well told tale because it is not drawn up by an adept in codification. His particular objections are as stale as they are trifling. There is not one new piece of criticism from the beginning to the end. If he is unacquainted with the answers to his "discrepancies," and "contradictions," it is because he has ears but will not hear. And if he wishes the world to become familiar with his foolery about Gamaliel, and Ananias, and Barnabas, he must trust to his reviewers for effecting his object-his book will neither be bought nor read. Since these remarks were written our attention has been called to Mr. Hughes's " Defence of the Apostle Paul," and to Mr. Grinfield's "Doctrinal Harmony." We cannot consider the former a judicious publication. Mr. Hughes states that "Not Paul, was put into his hands by a friend, with an intimation that an answer would be expected from the Chris. tian Advocate in the University of Cambridge." Unless this friend be a person of unquestionable gravity, we should conjecture that he was quizzing the unsuspicious author of the Defence. Mr. Hughes may be assured that the friends of Jeremy Bentham treat his attack upon St. Paul with as little ceremony as we do. And the honour of being refuted by so distinguished a character exceeds the utmost limits of their ambition. They knew, in fact, that there was nothing to answer. And so does Mr. Hughes. What occurs in the shape of argument or criticism he disposes of successfully in a very few words. But the bulk of his pamphlet is mere beating the air." Was it worth while, for instance, that a public functionary in the University of Cambridge, should shew that Paul was better qualified for the work to which he was called than Ananias? Does any man in his senses doubt it? Can the opposite side of the question be advocated without calling forth general contempt and disgust? Was it worth while to argue with Gamaliel Smith upon the nature and effects of the Sacrament of Baptism? We admit the propriety of Mr. Hughes's determination to answer every real objection to the truth of the Scriptures. But if he means to class old Jeremy among real objectors, he is bound at least to shew the same respect to the Hones, and Hunts, and Cob. betts. In powers of reasoning, and powers of writing, as well as in power of doing mischief, they are far superior to the would be sage of Westminster; and we fear that the Christian Advocate who gives Mr. Bentham the controversial privilege of a gentleman, cannot refuse a similar favour to his betters in criticism and composition. The only tangible parts of the work which Mr. Hughes undertakes to answer, are treated, as we have already ob served, very well. There is an eloquent panegyric upon St. Paul which we have great pleasure in extracting; and as a specimen of the satisfactory answers which even Mr. Bentham has been the means of eliciting, we also present the reader with a passage respecting the companions of the Apostle at the time of his conversion. If Mr. Hughes had confined himself to such topics as these, his work would have been considerably reduced in size, but not impaired in value. "In opening this new Commission to the world, and in reconciling both Jewish and Gentile Converts to its terms, who ever distinguished himself like St. Paul, by consummate zeal, by firmness of purpose, by contempt of danger, by endurance of hardship, by acuteness of intellect, by depth of knowledge, by power of argument, and by sublimity of eloquence? I will venture to say, that to every candid enquirer, the last-mentioned quality alone, displayed as it has been by the Apostle in so conspicuous a manner, would be a sufficient proof of his sincerity.-Pectus est quod disertum facit.-A hypocrite could never have attained to those extraordinary heights, nor could deceit have lurked in the pathos of those affectionate exhortations, in the severity of those cutting rebukes, or in the sublimity of those awful denunciations. No-the religion which this great Apostle contemplated in all its glory, and cultivated with all his soul, administered its own light to his understanding. He both spake and wrote for truth, and it was conviction which imparted to his heart, and from thence to his writings, that fervid glow, which has melted the bosom of many an obdurate sinner." P. 40. "10. Paul's companions. What part, if any, took they in the conversation?' 66 By a reference to the list of objections (pp. 53, 54.) the reader will perceive that Mr. Gamaliel Smith has changed his ground here, for the purpose of introducing a mass of irrelevant matter, respecting these companions of Paul. To the question why they took no part in the conversation, it may be replied, that the voice addressed Saul by name. At such an awful moment the by-standers, even if they had not been struck speechless, would have been little inclined to interpose their questions, or remarks. But at length our Author returns to his original proposition, and gives us again something tangible in the shape of an argument. It is said that St. Paul, when his eyes were opened, saw no man, ovdéva ëbλɛte, and of his companions, that they stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man, undeva de lewρouvres. Would any body, unacacquainted with Mr. Gamaliel Smith, have supposed that he could have argued from these expressions, that St. Paul saw not the Lord, Nay but (says somebody) though it is said he saw no man, it is not said he saw not the Lord:' and elsewhere he may seen sayingsaying in the most positive terms, that he did see the Lord. (1 Cor. xv. 8.) And if he did see the Lord any where, why not here as well as any where else?' "Saw no man.' Yes: so says the English version. But the original is more comprehensive: saw no person, says the original; that is, to speak literally, saw no one of the masculine gender. No one, what? No one person of this gender: this is what the word means, if it means any thing. No person; and therefore no Lord, no God; if so it be that, when applied to denote no God, the word person means God, or as some say a part of God. Note, likewise, that when the companions are spoken of, both in the translation and in the original, the object to which the negative is applied is expressed by the same word as when he Paul is spoken of. Did any mortal ever see such impotent flippancy as is contained in this extract? Such a Socinian twist as this unfortunate οὔδεις has received ? Yet how soon may all these phantoms of Mr. Gamaliel Smith's imagination be put to flight, and made to vanish into thin air, by the most simple process! When is it said, that St. Paul's companions saw no man? Why, when the light first appeared, and when Paul both saw and heard whatever he says he saw or heard, and blasted with excess of light, closed his eyes.' But when is it said, that St. Paul saw no man? Why, when he arose from the ground; whan he opened his eyes, and found them covered with a film, and saw no man, that is, no one of his companions: but they (as it immediatly follows) led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus." P. 68, Mr. Grinfield appears to us to have turned Jeremy Bentham to better account. That venerable personage affirms that St. Paul preached a different doctrine from our Saviour and his Apostles; and without ever attempting to prove the truth of his assertion, he maintains that the contradiction is fatal to the pretensions of the New Testament. Mr. Grinfield shews that there is a concordance instead of a contradiction, and thus produces additional evidence of the truth of our religion. He converts a bold but groundless objection into a valuable and satisfactory defence; and without compromising his dignity by speaking of "Not Paul," with seriousness, he makes that bungling piece of ribaldry conducive to the establishment of truth. The harmony which he has drawn up is simple and conclusive. To those who have read their Bible with understanding, it conveys little new information; but even to them it may serve the purpose of a useful refresher; while by others it will be perused with considerable advantage. His design and the argument which he draws from his accomplishment, will be best understood by an extract from his Preface. "If all the writings of the New Testament be of Divine, they are all of equal authority; and then nothing can be more hazardous or absurd than to represent any one part as superior to another. If they are all genuine, they are all derived from the same authority: they have emanated from one spirit, and they must harmonize and agree together. "It is under these convictions that the following compilation has been drawn up, in which we have endeavoured to collect the leading doctrines which are contained in the Epistles of St. Paul, with those which are found in the other parts of the New Testament. "But here it is proper to observe, that we are not to look for the same fulness of exposition in the Gospels, as in the subsequent parts of the Inspired Volume, though it would be difficult to unbelievers, to shew, that there is any doctrine advanced by St. Paul, which may not be shewn to exist in the Four Evangelists. The reason for this difference is plain and obvious. Previous to the resurrection of Jesus, there were some doctrines of Christianity which could not have been fully proclaimed, or thoroughly understood. How, for instance, was it possible to preach the doctrine of Christ's atonement with the same precision before, as after his crucifixion? Still, as the proportions of a building may generally be judged of from its first plan and groundplot, so, I conceive, that all the doctrines of Christianity may be discovered in the Gospels, if not in all the fulness of detail, yet laid down as plain and historical facts. And nothing can more clearly evince the candour and honesty of the Evangelists than the confession, that they did not themselves fully believe in these doctrines, till their faith had been confirmed by the event of the resurrection. Nay, Jesus charged them that they should not declare some things they had heard and seen, ' until the Son of Man were risen from the dead,' Mark ix. 9. And these particulars were recalled to their recollections when the Resurrection actually took place. 'He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,' &c. Luke xxiv. 6-8. And we are expressly told by them that Jesus opened their understandings, that they should understand the Scriptures,' xxiv. 25. These considerations will shew how un. reasonable it is to expect that all the doctrines of Christianity should be laid down with the same fulness and precision by the Evangelists, as they were afterwards preached and explained by the Apostles. "But besides the Gospels, we may compare the doctrines which St. Paul delivered, with those which are historically recorded by Luke in the Acts, and which are doctrinally delivered by the other Apostles. In the earlier parts of the Acts, we have a general account of the history of the church previous to the conversion or St. Paul. This narrative is to be esteemed as a separate and independent testimony; and if we had possessed nothing more, it would have furnished us with good and sufficient evidence, that it would have been impossible for this Apostle to have introduced any strange or unheard of doctrines into the church. "Nor is this all-from the Gospels and the Acts, we may proceed to the acknowledged writings of St. Peter, St. John, St. James and Jude; and here we shall find plain and incontrovertible proof, that the Epistles of Paul contain no doctrines which are not found corroborated by their authority. "Now, when we condder the peculiar situation in which St. Paul stood in relation to the other Apostles, that he was not originally one of their number, and that he always claimed to be quite independent of their authority, and to have received his revelations immediately from Heaven; it must be admitted that such a comparison is made on the most just and impartial principles. Here then there could be no conspiracy, no collusion between the par. ties, for there was evidently a degree of jealousy and suspicion subsisting between them. Of all men, St. Paul would have been the least adapted to bring new opinions into the Church, because St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles would have instantly sus pected his designs." P. v. The Harmony is followed by some sensible remarks upon the superiority of the Scriptures to any other collection of the works of independent writers, especially with regard to the unity of doctrines which they contain. We feel a little surprised at Mr. Grinfield's declaration that " he was not aware of the extent of this uniformity till an accident set him upon drawing up this concordance.' But the confession is to the credit of his candour and fair dealing, and we trust that it will give additional weight to his plea for conciliation and mutual forbearance among Christians and Churchmen. The letter to Gamaliel Smith, with which this little work concludes, furnishes a slight but faithful sketch of that masquerader's lucubrations. It does not extend to twenty pages; but even in that short space Mr. Grinfield says quite as much as his subject requires or deserves. We quote a passage in which he exposes some laughable blunders, in addition to those which have been pointed out by Mr. Hughes or ourselves. "After this ludicrous exhibition of self-importance, we might reasonably expect to meet with some traces of uncommon learning, or some displays of extraordinary talent. But of these, I can find no vestiges in your singular book, unless you claim the character of a profound calculator, for your computation of the 50,000 pieces of silver which are mentioned in the Acts, and which you estimate at 166,666.; whilst, if reckoned by the shekel, the amount would be 6,250l., or if by the Attic drachma, which is the more probable method, it amounts only to 1,875l. To a more sober inquirer, it would have immediately occurred, that such a sum as you have mentioned could never have been inserted; no, not by an impostor in his narrative, as the price of curious arts and books,' for it would have led to immediate detection. But you |