'place in scripture.-In the Revelation of John much is wanting ' to let me deem it apostolical. I can discover no trace that it is • established by the Spirit. Παῦρα μέν, ἀλλὰ μάλα λιγέως.

As to this last, how could Mr Pearson make any opinion touching the Apocalypse matter of crimination against Semler and Eichhorn? Is the Christian Advocate unaware, that the most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines have almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the Revelations? The following rise the first to our recollection. Erasmus, who may, in part, be claimed by the Reformation, doubted its authenticity. Calvin and Beza denounced the book as unintelligible; and prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all attempt at interpretation; for which they were applauded by Joseph Scaliger, and Isaac Casaubon. Joseph Scaliger, who also rejected the Epistle of St James, did not believe the Apocalypse to be the writing of St John, and allowed only two chapters to be comprehensible; while Dr South_scrupled not to pronounce it a book, (we quote from memory,) that either found a man mad or left him so.

But in the fourth place, if there were any connexion between the antecedent of this argument and its consequent, we ought unquestionably to find in this country that the religious tests in question do effectually accomplish their intention; that the dangerous neology so deprecated in the German divines, should with us be found, if found at all, exclusively among those who had not formally surrendered their Protestant privilege of free and unprejudiced enquiry. But not only is this not the case, the very contrary is notoriously true; the attempt at fettering opinion, rousing apparently in the captive a perilous spirit of revolt. In fact, the nearest approximation to the learned freedom of the German divines, and the most enthusiastic encomiasts of their writings, have been found among the English clergy, and the teachers and dignitaries of the English Universities. Were we, in fact, required to look around in this country for the centre, in which a spirit of theological enquiry, analogous to that of the Protestant Universities of the empire, has been most conspicuously manifested, we should find it assuredly not in any independent seminary, not in any dissenting academy, but in the venerable school itself, of which the Christian Advocate is an ornament-fenced, as he pretends it to be, against the entrance of heresy and schism. Mainly to the latitudinary divines of Cambridge, do the Germans trace the determination which, in its result, occasioned, among themselves, the memorable revolution in theological opinion. Conyers Middleton, D.D., Professor and Public Librarian of Cambridge, was, a century ago, the express abstract of a German ultra-rationalist of the present day. Tests were unavailing against the open

Arianism of Clarke, and the unobtrusive Socinianism of Sir Isaac Newton. Professor Porson ejected, after Newton, the text of the three Heavenly witnesses, as an human interpolation; and his decision has been all but universally admitted, at least in Cambridge. Was this attempt to purge the Scripture of a spurious verse, a commendable act of Protestant criticism? Still more commendable must be every honest attempt to purge it of a spurious chapter or book; and the German critics must thus be honourably absolved. Was it, on the contrary, a culpable act of sceptical curiosity? Then are academic tests of no security against the inroads of a restless exegesis. On either alternative, the Advocate's argument is null.

6

Again, the German Divines are denounced by him for maintaining that the Pentateuch was composed out of different fragments which were collected together.' He cannot surely be unaware that the Bishop of Peterborough, present Margaret Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, maintains, that the three 'first Gospels are composed of fragments which were collected 'together.' In both cases the difficulty of reconciling such an hypothesis with an orthodox theory of inspiration is identical; but how different in religious importance are the two series of books! The dilemma is manifest; and on either horn the Advocate is equally impaled.

It is known to all who know any thing of modern divinity, that the theological writings of Eichhorn, especially his Introductions, concentrate in the highest degree all that is peculiar and most obnoxious in the German school of biblical criticism-of which, in fact, he was, while living, the genuine representative, and distinguished leader. Now, Lloyd, late Professor of Hebrew in Cambridge, circulated proposals for translating the boldest of Eichhorn's Introductions that to the Old Testament; and Dr Marsh, in his Lectures on Divinity, addressed to the rising clergy of the University, once and again recommends, in the strongest terms, the same work to their study ; nor, throughout his whole course, does he think it necessary to utter a single word of warning against the irreligious tendency of this, or, as far as we remember, of any other production of the German divines. And, be it remembered, the Bishop's knowledge of German theology was of a very different character from that of those who have been recently so busy in giving us the measure of their knowledge, and understanding, in this important and difficult subject. Indeed, with the exception of Mr Thirlwall's excellent Introduction to his translation of Schleiermacher on St Luke, (he might have chosen, we think, a fitter work,) and some parts of Mr Pusey's book, the public had, in every point of view, far better

be without all that has recently appeared in this country, in regard to the result of Protestantism in Germany. But in reference to our argument;-if men in the situations, and with the authority of Lloyd and Marsh, endeavoured thus to promote the study of Eichhorn and his school among the academic youth; either the opinions of the German divines are not such as the Advocate and others have found it convenient to represent them; or (quod absit!) these opinions are already throned in the high places of the English Universities and Church, in spite of the very oaths and subscriptions which it is argued are necessary in order to exclude them.

ART. XI.-Corrected Report of the Speech of the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, on July 21, 1834, on moving the second reading of the Bill to amend the Poor Laws. 8vo. London: 1834.

WE shall not easily be suspected of indifference to the great cause of Reform, and to the absolute necessity which lies upon the Government, which now happily administers the affairs of the Empire, to give the people the full benefit of the reform in their representation. Relying upon this assurance, and aware that many things may safely be spoken by reformers, which, in the mouths of others, might be deemed suspicious, we think it our bounden duty to point the attention of our readers towards a very great mistake, into which some of our own sect have of late appeared to fall. This is the more necessary, because the enemies of liberal principles are making great way by means of it, in undermining the influence of free and sound opinions. The truth is exactly this. How much soever our tenets may be favoured by the great body of the community, and however low in their eyes may now be the claims urged by the Tories to public confidence, yet all who know the nature of men, or have marked the vicissitudes of public opinion, are well aware, that no cause can ever stand the shock which it receives from the errors of its friends; and, above all, from practical blunders committed in its name, and leading to mischievous consequences. In any country, this would be dangerous; in England and Scotland, it is fatal. All men are prone to judge by the event; our countrymen never will decide against it. All men look to the lessons of experience as important; our countrymen, when once they have had this instruction on any sub-.

ject, never will listen to the lessons of any other; insomuch, that if an Angel were to come from Heaven, with all the eloquence of his seraphic tongue, and all the authority of his supernatural mission, he would try in vain to persuade us against the results of recent and personal experience. Hence, we are seriously alarmed, lest the reformers, falling into errors, exposed by trial, should bring contempt upon their cause; and give to the Conservative party (as the Tories are now fain to call themselves) their only conceivable chance of again misgoverning us.

any

Suppose for example, the impatience of the reformers were to hurry the Government into some rash measures of domestic policy, all grounded upon liberal views, all well intended for the people-but ill considered, worse digested, and brought forward in a haste altogether unseemly, and fraught with risks of miscarriage-when the bad working of the plan should be found remediless, and serious practical inconveniences should be sustained by the community-this consequence would inevitably ensue : First of all, those who urged the Government on would be heard of no more they are bodies of men without defined or individual responsibility. Nay, they who had before been the most loud, would now be the most quiet. No one would avow his share in forcing on the crisis; each would shift the load on his neighbour; and it is odds but the very men who had been the loudest to demand the supposed boon, would be the first to complain of its having been granted. Above all, the Newspapers would be carefully forgetful of their share in the original outcry; and would be copious in declaiming against the rashness and blundering of the ministers who had caused so much mischief. In short, no one would be found to father the abortive or destructive measure; and the Government which had irresolutely framed it, because they were hustled into such a course by popular clamour, against their better judgment, would be held responsible for adopting a plan which had failed-most justly -not because it had failed, but because they ought to have acted on their own deliberate opinion, and not on the excitements of others.

But then the whole blame of this catastrophe would erelong be thrown in part upon another quarter. The community is never long in the dark as to the relative shares which different bodies have in any given event. The ministers would be blamed and derided, and trampled upon by all parties by their friends, in order to exculpate themselves; by their enemies, in order to gratify their spleen. But this would by no manner of means prevent the adversaries of liberal opinions from breaking forth into abuse of those opinions, and ascribing the failure to

the cause itself, and to the reformers as a body. See the fruits ' of reform,' would be the general cry. Look what mischievous 'guides are reformers.' Whosoever thinks that such a topic would not thin the ranks of the people's best friends, and crowd those of their worst enemies, knows but little of the nature of men, and, above all, of the men by whom this island of Great Britain is peopled.

To illustrate the effect of events on public opinion, we will resort to one very great and most popular subject-Negro Slavery. Upon none other has there ever existed in any country so universal a concurrence of opinion-none other has ever excited so great warmth of feeling. With all the maxims that sound policy could prescribe, and all the feeling that strong natural sympathy could excite, there was, moreover, mixed up the most powerful religious impressions; insomuch that the faith of the people, in their system of worship itself, was hardly deemed more sacred than their belief in the necessity of emancipation. Hence, it came to pass, that an almost universal assent was accorded to the great measure carried into execution by the Liberal Ministry in 1833, for accomplishing this object; and all the country would then have pressed forward anxiously to avow themselves, or rather to arrogate for themselves the glory of being its authors. Suppose news were to arrive not that it had worked ill-not that any of its provisions had been found ill devised-not that any thing had been omittedbut simply, that a rebellion had taken place, and much property been destroyed, and much blood unavoidably spilt, on the first of August, and the three following days, we think it needs no gift of prophecy to foretell how very few would proclaim themselves the advisers or approvers of the Emancipation Bill. How many would discover that it was too suddenly effected! How many more would wish that they never had heard of the subject! And how very, very scanty would be the number of abolitionists at the next anti-slavery meeting! suppose the measure entirely to fail, who can doubt that the tide of public opinion would, after a pause of consternation and of hesitation, set in strongly, for a time at least, against the anti-slavery question? And yet this is a cause free from all party excitement, and on which religious sentiments are combined with the strongest and most rooted opinions of a secular kind.

But

It is a case, too, in which we are supposing that no one can find any defects of detail to charge on the measure. Lastly, it is an instance in which no one man can accuse another of precipitancy or haste, inasmuch as twenty or thirty years had elapsed in elaborate discussions and fruitless controversy; and all men