standing their practical disregard to it; and their avowedly lax. and depreciating estimate of the inspiration on which it is founded; together with their high and deifying exaltation of reason; require a thorough discussion of this important subject. Nothing would be more conducive to the satisfactory termination of such an inquiry, than a statement of the nature of that evidence, on which the Divine authority of the Gospel rests. We are fully prepared to admit, that the accordance of its doctrines with what are called the principles of natural religion, the harmony of revealed truth, its adaptation to the moral condition of our race, its consoling influence amid the ills of life, and its pure and holy tendency, are all internal proofs of the Divine origin of Christianity; but these are arguments, the force of which cannot be properly appreciated, without an understanding and a reception of the Gospel, and therefore, cannot be considered as the ultimate reason for believing it.

We may justly talk of the reasonableness of the Gospel, and ge the consideration of this fact, on the attention of inqurers but its mere reasonableness could not form, in the first instance, the ground of its authority. For what do we mean by the reasonableness of a doctrine? Clearly, its agreement with each individual's antecedent opinions. But how can antecedent opinions be formed at all, on a subject which is supposed to require, in order to our understanding it, a Divine revelation? If there are any opinions, it may be presumed from the necessity of such a revelation, that they are all wrong; or so far wrong as to require an entire renunciation of them-" becoming fools, in order to be wise." If the revelation in question be a mere correction of imperfect and erroneous notions, previously obtaining in the world, nothing but argument and reasoning would seem necessary to rectify or confute them: and the interposition of miracles and prophecies, would be a needless exertion of power. Allow each individual to whom this revelation is addressed, to judge beforehand of its doctrines, whether he thinks them reasonable, or not, and you appeal to an uncertain, variable, and most capricious test; a test depending on the arbitration of accident, and passion, and interest; and involving in it no determinate views of responsibility. And then," to what purpose is a subsequent reference to miracles and prophecies? Make Reason (that is, if it mean any thing at all, each individual's opinion) the standard, and if the doctrines are deemed rational, nothing further is requisite; but if not rational, in this view of the term, then neither miracles, nor any other species of proof can support them.

This conclusion precisely expresses the opinions of modern

Socinians, and illustrates the consequences to which they lead; and on their principles we would ask, why were miracles and prophecies ever employed, as the means of establishing the authority of revelation? We cannot suppose them designed for merely temporary and local objects: this would at once destroy the universality of revelation, and diminish, if not annihilate, its importance to ourselves. As forming part of the great scheme of the moral government of God, we must conceive them intended to be the means of accrediting some truth, or system of truths, involving in it, of course, all necessary obligations to duty; and to constitute the primary reason for considering those truths and obligations as of Divine authority.

The first question must respect the attestations themselves,— their genuineness, their validity; and if not personal witnesses of the facts, it must be applied to an investigation of the historical evidence for believing the testimony that records them. Here is full scope for the exercise of reason; here it may employ all its powers of scrutinizing, without fear or limitation. And it is worthy of remark, that whatever we make of the record itself, the outward seal of its authority remains the same. It is so constructed by the wisdom of God, that the question concerning the antecedent authority of the Gospel, as separate from all views of its substance and contents, is not a question of sentiment, or of system; but purely, and exclusively, a question of fact. This assertion is, we think, capable of the most satisfactory and decisive proof; and we cannot see how it could have been otherwise in the first promulgation of Christianity.

Can we

This view gives to miracles and prophecies their just value and importance; and it is of peculiar consequence, as teaching us to distinguish between the evidence and the doctrines of Christianity; and not to confound the admission of the one with the belief of the other. It illustrates the use of evidence; not to be itself the sole object of faith, as the generalising principles of Socinianism teach us, but to be the authoritative sanction of the doctrine promulgated on the ground of that evidence. And is it not reasonable to believe what God has revealed? assign a better reason for our faith than that authority? And is it not the height of arrogant presumption to assert, that we must first ascertain whether the doctrine accord with our antecedent views and previous notions before we cordially admit it, even though a testimony, divinely accredited, clearly and expli eitly reveal it? And yet this is the very essence and spirit of Socinianism! Dr. Priestley scrupled not to assert that miraeles themselves could not prove the doctrine of atonement. He says, we must judge of the reasonings as well as the facts of scripture; and his admirers and imitators are in no respect behind him. It requires no small portion of critical perspi

cuity to find out the difference between their language, in reference to obnoxious and unyielding passages, and the very ribaldry of scepticism itself.

To examine the evidence, and ascertain the meaning of revelation, appears to us to be the only province of Reason. In the latter department of its office, Mr. W.'s discourse on the test of truth has furnished some useful and appropriate advice. After explaining the text, 1 Thess. v. 21. "Prove all things, &c." as meaning" Bring all things to the test," he introduces some excellent remarks on the mode of reasoning employed by Socinian critics, in condemning and explaining away the import and authority of Scripture; and concludes with several important observations on the right method of conducting our inquiries into the meaning of the sacred volume. We cannot resist the

temptation of transcribing the following passage.

In making our appeal to the Scriptures we should beware, on all occasions, of secretly indulging a wish to discover any part of them, however small, to be spurious. From a lowly sense of the deceitfulness of our hearts, and on account of the degree in which such a wish is in danger of biassing and perverting our judgments, we should be the more especially jealous of ourselves, in those instances in which the particular passages in question contain, or seem to contain, any thing that is inconsistent with the opinions which we may previously have formed: and no word, or text, or passage, should be pronounced an interpolation, without the clearest critical evidence of its having formed no part of the original record, as dictated by the Spirit of God. The truth is, such words, and texts, and passages, are so very few in number, and in every respect of such a nature, that the unlearned reader of the English translation needs not be under the slightest apprehension of being led, from this cause, into any erroneous sentiment; for I question if there be any one sentiment, or principle, contained in the Scriptures, of which the truth depends on a solitary text.

'On this part of my subject what is to be said for the candour of our opponents in rejecting, as they do, from the canon of Scripture, the first two chapters (excepting the introduction) of the Gospel by Luke, and the first two (except the genealogy of our Lord) of the Gospel by Matthew? There can hardly be conceived (I put it seriously to their own consciences) a more shameless violation of all the established rules of sacred criticism, than their conduct as to these portions of Scripture. For on what authority do they proceed in the rejection of them? Not, as they themselves admit, on the authority of any versions or manuscripts; for the passages are found in all the manuscripts and versions that have yet been discovered. But the Gospel of Matthew, used by the sect of the Ebionites, wanted, it seems, according to the testimony of two of the ancient fathers, the

Epiphanius and Jerome. Even this, however, has been shown to be unfounded. Dr. Lawrence, in his "Critical Reflections on some

first two chapters; and the first two chapters of Luke's gospel were wanting in the copy of that gospel used by Marcio, a heretic of the second century What then is the nature and amount of this authority? It is, in the first place, as already noticed, an authority directly opposed t that of all versions and manuscripts, without a single exception that have yet been discovered. It is therefore, secondly, an authority the admission of which, in these circumstances, is a flagrant departure from the canons of biblical criticism, laid down as the result of long experience. by the most eminent critics, and recognised. and sanctioned, and professedly adhered to, by our opponents themselves But it is also, thirdly, an authority, even with regard to the passages in question, in itself inconsistent and contradictory. The Ebiorites, they admit, on the authority of one of the ancient Fathers before alluded to (Epiphanius) mutilated the copy which they used of the gospel according to Matthew, by taking away the genealogy. They therefore think proper to retain the genealogy; and yet, on the sole authority of these same acknowledged mutilators, they reject the rem tinder of the first two chapters! Marcion, in like manner, rejected, according to their own statement, the whole of the first two chapters of the Gospel by Luke; and yet, in opposition to that authority, and without assigning a reason they retain the introductory verses to Luke's Gospel, while in compliance with it they repudiate all that remains of these chapters Fourthly, It is an authority which, if consistently followed, would lead to the immediate rejection of the whole of the Old Testament, and, at least, almost the whole of the New. For by the same authority on which the Ed tors of the improved version of the New Testament, and Unitarians in general build, respecting the omissions in question, we are informed that the Ebionite canon of the New Testament rejected the last three Gospels, and all the Epistles of Paul: and as to Marcion, that he rejected the Old Testament, and every part of the New which contained quotations from the Old; and that the only Gospel he used was that of Luke, from which too he expunged whatever he did not approve. Such is the authority which, in defiance of all versions, and of all manuscripts, as well as of all the critics, and, among the rest, Griesbach himself, who not only admits the passages in question, but never gives the slightest hint of them ever having been doubted;-such is the authority which is brought forward to

important misrepresentations contained in the Unitarian version of the New Testament," (a work which will well repay the trouble of a careful perusal,) has shewn, by reference to preceding critics, and by quotations adduced by himself, that the latter of these Fathers, instead of asserting the absence of the first two chapters of the Hebrew Gospel used by the Ebionites, has asserted the very reverse: and that the former, instead of considering that gospel as the "original "gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of "the Jewish believers," pointedly stigmatised it, as an imperfect, spurious, and mutilated copy. See the work of Dr. Lawrence referred to. pp. 24, 25, 41, 44, and pp. 19, 21,

set aside these portions of the sacred volume! And such being the nature of the authority, is it possible to avoid a suspicion, is it a breach of charity to entertain it,-that there must have been in the minds of those who reject these chapters a secret wish to find them spurious? a predisposition to lend a willing ear to whatever could be adduced with the remotest semblance of plausibility, to bring them into discredit? They contain accounts of the incarnation of our Saviour, which cannot be made to comport with the Unitarian creed; and this seems to afford the only key to the mystery of their being rejected as interpolations, or even branded as doubtful on such authority. They are on universally acknowledged principles critically right; but they are, unhappily, systematically wrong!' pp. 178–182.

The next two discourses are on the doctrine of atonement, and on its practical influence.' The texts are Rom. iii 25, 26. and 1 Cor vi. 19, 20. The former of these is an interesting and animated exposition of the prominent thoughts of the text; but it is not equal in point of critical ability to other discourses in the volume. We are, however, aware of the difficulty of discussing such a subject critically, and, at the same time, usefully and intelligibly before a popular assembly. Happily for the interests of truth, it is a doctrine revealed with such unvarying and transcendent clearness in the sacred volume, that no critical acumen is necessary in order to a full and satisfactory exhibition of its scriptural authority. A cordial persuasion that the Scriptures are the word of God, and an unsophisticated determination to understand and receive their information without prejudice and without distortion, are the only essential requisites for attaining a speedy decision on this subject. To such inquirers Mr. W's discourse will be most satisfactory. It is luminous and convincing in all its arguments; it contains no unguarded and incautious statements; it interferes not with any of the disputes that obtain amongst the advocates of the doctrine; but is confined to an illustration of the plain and unequivocal declarations of Scripture.

The same general features distinguish the latter discourse on this subject; with this advantage, that it is more remote from the ordinary train of thinking, and is more happily characteristic of the ingenuity and eloquence that distinguish other parts of the volume.

It is succeeded by three excellent discourses on the divinity, 'personality, and influences of the Holy Spirit,' from Matth. xxviii. 19. and Rom. viii. 9. but the length to which we have extended our notice prevents us from exhibiting any abstract of their reasonings and illustrations. On the influences of the Spirit, we think that Mr. W. has discovered a felicitous combination of metaphysical accuracy and scriptural argument. It is evident that he has studied the subject devoutly and experiment