the perpetual change of person and the other disturbances' in St. Paul's Epistles, arising, as has been well said, from the plenty and vivacity of his thoughts,' must add in no inconsiderable degree to the difficulties which a superficial scholar will always find in a language of such infinite variety as the Greek, and especially in so peculiar a dialect of it as that used by the writers of the New Tes tament. These are not the only nor the principal reasons which disqualify Mr. Belsham for an expositor of the writings of St. Paul. Those writings contain the must awful views of religion, and the profoundest and most spiritual knowledge. The doctrines which they inculcate of the intimate connexion of the moral and intellectual frame; of the efficacious operation of the Divine Wisdom on the human being, enlightening aud developing the understanding by reforming the heart; the discernment of even the most remote and spiritual truths which they promise to the Christian as the fruits of that θεοπαραδοτος σοφια to be bestowed on a holy life; these truths, we say, and others of an exalted character, must make the writings of St. Paul a closed volume for the disciples of the tangible and sensible philosophy of the Deist and the Unitarian. When, indeed, we remember the elevation of thought, of hope, and of affection to which these divine writings have given birth in us, the high and holy contemplations to which they have conducted us, and, we humbly hope, the improvement of heart and of mind which we owe to them; it is really odious and painful to think of the degradation and debasement which they undergo in the hands of an Unitarian commentator. But if we descend to lower grounds than this, and remember merely that St. Paul was a Pharisee of great learning, and consequently intimately acquainted with all the literature of his sect, and imbued with their opinions; when we consider that, even at this day, it is in the power of any man of moderate acquirements to obtain an extensive acquaintance with the Rabbinical learning, and thus to comprehend much that might otherwise be obscure in the writings of the Apostle, what can we think of one who presumes to undertake an exposition of those writings without the slightest qualification of this nature? For the idle and empty parade of ostentatious learning, for the exhibition of long lists of names unknown to the wondering reader, we profess the most entire contempt. The coxcombry of learning is at least as miserable as any other coxcombry; but, in this case, it does not require a single word to show that the acquisition of the learning to which we have alluded is essential to the commentator of St. Paul, and the neglect of it fatal to his pretensions.

But we feel so little interest in the general character of the book that we shall hasten at once to a discussion of the only important part of it, the Unitarian exposition of the system of justification delivered

་

delivered by St. Paul. As that exposition rests, however, for its foundation, on the peculiar views entertained by Mr. Belsham of the degree of inspiration enjoyed by the sacred writers, it will be necessary for us previously to investigate the truth of his opinions on that subject. Now the view which Mr. Belsham takes of the inspiration of St. Paul appears to us as absurd as any which dould be offered on the subject. He adduces the testimony, indeed, of Paley and Burnet in his favour; but we must beg our readers to assign to the opinions of these writers, as far as they go with him, no greater degree of authority than their individual names challenge, and not in any degree to conceive that they express the opinions of the church of which they were members. The theory of inspiration, then, which Mr. Belsham adopts, is, that though the doctrines of St. Paul were unquestionably revealed to him, and must therefore be received without doubt or hesitation, yet the arguments by which he supports them may be wholly false, groundless and inconclusives Norton this hypothesis is it thought necessary to ascribe to him any knowledge of scripture, any protection from misunderstanding it) od any view of the preceding dispensation superior in clearness or correctness to those which ordinary men enjoy.rd quiti onizib els fod

We are far from wishing to make Paley and Burnet answerable for the indecent use which Mr. Belsham has made of this theory, but we decidedly and entirely object to the theory itself, If, indeed, the Apostles had been left to defend the truth by false or inconclu sive arguments, how miserable would have been the provision made for its reception and extension! It may well be presumed that there were in the Apostle's days, opponents at least as eagle-eyed in the discovery of weak or fallacious arguments as Mr. Belsham, and even more interested in overtuining them than he can be. What triumphs then would they have enjoyed, how entire would have been the discomfiture of the Apostles, and how deadly the injury to their cause, as often as a flaw or a fallacy was detected in their rea sonings! But, without looking to the consequences, what can be more absurd than to suppose that the mind may be left in all its original ignorance, not exalted, not enlightened by Divine influence, believing in false facts, and reasoning falsely upon them, till the errors and wanderings of the understanding are made to con duct it to truth and certainty? It is true, indeed, that the degree of illumination afforded to the Apostles needs not imply a general illu mimation of their minds on all subjects. We do not suppose that they were astronomers, or chemists; but it is not going too far to suppose that a perfect knowledge was vouchsafed to them of that religion which they were to preach and to defend, and that more especially the scriptures were opened fully to them, as by them were

they

they to prove the truth of the divine mission of their Master. Yet by Mr. Belsham's theory, this is wholly denied, and it is not only supposed that they might mistake the meaning of the Scriptures, but it is actually asserted that they not unfrequently did so. None of our readers, we imagine, will have any difficulty in understanding Mr. Belsham's motives for these assertions. St. Paul, it will be remembered, directly assumes the truth of that part of scripture which asserts that the human race were ruined by the transgression of Adam; he speaks of that transaction as an undoubted fact, and teaches that Christ came into the world to repair the mischief then caused to mankind. If St. Paul therefore be right, we have here, in one shape or other, (for we will not now dwell on the minor differences among the Orthodox,) the doctrine of original sin, and that of an atonement for it, doctrines not only in direct opposition to the opinions of the Unitarians on the moral state and wants of mankind; but involving the most direct contradiction of the whole foundation and groundwork of their theory. But surely nothing except the abandonment of all pretence to sanity, could tempt any party thus openly to state that their opinions are in entire opposition to the doctrines of the chiefest of the Apostles,' and cannot be held except by denying that he understood the meaning of scripture or was capable of reasoning rightly upon it. We offer our thanks indeed to Mr. Belsham for the grounds on which he virtually avows that the controversy between the Orthodox and the Humanitarian party rests. This party, according to their acknowledged champion, require us to believe not only that what stands at the very beginning of a simple narrative of facts, and is related as a fact, without a hint of its not being so, is a mere allegory; but they further require us to believe that St. Paul too was deceived by the method of narration, and assumed this fanciful allegory as a fact on which he founded some of his most important conclusions. But let us for a moment assume that Mr. Belsham's theory of inspiration is the true one-that is to say, let us suppose that the Holy Spirit only taught the Apostle the doctrines which he inculcated, without suggesting the arguments by which they were to be supported. For them St. Paul himself, on this hypothesis, is wholly responsible, and they are entitled only to that degree of weight which may be thought due to his character as a man of learning, and as the chosen vessel, the instrument expressly selected by God to spread the Gospel, to advance it by his zeal, and to defend, adorn and illustrate it, by the rectitude of his own unassisted judgment and knowledge of scripture. We scarcely wish for further concessions; it is sufficient to ask whether, if St. Paul expressly affirmed a certain interpretation of scripture and a certain fact to be true, and Mr. Belsham expressly affirmed them to be false, any rea

sonable

sonable man could hesitate in deciding whose side of the argument to adopt. Surely Mr. Belsham's disciples must pause when they find their leader thus openly avow that the truth or falsehood of the doctrines which they maintain, depends not only on the correctness or incorrectness of their private judgment, but that that judgment is in direct opposition to the belief and the authority of St. Paul. Let them consider too the extraordinary fact that in no instance, we believe, except where the admission of St. Paul's accuracy as a reasoner or interpreter of scripture would be prejudicial to the Unitarian doctrines, is that accuracy impugned; or at all events that while, in general, his reasonings gain Mr. Belsham's assent and even excite his admiration, the very moment that he differs from the views of the Unitarians, he is denounced as an illogical reasoner and an ignorant expounder of scripture. We cannot trust ourselves to express all the feelings which Mr. Belsham's language on this point has excited in our minds; yet we are equally unable to quit the subject without testifying our indignation at the language itself, and our disgust at the spectacle which this book ventures every where to present, of the great Apostle of the Gentiles rebuked and reprimanded for ignorance and incapacity by the Minister of Essex Street Chapel! *

The remarks we have made on Mr. Belsham's Theory of Inspiration, if they are correct, entirely destroy his system of justification. That system assumes, for its foundation, the falsehood of St. Paul's sentiments respecting the fall of man, or, at least, is wholly incompatible with its truth and reality. It might, therefore, be deemed 'superfluous to enter into any further investigation of it; but, persuaded as we are of the falsehood of the primary principles on which Unitarianism depends, it is satisfactory to receive the further proof of the correctness of our notions, afforded by the grievous absurdities to which that system leads, when it is attempted

As the offence of which we have here accused Mr. Belsham is one of a very grave nature in most men's minds, though it may be none in his, we deem it right to support the accusation by a few quotations.

Vol. i. p. 110. 'We are authorised to admit the Apostle's conclusions even though we may doubt of the validity of his arguments and the correctness of his premises. The Apostle does not say that lie was inspired to assert the literal truth of the Mosaic his-tory of the Fall: probably he knew no more of it than we do.'

P. 112. Such is the train of the Apostle's reasoning, the defect of which need not be pointed out.'

P. 125. His argument, if it prove any thing at all, proves,' &c.

P. 171. Such, no doubt, was the Apostle's meaning, if he has any meaning at all, &c.'

p. 105. In every light in which I can view this argument, it appears to me

Vol. ii. irrelevant and inconclusive."

Vol. iii. p. 229. The Apostle argues that as Jesus ascended, he must first have descended the inference perhaps is not perfectly logical.'

Vol. iv. p. 196. Such is the nature of the Apostle's argument, which, to say the truth, is of no great weight.'

to adapt the Bible system of Christianity to it. We can indeed say, with perfect truth, that the most furious ultra-Calvinism does not exhibit propositions at all equalling the absurdity or the inpossibility of those contained in these volumes of Mr. Belsham.. Previously, indeed, to taking up any Unitarian commentary ou the writings of St. Paul, it is difficult to conceive by what process this part of the Scriptures which treats so copiously of man's justification, and the effectuation of that great work, by the sacrifice of the death of Christ, can be so explained, as not to contradict all the views and hypotheses of the present Unitarian party. The Polishschool of Socinians, while they denied the divinity of Christ and endeavoured to prove that the benefits of his death arose from the reward which it pleased God to bestow on his obedience, still did not dream of denying those benefits. They taught openly and unreservedly that mankind were purged from their sins by the blood of Christ, and attained by faith to eternal life.* Locke appears first to have introduced the new system of explanation, in his wellknown work on the Epistles of St. Paul. Of that writer it is dangerous to speak, in this country, in any other terms than those of boundless respect; but there are subjects on which the full expression of opinion cannot be concealed without guilt, and it is therefore our duty to say, that, while we fully acknowledge the ingenuity of Locke in tracing out many of St. Paul's arguments, we can have no hesitation in characterizing the tendency of his whole work, and especially his statement of the doctrine of justification, as Socinian. That Locke denied the charge of Socinianism we are well aware; and it is abundantly manifest, from the quotations produced by Bishop Burgess and Archdeacon Wrangham, that he was either ashamed of his faith, or that he was not aware to what conclusions his opinions, as to justification, necessarily led. In neither case could the authority of his name add any weight to the party whose cause he espoused. The first alternative is most creditable to his understanding, and the latter to his honesty. But we are not aware of any method by which he could escape from the dilemma; for it is clear, that he positively denied the charge of Socinianism, and equally clear that his views of justification have been adopted by the Unitarians, as harmonizing with their system. We are inclined to believe, that he had possibly adopted Arianism in some of its numerous shades; and assuredly, from the disagreeable and sneering tone of the pre

See especially the comment of Schlichtingius on Rom. iii. v. 24. and the Racovian Catechism, sect. vi. p. 349-360 in Rees's English edition. The expressions, indeed, are so strong, that the translator thinks it right to add a note, apprising the reader that few, if any, modern Unitarians, will assent to the preceding interpretations respecting the offering and sacrifice of Christ.'

face