for supplying his needs and performing his duties. Accordingly, the Almighty still graciously allowed immediate communication with himself, through the rite of burnt-offering, which was to hallow the meal of meat insuing; for it is abundantly marked in Scripture, and by heathen writers, that the sacrifice, among both Jews and Gentiles, always afforded a meal. That meal, though thenceforward a main support of life and strength, must have been, till familiarity produced reconciliation to it, disgusting both in prepa ration, and in use.. But its religious purpose is obvious. Man was thus at once reminded of his degradation, and of his final lot in this world; the salutary severity nevertheless being softened by the appointment of that very rite of burnt-offering, with all its degrading circumstances, for the exercise of his yet high privilege, peculiar to himself among surrounding animals, of communicating with his Creator." Vol. I. p. 48.

According to this doctrine, whenever a person, in the present day, sits down to a good dinner of roast and boiled, he is, or ought to be, "reminded of his degradation, and final lot in this world" for there is nothing in the reasons of our author for such an opinion, which will not apply at least as pointedly to us as it did to the Jews in the time of Solomon, or at the coming of our Saviour.

If we follow our author from the Old to the New Testament, we confess that we are still at a loss to perceive in what respect it is, that the friends of Christianity in general, or of the Church of England in particular, are called upon to thank him for the "assistance" which he has rendered to the cause. If doubting respecting all the great doctrines of Christianity, without assigning any reason for such doubts, except that the author has never taken the trouble to read the works of those who have attempted to solve them--if this be rendering a service to Religion or to the Church, Mr. Mitford may fairly lay claim to be one of their greatest benefactors. With respect to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, he treats them with no more ceremony or respect, than if they had been the production of the curate in the country village where he lives, and had been sanctioned by no better or higher authorities than that of the squire and church wardens of the parish. And even with respect to the Apostles' Creed, we are almost afraid to say how closely he pares it of every thing that is not matter of historical fact. In like manner he tells us, that he has never been able to understand the grounds on which the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is founded. Now it is certain that grounds for this doctrine have been assigned; and by good authority too. Moreover, it is certain that very intelligible reasons, to say the least of them, may be assigned,

shewing that doctrine to be almost involved in the supposition of the books of the New Testament having been written by those whose names they bear, and that the facts related in them, are true. But Mr. Mitford is not acquainted with these reasons, it seems. Now, whose fault is this? Or is it fitting the character of man, to put forth to the world his doubts upon such a subject, until he has conscientiously examined whether the arguments in proof of this doctrine are, or are not, entitled to respect? This surely is the least which the Church of England has a right to ask from one who professes to be her son, and to believe, to use our author's own quaint language, that the "reformation" has been "brought to the best perfection yet attained among national establishments, (however, as a human work, still imperfect) in the established Church of England."

We must give one specimen more of the kind of "assistance" with which our author, in the work before us, "having no allurement of worldly interest, or impulse of professional engagement," has endeavoured to support the labours of those, who might be supposed not exempt from suspicion in these respects. He tells us that he writes neither for the learned nor the unlearned. "There is a middle class; and to these I principally dedicate," says he, "my observations to come, as well as those already given, hoping them not wholly unadapted to it." As an illustration of the discretion with which our author writes, having this object in view, our readers may take the following specimen.

Mr. Mitford tells us, that "he respects highly our authorised translation of the Bible, though not as perfect; for it is a human work." With these words he prefaces a short commentary upon the two first verses of St. John, adding, that "the English translation of that short but difficult, and contested passage, is perhaps as unexceptionable as any the language could furnish." Immediately after this he tells the middling classes," (who cannot form an opinion as to the value of his criticism), that this said passage in the English "has a phrase concerning which a question may occur."

"

"In the beginning,' says our version, was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.' Throughout these two verses the order of the words of the original may be followed in English speech; and it is exactly followed, with, however, one remarkable exception in the important phrase, the word was God: where, in the original, the words run, God was the word? Which arrangement best expresses, in our language, the sense of the original, I will not undertake to say. To some minds, perhaps there may appear no differ

ence of import made by the difference of order; with others it may be otherwise. Either phrase, however, indicates mystery, not within ordinary human understanding, and, therefore, I apprehend, not to be completely explained in human speech. The assertion, then, emphatically repeated, declaring that to be WITH God, which the intervening phrase declares to be God himself, can hardly fail to make difficulty for most minds, and so has suggested doubt of the authenticity of that intervening phrase, though supported by all known antient manuscripts in the original language. But the apos tle, we are told, after having communicated in writing his correction of the wild fancies entertained in some Asiatic cities, visited those cities, and so might give any needful explanation. For us, I humbly apprehend, the gospel, as it has been transmitted to us, and as far as it can be understood by every one giving due attention to it, may be considered as affording all the information necessary, though parts of it may be, to some more, to others less, intelligible. So I understand the assurance that, from those to whom less is given less will be required. For the presumptuously disposed, extension of ground may seem provided for that trial, for which all holy writ shows man to have been placed on earth." Vol. II. p. 32-10.

He goes on to say,

"Hazard in translating from one language to another, evident, in what I have stated, farther shows itself abundant in prosecuting comparison of the translation of the first chapter of St. John's gospel with the original. In the second and third verses, the translation says, "All things were made BY HIM, and without HIM was not anything made that was made. In HIM was life, and the life was the light of men.' But the original (nor is the observation new) would equally bear the version, All things were made THROUGH IT;' namely, the word; and without IT was not anything made that was made. In IT was life.' Leaving the question whether the English preposition by,' or the English preposition through,' considerably different themselves, best represents the Greek preposition on the particular occasion, I will observe that the familiar use of metaphor by oriental writers, may, I suppose, justify the use of the masculine pronoun HIM, to represent the substantive the word,' of which, unless metaphorically used, the neuter pronoun "it would be the proper representative.

"Another matter, then, in comparing the translation with the original, will appear striking. In the course of fourteen verses, in the same chapter, one word occurring six times, is represented in the translation by three different phrases. That word*, twice used in the third verse, is, on both occasions, rendered by our two words, 'was made.' Recurring in the sixth, the translation gives for it the phrase there was.' In the tenth and the fourteenth is found again the former phrase, was made,' and in the seventeenth, to represent

* Εγένετο.

it, is given the single word came; of import widely different from both the former. Another word, then, of the original, used in the third verse, and again in the fifteenth*, is, on the former occasion, made synonymous with the word just noticed, being rendered 'was made:' in the latter a very different interpretation is given of it in the phrase, 'is preferred.'

"I desire here not to be understood to object to the authorised version, as not giving, in all these instances, the meaning of the original as nearly as in our language may be, or even, so far as I may presume to judge, as nearly as for the occasion need be.” Vol. II. p. 32-12.

Now we really should wish to be informed, what is the purport of these and similar passages, which Mr. Mitford has written for the edification of the middling classes; or what is the conclusion at which our author ever wishes us to arrive, or at which he himself has arrived? If it was his intention, or if it be in his power to shew, that the received translation might be improved; that it does not convey the sense of the original; that the doctrine which has been built upon this passage, in conjunction with numerous others of the same purport, is erroneous; we should be prepared to listen with respect to his arguments. Is Mr. Mitford a Socinian, or is he not? So far as the weight. of his name is concerned, it cannot much matter whether such loose, unconnected, rash, and unlearned divinity, as is contained in the volume before us, be intended to support the cause of Orthodoxy or that of Unitarianism. We should have been sorry, before the publication of this work, had we been told that Mr. Mitford was a disciple of Priestley; because we could not, in such a case, have known that his proselytism had not been the result of reading, and learning, and study: now that he has stated his avowed ignorance of "ecclesiastical history, and of divinity as a science," and has, moreover, given the reasons upon which he has formed his opinions; of course the authority of those opinions depends no longer upon the degree of weight which might belong to his name, but upon the value of the reasons which he assigns. We could wish, however, that he had published his work as a professed Unitarian, if he really be so; and if he be not, we should be pleased to learn to what communion, in matters of belief, he in fact professes to belong. We should be truly sorry if any unwary member of the Church of England, belonging to the "middling classes," (whether this word be applied to rank or to learning) should take up the volume before us, and suppose that

Γέγονε.

opinions, such as are contained in it, and principles of reason ing, so loose and dangerous, have the sanction of authority. It is the production of a very old and very respectable man; of a good classical scholar; and of an excellent citizen; but of one whose course of studies, and the peculiar character of whose mind and talents, would not seem, by any means, to qualify him for theological speculations. We have noticed the work, from the respect which is due to the name of its venerable author, and in order to satisfy the curiosity of our readers as to its character and merits. Had it come recommended to us solely by the weight of its own pretensions to attention, we should probably have spared both the author and ourselves the pain which it has cost us in thus freely delivering our opinion.

ART. X. Ultra Crepidarius; a Satire on William Gifford, By Leigh Hunt. 8vo. 40 pp. 2s. 6d. Hunt. 1823.

A SATIRE on WILLIAM GIFFORD, by Leigh Hunt! What must be the sensations of the college fellow, whose eye, seldom crossed by any thing more alarming than a piece of inconstructible Greek, or an obstinate paradox in mathematics, first catches, in wandering carelessly from his coffee and roll to the newspaper, a sight of the advertisement which blazons the above portentous title! His mind instantly recurs to the dreaded prodigy of old.

"A falcon, towering in her pride of place,

Was by a mousing owl hawkt at and kill'd."

Happy to perceive his newspaper is not black-edged, he explores its columus with hurried impatience, and discovering no further intimation of any national calamity, coolly inves tigates again, till he rests quite certain, that at present, at least, nothing has occurred explanatory of so fearful a por. tent; not, however, without considerable apprehensions for the future.

Now in pity to all persons thus affected, but who, nevertheless, may not have the fortitude to undergo "a satire on William Gifford by Leigh Hunt," we have perused this work; and we have the satisfaction to assure less venturesome readers, that it is no prodigy. The owl has indeed attempted a flight, which is nothing new in the daring of folly:

"Cœlum ipsum petimus STULTITIA," but the lordly falcon still" towers" in all "ber pride of place," far beyond