general use, clothing the foreign matter in a vernacular dress, and expressing the sense in simple and perspicuous phraseology."-Pref. p. ix.

Of the great utility and importance of such a work, if well executed, there cannot, we think, be two opinions; though we are far from agreeing with the author in accounting it "one of the most important advantages" likely to arise from it," that it would render it no longer necessary for English students to have recourse to certain foreign works, however learned, of very questionable orthodoxy, and thereby obtaining the aids, valuable as they are, of exegetical and philological knowledge at too dear a rate, by the sacrifice, or at least depravation, of sound principle in doctrinal theology." There is no commentator, not Mr. B. more than others, to whom a student can trust implicitly; he must obtain all the assistance he can, and then exercise his own judgment modestly and cautiously, but firmly and independently. He need never fear to see the statement or defence of erroneous opinions, since their examination is the only proof he can have of their being erroneous. If sacred truth be the object of his pursuit, he must allow no set of doctrines, under the imposing name of Orthodoxy, to be placed out of the reach of inquiry, and made a standard for trying the merit of those who offer him the aids of acknowledged learning and sagacity. Timidity is an accompaniment of weakness, and we have little opinion of the soundness of the principles which must be sacrificed, or at least depraved, by being brought into comparison with those of others.

Much more judiciously our author expresses a hope, that his work "may materially tend to remove the prejudices of Unbelievers, by shewing them that the New Testament is capable of a most rational and consistent interpretation." This is an effect which we may confidently anticipate from all contributions towards fixing the true sense of the Sacred Writings, and thus displaying the real character of the Revelation which is contained in them. Mr. B. has expressed another hope, in which, we think, we may undertake to assure him that he will not be disappointed. He will" induce many of his fellow-christians, professing" (what he calls) "Socinian tenets, to reconsider the grounds on which the opinions they so confidently promulgate are really founded." They will examine his arguments, we hope we may promise, attentively and candidly; they will, many of them we trust, profit by his labours, but whether with the result as to doctrinal points, which he expects, we hold to be more than doubtful.

We shall now proceed to shew how far our author, in executing his meritorious plan, has correctly estimated the value of the sources to which he has applied himself, and with what learning, diligence and impartiality he has performed the task of selection.

The kind of interpretation he has aimed at forming, and which he conceives "must be the only certain means of attaining the true sense of Scripture," he describes in the words of Dr. Tittman, as being "that which is founded on a correct and accurate knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages, and on grammatical and rhetorical rules, and other aids commonly employed in the explanation of the classical authors." We need add nothing to what we have already said of the importance of this method. That it is the only just or satisfactory one, few among the learned will question: it is to be lamented that, among the public expounders of Scripture, there are so few who yet pay much regard to it.

We are informed,

"That one peculiar feature of the work is, that the interpretations of the

ancient fathers and early Greek commentators, (as Theophylact, Theodoret, Euthymius, Ecumenius and Aretas,) together with the Scholiasts and Glossographers, have formed the basis of the exegetical and doctrinal matter.". Pref. p. xi.

We do not know that Mr. B. has extracted much more from the fathers than his readers may be pleased to see, or has in his general practice attributed to them any undue authority, but we cannot help thinking that he here exaggerates their importance. They preserve some interesting traditions and valuable explanations, and their familiarity with the Greek as a living language, sometimes renders them useful guides. But the just principles of interpretation had not in their times been at all considered; they were as apt as the moderns to misunderstand Jewish phraseology, and to apply in a general sense, or to their own controversies, what really referred to the peculiar circumstances of the first disciples: and there are very few of them who did not indulge, in a greater or less degree, that disposition to allegorize and spiritualize, which was so early introduced into the church, by those who had been educated in the schools of a mystical philosophy, and which is the bane of all rational and solid interpretation. In short, whilst the cautious use of their writings is much to be commended, their authority is not to be very highly estimated, and their explanations must be frequently rejected as altogether undeserving of serious consideration. After the manner in which the use made of them is announced, the reader may possibly be surprised to find, for how small a portion of the annotations he is indebted to the fathers, and of that portion some might have been as well spared.

When our author proceeds to enumerate the modern critics and commentators from whom he has sought assistance, we have only to express our entire satisfaction, and our conviction that a work which condenses and amalgamates the labours of such men cannot fail of rendering an essential service to the cause of correct and rational Scripture interpretation. We have not space for many particulars: of Wetstein he has made very extensive use; next to him, he has drawn most copiously from Rosenmüller and Kuinoel, but very largely also from many others in the long catalogue of illustrious names which he sets before us. To illustrations of the language of the New Testament, from the classical writers, he has given a large share of his attention, and to this department belongs much of the original matter he has furnished. He has applied himself to the best sources for Rabbinical illustration, but we cannot help wishing that he had used them more freely, as their value is often very great. We will offer a few additions to his annotations on a small portion of the Gospel of Matthew, taken at random, in order to shew how much he has left, which is at least as apposite and interesting as many of his classical extracts.

Matt. iii. 16, wσì Teρiepay. In favour of the explanation which refers the similitude to the manner of descent, seem to be the words of Rabbi Ephraim, in Ir. Gilborim, on Gen. i. 2: Пon, incubuit sicut columba quæ volitat super nido, illam attingens et non attingens. Schoettgen.

Ch. iv. 19, Δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου. Mr. B. has given a classical example of "follow me," for, "be my disciple." Take as a Rabbinical one, Erubin, fol. 30, 1: Dixit Rabba nepos Channa; quum ego sequerer Rabbi Johannem, i. e. quum discipulus ejus essem. Schoettgen.

Ch. v. 18, μía Kepala-one of those little points or touches of the pen, by which letters nearly resembling one another are distinguished, as and 5,

and, &c. Lightfoot and Schoettgenius illustrate the mode of expression by many examples from the Rabbinical writings.

Ver. 22, paka. Lightfoot has given various examples, from which we select one, of the common use among the Jews of this expression of contempt and danger. "A Heathen said to an Israelite, Very suitable food is made ready for you at my house. What is it? saith the other. To whom he replied, Swine's flesh. Raka, (saith the Jew,) I must not eat of clean beasts with you."

Ver. 22, yiɛway T Tugós. We have an example of the Rabbinical use of this phrase, Sohar Exod. fol. 50, col. 299, R. Chiskias dixit: Quicunque proximum suum vocat improbum (y) ille detruditur in Gehennam. With this may be compared Kidduschin, fol. 28, 1. Si vero (proximum suum) improbum vocat descendit cum ipso (Synedrium) ad vitam ipsius, h. e. capitis accusare potest. Schoettg. Gehenna was a general and a vague expression for the severest punishment, often temporal, signifying no more than death, and, when applied to future sufferings, not determining any thing as to their duration. In the Targum, on Isa. xxxiii. 14, quoted by Lightfoot, "the Gehenna of eternal (rather perpetual) fire," refers only to the fires always burning in the valley, and is a figurative expression for severe punishment.

But we must not go on. We designed only to shew that our annotator might have advantageously extended his Rabbinical quotations, and this little specimen may answer our purpose. We are next called upon to speak of Mr. B.'s personal qualifications for the arduous task in which he has engaged.

For his learning and diligence, none who examines his work can fail of entertaining a high respect. Putting out of the question his numerous original remarks and illustrations, by which his scholarship and the accuracy as well as extent of his reading are abundantly manifested; the mere collection together of such a body of annotation, drawn from such a vast variety of sources, implies the possession of very considerable learning, and the consumption of years in laborious study. That our author, as he assures us in his preface, has spared no expense in furnishing himself with whatever promised to be found useful aids, and no time in employing them to the best purpose, his readers will readily believe, and we should rejoice to hear that he had obtained from his church those rewards to which he ventures to put in his claim, and which could seldom, we think, be better bestowed. With respect to the important character of impartiality we must speak more at large, and we shall begin by laying before our readers his own declaration :

"One thing" (he says, Pref. p. xv.) "he must be permitted to observe, namely, that in the selection of matter, as well as in the adjustment of jarring interpretations, he has been guided by the strictest impartiality. His maxim has ever been, Tros Rutulusve fuat, nullo discrimine habebo; or, in the words of Plato, ὅπη ἂν ὁ λόγος ὥσπερ πνευμα φέρῃ, ταύτῃ ἑτέον. Though unfeignedly and conscientiously attached to the Church of which he has the honour to be a pastor, yet the Editor has endeavoured to preserve the strictest impartiality in adjusting the interpretation of all those texts on which any difference of opinion unhappily subsists among the various denominations of professing Christians. So far, indeed, from willingly aggravating the odium theologicum, he would rather sound an Irenicum to his ministerial brethren of every denomination, that Ephraim might no longer envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim; that all (considering the doubtfulness and, in truth, the unimportance of many

controverted points) might agree to differ, ever remembering the maxim of Augustine, Melius est dubitare de occultis quam litigare de incertis.'”

We cannot but give Mr. B. full credit for the feeling which dictated this passage. That he intended and fancied that he had attained impartiality, we readily believe, and the general freedom of his work from the abusive and insulting expressions, and the bitterness of manner, so commonly employed against those who depart in material points from the prevailing standard, is highly gratifying to us. Notwithstanding a manifest bias in favour of the more common opinions, we think him, in cases where doctrine is not concerned, a fair interpreter, because he does not seem intentionally to avoid stating opinions and criticisms at variance with his own judgment, and a useful one, because, though the reader should not agree with him, he will not the less find his observations on the words and grammatical structure, and his varied illustrations, instructive and appropriate. But wherever the great questions respecting the person and office of Christ are at all involved, (and in the Gospel of John this is very extensively the case,) we must say, that he has shewn himself incapable of admitting impartial or unprejudiced views, or of making any just or satisfactory statements of the arguments of Unitarians.

Had he given a faithful abstract of our sentiments and modes of defending them in reference to the most remarkable texts, we should not have complained of any warmth with which he had expressed his disapprobation. Had he even at once refused us a hearing, while he confined himself to the fair statement of his own views, we also should have been content to make our own appeal, and should not have censured him for the want of a liberality too seldom to be found; but when, after great professions of impartiality, he uses unfair arts in defence of his own opinions, and misrepresents what is to be said for ours, we do think that a warning is required, lest the unwary or uninformed should imagine that they have before them the means of judging, when, in fact, they have only heard the pleadings on one side. We acknowledge the difficulty of writing a commentary with doctrinal impartiality; by which we understand, so as, without entering into theological disquisitions, fairly to state the leading interpretations of the texts discussed, shewing how each professes to be derived from the original words, and adding our own judgment, expressed as decisively as our convictions justify. It is difficult truly to represent arguments which may seem to us trifling or unsatisfactory; it is difficult to appreciate arguments to which our prejudices are strongly opposed. If, conscious of the difficulty, a man will undertake only to express or defend his own views, his prudence is to be commended; if, having undertaken fairly to sum up the evidence, he should be prevented by prejudice from doing full justice to the statements of those whose opinions he disapproves, he may be excused; but if, with pretensions to impartiality, we find great mistakes and misrepresentations, we are obliged, whatever we may judge of his intentions, to condemn him severely, as blinding and misleading his readers, and injuring those whose doctrines fall under his displeasure. To this condemnation it will appear, we think, that our author has exposed himself.

The constant application of the inaccurate, and, as it is commonly understood, reproachful term Socinian to our tenets, notwithstanding repeated protests against it, is no indication of fairness or good-will, though of this we should not think it worth while to complain. The frequent use of the word orthodox, too, as a term of commendation in the preface, forbade our arguing

very favourably of the unprejudiced character of the doctrinal annotations. Thus we have " the well-wishers of orthodox Protestantism," the " orthodox Dr. Tittman," "attached to the cause of Orthodoxy." What is this but to give Orthodoxy a merit independently of any support which the opinions so named may derive from the just and liberal interpretation of Scripture, to prejudge the question respecting their truth, and to cast a stigma of heresy on those whose sincere respect for what they believe to be the sense of Scripture has led them to profess different opinions?

Brought up in the bosom of the Church, our annotator seems never to have admitted a suspicion of her being in error: he is ready to overwhelm Unitarians with the authorities and comments of those who were determined to support the common doctrine, but he has in no instance shewn himself prepared to weigh their arguments, or, by a candid statement of what might be adduced on both sides, to assist the sincere inquirer in forming his own judgment.

Our readers will be able to form a better opinion on this subject when, in a continuation of the present article, we bring under examination a series of his most important annotations; in the mean time we will offer them one or two examples, which would alone be a sufficient warrant for the opinion we have expressed.

The following is a part of our author's annotation on the word λurpov, Matt. xx. 28:

"It properly signifies a price paid for the redemption of a captive, both in the classical writers and in the Septuagint, where it answers to 7. But by this very word, and by w, (Lev. vi. 23, Numb. viii. 8,) is signified also the hostia piacularis, sacrificium piaculare (Levit. x. 17); and in this latter sense Arpa must here be taken (Kuin.). So Schleusner explains, ut morte sua homines a peccati vi et pœnis liberaret.' We must understand Christ to have said that he undergoes death as a piacular victim. (1 Tim. ii. 6.)"

He ex

Now we can hardly expect to be believed by our readers when we affirm in direct contradiction to Mr. Bloomfield's statement, what is, however, the simple fact, as we hope they will ascertain by personal examination, that Apoy in the LXX. never corresponds to in any other sense than "the price of deliverance;" that it no where corresponds to DWN, consequently, that there is no pretence for ascribing to it the sense of a piacular victim; and farther, that Schleusner does not ascribe to it any such sense. plains it as signifying properly the price of the redemption of captives, or of any thing lost or stolen metaphorically. The means or plan by which any one is delivered from a miserable or inferior condition, which sense he applies to Matt. xx. 28, and Mark x. 45, explaining, that the purpose of Christ's death was 66 to deliver men from the power and punishment of sin," an interpretation in which Unitarians concur with him; but he does not say, as implied by Mr. B., that the deliverance was effected by offering himself as a piacular victim. We know not why DN is introduced at all; we know not what is meant by the reference above to Levit. vi. 23, where is not rendered by λúrpo, or to Numb. viii. 8, (12 we suppose,) where the same word is in the same circumstances. We cannot find the smallest authority or even pretence for explaining λúrpov a sacrifice or victim, and yet in a passage of the same note which has called forth these remarks, Mr. B. speaks of SOCINIAN PERVERSION!!!

Again, in the introduction to the Gospel of John, translated from the "orthodox" Dr. Tittman, and adopted by our author as expressing his own