Turner solicits the liberal contributions of his hearers. In this part of his discourse, it is curious to hear Him inadvertently speak of the churches of Presbyterians, and of the advantages of an University education. After dwelling with minuteness upon the catalogue of learned Dissenters, he adds, that it is an object of, at least, excusable ambition to attempt the continuance of an order of men, who have deserved so well of their respective societies, and of the Christian world at large.

But, having pleaded that the continuance of an order of learned and able ministers is an object of great importance, the preacher involves himself in a dilemma, from which he makes many very aukward struggles to disentangle himself. Far am I, says he, from wishing to claim For learning any UNDUE pre-eminence or authority. Far am I from wishing to undervalue the labours of many excellent men, who, with ONLY A KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR NATIVE TONGUE, have devoted themselves to INSTRUCT the ignorant. Far am I from asserting that learning is NECESSARY to a right understanding of the Scriptures, or from denying to any one who understands the Gospel, his undoubted RIGHT to TEACH it. Conformity to the whims and fancies of sectaries of every description, William Turner had before informed us, is the leading principle of modern Dissenters. He is, therefore, obliged to say and to unsay fine things of learning, lest he should disgust that great majority of schismatics, who, being extremely ignorant, like a preacher the better for being as deficient as themselves. Far be it from us, Mr. Editor, to assert that learning is not necessary to a right understanding of the Scriptures. As far be it from us, to maintain that a knowledge of our native tongue alone is a sufficient qualification to enable us to understand the divine writers thoroughly. But farthest of all be it from us, to admit that any man, be his qualifications few or many, has an undoubted right to teach the Gospel. St. Paul, with all his attainments, never opens his lips to instruct others, without a solemn declaration that he has been formally appointed an apostle for that purpose; or, to use his own word, sent. All his speeches and all his Epistles, especially in their first verses, studiously inculcate that he has received ordination to act in the capacity of a preacher; and that he has not taken upon himself to associate with the regularly constituted ministers of God's word, and to partake of their ministry, without special and palpable appointment. Says not the same learned Apostle in general terms of all ministers of religion, How shall they preach except they be SENT? The words of the original Greek are here very strong, and cannot by any sectarian artifice be simplified into a sense less substantial than this; that no man can have an undoubted right to teach the Gospel, until authorized by the Church. They, therefore, who undertake to preach of their own accord, have a most awful account to render for their presumption. If they are poorly qualified for the office, their transgression is aggravated, Far, very far, is a knowledge of our native tongue alone from being sufficient to lead us to a right understanding of the Scriptures. When William Turner asserted that it was sufficient, he contradicted himself: for he had before condemned our English Version of the Scriptures as deficient in accuracy, and positively asserts afterwards

P4

that

that it was made by men very much under the influence of system. If these facts are true, it must follow, of necessity, that none are competent to the exposition of the Scriptures, but they who are able to read them in their original tongues. I have, however, already denied the inaccuracy of our English bible in general, and I question its having been corrupted by the influence of system. Nevertheless, I will not hold that acquaintance with a translation only, however excellent, can qualify any man whatever, to pronounce with sufficient exactness on the sense of the original. I must ever be of opinion that, learned as the established clergy are, and infinitely as they surpass the generality of sectarian preachers in knowledge, they are yet to be deemed a little short of that standard in attainments, which an accomplished minister ought always to reach. To understand the New Testament, ought not the Hellenistic Greek to be particularly studied To understand the Hellenistic Greck, have we not occasion for an accurate knowledge of that Greek into which the Hebrew is transfused by the seventy-two interpreters; which forms the basis of the language of the New Testament? To understand that Greek, is it not requisite that we know the Hebrew, as well at least as the divines of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries? To comprehend the Hebrew, shall we not have need of some insight into the Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic languages, to mention no more? If from these fountain heads we trace the sense of Scripture through all its windings, and never lose sight of its meandering course, till we come down to the Gospels, it may be presumed that we are well qualified, for the interpretation of the Evangelists and Apostles, Without knowledge to this extent, all ministers of the word must be, more or less, unworthy of their office, according to their several degrees of deficiency. If they know nothing of those tongues, they cannot always understand the Gospel; they are even in momentary danger of blundering, and it is right that they should be excluded from the regular ministry. But if, notwithstanding such exclusion, some are still so vain and infatuated, as to pretend to teach, in spite of their ignorance of what they affect to understand, the mouths of such mischievous empirics, such mountebanks in divinity, should be stopped by LAW.

To give farther countenance to illiterate preachers, William Turner observes that the Gospel was preached, by its original founder, to the poor; and many POOR men were first employed in spreading it but men of erudition and taste, says he, were also employed. Did it never occur to William Turner, that the POOR men, selected for this purpose, were endued with all the advantages of liberal education, before they were suffered to preach? Are they any longer men destie tute of letters, when they begin to instruct their fellow-creatures? Are they not rather ministers who are become, by a miracle, extremely learned? Where is the Apostle, in these days, who is so well qualifed, by his critical skill in languages, as they were? And if there was no profit arising from all this superiority of knowledge, why does St. Paul so often pique himself upon the advantages of his education? why does he so triumphantly exclaim, I thank my God I speak.

with tongues more than you all? So far from allowing that POOR and ILLITERATE men have had any preference, in appointment to the priesthood, I quote the instance of Christ's selecting his Apostles from the meanest of men, to shew that such men can only be qualified by miracle; they can only be rendered competent by the laying on of the hands of Christ himself. At all other times, and in the absence (if I may so speak) of our Lord, it has manifestly been signified, that we are not to elect our priesthood from the dregs of society. The priesthood of Israel was dignified. Many are the regulations of the divine law, which provide for its respectability. And when Jeroboam consecrated and ordained whoever chose to minister, when he repeatedly made of the lowest of the people priests; are we not informed that this thing became SIN unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth?

There is one qualification, Mr. Editor, which the Apostles derived from the gift of tongues, which I believe has never been adverted to as it is peculiarly deserving of the attention of those illiterate preachers of whom I am speaking, I cannot forbear to notice it. The Apostles, it must be first observed, were all men born in a remote part of the Holy land; in that part of it which was most distant from the capital, Jerusalem. This region of Palestine having been long since over-run, a mixed kind of Syriac had been introduced into it; which was, in many respects, essentially different from the Syriac spoken in Jerusalem. To this rude language had the Apostles been accustomed from their childhood, and, being poor and destitute of the means of procuring education, may be reasonably supposed to have contracted all its barbarisms. Of the nature of these barbarisms, any of your readers, Sir, may obtain a competent idea, by consulting Lightfoot. They were such, that the Apostle who denied his master, evasively answered the highpriest's maid, by saying I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest;' affecting to hide himself in the peculiar obscurity of his dialect. She, on the contrary, tells him, thy speech bewrayeth thee.' The Apostles had, it seems, contracted the brogue of that part of Palestine in which they were born; and could no more disguise their origin from a native of Judea, than a poor Scotchman or Irishman could adopt the stile of an inhabitant of London. It was, perhaps, the most remarkable part of the miracle, that this provincial defect was remedied by the descent of the Holy Ghost. For we are very particularly informed that, after the gift of tongues, the Apostles were enabled to speak like dwellers in JUDEA: and hence it was, that such striking effect was produced by the subsequent speech of Peter, whose language had so lately bewrayed him. From this extraordinary circumstance, is manifestly to be deduced this important truth that God does not approve of such men being made the vehicles of his word, who are likely to disgrace it by the vulgarity of their discourse. And if the Holy Spirit thought proper to correct such a defect, in men whom it had set apart as travelling Instructors of mankind, may we not reasonably expect from Mr. Rowland Hill, from the Vicar of Charles, Plymouth, and from all

other

other itinerary Apostles, who fancy and who profess that they are peculiarly inspired for this purpose,-I say, may we not reasonably expect from them, as sound demonstration of their being so peculi arly commissioned, an exhibition of the same versatility of dialect as was conferred on the Apostles? Ought not Rowland Hill to have been of the North country at Kendal, and a Scot beyond the Tweed? Alas, alas! I have waited years and years for some proof of that inspiration which fanatics have blasphemously asserted; but, like the wicked Cardinal, if watched to their graves, they individually disappoint us, they die and give no sign. Whereas, the honour of God is most clearly to be impeached, if we suppose him to appoint, as ministers for a peculiar purpose, persons who are defective in qualifications; and if that purpose fail in their hands for want of supernatural assistance.

The translation of our Bible, says William Turner, was made by men very much under the influence of system, and at a time when the critical knowledge of the original languages was comparatively in its infancy. Both parts of this assertion may be combated. I believe that translators of the Scriptures could not have been selected from any religious party of those days, who were less likely to give to the Version they pro duced the peculiar tincture of their own persuasions, than the members of the Church of England. We may consider them, as persons who preserved a laudable medium between the two furious extremes of popery and Presbyterianism. They poised the balance with admirable impartiality, and truth was not sacrificed to either, The simplicity and manly fidelity of their version of the Scriptures, have rendered it an inestimable treasure to those who know how to appreciate its merits. Their ability for the task which they undertook is manifest in every part of the work; and nothing can be more rash, or more untrue, than that the critical knowledge of the original Scriptures was then in its infancy. The knowledge of the Hebrew tongue was looked upon indispensibly requisite to the clerical profession. It was no difficult matter to find fifty-four scholars of eminence in that language, in the kingdom of England alone; whereas, at present we may challenge the three kingdoms to produce a fifth part of that number, equally well qualified. If William Turner would see a specimen of the critical knowledge of the time, and of the pro→ foundly learned discourses which then fell from the pulpit; let him look into Joseph Mede; who must have been at the University at the very period in which the present translation of the Bible was produced, though perhaps too young to be employed in it.

Our author is more fortunate in his observation, when he says that so much attention had not been paid, in those days, to the customs and manners of Scripture, as of late years. These, he adds, have been the foundations of some of the most satisfactory explanations of Scripture passages which had previously embarrassed us. Granted: and I will mention with peculiar respect, what William Turner, as a Dissenter, ought not to have omitted, the name of Harmer. But I must add, that the Observations of Harmer not only form a disjointed farrago of information without order or method; but have also something

something radically defective in their very first principle. It is not safe to apply modern custom, on all occasions, to the illustration of ancient writ. It is first necessary to prove that such custom existed anciently, and has not been materially altered, since the period of those writings which it is so apt to elucidate. Nevertheless, that customs and manners have, in many instances, been transmitted to later times from the earliest antiquity, and continue still unchanged (though not immutable) I readily admit. Of the happiness of Mr. Harmer's illustrations there is seldom any question; but conviction of the legitimate origin of the fact applied, in illustration, is very frequently wanted.

Upon the whole William Turner is an advocate for learning in the priesthood: and therefore he undertakes to recommend schemes of public education, such as have of late years been attempted. The most distinguished of these, says he, was the Warrington Academy, where the studies of young ministers were for many years directed by the father of Dr. Aikin. Hence, Mr. Editor, the partiality of the Critical Reviewers to the latter. Soon after the death of Dr. Aikin's father, in 1781, this institution declined. Hence, perhaps, the Doctor's chagrin. On its failure, in 1784, some active persons in Manehester obtained the transfer of its library and a part of its remaining funds. What became of the pars altera? did Dr. Priestley take it with him to America? In Manchester a New College was established by these patrons of non-conformity of which they have been till now the chief supporters. At length it solicits the charitable contributions of well-disposed Christians, and William Turner is its advocate. The pulpit (drum ecclesiastic) is made to resound with his tattoo; and all able-bodied young men, of enterprizing spirit, are called upon to enlist themselves, as future Presbyterian preachers. But many a recruiting serjeant has shewn ten times his skill in beating up. It was well, to say that the necessity of rigidly strict economy, during his academical course, would be beneficial to the no vice, by preparing him to subsist with greater ease on the stipend of his future settlement. But why does the author tell his audience, that young men are not to be found whose parents are at the same time able to incur the needful expence, and willing that their sons should be educated to the profession of non-conforming preachers? Why does he acquaint them, that there is even an aversion to the measure among those in bet ter circumstances? Why does he proclaim, that the pecuniary prospects of dissenting ministers are not the most inviting; and that it is not at all likely that a son, educated to this profession, should become the richest man of his family? Surely this is not the way to fill the thin ranks of the dissenting squadron with new recruits. There is, however, great honesty in the confession that such are the meager wages of nonconformity. Nor is it a circumstance unworthy of our pity, that the piety of Dissenters should be so lukewarm, as to give cause to the preacher to speak of the universally-acknowledged deficiency of the mere annual stipends of dissenting ministers, even in the best places. The most liberal of their incomes, adds the author, are not equal, in the present times, to their reputably supporting that station and character in

society,