deep reading! that there is no opera, nor theatre des Variétés ; in short, that Geneva is the dullest place in the world. Some say, it is but a bad copy of England, a sham republic, and a scientific, no less than a political, counterfeit. In short, the friends of Geneva, among our modern English travellers, are not numerous, but they are select. These last distinguished themselves during the late hard winter by their bounty to the poor-not the poor of Geneva, who were sufficiently assisted by their richer countrymen, but those of Savoy, who were literally starving. If English travellers no longer appear in the same light as formerly, it is because they are not the same class of people who go abroad, but all classes, and not the best of all classes either. They know it, and say it themselves; they feel the ridicule of their multitude, and of their conduct; they are ashamed and provoked; describe it with the most pointed irony, and tell many a humorous story against themselves. Formerly, the travelling class was composed of young men of good family and fortune, just of age, who, after leaving the university, went the tour of the continent under the guidance of a learned tutor, often a very distinguished man, or of men of the same class, at a more advanced age, with their families, who, after many years spent in professional duties at home, come to visit again the countries they had seen in their youth, and the friends they had known there. When no Englishman left his country either to seek his fortune, to save money, or to hide himself; when travellers of that nation were all very rich, or very learned; of high birth, yet liberal principles; unbounded in their generosity, and with means equal to the inclination; their high standing in the world might well be accounted for, and it is a great pity they should have lost it. Were I an Englishman, I would not set out on my travels until the fashion were over. Simond, Vol. I. pp. 355-359,

We have not room left to notice more particularly the contents of Mr. Bakewell's volumes. They are light and entertaining. The geological observations are by far the most interesting feature of the work; but these we shall probably have some future opportunity of referring to. The work is embellished with coloured engravings and wood-cuts. We leave the extracts given from M. Simond's "Switzerland," to speak for themselves. We have classed the two works together for convenience only, not for the sake of invidious contrast. Science is indebted to the one author, and literature to the other.

Art. III. A Vindication of the Authenticity of the Narratives contained in the First Two Chapters of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke; being an Investigation of Objections urged by the Unitarian Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament; with an Appendix containing Strictures on the Variations between the First and Fourth Editions of that Work. By a Layman. Svo. pp. 404. Price 10s. 6d. London. 1823.

7

THE integrity of the text of the New Testament is an object of the greatest importance to all Christians. The books composing that volume comprise the doctrines which they receive as the principles of Divine knowledge, and the precepts which they regard as the rules of conduct. But, unless the text of those books be genuine, the faith and the hope of Christians may be fallacious. He, therefore, who would be able to satisfy himself with respect to the "reason of the hope that is in him," will find himself usefully employed in examining the evidences of the genuineness of the New Testament records.

Christianity might, indeed, be a Divine religion, though no written documents were in existence that imbodied its principles. As, in the economy of nature, the utility of objects is independent of the knowledge of their physical relations, so, the advantages of Revelation may be real and important apart - from the proofs of its derivation. There are, however, documents which have long been known in the world as the authoritative symbols of Christianity, the exclusive formularies of its doctrines, and the authentic records of its early history. Men who were selected by the Divine Author of the Christian religion to teach and to bear witness of the truth, were, the writers of these books. The instructions which they have transmitted through the medium of their publications, must be in accordance with the doctrines which they really delivered; the character in which they wrote excluding every supposition of inconsistency in their communications. To us who live in these distant times, their publications must supply the place of their personal presence, and afford the means of trying the superior claims which they asserted. The divinity of the Christian religion was proved by the facts which its original promulgators exhibited in their living testimony; the evidences of its truth and the grounds of its authority, we must seek in the documents which they have left us, and in such other monuments as may assist our inquiry.

From these considerations it is obvious, that the proof of the divinity of the religion of Christ is necessarily connected with the integrity of its written records. In proportion to our con

viction of their genuineness, will be the confidence with which we receive the truths of the Gospel. If the books which we receive as the writings of divinely authorised instructors be corrupted, if they contain parts which were not originally included in them, we shall not be able to repose our confidence in them, unless we can separate the later additions from the primitive writings. If we possess the means of doing this effectually, our confidence will be restored to the books thus purified, and we shall have gained, by the process of purifying them, an accession of strength to our faith. On this account the labours of Griesbach are invaluable, and the security of the text of the New Testament can now be more adequately appreciated than before. It must, however, be remembered, that, in respect, to j. any alleged interpolations or adulterations of the sacred text, the proofs of corruption are in the first place to be obtained, before the sentence of extermination is pronounced, against them. For it is not sufficient for this purpose, that difficulties shall be proved to exist in the text. Difficulties may not only be evident, but they may even appear to be insuperable by any means which we may possess of removing them, and the text which contains them may still be a genuine part of the author's work in which they occur. The question of genuineness is purely a critical question, and must be tried by critical rules. It must be gravely and patiently examined. Our object in i investigations of this kind, is not merely to reject or to retain, but to separate that which is spurious from that which is genuine, on clear and satisfactory evidence of its corruption.

We can feel no surprise, in perusing such a work as the Vindication" now before us, at the expressions of dissatisfaction and displeasure, sometimes not a little strong, which the Author has directed against the manner in which the Editors of the Improved Version" have proceeded with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. No serious and unbiassed reader can peruse their notes on the first two chapters of those evangelists, without being offended. The unhesitating boldness with which the Editors have advanced their positions, is widely rebiote from that sober spirit which recommends genuine criticism to our acceptance. Unitarian writers are never, very sparing of their complaints and censures against what they consider as prejudice or systematic bias in their opponents; but it would not be easy, we believe, to cite any paragraphs of equal dimensions, in which so much of these qualities appears as in those to which we are referring. The Editors commend. Griesbach, and appland Lardner; but, if these be the masters under whom they have studied, they have given us a striking specimen of the difference which may sometimes exist between the

sobriety of a teacher and the precipitancy of a disciple. Neither of these distinguished writers would have risked a declaration of sentiment, which should assume a passage of doubtful import as the basis of an explicit conclusion that some very extensive portions of the New Testament are a fabrication. Such presumption deserved to be rebuked, and the whole case to which the labours of such writers have been directed, required to be considered with more caution and with less brevity than they have bestowed upon them. The question to be examined is simply, the genuineness of a part of the text of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels. This is the object of the " Vindication." In this vindication, the Author first exhibits the external evidence for the authenticity of the disputed passages, and then proceeds to the consideration of objections against them. He does justice to the statements of the parties to whom he is opposed, by the fairness of his quotations, and, though occasionally an expression may be detected, which we would scarcely venture to approve, maintains the controversy with Christian-like temper. If his arguments are not always very close in their texture, they are forcible and effective. He has, we think, been very successful in exposing the errors and inconsistencies which have found a place in the publications of the impugners of the passages which he vindicates. It has evidently been his design, to furnish a clear and ample statement of the entire question to which his work relates, and this he has accomplished in a manner creditable alike to his learning and his piety.

The evidence of the Greek manuscripts, of the ancient versions, and of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, obviously presents itself as the primary means of determining the genuineness of the text of the New Testament. In the case before us, the examination of such evidence is almost unnecessary, the fact being admitted by the Editors of the Improved Version, that the alleged interpolated passages are to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant.'. We said almost, because the Editors of the Improved Version, in the passage which we have just quoted, do not include the third species of testimony-the evidence of the ancient ecclesiastical writers. The nature and value of this last kind of evidence, as related to the question before us, is indeed assumed by the Editors to be in favour of the negative conclusion for which they contend, that the particular chapters are not genuine Scripture. By the "Layman" their assumption is opposed, and we think successfully combatted. It is singular, however, that, in his examination of the evidence from Manuscripts and Versions, he has not referred to Griesbach's Epimetrón, ap

pended to his " Commentarius Criticus in Textum Græcum Novi
Testamenti." The impartiality of Griesbach is applauded not
less by Unitarians than by Trinitarians; and though his opinions
are not decisive of disputed questions, yet, on the ground
of his established reputation for the strictest integrity, the judge-
ments which he calmly and deliberately pronounced on the evi-
dence which he had brought under examination, and with the
bearings of which he was so familiar, are entitled to great re-
gard. Now, in respect to the first and second chapters of
Matthew's Gospel, he not only states that they are found in all
the ancient Greek MSS. and Versions- Testimonia veterum,
"quibus duo priora Matthæi capita dubia reddi queant, proferri
possunt prorsus nulla. Leguntur ista capita in codicibus Græ-
ciset in versionibus vetustis' but, in the conclusion of his
dissertation, he furnishes the result of his collations and in-
vestigation of evidence, by declaring his entire conviction.
1. That Matthew's Greek Gospel never wanted the first and
second chapters of the present division.-2. That there are no
arguments of sufficient force to prove that there formerly ex-
isted a Gospel from which the present Greek copy of Matthew's
Gospel was derived, that did not contain the chapters in ques-
tion. And, 3. That it is highly probable (admodum probabile
esse) that these two chapters were written by Matthew, with the
exception of the genealogy, which he received from some other
hands, and prefixed to his own Gospel.

-The external evidence for the genuineness of both the first and
second chapters of Matthew's Gospel, and the first and second
chapters of Luke's Gospel, is amply sufficient. Those portions
of the New Testament will endure the strictest application of
the rules which every critical editor has taken for his guidance
in determining the authenticity of the sacred text. Not even
a suspicion of their genuineness arises from the collation of the
manuscript authorities. The excision of those portions, how-
ever, is attempted by many modern Unitarians on the ground
of a deficiency in the external testimony. The Editors of the
Improved Version even assume the sufficiency of external evi-
dence against the passages. From the direct testimony of
Epiphanius,' say they, and indirectly from that of Jerome,
we learn that they were wanting in the copies used by the
bNazarenes and Ebionites; that is,' (so they are pleased to
state,) by the ancient Hebrew Christians; for whose instruc-
tion, probably, the gospel of Matthew was originally written,
and to whom the account of the miraculous conception of
Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, if it had been
b found in the genuine narrative.'