading men at Jerusalem followed a practice, which, unhappily for the interests of truth and virtue, has in

all times been too common and too successful. They first excited the multitude to be guilty of outrages, against those daring innovators, who were introducing new doctrines, and then imputed their own crime to the very men against whom it had been committed."-P. 395.

The preacher is (if we may be pardoned the phrase) quite at home in the

character of Paul.

"Paul's religion was not of this courtly stamp. We know indeed from his own pen, and from his history by the pen of another, that in his general manners, he was courteous, in the right sense of the word, becoming all things to all men, wherever he could be pliant without sacrificing truth. He did not affect that rudeness of address, which is sometimes the offspring of pride, and sometimes the substitute of honesty. But whenever he was called upon by his office as an apostle, to defend or to enforce the great truths of religion, there was no fear of man before his eyes. He then spoke with that plainness, and that manly decision, which the consciousness of his acting for God and virtue, and that alone, can inspire; and he was ready to go both to prison and to death, rather than compromise his integrity, by concealing the doctrine which he was commissioned to

publish, or sparing the wickedness which he was bound to expose. Compare this firmness of courage, this consistency of character, with the pitiful sycophancy, the impious compliances of those who fashion a religion that knows no respect of persons, to the taste of those, who hate the light because their deeds are evil. Compare Paul with those gospel ministers, who sell themselves to the support of any opinions, and the defence of any practices, that are known to be most agreeable to men in authority; compare his conduct before Felix, with the despicable meanness of such timeserving preachers as these, and say which you had rather be, the apostle in bonds, or these with all the wealth and all the worldly consideration, which the mitre, or even the tiara can give them."-Pp. 400-402.

According to our Author, Paul was not, in the modern sense of the term, an orthodox and evangelical preacher:

"But if, as some contend, men are to be justified or condemned by another rule than that of their personal acts; if they are to be tried, without any refer ence to their works; then where was the sense of reasoning upon righteousness and temperance to Felix? Why did not the apostle exhort him to believe and be saved, without urging him upon points, which he could not but know, would be very unpleasant? Had he followed this course, he would have been heard by the Roman governor without any of that perturbation, which his discourse occasioned; and we should probably have been informed, that he had become, both with But instead of this, he holds up the faith him and Drusilla, a favourite preacher. of Christ, as inseparably connected with a virtuous life, and makes the judge tremble in the apprehension, that he himself would be judged for the profligacy of his public and private character, and for all those transgressions of justice aud temperance, of which his own conscience, roused by this appeal, could not fail to remind him."-Pp. 410, 411.

We find some good remarks in Sermon XVII. "On Fanaticism;" but we think that it is defective in definition of terms, and that the texture of the argument is loose. To the caution (p. 432) against running from the extreme of fanaticism into that of indifference, we subscribe most cordially.

In the XVIIIth Sermon, "The Gospel revealed to Babes," the preacher presents us with his system of Christian theology; would to heaven that the Church had always contented herself with so simple and scriptural a creed!

"When the gospel speaks of God, for instance, it is not to discuss the mysterious nature of an existence, to the comprehension of which our faculties are utterly inadequate; but to exhibit his perfections and his moral government in such a light, as may cheer the soul under the consciousness of frailty, and prove an encouragement to all the feelings of devout gratitude, humble confidence, and holy joy. It is to remove the terrors of superstition, and to make us acquainted with the Most High, as a father, benefactor and friend. It is to open a new way of communication with him, not through costly sacrifices, offered by men like ourselves, but through that one Mediator of the New Covenant, who by his own death rendered all other mediation

unnecessary. In one word, when the gospel speaks of God, it is to shew us, that the essence of his nature is love, and the object of his government, the happiness of his rational creatures; which happiness is to be pursued and acquired by ourselves, in the course of a pious and good life, and to be perfected hereafter in a state of progressive knowledge and

confirmed virtue.

"Here is nothing abstruse, unless when it is made so by the perverse subtlety of disputatious polemics; and yet when we regard what is thus revealed, as having the undoubted stamp of a divine authority, it does more to satisfy the understanding, to purify the morals, and to console the hearts of rational beings, than all the treasures of Greek and Roman philosophy."-Pp. 442, 443.

For some time, we have been conscious of having transgressed our bounds, but we cannot refrain from the quotation of another passage from this Sermon, on the corruption of the gospel :

:

"Thus it is that the enemies of the gospel are furnished with arguments against its truth; and that the very men, who profit by it as an instrument of ambition, laugh at the simplicity of those who believe it. They have reason to laugh for it would be simplicity indeed to believe, that the motley and incoherent thing, which such men consider as Christianity, could ever have proceeded from the God of order and the prince of peace -a thing which instigates one nation to pray and fight against another, both of them boasting of the name of Christian; a thing which teaches us to curse instead of blessing; or, if that be too much for an open avowal, to disguise a curse in the form of a blessing, the better to im

pose upon our own conscience. This is the disgrace of Christianity, but not Christianity itself, and this it is that retards its influence in humanizing the heart, and producing the fruits of righteousness and peace. It is made a kingdom of this world, contrary to the express declaration and intention of its author. It is embraced in this view by the wise and the prudent: whilst those who receive it as babes, who love it for its simplicity, who seek it from no weapon of carnal warfare, but find in it the spirit

of power, the spirit of wisdom, and of a sound mind, are borne down by the maxims of worldly wisdom, and regarded as very silly, at least, if not something

worse. But in the midst of all this contempt and discouragement, the Christian is consoled by the assurance, that better views are even now beginning to prevail,

and that the evils of this ill-assorted mixture of religious with political institutions, which are already beginning to be felt and understood, will eventually find a remedy in a more enlightened state of public opinion."-Pp. 449-451.

would have been better omitted; it One sentence of the Sermon (p. 454) bears two senses, and in one sense, though it forms a truism, raises an involuntary smile: The number of babes is daily increasing.

We close this volume as we part with a friend, pleased that we have met and hoping to meet again.

to

ART. II.-A Plain Statement and Scriptural Defence of the Leading Doctrines of Unitarianism ; which are added, Remarks on the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Testament, and a Candid Review of the Text of the Improved Version, in a Letter to a Friend. By Robert Wallace, Minister of a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters in Chesterfield. Chesterfield printed and sold by T. Woodhead: sold, in London, by Longman and Co., and by Sherwood and Co. 1819. 8vo. Pp. 128.

:

HE author of this pamphlet would

modation of his readers, had he distributed the matter of it into four or five letters. In his statement, defence, remarks, and review, we meet, however, with that information, good sense and candour which may well compensate for some disadvantages of arrangement.

tion, he represents the peculiar docAfter a short epistolary introductrines of Unitarians, and describes the several classes of Christians who are known under that denomination. We shall not stop to examine the historical or theological accuracy of every part of his catalogue: it is in the main correct; and the Unitarianism of Mr. belief" in the sole, entire, and inWallace himself evidently consists in a communicable divinity of God," and in the simple, unreserved humanity of

Jesus Christ.

We have next a compendium of the scriptural proof that there is only one God. Having adduced, for this posi tion, texts the clearness and strength of which would seem to be resistless, the writer adds:

"Passages like these admit properly but of one interpretation; and yet the ingenuity of criticism has invented other senses as remote as possible from their natural and obvious meaning. Every text which affirms the Divine Unity,' says the Rev. R. Wardlaw, a writer of orthodox celebrity, must be interpreted as meaning that God is one indeed-but one according to the peculiar modification of unity which belongs to Deity;' and hence he infers, in consistency with this favourite principle of interpretation, that every text which affirms the unity of God, involves an affirmation of the Trinity. It is in vain that the Unitarian adduces his proofs by hundreds and thousands. His adversary, with this happy principle of interpretation at hand, can instantly disarm them of all their force, however numerous and explicit; for, by this grand secret of the polemical art, he is enabled to assign a variety of new senses to the term unity, and instead of regarding the Deity as strictly and numerically one, he may regard him as one in three, or any indefinite number of persons."-Pp. 13, 14.

Mr. W. proceeds to prove from Scripture the sole Deity of the Father, the inferiority and subordination of the Son, and his simple humanity. On the same authority he shews, that the Holy Spirit is not an intelligent being distinct from God the Father. In the illustration of these points our author is concise, but perspicuous and forcible. Of the practical importance of viewing Jesus of Nazareth" as a MAN approved of GOD," he seems to be fully sensible. The following observations on this subject (p. 26, Note) are extremely just; and the same reference to a valuable criticism of Dr. S. Johnson's, had been made by Mr. Bransby:

"In reflecting on the orthodox system concerning the divine nature of Christ, I have often been struck," declares Mr. W., "with the language of Johnson respecting the plan of Paradise Lost,' and which will apply at least with equal force to the subject before us. Had Jesus been possessed of such a nature, his life, as it appears to me, would have comprised neither human actions nor human manners. We should have found no transactions in which we could be engaged; beheld no condition in which we could, by any effort of imagination, have

་

placed ourselves; and should, therefore, have had little natural curiosity or sympathy.'"

W's letter treats of the grounds of The second general division of Mr. difference between the canon and text adopted by the editors of the Improved Version and those of the authorized translation.

To the "commonly urged" accusation" against Unitarians that they have not the same reverence for the Bible which is found among other denominations of Christians; and that they alter passages which do not accord with their own views, so as to make them convey a sense entirely foreign from that of the original authors," he thus replies:

"No denomination of Christians, I will venture to affirm, has done more, in proportion to its numbers, to establish the genuineness of the books of Scripture, and shield them from the attacks of Infidels, than Unitarians. Let the appeal be made to facts, and where will you find a person, among the ranks of orthodoxy, who has laboured to confirm the truth of the Christian religion with as

much assiduity and success as Lardner ?"

-P. 41.

de

As to "the genuineness of the books of the New Testament," the writer before us expresses himself with that discriminating judgment which is the effect of thought, inquiry and knowledge. He thinks, that in the case of every one of these books the question of its genuineness mands a separate investigation." And, as the issue of such an examination, he receives all the historical books of the N. T., the thirteen epistles almost universally ascribed to Paul, the first and the first of the two of which Peter of those which are attributed to John, "For variis said to be the author.

ous and weighty reasons," however, he cannot, "with the same confidence, affirm, that Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews;" while he deems it "highly probable" that the epistle commonly ascribed to James is genuine, "because it appears to have been known to Clemens Romanus and Hermas, two of the earliest apostolical fathers, and because it is found in the canon of the first Syriac New Testament, which is decidedly the most ancient version of the Christian Scriptures." With Lardner and many

others, Mr. W. thinks that "the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalypse ought not to be regarded as of sufficient authority to establish by themselves any point of doctrine." He then states the testimony on which he frames these sentiments, and in the compass of a few pages affords much useful information.

While he disclaims " any intention to involve the editors of the Improved Version' in the consequences which may result" from his statement of his own views of the genuineness of certain books of the New Covenant, he aims, nevertheless, at establishing that principle of separate investigation which they and he acknowledge in common. His defence of their candour and moderation does him much credit :

"They have broached," he observes, <6 no new opinions on the subject of the canon: they have stood forward

as the advocates of no peculiar system: their references are all clear and satisfactory, and their authorities of the most respectable kind: their conclusions are neither hasty nor unfounded; and, though they have ventured to express doubts on some particular points, they have not removed a single book from the New Testament, or stated a single fact which is not confirmed by the most ample and unexceptionable testimony."—P.61.

The intelligent writer advances to a topic of great importance, though little understood, the text of the New Testament. This part of his letter he introduces in a manner richly meriting

attention:

"The doctrines of Unitarianism are few and simple; nor, we may be bold to say, are they so far deficient in scriptural authority as to require any additional aid from interpolations. That there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus,' (1 Tim. ii. 5,) are plain and obvious declarations of the New Testament; and these declarations, as you have already seen, constitute the fundamental articles of the Unitarian's creed. From various causes, however, the common version of the New Testament is clogged with many additions, which it is the object of the Unitarian to remove."-Pp. 62, 63.

From the succinct account given by Mr. W. of the critical editions of the Christian Scriptures we shall copy a few sentences, which record a fact

truly honourable to the memory of one biblical scholar and to the character of another:

"Wetstein was an Antitrinitarian, and Michaëlis has, on this account, attempted to fix upon him the charge of partiality in judging of passages supposed to relate to the divinity of Christ. But Bishop Marsh has, with much candour and good sense, repelled the ungenerous insinuation; proving that the decisions of Wetstein respecting such passages have been abundantly confirmed by the researches

of later critics."-P. 68.

Of Griesbach's labours in this field our author speaks in the highest terms, and enumerates some of the principal points of difference” in his text (2nd Ed.), and in that of the I. V. The passages brought forward by Mr. W. are, Matt. xxiii. 14; John i. 1418, xix. 4, xx. 8; Rom. iii. 25; 1 Cor. x. 9, xv. 47. Each of these he very carefully examines, and decides upon most of them with his characteristic judgment. As to Rom. iii. 25, we would follow Dr. Carpenter and this writer in reading the clause, "through faith," parenthetically. An amended punctuation is a fair and often an effectual method of ascertaining the real sense of Scripture.

66

from which Trinitarianism derives its Mr. W. goes on to state five texts main support," but of which it is, nevertheless, deprived by "impartial criticism." The reader will compare Griesbach's editions of the G. T. with the R. T. in Acts xx. 28; Eph. iii. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John iii. 16, v. 7, 8. Our author adds:

"The majority of learned orthodox writers have acknowledged the corrupt state of the received text, and given a verbal sanction to the amended text of Griesbach; or at least to the principles upon which it is founded. But the time, I apprehend, is far distant when these principles, which are deemed so admirable in theory, will be applied, under the sanction of episcopal authority, to the formation of a purer text than the one now in common use. The Athenians know what is right; but the Lacedemonians practise it.'"-P. 85.

If, however, we may regard Sir James Bland Burges as speaking the sentiments of the fashionable world, perhaps of the very highest orders of society, we must take for granted that, in the opinion of those who could give

efficiency to the measure, there are not wanting reasons in favour of a new translation of the Holy Scriptures. Biblical learning, it is true, does not seem to be the baronet's most honourable distinction: he confounds together translation and interpretation, the adjustment of the text and the disclosure of the sense of the sacred writers he commends, too, what we presume, no man of solid erudition and judgment can commend, the labours of Mr. John Bellamy. From such objectors and such critics the R. V. has nothing to apprehend. A judicious revision of it is all that we desire: great as are its merits, it is the translation of a text confessedly incorrect; nor can the phraseology of the sixteenth, or even of the beginning of the seventeenth be always intelligible to persons living in the nineteenth century. These, we think, are sufficiently powerful arguments, without the aid of merely theological considerations, for such a revision as we have intimated; and these, we should hope, might approve themselves even to Mr. Todd, whom, like Sir J. Bland Burges, we hail chiefly in the primrose path of

literature.

The author of the "Plain Statement," &c. and our readers, will pardon us for this digression, if they so esteem it. We return with pleasure to Mr. Wallace. His remarks on the two narratives of the miraculous birth of Jesus, at the beginning of the respective gospels of Matthew and Luke, we have perused with much approbation it is a very ingenious conjecture that certain parts of these introductory chapters are borrowed from Exod. i. 22, ii. 15, iv. 19; and from 1 Sam. i. 3, 24, ii. 26, iii. 19. (Pp. 91,92.) But as to all or most of the passages which the editors of the I. V. have printed in italics, we believe that Critical Justice rather calls for their being included within brackets. We take the liberty of referring to Rule xix. p. 353, in Archbishop Newcome's Hist. View, &c. This course we should pursue in regard to the much agitated passage in Josephus, were it our lot to carry a new edition of that historian through the press.

No part of Mr. W.'s pamphlet reflects more honour on him than that in which he animadverts on a late Inquiry into the Integrity of the

66

Greek Vulgate," &c. To these strictures he is naturally led by his notice of John vii. 53, viii. 11. Nothing can be more complete than his defence of the editors of the I. V., and his victory over Mr. Nolan, whose calumny of Eusebius of Cæsarea our author skilfully exposes, and the unsoundness of whose critical system he clearly illustrates. Rendering him our sincere thanks for his services in the cause of truth, and expressing our satisfaction that he is so well qualified to fulfil his office as a Christian minister, we entreat his leave to employ the short remainder of this article in making a few observations on Mr. Nolan.

This gentleman seems ambitious that his Inquiry, &c. should be looked upon as supplementary to Dr. Kennicott's Inquiry into the State of the Hebrew Text, &c. Very slender is the probability of its gaining the same exalted reputation, or even of its surviving the present age. Between the execution of the two performances, in point of style and method, of testimony and reasoning, there subsists a striking difference; nor less obvious is the contrast in the objects of them; Dr. K. endeavouring (with much success) to restore, but Mr. N. to perpetuate, a corrupted text.

A more hasty, indigested and confused production than his Inquiry, &c. has seldom been presented to the world: its language is obscure and involved, its arrangement disorderly; it abounds in needless and innumerable repetitions, and is characterised by those theological prepossessions which utterly disqualify a man for being an able biblical scholar. They are pointless weapons with which Mr. N. attacks the memories of "the illustrious dead," Eusebius and Origen: it would appear that, in the conviction of some men, false accusation is essential to the support of the orthodox belief and to the overthrow of heresy.

From Mr. Nolan's cloudy pages we select one specimen of his good faith and candour, or perhaps of his felicity as a translator. He ventures to charge Eusebius with having suppressed John vii. 53, viii. 11; and on what foundation is this charge erected? Why, truly, the historian "wanted neither the power nor the will" thus to mutilate the Scriptures. Not the will, because he was an Arian, or some