apart, it fairly contains the sense of the writer; and we are perfectly sure that his meaning is much too conspicuous to afford room for doubts or cavils. Eumenes means to say, that he prefers the society he should meet with at Athens, to that which surrounds him in the Chersonese; but that, for the sake of the benefit of the colony, he submits to a lengthened absence from his country and friends, to which he might presently be restored, were he to take ship (avanuσa) and bend his course towards the shores of Attica.

-But Paul, addressing his Christian friends at Philippi, says: -"I am at a loss to decide between opposing motives, which impel me on this side and on that; for I strongly desire to depart (avanurai, to be loosened from the body, and to soar away to other regions; comp. 2 Cor. v. 8.) and to be with Christ; which were incomparably better (than to remain in the body). And yet I cannot be ignorant, that for me to remain in the body, is highly important to your welfare. Well assured as I am of this, I know that I shall continue among you for the promotion of your religious interests and comfort.

The first of these two quotations is intelligible at a glance, because we apply to it, without question, the common processes of translation, nor dream of attaching to the words any ideas but those which common sense suggests. And why should not the second quotation enjoy the benefit of the same simple method? In truth, we know not why. If Eumenes was a man of plain common sense, so was Paul. If the Citizen of Athens used, in its known meaning, a language familiar to him, so did the Cilician Jew. If the one, in his intercourse with his friends, scorned mental reservations and guileful ambiguities, so did the other. If Eumenes is entitled to be treated as an honest and intelligent man, Paul much more.

But it seems, that even if we are at length to acquiesce in the obvious and very conspicuous sense of the Apostle, we cannot safely do so until volumes of biblical criticism, of theological reasoning, and of metaphysical speculation, have been written and read in defence of every supposition which idle and perverse ingenuity may choose to attach to the words. Nor again, may we acknowledge the plain intention of plain words, until we have looked around to see how this simple meaning may be adjusted with the notions we have formed on a subject incidentally connected therewith. Wretched trifling!—a trifling that at once nullifies the benefits of Revelation, vilifies the inspired writers, and debilitates the understandings, as well as corrupts the moral perceptions of those who practise it! Whence then comes this depraved criticism; or why is it tolerated? Alas! this absurd and mischievous system of exposition has been held in credit from age to age, because all parties, without exception, have

been compelled, in turn, to have recourse to it on those pinching occasions, when called upon to defend the rotten parts of their several systems,-ecclesiastical or doctrinal.

Concerning the important subject to which the volume before us relates, although recently brought into question, we should deem it idle to move a new discussion on the old scholastic system of biblical exposition. Nothing could be done but to repeat arguments which have already been fruitlessly repeated often enough. So long as any place or indulgence is given to evasions which, if proffered in the department of classical criticism, would be met with contemptuous reprobation, no hope can be entertained of satisfactorily determining this, or indeed any other religious controversy. The doctrine of the survivance of consciousness after the dissolution of the body, stands forth upon the language of the New Testament-we might say, upon that of the Old-as perspicuously as does the geographical fact of the existence of a distant city, called Rome, alleged to be the seat of a mighty empire. And if the only proof of this latter fact were that which is contained in the writings of the Apostles, it might be called in question with quite as much show of reason as is the doctrine of a separate state. In this supposed case, the objector might make his choice between the two following methods:-he might either quibble upon the terms employed when Rome or the Romans are mentioned, and shew in what manner certain phrases may be interpreted so as not absolutely to imply the existence of any such city or empire;-or, he might fully grant that such was the belief and opinion of the Apostles,-it being a vulgar notion among the Jews of that age, that they were under the control of a foreign power, seated in the imaginary Rome,-but yet deny that we are therefore obliged to give our faith to the said Jewish prejudice.

Of the two methods, if compelled to make a choice between them, we should certainly prefer the latter; and especially for this reason, that it does not, like the former, infringe upon the common principles of language; or break up and nullify the laws of evidence in matters of history; or deprave the moral sense, by accustoming it to acquiesce in modes of reasoning which shock the instincts of an honest mind.

Or, to turn to the subject in hand:-those who, to save a favourite theory, or to indulge the sceptical mood, or to put as far off as may be the unwelcome idea of a future life, resolve not to admit the belief of what is commonly termed the separate state of the soul, have, if they argue on the ground of Christianity, this same alternative before them. That is to say, they must either ply the craft of petty criticism, nibbling at particles, cracking etymons, hunting up various lections, and kick

ing up the dust of learned impertinence until even strong eyes are blinded, and all heads are muddled: or, if they like not this labour, degrading as it is to a manly spirit, they must take the bolder course; and while they candidly admit, what cannot honestly be denied, that Christ and his Apostles held this opinion of a separate state, in common with the mass of their countrymen, must yet deny the consequence, that this Jewish opinion is therefore entitled to the credence of those who live in a more enlightened age.

Our readers well know that the first of these two modes of argument, is the one which the sceptical school of divines in this country has generally adopted; while the latter has, as generally, been followed by those of Germany. It is not now our intention to contend either with English or with Continental infidelity but we beg, in a very few words, to point out what seems to be needed as preliminary to the successful and final expulsion of both these spirits of error from the precincts of the Christian Church. To dismiss the illusion of the Neologists, (so far as it may be dismissed by process of reasoning,) the simple historical argument which establishes the facts of the evangelical and apostolical narrative, requires to be stated and urged much more vigorously, and to be brought more on the common ground of evidence, than hitherto it has been. We say so advisedly, not unmindful of all that has been written already on this subject. Thence should be brought out, in perfect distinctness, the virtuous character, and consequent simplicity and honesty of the first teachers of Christianity; which, placed in connection with their claim to the possession of absolute authority in matters of religious belief, not only excludes the idea of their guilefully or ignorantly favouring false popular opinions; but imparts to their writings the higher character of a Divine communication, to which mankind in every age are invited and commanded to attach implicit faith, seeing that these writers, though expressing themselves as men, wrote only as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' The spring of Neologism is, a supposition of dishonesty in the conduct and teaching of Christ and his Apostles; and this impious imputation must be rebutted by the direct force of historic proof to the contrary. In dealing with the Neologist, we need therefore, for ourselves, a much more distinct, informed, and peremptory conviction of the truth of the Gospel narrative, than many of us at present possess; we need such a conviction as would set us above that pitiable infirmity of understanding which leaves the mind open to what are termed temptations concerning the truth of religion.

But preliminary amendments of a still more important kind are indispensable, ere what may be called the English style of

sceptical exposition can be effectually put to shame, and finally dismissed from the precincts of theology. We scruple not to affirm, that, to accomplish so desirable a riddance, a reformation in the principles and practices of Biblical interpretation is necessary, of so extensive a kind as would go near to revolutionize the Christian world,-and such as would take out of the way all that sectarizes our Christianity, and a great part of what exposes it to the contempt of the world. How is it then? In contending with Socinianism, or, to come to the instance immediately before us, in labouring to expose the error of those who deny the consciousness of the soul parted from the body, we complain, and justly complain, of the quibbling evasion, the pettifogging subterfuges, the critical violences, by means of which our antagonists escape from the edge of argument. But alas! these complaints have in them much of the querulousness and imbecility of a conscious implication in the same fault: for scarcely have we done with our sceptical opponent, and driven him from his ground, than we take station upon it ourselves, and in defence of some traditionary absurdity of our ecclesiastical system-or for the purpose of giving fair proportion and pleasing rotundity to our chosen form of theological science-or for avoiding a candid confession of ignorance-or, not seldom, for the ease of a mistaken zeal to remove seeming inconsistencies from Scripture,-we avail ourselves of these very same unworthy arts of evasion and subterfuge.

The impugners of Scriptural religion will never be triumphantly beaten from the field by those who are fearing for themselves, and for their peculiarities of doctrine and usage, and who are conscious that the very sword they are wielding to day, may be turned against themselves to-morrow. When once we have learned to be as modest, as wise, as simple-hearted in the exposition of Scripture, as we have at length become in the exposition of nature, we shall presently see empiricism and absurdity banished as completely from the one sphere of inquiry, as they have been from the other; and not till then.

The idea of Mr. Huntingford's book is a good one; his work is well-timed, and his collection of testimonies, we doubt not, will be acceptable to many readers. We might, to be sure, find some fault with his method; and might wish that a few of the dissertations he has adopted, had given place to others we could think of. His introduction, which we do not greatly admire, is followed by selections, more or less copious, from the works of Sherlock, Addison, Calvin, Grotius, Jeremy Taylor, Barrow, Sir Matthew Hale, Pearson, Beveridge, Jortin, Secker, Butler, Bull, (an admirable dissertation,) and Watts. His array of testimonies is closed with the powerful treatise of Calvin, named in the title page, and of which Mr. H. would have done well to

have given a good translation in lieu of the Latin: this, we think, would have left a more convincing and satisfactory impression upon the reader's mind, than any one of the essays he has printed, or, perhaps, than all together *.

Mr. H. does not state, in which of its two senses he affixes the word TESTIMONIES to his volume. The term may merely mean, as probably it did in his view, a collection of arguments by some of our most esteemed writers, brought together in order that the subject may be presented in a variety of lights; and that what one writer fails to bring forward, may be supplied by another. Or the word Testimonies may mean a series and succession of suffrages from Christians of every age, in support of the opinion of the separate consciousness of the soul. These two ideas are manifestly quite distinct. Thus, in managing a cause in court, it is one thing to commit our interests to a number of advocates, in order that the particular talent and tact of each may supply what has been wanting in the others; and it is quite another thing, to adduce the opinions of judges, and the verdicts of juries, from remote times to the present, in confirmation of the view which we think should be taken of a point of law.

In conducting a theological argument in the way of Testimonies, the selection would be widely, if not altogether different with the one idea before us, from what it would be with the other. For, in the one case, the collector would merely seek wherever he could find them, in ancient or modern literature, what appeared to him the ablest and most convincing treatises upon the point in question; but, in the other, he would gather the opinion and belief of the Church in each succeeding age, regardless of the learning or talent that might accompany the expression of it. We do not distinctly perceive, which of these two ideas was most prominent in the view of the Editor of the present volume: probably he contemplated both, yet giving preference to the former; and most readers will consider the work simply as a collection of treatises.

For our own part, had we undertaken to compile a volume with the given title of Testimonies in proof of the separate existence of the soul', we should certainly have chosen the latter, not the former, of the two methods above distinguished. The task on this plan would, indeed, have been one of very difficult and laborious execution; but then the result would have been proportionately more valuable, and the achievement would

Each extract is introduced by a brief notice of the Author. To some of these, we might make objection. The page on which the Vicar of Kempsford announces the amiable non-conformist, Watts, is wanting in our copy. Has it been discreetly cancelled throughout the edition?