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, 66 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 characteristie 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.

Mr. W. goes on to state five texts "from which Trinitarianism derives its 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, ií. 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

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

thing like one: not the power, because the emperor Constantine gave him a commission to order to be written, "by able scribes," fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, [Twv dewy onλad γραφων, ων μαλιςα την τ' επισκευην και την χρησιν τῷ της εκκλησίας λόγω αναγκαιαν ειναι γινώσκεις. Who, except Mr. Nolan, can perceive in the last clause any thing about a discretion to deal with these books ad libitum? To whom besides is it not

clear that these concluding words express the emperor's and Eusebius's high opinion of the Sacred Scriptures, and this without the least reserve? Either the author of the Inquiry, &c. could not construe, or he has pur posely misrepresented the language before us. On either supposition, where is his competency for the task he has undertaken? N.

[Under this head we propose to insert brief remarks on, or extracts from, new books, which are entitled to some attention from us, but which we are not able to bring under Review.] 1. Historical Memoirs respecting the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics, from the Reformation to the present Time. By Charles Butler, Esq. of Lincoln's Inn. 2 vols. 8vo Murray. 1819.

Mr. Butler is an indefatigable author. Every one wonders that he can time from his learned and labospare rious profession for the compilation of books on subjects not relating to it; but he himself explains this, in a motto from the celebrated French lawyer, D' Aguesseau, Le changement d'étude est toujours un délassement pour moi; and we may add, that however valuable Mr. Butler's works are, they are chiefly compilations, and are hastily made. We say not this to disparage them, for they are extremely useful, and manifest great extent of knowledge and true Christian liberality

of heart.

The present publication is a sort of apology for the British Roman Catholics, and the author has succeeded at least in shewing that their persecutors have been commonly in the wrong. No one can read it, we imagine, without surrendering his prejudices, and admitting that whatever be the truth or error of the Roman Catholic creed, it opposes no barrier to their full enjoyment of the civil and political rights of Britons.

Mr. Butler gives an interesting and, we doubt not, an accurate account of the present state of the Roman Catholics in this country, as also of their literary history and theological contro

versies from the Reformation to the present times. He points out some admirable writers of their communion, especially in the earlier part of this period; but even his flattering review of his sect exhibits upon the whole a great dearth of talents. His partiality leads him to claim Shakspeare as a Roman Catholic, but he proceeds in this case upon mere negative evidence. The wording of the poet's Will appears to us to be decisive proof on the other side.

But we take notice of the Memoirs

chiefly for the sake of a few passages which we wish to extract.

Conversation of Mr. Fox's on

Religious Liberty.

“Mr. Fox's principles of civil and rereligious liberty are known to have been of the most enlarged kind.-On one occasion, he desired the writer of these pages to attend him, to confer with him, as he condescended to say, on Catholic Emancipation. He asked the writer,

what he thought was the best ground on which it could be advocated. The writer suggested it was-that it is both unjust and detrimental to the state to their civil rights, on account of their redeprive any portion of its subjects of ligious principles, if these are not inconsistent with moral or civil duty.' 'No, Sir! Mr. Fox said, with great animation: 'that is not the best ground.-The best ground, and the only ground to be defended in all parts is, that action, not principle, is the object of law and legislation. With a person's principles no government has a right to interfere.'—‹ Åm I then to understand,' said the person wished to bring the matter at once to with whom he was conversing, and who issue, by supposing an extreme casethat, in 1713, when the houses of Brunswick and Steuart were equally balanced, if a person published a book, in which he

attempted to prove that the house of Hanover unlawfully possessed the throne, and that all who obeyed them were morally criminal, he ought not to be punished by law? Government,' said Mr. Fox, should answer the book, but should not set its officers upon its author.' 'No' he continued with great animation, and rising from his seat; the more I think of it the more I am convinced of the truth of my position;-action, not principle, is the true object of government.' In his excellent speech for the repeal of the Test, Mr. Fox adopted this principle in its fullest extent; and enforced and illustrated it with an admirable union of argument and eloquence."-II. pp. 205

"The subject leads to the mention of the version of the historical books of the Old Testament, by the late Reverend Alexander Geddes, LL. D. Dr. Geddes was a priest of the Catholic Church, and, for several years, served a Catholic mission in Scotland. Incurring the displeasure of his bishop, he removed to London, and at first said mass in private families. After some time, he altogether abstained from the exercises of his sacred functions, and dedicated himself to a new translation of the Scriptures, under the patronage of Lord Petre, the grandfather of the present lord. His lordship furnished the Doctor with a complete biblical library, and promised to allow him, during the time in which he should be engaged in his biblical undertaking, an annuity of one hundred pounds. Double the amount of this sum, his lordship, whilst he lived, most regularly paid the Doctor. The first volume of the Translation appeared in 1792; the second, and last, in 1797. They were accompanied by Notes under the text; and by a volume of Critical Observations. In these he absolutely denied the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the sacred writings, expressed himself very slightingly on several opinions universally received and respected by the church; and generally adopted the German scheme of rationalizing the narrative of the Old Testament.

The frequent levity of his expressions was certainly very repugnant, not only to the rules of religion, but to good sense. This fault he carried in a still greater degree into his conversation: it gave general offence, but, those who knew him, whilst they blamed and lamented his aberrations, did justice to his learning, to his friendly heart and guileless simplicity. Most unjustly has he been termed an infidel. He professed himself a Trinitarian, a believer in the

resurrection, in the divine origin, and divine mission of Christ; in support of which he published a small tract. He also professed to believe all the leading and unadulterated tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. From her, however scanty his creed might be, he did not so far recede as was generally thought. The estrangement of his brethren from him was most painful to his feelings. The writer has more than once witnessed his lamenting this circumstance, with great agitation, and even with bitter tears.

"The general opinion respecting his version appears to be settled. It is admitted to contain many happy renderings; many just emendations of the text; and many profound and ingenious observations on its sense; and to discover a profound knowledge of the Hebrew language. But the propriety of the greater part, both of his emendations and interpretations, has been questioned; the too frequent levity of them we have already noticed. Another considerable defect in his version is, its total want of uniformity of style; in this respect it yields to the Vulgate, in which, although it was evidently executed by different hands, the vultus et color idem, are, throughout, admirably preserved. No translation of the sacred volumes, not even that of Houbigant, possesses this excellence in an equal degree. In every page of the version of Doctor Geddes there is some breach of this uniformity; the style, moreover, is justly reproached with incessant inversion, a mode of writing equally contrary to the Hebraic and the Greek idioms.

"He completed and published his translation of the historical books; and, when he died, he was preparing a pocket edition of the Psalms. He had sold the copy to Johnson the bookseller; and the work was printed off to the middle of the cxviiith Psalm.

"Lord Petre, his original patron, bequeathed to him an annuity of one hundred pounds during his life. With the hereditary munificence of his family, his lordship's son, soon after the decease of his father, signified to the Doctor, in the most polite and friendly manner, his intention to continue his father's patronage of the work; and to allow him an additional annuity of one hundred pounds. The Doctor did not long survive his noble patron. Lord Petre died in July 1801. The Doctor died in the following February. He was buried, by his own desire, in the churchyard at Paddington. The funeral was numerously and honourably attended. Few could boast of warmer, or of more respectable friends; for, no one ever called in question his learning, or the benevolence of his disposition. Lord