at his baptifin ?" He enquires alfo, whether in rejecting, thefe two chapters on the authority of the Ebionites, they are prepared to reject allo as the Ebionites did, certain other parts of fcripture, particularly the prophetical books? On the opinions of fathers and critics against the authenticity and unadulterated condition of the Ebionite gofpel of St. Matthew, Dr. Laurence produces a long lift, in which appear the names of many modern critics, to whom the editors of this version upon other topics appeal with high respect. Confidering the controverfies that have taken place relative to the alledged orthodoxy of thefe Unitarian primitive chriftians, this part of Dr. Laurence's book is highly valu able. The learned author points out at p. 37, a curious overfight and inconfiftency, which feems entirely to have escaped Mr. Nares. In citing Epiphanius's account of the Ebionite gofpel, the editors themfelves inform us, that he ftates it to have began with thefe words, " And it came to pass in the days of Herod king of Judea, that John came baptizing," &c. It is certainly fingular enough that one of their objections to St. Matthew's account of the birth of Chrift is, that it reprefents him as being born in the days of Herod, who, in their pinion, certainly died two years before; but here their favourite Ebionite gofpel, according to Epiphanius, actually, makes Herod alive when our Saviour was in his 30th year. Proper notice is taken of Hegefippus's reference to the fecond chapter of Matthew, and Lardner's remark on it.-. Whoever would wish to understand the true value of the famous gofpel according to the Hebrews, on which the modern Unitarians place fo great reliance, cannot do better than perufe with the attention it deferves, this whole chapter of Dr. Laurence's work. The doctor raifes fome ftrong doubts as to its being chiefly derived, as generally held, from St. Matthew's gofpel. In regard to the fufpicions thrown by the editors on the two firft chapters of St. Luke, Dr. Laurence ably attacks them upon their ftrange and partial reliance upon Marcion, but whom, after all they ufe juft as they do other authorities; rejecting, even of what he rejected, only just what they pleafe; by no means all, even in this very part of fcripture, though if he were any good authority they undoubtedly ought. Nothing but the moft inveterate party prejudice could induce the fame perfons to rely on the feveral gofpels of the Ebionites and Marcionites, which differ fo effentially, as clearly to invalidate each other, as far as either is of any authority, authority. The abfurdity (nay even madness according to Le Clerc), of regarding Marcion's gofpel as the unadulterated original of St. Luke, is admirably pointed out; inconfiftencies the most glaring in regard to the authorities on which they pretend to rely, are ably proved and expofed in this chapter. The Ebionites and Marcionites, Newcome and Griefbach are equally and moft fyftematically deferted, wherever they appear in any manner to give countenance to any doctrine, or any paffage adverfe to the fentiments and opinions of the Unitarian party. ་་ Dr. Laurence's ivth chap. is applied to the refcuing from the fufpicions thrown on it by the editors, the famous paffage, Luke xxiii. 43, to-day thou fhalt be with me in paradife." After expreffing his own fufpicions that the denial of an intermediate state, and of a Spiritual foul in man, are among the tenets profeffed by the improved verfionifts, he proceeds to confider their authorities, as cited in the following fhort note. "This verse was wanting in the copies of Marcion and other reputed heretics; and in fome of the older copies in the time of Origen: nor is it cited either by Justin, Irenæus, or Tertullian; though the two former have quoted almost every text in Luke, which relates to the crucifixion, and Tertullian wrote concerning the intermediate ftate." See Evanson's Diff. p. 28. In oppofition to all this, Dr. L. fhows, that the editors have probably relied too confidently upon Griefbach in this initance, of whofe labours, however, Dr. L. fpeaks, as every eritic muft, in the ftrongeft terms of praife; but upon this occafion the doctor unquestionably convicts him of having mifreprefented the cafe of the Manichæans, who, inftead of rejecting the text, abfolutely grounded one of their favourite doctrines upon it. We feel compelled to give this correction of GRIESBACH at fome length. The editors of the improved verfion in their note fay, that the paffage was wanting in the copies of Marcion and other reputed heretics. Dr. Laurence concludes their authority for this affertion to be Griefbach's note, which stands thus, =(his fign of deficiency) Marcion ap. Epiph. Manichæi ap. Chrys. Aliqui ap. Orig. Dr. L. fuppofes that by "other heretics," they mean the Manichai ap. Chrys.—If so, he says, Griefbach milled them who probably only copied Wetstein: had he taken the pains himself to read Chryfoftom, whom he cites, he would have difcovered his error, an error confirmed by a reference made by the doctor to St. Auftin. Dr. L. modeftly modeftly remarks, that a correction of Griefbach may juftly be confidered as of fome importance, and we must confefs that it appears to be a very fair correction. The doctor next proceeds to "the older copies," faid to want this paffage in the time of Origen. Aliqui ap. Orig. is Griefbach's expreffion, which is certainly not fo extensive in its meaning. As the doctor had corrected Griefbach on the preceding claufe, here he corrects Wetstein, who as much mifreprefents Origen as Greifbach does Chryfoftom. Origen does not fay they rejected, but only ventured to Jufpect the paffage (round) and that, because it did not happen to Square with their preconceived opinions. A cafe proved alfo by Lardner's remarks on it. "I have been the more particular," fays the doctor," in my notice of this and the preceding point, not in order to create an invidious diftruft of critics fo juftly diftinguished as Wetstein and Griefbach, but to prove the neceffity of carefully examining ourselves the authorities cited by them, before we prefume privately to question, much more publicly to arraign, the authenticity of any text whatfoever." As to the omiffion of the paffage by Juftin, Irenæus, and Tertullian, Dr. L. fhows,. that what is ftated of Juftin and Irenæus, that "they quoted every text in St. Luke which relates to the crucifixion," is as far as it can be from the truth, and that Tertullian's treatise is not extant, and therefore what it contained or omitted cannot be known, and after all, omiffions of this fort are not proper proofs against any text. The title of Dr. L.'s vth chap. "on the perplexing anomalies in the theory of articles, almost expreffes the utmost that can be faid upon the fubject. The idea that the infertion of the English indefinite is neceffary where the Greek definite is omitted, leads to fuch abfurd confequences, as to invalidate at once any fuch canon of criticism, (or rather of translation,} while the partial adoption of it by the improved verfionifts, manifeftly serves to prove their inveterate attachment to fyftem and party: in fact, their mode of managing this philolo gical problem would lead directly to a fcriptural affertion of polytheism. Dr. L. very properly notices the method adopted by all tranflators of Latin which has no articles; common sense and the context, and no infallible rule of articles must determine the fenfe. This chapter concludes with fome very judicious remarks on the use of the English and Greek article, which fhow that they are almost incapable of being reduced to any infallible canon, In ch. vi. Dr. L. treats of the existence of an evil being, but only on the grounds of the proper interpretation of the terms uled in fcripture. The queftion he propofes to difcufs is, whether by the terms Zalav and Alafonos, the facred writers meant a real perfon, or merely a perfonified quality ; we cannot go at length into this argument, but muft exprefsly declare that Dr. L. appears to us to have produced fufficient evidence that it cannot have been intended in the latter fenfe; that in moft, if not every cafe, a perfon must have been intended. In the last chapter, which chiefly relates to the term "Aylahos, and upon which the learned author has fome excel lent remarks, (to prove that it is only capriciously, and to ferve an end, applied by the editors in the fenfe of meffengers) fome notice is taken of their odd proceedings in fettling the canon of fcripture, the fum of which is this, that without any fixed regard to any authority whatsoever, they receive or difcard juft what they pleafe, or, to use Dr. Lau rence's own word, in this cafe as in all others, "repudiate or verify, fubvert or re-establish the generally received canon of fcripture at pleasure." The doctor concludes with pronouncing the work to be "nothing more than a mere patchwork tranflation, folely manufactured to promote the caufe of Unitarianifm," and we must affirm that we think no attentive and impartial critic could poffibly pronounce otherwife of it. We fhall make no apology for having been more diffuse than ufual in the review of these articles. We do not wish to throw any unfair impediments in the way of the improved verfion, but knowing that the Unitarians boaft greatly of its wide circulation and growing credit, we earneftly exhort all perfons," audire alteram partem," as exhibited in the three treatifes noticed in the above review. The established clergy in particular ought to lofe no time in examining and deciding upon the real merits of the cafe, for if it be truly as faulty as partial, and as indefenfible as thefe writers reprefent it to be, it is fhocking to think that any unwary perfons should be mifled by fuch pretended improvements and corrections of the written word of God. ART. 2 ART.X. Poems on feveral Occafions, confifting of Sonnets, Mif cellaneous Pieces, Prologues and Epilogues, Tales and Imitations, c. 12mo. 6s. Murray. 1811. THE name of the author of this miscellaneous but very agreeable and interefting collection, does not appear in the title page, but the infcription to the Right Honourable Charles Long, with the fpirit of which we, from the bottom of our hearts fympathize, is infcribed John Taylor. Mr. Taylor's compofitions of various descriptions have frequently been handed about in manufcript, and many of them been printed before, particularly his Prologues and Epilogues. The Public have reason to thank him for collecting them in this form. Their great characteristics are eafe, facetioufnefs, and good humor, qualities very defirable in Poetical compo fitions of this calibre, and which are known to distinguish the amiable author in private life. We think that he excels moft in fubjects of humor, and accordingly felect a fpecimen from this part of the volume. "PARSONS THE ACTOR, AND THE LION. "A True Story. "Parfons, fo long on London's comic stage, And many an object to furprise and scare: With all the wonders of a country Fair. At the fame Inn where ftood the mimic ftage, And howling ferenades from Cage to Cage. When juft at one o'clock, portentous hour! |