New Testament, which, in the main, accord, as to facts and doctrines, with the Greek manuscripts. Here again, as likewise in the quotations contained in the voluminous writings of the Greek Fathers, we have a proof that the Christian Scriptures have, for the most part, descended to us in the same state in which they came from the writers themselves.

Bishop Marsh illustrates his observations by a reference to the history of the celebrated text in 1 John v. 7. He is aware, that not only a specific argument on which himself insists, but every argument for the integrity of the New Testament, which he uses in this Lecture, must fall at once to the ground, "if it be true that the passage in question proceeded from the pen of St. John." Nothing can be more satisfactory than his estimate of the evidence, both external and internal, which some critics perceive, or fancy that they perceive, in behalf of the disputed words. His conclusion does great honour to his discernment and learning as a scholar, and to his fidelity as a lecturer. In the opinion of this very able judge,

"The sacrifice of that principle, by which we defend the general integrity of the New Testament, is a sacrifice to

which the passage is not entitled. That important principle therefore remains unshaken, and the general integrity of the New Testament is liable to no objection. That principle has been rescued from the danger to which many incautious friends of Christianity have exposed it, by endeavouring inadvertently to defend a part, at the expense of the whole."

-P: 28.

We have thus laid before our read ers a summary of the Professor's twenty-seventh lecture: in the twentyeighth he argues from the character of the writers of the New Testament to the credibility of their writings.

Beginning with the historic books, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, he, in the first place, considers "the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John." These Evangelists not only saw and heard what was said and done by our Saviour; they themselves bore a part in the transactions which they have recorded. Their sincerity is undeniable. Not merely did they renounce all worldly advantages; they submitted to persecutions, such as no

VOL. XVII.

3 s

man.would endure, except from a firm conviction, that he was propagating nothing but the truth. The sufferings, too, which they underwent, were not accidental or unforeseen.

Further, it is not credible that the apostolic historians were deceived themselves. The facts which they recorded were of such a description, that nothing more was wanted than the use of their senses to determine, whether these events really happened or not. In the conduct of the apostles no signs of fanaticism appear. These men even doubted the truth of their Master's resurrection, till they were convinced of it by his actual pre

sence.

The situation and circumstances of the Evangelists Matthew and John, attest the credibility of their narratives: the dates of their several Gospels, in respect both of place and time, prove the moral impossibility of these compositions containing a fabricated story. Had this kind of fraud been attempted, the detection of it was unavoidable. In Judæa, and beyond Judæa, numbers of persons were still living, by whom the imposture Jews who embraced Christianity in would have been exposed. Yet the the apostolic age, gave positive evidence of their own belief in the gospel history. And even those of this nation who rejected Christianity have, at least indirectly, borne testimony in its favour. No where do we learn that they regarded the gospel history as a fable: no where do we find that the unbelieving Jews questioned the reality of the miracles, however they evaded the proper inference from them. The first apostolic historian was not confuted by the Hebrew Jews: the other apostolic historian was not confuted by the Greek Jews.

Though Mark and Luke did not write from their own knowledge, yet these Evangelists derived their information from the best sources which can be opened to those who rely on others for intelligence: the credibility, therefore, of their respective Gospels, rests on a foundation which is perfectly secure.

In estimating that credibility, there are two subjects of special inquiry: the former of them regards the materials; the second, the mode in which those materials were employed.

The Margaret Professor now makes a digression, with the view of elucidating and establishing what he had stated in his Dissertation on the Three First Gospels, concerning the verbal harmony of certain of the Evangelists. He thinks that his hypothesis does not militate against the supposition of Mark and Luke having written independently of each other. That they applied with fidelity the materials which they obtained with certainty, he proves by the same arguments from which it was inferred, that the apostolic historians employed their materials with fidelity. With a sketch of this proof he concludes his twentyeighth Lecture.

In that which follows he estimates the credibility of the facts recorded in the New Testament, from a conside'ration of the facts themselves. But, for the present, he limits his attention to the ordinary events related there, without adverting to miracles in particular. In conducting the inquiry thus modified, he rapidly compares the several parts of each single book, one book with another, and the whole with other works of acknowledged credit.

Each of the Gospels is consistent throughout each contains a plain and unaffected narrative, all the parts of which have a perfect agreement; no examples occur of incongruity or incoherence. The Gospels, too, of Matthew, Mark and Luke, are similar both in matter and in manner. Indeed, when we have deducted what each of these three Evangelists has peculiar to himself, the matter which remains common to all three, constitutes one uniform narrative of our Saviour's ministry, from his baptism to his death and resurrection.

To the subject of a common document, which explains the harmony in the matter of the three first Gospels, the Professor once more adverts. Afterwards, he makes some pertinent remarks on the Gospel of John, and notices, in a general way, the alleged contradictions in the Evangelists. He refers to vindications of the history of the resurrection, and speaks with signal and deserved approbation of Bishop Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses. From the Gospels he proceeds to the Acts of the Apostles, which, says he, "must obviously be com

pared with the Epistles of St. Paul." The principle, the nature, and the result of such a comparison, are accordingly pointed out. Illustrations of the credibility of the New Testament, from the works of Josephus and of Tacitus, are next alluded to or brought forwards: and the Lecture concludes with a most forcible statement of that proof of the truth of Christianity, which is afforded by the evangelic delineation of the character of its Founder:

"If the learning and the ingenuity of Plato or Xenophon might have enabled them to draw a picture of Socrates more excellent than the original itfelf, it was not in the power of unlettered Jews to give ideal perfection to a character which was itself imperfect, and to sustain that ideal perfection as in a dramatic representation, through a series of imaginary events. Indeed it is highly probable, that wholly aware of that perfection which the Apostles and Evangelists were not they themselves have described. For that perfection is not contained in any formal panegyrio, expressive of the writer's opinion, and indicating that opinion to the reader. It is known only by comparison and by inference. We are reduced therefore to this dilemma, either the actions which are ascribed to our Saviour, are truly ascribed to him; or actions have been invented for a purpose, of which the aware, and applied to that purpose by inventors themselves were probably not means which the inventors did not possess. And when we further consider, that the plan developed by those facts was in direct opposition to the notion of the Jews respecting a temporal Messiah, we must believe in what was wholly impossible, if we believe that unlettered Jews could have invented them."-Pp. 72,

73.

The thirtieth Lecture, the last in this part of the course, is occupied by a special inquiry into the truth of the miracles recorded in the New Testament. To this kind of evidence for the gospel, Bishop Marsh justly attaches the highest degree of importance. "Miracles and prophecy," he declares, "alone can prove that the origin of Christianity is divine."

He defines a miracle to be "something which cannot be performed without the special interference of God himself." The attempts of the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, to evade the inference from miracles, by ascribing them to the agency of evil

Excellent, however, as they are, they do not entirely fulfil the profession and promise of the title. The Lecturer is almost profoundly silent concerning "the principal authors, and the progress, which has been made at different periods, in theological learning." In this omission he cannot have done justice to his original intentions: and he, assuredly, must have disappointed his hearers and his readers. It should be gratefully acknowledged, that in a former part of the course he presented us with an account of the best critical editions of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and of the most celebrated commentators. Why then is he so extremely sparing of similar references and statements, when he treats of the evidence of the authenticity and credibility of the New Testament? To students in divinity more copious information respecting the writers on miracles, and the contents of their several publications, would have been highly acceptable. Why should this have been withholden? Dr. Johnson's definition of a miracle, is quoted by the Professor, though not indeed with approbation, while Mr. Farmer's is altogether overlooked! Could Bishop Marsh be ignorant of the works of that admirable author? It is not likely that he had never met with them at Cambridge: to the scholars and theologians of Germany, though Farmer was no anti-supernaturalist, they are certainly not unknown. This Lecturer's own definition of a miracle cannot be received by us: he erroneously states it to be something which cannot be performed without the special interference of God himself. How superior in precision and accuracy is Farmer's language! "Effects contrary to the settled constitution and course of things," he deems miraculous. Our author subsequently adverts to "a learned Prelate, who has deservedly gained much reputation by his defence of the miracles." We suppose that he means the late Bishop Douglas. Of that masterly work the Criterion, and of some other writings in proof of the credibility of the New Testament,

Erroneously, because, according to this view of the subject, the original act of creation was a miracle. See Farmer on Miracles, pp. 2 and 3 (8vo. ed.).

more might with propriety and advantage have been said.

Nor is the Right Reverend Professor to be accused merely of omissions : in this part of his Lectures there are some redundancies. Perhaps no man is better acquainted than himself with the difference between scriptural and biblical criticism, between the evidence of the divine origin of Christianity and the principles on which its records should be interpreted. Even a reference to the doctrines of the Church of England, or to those of any other church, (p. 13,) is out of place in this stage of his undertaking: and it will be time enough for him to affirm (16) that "the doctrine of the Trinity stands unshaken," when he has shewn that it forms an article in the instructions communicated by the first preachers of the gospel. It was natural that he should revert to his own labours on the disputed verse in John, and on a common document. Too many of his pages however are devoted to these subjects: and he is somewhat too eager in self-defence. After all, none of the defects or of the excrescencies which we perceive in this set of Lectures, can render us insensible to its value, or forbid us to pronounce it admirably calculated for usefulness among theological students of every denomination.

N.

ART. II. The Form of Religious

Service as it was conducted at the Ordination of the Rev. John James Tayler, B.A., in the Protestant Dissenting Chapel, Mosley Street, Manchester: including a Charge by the Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, Theological Tutor in Manchester College, York: and a Sermon by the Rev. Joseph Hutton, B.A., of Leeds. Printed for Robinson and Ellis, Manchester, and Hurst, Robinson and Co., London. 8vo. pp. 88. 1821.

Tthat extraordinary powers are

HE absurd and pernicious notion

conferred upon the "candidate for Holy Orders," by the ceremony of ordination, is so completely opposed to the general views of Unitarian Christians, that the danger is very remote indeed of their falling into it. There is, however, an objection to