believe all concerning it that is found in Scripture clearly affirmed. Its effect, in the confession of all, I think, has extended, if to make, yet not to keep the Scripture perfect. The Roman Church has assumed authority, claiming it to be divine, to decide on all points. It may become Protestants, I would humbly suggest, rather to believe it to have been for the purpose of our trial, the ultimate purpose of our being on earth, that difficulties have been allowed; which are however not such but that, the imperfections of human language, and the hazard of translation from languages no longer spoken, practice is so commanded that little is left to human reason for either objection or doubt though, of belief, much is found remaining open for controversy. The zeal of believers to assert divine authority for the whole of the Old and New Testament, under necessity to admit that its influence, if ever producing perfection, has not been so exerted as to maintain it in any of the copies of either Testament which have reached us, has afforded great opportunity for their opponents. In truth, none can say from scriptural authority, hardly then, unless in very general terms, from human reason, where, with regard to the matters for which it is claimed, the inspiration has begun, or how far gone. I will venture to add, however, none can say, from authority of either Scripture or human reason, how far under God's providence, it may not have gone, or may not go, unknown to those directed by it. The Almighty Author of the human mind cannot but have power to dispose that mind as he pleases. The inferior animals we see he disposes to love, guard and feed their young while needful; the need ceasing, that disposition of the animal's mind ceases. It appears to me to be quite consonant with what we are enabled to see of God's providence, that he should, as may seem to him good, occasionally enlighten or direct the minds of men, when they may be no more conscious of it than the male bird that assists its incubant mate. Scripture assures us that, in the early ages of the world, and after the ascension of Christ, many were made sensible of such divine direction. Where clear information in Scripture fails, supposition, with just respect for the Divine attributes, may be allowed; but certainty, and of course all right of man to impose belief, ceases; and with much satisfaction I have observed some of our most eminent ecclesiastical writers of the English Church, of former times, and of the present day, to the utmost that, under human restrictions imposed on them, might be, teaching so."-Pp. 131-136.

Regarding the gospels as literary compositions, the author makes some free remarks upon their style and method. He appears to have been most deeply impressed by the perusal of Matthew, of whom he says, (p. 129,) that, like the writers of the Old Testament, he is " strong in detached sentences," but "utterly unhabituated to arrange thought for advantageous. communication." He observes, (p. 131,) that John had been less qualified by education for a writer than any of the other three evangelists: 66 nevertheless," he adds, "though Luke had more of Grecian learning, and wrote in better style, yet there is in all the other three Gospels, but especially in Matthew's, often a superior energy, and, with it, sometimes, a grace beyond art, the more striking for the abruptness with which they are introduced, and the uncouth diction and rugged arrangement of all around them."

The whole of Sect. III. is" Of the Gospel by St. Matthew," consisting of critical and expository remarks upon some passages of this Gospel. The author compares (pp. 140-142) our Lord's mode of teaching with that of the philosophers and poets. Of these last, having named Virgil and Horace, he says,

"The latter, in youth licentious, in advanced years, with whatever remaining disposition to sensuality, which no authority known to him restrained, giving himself anxiously to speculation on the condition and duties of man, seems to have been prepared to rejoice in such light, might it have reached

him, as the gospel affords. Of all Heathen writers, it may be not wholly foreign to the purpose of this little work to observe, he perhaps, in giving the result of such speculation and inquiry, has expressed the best sentiments of the Grecian philosophers, the best guides furnished by his opportunities, most nearly with Hebrean conciseness and force."-Pp. 141, 142.

Some further remarks are here made upon the Lord's Prayer. The author understands the clause relating to temptation to mean, "Put us not so to trial, but that thou wilt graciously deliver us from evil." He rejects the gloss which would make the concluding phrase to refer to the devil, "the evil one."

"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil.' 'Eya 21 kkye buio, μg artisīvas to normpă. Matt. v. 39. Here by to not only has not been meant the devil, but certainly not any moral evil. This so completely justifies the English translation, that it may appear almost superfluous to add that, in all known manuscripts, this last cited passage is found to have the article prefixed, but, the oldest has it not in the prayer."-Note, p. 148.

Mr. Mitford ventures in the IVth Sect. upon the difficult subject “Of Demoniacs." With little previous knowledge of the sentiments of learned men upon this much-agitated question, he decides, from a review of the New Testament, against the popular hypothesis. In answer to a remark of the late Mr. Gilpin's in his Exposition, that the devil had greater visible power before the time of Christianity than he has now, which it is necessary to suppose in order to meet many difficulties in profane history, with regard to oracles, the writer says,

"I wish the worthy author had specified the reported oracles which made any difficulty for him; being myself unaware of any which may not most reasonably be referred to either conjecture before, or invention after the fact; unless some of such ingenious duplicity, or of such obscure, if any meaning, that, whatever were the event, mistake could not be imputed to them: nor has this passed unnoticed by Heathen authors.”—Pp. 155, 156.

We regret that our narrow limits will not allow us to extract some passages in exposition of several instances of possession related in the gospels, which Mr. Mitford considers to have been cases of disease, disease accompanied by some kind and degree of madness. He protests against the rendering in the English translation of the Greek words " dæmon" and "dæmonion," by the English word appropriated to the Greek "diabolos," as not only "utterly unwarranted," but "an offensive stumbling-block." (P. 182.) He says that the word "dæmon" was never used in Greek to express any thing evil; Luke, a Greek scholar, has therefore in his first notice of possession (iv. 33) used a distinguishing epithet to guard against an improper conception of his meaning," the spirit of an unclean dæmoThis phrase, or that of "unclean spirit," he would have substituted in the English New Testament "for the offensive term 'devil.'" (Pp. 162, 172 and 183.) Reasonable as is this call for an improved version, it will be disregarded by our ecclesiastical dignitaries who influence. the measures of government with regard to the Church. All improvements have been hitherto, and will, we fear, long continue to be, made by individuals, not only unauthorized by Church and State in their useful labours, but exposed to obloquy for their officious exposure of defects and errors in the religious apparatus of the country.

nion."

The Second Volume or Part (for the book is strangely printed) of the Observations consists partly of "Letters to a Friend," we suppose a divine,

from which it appears that Mr. Mitford did not hope entirely to escape censure on account of the freedom of the foregoing strictures. He acknowledges with pleasing simplicity of manner his obligations to his friend for putting into his hands Dr. Mead's Medica Sacra :

"Among laymen, then, who have so deserved well, I cannot but reckon that eminent physician, and scholar, and Christian philosopher, Mead; and I feel especial obligation to you for having made me acquainted with that little publication which, in my mind, gives him complete claim to the latter title, his Medica Sacra. It is highly relieving and encouraging to me to find that, on a subject so hazardous as that of the human disorder, so frequently described by phrases implying possession by unclean spirits, his authority, high certainly, if high reputation for medical science might make it so, was, unknown to me, prepared for my support. So warranted in my previous belief, that all those symptoms, mentioned by the Evangelists, of persons called possessed, are ordinary symptoms of human disorders, I remain quite satisfied with having dilated on the subject, beyond what was within the able and worthy physician's purpose."-Part ii. pp. 5, 6.

It is well known that Mead, who wrote in Latin, professedly for the use of proficients in either theology or medicine, deprecated the publication of any translation of his work. A regard to the religion of the common people was the alleged plea of the learned and pious physician for this prohibition: the very same religious benevolence, Mr. Mitford reasons, (ii. 6-10,) justifies him in pursuing, in a different state of things, the opposite course. Infidelity has crept in amongst the common people, and no effort should be spared to shew them that the narratives of the gospels are credible and their doctrine agreeable to common sense.

His friend had warned Mr. Mitford of the wasp's nest roused by Mead, but in vain he proceeds, in spite of the foreseen buzzing and sting of bigots, to disclose freely his inmost thoughts upon a review of the books of Scripture. One avowal of doubt and difficulty may alarm some of our readers and even contributors. Mr. Belsham little expected, we will venture to say, when he was penning his objections to the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, that he should be hereafter supported in his theory by the Historian of Greece, the brother of the noble Lord that has been as a right hand to the present orthodox Lord Chancellor. Having remarked that the New Testament, taking the history and the doctrine combined, bears within itself evidence of the impossibility of its having been altogether the invention of man, he adds this exceptive passage:

"But asserting this of the history and doctrine altogether, I deem it right to avow that, for one passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, as that Gospel has been transmitted to us, a passage merely historical, though not proposing to controvert it, I cannot assert so much; I mean the account of the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of infants in Galilee. I understand this account is found in all the oldest known manuscripts of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thence is intitled to great consideration from Christian churches, and, perhaps, all that it has obtained. But as it has afforded more opportunity for the opponents of Christianity, and more difficulty for its defenders, than perhaps any other, I have thought it altogether unbecoming wholly to avoid declaring what has occured to me on the subject. It will have been observed by all who read the New Testament, that not a syllable relating to it is found in any one of the other three Gospels; even St. Luke's, who is largest on the early part of our Saviour's life, and professes to have had information of all from the beginning. The narrative, then, it may farther deserve observation, not only affects not in the least the history given by the other Evangelists, but, if omitted even in the

Gospel in which it is found, would make no sensible interruption. The most important consideration however is, that it furnishes nothing of doctrine. Though, therefore, a defence of it may be esteemed of some importance, as the credit of the transmitted copies of that earliest and still eminent gospel, which alone gives it, is concerned, yet, as far as I am aware, it is important for nothing else."-Pp. 15, 16.

A Letter, entitled "Remarks on the Gospel by St. John," (pp. 32-3— 32-31,) abounds with intimations, all of them not obscure, of an heretical leaning. We would try the reader's patience by extracts, especially of passages upon the Proem of this Gospel, if the author did not more commonly suggest than solve difficulties; but there are two paragraphs which we cannot pass over, so important is their testimony in favour of truth and charity, and so energetically do they express the state of a mind revolting from absurdity and imposition. Mr. Mitford had observed that the disputes of the learned are "evidence that the mysteries, so little unfolded to man's apprehension in the 1st chapter of St. John's Gospel, were not proposed for man to explain," and also that the same Evangelist in a part of his narrative soon following reports words of Christ himself ("Were I to tell you of heavenly things, how should ye believe ?") reproving an over-busy curiosity about matters above human capacity, and then says, in a tone of deep religious feeling,

Adding, then, to all these considerations that of the history of Creeds, when I am called upon, in the course of our Church-service, after the minister, to declare solemnly before God, my belief of the manner of the production of one portion of his Almighty Being, and the manner also of an occasional complicated existence (so I understand the expression) of another portion, unaware of anything in holy writ requiring, or, to my mind, sufficiently warranting such a declaration, but, on the contrary, Christ's admonition already noticed, cautioning against presumption on such subjects, I am led to hope, and even trust, it is excusable for me to hesitate at the awful ceremony.

"But when, moreover, in the creed, styled of St. Athanasius, though unknown by whom composed, or by what authority established in the liturgy of the Roman church, whence it has been received in ours, but clearly not till after the corruption of both Roman and Greek churches already wanted the correction of Protestantism, I am farther required to declare my belief of much that I cannot understand, and much that I find myself, to my understanding, admonished in holy writ, not to be over curious about; nor so much only, but farther to pronounce all those accursed of God for ever, who, understanding, or not understanding, cannot so believe, I think it not unbecoming me to own that, not without some horror, I shrink from the tremendous responsibility."-Pp. 32-18-32-20.

If our object were merely to conciliate the reader's esteem of the author, we would stop here; but as our end is truth, we must make a remark or two upon other parts of the book.

Allusion has been already made to Mr. Mitford's strong political partialities. These appear rather oddly in the Observations. He not only speaks superciliously of the tyrant multitude" and "the sovereign populace," but even treats with respect the high rulers of the Jewish Church, and the Pagan authorities who resisted and took vengeance on the founders of Christianity. Another celebrated Greek historian, famous for his unbelief, avows that the religion of Christ appeared to him an innovation, and he was for the old religion : our author does not go so far, but he is evidently swayed by the same reverential feeling towards the " gods on earth." He justifies Caiaphas in pronouncing sentence upon Jesus (ii. 44-47), absolves

Pontius Pilate (47-49), and concludes (49) "that the sacrifice, predestined by Almighty Providence, was accomplished-if not without human crime, yet, the signal treachery of one man only excepted, without any that we seem warranted to impute"!

In the same manner, he ventures to remark in the "Observations upon Heathenism,' by far the least interesting part of the volume, that the alarm of the Roman government at the growing reception of Christianity was not unreasonable (176, &c.); and he asserts that persecution on account of religion was not unknown among the Greeks and Romans, and maintains that it was not wrong (p. 160). This frankness we cannot but admire, whilst we lament the secret influence of opinions and predilections, with regard to actual political parties and present disputes and dissensions, in perverting the writer's historic and moral judgments.

Not willing to conclude this notice of the "Observations" in the languáge of censure, we shall give the author's estimate of the "last thoughts" of Cicero upon religion, in which we are disposed to believe that he is not mistaken :

"The opinions on which he finally rested are marked in his treatise on Elderhood, that intitled Scipio's Dream, and more especially that on the Consolation of Philosophy. In all these he has asserted, after Socrates, his confidence in the existence, the omnipotence, and the goodness of (the) Deity, in the immortality of the human soul, in the future reward of human virtue, and punishment of human wickedness.”—Pp. 169, 170.

ART. IV. A Letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Liverpool, K. G., on the "Unitarian Marriage Bill," in which is considered the Expediency as well as the Justice of redressing the Grievance complained of by the Dissenters. By a Presbyter of the Church of England.

THIS Presbyter is verily a "Priest writ large." He denies to the petitioners for the Bill the title conceded to them by the Episcopal Bench, by the Noble Lord to whom his Letter is addressed, and even by that cautious tolerator on the Woolsack, whose anxiety for the Church and its dignities and monopolies transcends that of its Right Reverend Fathers upon earth. He calls himself a Trinitarian," because he asserts the existence of three persons in the Godhead, but quarrels with the believers in God in one person, as having very improperly chosen to denominate themselves Unitarians." He "must be permitted to call them Socinians," (a title which they disclaim as notoriously inapplicable to their faith and object of worship,) "until they think proper to select a less objectionable appellation." The worshiper of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is stigmatized as an open blasphemer of the Lord God of Christians;" and, not content with denouncing Unitarian devotion as imperfect, the Presbyter boldly accuses the Socinians of worshiping a false God," and "setting up an idol of their own." Of course, after this it would be highly preposterous and unseemly for the "Socinians" to feel offended at the sedulous anxiety with which, throughout the pamphlet, their title to the Christian name is rebutted, and they must console themselves with the humble hope that the " Judge of all," overlooking the petty distinctions of name and opinion, of which bigotry is so tenacious, may condescend to accept, under the more comprehensive