« PreviousContinue »
clearly discriminating between the parental authority of God as the universal Father, and his eternal paternity, as Father of his' only begotten Son. (5.) It is further acknowledged by the whole body of the Jews'; Joh. v. 18. “ Therefore the Jews sought to kill him, because he had said that God was his father πατέρα ίδιον έλεξε τον Θεόν} making himself equαι αith God, [soov ExUTÒN Zotāv tū am]* Id. x. 33. “The Jews answered him saying, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man, makest thyself God"
Whatever be the benefit which our author's work may derive from the bulk of the volume and quantity of the matter, he is now fully at liberty to reap. The perusal may be safely recommended to the reader, who has patience' adequate to the attempt, and wishes to have an experimental proof of the exalted pitch of folly and obstinacy to which the human mind may be raised, in opposing the truth; where the greatest degree of ige norance which is consistent with the largest proportion of conceit, have their full and unrestricted operation on its faculties. - We have now, we trust, fully attained the object with which we undertook the present Review; and have not only demonstrated the pitiable imbecility of the vile production before us ; but have evinced the unassailable stability of the truths to which it is opposed. But though we have incidentally exhibited specimens of the talents and acquirements of its author, we feel conscious that we have conveyed but a faint and inadequate idea of the work. To do justice to the blunder, ignorance, and dishonesty which are profusely scattered through every part, nay page of it, would indeed require a volume, much larger than we could find patience to read, much less to compose. Whatever be the subjects on which the author speaks, whether on his trusty friend's Philo or Josephus, or his christian brethren the Ebionites and Esseans, we discover the same total ignorance of the subject on which he is engaged. As these are charges which may be made good and valid in a narrow space; we shall offer a few specimens, by which they seem to be substantiated beyond controversion.
We insist but incidentally on the practical blunder on which our author has founded and erected his system ; in which he undertakes to vindicate the Unitarian Creed, by proving the „whole body of the Scripture text.corrupted, from which it either derives its purity, or fixes its foundation in the clouds. even overlook this absurdity, another directly stares us in the
face. The origin which he assigns those sophisticated parts, of the sacred text, in ascribing them to the early Heretieks, involves a contradiction not less supremely absurd. Both the seets, into which they brauched, rejected the prophetical wrie tings, * on which the proscribed passages are obviously built ; nay, rejected the very doctrines which those passages tend to support: the Gnostics having denied that our Lord was at all born, the Ebignites that he was born unless in the uatural way t.
Let us even wave these objections, and grant, that the testis monies to which he appeals, are genuine, and, in point; even on their evidence, bis theory may be fundamentally overthrown, by means of the very concessions, which he has made. Slender as the support is which the Unitarian Creed derives from the testimony of Jews or Heathens, even this nominal or apparent advantage, he has contrived to betray into the enemies' hands. The doctrine of the Trinity, which his predecessors have commonly traced to the corruptious of Platonism; he absolutely vindicates from the aspersion, explicitly denying that they possess any thing in common. The mystic theology of St. John he affirins is only to be explained by the modified Platonism of Philo. Though Philo has explicitly maintained all the peculiar doctrines of the Orthodox Faith, without aekuow, ledging one characteristic tenet of the Unitarian Creed: though he has absolutely abjured that Creed, by denying that any thing buwan or corporal could be annexed to the Son of God I. The allegorising spirit of Philo știll afforded a loop-hole of evasione to escape the consequences of these unanswerable concessions, Yet even this advantage the ingenious advocate before uş has contrived to throw away; from the first passage which he quotes from Philo, he not only infers, but proves, the personality of the Logos, asserting his identity with Christ (p. 4.)
Having advanced 60 niuch to illustrate and set off our 24thor's polemical talents; we would not willingly dismiss the subject of his work, without offering some specimeys of his skill in translation. In a reference to Orig. Lib, II, we are informed, p. 181, " and other Jews give the name of Ebionites to those who received Jesus as the Christ,' The original of this passage is thus expressed ; xại Efoxglou Xenyatigasy o AÐ Indaian. Tòy Ingãy, he's gotar mugudeždu eton, in which, of course
* Vid. supr. p. 243. n. 1:
+ S. Iren: adv. Hær. Lib. I. cap. xxiv. § 2. p. 100. cap. xxvi. $1. p. 105. | Bryant. ub. supr. Præf. p.v. P. I. p. 16-22.
odno Indaiar, signifies “other Jews,” xanuari voi is taken as an active verb, and Elsovaños consequently as a noun in the accusative. If this improvement, however, has not the authority of the Greek, it possesses at least that of the Latin, if the old version of Gelenius be taken as authority;
« et Ebionai dicuntur a ceteris Judæis, qui Jesum pro Christo receperunt :" where xqmatiquor is, however, properly rendered " dicuntur.” Conf. Orig. Tom. I. p. 385. n. f. ed. Bened. On confronting the original Latin with the following English version, which has been already noticed, (supr. p. 347) we are at a loss whether to admire more, the accuracy or honesty of the translator; “ In the days of Tiberius Cæsar many impieties were perpetrated not in Judea only; even in Rome the city of royalty many impieties were perpetrated." P. 106. « In diebus Tiberii Cæsaris non tantum in Judæa tales factæ sunt stultitiæ, sed et Romæ, et in omnibus terris dominii ejus fecerunt stultitias majores, quam stultissimi ex populis. We pass over the absurdity of making Josippon term “Rome, the city of royalty" while Jerusalem was standing; the grammatical skill by which that meaning is extracted from the words $6 Romæ in omnibus terris dominii ejus” rather induces us to suspect, that “ dominii" has been taken in a sense and construction, which may be easily discovered from the translation.
With this remark, we commit the vile work before us, to that obscurity in which it has long lain ; and in which it should have continued for us, had it not been for the unwise zeal of its bea sotted admirers. The author, whose pretensions we have by this time fully exposed, is, as it appears, a person of some ce. lebrity, in the estimation of the sect of which he is a minister. By enrolling his volume in the “ Çatalogue of Books distri. buted by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue," they have imposed the duty on us of furnishing the bane with its antidote. curious to ascertain the sense, of the reverend conclave who aim at this object by such means, on the best method of propagatjug irreligion and the practice of vice; we venture to believe that we have already taken one effectual step towards frustrating their success in their infamous endeavours. We are indeed grossly deceived in their characters, if for the future, they prove not more shy, in committing themselves, with another blundering advocate ; if, even at present, they do not heartily rue the hour, in which they incautiously exposed their own pretensions to learning and sense, by making a common cause, with the wretched dunce, who has drawn down our animadversion.
While we are
ART. II. The Cadet; a Poem, in Sir Parts : containing
Remarks on British India. To which is added, Egbert and
Resident in the East. In Two Volumes. Small Svo. pp. 463.
"Tulis title page is what, in the jargon of his country, an American would denominate a lengthy one ; and it is but too omninous of the book itself. The sight of two closely printed volumes of verses is, indeed, always enough to make the critic, who has to review then), feel a sort of shudder; and it is not often that, in the perusal of them, he receives any indemnification for his preliminary fears. On the present occasion, we have suficred that which seems to be the common lot of our fra. teruity; namely, apprehensions, too well justified by the event. The preface to these volumes does not afford much ground for, hope, either in its style, or its tenor. The author is a very young man,” and when the poems were composed, " was still a minor.”
This excuse, which has been offered at least a inillion of times before, may, and in fact ought to gain pardon for an exuberance of imagination, and an unformed taste, but it only renders niore heinous the terrible sin of dulness. What is to be expected from the frost of age, when even the fire of youth fails to produce the signs of vigour. The writer appears, in reality, to be visited by heavy forebodings. His book, he says,
May possibly drop from the press, with many others, which fame shall reject as unworthy, and may be doomed, with then, to sail down the daily current of chance, until, pelted at by the swarms from the critic hive, it may miss the haven of popularity; and overwhelmed at length, by the blustering squalls of splenetic censure, sink never to rise again."
We cannot say that we greatly adınire either the figurative language or the style of this sentence, and we can laugh, with infinite good humour, at the hackneyed accusation which it makes against the candour of critics; but we must own that in one point the author is tolerably right, and that it is highly possible that fame will act in the manner which he anticipates. Besides, the modern practice of beginning with an attack on critics, is almost always indicative of, and prompted by, an awkward and unwilling consciousness of demerit. Sure
don't suspect me of having robbed you?” has betrayed the guilt of more than one rogue who was not previously suspected,
The Cadet, be is known, is a poem, in six parts, filling almost a hundred and sixty pages, and consisting, we imagine, of nearly four thousand lines. « Too much of a good thing," says the old adage : what then must we say of a bad one! The first part: is chiefly employed in repeating over and over again certain complaints against the climate of India, and against other disa agreeable circumstances, among which the crows and the want of verdure come in for their full share of censure.
6 Mourutul my theme, and dull the task assigned,” exclaims the author, and sooth to say, he adapts the style to the subject, and is as dull as heart can desire. Against “ bamper'd etiquette” he glows with a manly rage, and labours Irard to render it as hateful as possible.
« The Colonel's wife (says he) demands the highest place,
Pray who taught you to hold your head so high.'
Growl, shew their teeth, and snarl upon each other."
The second part is opened by a heavy lamentation over his own mischance, in having been sent to India, and consequently torn from those friends wliom“ affection solder'd to his breast." His sorrow for the loss of his father does more credit to his heart, than his manner of espressing it does to his head; and now that we are on this subject; it is merely justice to say, that he seems to be a good-natured and well-intentioned young man. The troubles of the Cadet' soon come thick upon him. He is marched up to the Cadet establishment, under the care of a serjeant, and is under the hard necessity of subinitting to the iutolerable drudgery of being drilled for six months :
“ Four dreary hours paraded every day,