flames. It was "peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord;" it was acceptance through the merits of his obedience and sacrifice, that elevated their souls to all the triumph of hope, at the cross, the gibbet, and the stake. Shall we honour, then, with the same kind of veneration, the Saviour and the saved? -the believer and the object of his faith?-the martyr and the martyr's Lord?-the expiring saint, and the living Redeemer to whom he commends his departing spirit? No: the glory of Christ is his own, and can never be shared with another. In contemplating the cruel deaths of the martyrs, we admire the firmness of faith, the fervour of love, and the sublimity of self-devotion; but still we say, and we are animated by their example to say, "God forbid that we should GLORY, "save in THE CROSS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!" We revere the names of the martyrs; but there is "ONE NAME alone, "under heaven, given among men, by which we must be sav"ed."-At the stake of the martyr we view, with wondering interest, the energy of holy principle, and breathe a prayer for the mantle of Elijah; but at the cross of Christ, we "smite upon our breasts, and say, God be propitious to "me a sinner!" We are abased to dust, and elevated to hope; -we trust and we adore.

I shall finish this part of my reply, with an observation or two in vindication of the statement and reasoning contained in one of my Notes, (K.) relative to the rejection by Unitarians of the introductory chapters of the Gospel of Matthew on the authority of the Ebionites. I am the more disposed to do this, from the circumstance that Mr. Brown, in his Stricures, has expressed his opinion that to the charge of having misrepresented Mr. Belsham, I must, so far as he sees, plead guilty. Mr. Brown, however, having subsequently read Mr. Belsham's tract, so far qualifies this opinion in a note, that I per

suade myself the following brief remarks will at once satisfy him, that I have been guilty of no misrepresentation of Mr. Belsham, but have supported plain truth by conclusive reasoning.

"The editors of the Improved Version,'" says Mr. Yates, "have expressed strong doubts, whether the account of the "conception, birth, and childhood of Christ, (Matth. i. 17.❝ii.) be a genuine portion of St. Matthew's Gospel. Among "other arguments, they bring forward this consideration, that "the whole passage was wanting in the copies used by the "Ebionites, or ancient Hebrew Christians. Dr. Magee re"plies, that the Ebionites also rejected the three last Gospels "and the Epistles of Paul; and that, if the Editors of the "Improved Version' attribute any weight to their evidence "concerning the passage in question, they ought to receive "their testimony throughout,' and reject all the New Tes"tament except St. Matthew.' Mr. Belsham answers (Ad"dress, p. 8, 9.) that it may be perfectly proper to pay re"gard to the testimony of the Ebionites when it concurs "with other facts and probabilities, although their evidence "ought to be decidedly rejected, when it is disproved by "clear and certain considerations of an opposite, tendency;

just as we assent without hesitation to Livy's account of the "battle of Cannæ, which is confirmed by other historians, "although we utterly disbelieve the assertion of the same "author that an ox spoke, because this story is unsupported "by any concurring evidence. Thus Mr. Belsham argues " from a comparison of the testimony of Livy with the tes

timony of the Ebionites. Mr. Wardlaw (Note K.) repre"sents him as comparing Livy with St. Matthew. Although "Mr. Belsham's tract contains no such words, and no such "sentiment, Mr. Wardlaw introduces the following pass"age, among others correctly cited, in the form of a quota

"tion from that pamphlet; The Evangelist Matthew re❝lates that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross, and I believe "him. The same Evangelist Matthew relates that Jesus of "Nazareth was born of a virgin; and I believe him not.' "This account of the argument is accompanied with charges "against Mr. Belsham, of bitterness and violence,' the "most evasive sophistry,' obvious and flagrant inconsis"tency,'' slyly shifting his ground,' levity and impiety,' "parade and unwarrantable presumption.' Upon such 66 grounds, and in such language, has Mr. Wardlaw under"taken to censure a man, who is greatly his superior in "years, in talents, in learning, and in celebrity; who, in his "lucid and vigorous writings, though he appears admirably "qualified to repress blustering bigotry and presuming igno"ance, always respects sincerity of intention and a good moral "character; and who is, in the highest degree, estimable, "for the urbanity of his manners, the integrity of his prin"ciples, and the candour and benevolence of his heart." (Pages 250, 251.)

How, then, stands the case?

1st. Mr. Belsham, like most other Unitarians,-professes to reject these chapters on the authority of the Ebionites. But these same Ebionites rejected the three other Gospels, and the Epistles 'of Paul, which, notwithstanding, Mr. Belsham retains.-2dly. It is not, then, simply the authority of the Ebionites that is the ground of the rejection of the chapters in question;-for this authority, taken by itself, is not stronger against these chapters, than against the other repudiated parts of the New Testament. It must be something else.-3dly. And so Mr. Belsham tells us it is:— "In the one case," says he, "I see reason to concur with "them, and in the other to differ from them; and I be

"lieve that I have good grounds for the discrimination." So also Mr. Yates: "Mr. Belsham answers, that it may be 66 perfectly proper to pay regard to the testimony of the "Ebionites, when it concurs with other facts and proba"bilities, although their evidence ought to be decidedly "rejected, when it is disproved by clear and certain consi"derations of an opposite tendency." What, then, are these "reasons"-these "good grounds,"-these "other facts "and probabilities?" What, in short, is the something else that gives the decisive preponderance to the authority of the Ebionites in the one case, and which nullifies that authority in the other? Is there any other authority, in this instance, concurring with that of the Ebionites? No; all manuscripts and versions extant,-all critical authority whatsoever,is on the other side. What, then, is this something?—Mr. Belsham disbelieves the testimony of Livy when he relates that an ox spoke;-and he disbelieves the authority, of the Ebionites when they reject the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John: he believes Livy, when he relates the battle of Canna; and he believes the Ebionites, when they reject the introductory chapters of Matthew. Are these, then, really the points of his comparison? Is the rejection by the Ebionites of the three last Gospels and Paul's Epistles, the unnatural and incredible prodigy?—and their rejection of the introductory chapters of the first Gospel the natural and crédible historical fact? That will never do. What is there that is prodigious or miraculous in the mere fact of the Ebionites discarding the three Gospels and Paul's Epistles, any more than in their discarding the introductory chapters of Matthew? There is no kind of historical or critical evidence for the genuineness of the former, that does not exist, in the same extent, for the genuineness of the

Pp

latter. Where, then, is the monstrum horrendum to be found, which Mr. Belsham places on a level with the speaking ox? Will Mr. Belsham deny, or Mr. Yates for him, that when he introduced Livy's speaking ox, he had in his eye, as its parallel, the prodigy of the incarnation; and that he considered both as alike deserving of instantaneous and unhesitating rejection ?-that the mysterious, and consequently, obnoxious, nature of the contents of the chapters themselves, is the real reason why he thinks fit to concur with the Ebionites in their rejection of them? But if it be so, then it is not true, that Mr. Belsham "argues from a comparison of the "testimony of Livy with the testimony of the Ebionites." There is no prodigy in the testimony of the Ebionites. The prodigy is in Matthew's narrative. And the language used by Mr. Belsham, clearly shows, that his comparison is between Livy and Matthew. He says, "only let him permit us to exercise a little common sense in judging of a report, " and discriminate what is worthy of belief from what appears

to be incredible in the works of the same author." Were the Ebionites AUTHORS?—In short, nothing will convince me that I have done Mr. Belsham wrong in the note referred to, but his own explicit declaration, that when he introduced Livy's speaking ox, he had not at all in his mind the story of the incarnation, or miraculous conception, as the ground of his concurrence with the Ebionites, in rejecting from the Canon the introductory chapters of Matthew's Gospel.

But, according to Mr. Yates, I have, on this subject, been guilty of a crime for which, were the charge well founded, I should deserve to be "gibbeted in irons," as a warning and a terror to future controvertists, "to deter them from "committing the like crime in all time coming." The crime is, in plain English,-forgery;-endeavouring to pass